Floats Plan to ‘Reverse Birthright Citizenship’ in Spite of the Supreme Court
President Donald Trump reacted to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision that declared his executive order restricting birthright citizenship unconstitutional. The ruling affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., including children of unauthorized immigrants, as long as they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Following the decision, Trump suggested that congress could enact legislation to address the issue of birthright citizenship, even without a constitutional amendment, and expressed support for such legislative efforts. Some lawmakers, including Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul, indicated that a constitutional amendment might be necessary. The dissenting justices argued that the ruling misinterpreted the Fourteenth Amendment, warning it could incentivize illegal immigration by allowing children born here to foreign nationals to automatically become U.S. citizens. The debate continues over modifying citizenship laws through legislative or constitutional means.
President Donald Trump responded to Tuesday’s Supreme Court’s ruling striking down his birthright citizenship executive order by appearing to back immigration legislation that would further clarify how immigrants can become citizens.
In a 6-3 ruling, justices held that an executive order Trump issued on the first day of his second term violated the Constitution. The order greatly restricted the circumstances in which a baby born in the United States would automatically be granted American citizenship.
The Fourteenth Amendment states, in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded, “Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.”
After the ruling, the president used the social media platform to post a link to an article from the Washington-based website Just the News that was headlined: “Trump’s efforts to reverse birthright citizenship may succeed with or without SCOTUS.”
He followed up with a second post, writing, “The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process.”
“No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!” he added.
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 30, 2026
In its report, Just the News noted that: “Several bills, most notably the Birthright Citizenship Act introduced by [Texas Rep. Brian] Babin and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one day after Trump’s inauguration in 2025 (and similar versions in recent Congresses), seek to end or sharply restrict automatic birthright citizenship by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).”
“These measures would reinterpret the 14th Amendment’s ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ clause to grant citizenship at birth only to children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, national, lawful permanent resident (LPR) residing in the U.S., or an LPR serving in the military,” the news outlet added.
The Center for Immigration Studies noted last year that between 225,000 and 250,000 births to illegal immigrants occurred in 2023, or 7 percent of the total 3.6 million births in the U.S.
GOP Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky responded to the ruling by contending that a constitutional amendment will be needed.
We’re going to need a constitutional amendment. https://t.co/CoTXcNU65X
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) June 30, 2026
The three justices dissenting from Tuesday’s decision were Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch.
Alito wrote in his dissent, “In sum, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on a person who is born in this country or naturalized only if that person is also ‘not subject to any foreign power.’”
“The Court interprets ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ differently. In its view, the phrase simply means subject to the laws that apply to everyone who is present within the country’s borders,” he added.
Alito observed, “The Court’s interpretation preserves a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally. Immigrants naturally prefer affluent countries where economic opportunities are available. Other than Canada, the United States will be the only affluent nation where birth alone is enough to establish citizenship.”
He concluded, “If the Fourteenth Amendment required these results, the country would have to live with them or amend the Constitution. But the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the rule the Court now imposes on the country. In my judgment, the Court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country’s future.”
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
