{"id":2633509,"date":"2026-07-22T08:27:01","date_gmt":"2026-07-22T12:27:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/how-congress-can-fix-scotuss-disastrous-birthplace-citizenship-error\/"},"modified":"2026-07-22T08:29:40","modified_gmt":"2026-07-22T12:29:40","slug":"how-congress-can-fix-scotuss-disastrous-birthplace-citizenship-error","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/how-congress-can-fix-scotuss-disastrous-birthplace-citizenship-error\/","title":{"rendered":"Congress Can Fix The Disastrous Birthplace Citizenship Ruling"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">16<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fhow-congress-can-fix-scotuss-disastrous-birthplace-citizenship-error%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2633509&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The article discusses the implications of the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in <em>Trump v. Barbara<\/em> on June 30, 2026, which upheld the constitutionality of birthplace-citizenship laws based on the precedent set by <em>Wong Kim Ark<\/em>.Although opponents believed the case marked the end of efforts to reform birthright citizenship, new legislative proposals, such as Senator Jim Banks&#8217; Citizenship Act, aim to further define and restrict who qualifies for birthright citizenship. The decision reaffirmed that the 14th Amendment does not grant automatic citizenship to children of certain categories, such as enemies or invaders, particularly during unfriendly occupations or invasions, referencing established legal exceptions like children of enemy combatants and invaders. The article emphasizes that Congress holds the constitutional authority to legislate on issues of citizenship, especially in the context of invasion or unlawful entry, and such designations are considered political questions beyond courts&#8217; review. the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/doj-naming-janis-joplin-in-epstein-list-is-absurd-khanna\/\" title=\"DOJ naming Janis Joplin in Epstein list is &#039;absurd&#039;: Khanna\">piece highlights ongoing debates<\/a> about the scope of birthright citizenship, the role of Congress in defining it, and the importance of adhering to legal precedents and constitutional principles.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>When the Supreme Court decided <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/25pdf\/25-365_4hdj.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Trump v. Barbara<\/em><\/a>  on June 30, 2026, opponents of birthplace-citizenship reform declared the fight over. But that disappointing decision was not the end of attempts to reform the system. It was merely the \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/pha\/policy\/1942\/421110b.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">end of the beginning<\/a>.\u201d Sen. Jim Banks read <em>Barbara<\/em> as a legislative map. His <a href=\"https:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/politics\/trump-birthright-citizenship-fight-comes-roaring-back-page-from-kavanaugh-playbook\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">new Citizenship Act<\/a> follows the road <em>Wong Kim Ark<\/em> charted.<\/p>\n<p><em>Barbara<\/em> held that President Trump\u2019s executive order was unconstitutional by locking in birthplace citizenship\u2019s definition from a much older case. That 1898 case, <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/169\/649\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>United States v. Wong Kim Ark<\/em><\/a>, laid out three categories of people whose children are not automatically citizens even if born on American soil. <em>Barbara <\/em>held the executive order was unconstitutional for going outside those three categories. But within those three categories, any needed fix need only be by statute. That means Congress can pass a fix.<\/p>\n<p>Banks could have taken the easy way out, either reading <em>Barbara<\/em> as a loss or arguing any fix must be constitutional \u2014 and thus impossible in today\u2019s polarized age. Instead, he took the harder path: legislating within the four corners of precedent. If the Supreme Court says birthplace citizenship is governed by <em>Wong Kim Ark<\/em>, then <em>Wong Kim Ark<\/em>\u2019s own exceptions are fair game.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a separate opinion explaining that while he agreed with the majority\u2019s result, it would\u00a0not require a constitutional amendment to change the law to deny birthplace citizenship to more people than just the three categories flagged in <em>Wong Kim Ark<\/em>. This law fits within Kavanaugh\u2019s conception \u2014 and may be enough to pull another justice from the majority, too.<\/p>\n<figure>\n<p><span><\/p>\n<blockquote data-width=\"500\" data-dnt=\"true\">\n<p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">\ud83d\udc40That was fast. <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/SenatorBanks?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">@SenatorBanks<\/a> read Justice Kavanaugh&#8217;s concurrence in the Birthright Citizenship case closely. The Supreme Court&#8217;s Wong Kim Ark said 3 categories of people don&#8217;t get citizenship. One is children of invaders. So he&#8217;s introducing a law labeling illegals invaders <a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/zXUizLqG8K\">pic.twitter.com\/zXUizLqG8K<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\u2014 Eric W. (@EWess92) <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/EWess92\/status\/2076663846022901795?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">July 13, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><\/span> <\/p>\n<\/figure>\n<p>Understanding why requires understanding what <em>Wong Kim Ark<\/em> held. The case is remembered as a basis for today\u2019s broad understanding of birthright citizenship. But the opinion did not extend the 14th Amendment to everyone born on American soil. It outlined at least three widely accepted categories of people born here who are not \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/constitution.congress.gov\/constitution\/amendment-14\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">subject to the jurisdiction<\/a>\u201d of the United States and thus not birthright citizens. Those three categories are the children of: diplomats, members of Indian tribes, and \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/169\/649\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">children \u2026 of enemies within and during a hostile occupation<\/a>\u201d of American territory.<\/p>\n<p>Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, no ally of the administration, acknowledged in last year\u2019s <em>Trump v. CASA, Inc. <\/em>win for President Trump, that \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/24pdf\/24a884_8n59.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation<\/a>\u201d fall outside the guarantee. No serious thinker questions that, even under <em>Wong Kim Ark<\/em>, children \u201cborn of alien enemies\u201d may be excluded from birthplace citizenship.<\/p>\n<p>Of course, critics will say, the question is one of scope. Skeptics insist the invading-army exception reaches only a uniformed force whose occupation has so displaced American authority that the government \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/ReichlinMelnick\/status\/2076673215997292852\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">cannot exercise its jurisdiction<\/a>\u201d over the territory. On that view<ins>,<\/ins> the exception requires a foreign flag over the courthouse before children become ineligible for foreign citizenship. Where the United States still governs, everyone born here is a citizen. That argument sounds intuitive. But it does not survive contact with the Supreme Court\u2019s own war-powers jurisprudence.<\/p>\n<p>Consider <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/317\/1\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Ex parte Quirin<\/em><\/a>, the 1942 case of eight Nazi saboteurs who came ashore from U-boats in Long Island and Florida carrying explosives to attack American infrastructure. They were not an army, abandoned any uniform, and occupied no territory.<\/p>\n<p>They arrived as individuals, in secret, disguised as civilians \u2014 precisely the profile the skeptics say the invasion exception cannot reach. Yet a unanimous Supreme Court had no difficulty classifying them as enemy belligerents subject to the law of war, and it upheld their trial by military commission. One of them even claimed American citizenship. The court held it made no difference: A citizen who joined the enemy\u2019s hostile incursion was an enemy belligerent soldier.<\/p>\n<p>What if one of the <em>Quirin<\/em> invaders fathered a child during his covert mission on American soil? Would anyone seriously contend that the newborn was a citizen of the United States? The 14th Amendment does not mandate such an absurd result. Such a child falls squarely within <em>Wong Kim Ark<\/em>\u2019s exception for the children of enemies engaged in hostile incursion.<\/p>\n<p>The United States never lost criminal jurisdiction to prosecute the Nazi infiltrators. We found them, tried them, and executed them. If \u201csubject to the jurisdiction\u201d meant only the physical power to catch and punish, the Nazis and their hypothetical children would have been as \u201csubject\u201d as anyone in the country. But invaders with allegiance to a foreign enemy are not \u201csubject\u201d to American jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment sense. The citizenship test was never solely about territorial control. After all, it <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/112\/94\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">required a statute<\/a> to make American Indians birthright citizens \u2014 even though they could be prosecuted if they committed crimes on American soil.<\/p>\n<p>That is the insight animating the Citizenship Act. The line that matters under <em>Wong Kim Ark<\/em> is a recognition of an invader or invading force. A Nazi spy owes no more obedience to the United States, whose domain he has invaded, than an army division does. <em>Wong Kim Ark<\/em> fixes the citizenship guarantee\u2019s boundary on the nature of the entrant. So for those categories, Congress holds the authority to define citizenship\u2019s scope.<\/p>\n<p>Sen. Banks\u2019 bill grounds that authority in the Constitution. The Constitution obliges the federal government to protect the states \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/constitution.congress.gov\/constitution\/article-4\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">against Invasion<\/a>,\u201d and tasks Congress exclusively with the power to \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/constitution.congress.gov\/constitution\/article-1\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization<\/a>.\u201d The Citizenship Act uses that authority, declaring that those who enter unlawfully or for the purpose of birth tourism enter as invaders under the law, and that their children accordingly fall within <em>Wong Kim Ark<\/em>\u2019s invader exception. It legislates in the open space <em>Trump v. Barbara<\/em> expressly left open.<\/p>\n<p>Another benefit of the Citizenship Act is that judicial review is constrained in the context of what the Supreme Court has called political questions. And designating an invasion \u2014 especially when that designation is made by the political branches in concert, is an apex political question and thus should be unreviewable.<\/p>\n<p>Courts lack the constitutional authority to second-guess that judgment at all. In <a href=\"https:\/\/s3.documentcloud.org\/documents\/25021898\/23-50632-cv1-1.pdf\"><em>United S<\/em><\/a><em><a href=\"https:\/\/s3.documentcloud.org\/documents\/25021898\/23-50632-cv1-1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">t<\/a><\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/s3.documentcloud.org\/documents\/25021898\/23-50632-cv1-1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>ates v. Abbott<\/em><\/a>, Judge James Ho explained that whether a surge of illegal entry amounts to an \u201cinvasion\u201d is a political question, not a legal one. There are no judicially manageable standards for deciding when an influx of unlawful migrants becomes an invasion; that determination belongs to the political branches, not to judges.<\/p>\n<p>Judge Ho defended a <em>governor\u2019s<\/em> declaration under Article IV. His point applies with even greater force to Congress, which holds the exclusive naturalization power and shares the duty to repel invasion. If a governor\u2019s invasion finding lies beyond judicial scrutiny, a congressional finding that is reasonable on its face and grounded in the record of mass unlawful entry is stronger. The act is ultimately a judgment the Constitution assigns to Congress.<\/p>\n<p>The alternative view contorts the Constitution to its breaking point. An interpretation that extends citizenship to the child of a Nazi saboteur departs from <em>Wong Kim Ark<\/em>\u2019s holding. So too with properly designated invaders that come across America\u2019s southern border. <\/p>\n<p>Sen. Banks has offered a text-and-precedent-bound response to a decision his opponents assumed had ended the debate. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its reading of <em>Wong Kim Ark<\/em>. Reasonable people can try to reverse that decision \u2014 and they should. But until then, <em>Barbara<\/em> wrote a map, and Sen. Banks is sitting in the driver\u2019s seat ready to hit the road.<\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      Eric Wessan is the solicitor general of Iowa.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sen. Banks uses Wong Kim Ark to shape new citizenship law<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4323,"featured_media":2633510,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Copy-of-Untitled-2026-07-20T175322.074.png","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[33651],"tags":[83014,7161,4402,36382,4762],"class_list":["post-2633509","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-western-journal","tag-birthplace-ruling","tag-citizenship","tag-congress","tag-immigration-policy","tag-legislation"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Copy-of-Untitled-2026-07-20T175322.074.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2633509","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4323"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2633509"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2633509\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2633514,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2633509\/revisions\/2633514"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2633510"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2633509"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2633509"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2633509"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}