← Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels
Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels
TRUMP’S CITIZENSHIP CASE JUST EXPLODED IN THE SUPREME COURT
00:40:23
Loading summary
Transcript14 lines
- [00:01]
A
This episode is brought to you by Welch's Fruit Snacks. Big news for your kids lunchbox. Welch's Fruit Snacks are now made without any artificial dyes, a snack parents can feel good about and the same delicious taste kids can't get enough of. All made with no artificial dyes. Try Welch's Fruit Snacks today. Birthright citizenship is now at the center of a constitutional collision course in the Supreme Court. So on one side, you've got concerns of national security risks and crippled infrastructure that many argue is buckling under the strain of unchecked illegal immigration. And then on the other, you've got the integrity of the 14th Amendment and the rule of law itself. The real question isn't just immigration. It's whether any president can rewrite the Constitution with a stroke of a pen, regardless of the necessity for reform. So today we break down the case, the arguments on both sides and how the justices are reacting. So this is the story behind the story on the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship. And as always, if you're liking the show, please be sure to like, share, comment and subscribe because it helps us a ton with the algorithm. Keeping it real with Jillian Michaels. Trump v. Barbara without hyperbole, one of the most consequential legal questions of our lifetime is the first serious challenge to the meaning of birthright citizenship in 130 years. And the stakes could not be higher. Which is exactly why the quality of reasoning in that room matters so much. So much, in fact, that the president actually showed up to watch the hearing. Donald Trump sat in the supreme court chamber on April 1, 2026, while lawyers argued his case. That has never happened in recorded American history. It's the first time a sitting president has ever attended Supreme Court oral arguments. So here's Trump himself explaining his concern.
- [02:00]
B
The Supreme Court tomorrow is going to
- [02:01]
A
hear arguments about your executive order trying
- [02:04]
B
to get rid of birthright citizenship. And I'm going. You're going to go to the Supreme Court tomorrow, I do believe, and just sit there and listen. Because I have listened to this argument for so long. And this is not about Chinese billionaires who are billionaires from other countries who all of a sudden have 75 children or 59 children in one case or 10 children becoming American citizens. This was about slaves. And if you take a look, slaves, we're talking about slaves from the Civil War. And if you take a look at when it was filed, all of this legislation, all of this, everything having to do with birthright citizenship, it was at the end of the Civil War. The reason was it had to do with the babies of slaves and the protection of the babies of slaves.
- [02:54]
A
It's pretty compelling, but there's actually a lot more to be concerned about here on both sides, believe it or not. And it's looking like the Trump administration is going to lose this case. So before you switch off, because you don't want to hear it, you really need to pay attention because we're going to have to take other avenues to make some changes, and I'm going to tell you why. So let's break down exactly what's at stake and how this is unfolding. So right now, as it stands, if you're born in the United States, you're automatically an American citizen. It doesn't matter if your parents are citizens, it doesn't matter if your parents are undocumented, doesn't matter if your mom flew in from another country two days before you were born. If you come out on US Soil, you are an American. And the legal term for this is ju soli, which is Latin, and it means the rights of the soil, as in the ground you're born on determines your citizenship. Now, the other system used by most countries in Europe and Asia is called jus sanguinis, which is Latin for right of blood. Then, under that system, you get citizenship based on who your parents are, not where you're born. And this is where it gets complicated, because the US Is one of the few wealthy, powerful, high demand nations that does it by the soil. And that fact is at the center of this entire debate. So where did this rule come from in the first place? Well, President Trump was 100% accurate. To understand birthright citizenship, you have to understand what America looked like in 1857, because that's the year that the Supreme Court issued a ruling called Dred Scott v. Sanford. So Dred Scott was an enslaved black man who'd been taken by his owner to states and territories where slavery was was illegal. Now, he sued for his freedom, and he argued that living on free soil made him free. The Supreme Court, in one of the most infamous decisions in American judicial history, ruled against him. Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote that black Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not and could never be citizens of the United States. He said they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that was the law of the land. But then came the Civil War. Over 600,000Americans died, and the Union won. Slavery was abolished with the 13th Amendment in 1865. But here's the problem. The Dred Scott decision was still on the books. So black people were technically free, but legally, they were still not citizens. States in the south were passing what. What were called black codes. These are laws that were designed to keep black Americans in a state of near slavery even after emancipation. Congress responded by passing the Civil Rights act of 1866, which declared that all persons born in the United States were citizens. But there was a fear, and it was a legitimate one, that a future Congress could just repeal that law. So they made it permanent. They wrote it into the constitution itself. The 14th amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868. The very first sentence of the very first section reads, 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. Now, the amendment passed, but the debate didn't end there. And that's what Trump Left out. About 30 years later, a case came along that really locked in what those words meant, and it involved a man named Wong Kim Ark. So, Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873, and his parents were Chinese immigrants. At the time, Chinese immigrants faced brutal discrimination. The Chinese Exclusion act of 1882 literally banned Chinese laborers from entering the country. But Wong Kim Ark was. Was born in America. He grew up here. He worked here as a cook. And in 1894, he took a trip to visit his family in China. And when he tried to come home to the United States, the government refused to let him in. And they argued that because his parents were Chinese subjects, meaning they owed allegiance to the Emperor of China, he wasn't really an American citizen, even though he was born in San Francisco. The Supreme Court took the case, and in 1898, they ruled 6 to 2 in his favor. And the majority held that subject to the jurisdiction thereof simply meant being physically present in the US and subject to its laws, period. Didn't require your parents to be citizens. That ruling, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, has stood for 128 years. And one more piece of history that's worth knowing. In 1952, Congress took the 14th Amendment's citizenship rule and codified it into federal statute, the Immigration and Nationality Act. So birthright citizenship isn't just in the Constitution, it's written into federal law. And that becomes a really big deal in the court case, as you'll see. So Fast forward to January 20, 2025, day one of Donald Trump's second term. And within hours of being sworn in, Trump signed a stack of executive orders. One of them was called Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. That became executive order 14160. And here's what it said in plain English, starting 30 days after the order took effect, the federal government would no longer recognize as citizens the children born in the United States if, and this is the key, their mother was either undocumented or on a temporary visa, and their father was not a US Citizen or a permanent resident. So estimates suggest that somewhere between 150,000 and 250,000 babies per year would be affected if this order was upheld. Now, here's what happened next. Not surprisingly, federal judges immediately blocked the order. So four separate federal district court judges in four different circuits, all independently issued orders blocking the executive order from taking effect. Well, Trump administration appealed. The First Circuit, the Fourth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit all denied the government's requests to lift the injunctions. So the administration went directly to the Supreme Court. Now, In June of 2025, the Supreme Court did step in, but not on the birthright question itself. Instead, a case called Trump v. Casa. And that court ruled 6 to 3 that lower courts generally cannot issue sweeping nationwide injunctions. So this wasn't just a procedural win for the Trump administration. It was a corrective strike against a structural glitch that had turned our legal system into a tool for political sabotage. Your skincare might be more toxic than your food. So just like choosing healthy food, we gotta be more careful about what we put on our body, not just in it. And I've become hyper aware of every product I use, reading labels, researching ingredients, realizing just how many toxic chemicals we let into our daily routine. So check the label on your moisturizer, guys. If it reads like a lab report, swap it. Get rid of that toxic moisturizer for cow, guys. Tallow bomb. It's a natural hydrating balm with ingredients that you can actually pronounce. It's safe and it's more effective than conventional alcohol or water based lotions. And your skin is gonna glow. Taliban was actually used for generations before Big pharma ruined skin care. Use it as a lotion on your hands, your arms, your legs, your face, your lips. You use it for eczema, psoriasis, dry skin, normal skin, just as an everyday moisturizer. Plus, it's an American made and rancher owned company in Texas. It's the best tallow bomb you can find. So search up cowguys.com to get your tallow bomb and get a mini tallow bomb free. There's no special code. You get three to four months of moisturizer for just 34 bucks. So search cowguys.com to grab your free tallobal with your order. For years, we lived under the one judge rule, where a single unelected district judge in a remote corner of the country can issue a sweeping nationwide injunction, effectively vetoing a president's policy for 330 million Americans before it was even tested, this was considered an undemocratic concentration of power. And by ruling 6 to 3 against these orders, the Supreme Court finally restored the principle that a judge's power is limited to the specific people in the courtroom, the not the entire nation. So this decision effectively killed what's called forum shopping. Now, we all saw this game. Activist groups would hunt for a sympathetic judge in a biased district to kill a policy instantly. Now, the law has to be debated in multiple courts across different states. And this allows for something called percolation, which means different legal minds weighing in. And it gives the Supreme Court a diverse set of opinions to review before making a final decision, informed decision. It protects executive efficiency, ensuring the President isn't paralyzed for years by a single filing in a biased judge. If opponents want a nationwide block, now they've got to prove a class action case meeting a higher legal bar that prevents frivolous or overly broad interference with the President's right to govern. All that said, it didn't answer the underlying question. Is the executive order ending birthright citizenship actually constitutional? So the ACLU immediately pivots, and they file a class action lawsuit in New Hampshire on behalf of every child who would be denied citizenship under Trump's order. The lead plaintiff is a woman they call Barbara, which is a pseudonym. She's a Honduran immigrant with a pending asylum application who gave birth to a daughter In October of 2025, after the order was signed. So the district court granted a classwide injunction in July 2025. The government appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which accepted the case in December of 2025 and put it on a fast track. Oral arguments began April 1, 2026. Now, before I break down what went on in that courtroom, I want to outline the arguments for and against. So buckle up. Because the argument against birthright citizenship is threefold. Number one, there's a national security risk through birth tourism, a financial and infrastructural strain from illegal immigration incentives, and a cultural fragmentation due to the uncontrolled pace of immigration, which can create assimilation changes. So the most serious and sophisticated threat is what critics refer to as the sleeper citizen poly pipeline. It's estimated that between 750,000 and one and a half million Chinese nationals now hold US citizenship that was obtained through birth tourism. So you have wealthy elites flying to maternity hotels in California to secure a passport in the US and then immediately returning their children to be raised in a CCP controlled environment. These kids grow up with no linguistic, cultural or civic ties to America or whatsoever. But at 18, they can vote in the US from abroad. It's insane. And at 21, they can sponsor their foreign parents for permanent residency. And as natural born citizens, they bypass the security and the scrutiny applied to foreign nationals entirely, making them in theory, in theory, viable assets for state sponsored espionage, capable of accessing government positions, classified systems and critical infrastructure under the state. Same framework as any other American citizen. And guess what? Russia operates similar networks exploiting the same 14th Amendment provision to secure US passports for its citizens through identical means. So the concern here is not that every child born through this system is a threat, but the concern is structural. With tens of thousands of cases occurring annually, the risk is not dramatic in any single year. But the slow accumulation over time of individuals who carry the full legal standing of American citizenship, while having been shaped entirely by the values, institutions and interests of a foreign government, is not small. The issue is the cumulative exposure created when citizenship can be acquired without any meaningful residential, cultural or civic attachment to the country that it represents. Now, this issue has not been raised in isolation. Okay, so it hasn't come exclusively from one political core. It's been flagged repeatedly actually in Congress by members on both sides of the aisle. And it's been raised in both classified and open session Senate Intelligence Committee hearings. Defense analysts, former intelligence officials have all testified about the structural vulnerability created when citizenship and the access that comes with it can be obtained without any genuine connection to the country granting it national security. Think tanks, including those with no partisan affiliation, have published research specifically examining the long term strategic risk of birth tourism from adversarial nations. The FBI and the Department of Justice have both investigated and prosecuted organized birth tourism operations, particularly in Southern California, where large scale commercial schemes catering specifically to Chinese nationals were uncovered and dismantled. And perhaps most tellingly, the concern has not been confined to the United States and allied intelligence services. And foreign policy analysts in countries that share our security architecture have raised parallel concerns about the broader practice of citizenship by birth being systematically exploited by state actors operating on generational time.
- [17:05]
B
Hey, Bill O'Reilly here. Please check out my new interview series, we'll do it live. Each Thursday I sit down with the most influential people in America. Or a no spin chat, no script. Anything could happen. You can find we'll do it live on BillOriley.com YouTube or wherever you download your podcast.
- [17:32]
A
The convergence of that many independent institutional voices across Congress, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomacy, and national security is not the hallmark of a fringe concern. It's the hallmark of a recognized and documented structural vulnerability that the current legal framework was never designed to address. Then there's what critics refer to as the pull factor. So this argument's pretty straightforward. The 14th Amendment, as currently interpreted, functions as a legal magnet because it grants immediate, automatic and irreversible citizenship to any child born on US Soil, regardless of how their parents got here, regardless of how long they've been here, or whether they have any legal right to be here at all. That child doesn't just receive a passport. They become, in the language of a critic, a legal anchor for the entire family unit. Which brings us to the term anchor baby, which is exceptionally politically incorrect and it's considered by many to be dehumanizing. Mainstream style guys and news organizations have largely abandoned that term. But it persists in the political conversation because it captures with brutal efficiency the legal mechanism that critics are describing. So the theory is a child born on US Soil to undocumented parents becomes a US Citizen at birth. That kid cannot be deported. Deporting the parents of a US Citizen child, while legally possible, becomes politically toxic and practically complicated. And at 21, that kid can sponsor their parents for legal permanent residency, triggering what's known as chain migration, which is a pathway which one birth can eventually confer legal status on an entire extended family, regardless of how that family originally entered the country. So the child is not the destination, the child is the mechanism. And critics argue that this creates a calculable incentive. Right? So if the reward for reaching US Soil while pregnant is a US Citizen child, a permanent barrier to family deportation and and an eventual pathway to legal Residency, then the 14th Amendment isn't just a citizenship guarantee. It's in effect, an immigration policy. And it's one that was never debated, never voted on, and never intended to function that way. And the data on what that incentive has produced is not speculative. It's documented in city budgets, hospital records, and school districts across America. For example, New York City has spent over 2.6 billion on immigrant related costs, forcing cuts to libraries, sanitation, and core municipal services that legal taxpaying residents depend on. Denver spent 356 million in 2024 and 2025 alone, approximately 8% of its entire municipal budget on immigrant response. And that same city was forced to absorb over 16,000 new immigrant students and in a matter of months. So this was an emergency that was largely unfunded and created a surge in staffing and physical crossroom space that didn't exist. School districts across the country are legally bound by the supreme court's ruling in Plyler vs Doe to educate all kids regardless of immigration status. And they're diverting funds from special education and advanced placement programs to meet the immediate demand. So critics are calling it fiscal cannibalism, right? The systematic gutting of existing educational infrastructure to absorb an unplanned and unbudgeted population surge. Okay, everybody knows that I am an animal person, a dog person in particular. And that's because our dogs are our best friends. But when it comes to their food, we're always forced to compromise between fresh and healthy or easy to store and serve. Well, not anymore, because with sundaes for dogs, you get both and your dog gets the best. It's founded by Dr. Tori Waxman, a veterinarian and a mom who got tired of seeing so called premium dog food, which is full of fillers and synthetics. And she designs sundaes with air dried real food made in human grade kitchens using the same ingredients they would use to cook for your family. Everybody's clean, it's packed with real meat, real fruits, real veggies, no weird ingredients, no fillers. Compared to kibble or other brands, Sundaes invests 50 times more in its ingredients for true premium quality. No cost cutting and you just scoop and serve. There's no freezer, there's no thawing, there's no prep, there's no mess. Just nutrient rich food that fuels their happiest, healthiest days. So make the switch to Sundays. Go right now to Sundays for dogs.com Jillian50 and get 50% off your first order. Or you can just use the code Jillian50 at CH checkout. That's 50% off your first order at Sundays for dogs.com Jillian 50 Sundays for dogs.com forward slash Jillian50 or use the code Jillian50 at checkout. And the healthcare picture is equally stark. Federal law requires hospitals to stabilize and treat anyone who arrives in labor, regardless of their ability to pay or their immigration status. So emergency rooms were never designed to function as primary care clinics for a global population, and they're now reporting record deficits. In early 2026, municipal hospitals in multiple states reported a 30% spike in emergency room births by non residents. The uncompensated care runs into the hundreds of millions annually in individual cities alone. Nationally, the figure runs into the billions and that's before accounting for the broader fiscal footprint, welfare programs that are accessed by mixed status families, the near total paralysis of an immigration court system that's backlogged by years and, and the ballooning costs of detention facilities that just can't keep pace with the volume that they're being asked to process. Independent analysis and state level estimates now place the total annual cost of services consumed by undocumented immigrants and their citizen children in the tens of billions of dollars nationwide. Now, additionally, critics raise what they call the constitutional distortion argument. So, as mentioned, the 14th amendment was a reconstruction era remedy drafted in 1868 with a specific and deliberate purpose to overturn Dred Scott, to constitutionalize the Civil Rights act of 1866, and to guarantee that formerly enslaved people could never again be stripped of citizenship by a hostile government. That was the problem that it was designed to solve. That was the wrong it was written to correct. It was not written to establish a finders keepers citizenship rule for anyone who reaches American soil. It was not written to create a legal mechanism by which a single birth could anchor an entire foreman family to permanent residency in America. And it was not written with any contemplation of a world in which 8 billion people are, as the Solicitor General noted before the Supreme Court, a single plan right away from a US Maternity ward, applying a Reconstruction era constitutional remedy to a 21st century global immigration pattern and treating the result as settled or untouchable law, as, in the view of critics, not fidelity to the Constitution, it's a distortion of its original intent. And it's one they argue is costing the country not just billions of dollars, but the foundational principle that American citizenship is a civic commitment, not a geographical location. And then there's the question that, that rarely gets asked in polite company, but sits underneath all the fiscal arguments and all the legal debates and all of the national security concerns. And that's the question of assimilation. Critics argue that the pull factor created by birthright citizenship has not just increased the volume of immigration into the United States, it's fundamentally altered the nature of it. So there's a meaningful difference between controlled legal immigration, where individuals are vetted and processed, and they arrive with at least a basic framework for integration and the rapid, unvetted, unplanned population movement that Critics argue the 14th Amendment's current interpretation has helped accelerate. And that difference matters enormously when you start talking about whether immigrants are able to successfully assimilate into American civic and cultural life. Assimilation is not a dirty word. It's not a demand for cultural erasure. It's, it's the process by which immigrants, as generations of them have done throughout American history, gradually adopt the language, the civic values, the legal norms and a shared cultural identity of their new country, while contributing their own traditions and perspectives to it. And that process has always been the engine of American national identity. It's why the children and the grandchildren of immigrants from all over the world became, over time, simply American. The melting pot is not a myth. It's a documented historical process. But it requires time and it requires infrastructure and it requires a pace of arrival that host communities can actually absorb. So what the critics argue is happening now is something different. When thousands of people arrive in a single city in a matter of months, as we've seen happen in Denver, New York, Chicago and cities across the country, the infrastructure required for successful assimilation does not exist at that scale or at that speed. All right, now on the other side, let's look at the data. So there's a widespread image in this debate of a pregnant woman crossing the border to give birth and then leave. But research from the Urban Institute found that over 70% of undocumented immigrants who had a US born child live in the United States and had for at least five years before that birth. So most of the people having babies here aren't birthed tourists. There are people who have been here for years. They have jobs, communities and families. The birth tourism concern is statistically less typical. And they point to what's happened in Europe as having created an assimilation crisis. So they've got the flip side perspective to this argument where in countries like Germany and France that have traditionally used blood based citizenship, which is just sanguinese, they claim the result has been multi generational immigrant communities with no citizenship, no vote, and no stake in the system. And some scholars think that this leads to higher rates of alienation, social exclusion, and in some cases radicalization. America's birthright citizenship system is arguably one of the reasons that American immigrants integrate better than European ones. And when your kid's born an American, you got skin in the game. Now, personally, I see this differently because in America, typically we get more economic immigrants from Central or South America who have a very different worldview than many of the refugees from war torn countries like Afghanistan that Europe has taken in, who've been raised to hate the west and for that reason, amongst others, will likely struggle to assimilate. But maybe that's just me. And then there's what might be the most important legal argument of all, and arguably the nail in the coffin for the Trump administration's case, and this is the separation of powers. So even if you think birthright citizenship is bad, even if you want to end it, an executive order is not the right tool. The Constitution requires a constitutional amendment to change a constitutional guarantee. And that means that two thirds of Congress and 3/4 of states have to agree. That's how the founders designed it. And they made it hard on purpose because they didn't want the definition of who's an American to change every time a new president takes office. Office. Now, let's talk about what actually happened inside the courtroom, because it seemingly did not go well for the Trump administration. The government's lawyer is Solicitor General D. John Sauer. And his argument had two main parts. So, first, the legal argument. He said the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the 14th amendment requires more than just physical presence. He argued that it requires political allegiance, a genuine loyalty and connection to the United States. Undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders, he said, don't have that allegiance, so their children shouldn't automatically get citizenship. Second, the policy argument, he said, everything I just outlined that birthright citizenship has created a massive industry of birth tourism, which acts as a pull factor for illegal immigration and is being exploited in the ways the Founding Fathers and Reconstruction era Congress never intended. Now let me walk you through some of the key exchanges between the lawyers and the justices. Chief Justice John Roberts, who's a conservative that was appointed by George W. Bush, pushed back hard on the government's logic. Sauer was trying to argue that certain existing exceptions to birthright citizenship, like children of diplomats or children of invading enemy soldiers, showed that the 14th Amendment was never meant to be absolute. And Roberts said to Sauer, the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky. You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships, and then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens who are here in the country. I'm not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such a tiny and sort of idiosyncratic group, translation, the chief justice was essentially saying, your exceptions are these tiny, unusual historical edge cases, and you're trying to use them to deny millions of people citizenship. And when Sauer tried to frame the argument as necessary for a new world where global travel makes birth tourism easy, Roberts wasn't having that either. And he said, well, it's a new world with the same Constitution. So that did not seem to go well. I've been doing a little spring reset with my closet lately, focusing on quality over quantity. And I'm building a wardrobe of pieces that are well made, versatile and easy. Easy to reach for every day. And that's why I keep coming back to Quince. The fabrics feel elevated, the fits are thoughtful, and the pricing makes sense. Quince makes beautiful everyday pieces using premium materials like 100% European linen, organic cotton, and super soft denim with styles starting around 50 bucks. Their spring pieces are lightweight, breathable and effortless. They're the kind of things you can throw on and instantly look put together. And that same focus on materials carries over into their accessories, like their leather backs, which are made from 100% hand woven Italian leather and honestly look way more expensive than they actually are. And this is because Quince works directly with ethical factories and cuts out the middleman. So you're paying for quality without a brand markup. Right? You save a ton on the most amazing clothing and accessories because you're not paying that middleman. So refresh your spring wardrobe with Quince. Just go to Quince.com Jillian for free shipping and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. Go to Q U I n c e.com Jillian for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com/Jillian. Then Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another Trump appointee, raised what might be the government's biggest legal problem. So even if you think the 14th Amendment is ambiguous, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality act of 1952, which wrote Birthright citizenship into federal statutes. So even if a president could somehow reinterpret the Constitution by executive order, which is itself a massive stretch, he would still be overriding a law passed by Congress. And executive orders cannot override federal law. That's Separation of Powers 101. But the real lead balloon moment came from Justice Neil Gorsuch. So Gorsuch, who's a staunch defender of tribal sovereignty, trapped the government in a logical corner. He asked Sauer point blank, would Native Americans be citizens under your standards? Because under the government's theory that you need exclusive political allegiance to be a citizen, Native Americans who often owe their allegiance to their tribes might not qualify. And Sauer's response was a disaster. He hesitated and said, I gotta think that through, but that's my reaction. And as you can imagine, Gorsuch was unimpressed by Solicitor General, who hadn't thought through how his rule affected the original inhabitants of the continent. And he dryly quipped, I'll take the yes, that's all right. Honestly. It was a devastating exchange, and it showed that the government's theory wasn't just a challenge to illegal immigration. It was a legal mess that could accidentally strip citizenship from groups the law has protected for a century. The liberal Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson were even more aggressive. So Justice Katanji Brown Jackson asked almost incredulously, are we bringing pregnant women in for depositions? Meaning are we going to subpoena women in labor to prove their immigration status before their baby gets a birth certificate? Justice Sotomayor asked whether the government planned to retroactively strip citizenship from people already born under the current rule. And Sarah said, no, the order only applies going forward. The ACLU's lawyer is Cecilia Wang, and she's worth knowing about because her personal story is directly relevant. So she was born in Oregon to parents from Taiwan who were on student visas at the time, and she is herself a birthright citizen, exactly the kind of person that Trump's Executive Order would have denied citizenship to if it had been in effect when she was born. And, and she argued before the nine justices that the rule has been clear for 150 years and that the Executive Order would immediately cause thousands of babies to lose their citizenship. And if the government's theory is accepted, it could put the citizenship of millions of past and future Americans in question. So after the arguments wrapped up, most legal observers and journalists who watched them concluded the same thing. The government's probably going to lose this one badly. And the Court, including Trump's own appointees, seemed just deeply skeptical. So where does this go? Right, because the Justices are now in private deliberation, and based on the oral arguments, based on the questions from Roberts, Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, most legal analysts think that the Court is going to rule against the Executive Order. The question is how they rule, Right? There are essentially three paths. So option one, the Court strikes down the Executive Order on narrow statutory grounds, meaning they say the order conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality act of 1952, which Congress passed. And under this ruling, they wouldn't even need to touch the 14th Amendment. It's the surgical option, right? The least controversial. Now, option two, the Court rules broadly that the Executive order violates the 14th Amendment and reaffirms the 128 year old Wong Kim Ork precedent explicitly. This would be a more sweeping rule that settles the constitutional question definitively. Option three, the Court upholds the order, and that would mean immediately that hundreds of thousands of babies born in America each year won't receive citizenship. Now, most legal experts consider this unlikely given the oral arguments, but it's a possibility. So Let me leave you with this. The people challenging the principle argue that the world has changed. The global travel, birth tourism, mass migration have created situations the Reconstruction Congress never imagined. And they're right. The world has changed. But Chief Justice Roberts made his thoughts on that argument pretty clear when he said, it's a new world. It's the same Constitution. So that certainly seems like an uphill battle. The Constitution can be amended. It's been done 27 times. If a true majority of Americans and their representatives believe birthright citizenship should end, there's a process for that. It's called a constitutional amendment. What there isn't a process for, what the Constitution does not allow, is for the president to handle this with an executive order. And frustratingly, that's what this case is also really about. Not just who gets a birth certificate, but whether or not the current occupant of the White House can decide what it means. So the Supreme Court's going to answer that question by July 2026. And when they do, we're going to be here to break it all down for you in detail. All right, team, that was a long one. You got a lot to think about. If you found this helpful, please do me a solid and subscribe. We do this every week. Drop a comment below. Let us know what you think. Should birthright citizenship end should stay? Let's talk about it. Thank you so much for watching. If you enjoyed the podcast, please like comment, subscribe and share. And make sure to let me know what guests you want to see on in the future.
- [38:40]
B
Quick interruption Worth hearing.
- [38:42]
A
If you love sports, TikTok is for you. Game highlights, expert breakdowns, and fan reactions.
- [38:49]
B
Just the moments that matter.
- [38:51]
A
Download TikTok now.
- [38:57]
B
To realize the future America needs. We understand what's needed from us to face each threat head on.
- [39:04]
A
We've earned our place in the fight
- [39:06]
B
for our nation's future. We are Marines. We were made for this.