Free Republic

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...

The Supreme Court delivered a stunning blow to President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order, which sought to declare that babies born in the U.S. to mothers unlawfully present or in the United States on temporary visas would no longer automatically receive U.S. citizenship. The ruling in Trump v. Barbara was 6-3, with Justices Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal justices in striking down the order. The ruling was exceptionally long, nearly 200 pages. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing dissent, grounding his reasoning in the view that the 14th Amendment was meant to apply...

As a pragmatic and patriotic American I respectfully suggest and recommend the U.S. State Department immediately institute the “Roberts Requirement” following similar visa entry protocols previously used for COVID-19 tests prior to U.S. admittance. The Roberts Requirement: Each female visa applicant must present a valid negative pregnancy test taken no longer than 10 days prior to travel to the United States. The certified document, negative pregnancy test, together with all related visa approvals must be presented to Customs and Border Patrol at each port of entry. Failure disqualifies the traveler. This is the same protocol as COVID-19, only using pregnancy...

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) shared that he would reintroduce former Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) “exact bill” that would not only eliminate birthright citizenship for the children of illegal migrants, but also clarify who can receive birthright citizenship. In a post on X, Moreno responded to another post from Fox News’s Bill Melugin, who shared that in 1993, Reid had introduced the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993. Moreno stated that they would “see how today’s DC Democrats will vote when offered the ideas of the Democrat party that used to love” the U.S. “I will reintroduce this exact bill when I...

Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in part with the Supreme Court ruling opposing President Trump's ending of birthright citizenship and in part dissented, leaving an open door to Congress to make the necessary adjustments to refuse citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who have no permanent status in the United States. He said that the Executive Order from Trump "establishes new exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country." Those exceptions created by Trump were "for children born to foreign citizens who are either illegally or temporarily in the United States." Kavanaugh does...

“This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to insert birthright citizenship into Americans’ Constitution. He continued in plain language to show how the decision endorses birth tourism, which would automatically grant full citizenship to foreign adults who have never lived a full day in the United States: The Court’s interpretation is not only contrary to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it produces grotesque results. While foreigners who...

The Supreme Court came out with some decisions Monday and Tuesday that many conservatives are celebrating, but as they say, you can’t win ‘em all. As many pundits expected, the High Court knocked down President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, which said people born on American soil should not automatically be granted citizenship if their parents were here either illegally or temporarily. The court ruled otherwise in a 5-4 decision, arguing that the 14th Amendment specifically provides that anyone born here is regarded as a citizen. This leaves the door open to the birthright tourism scam, where pregnant women either...

The Supreme Court's ruling is a setback for President Donald Trump, who issued an executive order on his first day in office that would end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrantsThe Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected President Donald Trump’s bid to restrict birthright citizenship, preserving the long-standing constitutional interpretation that most children born in the United States are automatically U.S. citizens, including children born to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country.The ruling is a major setback for Trump, who made curbing birthright citizenship a key part of his immigration agenda.Trump issued an executive order on...

Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, reaffirming the more than 100-year-old understanding that nearly all of those born in the United States are citizens. In a divided decision in the case Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court found that Mr. Trump's policy is unlawful. (snip) This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.The 6-3 decision saw Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett join with the court's liberals. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented."No such intersovereign concerns apply to children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States; no foreign sovereign would “have any motive for wishing” them outside this Nation’s authority," Roberts wrote. "Those children are thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause: they are 'born ......

@RandPaul Months before the Supreme Court ever ruled, I had a feeling exactly this would happen. An executive order was never going to be strong enough to permanently fix birthright citizenship, no matter how good the intentions behind it were. That's why I filed a constitutional amendment early this year instead of waiting around to see how the courts would rule. This decision confirms what I already suspected. If we want real, lasting change, it has to come through the amendment process. @glennbeck The Supreme Court just ruled that, apparently, immigration IS a suicide pact. It has struck down Trump's...

Official transcript from the US Senate on May 30, 1866. Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the 14th Amendment: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens...” SCOTUS got this ruling 100% wrong. A total travesty.

When Senator Jacob Howard explained the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause, he said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States." Most people today read this statement and assume Howard was listing four separate categories of people who would not receive birthright citizenship: Foreigners Aliens People who belong to families of ambassadors Foreign ministers This interpretation has shaped decades of constitutional debate, but it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how Howard structured his sentence....

1776, Not 1608: What the Supreme Court Got Wrong on Birthright CitizenshipChief Justice Roberts forgot the Declaration of Independence.Chief Justice John Roberts begins the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship opinion in Westminster in 1608 with Calvin’s Case and the English law of royal subjectship.I would begin in Philadelphia in 1776.Between those two places—and those two moments—lies the American Revolution. And the Revolution changed more than who governed America. It changed the very foundation of political membership.That is the central problem with the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Barbara. The Court’s opinion is learned, careful, and historically rich. Chief Justice Roberts...

ransomnote: TRANSCRIPT is repeated in post #1. The thread is a series of three related x.com posts by the same x.com account.Observing Consciousness@holonabove·18hStephen Miller just said the quiet part out loud... Justice Alito’s dissent was unmistakable. Federal law establishes an Election Day... singular.Not election week... not election month... and certainly not election months...Roberts and Barrett may have supplied the deciding votes, yet the ruling only makes the next battlefield clearer...Congress... the Senate is the target...Eighty million Americans elected a Republican president, a Republican Senate and a Republican House with a mandate to secure the nation’s elections... that mandate now has...

Sec. Rubio and Pres. Trump should allow only certified non-pregnant women from foreign nations visas of 6 month duration, to then be recertified before an extension is granted. If pregnant they can go home and have their babies and then reapply for another visa.

Heads up, faithful P&E readers: this is big. The Supreme Court has released its decision in Trump v. Barbara, the “birthright citizenship” case that has attracted much attention since President Trump issued his Executive Order 14160 immediately after assuming office for his second term. Cutting to the chase, the Court in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts has today invalidated the Executive Order. While the decision, of course, will have massive impact on 14th Amendment scholarship, it might well have an equal or greater impact on the different, yet related issue of who can be (or who cannot be)...

On Monday's episode of CNN This Morning, host Audie Cornish left no doubt where her sympathies lie in the debate over birthright citizenship: squarely with those opposing any limits on the policy. After airing a clip of Speaker Mike Johnson explaining that the policy has been abused—with people crossing the border illegally simply to have a baby on U.S. soil—Cornish turned to her panel and injected her own perspective as a mother. “Does anyone on this panel have kids other than me?” Cornish asked. When Michael Scherer of The Atlantic answered "yes," Cornish continued: “Okay, do you remember being in...

(Apr. 12, 2026) — The news is full of foreign policy crises, scandals, conflicts, and trends in all directions. However, a current case before the U.S. Supreme Court tops it all. It’s the birthright citizenship case, which determines the future of our nation and what sort of country it will be. Does the U.S. have sovereignty to confer its own citizenship, or does anyone from any point on the globe have the right to take it from us? Are we an autonomous nation or a colony of the world? Under current policy, any child born on U.S. soil to a...

The case against birthright citizenship seems straightforward and persuasive. Is it really right for an eight-month pregnant Mexican woman to illegally cross the Rio Grande, give birth, and be allowed to stay in America because her newborn child is now a natural born citizen? By the same token, is it just for a Chinese millionaire to have 100 children by surrogacy, arrange for them to be born in the US, and then move them back to China, where they are now US citizens and can later vote in US elections? That’s crazy, right? And these are not hypothetical or imaginary...