Donald Trump has nevertheless spent years condemning what’s known as “birthright citizenship” and vowing to undo it despite the plain language of the Constitution. Indeed, on Inauguration Day 2025, the new Republican president kept one of his uglier campaign promises and issued an executive order designed to gut the constitutional principle and directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize U.S. citizenship for children who do not meet the administration’s new standards.
Not surprisingly, Trump’s radical gambit struggled in the courts, which relied on generations’ worth of legal precedent, but he was undeterred. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, he engaged in direct lobbying in ways Americans hadn’t seen before — sitting in attendance during oral arguments and even publicly demanding “loyalty” from the justices he appointed to the high court.
This plan fell short. Four Republican-appointed justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas — issued dissents in Trump v. Barbara, suggesting Trump could ignore the 14th Amendment by way of an executive order, but this radical view fell one vote shy of a majority.
Two hours later, the president responded by way of his social media platform. His online statement read in its entirety:
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!
In other words, as far as Trump is concerned, his defeat at the high court was disappointing, but the setback was temporary. Seizing on the dissent, the Republican sees a new legislative path, in which Congress can simply change the meaning of a constitutional amendment with a bill signed by the president.
That might sound absurd, given how our system of government is supposed to work, but it’s apparently what Trump hopes to accomplish based on the guidance of four Republican-appointed justices.
To that end, there is a bill pending in the House to undo birthright citizenship, which currently has 87 Republican co-sponsors, and a companion measure in the Senate has eight GOP co-sponsors. With the president’s online statement in mind, it’s likely that both bills are poised to get a fresh look from the party’s members and leaders.
More precisely the supreme court ruled that, like the constitution says, you can’t deport people born in the USA. This ruling does nothing for most of the detentions and deportations going on right now.
Like someone said… You don’t need giant warehouse detention facilities if the goal is to deport people…
But trump’s ass-kissers make money on the detention centers, so we will keep seeing both.
Then why are they building - oh…
Gorsuch authored the opinion, declaring that it was NOT the Constitution which prohibited this particular deportation. It was a reading of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which contradicted how the Trump Admin attempted to enforce the law. Monsalvo was not contesting his deportability in order to obtain a hearing on different grounds (because of the byzantine way in which the Trump and the courts were executing these laws), and the consequence of this ruling was such that he could contest it directly, overriding the procedural obstacle put in his way. And Gorsuch chose to read the “60 Day” challenge period to exclude non-business days.
If you get into Gorsuch’s decision-making, much of it hinges on the strict textualist interpretation of legislative statute. Vanishingly little discussed the underlying constitutional grounds of removal.
Should the current or a future Congress advance legislation that changes these textual queues, it’s very easy to see Gorsuch on the other side of a 5-4 decision in the future.