President Donald Trump is drawing rare support for his plan to end birthright citizenship as the Supreme Court of the United States weighs the legality of his policy.
Some legal scholars and political figures across party lines have expressed openness to revisiting the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in light of modern immigration challenges.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday, April 1st on Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally.
The case centers on the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children.
Chief Justice John Roberts told Trump’s solicitor general that the Constitution’s text is clear on the matter. Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that U.S. laws should not change based on practices in other countries.
Trump posted on Truth Social that some foreign countries sell citizenships for financial gain. Roberts questioned claims that birthright citizenship is exploited by foreigners and drives illegal immigration.
The United States is one of only 30 countries with no restrictions on birthright citizenship.
Law Professor Calls Policy ‘Insane’
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley appeared Thursday on Fox & Friends and criticized the current U.S. policy.
“The fact that we are one of the few countries that continues to embrace birthright citizenship is perfectly insane, and it is a great danger to this government and to this republic,” Turley said.
Turley noted that the justices seemed to interpret the Constitution based on its original meaning. He said the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause had a specific purpose tied to the post-Civil War era. Turley added that the justices, including liberal ones, focused on original intent during the arguments.
“What was really astonishing yesterday is it appeared that we might have nine originalists on the court because the liberal justices started to channel Scalia and to say, ‘oh, you know, we’ve got to stick with the original intent here,’” Turley said.
He described the current issues with birthright citizenship as a major threat.
Why This Matters
The debate over birthright citizenship touches on core questions of immigration control and constitutional interpretation. Trump’s executive order seeks to limit automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, a change that could affect how the U.S. manages its borders and population growth.
Also Read: Trump Confirms When U.S. Military Will End Iran War After Sending Third Carrier
Supporters of the order argue it closes a loophole that encourages illegal entry. Opponents say it contradicts the plain text of the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s decision could set a lasting precedent on who qualifies for citizenship by birth.
A ruling in favor of Trump’s position would mark a significant shift in U.S. immigration law and align policy more closely with most other countries that place limits on birthright citizenship.
The case has drawn attention because it tests the balance between constitutional text and modern immigration pressures. With illegal immigration remaining a top public concern, the ruling may influence future policies on border security and legal status.
Stupid man like me I can understand 14th amendment better than 9 justices. They are useless. Waste US taxpayer. the country likes US which kept the constitution for 200 years those days are old, over. People wrote the constitution back then might be or might be not finished HS. Sorry my country updated the constitution to fit with the current situation in the country, not like stupid ass US.