If, like me, you like reading extremely intelligent and realistic and yet historically informed writing, then you will surely greatly admire the 194 pages of the US Supreme Court judgment No 25-362, decided on June 30th 2026: the one about the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship.
It may sound boutique, but it is a very serious question. Is the modern state competent to defend itself and the people it represents?
In short, five Justices declared what they called “the Opinion of the Court”. But that was only five out of nine, interestingly four of them women. One quibbled. And the other three declared emphatically against the opinion of the court: indicating, once again, that the law is not so much an ass as an ass-and-a-colt-the-foal-of-an-ass. (That’s a joke. It is also an allusion to the Bible. It’s also a serious point, since it is quite difficult for any lawmaker to ride two horses, or donkeys. But the truth is more likely to be found on two horses than on one.)
The Justices who argued that birthright citizenship is constitutional and that Trump was wrong to issue his executive order against it were:
- Chief Justice Roberts
- Sotomayer
- Kagan
- Barrett
- Jackson
On the fence (saying Trump has not contradicted the Constitution though he has contradicted federal law) was the single Justice:
- Kavanaugh
The Justices who argued that the court has made an error of Constitutional interpretation were:
- Thomas
- Gorsuch
- Alito
You might have
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
194 pages, read twice, and a change of mind, plus commentary so illuminating we’re all saved the trouble of reading it for ourselves? I don’t know what TY pays JA but, whatever it is, it’s not enough.
The majority decision is wrong, because it gives no meaning to the second part of the clause.
The clause has two limbs (1) born in the US and (2) subject to its jurisdiction.
The draftsman must have intended the second part of the clause to have some meaning. The only sensible meaning which has been proposed is that the person in question must not owe allegiance to another state.
No-one seems to be addressing why this is happening in the United States and seems to be driven by the left.
It is occurring for the same reason that the British government is changing the rules regarding voters in Britain.
Putting it simplistically, both governments are widening the voting base to include people they believe will vote for them. It is an attempt to sustain themselves in power. It is nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with naked ambition.
The Democrats would not be supporting this if all the illegals and their kids were voting Republican
Why was the clause ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof‘ included? We should assume it was included for a reason. However, the ‘birthright’ interpretation suggests that it is just window-dressing or padding:
“All persons born or naturalised in the United States […], are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
I think arbitrarily deciding that a clause in The Constitution is meaningless and should be ignored is very dangerous ground.
Assuming it does mean something rather than nothing the discussion should focus on what it could have meant in 1868 USA.
It meant that freed slaves were citizens with equal rights, which was in my view already legally the case but just ignored. I doubt anyone then thought that it meant what it has been deemed to mean now. But the words are clearly open to interpretation sufficiently for Roberts and Barrett to interpret them differently, for whatever reasons they have genuine or hidden.
That interpretation is that it was in there for emphasis but not to make an additional qualification. It does not add to the meaning and removing it would make it clearer. If so, why didn’t the authors remove it? As I said: dangerous ground.
Oh I agree, I think especially from Roberts the decision was political – he seems to think his role is to not upset the apple cart too much.
This is the perfect argument for not having a written constitution.
Birthright citizenship ending in 1983 in Britain, when the British Nationality Act 1981 came in to force.
I disagree. The original Bill of Rights is all about limiting state power, which is precisely what we need. The 14th was a reaction to a hole they dug for themselves and has been abused, and came much later. I would swap their situation for ours any day of the week. All of that said, what really matters is what the citizens think the limits on state power ought to be, but at least in the US they have written it down and it can be debated. Here, the state has intruded more and more into our lives without much of a discussion.
It seems obvious to me that the 14th was never intended to grant citizenship to whoever happened to be born in the US regardless of how their parents got there, but the text is arguably a bit vague, probably because the writers never envisaged the situation we have now, so it seems like one of those times where originalism (what did it mean to the people who ratified it) could be said to be in conflict with textualism (plain meaning of the words). That conflict gave Barrett and Roberts enough room to deliver this decision, I am guessing consciously or subconsciously for personal or political reasons.
One solution is to amend the constitution to make it clearer, but that will not happen as it requires majorities that will never be achieved. The other solution is to hope for more fundamentalist conservatives judges at some future point, but Barrett and Kavanaugh are young and even Roberts is fairly young and these are lifetime appointments so I think the US is screwed for the foreseeable future as far as this goes. I don’t know where that leaves them with deporting illegals who have had kids while on US soil – I guess… Read more »
I think the damage can be limited by saying, ok so you baby may have he right to US citiznship but only once you achieve adulthood, and the right to reside here is not transferable to your parents so they can take you back to shitholistan, and we can talk further in 18 years.
Otherwise put up the baby for adoption by Americans, and the parents piss off anyway.
The adulthood argument could be an interesting one, but in practice if you check the parents out the kids will follow in most cases, or rather the parents will take the kids with them.
Thats the point, and they cn come back when they’re 18.
Obviously, The Constitution including the Amendments can be amended. As an example, the 18th Amendment (Prohibition of alcohol) was widely ignored before it was effectively repealed by the 21st Amendment.
The 18th Amendment was not useless, it was intended to tackle racketeering and organised crime head on but it was the classic sledgehammer to crack a nut. It was also a vast over-reach by the Federal government into State authority. It took a new Amendment to attempt to correct it. It looks like there’s a need for a new Amendment to fix the 14th.
The 14th has been abused for all sorts of left wing projects, and I can’t see there will ever be a time when there are not enough left wing people to block fixing it – it requires a supermajority in the legislatures and ratification by three quarters of the states.
My view on this is almost diametrically opposed to most other people’s views.
Countries are protection rackets. You don’t get a choice to opt out. Everyone is forced to be a citizen of somewhere (or live a miserable existence as a genuine stateless refugee).
So with that in mind, given that this is the system that is imposed on us – not chose, imposed – it seems only reasonable that you are by default from where you are born.
Most people don’t see things in this way because they have been educated (brainwashed really) to view citizenship as a privilege. It isn’t a privilege. It would be if you could opt out of the citizenship deal, but you can’t. You in fact belong to a state and that state has first claim to extract wealth from you.
Personally, I would gladly be a stateless person if I were allowed to move around freely – without claim to any privilege but with no obligation either to any state other than to follow the laws of the place in which I am at any given time – as in fact we all have to do anyway.
Unfortunately, we all have to… Read more »
No abuse from me.
It seems to me nation states have evolved naturally, partly to fill a need and partly as a result of some people’s desire to have power and others to be led. I don’t see them as entirely negative or positive. On balance I think they are positive probably because I was born and have lived my whole life in England which seems like an objectively better country than most, and it has afforded me a good life. There is a balance to be struck. We are going in the wrong direction but I don’t think everyone being stateless is a solution. I don’t think you can have laws that mean anything without a state of some kind, large or small.
Yes, all that makes sense. I don’t pretend to deny reality either – states exist and people seem to like them.
The issue I have is squaring the fact that you have to belong to a state with being able to deny someone state hood at the moment of birth
What if the state of birth denies you that right but the one of your parents only gives citizenship by birth (rather than by descent)? This is not hypothetical, this can actually happen.
In a situation where people broadly stayed in the country of their birth, and tens of millions of people were not moving between countries illegally, nobody would mind giving citizenship to a tiny number of people in an awkward situation. But unfortunately that’s not where we are. It has taken until now for this to be challenged in the US because the numbers have changed dramatically.