The Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship and ruled Trump’s executive order on it unconstitutional in a 6-3 ruling on Tuesday, saying it conflicted with the 14th amendment.
Many reactions to the ruling fell along partisan lines, with the right speaking against the ruling and the left supporting it, adding that it was too close for comfort. However, some on the right noted that there are still other paths to immigration restriction, such as a constitutional amendment.
Johnathan Turley wrote for Fox News (Right), “It is a view that is rejected by the vast majority of countries, which rightfully view birthright citizenship as bonkers, including some which followed the practice and then rescinded it…On birthright citizenship, the matter now rests not with the court, but the country. We have never truly had a national debate over the practice. The basis and future of birthright citizenship have remained matters almost exclusively for the courts.We must now decide whether to pursue such a debate as a constitutional amendment.”
The New York Times Editorial Board (Left) stated, “The Supreme Court rightly stood up for the Constitution by rejecting Mr. Trump’s spurious argument. His order was bad for the country in other ways, too. It treated immigrants as a threat rather than a benefit…The majority’s decision is a relief because this Supreme Court is not always willing to apply the law equally to Mr. Trump…There are many difficult questions in constitutional law. Birthright citizenship is not one of them. Conservatives often say that they are faithful, above all else, to the text of the Constitution. In this case, the Constitution is clear. People born in this country and subject to its laws are citizens.”
A Townhall (Right) piece said, “For many Americans, this debate is about immigration policy. For me, it extends far beyond the 14th Amendment. It is about something much more fundamental: how we interpret the Constitution and the principles upon which our republic was founded…Birthright citizenship is different. It directly conflicts with the principle of self-government. How can ‘We the People’ determine our own future if we cannot define what it means to be a citizen?”
A Common Dreams (Left) opinion read, ““What we needed was a clear 7–2 decision (Thomas and Alito were always going to dissent). One that acknowledged what the Constitution plainly says and what it obviously grants. As things stand, however, the Supreme Court is effectively one vote away from fundamentally changing who is entitled to U.S. citizenship and what it means to be an American. While birthright citizenship survived today, this ruling exposes how fragile its guarantee has become.”
