Did you know that the Supreme Court appears likely to side against Trump on birthright citizenship?

[Anonymous]

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/04/supreme-court-appears-likely-to-side-against-trump-on-birthright-citizenship/

Updates

3 mo

Congratulations! Your question has been selected as "Great" by the GAG Content Team. Great questions are featured on the Homepage ("Featured"), on the "Live Feed" and on recent "Questions" pages. You have also been awarded 4 xper points for your great question. Thanks so much for your contribution to the GirlsAskGuys community!

[abc3643]

The case is Trump v. Barbara.

I listened to the oral arguments. It was somewhat cryptic. I can usually follow these things rather well, but this one was tough. I think all of the justices were very good in their questioning.

I think that the Solicitor General did not do a very good job presenting his case because he relied too much on the concept of what being "domiciled". I believe his thrust was that someone who is domiciled in the US is someone who is supposed to be here permanently - they live here legally (including aliens) - and that the 14th Amendment refers to children of domiciled aliens for birthrite citizenship. He felt this was consistent with a very important 1898 SCOTUS case "United States v. Wong Kim Ark" in which Wong Kim Ark, a child of Chinese born parents who lived in the US, had his citizenship challenged and the SCOTUS ruled in his favor.

I suspect Trump v. Barbara will be a 7-2 or 8-1 favoring Barbara. I suspect Alito will be in the minority and maybe Thomas will join him. I suspect Gorsuch and Barrett will side with the liberals.

[RingOfFire]

Yes, it sounds as if they are going to support unlimited birthright citizenship because this court is a bunch of cowards. Just come here to drop your baby like millions of women have done and they automatically become a citizen, then opening the door for their entire family to be here whether they contribute anything to our country or not. No other country in the world has such an idiotic policy. I think the number is 13-16% of the children born here are from parents who are not citizens.

China has a giant industry of companies that send pregnant women here just before they give birth to have their babies here and that leads to who knows what kind of spying and all kinds of national security risks from the Chinese communists.

The Supreme Court is supposed to determine the INTENT of a law in order to rule. The INTENT of the 14th Amendment (written and passed by Republicans by the way) was clearly that it applied to freed slaves and NOT to foreigners. In fact, one of the authors of that Amendment said that EXPLICITLY in writing. That was the sole purpose of that Amendment. It was NOT intended to apply to foreigners either in or out of this country. It was to protect the rights of freed slaves against Democrats the architects of black slavery in America.

If SCOTUS upholds this policy it is corrupt.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/bMx23FMo10U

[Asker]

Well, you can stop worrying now. I believe with all the shit that Trump has pulled, no sane person wants their kid to be a U. S. citizen. I think that addresses all of your ranting very appropriately.

[RingOfFire]

TDS is an incurable disease. But with treatment you may be able to leave your basement for short periods.

[Anonymous]

Is Trump going to cry after he hears the word no?

[Abbycado]

I did see that in Apple News. Good.

[OneViewpoint]

Ending Birthright Citizenship has been THE wet dream of the Klan and every other White Supremacy group since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War.

I'd be extremely surprised if our Supremely Corrupted Court of Reich Wing racists didn't hand the MAGA crowd this wet dream. They obviously don't give a flying fuck about the Constitution. And there are no consequences for not doing their jobs.

[goaded]

They're currently trying to suggest that illegal aliens' children aren't "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States", which would mean they have the same status as foreign diplomats.

Trump ran resorts for pregnant Russians to get their children US citizenship.

[Surely]

If I recall correctly. The SCOTUS were trying to spin the second amendment as not to mean modern weapons. Just weapons of that era!
Wouldn’t the same apply to illegal immigration. When Birth rite was written. There wasn’t millions of people trying to use the system to their advantage.

[exitseven]

That is not the impression I got. Even John Robert's was receptive. He said its a new world but the same Constumitution. Clearly the 14th amendment was not written to circumvent immigration laws

[Asker]

I'm not sure you're wrong, but I think your interpretation of that event is probably self-serving and not particularly correct. I don't know. I guess we'll find out what John Roberts thinks, and that is what really counts.

[exitseven]

Yes, i heard some of the news guys talk and maybe I got it wrong. It just seems like a no brainer to me.

[Asker]

It seems that way to me, too, but in the opposite sense, given the fact that it's black letter law right there in the Constitution, where we can all read it.

[AviatorTom]

Courts, SCOTUS in particular, don't like to overturn precedent rulings, especially when there have been many over the past 150 years.

Regardless of how SCOTUS ultimately rules, the question of birthright citizenship will not die.

[goaded]

Roe.

[AviatorTom]

@goaded Roe v Wade was a one-time ruling by SCOTUS, unlike many other rulings. In particular, Birthright Citizenship has been upheld by SCOTUS in at least 5 separate rulings.

[goaded]

Trump's SCOTUS did that?

[loveslongnails]

As they should. Can't wait for the Big Beautiful Funeral.

[strateguy632]

You wish! Remember you liberals complained about trump "stacking the court"? No activist liberals to block good stuff.

[Asker]

Well, I guess we're going to find out about it. I know you're going to bitch and scream like babies if you don't get what you want with your latest racist idea.

[slatyb]

As well they should. He's not dictator yet.

[Pterodon]

We’ll see. Some will be happy and some pissed

[Asker]

I am interpreting John Roberts' statement differently in that I believe that he wishes to preserve the birthright as it was originally written, but I guess we will see. Exit is not wrong in saying that it could also be interpreted the other way as well.

[strawberryapple]

Anchor babies are a slap in the face to the descendants of slaves.

[Asker]

Complain to the founders of the Constitution

[strawberryapple]

Why?

[Asker]

Well, considering that they are the people, or their descendants are the people, that actually wrote the 14th Amendment, you're objecting to go bitch to them. Better yet, go consult with the anchor babies that you think are such an insult to the descendants of slaves and find out what all those folks think.

What you really mean to say here is you don't like it because it's an insult to your inherent racism.

[strawberryapple]

You want me to go tell it to dead people? Are you a mental case? You asked the question, the dead people did jot ask this question.

[Asker]

So go and whine to the descendants of slaves, for God's sake.

[strawberryapple]

What are you whining about? Why did you ask the question?

[Asker]

I guarantee you the descendants of slaves. Don't give a damn about this. You do because you're a racist.

[strawberryapple]

You just hate slaves because you’re a racist.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Finally, the Supremes showing some guts !!!

[Amy10223]

Yes, and I am glad.

[Twalli]

Because the arguments to remove it are stupid.