The Federalist Rips SCOTUS Birthright Citizenship Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision reaffirming birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal immigrants and temporary foreign visitors has sparked fierce debate across the political spectrum. While most national media outlets focused on the ruling itself, The Federalist published a series of articles examining the decision from constitutional, historical and national security perspectives.

The Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump's Executive Order limiting birthright citizenship violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

In "SCOTUS Says Babies Of Illegal Aliens, CCP Birth Tourists Are US Citizens Because Of Magic Dirt," Federalist staff writer Shawn Fleetwood argues the ruling extends automatic citizenship beyond the original public meaning of the 14th Amendment. Fleetwood highlights the dissents, particularly those of Thomas and Alito, who contend the majority relied on an expansive reading of the Citizenship Clause rather than its historical understanding.

Justice Thomas wrote that the Citizenship Clause "does not extend citizenship to everyone born in the United States regardless of their parents' allegiance," while Justice Alito argued the majority had departed from the amendment's original meaning. Those dissents form the backbone of The Federalist's coverage of the ruling.

White House correspondent Breccan Thies expanded on Alito's dissent in "Alito: John Roberts Sold Out The Declaration Of Independence 'Only Days Before' 250th Anniversary." The article focuses on Alito's warning that the Court embraced a concept of citizenship rooted in English common law rather than the principles of consent articulated in the Declaration of Independence.

Alito wrote that the majority's reasoning "rests on English feudal concepts of perpetual allegiance," a point Thies argues carries particular significance as the nation approaches the 250th anniversary of American independence.

Thies also examined the broader constitutional implications in "Thomas, Alito: In Birthplace Citizenship Ruling, John Roberts Imposes 'Feudal' 'Darkness.'" According to the article, both dissenting justices accused the majority of reviving an outdated doctrine that ties citizenship solely to place of birth rather than political allegiance.

Election correspondent Brianna Lyman turned to the practical effects of the ruling in "SCOTUS Says The US Civil War Was Basically About Protecting ChiCom Birth Tourists." Lyman argues the Court's interpretation preserves incentives for birth tourism and prevents the federal government from restricting citizenship for children born to foreign nationals temporarily in the United States.

She followed that analysis with "After SCOTUS Citizenship Ruling, National Security Requires A Travel Ban On CCP Nationals," contending that the decision heightens concerns over Chinese birth tourism and other national security risks by preserving automatic citizenship for children born during temporary visits to the United States.

Federalist D.C. columnist Eddie Scarry concluded the publication's series with "Supreme Court Makes It Clear. Mass Deportations Are Mandatory To Save America." Scarry argues that if birthright citizenship cannot be curtailed through executive action, immigration enforcement becomes even more critical as a matter of public policy.

Taken together, the collection reflects The Federalist's broader argument that the Court's ruling reaches well beyond immigration law. The publication contends the decision reshapes the constitutional meaning of citizenship, revives legal doctrines rejected by the nation's founders, and leaves Congress and the executive branch with fewer tools to address illegal immigration and birth tourism.

The majority reached the opposite conclusion. Roberts wrote that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and are therefore citizens at birth. In doing so, the majority extended what it viewed as longstanding precedent, while the dissent argued the Court was expanding — not merely reaffirming — the scope of the 14th Amendment.