President Donald Trump and GOP lawmakers criticized the ruling in Trump v. Barbara, with some calling for a constitutional amendment and others urging Congress to narrow citizenship rules through legislation.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Republican lawmakers and immigration enforcement advocates sharply criticized the Supreme Court on Tuesday after the justices struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, leaving intact the long-standing rule that most children born on U.S. soil are citizens at birth.
Trump responded shortly after the decision on Truth Social, saying Congress should move immediately to end what he called an unfair and costly interpretation of citizenship law.
“The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process,” Trump wrote.
“No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!” he added.
The case, Trump v. Barbara, challenged Trump’s attempt to limit automatic citizenship to children born to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The court sided with those challenging the order, preserving the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment that grants citizenship to nearly everyone born in the United States, except for narrow categories such as children of foreign diplomats.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said he wanted to read the full opinion before offering a detailed legal response but made clear he disagreed with the result.
“I need to read the opinion. You could say that’s a textualist, originalist view,” Johnson said. “This has been grossly abused in recent years … I’m very disappointed in that outcome.”
The Federation for American Immigration Reform, which supported the Trump administration’s position, said the court misread both the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s earlier precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
FAIR argued that citizenship should pass at birth only when parents are lawfully authorized to remain in the United States.
“The Court got the Constitution wrong, and because of that mistake birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens will continue to be a ballooning negative consequence of the failure to enforce our immigration laws,” FAIR Executive Director and General Counsel Dale L. Wilcox said in a statement.
Wilcox said the ruling increases the need for stronger border security and immigration enforcement.
Some Republicans said the ruling requires a constitutional amendment.
Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., called the decision “wrong, dangerous, and disastrous for American sovereignty and the American people.”
“The Supreme Court’s decision constitutionalizing unlimited birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens and temporarily present aliens is wrong — and disastrous for our sovereignty and the future of our republic,” Schmitt said.
“Ordinary legislation cannot repair the damage,” Schmitt said. “I will be announcing a forthcoming constitutional amendment to restore the sacred bond between American citizens and their government.”
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, also said the court’s ruling should lead to a constitutional amendment.
“Neither the Founding Fathers, nor the authors of the 14th Amendment, nor the millions of Americans who fought and died for their country through the ages intended to establish a nation whose citizenship could so easily be purchased, whether through birth tourism of China’s communist party members or a vast border invasion enabled by faithless presidents,” Lee wrote on X.
“This is the cheap and cheated citizenship the Supreme Court upholds today. The long fight for a constitutional amendment begins now,” Lee added.
Several House Republicans called for immediate congressional action.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., wrote that the Founders “did not anticipate the Birth Tourism industry” and said, “China is having a party right now.”
Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., said, “The American people deserve a citizenship system that cannot be gamed by anyone with a plane ticket. Congress needs to act, and I will lead that fight.”
Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., said, “SCOTUS has turned its back on the American people. Roberts and Barrett sided with the left to protect birthright citizenship for the children of foreign invaders.
“This is how our country gets conquered from within. This is OUR land. Not theirs.”
Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., wrote, “A nation without borders is not a nation,” while also calling on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, strengthen border security and end what he described as the “H-1B scam.”
Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, called the decision a “Disastrous ruling for every actual American citizen, our national sovereignty, and the future of our country,” adding, “SCOTUS failed us. Congress must act.”
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said the court “failed the American people, the Constitution, and the rule of law,” but rejected the argument that only a constitutional amendment can address the issue.
Roy said Congress should instead define the 14th Amendment phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” by statute. He also urged lawmakers to restrict federal funding for governments that provide legal status or documentation to people he says do not fall within that constitutional language.
One Republican voice took a different position.
Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., said the decision “affirms that anyone born in the United States is in fact a citizen of our country” and described the ruling as “well-reasoned and thought out.”
Lawler said any change to birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment supported by “the overwhelming majority of Americans.” He also said Congress should address birth tourism “through the legislative process, not by executive fiat or judicial activism.”
The ruling leaves Trump’s executive order blocked and shifts the political fight to Congress, where Republicans are divided over whether the path forward should be ordinary legislation, a constitutional amendment or narrower statutory changes targeting the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s jurisdiction clause.
Original article
Comments