House Speaker Mike Johnson advocated on Sunday for Congress to address birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s executive order aiming to curb it. This marks a shift in strategy for Republicans following a major legal defeat for Trump’s administration.

The court’s decision upheld automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil, regardless of the parents’ immigration status. Johnson, the Louisiana Republican, argued for legislative action, citing concerns over ‘birthright tourism’. He suggested that Congress must quickly pursue any available legislative path.

This discussion follows a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling against Trump’s executive order. Days later, President Trump urged lawmakers to start working on legislation to end birthright citizenship, igniting a new political battle as midterm elections approach. Johnson, on Fox News Sunday, referenced Justice Clarence Thomas’s views, stating the 14th Amendment was initially intended to value citizenship. Johnson argued the current system devalues it.

The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, Trump stated on Truth Social.

He emphasized that Congress could correct the situation without needing a Constitutional Amendment.

Supreme Court’s Setback for Trump

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Barbara proved a significant setback for Trump’s aims to limit birthright citizenship. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, upheld the idea that children born in the U.S. are citizens at birth, affirming longstanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. This decision reaffirms the court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which grants citizenship to children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents.

Under Trump’s rejected executive order, automatic citizenship would not apply to children of parents illegally present or holding temporary legal status. Lower courts blocked this policy, leading to the Supreme Court case.

Republican Response

Despite the ruling, Trump urged Congress to legislate against birthright citizenship. He argued that the 14th Amendment was intended post-Civil War to protect formerly enslaved individuals, not to grant automatic citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants or short-term visitors. He also echoed worries about ‘birth tourism’.

Johnson did not specify a legislative proposal but indicated Congress’s readiness to consider possible solutions. He acknowledged that while legislation might address the issue, a constitutional amendment would be more complex and lengthy.

Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt, with a legal background, suggested legislation alone is insufficient, urging for a constitutional amendment. Johnson previously acknowledged that such an amendment might be required.

Conservative Discontent

Justice Clarence Thomas provided a dissenting view, arguing the Supreme Court had expanded the 14th Amendment’s meaning improperly. He questioned whether the current interpretation would remain valid over time. His dissent underscored conservative frustrations, challenging the majority opinion for straying from the amendment’s original intent. Justice Samuel Alito also dissented, stating that not every U.S.-born child should automatically receive citizenship.

The Importance of Wong Kim Ark

The Supreme Court primarily ruled against Trump based on the precedent set in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese immigrant parents. After being refused reentry after a trip to China, he contested the government’s decision, leading to the 1898 decision affirming his U.S. citizenship. This precedent has been pivotal to American citizenship law for over a century.

Following the recent ruling, Wong’s descendants praised the decision for upholding a fundamental constitutional principle on citizenship.

Potential Pathways Forward

Despite Trump’s calls for legislative action, many legal experts predict any effort to limit birthright citizenship would face significant constitutional challenges. An amendment would be even more challenging, requiring support from two-thirds of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Nonetheless, Republicans show increasing resolve to pursue this issue. Johnson’s statements, coupled with Trump’s legislative push and Thomas’s dissent, indicate a conservative shift towards legislative action as a means to confront the Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship.