‘Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship’: Shocking NYT Supreme Court Prediction

President Trump made waves (what’s new?) when he tackled the issue of birthright citizenship.

It has been historically recognized that anyone born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the parents, would have U.S. citizenship.

Those who argue that as the precedent — they’re right.  Historically, that has been the “norm”.

But the question being raised by the Trump administration in challenging the entire notion of birthright citizenship isn’t about what’s been normalized, it’s about what is constitutionally correct.

And according to a pair of constitutional law professors published in the New York Times — President Trump ‘might have a case’!

Finally. Thank you @nytimes @nytopinion for running what’s sure to be a controversial op-ed from me and @RandyEBarnett on birthright citizenship. 1/https://t.co/tNqWh0IkSI

— Ilan Wurman (@ilan_wurman) February 15, 2025

Law professors from two different universities — Georgetown Law School and the University of Minnesota — shocked the most recent readers of the New York Times.

In a guest opinion piece published by the outlet, the two professors argue that the Supreme Court is likely to find a valid case to be made for President Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship, according to a Fox News story:

A Georgetown Law School professor and a University of Minnesota law professor may have surprised the liberal readers of The New York Times. The pair argued in a guest opinion essay that President Donald Trump may hold a powerful legal case on the issue of birthright citizenship.

“When they finally consider this question, the justices will find that the case for Mr. Trump’s order is stronger than his critics realize,” Georgetown Law professor Randy E. Barnett and University of Minnesota law professor Ilan Wurman wrote of the Supreme Court in a guest essay published on Saturday.

The headline firmly stated, “Trump might have a case on birthright citizenship.”

Trump’s decision to issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants has faced significant opposition in the federal court system, with U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante in New Hampshire temporarily blocking the order on Monday.

The traditional thinking surrounding birthright citizenship was argued laid out plainly by John Yoo back in 2018, when President Trump first introduced his plan to get rid of the concept.

As you can hear, Yoo (a G.W. Bush era lawyer) leans heavily on the fact that precedent favored birthright citizenship.

He never once gives a Constitutional argument in favor of that position.

John Yoo on birthright citizenship: “The history of the country, from the beginning…all the way to the present, the traditional understanding has been if you are born in the United States, no matter whether your parents are citizens or not, you’re a citizen.” @foxnewsnight pic.twitter.com/8HRRX2vBIf

— Fox News (@FoxNews) November 1, 2018

But as the two law professors argued, the parents of a child born in the United States who came here illegally certainly swore no allegiance to the nation.

In fact, those parents can be summarily removed from the country without involving the courts or judicial process at all because of their illegal entry, according to the previously cited Fox News story:

After explaining the historical and legal history behind birthright citizenship, including the text of the 14th Amendment which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,” Barnett and Wurman tackled the issue of children of parents who are “present in the United States illegally.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“Has a citizen of another country who violated the laws of this country to gain entry and unlawfully remain here pledged obedience to the laws in exchange for the protection and benefit of those laws?” the professors asked.

“Clearly, the parents are not enemies in the sense of an invading army, but they did not come in amity,” Barnett and Wurman wrote, referencing legal definitions of citizenship. “They gave no obedience or allegiance to the country when they entered — one cannot give allegiance and promise to be bound by the laws through an act of defiance of those laws.”

“Such persons can even be summarily removed from the country without judicial procedures of the sort that would protect citizens,” the professors continued. “If the allegiance-for-protection view informed the original meaning of the text, then they and their children are therefore not under the protection or ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the nation in the relevant sense.”

It isn’t surprising that President Trump took a stance that turns out may be the most accurate pertaining to the subject.

What is very surprising is that two law professors were allowed to say so openly on the New York Times!

Kind of amazing that even the New York Times is willing to countenance the idea that birthright citizenship doesn’t extend to the children of illegal aliens under the 14th Amendment. https://t.co/gIhXk2nh84

— Immigration Accountability Project (@I_A_Project) February 16, 2025

Just a few hours ago, President Trump took up the issue on social media.

Posting on his Truth Social account a short time ago, he argued from the standpoint of original intent.

According to President Trump, the founding fathers would be “spinning in their graves” because of the abuse of birthright citizenship — used in a manner it was never intended to address.

Here’s the full text of President Trump’s Truth Social post for easier reading:

The 14th Amendment Right of American Citizenship never had anything to do with modern day “gate crashers,” illegal immigrants who break the Law by being in our Country, it had everything to do with giving Citizenship to former slaves. Our Founding Fathers are “spinning in their graves” at the idea that our Country can be taken away from us. No Nation in the World has anything like this. Our lawyers and Judges have to be tough, and protect America!

Even a few days ago it was reported by CBS that another federal judge (the fourth federal judge to do so) had blocked President Trump’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship.

A fourth federal judge on Thursday blocked President Trump’s executive order seeking to terminate birthright citizenship, joining the growing number of courts that have prevented the president from implementing his directive while a slew of legal challenges continue.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, who sits on the federal district court in Massachusetts, said that a group of 19 states and the District of Columbia, as well as two nonprofit organizations, are likely to prevail on the merits of their claims. The challengers have argued that Mr. Trump’s executive order, issued on his first day in office, violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

“The Constitution confers birthright citizenship broadly, including to persons within the categories described in the EO,” Sorokin, appointed by former President Barack Obama, wrote in a 31-page decision.

But according to two of the NYT’s opinion writers, that’s not accurate.

In fact, an article in the Boston Herald backs up much of what President Trump and the NYT’s has categorized as a very good chance in the Supreme Court.

Here’s what the Boston Herald had to say on the issue:

Get ready for a Supreme Court showdown over President Donald Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship — the idea that all children born in the United States have the same rights, regardless of where their parents came from. Despite what many pundits and even lower court judges are saying, this is not a slam dunk for the president’s opponents. There are powerful arguments and Supreme Court precedents on both sides.

The case often cited, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), actually supports Trump. The court ruled that the protections and guarantees afforded by the 14th Amendment belong to citizens and noncitizens alike, “so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here. ”

ADVERTISEMENT

That was 127 years ago.

On Jan. 20, Trump declared, by executive order, that babies born to illegal immigrant mothers, and lacking a father who is a citizen or legal U.S. resident, will no longer automatically receive U.S. citizenship. Starting on Feb. 19, 2025, hospitals would be barred from issuing U.S. birth certificates for these newborns, who number about 250,000 per year.

The clause was originally proposed to guarantee citizenship to children born to former slaves, but during the drafting in 1866, Congress expanded it to children of any race or ethnicity born in the U.S.

Yet Trump’s executive order triggered lawsuits by 22 states, the city of San Francisco and numerous nonprofits. Within days, federal judges were blocking its implementation. Judge John C. Coughenour of the Western District of Washington state called it “blatantly unconstitutional.” Judge Deborah Boardman of Maryland claimed that in the past the Supreme Court has “resoundingly rejected the president’s interpretation” of the 14th Amendment.

These are overstatements. There’s no predicting how the Supreme Court will rule. Only Justice Samuel Alito has expressed a view, stating during his confirmation hearing that birthright citizenship “may turn out to be a complicated question.”

Along that same line of reasoning, here’s a video put out today by the Heritage Foundation.

This is a great synopsis explaining why the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment is wrong:

WATCH: Here’s why the current prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment regarding birthright citizenship is wrong.

No child born to illegal aliens, or any foreign citizen, should be considered a citizen of the United States. pic.twitter.com/Ty2vqT3Mv5

— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) February 16, 2025

Like many who look to the “early church” as a litmus for what is right or wrong regarding Biblical doctrine, such information can prove valuable.

But it is not the standard for determining what is Biblical, and what is not.

That standard is the Word of God itself.

Likewise, the standard for determining what is right or wrong concerning the issue of birthright citizenship — I know this pains every legal junkie fixated on precedent — but… is not precedent.

It is constitutionality.

And like President Trump, at least two law professors writing for the New York Times, the Boston Herald, and the Heritage Foundation have all made clear…

Just because the prevailing interpretation has historic precedent on its side, that does not mean that it is Constitutional; which is what actually matters!

Just as in so many instances, President Trump has proven far more thought-out and knowledgeable on the issues than the would-be “professional experts” in most of the news media, and even in the court system.

While the lower federal judges are having a field day bouncing President Trump’s executive order around with a blitz of counterpunches…

Eventually it will come down to a higher court; the Supreme Court.

And according to more than one qualified source, that court may not turn out to be quite the pushover eating out of the democrats’ hands as these lower courts.

Once again, President Trump may end up being proven right, after all.