President Donald Trump is escalating his push to end birthright citizenship, publicly urging the Supreme Court to take a closer look at a conservative legal argument that challenges more than a century of settled law.
In a post Monday at 12:57 a.m., Trump called on the justices to consider the views of Fox News host Mark Levin, who has argued that birthright citizenship rests on a flawed reading of the Constitution. The timing was notable. It came just after the Court heard oral arguments in a closely watched case over Trump’s executive order restricting automatic citizenship.
A direct appeal to the Court
Trump’s message was blunt. He criticized the Court and suggested the justices should “study” Levin’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Levin has been a leading voice among conservatives questioning birthright citizenship. His core argument is straightforward: the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee it. He also contends the 14th Amendment was written with a narrower purpose in mind, mainly to secure rights for formerly enslaved people after the Civil War, not to address modern immigration.
Trump has now aligned himself closely with that view, using it to defend his executive order.
What the case is about
At issue is whether the federal government can deny citizenship to children born in the United States if their parents are in the country illegally or on temporary visas.
That would mark a sharp break from current policy. For more than 125 years, the U.S. has recognized birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, reinforced by the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
The key phrase under debate is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Trump and his allies argue that this language leaves room to exclude certain groups. Opponents say the meaning has long been settled and broadly applied.
Skepticism from the bench
During oral arguments, several justices — including conservatives — pressed the administration’s legal team on that point. Questions from the bench suggested concern about overturning such a well-established interpretation.
That skepticism could be a hurdle for Trump’s position, which relies on reinterpreting constitutional language that courts have consistently read in a broader way.
A deeper constitutional divide
Supporters of Trump’s approach say the current understanding of birthright citizenship goes beyond what the framers of the 14th Amendment intended. They argue that correcting that interpretation does not require rewriting the Constitution, only applying it more accurately.
Critics, including many legal scholars and civil rights groups, see it differently. They argue that birthright citizenship has been clearly established for generations and cannot be undone by executive action alone. In their view, changing it would require either a constitutional amendment or a major shift in how the Court reads the amendment.
What comes next
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision later this year. The outcome could either reaffirm the existing framework or open the door to a significant change in U.S. citizenship policy.
Either way, the case has already forced a fundamental question back into the spotlight: who counts as an American citizen at birth, and who gets to decide.
READ NEXT: White House Makes Eye-Popping Request
One good reason to tighten the Constitutional reading is to force COngress to actually legislate some clear rules on how children of undocumented aliens can gain their citizenship. And that would be to actually become law abiding productive citizens. If not, they are just residents with no way to pass citizenship to their offspring. Clearly the children of Mexican and Chinese citizens have citizenship elsewhere. They can always go back. Or live the American way.