After Repeatedly Losing in Lower Court, Trump Asks SCOTUS To Review His Birthright Citizenship Order
Plus: Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a book.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2025–2026 term, which officially kicks off next week, was already on track to be a notable one thanks to the impending SCOTUS showdown over the scope of President Donald Trump's power to fire top officials from "independent" agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Reserve.
But now the coming term is set to become even bigger. That's because after repeatedly losing in the lower courts, Trump has finally asked the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of his executive order purporting to deny birthright citizenship to millions of U.S.-born children.
You’re reading Injustice System from Damon Root and Reason. Get more of Damon’s commentary on constitutional law and American history.
As you may recall, the Supreme Court already sort of danced around the edges of birthright citizenship last spring when it heard Trump v. CASA, a case that arose from the birthright citizenship controversy yet ultimately focused on the separate issue of the propriety of nationwide injunctions issued by federal district court judges. Coming out of that case, it was an open question as to when the administration might seek the Supreme Court's review of the underlying executive order.
We now have our answer to that question. Late last week, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to fully weigh in, urging the justices to find that Trump's order is consistent with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says, "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."
In fact, Trump's order runs counter to the text, history, and original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees U.S. citizenship to all but an extremely narrow subset of U.S.-born children, such as those whose parents are foreign diplomats and who are therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. If the Supreme Court's "originalist" majority practices what it preaches, Trump's executive order will lose 9–0 on the merits, and deservedly so.
I don't expect the Supreme Court to wait too long before agreeing to take this case up. The justices must be aware that the reckoning over Trump's unlawful birthright citizenship order is already long overdue.
In Other Legal News: Justice Anthony Kennedy Wrote a Book
We seem to be living in boom times for Supreme Court books. And I don't just mean books written about the Supreme Court. I also mean books written by members of the Supreme Court.
Last year brought us Over Ruled by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Last month brought us Listening to the Law by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And now, next month will bring us Life, Law & Liberty, the new memoir from retired Justice Anthony Kennedy.
My hopes are not exactly sky-high for this Kennedy book, but I do confess to feeling a slight hint of cautious optimism. After all, his legal career is certainly fascinating if you care about the Supreme Court's doings. For many years, Kennedy was the "swing" vote on a closely divided Court, which meant that he left his mark on the law, for better and worse, in ways that most justices can only dream about.
Kennedy also enjoyed the rare distinction, as I remarked when he retired in 2018, of having been "denounced by every major faction in American politics." For example, conservatives attacked Kennedy for his votes in favor of abortion rights and gay marriage; liberals attacked him for writing the Citizens United opinion; and libertarians attacked him for signing off on eminent domain abuse.
Such legal battles, even if narrated in an entirely vindictive and one-sided fashion by Kennedy, could still make for intriguing memoir fodder. Or at least that's my hope. We'll see.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Activist lower court judges >>> scotus
- Damon
DR, DR;
And how will we know if he wins at scotus? If Reason doesn’t cover it, he won.
21 articles they have yet, and never will, write.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/09/president-trump-stacks-up-21-victories-in-the-supreme-court-so-far/
I find it absurd that the SCROTUS even bothers to hear cases like birthright citizenshit! The 9 Nazguls should simply look at shit like this, and summarily (QUICKLY! Near instantly!) announce, "Hey, look, Doofuss, the absolutely clear language of the USA Cunts-Tits-Tuition clearly says twat shit says! Now back OFF, Jack, with trying to countermand the USA Cunts-Tits-Tuition!!!"
Twat's next, months and months of hearing EACH AND EVER SINGLE LINE of said USA Cunts-Tits-Tuition, for EVERY provision thereof? Two Senators per state, is Dear Orange Dicktator gonna challenge THAT with an Executive Odor, and then we'll have "Odor in the Court" over THAT one, and EVERY OTHER THING in said USA Cunts-Tits-Tuition?
WHY does shit take 9 over-paid Nagging NAZI Nazguls to READ plain English words and cuntcepts here in the USA Cunts-Tits-Tuition?!?!?!?!? And WHY do we have an ASSpiring DickTator who, on a regular basis, tries to countermand these simple English words?
LOL... So.... The 14A says, "guarantees U.S. citizenship to all but an extremely narrow subset of U.S.-born children, such as those whose parents are foreign diplomats"????
Funny. I thought it said "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Course an "originalist" practice must be to *add* all that BS ad-lib in there?
IGNORE the CRA1866 "That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power" from which the 14A was based?
IGNORE the very AUTHOR of the 14A?
That argument always makes me scratch my head. The 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause needs to be interpreted consistently with a statute written two years earlier that...uses different language? The drafters of the 14th Amendment could have tracked the language of the statute, but they apparently chose not to. The 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause is broader than the 1866 statute. Maybe that was a mistake. Maybe you've got a solid policy argument that they should have been a little more restrictive. But policy arguments don't control our analysis of the Constitution.
Conservative legal thinkers fought for several decades to advance the crazy notion that the proper way to interpret the Constitution (and statutes) starts--and ideally ends--with reading the damn words on the page. They've had a large degree of success! More recently, MAGA folks have been screaming for a reversal of that trend, demanding that the Constitution (and law generally) be construed consistent with the Trump Administration's preferences. (I'm waiting for someone in the MAGA camp to argue that the Constitution is a "living document" that should be understood in light of modern "needs.") Any judge who rules an Administration's act or policy unconstitutional or otherwise illegal is a "liberal activist." If that judge was a Trump appointee, he's a "traitor." I've seen this movie, it doesn't end well.
That's because after repeatedly losing in the lower courts, Trump has finally asked the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of his executive order purporting to deny birthright citizenship to millions of U.S.-born children.
The left is going to lose their minds when SCOTUS agrees that anchor babies aren't Americans. The Justices may want to consider some real security because the murderous leftists will be at their homes BEFORE the decision is made.
when SCOTUS agrees that anchor babies aren't Americans
What is the legal basis of your argument?
I've read the 14th and I have a hard time reconciling how a baby is a citizen but the parents remain illegal. Ambiguous at best in a modern reading.
1) We deport the parents and put the infant American citizen up for adoption.
2) Deport all off them and keep the family intact
3) Let all of them stay because the infant is a citizen.
The only option the leftists support is #3, incentivizing all of the border jumpers to crank out welfare supported baby/citizens. Future democrat voters is the end game.
The right supports #2 because it is less cruel than #1 and only costs the taxpayer bus fare to San Diego, Nogales, El Paso, etc.
This is why SCOTUS needs to make a decision.
Ambiguous at best in a modern reading.
And, no offense, this is in the broad and shallow sense. This is part and parcel to Root's stupidity.
By Root's low-IQ evaluation, if Russian hackers cross the border illegally and have a kid on US soil, they're free to interfere with elections as they see fit.
Per your argument about options, there is no "one best" way to deal with the situation and to pretend their is or that the rulings from a time when immigrating from Russia took months and risked death from exposure to the modern day where it's as simple as hopping a plane, booking a vrbo online, and packing for a day trip is stupid (stupid 'conservatism' no less!).
Once again, Congress won't perform their Constitutionally-required duty, so POTUS and SCOTUS have to take action.
Ambiguous at best in a modern reading.
So you adhere to a kind of living constitution argument that is antithetical to the right, particularly on the SC. Or is originalism to be applied only when convenient? I note you didn't actually answer my question. You can certainly make a policy case for amending the constitution, but it seems you prefer to reinterpret it to fit your wishes.
It has been posted here dozens of times shrike. Including liberal law professors from UPenn. Sorry you're an idiot.
Just actual historical congressional discussion.
The Indian citizenship act.
Definition of total jurisdiction (illegals do not register for jury, to vote, or pay us taxes working outside the US, cant get passports, cant petition us embassies, subject to native jurisdiction agreements, etc)
Sorry youre retarded.
Generally speaking a party has to lose in the lower courts before SCOTUS will hear a case. Really stupid headline. The court could simply let appellate rulings stand so if they hear it it's not really the slam dunk Damon fantasies. It could be 9-0 but I doubt it will be at this point. In any case the court really doesn't have any options except to rule on it.