In a move that’s both unprecedented and undeniably theatrical, President Trump has decided to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The reason behind this high-profile appearance is his push to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal migrants and temporary visitors to the United States. Some might argue that it’s about time a president took this kind of personal interest in the judicial process. After all, who wouldn’t want to see Trump navigate the intricacies of constitutional law firsthand? Though, one might suggest he bring a comfy chair and popcorn because this is bound to be a spectacle.
The center of this legal drama is a challenge to a long-held interpretation of the 14th Amendment, specifically the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This phrase has historically been interpreted to mean that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically granted citizenship. However, some originalists argue that this interpretation strays far from the original intent, which was focused on former slaves and their descendants after the Civil War. Clearly, the framers weren’t thinking of modern tourists or those who decide to unexpectedly vacation and expand their family trees on U.S. soil.
On the Republican front, there’s an air of cautious optimism that the Supreme Court, which leans originalist, may consider a historical perspective that supports President Trump’s position. The argument hinges on the idea that individuals in the U.S. temporarily or illegally are still under the jurisdiction of their home countries, not the U.S., thus their offspring should not automatically gain citizenship. It’s a simple argument, unless of course, you dislike simplicity and prefer ambiguity, which often seems to be the case with lengthy constitutional interpretation debates.
However, not all conservatives are confident that victory is in reach. Some Republicans appear hesitant, because the prevailing wisdom is that change is hard, especially when it comes to interpretations that have seemingly gathered dust on the high shelf of constitutional law for over a century. It’s like trying to change the rules of Monopoly after the game has already started—everyone’s too invested in their hotels on Park Place to accept new plans without complaints.
Amidst this legal whirlwind, it’s essential not to overlook another significant ruling: the confrontation over Colorado’s conversion therapy ban. The Supreme Court recently decided that states cannot force speech through professional licensing requirements, reminding them that the First Amendment doesn’t have a gag order. This was a significant victory for free speech advocates, underscoring that even in the realm of professional regulations, the right to say what you believe remains protected. It seems the justices at least agree on one thing: when it comes to free speech, even Colorado can’t pull the wool over anyone’s eyes.
