House Speaker Mike Johnson responded on Tuesday after the Supreme Court delivered it’s highly-anticipated ruling on President Donald Trump’s executive order challenging the Constitution’s “birthright citizenship” provision.
During the weekly House Republican Leadership news conference, Johnson began by briefing reporters on the legislative agenda, upcoming House business, and key issues.
Advertisement
Johnson then responded soon after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States, including those whose parents are in the country unlawfully or only temporarily, striking down President Trump’s executive order.
In short, the nation’s highest court held that the children of illegal aliens and foreign nationals born in the U.S. count as American citizens.
Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented.
Advertisement
“I think anybody who looks at this, oh dear, what do they roll? Well. This is real time. I need to read the opinion okay but obviously that’s you could say that’s a textualist originalist view however I do think um grossly abused in recent years,” Johnson said.
“The plaintiffs in a case then we’re very sympathetic to them because it is serious problem with of its become tourism birthing terrorism you know atren where people would just common use come onto this oil have your child in there they were able to avail themselves as well first aid everything else it’s it’s been abused it’s one those things that wasn’t intended it’s been uh… thwarted and overused abused,” Johnson added.
“So I’m sure that will continue to look at them they ensure the conclusion from this opinion is going to be there you gotta have a but he could amend the Constitution of fix that as we all know what said it’s a big challenge him in the constitutions only happened 20 seven times an article nations history reasoners because again two-thirds other both chambers of Congress three force states ratify usually uh… we’ll see I’m sure there’s gonna be lots of discussion about that obviously a very disappointed in the outcome um… I think it subjects to country two serious challenges going forward and what deal with as Congress,” Johnson declared.
WATCH:
On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump’s first day back in office, he issued an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”
The order argued that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to convey citizenship on newly freed American slaves following its ratification after the Civil War, and that at the time it was implemented, its creators in Congress never meant for it to convey citizenship to anyone who was born in the U.S. to a mother or parents who came in illegally.
“The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’” the order stated.
Advertisement
“Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that ‘a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text,” the order continued.
It added:
Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States:
(1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or
(2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
President Trump attended the oral arguments in the case, Trump v. Barbera, in April, an unprecedented move for a sitting president.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
