Trump Allies See Birthright Citizenship as Next Roe v. Wade

Nearly a year after the Supreme Court's ruling against President Trump's attempt to abolish birthright citizenship, conservative advocates are already planning their next move. At a recent meeting of legal experts and Trump supporters in Washington, D.C., attendees expressed their intent to keep the debate alive and potentially reshape the judiciary to more favorably interpret the 14th Amendment.

The discussion comes in the wake of the court's 6-3 decision in Trump v. Holder, which affirmed that children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents are still considered citizens at birth under the Citizenship Clause. Despite the setback, conservatives argue that the court's interpretation is too broad and that the issue should be revisited.

Notably, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the ruling, with Thomas suggesting that the interpretation may not withstand scrutiny in the future. This dissent has become a rallying point for those seeking to continue the fight. The White House has since unveiled new executive orders targeting birth tourism and other categories it claims fall outside traditional birthright citizenship protections, but these measures are expected to face legal challenges.

The planning session also highlighted the potential for legal scholarship, conferences, and legislative efforts to influence the issue. However, the most prominent idea was to focus on shaping the judiciary, with participants suggesting that the Supreme Court should include more judges who are receptive to challenges to the prevailing interpretation of birthright citizenship.

This strategy echoes the decades-long approach conservatives have taken regarding other contentious issues like abortion, gun rights, and religious liberty. Conservative legal groups have closely examined judicial nominees' positions on these topics, making them key litmus tests for confirmation. By applying this approach to birthright citizenship, conservatives aim to influence the legal landscape over time, rather than relying solely on legislation or executive orders.

Legal experts note that this strategy, if successful, could gradually build support for their arguments among lawmakers, judges, and ordinary Americans, even if they were unsuccessful in the most recent case.