The Supreme Court will convene on Wednesday to consider the legality of President Donald Trump's executive order, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," signed on January 20, 2025. The executive order directed federal agencies to stop recognizing U.S. citizenship for certain children born in the United States on or after February 19, 2025, but it has never taken effect due to ongoing legal challenges.
The Washington Post has found its angle on the case, and it's not subtle. Under the headline, "Trump officials cite white supremacists in bid to end birthright citizenship," Justin Jouvenal writes a lengthy piece focused on just that.
The Trump administration argues the 14th Amendment does not apply to people in the country illegally or on temporary visas.
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) March 30, 2026
If the Supreme Court agrees, it could render hundreds of thousands of children born to immigrant parents stateless. https://t.co/KCvdRS3t7E
Jouvenal writes:
Alexander Porter Morse, a Confederate officer during the Civil War and a Louisiana attorney, argued for legalized segregation in the landmark 1896 Supreme Court case that established the “separate but equal” doctrine and buttressed Jim Crow laws.
He is again playing a key role in a monumental case to be argued before the justices Wednesday: The Trump administration has tapped Morse as an authority in its push to upend long-settled law that virtually everyone born in the United States is a citizen.
Over a century ago, Morse was among a trio of thinkers who spearheaded a failed effort — steeped in anti-Black and anti-Chinese racism — to erase birthright citizenship. The Trump administration is reviving their arguments to make its case today, some legal scholars say.
The administration is citing arguments “built on a racist foundation,” Justin Sadowsky, an attorney for the Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance (CALDA), wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief.
"Some legal scholars say." And Jouvenal cites them all. He was probably sent a list of "experts" and their phone numbers by the ACLU.
The Washington Post traces the push for anti-birthright citizenship to 1898, when the Supreme Court ruled that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a legal U.S. citizen. Jouvenal writes more about how these "xenophobic ideas gained traction."
Posters disagreed that a ruling by the Supreme Court in favor of the Trump administration would it render hundreds of thousands of children born to immigrant parents stateless.
Great! And they won't be stateless. They'll be subject to the jurisdiction (country) of their parents. BTW, have you written any articles about the birthing hotels the Chinese (and likely other foreigners) have set up in the US?
— NewsieOne (@NewsieOne) March 30, 2026
Our own Just Mindy has. In February, she wrote about the existence of 107 Chinese-owned surrogacy companies operating in Southern California alone. One Chinese man had more than 100 American citizen children through paid surrogates. The children were born in the United States and immediately shipped to China to be raised.
They are kids born to illegals, not "immigrant parents."
— Leftism (@LeftismForU) March 30, 2026
They wouldn't be "stateless." They would be citizens of the country where their parents are from.
It's really not that complicated.
They would NOT be stateless. They would have the same citizenship as their parents. 🤦♂️
— Jarrett 🇺🇸 (@whoismrzero) March 30, 2026
They wouldn’t be stateless. Their home country would the same as their parents. When an American is born outside the US, the baby isn’t stateless. He/she is a US citizen. All countries operate this way.
— Santiago (@fezzaririder) March 30, 2026
If you visit another country to have a baby to get your nose under the tent, you aren't stateless. You are merely a citizen of your mother's country. This is not hard.
— Sir Walter (@EmryRaleigh) March 30, 2026
It won’t render them “stateless,” you worthless propagandists.
— Lucy Stone (@lucystone1871) March 30, 2026
They’ll have whatever citizenship their parents have, in their own damn countries.
The absolute gaslighting from the media is out of control.
Bullshit. They will be citizens of the country of their parents birth. This is the way it is throughout virtually the rest of the world.
— S David Sultzer (@s_sultzer) March 30, 2026
As it should. Please name one other country in the world where they allow this.
— Stephen Miller (@FeistyFS079) March 30, 2026
Let’s hope SCOTUS realizes the 14th amendment was never meant to give citizenship to anyone who visits or comes here purposely to give birth to “citizens”
— Katerina (@KaterinaKaterna) March 30, 2026
They won't be stateless. It just won't reward their parents' decision to break the law.
— Andrew Broering (@AndrewBroering) March 30, 2026
The anchor babies and their parents still have their home countries. None of them ever renounced their foreign citizenships. They can just go home.
— 𝔻𝕠𝕔𝕥𝕠𝕣 𝔽𝕒𝕥𝕖 (@georg3) March 30, 2026
Stateless? That doesn't make any sense. It would work as it works in every other country in the world. Your citizenship would in the country your parents came from illegally.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on this by this summer.
***
Editor's Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie about President Trump, his administration, and conservatives.
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Twitchy VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member