In a recent California Law Review Online column, Professor Amanda L. Tyler analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Trump v. Barbara decision, which affirmed birthright citizenship by a single vote, warning that the dissenting opinions left the door open for future attacks on the principle enshrined in the 14th Amendment.
Leading with the example of U.S. men’s soccer team star forward Folarin Balogun, who was born in New York City to a mother who was in the country to visit family, Tyler notes that the rationale in Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent would have kicked him off the team as a non-American. And while the Court rebuffed President Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for people born to tourists or to parents without legal immigration status, activists including Vice President JD Vance almost immediately took to social media and the airwaves talking about taking another shot.
“Sadly, what could have — and should have — been a shining moment à la Brown v. Board of Education for the Supreme Court to hand down a unanimous decision reaffirming birthright citizenship was not meant to be,” Tyler writes. “Despite the fact that the Court got it right, the divided vote in Trump v. Barbara may only serve to fan the flames of a continuing national divide over who should enjoy the privileges of United States citizenship. And that is a real shame.”