Supreme Court fight over birthright citizenship threatens 'chaos' in proving newborns' status
Source: CNN Politics
PUBLISHED Mar 29, 2026, 4:00 AM ET
Justice Brett Kavanaugh sounded like a fired-up prosecutor last year as he shot off a withering series of nuts-and-bolts questions about how President Donald Trump would carry out his plan to rewrite of the way birthright citizenship has been understood in the United States for more than a century.
Would hospitals have to change the way they process newborns? Kavanaugh demanded. Would state governments have to do something different? How would federal officials determine citizenship if a birth certificate no longer sufficed? “Federal officials will have to figure that out essentially,” US Solicitor General D. John Sauer managed to say amid a fusillade of rapid-fire queries. “How?” Kavanaugh pressed. “So, you can imagine a number of ways —” Sauer began. “Such as?” Kavanaugh interjected.
As the Supreme Court prepares to consider the merits of Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship on Wednesday, most of the same practical questions Kavanaugh raised a year ago remain unanswered. Some of those questions speak to the bureaucratic nightmare that Americans — including US citizens — might face documenting a child’s immigration status. Others go to the very heart of what it means to be a US citizen.
Most of the court’s arguments this week will deal with the history of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which makes clear that “all persons born” in the United States who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/29/politics/trump-birthright-case-us-citizen
= new reply since forum marked as read
He's asking practical questions that the Chump administration hasn't addressed. Does it mean he's challenging their authority to make policy changes? It would seem so, but on the other hand ... it might mean something else.
Does Kavanaugh plan to frustrate Chump's plan concerning birthright citizenship, and shoot it down? Or maybe he's suggesting ways to make it even more evil than it already is?
One way to read this is perhaps he's suggesting that immigrants can no longer birth their children in American hospitals or with American doctors, since the birthright citizenship won't be supported. Or maybe he's suggesting that US hospitals shouldn't be allowed to issue birth certificates as official documents, since the birth certificate guarantees US citizenship to every baby born in the US.
Or maybe he sees the injustice and unworkability of Chump's policies and he wants to stop this before it goes any further. I'd really like to know.
Last edited Sun Mar 29, 2026, 04:16 PM - Edit history (4)
The Constitution is subject to interpretation, but sometimes practicality is a factor in decisions. There is also the question, can the president change a long standing policy via an executive order? If birth right citizenship is to be revoked, wouldn't that be a congressional decision, so that pages and policy can be written. Like, how to determine if the parents have legal standing....
Remember on the Obama Care, decision when Roberts said, "It's a tax".....Literally it wasn't a tax, but practically it was...
I've looked at this case and theoretically, they could just reinterpret the 14th amendment, but it will sure disrupt lives. And numerous policies would need to be written. Parents would need to prove citizenship prior to giving birth. The 14th amendment was designed to grant former slaves citizenship. Likewise, the Hildago treaty several decades early gave Mexican citizens residing in the US, US citizenship by desiginating them as "white".
It also begs the question: "How was citizenship of children of white European immigrants determined prior to the 14th Amendment?" It sounds like it was a bit hodge podge, but people didn't really seem to care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
The constitution makes it clear, that we can no longer ban citizenship based on skin color etc. But it was a supreme court case that allowed a person of Chinese descent be considered a US citizenship. Like Roe v Wade, the case could be overturned. Or the case could be reinterpreted. I don't put anything past the Supreme Court.
There are plenty of countries that do not allow birthright citizenship. India is one of them. There is a huge Bollywood star, born into a prominent film industry family, whose mom is a British citizen. Her dad is an Indian citizen and Bollywood producer. She was born in India. She is a British citizen. and not an Indian citizen. (India does not allow dual citizenship)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alia_Bhatt
Alia Bhatt (/ˈɑːliə ˈbʌt/; born 15 March 1993) is a British actress of Indian descent who predominantly works in Hindi films.[1][2] Known for her portrayals of women in challenging circumstances, she has received several accolades, including a National Film Award and seven Filmfare Awards. She is one of India's highest-paid actresses. Time awarded her with the Time100 Impact Award in 2022 and named her one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2024.
Born into the Bhatt family, she is a daughter of filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt and actress Soni Razdan.
Bhatt was born into the Bhatt family on 15 March 1993[3][4] in Bombay (known by Mumbai since 1995), Maharashtra, India.[5][6] She is a daughter of Indian filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt and British actress Soni Razdan.[7] Mahesh is of Gujarati descent,[8][9] while Soni is of Kashmiri-Pandit and German descent.[10][11][12] Bhatt holds British citizenship
OK, it's a huge rabbit hole.....
ETA: Mexico does not grant automatic birthright citizenship. I know some US citizens (one may have residential status in Mexico) who did this and they had to go through all sorts of hoops. Baby did become a Mexican citizen, but Mexico had to prove that the parents were US citizens and the US was slow to provide documentation and they also would have been denied if the child would "likely be a charge"....So, they had to prove that they would provide for the child.
when many of his E.O.s were thrown out. But then he managed to get another SCOTUS pick confirmed in record time - barely a month - at the end of that first term (despite Turtle holding up Obama's pick for nearly a year "waiting for the election" and then handing that pick off to 45). That sealed the fate of any sense left on the court - despite all the promises of "stare decisis". 
Remember, WE don't own the M$M media. The RW loons DO. So they are going to do what the GOP tells them and will ignore us entirely.
The unfortunate thing about how Roberts has reacted to old precedents and fringe theories, is to manage to find some idiotic wiggle room to offer an opening like was done with the bullshit "qualified immunity" that got morphed into "absolute immunity", and that helped to propel us towards the end of democracy as we know it.
