The majority opinion, at a tight 26 pages, focused<\/a> primarily on history, constitutional text, and the Court\u2019s own precedents. But it conspicuously neglected to discuss the consequences that would have flowed from upholding President Trump\u2019s executive order. This oversight was not a reflection of the arguments presented to the Court. The attorney representing the challengers emphasized<\/a> in her opening<\/a> that under the government\u2019s theory, \u201cthe citizenship of millions of Americans, past, present, and future, could be called into question.\u201d She later made<\/a> clear that on its own logic, the \u201cgovernment\u2019s rule \u2026 would exclude the children of all foreign nationals.\u201d The point was clear: A ruling for the Administration would not only defy clear constitutional command; it would also be a recipe for chaos.<\/p>\n Chief Justice Roberts\u2019s choice to avoid engaging with consequences stood in sharp contrast to the dissenting opinions, which devoted considerable attention to what they viewed as the on-the-ground effects of birthright citizenship. This was particularly true of Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.\u2019s, dissent, which began by invoking<\/a> the canard of \u201cbirth tourism\u201d and later referenced<\/a> the \u201cgrotesque result\u201d of extending citizenship to \u201ca child born here to a birth tourist\u201d while \u201cforeigners who wish to immigrate lawfully must sometimes wait for many years.\u201d He described<\/a> the majority\u2019s ruling as creating \u201ca powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally\u201d and then went further, charging<\/a> the birthright citizenship rule with having dangerous \u201cnational-security implications.\u201d The dissent closed<\/a> with an outlandish hypothetical featuring an individual from a \u201cstrategic adversary or enemy of the United States\u201d traveling to the United States to give birth and then bringing the U.S. citizen child back to her home country, \u201cinculcat[ing]\u201d the child with \u201chatred of this country\u201d and allowing<\/a> that U.S. passport holder to later \u201cplot[] to harm this country.\u201d Justice Clarence Thomas\u2019s dissenting opinion mostly advanced<\/a> what it took to be the proper understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment. But Justice Thomas too suggested<\/a> that an understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment that recognized birthright citizenship \u201cencouraged \u2018birth tourism.\u2019\u201d His opinion decried<\/a> the \u201clarge numbers of children \u2026 born in the United States each year to parents who are temporarily present here in order to obtain citizenship for their children.\u201d<\/p>\n Reasonable minds can differ about the propriety of explicitly engaging with consequences in Supreme Court opinions. But in this case, the majority\u2019s failure to rebut some of the dissents\u2019 extreme and alarmist claims\u2014and its failure to highlight the catastrophic consequences that would flow from the dissents\u2019 approach\u2014may serve to advance the campaign to turn the dissents into binding law. That is especially likely because of Justice Brett Kavanaugh\u2019s decision to throw his support behind the dissenters\u2019 constitutional vision. Although Justice Kavanaugh would have invalidated the executive order on the grounds that it violated<\/a> a 1952 statute, he also went out of his way to offer<\/a> his view that the order did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. That made the vote on the order\u2019s constitutionality a razor-thin 5-4.<\/p>\n The closeness of the vote was not lost on the Trump Administration, with senior officials rushing to cast the narrow loss as a victory of sorts. Vice President J.D. Vance, appearing<\/a> on Fox News, noted<\/a> that \u201ca lot of legal experts expected this case to go the wrong direction by seven to two, or even eight to one.\u201d He continued<\/a>: \u201cThe fact that this case was a 5-to-4 decision effectively means that the concept of birthright citizenship, which is an absurdity to the 14th Amendment, that concept is hanging by a thread.\u201d Vice President Vance made clear that the Administration would continue to press its vision, arguing<\/a> in the same Fox interview that \u201cWe\u2019ve got to keep fighting \u2026 because we actually have an opportunity to reverse this decision.\u201d<\/p>\n Although Vice President Vance seemed to believe that all the Administration needed was one additional vote, it is far from clear that the dissenters would allow the full implementation of the order. Indeed, freed from any obligation to produce a workable rule, Justice Thomas merely suggested<\/a> that \u201cmany\u201d applications of the executive order would be lawful. The logic of his dissent would suggest it could not be applied to children born in the United States to parents who have been present here for an extended period and intend to stay. For his part, it appears that Justice Alito would create<\/a> \u201can ad hoc exception for those whose parents have \u2018done everything within their power \u2026 to become Americans.\u2019\u201d\u00a0It is not remotely clear how either rule would work in practice\u2014or be administered in hospitals and by state and local governments.<\/p>\n It was an error for the majority to fail to press these points, particularly since the legal and political right seemed to shift immediately to continuing the fight. Indeed, the rhetoric from supporters of the executive order\u2014pledging to continue advocating their understanding of the Citizenship Clause, and linking the issue to future Supreme Court nominations\u2014called to mind the response to the Court\u2019s decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey<\/a>, in which the Court rejected an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade<\/a>. The partial Casey concurrence of Justice Harry Blackmun, who had authored Roe, was clear about the precariousness of the result. Alluding to upcoming Supreme Court departures, including his own, he wrote<\/a> that \u201cI fear for the darkness as four Justices anxiously await the single vote necessary to extinguish the light.\u201d<\/p>\n Both the majority opinion and the dissenting justices in Trump v. Barbara have a clear view of the correct constitutional rule when it comes to U.S. citizenship. The dissenters, led by Justice Thomas, have something else on their side: an account\u2014mistaken though it may be\u2014of the dangers posed by those who challenge their vision of the reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. Time will tell which carries the day. But what is clear is that legal and political resources will need to be marshaled in support of the view that the meaning of birthright citizenship is as broad as the constitutional text makes clear\u2014since the mobilization in support of the opposing position is already well under way.<\/p>\n ![\"Kate](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/shaw.jpg\")
<\/p>\n