Sunrise Show Prep! May 15
Birthright Citizenship in the Docket today at SCOTUS
The Supreme Court’s May 15 Birthright Citizenship Hearing: A Chance to Restore Constitutional Fidelity
Later today, the U.S. Supreme Court will confront a defining question: Does the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause mandate automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents? As a constitutional scholar who has long argued for ending birthright citizenship, I see this hearing as a historic opportunity to realign our law with the original intent of the Constitution and address the modern crisis of unchecked immigration.
President Trump’s executive order, issued upon his return to office, boldly asserts that children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States under the 14th Amendment and thus are not automatic citizens. This challenges a century-long misreading of the Citizenship Clause, rooted in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision, which granted citizenship to a child of legal Chinese immigrants. That ruling, though, never contemplated today’s realities—mass illegal immigration, “birth tourism,” and strained national resources. The Court now has a chance to correct this overreach.
The text of the 14th Amendment is clear: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” isn’t mere decoration. In 1868, its framers, like Senator Lyman Trumbull, emphasized it excluded those owing allegiance to foreign powers—like diplomats or, critically, illegal entrants who evade U.S. law. Unlike Wong Kim Ark’s lawful residents, today’s undocumented immigrants flout our sovereignty. Granting their children citizenship rewards lawbreaking and incentivizes further border chaos. As scholars like John Eastman have argued, the clause’s original intent aligns with Trump’s order: only those fully within our legal jurisdiction—citizens or legal residents—should pass citizenship to their offspring.
The May 15 hearing, set for 10 a.m., will initially focus on a procedural issue: the nationwide injunctions issued by three federal judges (in Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts) blocking Trump’s order. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris will argue these injunctions overstep judicial authority, binding the entire nation from a single district court. She’s right. Nationwide injunctions are a modern invention, not rooted in Article III, and they cripple executive power on issues of national import. Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, skeptical of such judicial overreach, may push to limit these injunctions, allowing the order to take effect in parts of the country. This could create a patchwork—citizenship in some states, not others—but it’s a step toward dismantling a flawed status quo.
The deeper constitutional question, though, is where the Court’s conservative majority—Thomas, Alito, and perhaps Barrett—can shine. They may signal openness to revisiting Wong Kim Ark’s scope, especially given modern immigration’s scale. Opponents, like the 22 Democratic attorneys general, will cry foul, claiming the order creates stateless children. But this ignores Congress’s power to naturalize or create legal pathways, preserving humanitarian options without entrenching a constitutional error.
Ending birthright citizenship isn’t about cruelty; it’s about sovereignty, fidelity to the Constitution, and deterring exploitation of our borders. On May 15, the Court can begin restoring the 14th Amendment’s true meaning. The stakes couldn’t be higher.
MORNING SHOW GUESTS:
7:05 AM - INTERVIEW - HANS VON SPAKOVSKY on what to watch for during the Supreme Court’s historic birthright citizenship arguments
7:35 AM - INTERVIEW - REP. TROY NEHLS - (R-TX) - on National Police Week
8:05 AM - INTERVIEW - KT MCFARLAND on Trump’s MidEast trip
8:35 AM - INTERVIEW - LISA TERRY on National Police Week
LARRY’S SHOW PREP
DEMS HATE COPS
TRUMP IN QATAR
VOUGHT READY FOR DOGE AGENDA
DUFFY EXPOSES TRILLION DOLLAR FRAUD
(4) Townhall.com on X: "Sean Duffy: Where did that $2 TRILLION GO?! https://t.co/2N40r2WzYQ" / X
RFL KICKS BUTT AT HEARING
BIDEN PARDONS UNDER REVIEW
DOJ pardon attorney Ed Martin to review Biden's outgoing pardons | Just The News
DROWSY DEBBIE DINGLE
(3) MAZE on X: "We appreciate the hard work Little Debbie. https://t.co/rX6WYb1fq8" / X
HILARIOUS CNN HEADLINE ON DROPPING EGG PRICES
GEMS FROM TRUMP/HANNITY INTERVIEW
Mark R. Levin on X: "Love this. Schumer the Palestinian senator. https://t.co/7IkYUMzmin" / X
NOEM EN FUEGO ON THE HILL
Larry your commentary is spot on, but it misses a couple of very important point. One is the 14th Amendment was preceded by The Civil Rights Act of 1866 that act is still on the books and it's language is very similar to that of the 14th it states: Be it enacted . . . , That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. The phrase not subject to any foreign power and subject to the jurisdiction have been grossly misinterpreted by the courts.
Congress didn't mean those terms to only apply to the children of foreign diplomats, this is known because when the 14th was passed Native Americans were excluded because Congress deemed them subject to tribal jurisdiction, that vast majority of Native Americans aren't diplomats so it's clear Congress didn't intend it only to apply to diplomats.
Further evidence is the words of the men who wrote the 14th Amendment, namely John Bingham whom many claim is the father of the 14th Amendment, he said: Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is … a natural born citizen. More evidence is in a 1786 letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson said Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.
Present day legislatures also believe in order to be a US Citizen one's parents have to be US Citizens. In 2008 when concerns rose about John McCain's eligibility to be President due to his having been born in Panama Congress issued Resolution 511 whereby, they declared McCain to be a Natural Born Citizen because his parents were American Citizens. That resolution was supported by two constitutional scholars in the form of legal opinions both of which were entered into the Congressional Record.
Additionally, an 1875 Supreme Court Majority Opinion said "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners"
So, it seems very clear that Congress and the courts at the time period of when the 14th was written were in agreement that in order to qualify for citizenship one's parents must be American citizens as well.
The big question is whether SCOTUS will have the courage to rule correctly, as we have seen with DACA the court is loath to revoke anything the government bestows upon someone. A judge ruled DACA unlawful but it's still in place which makes no sense. The problem is if the court does rule that the children of illegal aliens aren't citizens it probably would result in immediate lawsuits on the grounds of the violation of the Equal Protection Clause as scores of children illegal aliens have been conferred US Citizenship in the past and SCOTUS is unlikely to revoke their citizenship.
One doubts SCOTUS will rule in the Trumps administration's but if they read the pain text of the 14th and the words of the men who authored it they reach the conclusion that it doesn't apply to the children of illegal aliens.