Where this was said
Birthright Citizenship: Why the Delay Is Alarming
At 35:36 · chapter starts 31:10
The birthright citizenship case should, in theory, be simple: the 14th Amendment's first sentence grants citizenship to all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. The executive order purporting to deny it is, Leah says, 'wildly illegal.' And yet the Court has held the case for months, which likely signals a non-unanimous decision [1] — Leah Litman "The 14th Amendment plainly says all persons born in the US are citizens, yet the Court has sat on this case for months. Leah Litman warns t…" 32:25 . Even if the Court rules against Trump, dissenting opinions from Thomas and Alito could normalize the idea that birthright citizenship is constitutionally contestable — making it the next Republican judicial litmus test, just as opposing Roe became a litmus test. And Leah argues the Court itself manufactured this situation: last year it refused to simply say the order was unconstitutional, instead demanding the Solicitor General bring the case back to give the Court a chance to play hero — creating its own PR opportunity while having already greenlighted far more harmful immigration rulings [1] — Leah Litman "The 14th Amendment plainly says all persons born in the US are citizens, yet the Court has sat on this case for months. Leah Litman warns t…" 32:25 .
The 14th Amendment plainly says all persons born in the US are citizens, yet the Court has sat on this case for months. Leah Litman warns the delay likely signals a non-unanimous ruling — and even dissents from Thomas and Alito could make rejecting birthright citizenship the next Republican judicial litmus test.
Leah Litman warned that the Supreme Court's delay in releasing the birthright citizenship decision may signal it will not be unanimous, which would dramatically shift the Overton window on constitutional citizenship.
Leah Litman argues the Supreme Court engineered the birthright citizenship case to give itself a PR win — striking down the order to look independent while all the other harmful rulings fade from memory. The Court is building its own cover story.
Right-wing legal circles have two theories: equate unauthorized immigration with a military invasion so children of undocumented parents aren't citizens, or generalize the diplomats' children exception into a broad 'allegiance' test. Both echo the logic of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
