Quote · The Bulwark Podcast
David French: The Birthright Citizenship Ruling Should've Been 9-0
Where this was said
Birthright Citizenship: The 6-3 Decision and What It Means
At 2:48 · chapter starts 2:00
The 6-3 ruling ending Trump's birthright citizenship executive order lands as the morning's lead story, and French opens with undisguised relief: 'Thank the Lord this is over.' But the margin matters. French says he wouldn't have been surprised by a 7-2 ruling after oral argument, and Gorsuch's presence among the dissenters is genuinely unexpected. The structural reality is closer to 5-1-3: five justices voted on straight constitutional grounds that the 14th Amendment settles the matter; Kavanaugh concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing the 1950s immigration statute — not the Constitution directly — is what protects birthright citizenship and that Congress could theoretically change it. [1] — David French "The Supreme Court struck down Trump's birthright citizenship executive order, but three justices think a constitutional right can be repeal…" 02:00 That distinction carries enormous downstream risk, even if the immediate outcome is the same. French and Miller agree: the debate is settled for now, birthright citizenship is the law of the land, and it's poignant that the ruling came down just before America's 250th birthday — during a presidency that wanted to make citizenship more exclusive.
The Supreme Court struck down Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship in a 6-3 decision, with Gorsuch as the surprising third dissent.
The Supreme Court struck down Trump's birthright citizenship executive order, but three justices think a constitutional right can be repealed by executive fiat. The real story isn't that birthright citizenship survived — it's that the margin was far closer than it should have been.
