Carrie Johnson

And, you know, we already know from estimates that were put forward in this case that about 250,000 babies are born annually, that this could apply to as many as 5 million over the next 20 years.

But if the administration wins here, which seems a little hard to imagine based on the

that this administration or a future one could go back and take some very aggressive steps that would apply to people who were born here sometimes a long time ago.

Justice Katandre Brown Jackson really put this very boldly.

She asked what would happen if there were a dispute about the nationality or citizenship of a new baby.

She asked the Solicitor General, are we going to give depositions to pregnant moms?

And what if the administration or somebody in the hospital concludes that this baby is not a citizen?

How do the parents appeal that?

And the solicitor general basically said after the fact there would be some kind of appeal process.

But the import of her question was, how are new parents who have their hands more than full going to be in a position to appeal some kind of determination made by some authority agency?

And, you know, one of the main issues here is how workable it would be if this Supreme Court decides to overturn something that's been basically common understanding for over 150 years.

Understanding in how people have behaved toward new parents and infants.

Understanding in the precedent of the law.

Understanding in the 14th Amendment itself.

And understanding in a very key 1898 Supreme Court case that got mentioned many times, Juan Kim Arc.

Well, one of the main examples was that Congress actually acted twice in 1940 and 1952 using the same language that's in the 14th Amendment.

And one of the interesting questions that Cecilia Wong asked

from the ACLU got was from Justice Brett Kavanaugh was basically, how do you want to win this case?

If we agree with you, do we just basically affirm that one Kim Ark precedent from 1898?

Or do we make a big statement about the Constitution?