Carrie Johnson

But DOJ also argues that there's this concept of allegiance, that people are here only temporarily.

People who are here on work visas or student visas or people who come here as tourists and maybe overstay and have children, that they don't have the same kind of allegiance to the U.S.,

That's needed to become a citizen.

And so I expected the Solicitor General John Sauer to raise that point of loyalty or allegiance in arguments tomorrow when he has his crack at it.

Interestingly enough, I've been talking with some legal scholars about how this argument might go tomorrow.

And it's important to note here that we're not just relying on the 14th Amendment, but that Congress in 1940 and 1952 passed federal immigration laws that use the same language as the 14th Amendment does about subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

And they think that depending on how the conservative justices kind of congeal around these arguments, that they may decide not to touch the constitutional question and resolve this case on those federal statutes alone.

That means that the constitutional question is open for another day and perhaps another Congress to address in some way.

Threading the needle, but also deciding a smaller question rather than an enormous question.

There have been a lot of cases.

The one that the challengers to the executive order point to is from 1898.

It involves a man born in California to Chinese-born parents.

He traveled to China to see his parents.

When he came back, they wouldn't let him back in the country.

And the Supreme Court ruled that he was a citizen of the U.S.

and should have all those privileges.

This would really be earth shattering in a lot of ways.

And maybe the Trump administration intended just that to happen.

I've been speaking with advocates.

They say that year over year, this is affected to touch as many as 250,000 babies a year.