Carrie Johnson

Now the Supreme Court is taking this seriously.

And it's really a major, major issue.

Right.

The ACLU and a number of groups have challenged this executive order.

They basically argue that if you look to the history, the text of the 14th Amendment, and the American legal tradition, they win on all of those counts.

I listened to a call last week that included Cody Wofsey from the ACLU.

Here's what he had to say.

And remember, the Supreme Court actually heard something related to birthright citizenship last year.

In that case, the court did not cover the merits, the substance of the issue.

Instead, it issued a ruling about universal injunctions.

And so this is kind of the court's second crack at the issue.

And now this birthright issue is fundamental to the case.

A senior Justice Department official this week basically said that the 14th Amendment was designed in the era after the Civil War.

And very clearly the intent of that amendment was to ensure that the children of newly freed slaves were citizens of the U.S.

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.