Johnson Slams SCOTUS Ruling On Birthright Citizenship

House Speaker Mike Johnson responded Tuesday after the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated ruling on President Donald Trump’s executive order challenging the modern interpretation of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

During the weekly House Republican leadership news conference, Johnson began by briefing reporters on the legislative agenda, upcoming House business, and key issues facing the Republican majority.

He then addressed the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision holding that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States, including those whose parents are in the country unlawfully or temporarily.

The ruling struck down Trump’s executive order and left intact the current interpretation that children of illegal aliens and foreign nationals born on U.S. soil are American citizens.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

Johnson said he needed time to fully read the opinion but made clear he was disappointed by the outcome.

“I think anybody who looks at this, oh dear, what do they roll? Well. This is real time. I need to read the opinion okay but obviously that’s you could say that’s a textualist originalist view however I do think um grossly abused in recent years,” Johnson said.

The speaker argued that birthright citizenship has been widely abused and said the original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment has been stretched far beyond what its framers intended.

“The plaintiffs in a case then we’re very sympathetic to them because it is serious problem with of its become tourism birthing terrorism you know atren where people would just common use come onto this oil have your child in there they were able to avail themselves as well first aid everything else it’s it’s been abused it’s one those things that wasn’t intended it’s been uh… thwarted and overused abused,” Johnson added.

Johnson said Congress may now be forced to confront the issue directly, though he acknowledged the difficulty of changing the Constitution.

“So I’m sure that will continue to look at them they ensure the conclusion from this opinion is going to be there you gotta have a but he could amend the Constitution of fix that as we all know what said it’s a big challenge him in the constitutions only happened 20 seven times an article nations history reasoners because again two-thirds other both chambers of Congress three force states ratify usually uh… we’ll see I’m sure there’s gonna be lots of discussion about that obviously a very disappointed in the outcome um… I think it subjects to country two serious challenges going forward and what deal with as Congress,” Johnson declared.

Trump issued the executive order on Jan. 20, 2025, his first day back in office.

The order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” argued that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted after the Civil War to secure citizenship for newly freed slaves, not to grant automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens or temporary foreign visitors.

“The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'” the order stated.

“Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that ‘a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text,” the order continued.

The executive order said automatic citizenship should not extend to certain categories of children born in the United States.

Among them were children born when the mother was unlawfully present in the country and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth.

The order also applied to children born when the mother was lawfully but temporarily present in the United States, such as on a student, work, tourist, or Visa Waiver Program entry, and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Trump’s administration argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” had been misread for decades and that the modern birthright citizenship system created incentives for illegal immigration, birth tourism, and abuse of America’s immigration laws.

The Supreme Court majority rejected that argument, ruling that the Constitution’s birthright citizenship guarantee extends broadly to children born on American soil.

Trump personally attended oral arguments in the case, Trump v. Barbera, in April, an extraordinary move for a sitting president.

For conservatives, the ruling is a major setback in the fight to restore a more limited and original understanding of American citizenship.

Trump’s order sought to confront one of the most controversial incentives in the immigration system: the promise that a child born inside U.S. borders automatically becomes a citizen, regardless of the parents’ legal status.

Supporters of the president’s position argue that this has encouraged illegal immigration, birth tourism, and a system where citizenship is treated less like a sacred national bond and more like a legal loophole.

The Court’s decision now puts the issue back in Congress’ hands.

But as Johnson noted, a constitutional amendment would be extraordinarily difficult, requiring two-thirds support in both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.

That means the political fight over birthright citizenship is far from over.

The Supreme Court may have ruled against Trump’s executive order, but the broader debate over what American citizenship means, who qualifies for it, and whether the current system is being abused will remain a defining issue for Republicans heading into the next election cycle.