NBC Nightly News with Tom Llamas - Introducing Here’s the Scoop: Supreme Court Edition

Episode Date: May 9, 2026

Welcome to “Here’s the Scoop: Supreme Court Edition.” This month, NBC News senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett will be speaking with legal experts and lawyers to discuss the cases being argued this term — and the legal precedents that underpin them. First up: birthright citizenship. On the first day of his second term in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order saying birthright citizenship does not apply to the children of undocumented immigrants, arguing they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. In making its case, the administration has revived arguments from 1898 made in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. A descendant of Wong Kim Ark reflects on the threat to his family’s legacy, and then University of New Hampshire history professor Lucy Salyer analyzes why the administration is relying on a century-old argument to make its case today. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hey, nightly news listeners, it's Laura Jarrett, senior legal correspondent at NBC News. Drop it in your feed here to share a special new episode from the NBC News podcast. Here's the scoop. This month on the show, we're doing something a little different. It's exciting. It's a four-part Supreme Court edition with new episodes on Saturdays in May. I'm talking to legal experts and the lawyers behind some of the biggest precedent-setting cases of the past that shaping the major decisions still left. to come before the High Court. We're going to play you our first episode in this series about Trump v. Barbara. It's the case about birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. So if you like what you hear, subscribe to Here's the Scoop wherever you get your podcast.

When I was a young child growing up, like in San Francisco, and we lived in a mixed community, you know, and we just thought of ourselves as Americans, if that's our understanding of birth. right citizenship. It was understanding that all the children of my age had was born here, born American. Simple as that. My name's Norman Wong. I'm retired. I live near San Francisco about 50 miles away. Like the majority of Americans, Norman Wong is the descendant of immigrants. I'm the great grandson of Wong Kim Mark. I would say if Starting with Wong Kim Mark, what? One, two, three.

There's a couple generations past me, so if I get to include them, what five generations or more? If the name Wong Kim Mark doesn't ring a bell, you aren't alone. It didn't for Norman either. I was probably around 50 years old when I found out about birthright citizenship, Wong-K. Mark, and the Supreme Court.

And Norman only found out by happenstance. I went to visit my father. Apparently, he was visited by, I believe, a local Chinese newspaper. It's when I say local, he was in the Sacramento area. The stuff that I saw, I couldn't read the papers. And it was explained to me that my father was interviewed extensively, and Wang Kim-Arck was the reason.

And so I didn't fully understand the importance of it or why people were making it a big deal. So here's the story. Norman's great-grandfather, Wang Kim-Ark, was born in 1873 in San Francisco's Chinatown, not far from where Norman lives now. Wang Kim-Ark's parents were Chinese immigrants. His father was a merchant.

They were lawful residents who wanted to make a life for them. But it was a time of widespread racism against Asian immigrants. When he was at a young age, his parents took him back to China. That was in 1877. What had happened was that's when Chinatown was burnt down and a lot of Chinese were killed in San Francisco. So they fled that.

But he came back and he came back as a boy. Then in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. which barred most Chinese people from entering the country. More than a decade later in 1895, on his way back to the U.S. from China, Wangamark was denied reentry into the country. Despite having been born in San Francisco, he was told he wasn't American.

The laws were specifically targeting Chinese. It wasn't something that Europeans had to worry about. Now, at this point, Wangamark was in his early 20s, working as a cook in Chinatown. He didn't have money, or position, but his case ended up going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. United States v. Wong Kim Mark is the landmark decision confirming almost anyone born on

U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen, regardless of where your parents are from. I wouldn't call him a special man. I just call him one of the common men, but he was willing to fight for what he believed in, and that was his right to be an American. But that understanding from 1898 could soon be upended. Signed an order that will end birthright citizenship for children of illegal migrants. You know, that case is in court right now. I'm Laura Jarrett, NBC News's senior legal correspondent, and welcome to Here's the Scoop, Supreme Court Edition. For the next few Saturdays, I'm going to be talking to legal experts about some of the most important cases before the Supreme Court right now that have huge implications for the future of our country.

And we're not just talking about current cases. We're going to look back at the precedents the current cases are built on and how they could determine the outcome of the ones the justices are deciding right now. Today, we're talking about Trump v. Barbara. It's just another way that they get illegal immigrants into our country and in some cases very, very bad ones. Go ahead. On day one of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order designed to in-birthright

citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. That order, it's never gone into effect. It was blocked in the lower courts almost immediately. But now it's in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the decision could have a seismic impact on our country. To look back and look ahead, I'd like to bring in Professor Lucy Sahlier. She's a legal historian at the University of New Hampshire, who has spent much of her career focused on the history of immigration law. Professor Salyer, thank you so much for your time. Professor Salyer, when we started this project and our research for this episode, every journal, every article, every book cites you and your work. How did the case of Wong Kim Ark become such a enormous part of your

professional focus? Well, I didn't start out to want to study the history of immigration and citizenship policy. I actually was working at the federal district court in San Francisco, and I was really interested in learning more about how did lower federal courts work. I was studying at a program at the UC Berkeley Law School, the jurisprudence and social policy program, and they taught us to look at any law, but constitutional law, in any courts, but the Supreme Court. So when I was going through the docket book studying the history of this court, I was just amazed by the thousands of cases being filed by Chinese litigants. it was surprising to me because I knew that there had been a really hostile and aggressive anti-Chinese movement.

I knew that the exclusion law had been passed. So I was just really intrigued if these laws were in place and I assumed that the judges weren't necessarily pro-Chinese, how did all these cases get to the court? Who was bringing them? How did they find attorneys? And then what really struck me is that they often won. And so for me, what really prompted me to get involved was just being really curious about this community of people who had such resilience, who, despite being the stereotype that they would never learn how to be American and how to become part of, you know, learn about American democracy, that here they were using one of the most American of strategies, filing lawsuits. and that it was really a striking story of a contest between due process, equality, and, you know, discrimination.

And who was Wong Kim Ark? Our listeners heard a little bit from one of his relatives, but what actually kicked off the legal battle? The case of Wang Kim Ark arose primarily because the U.S. government was trying to figure out a way to enforce the Chinese exclusion laws more strictly. So the Chinese exclusion laws, the first one was passed in 1882, and that forbade the entry of Chinese laborers. So there were still other groups that were allowed to come into the United States, Chinese merchants, students, professionals, and so forth. the Congress and the exclusionists who were backing these restrictionist movements started to tighten up those exemptions. By 1889, the Supreme Court had upheld the sweeping power of Congress

to exclude anyone they wanted for any reason, and they upheld the constitutionality of the Chinese exclusion laws. What happened after that is that a number of Chinese applicants who are coming into the United States claim that they are born in the United States, therefore they're U.S. citizens, and therefore they do not fall under the Chinese exclusion law. So the U.S. government is alarmed by these claims, and they initially seek to test citizenship of Chinese Americans with this strategic hope of trying to shut down what they see as a loophole in the exclusion law.

Obviously, for those who are claiming to be Chinese American citizens, you know, they see the issue quite differently. Long Kim-Arck was born in the United States in San Francisco. He did go back and forth to China to see family. And in 1895, he is denied entry into the U.S. Because the U.S. government has decided to set up a test case. And he just happens to be the wrong guy at the wrong time. So what would happen is that the collector of the port administered the Chinese exclusion laws.

So he and his inspectors, the so-called Chinese inspectors, would board the ship and interrogate the various people on board to see if they had a lawful claim to enter the United States. So when Wang Kimark presented himself, and he would have had a certificate of return, so there were lots of papers, so he had a certificate that said, my name is Wong Kamark. I was born at this address.

And then he had witnesses, white witnesses, who attested to the facts of that, you know, that he was born in San Francisco and that they knew him. And the collector says, okay, we agree. You are born here. But we do not think you're a citizen by virtue of your birth, so we are denying you entry.

And at that point, he has detained. on ship while his case is being heard. Somehow, you know, they get the message to the attorneys. They file a writ of habeas corpus, which means he is being detained unlawfully. And that is the legal mechanism by which it gets before the federal district court in San Francisco. And he wins? He wins there. And then my, I believe he's released on bond at that point. So he can come ashore. But of course, it's quite some time before the whole decision is settled. So when you say it's a test case, that's because the U.S. government wanted to be able to exclude Chinese immigrants, and they thought they would win. I think they hoped they would win.

I think that from the beginning, it was a pretty bold argument because birthright citizenship had been so firmly entrenched in U.S. law and in U.S. history that it was going to be an uphill battle. But nonetheless, they figured given the times, it was very, the Supreme Court had just upheld Plessy v. Ferguson, the constitutionality of racial segregation. It had read the 14th Amendment very narrowly, and racial, you know, racial policies, the Chinese exclusion policy had turned out to be really popular. So I assume that what they were thinking is that given the political and social environment that this policy might fly. So that's what Wong-Kamark is walking into before the arguments of this have even started. That's the backdrop. How did his case make it all

the way up to the Supreme Court? Well, again, this is because the Supreme Court, the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Francisco. go is the one who writes to the attorney general to say, look, we need a test case. So he urges the attorney general at the time. Holmes Conrad was the acting attorney general. Holmes Conrad was a southerner by birth. He had been a major in the Confederate Army. He does not like the 14th Amendment for not just the birthright citizenship clause, but he feels that this was an amendment that had been forced upon the South. So he is happy to take on cases that limit federal power, and it offers him a chance to hit back at Reconstruction, which he felt had been a terrible time

in the U.S. history for white Southerners. So you had a sympathetic attorney general that was sitting in office, and the Department of Justice is fully on board. They want to get it to the Supreme Court in the hopes that they'll have better luck there. And at that point, Holmes Conrad is the Solicitor General, and he will be the one arguing the case before the Supreme Court. We're going to take a quick break, and in just a minute, how Solicitor General Holmes Conrad made his case against birthright citizenship and how Wonk and Mark, the cook from San Francisco, won. Stay with us. And we're back with here's the scoop Supreme Court a day. I'm Laura Jarrett, and I'm joined by legal historian Professor Lucy Sahlier talking about the United States versus Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 decision that's come into sharp focus now at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 14th Amendment, obviously, figures enormously not only in this case, but now the birthright citizenship case that the Supreme Court has to decide this term. the 14th Amendment, in terms of the purpose of it, originally, was about making sure that formerly enslaved people were, in fact, American citizens and their descendants were citizens. How does that then get applied and grafted onto all of these other immigrant groups? It certainly was a direct response to the Dred Scott decision of 1857, in which the Supreme Court had held that African Americans, even if they were free, were not citizens of the U.S. So after the Civil War comes to a close and the 13th Amendment abolishes slavery, it becomes clear that the newly freed African Americans need more of an assist from the law because

the southern states had not quite, were not on board yet with emancipation. To put it mildly. To put it mildly, so the 14th Amendment seemed to be necessary, especially after the birthright citizenship clause adopted in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This was the first time that birthright citizenship was codified. President Johnson, Andrew Johnson, who takes over as president after Lincoln's assassination, he vetoes that law. And when he vetoes it, he says African Americans are not yet ready for citizenship. That's one reason. But he also says this is an alarming development because it means that Chinese will become citizens. So right off the bat, Chinese immigrants are figuring in the debate around this. Absolutely. So the Congress is very aware that the birthright citizenship clauses are, even though the primary purpose is absolutely directed at supporting the citizenship and the rights of African Americans, that it had much broader sweep. and it was intended to. You know, you have lots of immigration in this period.

It's the beginning of mass migration. Chinese are only 1.5% of the foreign-born population. But you had over 4 million immigrants from Ireland and Germany. Many of them had served in the war and had been earlier faced discrimination. So the 14th Amendment is really much broader and was meant to be. It wasn't meant just to affect African-Americans,

but to declare a principle of equality and inclusion. Let's read the language for everyone. Just so we have a little constitutional refresher here on the 14th Amendment. Quote, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. The phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof is doing a lot of work there, professor. Yes. For the non-lawyers out there, explain what in the world that means.

Basically, what they were referring to is that there are like a small number of people who would not fall under this birthright citizenship clause. They're referring particularly to children who are born to diplomats who are stationed in the United States or children born to armies that are invading the United States. which didn't have much application, but the first one, there were children born to diplomats when they lived here. But it was widely understood that those diplomats were only subject to their own country's laws. So basically, if some other country can lay claim to you and your allegiance is essentially to that other country, then you were not supposed to be guaranteed birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment?

So that is what, in some ways, what the current Trump administration is trying to argue. You could have people, for example, I just mentioned the Irish and the Germans. Often they left their country. Germans often left without permission. They were supposed to get permission before they left their native countries, and then they became citizens of the U.S. So the home countries often didn't recognize that they had left lawfully, and they don't recognize that they are now citizens of the United States, they still say you owe us your military service. So you do have a conflict there. What the United States has said in this 14th Amendment is if you are born here, your children are born here, even if another country thinks they have dibs on you,

we see you as being a U.S. citizen. What does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction? Is that you were born in the United States, upon your birth, you received. You received. receive the protection of the United States and you owe obedience to its laws. So it's really based upon territorial jurisdiction, not a sense of who do I feel loyal to or what's my political allegiance. It's you're born within the territory, you owe the U.S., your obedience to its laws, and you receive its protection, and that's what's subject to the jurisdiction was largely presumed to mean. The U.S. government in Wonka, Mark, is challenging them. at. They want a more robust sense. They would say it means you're loyal. It means you have no

competing allegiances. So let's talk about what the government was saying back then, because in some ways, it's parallel to what the government is arguing now. The U.S. Solicitor General at the time, Holmes Conrad, who you mentioned, he makes the case on behalf of the government with another attorney, George Collins. What was their main argument? So George Collins and Conrad are arguing the The subject to the jurisdiction means that you have full political allegiance to the United States. And they are using very explicitly racial art and cultural arguments. They argue that even though Chinese Americans are born in the United States, they remain Chinese, both in their allegiances that they have allegiance to the emperor, even if they have never been in China.

it feeds into a lot of the arguments that led to Chinese exclusion in the first place, that Chinese were really different from Europeans, that they had no capacity to assimilate, that their culture and civilization was fundamentally antithetical and dangerous in comparison to European cultures and American culture, white American society. And how did those arguments land? with the justices at the time? Not well.

Partly, I mean, I will say that the other argument is that they are, you know, Conrad especially, is fighting also against the 14th Amendment being read broadly. He wants to narrow national power. And the Supreme Court really doesn't like that part of his argument. He really challenges the whole spirit of reconstruction. Again, he's reflecting the late 19th century in the South, trying to rewrite what the history of reconstruction was like. He says this was a terrible time.

So he's relitigating the Civil War and they're like, no, no, no, we're done. That's a really good way to put it. Yes, he's saying, and the Supreme Court, that's a step too far. You know, they're willing to uphold racial segregation. They are not willing to go along with sort of the whole ditching of reconstruction. They don't like that. And they also say very strongly that the fact that the parents, of Wankhamark could be excluded because of these racist arguments. The law of in the United States

about who could become naturalized after they arrive in the United States and become a citizen, it was restricted to white persons. Since 1790, only white persons could become naturalized citizens. And that was in 1870 amended to allow descendants of Africans to become citizens. But it had been long held that Asians could not become citizens because they're not white. So what Conrad and Collins are arguing is that this met that they were an undesirable group. So the status of the parent should affect the status of the child. And the Supreme Court is very clear. The status of the parents has nothing to do with the status of the child.

So you say the court back then was pretty adamant about that, but it took them a year to decide Wong Kim-Ark's case. Now, there was obviously outside issues that perhaps influenced them like an election. And what do you think ultimately really tip the scales in Wonkim Arks' favor? They're really making a revisionist argument, right? It's the government and Collins. They're making a revisionist argument that just doesn't have legs, right? When you look at the clear text of the amendment, when you look at the legislative history, when you look at how long the birthright citizenship law had been into place since the nation's founding, the cards were too stacked against the government. I think the final thing, though, that was really important is workability. The court stresses that what the government is asking them to do would have tremendous consequences. It's not just going to affect people like Won Kamark. He says, this is going to affect the children,

of Swedes, of Englishmen, of Spaniards, you know. So all these European immigrants, all of their children's citizenship would now be thrown into doubt. And that was just, you know, too much for them to countenance that was going too far. Do you think that that was the bridge too far, the fact that all of these, to put it bluntly, white immigrants could be affected by a rule banning birthright citizenship? I think that was, I think it was really important. And it's also kind of imagining in terms of policy, do you really want a country where most of the people living or lots of the people living in your country are not citizens? They don't, you know, they are like a nation of aliens instead of a nation of immigrants.

That's the kind of road that the government was advocating. Even though the United States lost its case against Wong Kim Mark, It's the very precedent the Trump administration must now grapple with in its case before the Supreme Court. I would first cite Wong Kim Ark on that point because Juan Camark says you're— Well, I'm not sure how much you want to rely on Wong Kim Mark. We'll talk about that argument after a quick break. We're back with Here's the Scoop Supreme Court Edition. Professor Salier, let's move to the birthright citizenship case on the docket today, Trump be Barbara.

Were you surprised that the Trump administration decided to do this on his first, first day in office right off the bat. No. I'm, no, he had made it very clear that this was on his agenda. I hadn't read all of the arguments fully, but once I, you know, once the litigation started and I started reading the briefs, I was really astounded by how much of the arguments were so similar to what had been tried in the 1890s and failed. the sources they were using, which had been quite questionable even at the time, and which had rested on racist assumptions. To find them reaching back to these kinds of sources was a little shocking.

Some of those sources came up at oral argument in this case, and Justice Elena Kagan in particular was laser-focused on them. So the text of the clause, I think, does not support you. I think you're sort of looking for some more technical, esoteric meaning. And then the question comes, okay, if the text doesn't support you, if there's a real history of people using it that way, but as far as I can tell, you know, at the time of the 14, you're using some pretty obscure sources to get to this concept. And it wasn't only Justice Kagan.

Chief Justice John Roberts also questioned the U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer about his interpretation of the Constitution here. Listen to this exchange where Sauer is trying to emphasize that the president's executive order was meant to curb so-called birth tourism, where people are traveling to the U.S. to have babies. Well, it certainly wasn't a problem in the 19th century. No, but, of course, we're in a new world now, as Justice Alito pointed out to, where eight billion people are one plane right away from having a child as a U.S. citizen. Well, it's a new world. It's the same Constitution. Constitution hasn't changed, Professor, but the arguments that the government is making, as you say, are remarkably similar to Wonk and Mark. Why do you think they're doing that?

Well, it would be wonderful to sit down and ask them. I think that part of it is maybe there just aren't other arguments. I'm not sure. I mean, to really challenge this idea of what jurisdiction means they are trying to invest, being subject. to this jurisdiction as having more a robust kind of content about political allegiance. So I think it feeds into our current anti-immigrant moment and a lot of this, you know, you do also see a very similar rhetoric in terms of depicting immigrants as invaders, as menacing. It's a very similar language that was used at the time. You know, when you've portrayed immigrants and their children as being fundamentally alien and dangerous to national security and national identity.

These kinds of arguments, perhaps, for those people who believe those ideas, have some more hold, I guess. So this time around, the government is not asking for Wong Kimark to be overruled, at least not explicitly. Right. They're basically saying it doesn't apply. And there is a distinguishing factor here that makes their case different than Wang Kimark. In particular, the fact that his parents were legally domiciled in the United States.

Help me understand the difference that makes. So both the government and Won Kamak's attorneys agreed that his parents were permanent domiciled residence. So the question becomes whether that was critical to the decision? Or was that just noting that they lived here, right? The government here wants it to be critical. They do. They see this as being sort of, when the court decided the case, that was critical to the lawful status and the birthright citizenship of Wong-Kamark. I think that what was interesting that came out at oral arguments suggested by the justices themselves, that emphasizing the fact that Wong-Kin-Marx parents were domiciled was trying to push back against some of the racist cultural depictions of Chinese at the time.

Can I offer a possible explanation for why Justice Gray made a point of putting domicile in what he said was the holding of the case? So one legal commentator, for example, in arguing why children of Chinese immigrants should not be citizens, is that they said they weren't, Chinese weren't domiciled in the U.S., that they would never become permanent because they were sojourners. So one argument that was brought up is, you know, they are, they were permanent residents. They did come to live and to build businesses. So it was trying to push back against that stereotype.

And so that's what this was about. He couldn't get naturalized because, of a racist law, but they had done everything they could to become part of the American society. There's also the question of how you figure it out in the first place. Take a listen to Justice Gorsuch on that. Whose domicile matters? I mean, it's not the child, obviously. It's the parents you'd have us focus on.

And, you know, what if, is it the husband? Is it the wife? What if they're unmarried? Who's domicile? Well, in the executive order, it draws it to say. between the mother and the father. That's really the mother's domicile. I think that would matter.

Well, but 1868 matters, you're telling us. So what's the answer? The 1868 sources, talk about parental. I'm not aware of them drug into signature between mother or father, but they say the domicile of the child follows the domicile of the parents. And how are we going to determine domicile? I mean, would we use contemporary sources on what qualifies as domicile on a state,

or do we look in 1868? And do we have to do this for every single person? It's interesting to hear Justice Gorsuch, who's obviously appointed by President Trump, really pushing back aggressively on the U.S. Solicitor General there, John Sauer, on how are we going to figure this out? Yeah, I think so, too. And I think he, I mean, there's several really important points that come up there.

And one is that, you know, domicile is not an easy, legal determination to make. Yeah, the bar exam is like chock full of domicile questions that are very hard. Yes. I haven't taken the bar exam, but I trust you on that. And I know that some of the international legal scholars at the time, they're saying, boy, domicile, it's just really hard to kind of pin this doctrine down. So that was from the time period, international law scholars find domicile a really tricky question. And it seemed, you know, they didn't talk about domicile during the debates over the 14th Amendment, nor was it part of the Civil Rights Act of 1860. So it is a difficult argument to establish as sort of the historical basis for their argument. It also raises a question of status. You know, should the status of the parents determine the status of the kids?

The justices also had a fair amount of questions focused on what you might be able to characterize as just the administration of what it would mean to roll back birthright citizenship, sort of just the nitty-gritty of how this country operates. Take a listen to Justice Jackson on that issue. How does this work? Are you suggesting that when a baby is born, people have to have documents, present documents? Is this happening in the delivery room? How are we determining when or whether a newborn child is a citizen of the United States under your rule? And I think that's directly addressed in the SSA guidance that's cited in our brief. What SSA says is there's currently a system where, for example, Social Security numbers,

are generated based on the birth certificate. They say this can still be for the vast majority of instances, it's completely transparent. You will still get a... You're not transparent. I'm just talking about the particulars, because now you say your rule turns on whether the person intended to stay in the United States.

And I think Justice Barrett brought this up. So we're bringing pregnant women in for depositions. What are we doing to figure this out? How much do you think the practical implications of ending birthright citizenship is weighing on these justices? I think it's probably very important. If you really are hinging it on domicile, as we saw, heard in that excerpt, you have to judge intent. Do you have an intent to remain here, which requires a lot of legal interrogation? But just in terms of the documentation, other scholars have

written about how this is going to impact all of us potentially, because all of us now have to be able to provide some documentation that verifies the status of our parents, our status, and so forth. So I think workability is going to be a big question here. I think what's really attractive about the birthright citizenship rule is that it has worked. It's a bright line rule. We heard that repeated by the justices several times. It's a bright line rule that may have policy implications that some people don't like, but it's a much easier rule to apply. And it's really critical that we have bright-line

rules when we're talking about citizenship because so much of our benefit, so much of our rights, our protection when we travel abroad, being having a state and not being stateless, those are really important issues. So we need a very clear rule that's easy to apply. We were able to get in touch with one of the living descendants of Wong Kimmark. This is what Norman Wong had to say about the threat to his great-grandfather's legacy and birthright citizenship. The people that come here, they're looking for a better future. That was the dream. And I think we have to make that dream real and live up to it because that's what we used to promise the world until very recently, that dream. And we take that. We take that.

that away. And America is no longer in America that once was. And I think we will lose a lot for doing that. Professor, if the justice is ultimately in birthright citizenship for undocumented immigrants, what message do you think it would send to people like Norman and to the country more broadly? Well, I think it would be a devastating message. That's such a powerful reflection on his part. and birthright citizenship has rested historically since our founding on the idea that it is better to be a nation of immigrants, a nation of citizens, than to be a nation of aliens. And that this inclusiveness has always been one of the strong points of American history. We certainly have had repeated periods of anti-immigrant sentiment, but one of its strong points has been this incorporation of many different peoples with this understanding that we can have a diverse

society, but still all be American. Professor Lucy Sawyer, thank you. Thank you so much for having me. Next up in our series, Who Gets to Play on Girls' Sports Teams? We're going to hear from the lawyer who helped establish gender identity as a protected class under the law and whether he thinks his own precedent will survive its latest test. Every time a discriminated group seeks to protect equal rights for themselves, they face this kind of backlash and you just have to keep on fighting and push it through.

That's next time on Here's the Scoop Supreme Court edition. Our show was produced by Abigail Brooks and Amanda Llewellyn, Erica Huang engineered with support from Jessica Fenton. Kateri Yocom is executive producer. of Here's the Scoop, and Shalini Sharma is the senior vice president of content development at NBC News. I'm Laura Jarrett. See you next time.