Tangle - The birthright citizenship case before SCOTUS.

Episode Date: April 2, 2026

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. While a majority of justices seemed skeptical of the Trump administration’s argument that the order should be upheld, several conservative justices appeared similarly unconvinced by the plaintiffs’ case. President Trump attended the arguments, a first for a sitting president, though he left before they concluded. Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!Get texts from us.After oral arguments in the birthright citizenship case concluded yesterday, subscribers to Tangle’s free SMS messaging service, Subtext, got a first peek at Isaac’s analysis of the case. For more instant commentary on the biggest stories, as well as chances to help Tangle choose daily topics and occasional looks behind-the-scenes, join our Subtext channel by clicking here or texting TANGLE to [phone].You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our "The road not taken." ⁠here⁠. story and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: How do you think the Supreme Court will rule in this case? Let us know.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and audio edited and mixed by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, a place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Sall, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about the SCOTUS birthright citizenship case. That's right, we had oral arguments yesterday over birthright citizenship before the Supreme Court. We're going to break down exactly what happened. Share us and views from the left and the right. And then my take, it is Thursday, April 2nd. I'm here in the studio in Philadelphia and excited to be with you guys. Before we jump in, a quick promo for our SMS texting service, which we kind of had in full force this week. We were offering some instant analysis and feedback to some of the Supreme Court cases that were happening. We were keeping in touch with people over spring break when the newsletter and the podcast were off. We have an SMS service. There's like 15,000 people on it or something like that.

It's pretty fun. I think we're going to keep doing it. We text out original analysis, polls to help decide what the topics are for the next day's newsletter or podcast, behind the scenes stuff. And it's all right to your phone. If you'd be interested in that kind of thing,

you can text Tangle to 850-33-9163. That's Tangle to 850-338-9163. or you can just click the link in today's episode description. With that, I'm going to send it over to John for today's main topic, and I'll be back for my take. Thanks, Isaac, and welcome, everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, President Donald Trump delivered a national address Wednesday evening, calling

the U.S. military's operation in Iran a success and saying it was very close to fulfilling its objectives. He suggested the war will continue for up to three weeks. Separately, President Trump said in an interview that he is strongly considering pulling the United States out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, expressing displeasure with member states' refusal to support the U.S. military in Iran. Number two, Republican House and Senate leaders announced a plan to end the Department of Homeland Security shutdown by passing funding that excludes immigration and customs enforcement and

customs and border protection, later funding the agencies through the budget reconciliation process. They did not specify a timeline for a vote on the appropriations bill. Number three, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration launched Artemis 2, a roughly 10-day lunar fly-by mission from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The four astronauts on board will travel the farthest any human has been from Earth if the mission goes according to plan. Number four, the United States lifted sanctions on Venezuela's acting President Delci Rodriguez, enabling her to work more freely with American companies and investors. And number five, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reportedly declared a very general. recent China-linked cyber intrusion into an agency's surveillance system as a major incident,

suggesting that hackers compromised sensitive data in the hack. The major incident determination denotes a significant risk to U.S. national security. Back here now, the Supreme Court hearing arguments over the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. President Trump, they're in the chamber face-to-face with the justices, most of them with sharp questions about his rationale. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging President Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship. While a majority of justices seem skeptical of the Trump administration's argument that the order should be upheld, several conservative justices appeared similarly unconvinced by the plaintiff's case. President Trump attended the arguments, a first for a sitting president, though he left before they concluded.

For context, on the first day of his second term, Trump signed an order saying that a child born in the the U.S. will not get citizenship if their father is not a citizen or permanent resident, and their mother is either in the country illegally or only there temporarily. The order was immediately challenged on the grounds that it violated the 14th Amendment. District judges in several states blocked the order, and appeals courts declined the government's requests to lift or narrow the injunctions. The Trump administration appealed the injunctions to the Supreme Court, which ruled six to three in June of 2025, that the lower courts exceeded their authority.

In December 2025, the court agreed to consider a challenge to the merits of the order. The 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause reads, 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 Trump administration contends, among other points, that the executive order restores the original meaning of the amendment, which they claim was enacted to give citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their children, but should not apply to children whose parents are in the country illegally.

The plaintiffs argue that the Citizenship Clause clearly confers citizenship to anyone born in the United States, noting that the drafters of the 14th Amendment did not specify any exceptions to the clause's language. A large portion of the oral argument centered on United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898, which affirmed the principle of birthright citizenship for almost everyone born on American soil, regardless of their parents' status. arguing for the Trump administration, U.S. Solicitor General John D. Sauer suggested that a child's parents had to be legal residents to confer citizenship. Justice Neil Gorsuch, among others, questioned this argument, noting that the U.S. did not have select immigration laws when the 14th Amendment was ratified. Cecilia Wang, who represented the challengers, argued the residence question in Wang Kim Ark was not relevant to the current case.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked why the question of domicile, a person's intended permanent home country should be ignored when it appeared 20 different times in the ruling. But Wang noted that the majority said six times that domicile is irrelevant under common law. Today, we'll break down oral arguments in the case with views from the left and the right, and then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right. First let's start with some agreement. Commentators on the left and the right think the Supreme Court will strike down the order, though perspectives vary on how they'll do so. And now for what the left is saying. The left expects the order to be struck down, noting conservative justice's pushback on the administration's arguments.

Some say the ruling could be another major Supreme Court loss for Trump. Others stress the relevance of court precedent. In Vox, Ian Milheiser wrote, Even this Supreme Court seems unwilling to end birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment's subject to the jurisdiction rule primarily excludes the children of foreign ambassadors and similar foreign officials from U.S. citizenship, because the families of diplomats often enjoy diplomatic immunity from U.S. law, Milheiser said. Trump's attempt to expand this subject to the jurisdiction exception, to include

children of undocumented immigrants and people here on a temporary basis, received a cold reception from nearly all of the justices. Similarly, after Sauer claimed that we live in a new world where pregnant foreign nationals allegedly enter the U.S. to ensure that their child will be a U.S. citizen, Chief Justice John Roberts responded that, it's a new world, it's the same constitution. Justice Amy Coney-Barrott offered a clever hypothetical exposing a contradiction in Sauer's legal argument, Milheiser wrote. Barrett asked about an enslaved person who was brought to the United States against their will,

who always viewed themselves as a captive and who never intended to remain in the U.S. Under Sauer's domicile rule, she pointed out, this person could not be a citizen even though Sauer concedes that the 14th Amendment does give citizenship to freed slaves. In the American prospect, Robert Cutner explored Trump's losing streak in court.

Chief Justice John Roberts observed to Solicitor General D. John Sauer that all of his attempts to extrapolate from rare situations where birthright citizenship did not apply were far-fetched, Cutner said. Justice Brett Kavanaugh reminded Sauer that Congress, in 1940 and 1952, passed federal statutes codifying the language of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause. Congress passed those laws, Kavanaugh said, well aware of the interpretation, dating to the 1898 Supreme Court ruling that birthright citizenship applied to virtually everyone born on U.S. soil.

Trump was in the front row of the gallery, the first sitting president to attend a Supreme Court argument. The justices did not acknowledge his presence, Cutner wrote. If the idea was that his personal attendance would somehow intimidate the justices, it didn't work. With each succeeding decision, most recently in its 6-3 ruling overturning Trump's use of emergency tariffs, a supposed emergency that Roberts ridiculed in his opinion, this court grows bolder and more explicit in its restraint of Trump. In the New York Times, Stephen Ivelack said, lose the birthright citizenship case, but in a way, he already won. This has always been an open-shut case under almost any approach to constitutional and statutory interpretation. What may get lost in the

discussion of such an outcome is the uniquely twisted procedural path that this case took to the Supreme Court, one that along the way made it much harder for lower federal courts to block lawless executive action, Vladik wrote. Initially, the issue the justices took up was whether the three federal district courts that had blocked its implementation had exceeded their authority by having their rulings apply on a nationwide basis. In a six to three decision handed down in June, the Supreme Court's Republican appointees all said yes. In the nine months since the Supreme Court's ruling constraining nationwide injunctions, we've seen how difficult it has been to challenge everything from immigration detention to the conduct of federal agents in and around Minneapolis,

to the administration's summary cancellations of federal programs and grants authorized by Congress Vladick said. We must not lose sight of the opportunities the court won't have to rein in the administration when it overreaches, and the court's own responsibility for creating such an increasingly dangerous reality. All right, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. Many on the right support the Trump administration's arguments, but expect the court to strike the order down. Some say the conservative justices poked meaningful holes in the government's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Others argue the court risks its legitimacy if it rules against Trump. In Fox News, Greg Jared described the court's posture as wary. Sauer was an impressive advocate

with a masterful command of the law and history. However, he faced a level of skepticism from a majority of the court, which suggests that in the end, Trump's executive order may be struck down, Gerrit wrote. Granted, divining an outcome based solely on oral arguments can be equivalent to reading tea leaves. The dynamic could change behind closed doors and upon further deliberations, but it cannot be overlooked that even conservative justices at the hearing, posed penetrating questions that seem to manifest their doubt. Sauer quoted Senator Lyman Trumbull, a moving force behind the 14th Amendment, who specifically stated that the Citizenship Clause does not encompass individuals

still subject to any foreign power or owing allegiance to anybody else, Chair, it said. However, the justices seemed unmoved by the notion that citizenship should not apply to the children of people who broke the law coming here and have no permission to be in the U.S. In National Review, Dan McLaughlin wrote, no big surprises at the birthright citizenship argument. Oral argument has a way of narrowing disputes. On the one hand, Sauer conceded that he is not asking the court to overturn Wankham Ark, which significantly limits the swing for the fence's appeal of his argument

for those who think that the case was wrongly reasoned from the start, McLaughlin said. On the other hand, while Kavanaugh and a few other justices asked questions about the statutory argument, there seemed to be little appetite for using that as an excuse to avoid the constitutional questions. The move that Sauer makes to turn lawful domicile into the test for who is subject to U.S. jurisdiction by saying that illegal aliens lack the legal capacity to form legal residents here is a modern engraftment onto the 1866-68-Dubates, which discuss nothing of the sort, McLaughlin wrote. In fact, as Justice Barrett noted, if we move from domicile to a theory focused on legal competence to form an allegiance, we should get into some of the logic followed by those of the

anti-bellum defenders of Dred Scott, who argued that slaves had no legal capacity to be citizens. The odds of there being five votes for the administration's entire position, without even overturning Wong Kim Ark, appear pretty distant. In the Federalist, Brecon F. Thes said the court upholds birthright citizenship at its own peril. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this view, allowing any foreigner circumstantially or intentionally born on U.S. soil to be automatically adopted into the union as a citizen, it will mean the end of actual. American citizens taking the high court seriously, these wrote. As Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out, the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship

to black people and freed slaves after the civil war. Making the point further, Thomas asked, how much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration? Sauer's introduction of the issue on birth tourism led to a potentially telling exchange with Chief Justice John Roberts, where Roberts asked about birth tourism's prominence, the he said. Roberts has consistently postured himself as the chief. justice most intent on preserving the institution of the Supreme Court.

That is what makes his line of questioning both confusing and concerning, because it suggests he believes the proper constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment would continue to allow these birthright farms to send foreigners to the United States so their babies can receive rubber-stamped citizenship. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. Right, that is it for the left of the writer saying, which brings us to my take. It's a new world, but it's the same Constitution. When Chief Justice John Roberts delivered that line, the court's decision became obvious.

The Trump administration will likely lose the case at least seven to two, with both justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas in the minority. I'm actually not sure where Alito will land, so it could be 8 to 1. It could even be 9-0 if they focus exclusively on whether an executive order can override the 14th Amendment, though most court watchers believe Alito. is going to be in the minority and vote to end birthright citizenship. Fundamentally, I never thought the Trump administration had a shot here. The 14th Amendment's language is direct. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States

and of the states wherein they reside. All persons is pretty clear cut. And the one qualifier subject to U.S. jurisdiction had a very direct purpose that was well understood at the time and has been well understood since. It was designed to provide citizenship to slaves, but to exclude children of foreign diplomats or children of enemy soldiers

from becoming U.S. citizens simply by being born here. It was also meant as a carve-out for Native American tribes who did not pay taxes and did not want to live under U.S. law. To this day, ambassadors and their families can live on U.S. soil but have diplomatic immunity and no allegiance to their home country, and their children do not become citizens if they are born here. here. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 later resolved the question about Native Americans,

granting them full status as American citizens and full protection of the law. Lastly, we're not at war with an invading country, so the question of enemy soldiers having children here is moot. Credit to Solicitor General John D. Sauer, who had the nearly impossible task of arguing Trump's case, became prepared with some arguments that clearly engaged the court. His arguments are stronger than many critics allow, and history of the court. is replete with anomalies about the 14th Amendment that demand further inquiry. Sauer pulled quotes from late 19th century politicians who defined subject to U.S. jurisdiction as having some kind of allegiance to the United States.

He also attempted to argue that 130 years of legal understanding of United States v. Wang Kim Ark, the 1898 Supreme Court case where the court affirmed the citizenship of a child born to Chinese immigrants was wrong, all while he refrained from asking the court to overturned. that ruling. Rather than offering citizenship for anyone born here to non-citizens, with exceptions for enemy soldiers and foreign diplomats, Sauer argued that the case's description of domiciled meant that someone in the country illegally had to be permanent residence with full allegiance to the United States for their children to be granted citizenship. Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that even Wong's parents did not have full allegiance to the

United States, but Saur never actually defined and wasn't asked to define how he would measure, or gauge allegiance under such a test. Still, he seemed to argue that the circumstances of Wong's life were the only circumstances the court greenlit and precedent didn't apply to every person born on U.S. soil. Putting aside the fact that no court or legislative body has ever interpreted the 14th Amendment or the ruling this way, Justice Amy Coney-Barritt engaged Sauer on his terms.

She asked him about a person brought to America as a slave who viewed themselves as a captive and never intended to stay there. She asked him about a person brought to America as a slave who viewed themselves as a captive and never intended to stay here. Under Sauer's framework, this person's child could not be a citizen, even though the 14th Amendment was specifically designed to give such a person's citizenship. Sauer's struggled to navigate the hypothetical. Traditionally speaking, subject to the jurisdiction thereof has been understood to mean bound by U.S. laws. Sauer's interpretation suggests that children of immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore not bound.

by our laws. As Voxes, Ian Milheiser pointed out under what the left is saying, that would mean the federal government could not deport them, even if they were in this country illegally, nor could they arrest them if they committed a crime. The idea makes no sense. When Trump issued this executive order, Reagan appointed judge with more than 40 years on the bench immediately struck it down, saying he couldn't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. The justices at times seem similarly gobsmack, though far more measured. Justice Brett Kavanaugh spent his time questioning Cecilia Wang, the ACL lawyer, representing the challengers, by effectively asking her how she might want the court to strike the order down.

Justice Elena Kagan criticized Sauer's argument as drawing on obscure, out-of-context quotes, while Chief Justice John Roberts said his reading was quirky, and Justice Neil Gorsuch gently suggested Sauer may not want to rely on Wong Kim Arc, the very case that has, for 130 years, affirmed U.S. citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil. Of course, I think the Trump administration is right that Congress and the states were not exclusively, specifically, or even partially considering the question of illegal immigration or birth tourism when they ratified the 14th Amendment. Illegal immigration didn't exist then as we had actual open borders. The law didn't account for someone crossing the border, claiming asylum, giving birth to a child, and having that child become an American citizen. nor did statutes anticipate navigating multi-million-dollar birth tourism companies.

It wouldn't be the worst thing for the court to consider how to carve out some of those specific more nefarious means of gaining citizenship, yet that sounds much more like a job for Congress than anyone else. These unintended consequences are true of all manner of rights and amendments. When Congress ratified the Second Amendment, they anticipated local governments maintaining well-regulated militias, not individuals building up entire armories in their basements. To anyone who wants to argue against it, the refrain is you have to pass an amendment. The same counterpoint applies here. The 1868 Congress wasn't attempting to greenlight birth tourism

or mass migration, but they didn't pass the 14th Amendment to limit it either. Both ideas are equally absurd, so we're left with the actual text of the amendment, which is that anyone born here is a U.S. citizen with very limited and narrow exceptions. That's the rule of law, and if we don't like it, we can elect people to change it. It's a new world, but it's the same constitution. While Sauer and Trump do clearly seem destined for a loss here, the court did briefly consider what might happen if they won. The open questions this produced made the practicality of radically altering the understood meaning of the 14th Amendment so fraught as to be nearly impossible. When a woman gives birth, would she have to immediately provide proof of citizenship,

and who would be responsible for confirming it? If someone didn't have that document, Would we start trying to measure their intent to domicile or allegiance to the United States? How would allegiance be defined? And also, what if a presidential administration said it wanted to apply this standard retroactively? Would we then start revoking citizenship? On the advisory opinions podcast, Sarah Isker had a funny exchange with her co-host, David French, where she wondered aloud if her own citizenship would hold up. She wasn't sure her Irish immigrant ancestors ever got actual citizenship before having children. Much about this. From the the early executive order to Sauer's reinterpretation of long-held views to the practical implications seem so far-fetched as to produce a foregone conclusion. It won't end the immigration debate, but it should put to bed any questions about what the 14th Amendment actually means.

We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one is from Debnaath in Oakland, California. Debnaz said, I was wondering if there is some concrete data out there that helps us compare the effect of deployment of National Guard troops in our cities on crime reduction. Now that the troops are being withdrawn, it'll help check if things become safer before versus during and possibly verse after. Okay, so tough one. First of all, yes, we have some preliminary data for several of these cities. And as a reminder, President Trump deployed the National Guard to address crime in five cities in 2025. Washington, in D.C., Portland, Oregon, Memphis, Tennessee, Chicago, Illinois, and New Orleans, Louisiana.

The administration also deployed troops to Los Angeles in June, but their deployment was in direct response to violent protests in the city not to address crime, and the guard was ordered withdrawn in July. The withdrawal in Los Angeles was completed in January, and guardsmen in Portland and Chicago were limited to protecting DHS facilities and quickly withdrawn. So for the purposes of your question, I think we should only consider D.C., Memphis, and New Orleans, this analysis. Before we provide any before or after statistics on these cities, I have three points of caution. First, we don't have enough information to say that any changes in crime rates here are caused by deployments. Any number of factors could be driving these numbers one way or the other.

Second, these figures only represent a small span of time. Troops have not been in these cities for very long, so the effect of their presence may be muted, and the National Guard is prohibited from arresting citizens so they can only assist other agents further dulling their potential. effect. Third, it should definitely be noted that crime rates were already trending down in many of these cities before deployment, so we should not try to analyze these numbers in isolation. For contents, from 2023 to 2025, homicides declined by 54% in D.C., 47% in Memphis and 54% in New Orleans. With that said, here is the most up-to-date data. In Washington, D.C. since August, year-to-date data through April 2nd shows 12 murders compared to 34 during the state.

same period last year, a 65% decrease. The city also had a 21-day homicide-free streak in January, the longest in nearly 30 years. Separately, assault with the dangerous weapon crimes are up 32%. Next up Memphis. In January 2026, Part 1 crimes, that serious offenses, were down 48% compared to January 2025. That's 3,709 incidents down to 1,908. Finally, New Orleans, as of March, 27, 2026, murders were down 29% compared to the same point in 2025. So that's the data. I mean, honestly, great data here in most big cities right now. Crime is down everywhere, but tying it to the National Guard deployments is pretty hard.

All right, that's it for my take and your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod, and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Hey, folks. We're trying out some new section offerings, and this week we're doing a section called The Road Not Taken, which offers a peek behind the curtains at Tangle's editorial process, highlighting one story from the week that we almost covered as a main topic and an explanation

for why we ultimately chose another. This week, the Tangle team considered covering the Supreme Court's decision on conversion talk therapy. In Childs v. Salazar, the court cited 8 to 1, with a Colorado counselor's challenge to a law barring therapy intended to change a person's sexual orientation or gender expression, finding that the law regulates speech. based on viewpoint and that lower courts did not apply sufficient scrutiny during review. We ultimately decided the importance of the recent oral arguments on mail and ballots and birthright citizenship superseded covering the child's decision since we had covered oral arguments in the case in October. As our staff expected then, the Supreme Court ultimately didn't reject

the Colorado law on the merits. It sent the case back to the lower courts. You can check out our original coverage of Childs with a link in today's episode description. And last but not least, our have a nice day story. On March 21st, Coloradoans Emistasco and Logan Bond found themselves stranded on a remote beach in the Hawaiian island of Oahu during a severe flood. The pair had planned to leave the beach earlier in the day, but lost the keys to their rental car

and weren't able to find help before the storm began. They turned to one of the oldest tricks in the book, writing SOS in the sand. A helicopter crew assessing the damage from the storm saw the message and mobilized rescue crews, which quickly reached Stasco and Bonn and brought them to safety. SFGate has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode.

As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to reetangle.com, where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. Isaac Ari and Camille will be here with the suspension of the rules podcast tomorrow, and I will be back next week. For the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off.

Have an absolutely fantastic weekend, y'all. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Wall. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback and associate editor's Audrey Moorhead, Lindsay Canuth, and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at retangle.com.