Folarin Balogun has helped secure a position for the American soccer team in the World Cup… for the second time. That’s perhaps a nice counterpoint for those who might be unsettled by today’s 5-4 decision leaning toward birthright citizenship. Balogun, a notable player, was born to Nigerian parents who were temporarily in the U.S. and later raised in England.
According to the Supreme Court, he is, and always intended to be, a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The court’s ruling, albeit a narrow 5-4 division, is still significant—just as in soccer, a one-point victory can feel just as valuable as a blowout. “The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘all persons born free in this land,’” noted Chief Justice John Roberts in his majority opinion. We uphold that promise today.
In what appears to be a surprising alliance, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with three liberal justices, concluding that the language and intent of the amendment clearly establish that simply being born in the country confers citizenship—even for visitors or those born here for a limited time.
This perspective differs from most countries around the world, many of which view birthright citizenship as peculiar. The U.S. stands out, continuing to uphold this practice.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, with Justice Neil Gorsuch joining him. They argued that the court seemed to fabricate a principle here and that it neglected to reassess its previous judgments, particularly a 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which broadened the scope of birthright citizenship beyond what earlier lawmakers had intended. Thomas pointed out that the decision could have been resolved more narrowly, arguing it should only apply to children born to lawful, permanent residents.
This 5-4 ruling sparked considerable backlash against Barrett on social media, especially since she was involved in a similar slim decision regarding mail-in voting alongside Roberts and her liberal counterparts.
Interestingly, Barrett has evoked mixed reactions. Many expected her to align closely with more conservative justices like Alito and Thomas. Instead, she often collaborates with Roberts.
The criticism directed at Barrett tends to overlook that valid arguments exist on both sides of the birthright citizenship issue. It also fails to recognize that she has voted consistent with conservative values and supported government positions. For instance, she backed laws that require transgender athletes to compete according to their biological sex and has voiced criticisms against recognizing transgender individuals as a protected class.
Former President Trump expressed disappointment over the ruling, but it doesn’t erase what many consider a significant aspect of his legacy: appointing independent-minded justices like Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. He aspired to have principled conservatives on the bench, and he delivered. They have undeniably reinvigorated intellectual discussions within legal circles.
When I testified during Gorsuch’s Senate confirmation, I stated that it was misguided to categorize candidates too rigidly. He has proven to be just the kind of independent thinker we hoped for, illustrating a strength in Trump’s judicial selections.
Regarding birthright citizenship, the focus has shifted to state governing rather than federal courts, leaving the matter largely unresolved at the national level. We haven’t had a comprehensive discussion about this policy, and its future remains largely a judicial concern.
We might need to contemplate whether a constitutional amendment is necessary to address this issue.
Congress can initiate laws aimed at limiting birth tourism, but the question remains why certain births, like Balogun’s, take place in the U.S.
As we approach our nation’s 250th anniversary, I can’t think of a more fitting conversation than exploring what it truly means to be a citizen of this unique republic.
