Reactions Follow Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Ruling

A law professor recently shared his thoughts on the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling against President Donald Trump’s executive order concerning birthright citizenship. He suggested that colleagues who disagreed with the decision should face “retaliation” for their “parasitic” actions.

In the wake of the ruling, many legal scholars took to social media. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while agreeing to block Trump’s order, notably did not acknowledge that birthright citizenship is protected under the 14th Amendment. John Pfaff, a professor at Fordham University School of Law, expressed his criticism on Blue Sky, particularly aimed at those who dissent from the majority view.

“There will definitely be consequences for any lawyer making such an untenable argument,” Pfaff stated. He further characterized their behavior as parasitic, though not in the literal sense, suggesting it’s a harmful contribution to the discourse.

Pfaff continued, saying, “They are abusing norms of collegiality to push their questionable opinions.” He emphasized this undermines the efforts of everyone in the field. He argued if such arguments yield no cost and benefit only from wealthy, anti-democratic figures, those involved should be suspended from academia until they retract their positions.

“Academics can’t complain about the disconnect between facts and policy while ignoring those who fabricate,” he asserted, pointing out that some dissenters, like Wurman, are damaging the credibility of the field as a whole.

On a related note, Pfaff mentioned Ilan Wurman, a constitutional law scholar at the University of Minnesota Law School, who was cited in dissenting opinions by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch concerning the birthright citizenship case.

Adrianne Vermeule, a professor at Harvard Law School, expressed disbelief at Pfaff’s remarks, calling them absurd. He remarked on how Wurman and others presented innovative legal arguments that played a significant role in the debate, arguing that attempting to “cancel” them seems fundamentally misguided.

Wurman commented to Kohler, mentioning that many scholars find such inquisitory behavior less palatable than dissenting scholarship itself. He noted some peers had privately acknowledged the complexity of the birthright citizenship issue.

In a follow-up, Pfaff acknowledged his earlier comments might have been “too blunt,” reiterating that while academic freedom allows for expression without institutional constraints, it does not mean there won’t be consequences for one’s assertions.

He added that ideally, poor work would receive natural consequences through neglect, yet that doesn’t seem to have happened in this situation, which introduces a troubling precedent.

Pfaff did not respond to further inquiries for comments.