Staff Reports
The Supreme Court’s decision to block the President’s executive order on birthright citizenship has tossed the fight back into Congress. Senator Eric Schmitt did not mince words: the ruling is “wrong, dangerous, and disastrous for American sovereignty and the American people.” If you care about secure borders, clear law, and the rule of law that answers to voters — not tweets — this ruling matters. Below I break down what happened, why Schmitt is right to push back, and what comes next.
Schmitt’s Response: Fix It or Amend It
Senator Eric Schmitt moved quickly. He called the Supreme Court’s ruling unacceptable and said he will introduce statutory language and push for a constitutional amendment if needed. Schmitt even circulated a draft amendment that would limit birthright citizenship to children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Translation: he’s not relying on another presidential order that a court can strike down. He wants a real, lasting fix from the people’s representatives — or from the people themselves through the amendment process.
The Court Decision and What It Means
Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion reaffirmed the long line of cases tracing birthright citizenship back to English common law and United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The ruling shut the door on the specific executive-order route the administration tried. That means the White House can’t unilaterally change who is a U.S. citizen at birth. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s narrower comments may leave some room for Congress to act, but the Court made clear that rewriting the Citizenship Clause is not something the executive branch gets to do alone.
Paths Forward — Congress, Courts, or the Article V Mountain
So what now? Republicans in Congress will likely file bills to limit birthright citizenship and the White House will explore other policy moves like cracking down on “birth tourism” and visa rules. Any statute that tries to narrow the 14th Amendment will be sued immediately and probably return to the courts. The other option Schmitt highlights is a constitutional amendment — the surest fix, but the hardest. Article V requires two-thirds of both chambers and ratification by three-fourths of the states. It’s a steep climb, but when the Court closes one door, lawmakers have to decide whether to fight in court or climb the mountain.
Why Conservatives Should Care — And What To Demand
Conservatives should demand clarity and control from accountable institutions, not creative readings of the Constitution that shift power from voters to judges. Senator Schmitt is doing what he should: pushing Congress to act and reminding folks that the Constitution provides a process when the people want change. If you’re tired of half-measures and legal gymnastics, support a real legislative push — and be honest about the hard work an amendment would require. The stakes are generational. If we don’t make our case now, we’ll be living with sloppy policy and confused law for decades. That’s not just politics — it’s bad governance, and we deserve better.
