Clarence Thomas Obliterates Court's Birthright Citizenship Ruling, Says It 'Devalues' Being an American
Justice Clarence Thomas, in a lengthy dissent, took the majority to task for interpreting the Constitution to mean that citizenship is automatically conferred on anyone born in the United States, regardless of the legal status of the parents.
Thomas argued that the ruling “devalues” what it means to be an American citizen.
In a 6-3 decision on Tuesday, the majority held that an executive order President Donald Trump issued on the first day of his second term violated the Constitution. The order directed that only children born on American soil to legal residents are automatically citizens of the United States.
The Fourteenth Amendment states, in part, “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.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded, “Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.”
Thomas, in his dissent, in which he was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, noted, as Trump previously argued, that the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. It was in direct response to the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision of 1857, which held that blacks were not citizens.
“Both the Civil Rights Act [of 1866] and the Citizenship Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race. Neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States,” Thomas wrote.
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority,” he added.
BREAKING: Justice Clarence Thomas pens a scathing dissent after the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship.
Thomas accuses the majority of “repurposing” the 14th Amendment “to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and… pic.twitter.com/uMEI9C1ct0
— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 30, 2026
Thomas further contended that the Supreme Court majority in its decision “repurposed the Fourteenth Amendment to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot find support in its text. Today, the Court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.”
Birth tourism accounts for up to 26,000 babies being born annually in the United States, and then being taken back to their home countries with American citizenship rights, according to the Migration Policy Institute.
Further, the Center for Immigration Studies reported last year that between 225,000 and 250,000 births to illegal immigrants occurred in 2023, or 7 percent of the total 3.6 million births in the U.S.
Thomas concluded, “I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship. Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.”
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a separate dissenting opinion, “In sum, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on a person who is born in this country or naturalized only if that person is also ‘not subject to any foreign power.’”
“The Court interprets ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ differently. In its view, the phrase simply means subject to the laws that apply to everyone who is present within the country’s borders,” he continued.
Alito observed, “The Court’s interpretation preserves a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally. Immigrants naturally prefer affluent countries where economic opportunities are available. Other than Canada, the United States will be the only affluent nation where birth alone is enough to establish citizenship.”
He ended, “If the Fourteenth Amendment required these results, the country would have to live with them or amend the Constitution. But the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the rule the Court now imposes on the country. In my judgment, the Court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country’s future.”
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
