Immigration > Birthright Citizenship

Sauer Saved US Citizenship. Was SCOTUS Listening?

The solicitor general’s arguments in the birthright citizenship case now before the Supreme Court should remind us all why and how we’re Americans.

Marly Hornik | April 15, 2026

If the U.S. Supreme Court makes the right move ending automatic birthright citizenship, we may have one man to thank. 

On April 1, 2026, SCOTUS heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, the case set to determine immigration status for babies born on U.S. soil to temporary sojourners and parents who entered the country illegally.  Many Americans fear that a decision automatically granting US citizenship in such cases will result in mounting abuses of voting rights, apportionment, and social services.  The end result could be malign foreign influence within our government alongside unmanageable taxpayer burdens.  An outcome favoring birthright citizenship certainly has the potential to drive more worms out of the can that’s already been open for decades.

Much of the argument in the chamber focused on the specific meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s language, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and whether its Framers had incorporated a British common law definition of citizenship into the phrase. 

In arguing that they had not done so, U.S. solicitor general John Sauer cited a century’s worth of controlling authorities, but it was his brief rebuttal that offered the clearest language for ordinary citizens to ruminate on.

When Sauer stated, “Congress has clearly departed from the common law, the British conception of........

© American Thinker