Sign up for Executive Dysfunction, a weekly newsletter that surfaces under-the-radar stories about what Trump is doing to the law—and how the law is pushing back.

After Wednesday’s oral arguments in this term’s blockbuster birthright citizenship case, one thing became much clearer: The Trump administration’s entire argument hinges on a tendentious two-step, one that the majority of justices do not seem to be buying. It’s important to unpack the absurdity of the semantic case the administration is making to unlock why this effort to rewire all of American society is almost certain to fail. Critically, the administration’s entire case is rebutted by one of the most famous trials in U.S. history, a case that would have been incredibly fresh in the minds of the Framers of the 14th Amendment and the birthright citizenship clause.

About that semantic argument. First, the Trump administration’s theory requires that the 14th Amendment’s use of the word jurisdiction be reinterpreted to mean “allegiance.” Then, allegiance must be defined to exclude the children of temporary visitors and immigrants lacking legal status. Both parts of the argument are wrong, but the claim about limited allegiance is especially wrong in a way that has not been widely addressed.

Within the first moments of his argument before the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer asserted that birthright citizenship extends only to children whose parents owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States, a phrase that is not found in the relevant passage of the 14th Amendment. Instead, the first sentence of the amendment plainly states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the........

© Slate