Newsweek36%
Johnson Says Congress Must Address Birthright Citizenship After SCOTUS Loss 19%
By Steve Mollman42%
7/5/2026, 5:52:59 PM
Topics: Congress, Mike Johnson, Donald Trump, Birthright Citizenship, Supreme Court, Scotus, Immigration
Keywords: Congress, Mike Johnson, Donald Trump, Birthright Citizenship, Supreme Court, Scotus, Immigration
BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Optimism Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 19.7% saturation with 207 hits. Analysis detected 1,666 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,049 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34% and a BS Rank of 19% (17,763 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 81.20% of the article peer group.
House Speaker Mike Johnson said Sunday that Congress must take up the legislative fight over birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court struck down an executive order by President Donald Trump that sought to restrict the practice.
The comments by the Louisiana Republican signal that party leaders are pivoting to a new legislative strategy following one of the most significant legal defeats of Trump’s second term.
Johnson argued that lawmakers should act after the high court's 6-3 decision preserved automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status.
Speaking on *Fox News Sunday,* Johnson claimed the current system is being abused through "birthright tourism" and suggested the House would move quickly if a legislative path is viable.
"Justice [Clarence] Thomas explained that the 14th Amendment, the original intent, was to enhance and really value citizenship," Johnson said.
"And it's been devalued because of birthright tourism, which is what we have now.
It's a threat to the rule of law and national security.
We do need to address it."
The development comes less than a week after the Supreme Court's ruling and days after Trump urged lawmakers on social media to "start TODAY" on legislation to end the practice, setting up a fresh constitutional and political battle ahead of the midterm elections in November.
The ruling in *Trump v.
Barbara* represented a major setback for the administration's efforts to narrow the scope of birthright citizenship through executive action.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said children born in the United States "are citizens at birth," reaffirming longstanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause.
Roberts wrote that the framers of the amendment extended citizenship to "every free-born person in this land" and that the court was maintaining that promise.
The decision preserved the legal framework established by the court's landmark 1898 ruling in *United States v.
Wong Kim Ark*, which held that a child born in the U.S. to immigrant parents was an American citizen.
The Trump administration had sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents were undocumented or held temporary legal status.
Multiple lower courts blocked the policy before it reached the high court.
Rather than dropping the issue after the ruling, Trump called on lawmakers to intervene.
"The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation," he wrote on Truth Social following the decision.
The president argued that Congress should begin work immediately on legislation ending birthright citizenship and insisted that "no long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary!"
The president has long maintained that the 14th Amendment was intended exclusively to protect formerly enslaved people after the Civil War and was never designed to grant automatic citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors.
He has also repeatedly cited concerns over foreign nationals traveling to the U.S. specifically to give birth so their children obtain citizenship.
Johnson did not outline specific legislation Sunday, but suggested lawmakers would pursue any avenue available.
"If there is a bill that can fix that, we'll advance that immediately," he said, while acknowledging that a constitutional amendment would be more difficult and time-consuming.
The speaker’s comments place him at the center of an emerging debate among conservatives over whether Congress possesses the authority to alter birthright citizenship through ordinary legislation, or if a constitutional amendment is strictly required.
Some Republicans argue that Congress could pass a law redefining what it means to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.—a key phrase within the 14th Amendment.
Others maintain the Constitution itself must be amended.
Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri argued after the ruling that legislation alone cannot resolve the issue and announced plans to pursue a constitutional amendment.
Johnson has previously acknowledged that amending the Constitution may ultimately be the necessary route.
During his interview appearance on Fox News, Johnson specifically pointed to a dissenting opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas as a roadmap for the party.
Thomas argued that the Supreme Court had improperly expanded the meaning of the 14th Amendment and suggested the majority's interpretation may eventually be revisited.
"I am not sure that today's opinion will stand the test of time," Thomas wrote.
"The Citizenship Clause 'added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.'
Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship."
His dissent became a rallying point for conservatives disappointed by the ruling.
While Roberts' majority opinion reaffirmed settled precedent, Thomas argued that the amendment had been transformed into something the Reconstruction-era Congress never intended.
Justice Samuel Alito also dissented, arguing the Citizenship Clause was never meant to apply broadly to everyone born in the United States regardless of parental status.
A central legal pillar of the court's ruling against the administration was the 128-year-old precedent of *United States v.
Wong Kim Ark*.
Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese immigrant parents.
After being denied reentry to the U.S. following a trip to China, he challenged the federal government's decision.
In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that because Wong had been born on American soil, he was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.
That decision has anchored American citizenship law for more than a century.
Following the court's ruling last week, descendants of Wong's family issued a statement saying the decision preserved a bedrock constitutional principle that has defined American citizenship for generations.
Despite Trump's insistence that Congress can act through legislation, many legal scholars say any attempt to restrict birthright citizenship would almost certainly trigger another major constitutional challenge.
A constitutional amendment faces even steeper structural hurdles.
Such an effort requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate, followed by ratification from three-fourths of the states.
Still, congressional Republicans appear determined to push forward.
Johnson’s comments, paired with Trump’s demands and Thomas’ dissent, indicate that conservatives are shifting their focus from executive actions to Capitol Hill.
While the Supreme Court's ruling leaves birthright citizenship intact for now, the ongoing debate over legislation, future litigation, and potential constitutional amendments ensures the issue will remain a central fixture of the national political landscape.
*Contact Newsweek editor for this story: Anthony Murray*.
Speakers
7speakers43%attributed speech596writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageDonald Trump
117 attributed words26% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.