Vance slams SCOTUS birthright citizenship ruling: ‘Major, major mistake’ 58%
By OAN Staff Brooke Mallory0%
7/1/2026, 6:39:28 PM
Keywords: American Politics, Birthright Citizenship, Brooke Mallory, Constitutional Law, Executive Order, Federal Government, Immigration Policy, Jd Vance, Judicial Review, Political Criticism, Separation Of Powers, Supreme Court, Trump Administration, U S Supreme Court, United States, Vice President Jd Vance
BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Availability Heuristic, and Optimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 31.2% saturation with 195 hits. Analysis detected 1,188 faulty-reasoning hits from 626 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.1% and a BS Rank of 58% (8,678 of 20,517 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.70% of the article peer group.
Vice President JD Vance strongly criticized the U.S.
Supreme Court (SCOTUS) following its decision to strike down the Trump administration’s executive order (EO) on birthright citizenship.
Speaking in a televised interview on Fox News, Vance labeled the ruling a “major, major mistake” and argued that the concept of automatic citizenship for children born to illegal aliens or foreign tourists represents an “absurdity to the 14th Amendment.”
Despite the legal blow to one of the administration's signature immigration priorities, Vance maintained an optimistic outlook for the GOP's long-term legal strategy, noting that aspects of the decision were closely divided and suggesting the policy remains vulnerable to future challenges.
“This was a very disappointing ruling from the Supreme Court.
We respect it, but we also think that it was a major, major mistake,” he said.
“One of the things that it might invite, Laura, is people to come here quite literally on a vacation, give birth, and then all of a sudden the child and their family have the full benefits of American citizenship,” Vance told Fox News’s Laura Ingraham.
“It’s just a preposterous ruling, and the absurdity of that outcome suggests why the Supreme Court should have went the other way.
”
The high court's ruling delivered a setback to President Donald Trump’s efforts to unilaterally dismantle the modernized principle that anyone born on U.S. soil should automatically become an American citizen.
While the overall decision to invalidate the EO fell along a 6–3 lines, Vance highlighted the narrower 5–4 split among the justices regarding the broader constitutional understanding of the Citizenship Clause.
According to Vance, this narrow margin suggests that the current interpretation of birthright citizenship is “hanging by a thread” and signals an opportunity for a legal campaign to eventually reverse the precedent, drawing parallels to the ultimate success in overturning landmark decisions like Roe v.
Wade.
The EO at the center of the case sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States unless at least one parent was a citizen or permanent resident.
The GOP administration maintains that the move is a necessary measure to curb “birth tourism” and disincentivize illegal immigration.
Why The 14th Amendment Was Written In The First Place
The Citizenship Clause was crafted in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War with a very specific, urgent purpose: to fundamentally overturn the Dred Scott v.
Sandford decision of 1857 and secure the status of newly freed Black Americans.
Before the amendment’s ratification in 1868, the Dred Scott ruling stood as Supreme Court precedent, notoriously declaring that Black people — whether enslaved or free — were not and could never become citizens of the United States.
Following the Civil War, Southern states began passing “Black Codes.”
These laws were designed to strip freed slaves of their basic rights, forcing them back into a system of legal subservience and leaving them in a stateless limbo.
To permanently shatter those codes, the Reconstruction Congress drafted the 14th Amendment.
“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.”
Vance explicitly expressed disappointment in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's positioning, stating that while nobody is perfect, her vote in the case was a serious error.
Additionally, other administrative officials, including Border Czar Tom Homan, responded to the ruling by calling on Congress to immediately step in with legislative remedies.
Homan warned further that the Trump administration would intensify investigations into exploitation networks and double down on enforcement measures to “combat the broader drivers” of illegal migration following the judicial ruling.
Stay informed!
Receive breaking news alerts directly to your inbox for free.
Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
Speakers
3speakers44%attributed speech349writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageJD Vance
203 attributed words73% of attributed speech88% 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.