Brennan Center Reacts to Supreme Court Ruling on Birthright Citizenship ⁠67%

By Newswire Editor⁠94%

6/30/2026, 3:01:50 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 61.9% saturation with 99 hits. Analysis detected 649 faulty-reasoning hits from 160 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠67% (7,151 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.20% of the article peer group.

Today in Trump v. 
Barbara the U.S. 
Supreme Court upheld the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to everyone born in the United States. 
Thomas Wolf, director of democracy initiatives at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, had the following reaction: 
“Today’s ruling is the right one amid an avalanche of Supreme Court opinions undermining our democracy. 
The Court could not have defensibly ruled any differently. 
The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to everyone born here over 150 years ago. 
The Supreme Court affirmed that 20 years later in Wong Kim Ark. 
Meanwhile, the Court has been on an anti-democratic rampage. 
“In just the past few weeks alone, the Court further undermined the Voting Rights Act, encouraged more aggressive partisan gerrymandering, dangerously expanded presidential power over federal agencies, and further depleted protections for immigrants. 
This ruling does not make up for all the damage the Court has done this term.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 46.3%Newswire editor: 9.9%Common Dreams: 8.1%Confirmation Bias46.3%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.4%Common Dreams: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.6%Newswire editor: 6.2%Common Dreams: 5.0%Availability Heuristic20.6%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.1%Common Dreams: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.7%Common Dreams: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Newswire editor: 1.7%Common Dreams: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 20.8%Common Dreams: 17.7%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 10.0%Newswire editor: 1.4%Common Dreams: 1.0%Loss Aversion10.0%This article: 8.1%Newswire editor: 1.0%Common Dreams: 0.6%Status Quo Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.3%Common Dreams: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.7%Common Dreams: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.6%Newswire editor: 3.1%Common Dreams: 2.8%Pessimism Bias15.6%This article: 56.3%Newswire editor: 22.3%Common Dreams: 20.7%Negativity Bias56.3%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.0%Common Dreams: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 3.1%Common Dreams: 2.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 4.3%Common Dreams: 3.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.6%Common Dreams: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.0%Common Dreams: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.6%Common Dreams: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 20.6%Newswire editor: 1.7%Common Dreams: 1.4%Recency Bias20.6%This article: 8.1%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.5%Primacy Effect8.1%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 5.4%Common Dreams: 6.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.0%Common Dreams: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.1%Newswire editor: 6.9%Common Dreams: 5.7%Appeal to Authority13.1%This article: 5.6%Newswire editor: 4.0%Common Dreams: 3.2%False Dilemma5.6%This article: 20.6%Newswire editor: 3.7%Common Dreams: 3.3%Slippery Slope20.6%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 26.3%Newswire editor: 10.4%Common Dreams: 8.7%Hasty Generalization26.3%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.3%Common Dreams: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 2.6%Common Dreams: 2.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 36.3%Newswire editor: 20.5%Common Dreams: 18.7%Appeal to Emotion36.3%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 5.0%Common Dreams: 3.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 5.4%Common Dreams: 4.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 10.0%Newswire editor: 1.5%Common Dreams: 1.2%Burden of Proof10.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.3%Common Dreams: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 2.5%Common Dreams: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 2.1%Common Dreams: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.4%Common Dreams: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.6%Common Dreams: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 10.0%Newswire editor: 2.9%Common Dreams: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection10.0%This article: 61.9%Newswire editor: 16.6%Common Dreams: 17.5%Biased Writer Voice61.9%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 11.9%Common Dreams: 8.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 30.6%Newswire editor: 20.3%Common Dreams: 17.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias30.6%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.7%Common Dreams: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.2%Common Dreams: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

160 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker79%attributed speech33writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageThomas Wolf • 19 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Wolf • 16 words • 100.0% coverageThomas Wolf • 9 words • 100.0% coverageThomas Wolf • 13 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Wolf • 12 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Wolf • 9 words • 100.0% coverageThomas Wolf • 33 words • 100.0% coverageThomas Wolf • 16 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Thomas Wolf

85%flagged-word coverage
127 attributed words100% of attributed speech48% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Biased Writer Voice+16.9 ptsWriter: 48.5%Thomas Wolf: 65.4%65.4%Politically Left Leaning B+38.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Thomas Wolf: 38.6%38.6%Quote-first Misdirection+12.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Thomas Wolf: 12.6%12.6%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.