JUANA SUMMERS, HOST:
All children born in the U.S. are citizens, according to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On his first day in office, President Trump sought to bar citizenship for babies born in the U.S. if their parents entered the country illegally or were only living here temporarily. A majority of justices ruled today that he cannot do that. Joining us now to unpack the decision and what it means are NPR Supreme Court and Justice correspondent Carrie Johnson and our senior national political correspondent Mara Liasson. Hi to both of you.
MARA LIASSON, BYLINE: Hi there.
CARRIE JOHNSON, BYLINE: Hi, Juana.
SUMMERS: Carrie, I want to start with you. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion in this case. What did he say on behalf of the majority?
JOHNSON: The chief took a march through history, starting with English common law, because he says this basically has been the understanding for well over a hundred years. He also mentioned Dred Scott, one of the worst decisions in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court and spent a lot of time on the 14th Amendment. That amendment says all persons born and naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.
The chief was joined by four other justices fully in his opinion, the court's three liberals as well as Amy Coney Barrett. Now, Brett Kavanaugh wrote his own opinion. He agreed that this case - in this case that the people challenging Trump's executive order should win but not based on the 14th Amendment. His reasoning was based on narrower ground that Congress passed laws codifying what that amendment has to say. And those statutes were enough for the court to decide against President Trump here. Kavanaugh said that might mean Congress could go back and have something to say about the law.
SUMMERS: Got it. OK. What about the dissenters in this case?
JOHNSON: They were much more aggressive. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a lengthy dissent, the longest among everyone else who did the writing today. He said the majority misunderstood what the 14th Amendment is about. Justice Samuel Alito says the court made a serious mistake. He also spent time talking about birth tourism. This is also something President Trump's worried about - the idea that wealthy people are coming to the country just to have a baby who becomes a citizen and then leaving without loyalty or allegiance to the country. Now, this does not seem like a widespread problem, but we don't have data on that.
SUMMERS: Mara, over to you. What do you make of this decision and what it might mean for President Trump?
LIASSON: Well, politically, it's a setback. It's a legal loss. If the court had voted for Trump, they would have changed the definition of what it means to be an American and who gets to decide what it means to be an American. Donald Trump was not happy about this decision. He posted on Truth Social, too bad for the country. But he also said that it could be, quote, "easily resolved" if Congress would pass legislation banning birthright citizenship, kind of the Kavanaugh point of view.
SUMMERS: Now, globally, it isn't unheard of for the idea of automatic birthright citizenship to be revoked. Ireland, I believe, did it back 20 years ago. Mara, is this realistic that Congress can address it as some of the conservatives and the president himself have suggested?
LIASSON: Well, conservatives will push for this, but it remains to be seen if a majority - even of Republicans - in Congress want to vote on birthright citizenship this close to an election. Donald Trump has been very frustrated recently about the limits of his power in the Senate. Republican senators are very loyal to him, but they're not willing to do everything he wants when he wants it.
And also, this is an election that has not been first and foremost about immigration. For independents and swing voters, this election has been about the economy and affordability, not about birthright citizenship. So it's an open question about how much Donald Trump wants to push this and make birthright citizenship the focus of his midterm campaign.
SUMMERS: Now, the president does have a lot of leeway when it comes to immigration and protecting the nation's borders. The Supreme Court just affirmed that there are limits to that power. Carrie, does today's decision create guardrails around the president's ability to act on this issue?
JOHNSON: In some ways, yes. We now have five votes from the Supreme Court saying this is part of the Constitution, so it would require an amendment to change that. But for some of the people who brought this challenge, like the Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU, this was really supposed to be an easy case and reaffirm our understanding of the law and the way it's been for over 160 years. And they were surprised at how divided the Supreme Court was on this issue. For that reason alone, I don't think we're done talking about this politically or legally.
LIASSON: No. I think that Trump has really succeeded in pushing the Overton window - in other words, changing the parameters of the debate. Before this, birthright citizenship was outside the parameters. It was a settled matter. Now it's inside. And even though the Supreme Court reaffirmed the executive's control over immigration policy in other cases, they drew the line at birthright citizenship. And in a weird way, that's a - that could be a political boon for him because if they had ruled for him, he - there would have been a tremendous amount of chaos to sort out which babies were citizens and which were not. And now, he can just keep the message without the headaches of implementation.
SUMMERS: And it was a big day at the Supreme Court, so I do want to turn to another case that was decided. The court struck down limits on political party spending. Carrie, tell us more.
JOHNSON: The justices struck down yet another post-Watergate law that tried to police money in politics. They said this is a free speech issue, that money is speech and First Amendment protected and not an issue of public corruption.
SUMMERS: Mara, talk to us about the politics here.
LIASSON: Well, this was a clear win for Republicans and conservatives. They already have a huge financial advantage in this cycle. This ruling will make it even more effective. It will allow them to coordinate with Republican candidates more easily. It will allow them to buy advertising spots at lower rates. Now, whether voters care about campaign finance as a voting issue, I'm not sure, but this ruling does fit into the overall argument that Democrats are trying to make, which is that Donald Trump and his party are corrupt. They only care about billionaires. They're getting rich off their offices, and they don't care about ordinary people.
SUMMERS: All right. Last thing here for each of you. And, Mara, I'll start with you. How do you think this term went for President Trump?
LIASSON: Overall, I think it was a big winning term for Trump. The court expanded executive power over and over again. That's what Trump wants. He says Article 2 gives him the right to do whatever he wants. So I think the term was a big winner. Yes, there were some big exceptions - birthright citizenship was one, tariffs was another. But overall, he comes out of this term with the executive's powers enhanced.
JOHNSON: Yeah. And in fact, the Slaughter decision this week, which basically gives President Trump and future presidents the power to fire, at will, heads of formerly independent agencies, that's going to have huge repercussions and could have big consequences for democracy too.
SUMMERS: NPR's Carrie Johnson and Mara Liasson, thanks to both of you.
LIASSON: You're welcome.
JOHNSON: Thanks. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
