Legal expert and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley recently addressed the complex issue of birthright citizenship during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.” His analysis, delivered to host Shannon Bream on June 21, offers a nuanced perspective on the ongoing battle surrounding this contentious legal concept.
Turley, who has long been critical of birthright citizenship—calling it “a uniquely bad idea,” shared his thoughts on the Supreme Court’s likelihood of abolishing this policy. He suggested that, although there may be a faint glimmer of hope, the prospects of the Trump administration successfully challenging birthright citizenship appear slim at this time. He cited the Supreme Court’s term end approaching in late June or early July as a key factor in anticipating the Court’s opinion on the matter.
During the discussion, Turley acknowledged the unprecedented nature of the argument session, which featured President Trump attending as the first sitting president to do so. However, he noted a concerning trend in the oral arguments, particularly the skepticism displayed by Chief Justice John Roberts. “The oral argument did not give a lot of room for hope, particularly with [Chief Justice John] Roberts coming out right away and expressing skepticism,” Turley remarked. This skepticism from a key member of the Court bodes poorly for the Trump administration’s case.
Despite the prevailing pessimism, Turley did not dismiss the possibility of a last-minute victory for Trump. He highlighted how outcomes can shift unexpectedly post-conference, pointing to past instances where justices, including Roberts, changed their votes. “We’ve seen cases change after conference in the drafting,” Turley explained, using the example of Roberts’ surprising deviation in support of the individual mandate in the Obamacare case. However, Turley quickly tempered this hope, emphasizing that most observers anticipate a loss for the administration, stating, “So it does happen, but most of us are expecting this is probably going to be a loss for the administration.”
Adding to the conversation, Tom Dupree, a former principal deputy assistant attorney general, echoed Turley’s concerns, stating that the administration likely understood the difficulties of their position. He mentioned, “Judges year after year, decade after decade, have said that birthright citizenship is enshrined in our Constitution. I don’t think there’s going to be a change at the last minute.” This sentiment underscores a judicial precedent that has stood strong against challenges over the years, reinforcing the notion that any abrupt shift is unlikely.
On a related note, Turley shifted gears to discuss the potential implications of the upcoming Supreme Court case on mail-in ballots. He expressed optimism about this aspect, suggesting that the Court might ultimately affirm that “federal election day” clearly designates the date ballots are due. “It seemed to me that they were going to say that ‘federal election day’ means election day, and having this debacle in California—extending the counting for so long—only sort of reaffirms the logic of that,” Turley remarked, indicating that clarity on this issue could arise from the Court’s ruling.
Turley elaborated on how the Court’s determination to uphold strict definitions for federal elections could complicate the landscape for dual state and federal elections. He mentioned, “Now, this is for federal elections. So for dual election—state and federal—it can get a little bit wicked if you want to try to give people extra time.” His insights suggest that the implications of the ruling on mail-in ballots could have broader ramifications for ensuring elections are conducted with integrity and adherence to established deadlines.
In summary, Turley’s remarks on “Fox News Sunday” laid bare the current state of contentious legal battles surrounding both birthright citizenship and election day procedures. His analysis highlights the importance of judicial attitudes and historical precedent in shaping the outcomes of these pivotal cases. As the Court’s decisions loom, both the administration and the public hold their breath, awaiting a verdict that could seemingly define electoral integrity and citizenship in the years to come.
"*" indicates required fields
