By The American Tribune | Created at 2026-06-23 10:38:42 | Updated at 2026-06-23 12:20:18
2 hours ago
Birthright citizenship might be here to stay, at least for now, as legal expert and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley argued when speaking during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday” with host Shannon Bream on June 21. According to Turley, there is still a bit of room for hope that the Supreme Court will end birthright citizenship, but only a small one.
As background, Turley is no friend of birthright citizenship, calling it “a uniquely bad idea.” Still, he argued that the oral arguments for the case that were heard on April 1 of 2026, oral arguments that featured President Trump sitting to hear the arguments, becoming the first sitting president in history to do so, were an indication that the case will not go well for the Trump administration. Such is what he told Bream when commenting on the fact that the end of the Supreme Court’s 2025–2026 term is expected to occur in late June or early July, and thus the opinions we are likely to get are, as Bream put it, like the “Super Bowl”.
Explaining as much to the panel led by Bream, Turley said, noting that the commentary of “moderate” Chief Justice John Roberts in particular was bad news for Trump’s side, “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. The question is whether anything happened during conference.”
Adding to that, however, Turley noted that there is still a chance that Trump could win the case, as such last-minute changes have happened before. He said, “We’ve seen cases change after conference in the drafting. Roberts himself is often believed to have switched his vote on the individual mandate in the Obamacare case at the last minute.”
Continuing on that point, he emphasized that such a chance is nevertheless a very small one, so it is likely that the administration will lose the case, even if there is a glimmer of hope. He said, “So it does happen, but most of us are expecting this is probably going to be a loss for the administration.”
Chiming in, Tom Dupree, a former principal deputy assistant attorney general, said, “I think the administration knew going into this that this was going to be a heavy lift for them, precisely for that reason.” Dupree added, “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.”
Watch them here:
"*" indicates required fields
Changing tacks, Turley argued that Trump does have a chance of winning an important voting day case regarding mail-in ballots. “I think, from oral arguments, 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 said.
Adding to that, he explained, “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. But if the Court rules that ‘Election Day’ means election day, those ballots have got to be in on that day.”
Watch him comment on that here:
