On April 1, 2026, an oral argument was held in the Supreme Court. The discussion centered on Executive Order 14160, issued by President Trump in January 2025. The order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” declares that individuals born in the United States cannot claim citizenship if their parents lack sufficient legal status.
For the first hour of the argument, D. John Sauer, the 49th solicitor general of the United States, spoke on what he believed was the intention of the framers of the Constitution when creating the 14th Amendment. “It’s very clear, and this Court in all of its early cases interpreting the 14th Amendment said the main object of the Citizenship Clause is to overrule Dred Scott and establish the citizenship of the freed slaves,” Sauer stated. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads: “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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Sauer’s point is that, since the 14th Amendment was intended to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people, it cannot be used to protect against Executive Order 14160. He is not the only one who shares this view. “There’s no such thing as birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants,” Mark Levin said on his show “Life, Liberty & Levin.” “The 14th Amendment was not meant for everybody under the sun to come to America, have a baby, and become a citizen,” said Texas Rep. Chip Roy on the BlazeTV YouTube channel.
Unfortunately, the conversation has shifted in common media. The discussion, though still politically relevant, is no longer centered on the 14th Amendment and those who benefit from it. It has morphed into a controversy about a question surrounding allegiance.
During the second hour of the argument, Cecilia D. Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, defended the modern understanding of the 14th Amendment. “Ask any American what our citizenship rule is and they’ll tell you everyone born here is a citizen alike,” Wang said. Later in the discussion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Wang a clarifying question using language that seemed to stir controversy among conservative commentators. When challenging the government’s understanding of allegiance, Jackson offered this hypothetical: “I, a U.S. citizen, am visiting Japan. If I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me.”
Conservative media quickly responded to the soundbite. “That’s called breaking the law in another country. They don’t make you swear an oath to the emperor before they take you to Tokyo jail,” said Andrew of the “Don’t Walk, Run! Productions” YouTube channel. This rebuttal was based on a traditional definition of allegiance, which often aligns with the government’s interpretation. Allegiance is defined as firm loyalty, devotion or fidelity owed by a person to a government, sovereign, cause or group. This perspective suggests that one cannot show allegiance to two different states or countries at once.
Jackson clarified her point, stating, “It’s allegiance meaning they can control you as a matter of law.” She explained that while citizens do hold loyalty to their country, the concept of allegiance in this context is limited and distinct from her argument. Her point was that when you are in a country, you are subject to its laws. This is not a controversial idea. Yet, despite this, many political content creators have framed Jackson’s analogy as a mistake. Glenn Beck, a host on BlazeTV, even suggested that Jackson should be impeached for her statements.
This highlights a broader issue with clips and soundbites in media. With proper context, the conversation could have remained focused on Executive Order 14160 and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Without that context, public discourse is often redirected toward distraction rather than substance.