Jonathan Turley Highlights ‘Hilarious Aspect’ Of How Liberal Justices View Birthright Citizenship

After the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on President Donald Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship, law professor and commentator Jonathan Turley pointed out that the court’s three liberal justices sounded like Constitutional originalists when approaching the issue.

Turley told Fox News host Laura Ingraham that a “hilarious aspect” of the oral arguments was “to hear the liberal justices, who rarely allow the language of the Constitution to stand in the way of a preferred interpretation.” Turley added that the court’s three liberal justices “seemed to be channeling” the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia when they pushed back on the Trump administration’s arguments.

Turley said liberal Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson often argued on Wednesday that the court must look at “original intent.”

“That obviously played to the conservative justices,” Turley continued, arguing that the way the arguments played out “is benefitting the Left here.”

The high court appeared skeptical of the administration’s defense of Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship. Even conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett pushed back on some of Solicitor General John Sauer’s arguments.

The case centers on the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, with the White House arguing that the amendment “has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”

The groups challenging Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship argued that the 14th Amendment’s exclusions for birthright citizenship only apply to children of foreign diplomats and babies born to enemy invaders or occupiers. The White House views the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as providing a more expansive definition of who is excluded from birthright citizenship.

Trump, who attended the oral arguments on Wednesday, said, “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” Birthright citizenship often benefits migrants who cross the border illegally and give birth to children on U.S. soil.

Turley agreed with Trump’s assessment, calling America’s birthright citizenship policy “perfectly insane.”

“That’s why very few countries accept birthright citizenship,” he added. “The difficulty with this case is that it’s hard to really justify the policy when you look at what’s happening. In China alone, hundreds of these tourism sites are sending people over for the sole purpose of having children here. Only a moronic nation would allow that type of industry to flourish.”

Much of Wednesday’s arguments focused on the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the court ruled 6-2 that a man born in the United States to Chinese-citizen parents automatically became a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. While the 1898 ruling went in favor of applying the 14th Amendment to babies of foreigners, the Trump administration has argued that the court’s decision in Wong Kim Ark set up a clear distinction between legal “resident aliens” and illegal immigrants who are domiciled in a foreign nation and subject to deportation.