The seeds for a legal showdown with Idaho’s Attorney General were laid on January 20, 2025, when Donald Trump issued an unconstitutional executive order regarding “birthright citizenship.” The order purported to deny citizenship to children born in America to parents who were not US citizens. From the very beginning of our nation, it was understood that all babies born on American soil were automatically citizens, except for children born to foreign diplomatic families. The concept was called “birthright citizenship.” It was an essential cornerstone for the growth of our nation.
After the US Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment became the law of the land. It reaffirmed citizenship by right of birth and ensured that the right extended to formerly enslaved African Americans. The Citizenship Clause of the 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.” It is important to note that foreign diplomats are not subject to US jurisdiction, so their children are not entitled to birthright citizenship.
A presidential executive order cannot change the law of the land. A number of individuals brought suits challenging Trump’s order. Four federal district courts ruled against his order. The matter then arrived on the doorstep of the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) for a definitive ruling.
It was not particularly surprising to read a Labrador Letter last November, revealing that Idaho’s Attorney General was joining 23 other GOP Attorneys General in urging SCOTUS to get rid of birthright citizenship. Labrador and the other AGs homed in on the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language in the Amendment, claiming it excluded almost all parents without citizenship. The contention was so preposterous that it deserved little response from those who have the ability to read and understand the law.
When Labrador announced on March 31 of this year that his nonsensical position was “Idaho’s constitutional position” on the birthright citizenship issue, it became impossible to remain silent. He was saying, in essence, that all Idahoans should be tarred by his silly argument that babies born on US soil are not subject to US jurisdiction and not automatically US citizens. Labrador has consistently argued that even unborn children have constitutional rights, but he was now arguing that some have no right to citizenship because of the immigration status of their parents. It does not take a law degree to understand that almost every baby birthed on American soil is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are born under the protection of our laws, regardless of who their parents are.
This caused my Labrador Derangement Syndrome to flare up, leaving me no choice but to pen an essay taking him to task for his tortured argument in favor of killing birthright citizenship. I pointed out that the United States inherited the doctrine from centuries-old English common law and that it was long-established US law based on court decisions interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment. It was an airtight case against Labrador.
The Attorney General snapped back in his own opinion column, claiming I was not a “credible voice.” He briefly touched on my essay opposing his sophomoric interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, but offered no explanation of how it was wrong.
Labrador’s argument against citizenship as a right of birth was even too much for the Trump-friendly SCOTUS majority to swallow. Remember that this is the same majority that gave king-like immunity to Trump for practically any criminal offense he had made or might make in office. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that opinion. Roberts also wrote the birthright citizenship decision, which completely repudiated the position that our Attorney General had represented to SCOTUS as “Idaho’s constitutional position.”
The Roberts majority opinion ruled that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the country are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. The Chief Justice wrote that this result is dictated by our history, dating back to the English common law, as well as the clear language of the Amendment.
In his March 31 opinion piece, Labrador said he’d “agreed…for a while” that birthright citizenship was the “settled law” of the country. His radical change of position was likely dictated by his need to follow the MAGA herd for political reasons. We should expect our Attorney General to observe and respect the rule of law, instead of bending to the whims of politics. The best way to serve Idaho, and to prevail in a legal showdown, is to stay true to the law. But despite the AG’s political posturing, the story has a happy American ending.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In