Chief Justice Roberts' 'Same Constitution' Response Contradicts True Originalism on Birthright Citizenship
Source: Brianna Lyman. "The ‘Same Constitution’ Would Never Authorize Anchor Babies." April 1, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that Justice Roberts is wrong to claim his position on birthright citizenship is originalist. She says true originalism means interpreting the Constitution based on what the founders understood at the time, and they never could have imagined today's illegal immigration or birth tourism problems.
Conclusion
Chief Justice Roberts' statement that 'it's the same Constitution' regarding birthright citizenship is not originalist but actually contradicts originalist principles
Premises
- Originalists are supposed to ask what the Constitution's words were understood to mean at the time they were adopted
- The framers of the 14th Amendment could not have understood it to grant birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens or birth tourism customers because such problems did not exist in their era
- Mass illegal migration and birth tourism are unprecedented circumstances that are 'part of a new world'
- The Wong Kim Ark case only ruled on children of legal residents, not illegal aliens or birth tourists
- Extending the 14th Amendment to cover millions of illegal aliens' children goes beyond the original meaning and scope the framers intended
- Retrofitting constitutional amendments to cover unprecedented modern circumstances contradicts originalist methodology
Assumptions
- Originalism requires limiting constitutional interpretation to what the framers could have reasonably foreseen
- The 14th Amendment's scope should be constrained by the historical context in which it was written
- Modern immigration patterns (illegal immigration and birth tourism) are fundamentally different from immigration patterns when the 14th Amendment was ratified
- True originalism would not extend constitutional provisions to cover situations the framers never contemplated