Judge Lagoa's Textualist Approach Should Guide SCOTUS on Birthright Citizenship
Source: Hans Mahncke. "Lagoa Shows How SCOTUS Should Rule On Birthright Citizenship." May 12, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that Judge Barbara Lagoa's strict approach to interpreting laws based only on their written text, rather than trying to guess what lawmakers intended, should guide how the Supreme Court decides whether people born in the U.S. automatically become citizens. He suggests Justice Barrett might be too willing to consider broader policy concerns instead of sticking to the exact legal text.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court should adopt Judge Barbara Lagoa's strict textualist judicial philosophy when ruling on birthright citizenship, which would likely reject automatic citizenship based solely on birth location within U.S. borders
Premises
- Lagoa's dissent in Alvarez v. Warden demonstrates a rigorous textualist approach that prioritizes statutory text over legislative intent or policy considerations
- Lagoa's reasoning establishes that physical presence in the United States does not automatically confer legal presence or status
- Historical Supreme Court precedents (Kaplan v. Tod, Leng May Ma v. Barber) support the principle that legal status derives from formal designation, not mere geography
- Justice Barrett has shown concerning willingness to join liberal justices in immigration cases, suggesting she may not apply strict textualism to birthright citizenship
- Lagoa's approach would resolve the current circuit split on immigration detention by consistently applying statutory classifications regardless of physical location
Assumptions
- Textualist judicial philosophy is superior to approaches that consider legislative intent or policy outcomes
- The 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause should be interpreted through the same strict textual lens as immigration statutes
- Barrett's past decisions indicate she would be less reliable than Lagoa on conservative constitutional interpretation
- Physical presence alone should not determine citizenship or legal status