A confluence of seemingly unrelated events involving the victories of the United States men’s national soccer team advancing them in the World Cup soccer tournament and the Supreme Court issuing its ruling in Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. _____ (25-365, June 30, 2026) has brought birthright citizenship into sharp and contradictory focus.
Forty-eight nations are participating in the World Cup tournament co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico. The tournament crowns a true world champion. Many teams in the tournament have players who reflect their nation’s history of colonialism and immigration policy and the United States is no exception.
The team’s star striker, Folarin Balogun, scored the winning goal that advanced the United States out of its first knock-out match. But, Mr. Balogun is only eligible to play for the United States due to . . . wait for it . . .birthright citizenship. His mother was briefly visiting family in the United States when she was refused the right to board her flight back to England, where they lived, due to the advanced stage of her pregnancy. Therefore, it was strictly by chance, much to the delight of United States soccer fans, that Mr. Balogun was born in the United States and thus automatically qualified for United States citizenship. He now dons the United States crest and the red, white and blue and represents all of America on the soccer pitch.
At the same time Mr. Balogun has been marauding around the soccer fields of the United States, the Supreme Court was narrowly upholding birthright citizenship in a 5-4 decision. This was a much tighter decision than most observers expected. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment appears to guarantee birthright citizenship and that Supreme Court precedent has interpreted the Constitutional support of the legal conveyance of citizenship to noncitizens born in the United States broadly since 1898. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898).
The five Justice majority decision is precise and direct in upholding the Fourteenth Amendment’s assurance of birthright citizenship for all and carries the signatures of both the Chief Justice and Justice Barrett in making up the majority numbers with Justices Brown Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor. An in-depth and compelling concurrence written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson with whom Justice Sotomayor joined in the introduction and Part I, is worth the effort as it calls out the disturbing and unsupported arguments of the dissent, in particular Justice Thomas’s dissent. But also reminds us of the history of slavery and discrimination throughout these United States—North and South alike—that underpinned the need for the Fourteenth Amendment. The Justice highlights the promise of a brighter and more equitable future in outlining the indignities and lack of rights that existed prior to the Fourteenth Amendment.
Counted as a dissenting vote in the 5-4 decision, Justice Kavanaugh nonetheless upheld birthright citizenship, although based upon the statutory language of the Immigration Act and not on the constitution. The Immigration Act, which has language mirroring the 14th the Amendment, conveys citizenship to all who are born in the United States regardless of the parent’s immigration status. The challenge of Justice Kavanaugh’s analysis, however, rests on the fact that in his opinion a Congressional Act could upturn and overrule birthright citizenship. His belief that this case should be analyzed in this manner is quite puzzling and seems to be more of an abdication of his obligations as a Justice to make difficult decisions than an inspired vision of the legal foundation for birthright citizenship.
The truly difficult and troubling portions of the Barbara ruling are the two dissents written by Justices Thomas and Alito. In a somewhat surprising development, Justice Gorsuch joined Justice Thomas in dissent. Justice Thomas’s opinion went to very great lengths to support and rationalize his determination that the Fourteenth Amendment does not extend beyond to remedy the slave class to assure their right to citizenship at the time it was passed or to those not “domiciled” in the United States. Justice Thomas, with Justice Gorsuch’s support, works very hard to convince himself and his colleague and the nation that Wong Kim Ark can be distinguished and that one hundred and twenty-eight years of precedent was incorrect and should be overturned. That so many Justices could diverge from such extended precedent is concerning, but Justice Thomas’s overwrought attempt to distinguish his position leaves his readers flat and unconvinced.
Finally to Justice Alito. Not a clearer example of outcome driving analysis exists. He is overly concerned that hoards of noncitizens are coming primary to the United States to give birth to their children via “birth tourism”—the extent and impact of which is questionable. And on this concern, his analysis limits the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment as he believes that Wong Kim Ark should be significantly narrowed if not outright overturned. He manipulates his analysis to address the imaginary “problem” created by the right to birthright citizenship. The fact that a Justice of the Supreme Court could propose upending such long-standing precedent and the core of our nation based upon such a paranoid perspective of noncitizens is quite troubling.
Moreover, for the dissenters in the case, they would discount the expression of loyalty and patriotism and commitment to our nation as demonstrated by all members of the United States Men’s National soccer team, including our star striker who could be described as the progeny perhaps of “birth tourism” but who has brought skill and commitment recognized the world over. He and his teammates cover their hearts during the national anthem and play with the crest of the United States on their chests. They fight for international glory on the soccer pitch all in the name of our nation regardless of the foundation on which their citizenship rests.
