Vance Calls Birthright Citizenship Ruling a “Major Mistake”

Podium with microphones, American flag background.

America’s vice president is telling Fox News viewers that a Supreme Court loss on birthright citizenship is really a roadmap for how to undo 160 years of settled constitutional law.

Story Snapshot

Vice President JD Vance calls the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship ruling a “major mistake” and vows to reverse it.
The Court struck down Trump’s Executive Order 14160 and upheld citizenship for almost everyone born on U.S. soil.
Trump and Vance now talk about using Congress and possibly a constitutional amendment to narrow who counts as American.
Critics across the spectrum say changing birthright citizenship would create a permanent underclass and break core American principles.

What The Supreme Court Actually Decided

On June 30, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the Fourteenth Amendment still guarantees citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States, no matter their parents’ immigration status. The justices struck down President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which tried to deny citizenship to children of undocumented parents and parents here only on temporary visas. The majority opinion leaned on more than a century of precedent, including the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, which affirmed that children of immigrants born here are citizens by birth.

The Court said the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment covers nearly all people born on American soil, except narrow cases like children of foreign diplomats. That ruling means federal agencies cannot refuse passports or Social Security numbers to babies based on their parents’ lack of status. For now, the legal rule is simple and clear: if you are born in the United States, you are an American citizen, with very few exceptions.

Vance’s Message: Loss Today, “Opportunity” Tomorrow

On Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle,” Vice President JD Vance called the ruling a “major, major mistake” and labeled current birthright citizenship an “absurdity” that encourages birth tourism. He said that even though the Court ruled against Trump’s executive order, “we have an opportunity to reverse this decision,” pointing viewers toward Congress and longer‑term political fights. Vance echoed Trump’s Truth Social claim that lawmakers could create exceptions to birthright citizenship, despite the Court’s clear defense of the existing rule.

Vance drew energy from three conservative justices—Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch—who dissented and argued that birthright citizenship can act as a policy magnet for illegal entry. Their dissents focused on the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” claiming this does not include children of parents who broke immigration laws. That reading breaks from mainstream legal scholarship, which has long held that undocumented immigrants are still subject to American law and therefore under U.S. jurisdiction.

What Comes Next: Amendments, Laws, And A Long Road

With Executive Order 14160 struck down as unconstitutional, Trump and Vance have few direct tools left to change citizenship rules. Most experts say only a constitutional amendment or a radical Supreme Court reversal could narrow birthright citizenship in a lasting way. Amending the Constitution would require two‑thirds of both houses of Congress and approval from three‑fourths of state legislatures, a very high bar in a divided country. No such amendment has even begun serious debate, let alone passed.

The Court’s majority opinion noted that Congress has not passed any law carving out new exceptions to birthright citizenship. Trump argues Congress could now try to do so, but scholars stress that lawmakers cannot go below the constitutional floor the Fourteenth Amendment sets. Civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, say the Court has “decisively dismissed this issue” and expect no quick legal comeback, even if they fear political retaliation against immigrants. For ordinary Americans, this means the legal rule stays the same for now, but the political fight is far from over.

Why This Fight Hits Deep Public Frustration

This clash over who counts as American plays into broader anger at how the federal government handles immigration, borders, and basic fairness. Many conservatives feel past leaders used birthright citizenship to ignore illegal entry and push globalist ideas while everyday citizens pay the price in wages, schools, and safety. Many liberals see Trump’s order as an attack on minority families and a step toward a permanent group of people born here but locked out of full rights. Both sides, in different ways, worry about a ruling class playing games with the rules of belonging.

JD Vance Says the Fight Over Birthright Citizenship Is Far From Over https://t.co/Y90xxCCfXf

— Arick Matt (@ArickMatt) July 1, 2026

Legal historians warn that ending or narrowing birthright citizenship risks creating a hereditary underclass—children and grandchildren born here who never gain full membership in their own country. That is exactly what the Fourteenth Amendment was written to stop after slavery. Whether you cheer or fear Vance’s promise to “reverse” the Court, his comments show how leaders in both parties now treat even basic citizenship as a weapon in a larger war between the people and the elites who write the rules.