Congressman Chip Roy Is Wrong: Birthright Citizenship Isn't a Supreme Court Invention—It's in the Constitution

Congressman Chip Roy recently blasted the Supreme Court, claiming the justices "manufactured out of thin air" a ruling that allows people to become citizens simply by being "born on dirt." He then argued that the decision leaves Congress with "no choice" but to pause all immigration.

That criticism misses a fundamental fact: birthright citizenship is not something the Supreme Court invented. It is written into the United States Constitution.

The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, states:

«"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."»

That is the Constitution itself—not a law passed by Congress and not a policy created by judges.

For more than a century, the Supreme Court has interpreted that language to mean that nearly everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, with limited exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats and certain enemy forces during wartime occupation. The landmark 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that understanding, and the Court recently reaffirmed it again.

Congressman Roy is free to argue that birthright citizenship is bad policy. He is free to advocate for changing it. But if he wants to change birthright citizenship, the proper way is through a constitutional amendment—not by pretending the Supreme Court invented the doctrine "out of thin air."

His claim that the ruling "validates baby factories" is political rhetoric, not legal analysis. The Court did not endorse birth tourism or immigration fraud. In fact, the federal government continues to investigate and prosecute birth-tourism schemes and immigration fraud under existing law.

Likewise, claiming that the decision leaves America with "no choice" but to pause all immigration is simply incorrect. The ruling addressed one constitutional question: whether the government can deny citizenship to people whom the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes as citizens. It did not prevent Congress from reforming immigration laws, strengthening border security, increasing deportations of those unlawfully present, or prosecuting visa fraud.

Reasonable people can disagree about immigration policy. They can debate border security, legal immigration levels, asylum, or birth tourism. But those debates should begin with an honest reading of the Constitution.

The Constitution does not say, "All persons born in the United States, unless Congress later changes its mind." It says:

«"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."»

Whether someone likes that language is beside the point. The Constitution—not political frustration—is the supreme law of the land. If elected officials believe it should say something different, they should pursue the constitutional amendment process rather than accusing the Supreme Court of inventing rights that have been expressly written into the Constitution for more than 150 years.