In no uncertain terms, Mark Levin has debunked claims that the US Constitution confers “birthright citizenship” on any baby born on US soil, and urges the Supreme Court now debating the issue to come to the correct decision.
Mark Levin
He says it best himself, in this 11 minute video
Our sister blog wrongfulconvictionsreport.org carried a story on April 3, 2026, which raised this matter in the context of judges needing common sense added to their legal knowledge, cheekily citing US Chief Justice Roberts. That post wasn’t about the ‘birthright citizenship’ debate per se, but has sparked some comments which also mistakenly suggested that the US Constitution lays down the law on this. Far from it…
Mark Levin is a Constitutional scholar and conservative American broadcast news analyst, columnist, lawyer, political commentator, radio personality, and writer. He is the host of syndicated radio show The Mark Levin Show, as well as Life, Liberty & Levin on Fox News. Previously, Levin worked in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese.
June 30, 2026: The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship, rejecting attempts to limit citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. This ruling reinforces the understanding that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, with very few exceptions.
Writing for the majority, Roberts emphasized that the “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause.” “Under the Constitution,” he concluded, “they are citizens at birth.”
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito called the ruling both “one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court” and “a serious mistake.” “Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption,” Alito argued, “shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead,” he contended, “the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”
I agree with Justice Alito.
Excellent content here. The way you explained everything makes it easy to understand. Keep up the good work!
Thank you
Alan Dershowitz, the highly respected US law professor known for his work in U.S. constitutional and criminal law, has this to say:
My own view is that birthright citizenship is wrong as a matter of policy, especially if applied literally to virtually anyone born in the United States. Under that interpretation, if a pregnant European woman flying to China suddenly has labor pains requiring an unscheduled stop in the United States, where she gives birth and then immediately goes on to China, the baby is automatically a US citizen, even if it never sets foot in this country again. As a matter of policy, such a view of citizenship is absurd. Almost no other country accepts it, and it is doubtful that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended such a result in a case like that one. But that is not the typical case that affects thousands of children born in this country to illegal aliens who have lived here for many years. If these children are brought up in the United States and are subject to its laws for many years, their argument for birthright citizenship is far stronger.
So the question remains: which paradigm should govern – the weak case involving a child accidentally born here with no other connection; or the far stronger case of the child who has known no other country but this one for many years.