Bloomberg Law Weekend Law: Trump Faces Loss on Birthright Citizenship & Conversion Therapy Ban
Apr 4, 2026
David Cole, Georgetown Law professor and former ACLU legal director, gives sharp constitutional analysis of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on ending birthright citizenship. He breaks down historical precedent, the administration’s domicile theory, and which justices seemed receptive. The conversation also covers whether the Court might decide on statutory grounds and why it took the case.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Domicile Theory Lacks Historical Support
- The government's claim that 'subject to the jurisdiction' excludes children of noncitizen visitors rests on a tenuous domicile theory.
- David Cole points to Wong Kim Ark and common law showing jurisdiction doesn't require parental domicile or intent to remain.
Practical Problems With Ending Birthright Citizenship
- Multiple justices across ideological lines questioned how an executive order denying birthright citizenship would be implemented.
- Justices raised practical problems like proving parents' intent, determining which parent's domicile counts, and handling unknown parents.
Upending Citizenship Would Be An Earthquake
- Overturning established birthright citizenship doctrine would be an extraordinary upheaval affecting millions.
- Cole notes there's no legal line of cases or political movement supporting the administration's 'wacko' theory.