After the Birthright Ruling, Trump Eyes Congress, Vance Calls Barrett Wrong, and Markey Demands Four New Justices

Since the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling on June 30 upholding birthright citizenship, the political fallout has moved fast and is pulling in several directions at once.

What Trump Said Next

In an Oval Office interview with Breitbart News Tuesday evening, Trump called the birthright ruling "disappointing" but said it was "more than made up for" by the same day's 6-3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which restored presidential authority to fire independent agency heads without cause. Trump described the Slaughter ruling as "probably the biggest" of the term.

On birthright citizenship specifically, Trump told Breitbart he intends to pursue a legislative fix through Congress rather than a constitutional amendment. "Now, one of the things that came out during this period of time with the Supreme Court is that we can do it through Congress," he said. "Some people thought for a while you had to do a Constitutional amendment. That's no longer so."

He also posted on Truth Social calling on Congress to "start TODAY" on ending birthright citizenship and promising his "Complete and Total Support."

Whether Congress actually has that authority is NOT settled. The majority opinion held that the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship as a constitutional matter. Legislating away a constitutional guarantee is legally different from legislating around an ambiguous statute. The Supreme Court's ruling would stand as the controlling law unless overturned by the Court itself or by constitutional amendment. Trump's claim that Congress alone can fix it will face immediate legal challenge if any such bill passes.

Vance on Barrett: "She Made a Mistake"

Vice President JD Vance, speaking to Daily Wire White House Correspondent Mary Margaret Olohan after delivering remarks to troops in Virginia Beach, said directly that he believes Justice Amy Coney Barrett made a mistake. "Do I think she made a mistake in the ruling? I do," Vance said, adding that he does not believe the framers of the 14th Amendment intended citizenship to extend to children of undocumented immigrants or foreign nationals on temporary visits. He stopped short of personal anger, saying, "Nobody's perfect, including the Supreme Court."

Barrett joined Chief Justice Roberts and the three liberal justices in the majority. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred with the judgment but on narrower statutory grounds, arguing the executive order violated federal law rather than the Constitution itself. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Thomas's dissent ran nearly 90 pages, according to The Guardian.

The 5-4 vs. 6-3 Confusion, Clarified

The ACLU of New Hampshire, which brought the lead challenge as Trump v. Barbara, described the ruling as a 6-3 judgment in its press release, attributing that count to Kavanaugh's concurrence in the outcome. Conservative outlets including Breitbart and the Daily Wire reported it as a 5-4 decision on the constitutional question, which is accurate: five justices agreed the executive order violated the 14th Amendment, while Kavanaugh agreed it was unlawful but on statutory grounds only. Both characterizations are technically correct for different parts of the ruling.

Democrats: Expand the Court

On the opposite end of the political spectrum, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) appeared on MSNBC Wednesday and called for expanding the Supreme Court from nine to 13 seats. Markey, who has authored a court-expansion bill, argued the move would "restore" a 7-6 progressive majority, claiming Republicans "stole two Supreme Court seats in 2016 and 2020." Markey said it does not require a constitutional amendment and can be done by statute.

Markey did not address the fact that this same term, the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of birthright citizenship, a result his side celebrated. Court expansion proposals have stalled repeatedly in Democratic caucuses, and Markey acknowledged that "a lot of Democratic colleagues are not there yet."

The Strongest Case for Trump's Position

The four dissenters and many legal scholars argue that the 14th Amendment's phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was never meant to extend citizenship to people who owe primary allegiance to a foreign government. University of Minnesota law professor Ilan Wurman, who filed an amicus brief supporting Trump's order, told the New York Times that getting four Supreme Court votes for this position "is quite a coup" given that "a year and a half ago, people said there was no support for this view."

The Washington Post's editorial board, despite opposing the executive order, also acknowledged in an op-ed that the Court decided more than it needed to and could have resolved the case on narrower statutory grounds, leaving the constitutional debate open for the elected branches. That is a legitimate institutional critique that does not depend on agreeing with Trump's underlying policy.

Where This Goes

Trump said he wants the SAVE America Act passed before pursuing a birthright citizenship statute through Congress. The SAVE America Act requires proof of citizenship to register to vote, mandates voter ID, and would end universal mail-in ballots. When Breitbart asked about eliminating the Senate filibuster to pass it, Trump's response was cut off in the available transcript.

The legal question that will determine the outcome is whether a simple majority in Congress can define away a right the Supreme Court has now held is guaranteed by the Constitution. That question will determine whether Trump's legislative path is real or rhetorical. No bill has been introduced yet as of July 1, 2026.