Mike Johnson says Congress must address birthright citizenship after SCOTUS loss

House Speaker Mike Johnson said Sunday that Congress must now take up the fight over birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump‘s executive order restricting the practice, signaling that Republicans are preparing a new strategy following one of the biggest legal defeats of Trump’s second term.

The Louisiana Republican argued that lawmakers should act after the court’s decision preserved automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status in most cases. Johnson said the current system has been abused through what he described as “birthright tourism” and suggested Congress should move quickly if there is a legislative path forward.

His comments come less than a week after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against Trump’s executive order and days after the president urged lawmakers to “start TODAY” on legislation ending birthright citizenship, setting up a new constitutional and political battle that could dominate immigration debates heading into the midterm elections.

“And [Justice Clarence Thomas] explained that the 14th Amendment, the original intent, was to enhance and really value citizenship,” Johnson said on Fox News Sunday. “And it’s been devalued because of birthright tourism, which is what we have now. It’s a threat to the rule of law and national security. We do need to address it.”

Supreme Court Delivers Major Defeat to Trump

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Barbara represented a major setback for the administration’s effort to narrow birthright citizenship through executive action.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said children born in the United States “are citizens at birth,” reaffirming longstanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Roberts wrote that the framers of the amendment extended citizenship to “every free-born person in this land” and that the court was maintaining that promise.

The decision preserved the legal framework established by the Supreme Court’s landmark 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that a child born in the United States to immigrant parents was an American citizen.

Trump had sought to deny automatic citizenship to some children born in the United States if their parents were in the country illegally or held only temporary legal status. Multiple lower courts blocked the policy before the case reached the Supreme Court.

Trump Pushes Congress to Act

Rather than dropping the issue after the ruling, Trump immediately called on lawmakers to intervene.

“The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation,” Trump wrote on Truth Social following the decision.

The president argued that Congress should begin work immediately on legislation ending birthright citizenship and insisted that “No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary!”

Trump has long maintained that the 14th Amendment was intended to protect formerly enslaved people after the Civil War and was not designed to provide automatic citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors.

He has also repeatedly cited concerns about so-called birth tourism, in which foreign nationals travel to the United States to give birth so their children obtain U.S. citizenship.

What Johnson Wants Congress to Do

Johnson did not outline specific legislation Sunday, but suggested lawmakers would pursue any avenue available.

“If there is a bill that can fix that, we’ll advance that immediately,” he said, while acknowledging that a constitutional amendment would be more difficult and time-consuming.

The comments place Johnson in the middle of an emerging debate among conservatives over whether Congress can address birthright citizenship through ordinary legislation or whether changing the policy would require amending the Constitution.

Some Republicans argue Congress could redefine what it means to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, language contained in the 14th Amendment.

Others say the Constitution itself would need to be changed.

Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt, who has a legal background, argued after the ruling that legislation alone cannot solve the issue and announced plans to pursue a constitutional amendment. Johnson has previously acknowledged that amending the Constitution may ultimately be necessary.

Thomas Signals Conservative Frustration

Johnson specifically pointed to Thomas’s dissent.

Thomas argued that the Supreme Court had improperly expanded the meaning of the 14th Amendment and suggested the majority’s interpretation may eventually be revisited.

“I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time,” Thomas wrote. “The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.’ Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.”

His dissent became a rallying point for conservatives disappointed by the ruling.

While Roberts’ majority opinion reaffirmed settled precedent, Thomas argued that the amendment had been transformed into something the Reconstruction-era Congress never intended.

Justice Samuel Alito also dissented, arguing the Citizenship Clause was never meant to apply broadly to everyone born in the United States regardless of parental status.

Why Wong Kim Ark Still Matters

A central reason the Supreme Court ruled against Trump was the long-standing precedent established in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese immigrant parents. After being denied reentry to the United States following a trip to China, he challenged the government’s decision.

In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that because Wong had been born on American soil, he was a U.S. citizen.

That decision has shaped American citizenship law for more than a century and was heavily cited by supporters of birthright citizenship during the latest case.

Following last week’s ruling, members of Wong’s family said the decision preserved a constitutional principle that has defined American citizenship for generations.

What Happens Next?

Despite Trump’s insistence that Congress can act through legislation, many legal scholars say any attempt to restrict birthright citizenship would almost certainly trigger another major constitutional challenge.

A constitutional amendment would face even longer odds. Such an amendment would require approval from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Still, Republicans appear increasingly determined to test the issue.

Johnson’s comments, combined with Trump’s call for congressional action and Thomas’s dissent, suggest conservatives are shifting their focus from the White House to Capitol Hill after the Supreme Court closed off the executive-order route.

For now, the court’s ruling leaves birthright citizenship intact. But as Republicans debate whether legislation, future litigation or a constitutional amendment could ultimately change the law, a legal fight that appeared settled by the Supreme Court may be entering a new political phase.