Birthright citizenship: The right's meltdown sounds familiar | Opinion

On June 30, the Supreme Court upheld the understanding of birthright citizenship that has been in place for more than a century.

"Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights ‒ to freely participate in our political community," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to 'every free-born person in this land.' We keep that promise today."

The result was expected. What I didn't expect was how closely the response from the decision's critics would resemble the left's, when Democrats don't get their way at the court.

These doomsday predictions have hardened into calls for extraordinary responses ‒ ones that would upend our republican form of government. Those blaming the Supreme Court for America's immigration policy are aiming at the wrong target.

Just because the other two branches won't do their job doesn't mean the Supreme Court should do it for them.

The court's critics sound a lot like the left

The right's critics responded with a meltdown that could pass for the left's after a decision doesn't go its way.

"I at least got to live for 40 years in a country that looks and functions something like America," said Matt Walsh of the Daily Wire. Walsh ignores the fact that America had birthright citizenship for the entire time he's been alive ‒ and for more than a century before that.

"Apocalyptically and indefensibly bad," said Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, editor in chief of The Federalist. "Very, very difficult to see where to go from here."

In their world, the apocalypse arrives in the form of a court decision that affirms the status quo as it has existed for more than 150 years.

Sean Davis, CEO of that same publication, offered his own voice of reason: "Pack the court," "require sterilization of all foreign visitors prior to entry" or pursue "dissolution of the Union."

"This is the most illegitimate ruling the court has made since Roe, and we must continue to challenge it, fight it, and do everything we can legislatively to minimize its impact until we can overturn it," said Megan Basham of the Daily Wire. "If the court is going to legislate and try to overcome the will of the people, then I'm sorry, but the court has made itself illegitimate, and it must be defeated."

Instead of accepting an expected loss with grace, this crowd is melting down because the Supreme Court didn't fix the problem for them ‒ exactly the reaction the left has when court decisions don't go their way, whether on immigration, gun rights, debt cancellation, abortion or any other charged issue.

While the reaction hasn't yet escalated to the extremes after Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 ‒ an assassination attempt, justices harassed outside their own homes ‒ the hyperbole is straight out of the left's playbook.

Calling the Supreme Court "illegitimate" has become a favorite response on the left whenever a ruling doesn't go its way. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called the court "illegitimate" in April after it struck down a racial gerrymander in congressional redistricting. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and countless other progressives pushed a movement to "expand the court" after Roe was overturned ‒ a movement that's still alive today.

Democrats have screeched about "activist judges" for years, but the right has caught up fast in its attacks on Justice Amy Coney Barrett. After the June 30 ruling, prominent voices on the right called Barrett a "DEI hire" and counted her among "rogue, activist judges," while social media served up far worse.

It's the same reflex the far left shows whenever a ruling doesn't go its way. Rather than make legal arguments or mount a real political response, the widespread reaction has simply been to whine.

Real challenges, right decision

Birthright citizenship does pose real challenges for the country, and I'd support a constitutional amendment narrowing it to exclude "birth tourists" and the children of illegal immigrants.

Where you lose me is the idea that the Supreme Court should usurp that authority because a constitutional amendment is too hard to pass, or because Congress can't be trusted to govern. I'm not ready to give up on our constitutional structure the way these people have.

The blame they're laying at the Supreme Court's door is misplaced. Congress and the presidency are the two institutions responsible for the mess we're in on immigration. The courts' job is to say what the law is, and that's exactly what the justices did here. Deciding policy instead would turn them into legislators.

The doomsday predictions surrounding this case come from people who've given up on Congress ever accomplishing anything of substance, and turned to the courts instead to achieve their policy goals.

It's true that without a constitutional amendment, birthright citizenship remains intact ‒ though Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested Congress could narrow it by statute ‒ and a constitutional amendment is a high bar to clear.

Still, Congress and the president can do plenty short of that: tighten border security, change visa requirements and increase domestic immigration enforcement. The court's decision doesn't let us change the incentive to come here illegally, but it leaves us fully capable of making illegal entry far harder, and far more likely to end in getting caught.

Just because Congress refuses to legislate doesn't mean the judiciary should take over. Rewarding that pattern only gives Congress more reason to sit on its hands. Birthright citizenship is the law of the land. Those who disagree with it should pursue legitimate avenues of change – a constitutional amendment, congressional action – rather than raze our republican structure of governance to get there faster.

Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Birthright citizenship: The right's meltdown sounds familiar | Opinion

Reporting by Dace Potas, USA TODAY / USA TODAY

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

Copyright Reuters or USA Today Network via Reuters Connect

This story was originally published July 5, 2026 at 1:01 AM.