Left-wing Supreme Court justices spend decades torching the Second Amendment because they claim the Constitution was a "living document."
Those same justices showed up sounding exactly like Antonin Scalia.
Jonathan Turley told Laura Ingraham what they pulled off – and why it may have backfired spectacularly.
Liberal Justices Channeled Scalia to Defend Birthright Citizenship at the Supreme Court
Trump signed the executive order on his first day back in office, directing federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents to babies born on U.S. soil unless at least one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Every federal court that reviewed it blocked it.
The Supreme Court heard the case – known as Trump v. Barbara – with Trump himself in the room, the first sitting president ever to attend oral arguments.
The government's argument centered on four words in the 14th Amendment: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that phrase was always meant to exclude children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors – that a century of automatic birthright citizenship has been a misreading of the original text.
Most of the court's conservative justices had hard questions for Sauer.
So did the three left-wing justices – but for a reason that nobody on the left saw coming.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley appeared on The Ingraham Angle and called it the "hilarious aspect" of the oral arguments – watching Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson suddenly invoke original intent.
These are justices who spent careers treating the Second Amendment as barely a speed bump.
The moment birthright citizenship came up, they started arguing like the man they spent years dismissing – insisting the court must return to original intent and the English common law rule.
Turley told Ingraham the three left-wing justices "seemed to be channeling Scalia," and said that framing "obviously played to the conservative justices."
There's a reason the left made that pivot.
The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause was ratified in 1868 to grant freed slaves and their children citizenship after the Supreme Court's infamous Dred Scott ruling stripped it away.
For over a century, courts read that clause – "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" – as a near-absolute guarantee.
Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor wrapped themselves in that history because it was the strongest argument available.
They may have won the battle and handed conservatives the war.
Trump Attends Supreme Court as Solicitor General Defends 14th Amendment Originalism
Trump became the first sitting president in history to attend Supreme Court oral arguments – a statement of how seriously he takes the fight.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the 14th Amendment has been misread for generations – that the citizenship clause was meant to cover only children of those legally domiciled in the United States, not children of illegal aliens or tourists on temporary visas.
Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case references "domicile" 20 different times – a detail that bolstered Sauer's argument that legal permanent residency was always the threshold.
Justice Samuel Alito pushed further, invoking Scalia's textualist framework to ask whether children of illegal aliens represent a comparable modern category to the recognized historical exceptions covering diplomat's children and certain Native Americans.
Turley had gone further that same morning on Fox & Friends.
"The fact that we are one of the few countries that continues to embrace birthright citizenship is perfectly insane," Turley said. "It is a great danger to this government and to this republic."
He called out birth tourism directly – noting that Chinese media reported 500 companies whose entire business model is arranging for pregnant women to enter the United States and give birth on American soil.
The U.S. is one of only 30 countries with no restrictions on birthright citizenship whatsoever.
The Second Amendment Trap Elena Kagan Set by Defending Birthright Citizenship
Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson just made the most powerful argument for constitutional originalism they have ever made – and they did it to win one case.
Every time one of those three tries to read a "living constitution" into the Second Amendment, conservatives now have the transcript from April 1, 2026.
Turley flagged it immediately.
When left-wing justices treat the 14th Amendment's language as sacred text demanding original intent, they are using Scalia's own method – the one they spent three decades dismissing as partisan theater.
Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh had tough questions for the Trump administration Wednesday, and the court's ruling – expected by end of June – looks uncertain for Trump's executive order.
But Kagan handed future conservative justices a loaded weapon.
The next time a gun case reaches this court, the originalism framework she defended on Wednesday will be sitting in the record, waiting.
Trump called birthright citizenship "perfectly insane" on Truth Social minutes after leaving the courtroom – echoing Turley, and the roughly 165 countries that have already figured it out.
Sources:
- Nicole Silverio, "Jonathan Turley Says It's 'Insane' US Is One Of Few Countries With Birthright Citizenship," Daily Caller, April 2, 2026.
- Breitbart News, "FNC's Turley: 'Hilarious' to Watch Lefty Justices Sound Like Scalia on Birthright Citizenship," Breitbart, April 1, 2026.
- Amy Howe, "Supreme Court appears likely to side against Trump on birthright citizenship," SCOTUSblog, April 1, 2026.
- Fox News Staff, "SCOTUS grills both sides on Trump's birthright citizenship order," Fox News Digital, April 1, 2026.
- Lawrence Hurley, "Supreme Court appears skeptical of Trump's attempt to limit birthright citizenship," NBC News, April 1, 2026.