Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar and professor at the George Washington University Law School, believes a 28th Amendment may be necessary to fix the United States' current issue with birthright citizenship, after even the conservative Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of the Trump administration's oral arguments last week.
While anyone born in the United States is currently granted automatic citizenship, the policy has created a host of challenges, both in terms of the meaning of citizenship and national security.
Chinese companies have been known to facilitate “birth tourism,” and illegal immigrants similarly exploit the 14th Amendment to secure entry to the U.S. and access its benefits. The Trump administration has been clear that American citizenship must be protected, but doing so requires navigating the constraints of the 14th Amendment.
With the expected reaffirmation of birthright citizenship by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Barbara, the question is whether whether we should have a national debate on a possible new citizenship amendment... https://t.co/faXKQpW7RE
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 6, 2026
"Of course, nothing is certain until this summer when the Court issues its opinion in Trump v. Barbara," he wrote. "However, we need to consider the need for a 28th Amendment to reaffirm the meaning of citizenship."
The conservative justices expressed skepticism during arguments for several reasons.
First, as originalists, they are hesitant to radically overturn the historically understood meaning of arguably one of the most important amendments in the Bill of Rights, as they generally reject judicial activism. They also questioned whether the Trump administration’s new definition of birthright citizenship would truly align with the amendment’s original intent, which was to guarantee that the children of Black slaves were recognized as U.S. citizens.
"The rampant abuse in this country and the widespread rejection of birthright citizenship by other nations (including some that once followed it) did not seem to impress the conservative justices," Turley wrote. However, he argued that the justices might actually be sympathetic to the cause, even if they are unwilling to alter the 14th Amendment’s meaning to make the Trump administration’s case easier.
Although President Trump has lashed out with personal attacks on the conservative justices as “disloyal” and “stupid,” they are doing what they are bound by oath to do: apply the law without political favor or interest. I expect most of the justices agree with the vast majority of countries — and the president — that birthright citizenship is a foolish and harmful policy. But they are not legislators; they are jurists tasked with constitutional interpretation.
"For conservatives, constitutional interpretations offer less leeway than their liberal colleagues or believers in the 'living constitution,'" he added. "If you believe in continually updating the Constitution from the bench to meet contemporary demands, constitutional language is barely a speed bump on your path to the preferred outcome in any given case."
He went on to say that, in this case, the Justices are likely to be unwilling to make any drastic change.
"In my Supreme Court class, I call this a 'default case' in which justices tend to run home. When a record or the law is uncertain, conservative justices tend to avoid expansive, new interpretations. That was precisely what Trump said he wanted in nominees.
These justices are not being 'disloyal' to him, but rather loyal to what they view as the meaning of the Constitution."
So what then is the answer to the issue of birthright citizenship?
"The final word actually rests with the public," Turley wrote. "We can amend the Constitution to join most of the world in barring birthright citizenship. There is no more important question in a republic than the definition of citizenship."
Passing a Constitutional amendment is no easy task, but it may be the only way to prevent the abuses the Trump administration aims to address. This responsibility falls not on elected officials alone, but on the public to recognize the issue, unite, and solve a problem facing the nation, just as the founders intended when establishing the framework for governance.
As outlined in Article V of the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed either by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate or by a convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. It must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
This, however, will require the support of multiple Democratic states and politicians. Despite the urgency, Republicans will need to persuade the rest of the country of the issue’s importance. Whether that’s possible remains uncertain, but it is a worthy effort for a critical cause, one that could make Republicans far more effective in national politics if they choose to see it through.
