Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., accused the U.S. Supreme Court of betraying America on Tuesday and introduced legislation to restrict birthright citizenship in response to a high court ruling that struck down President Donald Trump's executive order on the issue.
The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision rejected the administration's attempt to limit citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who were either undocumented or present lawfully on temporary visas. The ruling upheld the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship, which states that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'
Trump's January 2025 executive order had declared it U.S. policy to deny documents recognizing citizenship to children whose mothers were either unlawfully present or were lawful but temporary visitors, if the father was not a citizen or legal permanent resident.
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic lawmakers and constitutional scholars widely praised the Supreme Court ruling as a correct interpretation of the Constitution. Opponents argue that birthright citizenship is explicitly protected by the 14th Amendment and cannot be altered through executive action or simple legislation alone, since any change to constitutional rights would require a formal amendment process.
Critics of Ogles' bill say it contradicts over 150 years of established constitutional law and would create second-class citizenship for children based on their parents' immigration status. They contend that the Constitution applies equally to all persons born under U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of parental nationality or documentation status. Immigration rights advocates have called the proposal an unconstitutional overreach that targets vulnerable populations.
What the Right Is Saying
Ogles defended his legislation in a statement provided to Fox News Digital, saying, 'Yesterday, the Supreme Court cheapened the most valuable thing on planet Earth: U.S. citizenship. Not only is birthright citizenship clearly not in the U.S. Constitution, but this broken system has allowed foreign nationals to take advantage of our country, our benefits, and our generosity.'
The congressman added, 'I refuse to let these anchor babies colonize our country. Save our sovereignty. Anchors away!' His office released a statement calling for passage of the 'Anchors Away Act,' which he argues addresses what he characterizes as abuse of U.S. citizenship protections by non-citizens.
What the Numbers Show
The Supreme Court's ruling was 6-3, with conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissenting. The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 following the Civil War to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people. The phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' has been part of federal law for over a century and a half.
Trump's executive order targeted two categories: children of undocumented mothers with non-citizen fathers, and children of lawfully present temporary visitors with non-citizen fathers. Under current constitutional interpretation, approximately 300,000 to 400,000 children annually are born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, though exact figures vary depending on methodology.
The Bottom Line
The Anchors Away Act faces significant legal hurdles regardless of congressional approval. Constitutional experts from across the ideological spectrum have questioned whether legislation alone can override the 14th Amendment's explicit language. Any successful challenge would likely reach the Supreme Court again, where the current 6-3 conservative majority has already demonstrated reluctance to limit birthright citizenship protections. The bill also includes provisions restricting admission of pregnant non-citizen visitors, which raises separate constitutional questions under equal protection principles. What happens next depends on whether the measure advances through committee hearings and whether it gains sufficient Republican support to reach a floor vote.