Republicans reacted to Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship by issuing warnings of its consequences – and spelling out their plans to address them. With its 5-4 ruling on Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order declaring that children of illegal aliens and foreign nationals temporarily in the country are not citizens of America simply because they are born on U.S. soil. The issue addressed by the Supreme Court is summarized in its ruling: “The question presented is whether the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born in the United States of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country. Under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’” In his executive order, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” Pres. Trump cited the 14th Amendment: “The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that ‘a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.” Thus, children born in the U.S. to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily in the country are not automatically granted citizenship, the executive order states. Lawsuits and stays granted by several federal judges across the U.S. prohibited the Trump administration from enforcing the order while challenges to it moved forward in court. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court settled the case by striking down the executive order and granting citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of parental status: “Held: Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.” “Birth tourism is a thriving industry that mocks American citizenship, and today the Court let it stand,” Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) warned a social media post reacting to the decision and promising that “This fight is not over. Not even close.” “The American people deserve a citizenship system that cannot be gamed by anyone with a plane ticket. Congress needs to act and I will lead that fight,” the congresswoman wrote in another post. “Giving citizenship to the offspring of illegals incentivizes illegal immigration,” House Republicans warned on their @HouseGOP X.com page. “This ruling is the final alarm bell,” Missouri Republican Senator Eric Schmitt wrote, stressing the vital need to properly confer and limit U.S. citizenship: “Citizenship is more than paperwork issued by the government. It is more than a bureaucratic label that grants access to government programs. Citizenship is the covenantal bond between a nation and its people.” …. “Citizenship defines the political community that governs the United States.” ….  “If we lose control of citizenship, we lose control of self-government itself.” “Under the Supreme Court’s decision, citizenship no longer reflects allegiance or loyalty to a country and its laws. It becomes an administrative status to be seized by interlopers,” Sen. Schmitt warned, vowing to pursue a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of citizenship: “Accordingly, I will be announcing a forthcoming constitutional amendment to restore the sacred bond between American citizens and their government.” Sen. Schmitt said his amendment will reflect the language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which states that “any person born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power” would be granted birthright citizenship. “Our generation’s existential threat is a hostile takeover through mass migration,” Schmitt warned: “The Supreme Court’s decision constitutionalizing unlimited birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens and temporarily present aliens is wrong—and disastrous for our sovereignty and the future of our republic. “The decision exposes America to grave national security risks and threatens to erode the integrity of the core of American self-government: citizenship.” While “Today is a sad day in the history of our republic,” Sen. Schmitt wrote, the nation will survive and overcome the threats created by Tuesday’s decision, thanks to the efforts and faith of patriots: “But America and the Constitution have survived for 250 years because each generation has had patriots who, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, valiantly fought back the existential threats this great nation has faced.”

NBC News debased itself Tuesday with its Special Report on the Supreme Court decision allowing state bans of transgenderism in sports to remain in place, delivering a trigger warning about the use of “biological male” and “biological female” as well as scoffing at President Trump for “boil[ing] it down into bumper sticker language” when it’s unclear men have advantages over women and more care should be shown to a “deeply personal issue” that involves a “small” number of people. It started off fairly uneventful with chief legal correspondent and Saturday Today co-host Laura Jarrett — daughter of Obama Center CEO Valerie Jarrett — sticking to quoting the majority opinion from Justice Kavanaugh and stating the facts in a manner we often see from CBS’s Jan Crawford. Jarrett explained the “broad” ruling was “nationwide and far-reaching,” upholding state transgender sports bans and illuminated on the fact that Justice Neil Gorsuch was in the majority despite having authored a past case about LGBTQ individuals in the workplace. It wasn’t until chief Justice and national affairs correspondent Kelly O’Donnell came up that things went off the rails. She said President Trump would “consider this a very significant win, and will largely take some credit for bringing this to the cultural forefront,” but then conceded her discomfort with this acknowledgment of biology. Deploying one of the usual pro-trans tropes, O’Donnell told viewers, “It is also notable that it is narrow in the sense of the numbers of transgender athletes who are seeking to compete, that — that is a very small pool in many ways.” NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell downplays the Supreme Court decision against transgenderism in sports because “the numbers of transgender athletes...is a very small pool, in many ways,” and thus, we can’t know “some of those implications” about any “advantages...a biological male” has pic.twitter.com/vuypnLOz6C — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 30, 2026 She went further by insisting it’s still unclear whether biological men have physiological advantages over biological women, adding it’s too early to conclude “some of those implications.” O’Donnell doubled down on her virulently pro-trans narrative by blasting the President for “boil[ing]” the issue of transgenderism “down into bumper sticker language, talking about transgender athletes” as “universally bad” when it’s just “his interpretation.” LAME: NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell laments President Trump has “boil[ed]” transgenderism “down into bumper sticker language” when “it’s obviously much more complex,” and “an area of American life where there are very deeply personal issues, especially when it’s involving minors” and… pic.twitter.com/VMMvNDprDx — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 30, 2026 She went on by reiterating her “small” argument and insisting we all remember how “deeply personal” the matter is to those who are trans: It’s obviously much more complex. It’s an area of American life where there are very deeply personal issues, especially when it’s involving minors, religious implication, all kinds of things that make those cultural issues such hot buttons...[T]he Court is rendering a very significant decision that we’ll have far-reaching implications across the states, even if the numbers involved of specifically individual students who would bring cases like this or would participate, those numbers may be small[.] Today co-host Craig Melvin also embarrassed himself with Orwellian verbiage, posing what seemed to be a trigger warning for any trans person watching: “Just a quick note here. The terms that we’re using here during our reporting, biological male, biological female, the high court put those terms in quotations in their decision and their dissent. But just so you know, we’re using those terms from the decision itself, biological male, biological female.” INSANE: NBC’s Craig Melvin offers a trigger warning for trans people watching... “Just a quick note here. The terms that we’re using here during our reporting, biological male, biological female, the high court put those terms in quotations in their decision and their dissent.… pic.twitter.com/Hx15swCfJ6 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 30, 2026 Melvin should consult both Genesis 1 and 5 as well as Matthew 19 to name a few chapters in the Bible laying out male and female. Jarrett thankfully returned and dispensed with analysis of the ruling without the ludicrous rhetorical throat-clearing. The closest she got to offering an opinion was correctly asserting topics such as this one are “so difficult for so many people who may be progressive in many ways, but on this issue, they end up siding with the conservatives on the issue, because they see it as an issue of equality for women and equality for participation.” Notice how, following Jarrett, Homeland Security correspondent also engaged in Melvin’s need to assert she was just using the Court’s (correct) descriptions of human biology (click “expand”): MELVIN: [Y]ou’re also just a few feet away from some protesters as well. What’s the sense that you’re getting from them? Are they happy about this decision? Are they disappointed by the decision? Or is it a mixed bat? AINSLEY: Well, they could have been protesters depending on how this decision went. But as it happens, Craig, the group that is behind me, and in front of the court, the most organized group is from people who were supportive of the decision today. They were for people — these are a group representing athletes who want people as they’re biologically born male or female — those terms that we’ve been using because they’re from the decision — they want states to be able to decide who can be in these sports, and that they feel that if a state decides that it should be a biological male or a biological female participating in those gendered sports, and that should be allowed to stand. So, we did hear cheers from this group, and just hear them again behind me today. They are in favor of this opinion today. Later, NBC News legal analyst Danny Cevallos had a Freudian slip when he started to say the Court can now let states discriminate against trans people, but stopped himself to instead say “make these decisions based on biological sex,” but will now open up a debate about strict vs. intermediate scrutiny: Ooof: NBC News legal analyst Danny Cevallos starts to say, but stops himself from opining in full the Supreme Court has now legalized discrimination against trans people by banning males from women’s sports pic.twitter.com/HzGG5UMIeb — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 30, 2026 Following a brief interlude to cover the campaign finance decision, the mood changed once the birthright citizenship case arrived and ruled against the President’s push to end it. After Melvin slipped up and claimed the Court had “struck down birthright citizenship,” Jarrett corrected him to mean the Court delivered “a hugely consequential moment for our constitutional structure, a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court striking down one of the most controversial moves the President has made in this second term.” “It was an immediate eruption of roar of cheers. We saw a lot of people who had been standing here in the shade waiting for this decision rush over. Some do have just come to see this for the day to...be here for this historic moment where the Supreme Court struck down this very unusual broad executive order,” an ebullient Ainsley said from outside the Court. O’Donnell boasted that while “the President has been preparing for this ruling,” he’s nonetheless “often [said] we’re the only country that has this” even though “[t]hat is not accurate.” “There are more than 30 nations that also bestow rights of citizenship based on birth, and another 50 that do it in a more limited way. So, the President’s contention that the United States was alone in this is just not accurate,” she continued. In much happier moods regarding this case, Melvin spent the next eight and a half minutes letting Ainsley, Jarrett, and Justice reporter Ryan Reilly to sound off on the birthright case and Chief Justice John Roberts’s full-throated defense of citizenship. Asked to wrap the Special Report with her thoughts about this Supreme Court term, Jarrett said there’s been “a rubric” developed of “a conservative majority” giving Trump wins on “immunity for potentially criminal acts,” “fir[ing] people from a dozen different federal agencies,” and “expelling hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrian refugees,” but not on birthright citizenship, the Federal Reserve, and tariffs. Cases such as the latter trio, Jarrett asserted, are “inflection points...when they have no choice but to really make a hard decision about something as it relates to this president, even if they don’t want to” and “pose a check on executive authority.” To see the relevant NBC transcript from June 30, click here.

Tuesday was a busy day at the Supreme Court that was headlined by the upholding of birthright citizenship and state laws that sought to protect the competitive integrity of female sports. However, the Court also cited the First Amendment and free speech when it struck down a campaign finance law that limited how much money political parties can spend on candidates, which led MS NOW and CNN to suffer epic meltdowns at the news they considered to be the latest example in Republicans’ war on democracy. MS NOW Reports host Antonia Hylton simply put the ball on the tee for Brookings Institute senior fellow and Democracy Defenders Fund founder Norm Eisen when she declared, “Norm, I want your big picture take on what the Court has done to the curtain that I think at least Americans used to think there was between big money and their political voice.”   MS NOW suffered an epic melt down after the Supreme Court struck down party donation limits, citing the First Amendment. Antonia Hylton asked Norm Eisen "I want your big picture take on what the Court has done to the curtain that I think at least Americans used to think there was… pic.twitter.com/LvCdns7Ysl — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) June 30, 2026   The melodramatic Eisen began his response by claiming the ruling was a corrupt handout to the GOP, “Republicans who love this big, dark corporate money that is devastating our country went to their Republican colleagues on the Supreme Court, and they got an exemption to pump more of that corporate cash that has so broken our country, Antonia, and devastated the lives of working people to pour more of that money into the swamp.” The First Amendment is not an “exemption.” It’s the rule. Nevertheless, Eisen was then unwittingly torn between his narrative that money buys elections and some self-promotion proving that it doesn’t: But let me tell you, the American people are not going to tolerate that. Individual candidates have a small donor advantage on the Democratic side. This corruption of our political system with big money, as you saw on the screen, is rejected by a super-majority of Americans at Democracy Defenders Action, for example, we fought Elon Musk when he tried to outspend pro-reform candidates for the Supreme Court in Wisconsin. We — the big money turned that into a race, the people versus Musk, and they rejected him, even though he outspent by a factor of many times.  Getting back to the corruption allegations, Eisen was more explicit, “So, I think this is part of the reason that the Republican Party is so corrupt. We need to say that candidly, that their fellow Republican justices on the Supreme Court have gone ahead to break the playing field and let this huge flood of corporate and other dark cash into the system know the American people, irrespective of party, don't want that.” He then demanded, “We need to have Supreme Court reform, for example, term limits, and we need Congress to pass sane laws. This is no way to run a democracy. The American people of all parties hate it.” Over at CNN, chief congressional correspondent and Inside Politics guest host Manu Raju framed the ruling in terms of how it will benefit Republicans, “Just look at the amount of money that the NRSC, the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, which brought this case. $48.9 million that they have compared to the Democrats’ 38.9 million. That’s the Senate side. And it's — you compare it to the other outside groups as well, significant. So, that's why they can make up for that disparity.”   Over at CNN, NPR host Ayesha Rascoe claimed, "It's a huge deal, right? I mean, and then you couple that with the Voting Rights—being Voting Rights Act really being gutted. I mean, these are having impacts when people vote. . I do think that, you know, this is something where you… pic.twitter.com/T9CsC7z4mB — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) June 30, 2026   NPR host Ayesha Rascoe agreed and tried to tie the case to other recent Court rulings, “It's a huge deal, right? I mean, and then you couple that with the Voting Rights—being Voting Rights Act really being gutted. I mean, these are having impacts when people vote. I do think that, you know, this is something where you often talk to people, they want to get money out of politics. But the Supreme Court has went in the totally opposite direction.” She also claimed, “I do think that ultimately that does lead to a disconnect, right? Like people are going to go to cast their ballots in November, but are they actually being heard and represented? And, like, when you have decisions like this that seem to go against the popular will.” The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the basis of the Constitution, not “popular will.” Understanding that should be the bare minimum for any media person talking about the Court. Here are transcripts for the June 30 shows: MS NOW Reports 6/30/2026 11:43 AM ET ANTONIA HYLTON: Norm, I want your big picture take on what the Court has done to the curtain that I think at least Americans used to think there was between big money and their political voice. NORM EISEN: Republicans who love this big, dark corporate money that is devastating our country went to their Republican colleagues on the Supreme Court, and they got an exemption to pump more of that corporate cash that has so broken our country, Antonia, and devastated the lives of working people to pour more of that money into the swamp. But let me tell you, the American people are not going to tolerate that. Individual candidates have a small donor advantage on the Democratic side. This corruption of our political system with big money, as you saw on the screen, is rejected by a super-majority of Americans at Democracy Defenders Action, for example, we fought Elon Musk when he tried to outspend pro-reform candidates for the Supreme Court in Wisconsin. We — the big money turned that into a race, the people versus Musk, and they rejected him, even though he outspent by a factor of many times.  So, I think this is part of the reason that the Republican Party is so corrupt. We need to say that candidly, that their fellow Republican justices on the Supreme Court have gone ahead to break the playing field and let this huge flood of corporate and other dark cash into the system know the American people, irrespective of party, don't want that. And you are going to see a resounding rejection of this at the polls in November. We need to have Supreme Court reform, for example, term limits, and we need Congress to pass sane laws. This is no way to run a democracy. The American people of all parties hate it. *** CNN Inside Politics with Dana Bash 6/30/2026 12:20 PM ET MANU RAJU: Just look at the amount of money that the NRSC, the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, which brought this case. $48.9 million that they have compared to the Democrats’ 38.9 million. That’s the Senate side. And it's — you compare it to the other outside groups as well, significant. So, that's why they can make up for that disparity. AYESHA RASCOE: It's a huge deal, right? I mean, and then you couple that with the Voting Rights—being Voting Rights Act really being gutted. I mean, these are having impacts when people vote. I do think that, you know, this is something where you often talk to people, they want to get money out of politics. But the Supreme Court has went in the totally opposite direction. And I do think that ultimately that does lead to a disconnect, right? Like people are going to go to cast their ballots in November, but are they actually being heard and represented? And, like, when you have decisions like this that seem to go against the popular will.

After more Supreme Court rulings on Tuesday, including a decision to allow states to ban biological men from playing in women’s sports, MS NOW legal reporter Lisa Rubin praised the written opinion for its words of “respect” for transgender athletes. But later, she said female athletes’ tactics in the controversy have ‘villainized’ the biological males in women’s sports. She even commented on young athletes' cheers outside the court, with a warning that their “feeling of victory” could bleed into “ostracizing.” After the decision was released, Rubin first said the court “fetishizes history,” as she explained how the court said the original text of Title IX was based on biological sex since it was written in 1972.   In more response to the SCOTUS decision on transgender athletes, MS NOW's Lisa Rubin said the court "fetishizes history" as she read the majority's interpretation of Title IX. pic.twitter.com/OkVBHp4B0X — Nick (@nspin310) June 30, 2026   But a few minutes after the initial discussion of the court’s interpretation of Title IX, Rubin returned to the actual written opinion in the cases released by the court. She said, “the majority wants to make sure that even as they're ruling against both of these athletes, they want to make sure that it's conveyed to the public that they don't mean any disrespect, and they don't always do something like this.” After she conveyed the Supreme Court’s respectful remarks in its decision, she read one part aloud which noted the athletes are mostly teenagers and people in their 20s as she continued to read, “Their desire to compete warrants respect. No student athlete on either side of the issue, whether a biological female or transgender, deserves to be ostracized or vilified.“ Rubin then turned to discuss the “women athletes in particular,” who she described as those “who are born female and present as female,” and said the court decision is different from athletes who, “sort of villainize some of the people who are like the plaintiffs in this case.”   In response to SCOTUS’s ruling that allows states to ban transgender athletes from sports, MS NOW's Lisa Rubin was struck by the written opinion and said it was different from “women athletes in particular” who “sort of villainize some of the people who are like the plaintiffs in… pic.twitter.com/2a6I2VKype — Nick (@nspin310) June 30, 2026   Fill-in host Antonia Hylton, after Rubin mentioned women’s athletes' views on transgender athletes, agreed and responded, “Yeah,” before Rubin continued. Rubin then mentioned the cheers outside the court from female athletes, who she now called “biologically female athletes who compete as women,” and said they are “feeling like they are victorious in the moment.” But she then said the feeling of victory could “bleed over” into something else: “That feeling of victory can very easily bleed over into the sort of ostracizing that the majority is talking about.” Rubin closed and continued to say she was struck by the court’s respect: I find it notable that they go out of their way to say, we're reaching this result on legal grounds. But make no mistake, the people who are living their lives as trans women and trans men, they deserve your respect. Their desire to play sports and compete on the playing field is genuine. That strikes me. That sticks with me. Apparently, according to MS NOW, blame should be placed on women’s athletes, like some of those cheering outside the court, because they “villainize” the biological males who competed in their sports. The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s Money, Power, Politics w/ Stephanie Ruhle June 30, 2026 10:10:53 AM Eastern LISA RUBIN: Yeah. Well, I'm looking now at some of the aspects of the opinion. And so let's start with the majority opinion where they're interpreting Title IX first. That's the statute that forbids gender discrimination or other forms of discrimination in educational opportunity. And they say “the term sex in the 1972 Title IX statute and surrounding amendments and regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex, the ordinary meaning of the term sex at the time of enactment.” And let me just pause there for a second, because this is a court that fetishizes history. History at the time of enactment- UNKNOWN: What does that mean? RUBIN: - meaning they're obsessed with what something means at the time a statute is enacted, at the time a constitutional provision comes into play. So, whether it's we're talking about 1866, in the birthright citizenship context, or we're talking about 1972, when Title IX was passed, this court is always going to go back to what they consider the original meaning of a term at the time that a statute or a constitutional provision was put into play. (...) 10:20:07 AM Eastern LISA RUBIN: There's one thing here that Fallon Gallagher has pointed out to me that I think is so important and so smart, which is that the majority wants to make sure that even as they're ruling against both of these athletes, they want to make sure that it's conveyed to the public that they don't mean any disrespect, and they don't always do something like this. And so I want to read aloud from the ruling. “In so ruling, we emphasize one last point. Most of the biological female and transgender student athletes who are involved in transgender sports disputes around the country are teenagers or in their early 20s. Those student athletes want to play sports. Their desire to compete warrants respect. No student athlete on either side of the issue, whether a biological female or transgender, deserves to be ostracized or vilified.“ And I think that's a really interesting comment by the majority, because you have seen a number of athletes, women athletes in particular, who are born female and present as female, sort of villainize some of the people who are like the plaintiffs in this case.  ANTONIA HYLTON: Yeah RUBIN: And Fallon was talking earlier about a demonstration at the court and hearing a cheer from biologically female athletes who compete as women, feeling like they are victorious in this moment. That feeling of victory can very easily bleed over into the sort of ostracizing that the majority is talking about.  I find it notable that they go out of their way to say, we're reaching this result on legal grounds. But make no mistake, the people who are living their lives as trans women and trans men, they deserve your respect. Their desire to play sports and compete on the playing field is genuine. That strikes me. That sticks with me. (...)

State laws limiting participation in school sports teams to athletes of the same biological sex are constitutional and violate neither the Equal Protection Clause nor Title IX of the 1964 federal civil rights act, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. The high court consolidated two cases, West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, producing a single ruling (“West Virginia v. B.P.J.”) applying to both. As a result, some judges concurred with the majority on one issue, but dissented on another. Thus, West Virginia and Idaho state laws separating sports teams based on biological sex were validated by a 6-3 vote regarding the Equal Protection Clause – as well as by a unanimous 9-0 concurrence, including even the most liberal justices, with respect to Title IX. “Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX,” the ruling states. “West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by maintaining female sports teams for biological females,” the high court determined. What’s more, a person’s sex is clearly defined by the “immutable characteristic” of biology, not presumed identity, it explains: “The term ‘sex’ in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term ‘sex’ at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context. See, e.g., Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 686 (‘sex’ is ‘an immutable characteristic’). In addition, the Title IX regulations allowed separate sports teams precisely because of the inherent physical differences between biological men and biological women.” …. “The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the States from applying that same principle to all biological males, including those who identify as female. States are not required to conduct an individual-by-individual comparison of the physical and athletic capabilities of all biological males in order to satisfy intermediate scrutiny.” Even if female-identifying biological males who take puberty blockers or hormones do not retain physical advantages over biological females (a subject of ongoing debate), the ruling says it would not alter the equal protection conclusion. In the past six years, 27 states have enacted laws that maintain female sports for biological females. Additional states are expected to follow suit, in light of Tuesday’s opinion. The ruling does more than just affirm the right of states to pass laws prohibiting biological males from participating in female sports, however. Tuesday’s decision also lays the foundation for female athletes to file lawsuits contending that states are required, not just allowed, to ban trans athletes from women's sports in order to comply with Title IX. Title IX is a landmark federal civil rights law enacted in 1972 that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or education program that receives federal funding. The Equal Protection Clause is a core constitutional guarantee under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It mandates that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws."