It should be “a slam-dunk” for the Supreme Court to rule against birthright citizenship – if it rules based on the original meaning of the text of the U.S. Constitution and the history of the 14th Amendment – Constitutional Scholar and conservative commentator Mark Levin says. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a birthright citizenship case concerning whether anyone born on U.S. soil, such as the child of an illegal immigrant, has automatic U.S. citizenship. Levin discusses the case and the issue of birthright citizenship in a clip from his Liberty’s Voice podcast posted on social media Wednesday. “It’s a fraud,” Levin says of the concept of birthright citizenship, noting that it’s not in either the U.S. Constitution or any federal law: “It’s completely made up; it’s a fiction.” As an example, Levin cites tourists from other countries who give birth in the U.S.: “The country from which the tourist comes doesn’t recognize that child as an American citizen. They recognize them as, for example, a citizen of France or Britain and so forth. “So, how can it be that an illegal alien comes across the border, they have a child, and that child is automatically an American citizen? “Nobody, no court has ever ruled that. Nobody, nobody has ever passed legislation saying that. And, yet, that is the way it is treated.” Levin details how the history and original intent of the 14th Amendment also belie the case of those who cite it as justification for granting birthright citizenship. So, while the justices will be subjected to “different kinds of arguments that will be mostly political dressed up as legal or potentially constitutional,” ruling against birthright citizenship should be easy, Levin says: “Because, if this decision is made based on the text, that is the original meaning, the original meaning of ‘jurisdiction,’ if it’s based on the history surrounding the amendment, if it’s based on the history leading up to the amendment and that civil rights law, it’s a slam-dunk case against birthright citizenship.” “I’m hoping that birthright citizenship is ruled unconstitutional, but that might be a bridge too far for this particular court,” Levin says. “I’m hoping that at least they rule that it is not compelled by the Constitution.” Fear of threats – and of being criticized by leftist media like The New York Times – could end up influencing some of the justices, Levin cautions: “I think some of the justices, well, they don’t like being threatened. They don’t like people with bullhorns in front of their homes, as in the Dobbs decision. In other words, they don’t want history to write very negatively of them through The New York Times and the Left, which controls so many of our institutions. “It’s just easier to go along. So, I think for some of the justices, perhaps, perhaps that will be in the back of their minds, too.” “I think the court may look for an off-ramp. I don’t know what is. I hope they don’t find it,” Levin says: “I hope they rule straight-up that the Constitution does not compel this, that no federal law compels this.” “But, we’re about to find out,” Levin says. pic.twitter.com/Nh7cjD31Wu — Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) April 1, 2026