4.1.2026 - INTERVIEW: Rep. Mike Simpson, SCOTUS hears Birthright Citizenship, DHS, SAVE Act

April 1, 2026·1 hr 28 min·6 clips

The Supreme Court hears arguments on birthright citizenship today, with President Trump in the chamber.

1. The Neal Larson Show on NewsT alk 107.9 broadcasts live audio from the Supreme Court oral arguments on April 1, 2026, in the birthright citizenship case. 2. Host Neal Larson and co-host Julie provide analysis between argument segments, with the episode centered on Solicitor General John Sauer presenting the Trump administration's position. 3. The episode's core question is whether the 14th Amendment's phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' limits birthright citizenship to children of parents who are domiciled in the United States. 4. Sauer argues that the framers, including Senator Trumbull and Representative Bingham, understood 'jurisdiction' to mean 'allegiance,' citing page 1291 of the Congressional Record where Bingham says citizenship requires parents 'not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.' 5. Justice Thomas asks how the Citizenship Clause responds to Dred Scott, and Sauer argues the clause was designed to establish citizenship for freed slaves, whose parents had a relationship of domicile and no allegiance to any foreign power. 6. Justice Gorsuch challenges Sauer on how narrow common-law exceptions for ambassadors and enemy-occupied residents can logically extend to the entire class of unauthorized immigrants. 7. Sauer responds by pointing to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which used the phrase 'not subject to any foreign power' as a breakwater, arguing it adopted a 'Republican conception of allegiance' distinct from British common law. 8. Justice Alito asks Sauer to address the humanitarian problem that many people living in the U.S. without legal status have established genuine roots and consider the country their permanent home, even if subject to removal. 9. Sauer responds by citing Carson v. Reed and Toll v. Moreno for the concept of 'legal capacity to create domicile,' and notes that the U.S. is an outlier among modern nations in having 'nearly unrestricted birthright citizenship,' pointing out that every European nation has a different rule. 10. Justice Sotomayor asks whether Sauer is asking the Court to overrule Wong Kim Ark; Sauer says no, arguing the case's holding applied only to 'lawfully domiciled' Chinese immigrants and that later references to birthright citizenship for unauthorized immigrants were 'drive-by' rulings without analysis. 11. Justice Barrett raises the structural paradox in Sauer's argument: if Congress can define who is capable of establishing lawful domicile, then the 14th Amendment's guarantee is ultimately subject to legislative control, the exact outcome the framers sought to prevent. 12. Sauer addresses birth tourism, citing a congressional letter to DHS, media estimates of over 1.5 million Chinese birth-tourism births, and reports of 500 companies in the People's Republic of China whose business is to bring pregnant women to the U.S. 13. Justice Alito frames the modern scale with the observation that '8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a U.S. citizen child,' a phrase the hosts repeat during their analysis segments. 14. Justice Kagan tells Sauer his brief 'concedes' the position is revisionist and that Wong Kim Ark established a 'clear rationale' — that the English common-law tradition of birthright citizenship carried into the 14th Amendment — which 'everybody has believed for a long, long time.' 15. After the argument breaks, Neal tells listeners that Justice Gorsuch's tough questioning style does not necessarily signal opposition, noting Gorsuch 'throws 95 mile-per-hour fastballs' to ensure advocates make their best argument. 16. Neal references a report he watched that morning about a Chinese man who has fathered dozens of children via birth-tourism arrangements, with infants left at homes in Los Angeles to be raised collectively. 17. The hosts note that live SCOTUS blog moderators are sharply divided — some saying the argument is going 'incredibly well for the administration' and others describing it as 'a plane going down in flames.' 18. The episode follows a live-radio format with argument audio interrupted by commercial breaks and conversational analysis; the tone is politically sympathetic to the administration's position but acknowledges genuine judicial uncertainty. 19. Listeners interested in immigration law, constitutional originalism, or Supreme Court oral argument coverage will find detailed primary source audio and accessible lay commentary. 20. Listeners seeking a neutral legal analysis or who are not interested in conservative-leaning political commentary may find the co-host framing unwelcoming.

As heard by us

A live morning show that folds a Supreme Court argument into political radio.

The episode opens in live-morning mode and spends most of its time on birthright citizenship, with the Supreme Court hearing and the president's presence giving the hour real weight.

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

Catch a brisk morning talk-radio take on the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship arguments.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from The Neal Larson Show