SCOTUS Rulings: Birthright Citizenship & Mail Ballots Explained

Supreme Court rulings 2026 explained: SCOTUS upholds birthright citizenship in the Trump v. Barbara 6-3 decision while addressing mail-in ballots in Watson v. RNC. Get clear conservative analysis on the 14th Amendment, automatic U.S. citizenship for children born on American soil, immigration reform, election integrity, mail ballot deadlines, and impacts on the 2026 midterms.
Ryan Samuels breaks down the dissents, states’ rights on voting, Trump executive orders, border security, and what these landmark rulings mean for America First policies and fair elections. Essential listening for understanding constitutional law and protecting American sovereignty.
#SCOTUS #BirthrightCitizenship #MailInBallots #SupremeCourtRulings #ElectionIntegrity #Trump2026 #14thAmendment #AmericaFirst #ImmigrationReform #MidtermElections

Uncle Ted says subscribe on Facebook!

Transcript

SPEAKER_05 0:50

Good evening, America. Welcome to the Ryan Samuel show. Tonight, we're jumping right into the Supreme Court's dramatic final rulings of the term, rules that will shape executive power, elections, and immigration for years and years to come. Now, we're gonna start uh with the presidential authority in a major 6-3 win. This is a good thing for the Republican Party. The Supreme Court of the United States expanded the president's power to fire heads of independent agencies like the FTC, delivering a serious blow to unaccountable administrative, to the unaccountable administrative state or the deep state. This gives the president much more power to start drain the swamp, so you should say. However, the court drew a firm line at the Federal Reserve blocking President Trump's move to remove Governor Lisa Cook, at least for now. Uh we'll break down uh what this mixed result really means for uh the Republican Party moving forward and get getting rid of these bureaucrats that just get in the way. Next, uh, we'll also talk about the mail-in ballot decision that directly impacts how votes will be counted in the 2026 midterms. This is a big deal and it is not good. At the high-stakes birthright citizenship ruling, where the court struck down president's executive order. This is the most damaging one of all to the Republican agenda. Uh, there are ways around it. We're gonna talk about that. Um, we're also gonna address the disturbing pattern of threats against the Supreme Court justices, including a recent swatting attack on Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which the entire conservative movement is furious with at the moment. We're gonna go over that. I'm gonna analyze it. We're gonna see what um what she did, why she did it, and if I agree with her. Don't go anywhere. We'll be right back. Do not forget, you can call into the show live 561-786-2916. The first Supreme Court ruling we're gonna talk about tonight is uh Trump v. Slaughter, where a 6-3 Supreme Court decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts. Uh, this one is the one on executive power, right? So the what the ruling actually says and means, right? So the court struck down the four-clause removal protections for leaders of independent agencies like Federal Trade Commission. This was a barrier that the president needed to uh remove people from these positions that have been bureaucrats in the deep state or worked in the FBI for 30 years and didn't want to go along with the president's agenda or the president or the agenda of the executive branch. These agencies fall under the executive branch of the United States, and the president is the CEO of the executive branch. So therefore, they should have the authority to fire people who work for them for any reason. Doesn't matter how long you've been there, but that's been the problem with Washington, D.C. and the politics. Imagine being president of the United States, duly elected by the people, right? And just I'm for an example, just for schemantics, right? Just for your imagination. You get elected president of the United States because the ATF is going around and arresting people and violating people's rights. And you as the president uh were elected specifically to end the ATF and to fire people in the ATF, and then you become president of the United States and you can't do that. But that's the whole power point of elections is that you elect people to represent you and represent your interests and get the job done for what you elected them to do. So if the president is the CEO of the federal government and whatever branch of the federal government is not going along with his agenda or what he wants to do, then he can fire them. Just like I own a business. Somebody works for this show, they don't want to do what I tell them to do. Um goodbye. You no longer work for me, right? So the president has the constitutional authority to remove principal executive officers who exercise significant power. This is great. This is good. This is exactly what you need in this situation. Now, this situation could be used for good or it could be used for bad. But this is something that if you're going to have a massive giant federal government, the president should have some sway over it. Not 100% totalitarian sway, but he should be able to fire people that work for him, right? And then if the next president wants to bring those people back, they can. I have a firm belief that you shouldn't, that nobody should work for the federal government for more than 10 years, period. Full stop. So this just basically means that the president and future presidents can now more easily fire agency heads who obstruct or slow walk their agenda. This advances the unitary executive theory, the idea that the entire executive branch answers to the elected president, not to unelected bureaucrats. Do you agree with that? I mean, I kind of agree with that. If the president is the head of the executive branch and an agency falls under the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of an executive branch, then yeah, they should be able to fire you or remove the whole executive branch. So this is very good for Republicans. Donald Trump has run on draining the swamp since 2016. He has tried to, but he's run into many obstacles. So for decades, we have fought the administrative state. That's what the whole MAGA movement's about, right? That's what the whole uh conservative movement is about, is fighting the administrative trade, the bureaucrats, the agencies making law-like rules with almost no accountability because they're not elected. They don't have to run for re-election. So what this ruling does is it restores democratic control and gives real tools to actually drain the swamp. Hopefully, uh Donald Trump will use this to his advantage. Now, however, there's a caveat to this because there's always a caveat to everything we talk about, because you never win 100% of the battle. The Supreme Court drew a clear line at the Federal Reserve. In a related decision to this, it blocked President Trump from immediately removing Governor Lisa Cook. The Fed received special protection due to its unique role in the economy. This is very important. And I kind of knew that that's the way that it was gonna go. Don't get me wrong, I am an end the Fed guy. I think the Federal Reserve has done a lot a lot more bad than they ever have good. Okay. They're a private bank. They're not a public bank. You need to understand that. Uh they were started on Jekyll Island in in Georgia, uh, right above the Kings Bay Naval Base by a bunch of rich guys. JP Morgan, they sat around and said, How can we control the United States economy? How can we make it better for us? Essentially, right? But if you're going to have a Federal Reserve, which we are, we tried to get rid of the uh the Federal Reserve. Andrew Jackson, actually, it was called the Bank of the United States, and Andrew Jackson decided not to just put money in it anymore and completely defunded it. So this has been an ongoing issue. Hamilton suggested this. Jefferson completely opposed it, Madison completely opposed it. This has been a left-right issue since the founding of this country. But if you're going to have a Federal Reserve, the president should not be in charge of it. And I'm going to explain why. So it was created in 1913 by Congress at the behest of these multi-multi-umillionaires back then, which are basically billionaires and trillionaires today. The Board of Governors in Washington is the governmental body of the Federal Reserve. The presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed. So they're presidentially appointed and set it confirmed. There is something you need to know about that, though. So Donald Trump does not just get to, or Barack Obama or George Bush, or Joe Biden. They do not get to say, hmm, I am now president of the United States. I'm going to appoint Ryan Samuels to the head of the Federal Reserve. He can't do that. He gets a list of people from the Federal Reserve, and then he decides who he's going to appoint. So it's not like a normal, usual appointment. The president has serious restrictions on who he can appoint. The power of the Federal Reserve is basically unsurpassed. They're just as powerful as Congress or the President or the Supreme Court of the United States, maybe even a little bit more. So the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks are technically owned, right? By the member commercial banks in their districts. These private banks hold stock in their regional Fed bank and receive dividends. So the banks in whatever district you're in get paid by the Federal Reserve. So it's a very powerful quasi-private system that controls monetary policy with significant independence from direct political oversight. Now, if you support the Federal Reserve, you're going to argue that this insulation prevents politicians from manipulating the currency for short-term gain. Correct. If the president of the United States could set interest rates and he's accountable to get re-elected, you know what he's going to do. I don't care who it is. It's going to be like right now, not looking very good for the midterms. We're going to drop the interest rate down to 1%. We're going to print $10 trillion. We're going to have a short, robust economy for the next three months to get us to the midterm elections. I'm going to secure the midterm elections. Then we're going to do a little bit of deflation. We're going to make the economy a little bit tighter when we can to get this extra money out of the system. And then it's time for election again. And we're going to play the same games, and you're going to have complete and other total control. The reason the federal government, the Federal Reserve, is separate from the powers of the president is because they're not beholden to anybody. So they're beholden to the economy performing well. So they only lower interest rates when it's actually time to lower interest rates. They raise interest rates when it's time to raise interest rates. Now, if you're very, very critical of the Federal Reserve, you would say it gives too much unaccountable power to a banking cartel that influences inflation, interest rates, and the value of every American dollar. With very limited transparency and no or zero direct accountability to the people. They essentially get to stay in power for however long they deem they deem fit. So if you're going to have a Federal Reserve that's going to regulate the economy, it needs to be out of the hands of the politicians. It's similar to the Supreme Court justices who are not elected and they are appointed for life. And once you're appointed to the Federal Reserve for I mean to the Supreme Court for life, your decisions do not matter. Whatever decision you make, you're never going to be held accountable for. That because it presumes the inner good in people that if they make a decision that's not necessarily popular, then they're not going to be removed from the bench, right? Because the masses or the pot the the what's popular may not necessarily be correct for the country. Nobody wants higher interest rates. Nobody wants massive inflation. But sometimes you have to do that to keep the economy going. Sometimes you have to do massive deflation to slow the economy down. They're manipulating the economy, is what they're doing, but it's supposed to benefit um the people as a whole. We haven't had a stock market crash since uh October 29th, 1929. They were founded in 1913, though. So there's definitely a little bit of uh argument uh there. So the this ruling is is good, right? So it's real progress on Article II of the United States Constitution and the executive branch's powers. It kind of has a mixed but net positive outcome. The only thing that's negative is the Federal Reserve from what conservatives are saying. But if you're gonna have a good, if you're gonna have a Federal Reserve, what I'm telling you is that it needs to be separate of anybody's power. Because it would destroy the economy. Every politician would just be like, oh, print money, print money. Yeah, everybody. Oh, nope. Minimum wage, $25 an hour. We'll make it $100 an hour and we'll print more money, print more money, print more money, and the entire system would collapse. Unless you're going to be on the gold standard, but Richard Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971. So that's good. So it's a net positive for what we want. But it's also a net negative because the future presidents, God knows who they will be, also have more power now over every agency in the federal government. So be careful what you wish for right now. We just can only hope that the executive branch uses this new authority wisely and pushes legislative reforms and actually removes the people that should be removed from the federal government and maybe the entire just the entire agency. There's too many alphabet soups out there. The second major ruling this week was Wobson v Republican National Committee. This was a big one. This was a huge letdown to the conservative movement. So the outcome was a 5-4 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the beloved lady of the right, I might add. Born and raised Catholic, Catholic school. I believe she went to Notre Dame. Super conservative, dropped the ball on this one, as far as I'm concerned. Now, what they're trying to do in this case, right? Holding federal election day statutes to not require mail-in absentee ballots to be received by election day. That is the ruling. So the ruling is that mail-in ballots, or there is basically no election day, that ballots can be counted indefinitely after or before election day. That there's no requirement to get up, go out and vote, or if you can't get up and go out and vote, that your mail-in ballot be submitted and counted before election day. It also says that states can count ballots that are postmarked on or before election day, but arrive maybe a few days later. So in in Mississippi's case, up to five days. This is essentially what the Supreme Court is doing, in my opinion, with this case, particularly, is upholding states' rights to regulate their own elections. So it upholds a similar grace period. There's grace period laws that are very similar to this in a in over 30 states. As long as they were mailed on time. So essentially, if I mail my ballot one day before election day and it gets there 10 days later, it can still be counted. So for conservative, this raises a lot of red flags. So there's a couple of things it does. It increases the window for potential fraud. By not having them in and submitted on election day, you open the door for potential fraud because you lose a chain of custody. There's major issues, and last-minute ballot harvesting, which is legal in California and other states, where you can cast your ballot on behalf of other people. So it makes it significantly harder to declare winners on election night. We saw this in 2020 and 2022. We've seen it in almost every election since the mail and ballot thing. What and postal delays can be unpredictable, especially in large or rural states. So in the dissent, Justice Alito, joined by uh by Kavanaugh, Gorish, and Thomas, warned that this undermined election deadlines and public confidence. They argued that federal law was meant to create uniform election day rules, not let states stretch them out. The Supreme Court historically is reluctant to oversturn states' rights unless those states are infringing on their citizens' civil liberties. That's the best way that I can describe it. So from what I see, from what I understand, from what I'm looking at, is that they're concerned that they're overstepping their bounds with states' rights, at least some of them. So this is a loss for stricter election security, but it reinforces states' rights in some areas, right? So but this isn't the end of the world for the Conservative Party. And you know, people hear these rulings. Man, I deal with this every day. I post one thing, I literally need thousands of comments, thousands of people, thousands of lefties, thousands of righties. They're all coming in, nobody's ever going to be happy. But this just means that there's there's other avenues to take. We need to get the Save America Act vote passed. We need proof of citizenship requirements, voter ID, same-day counting where possible, and full audits of elections. So fair, secure, and transparent elections are just they're non-negotiable. We must continue fighting for reforms with things like the SAVE Act, so every legal vote counts and no illegal ones do. So this is one of the ones that really got under people's skin uh with Amy Coney Barrett. Right? Not as bad as the next one with birthright citizenship, but we're gonna explain that one in detail too. So Justice Barrett has some things to say. So, in in her majority opinion, she wrote that it focuses on text, history, and federalism. The narrow question does counting ballots postmarked by Election Day, but received up to five days later, violate the federal election day statute? She said no. And on the meaning of the term election, Justice Barrett wrote, the defining element of an election, the term used in all three federal statutes, has always been the electorate's choice of candidate. She continued. And she cites Webster's dictionaries, which is crazy considering they changed racism recently. She also said the court has likewise defined election as the expression of the electoral's choice, explaining that from time immemorial, an election has been no more and no less than expression by qualified electors of their choice of candidates, citing United States v. Classic in 1941. I have time and time again, I have criticized the Supreme Court for not directly going to the Constitution, but looking at what justice who preceded them thought about the ruling that they're making or the issue that they're discussing, discussing. They should be looking directly at the Constitution. So she also said the elector, the electorate's choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received. She emphasized the elections clause leaves mechanics to states. So she's invoking states' rights. Is that necessarily a bad thing? It depends. So it appears that the majority decision here is more concerned that if you casted your ballot, your vote should be counted. Regardless of when it's received. But that still can be done by election day. It still can be done by election day. If you send your check, if I if my electric bill is due on the 5th and I send it on the 4th, but it gets hung up in the mail to the 15th or the 20th, does my power still get cut off? Yes. It doesn't matter that the I intended to pay it, they didn't receive their money on time. They didn't receive their money on time. So Barrett, what she's doing is she she's citing the Constitution that it envisions a system in which a receipt is necessarily divorced from voting. And it sets the crucial uniform day as the day of voting, leaving a receipt to happen down the line. So election day is when you vote, and when you get your ballot, that's when that's when you get your ballot. You get somebody like Gavin Newsom's president of the United States. I know it's January 3rd and I'm supposed to relinquish myself from office, but all these votes haven't been counted. They're still piling in from months ago. Where's the deadline? What is stopping a power-hungry maniac from staying in office until we're counting ballots indefinitely? This is where Congress needs to fill in the gap, but you can't get Congress to do anything. So there was another case that was cited, Forrester v. Love. Barrett rejected tying 19th century practices directly to the statutes. Plaintiff's theory is that because 19th century Election Day statutes govern here, so do 19th century voting practices. But statutes do not trap in amber, quote, unquote. Every contemporary practice on the same subject matter. Barrett clarified it does not address or require ballot receipt by election day. That's her main argument. So we had some ascensions here. Justice Alito's, now ascension is the people who they just completely disagree. Justice Alito dissent argues for a broader view that includes official receipt and collection as part of the election. Here's a quote from Alito. Federal law designates the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November as election day. As the court explains, an election is the expression of the electoral's choice. But because the electorate is a collective body, its choices are embodied in the collection of ballots. This expression of the electorate's choices is conveyed in the responsible election officials when the collection of individual ballots is completed. At that point, the electorate authoritatively expresses its choices. If ballots received after election day are added to the set of ballots that dictate the election's outcome, the electorate's choice does not occur on election day, and the federal election day statutes are violated. It's amazing how detailed people can disagree and be on completely different pages, and that it's left up to whoever's interpretation. So he also responded to Foster v. Loves. Combined actions of voters and officials define definition, arguing the majority, contravenes it by separating voter mailing from official receipt. On consequences, the dissent warns of uncertainty, potential fraud, or gamesmanship, and states experimenting with ever later ever later later deadlines undermining the uniform election day Congress intended. This it's it's not good if you want election integrity. This ruling is not good if you want election integrity, and Amy Comey Barrett is the one particular one who let you down. If she voted with the conservative movement, we would have tougher, stronger elections right now. So it's understandable why people are upset with her. But they're not as upset with her about the election as they are about the um 14th Amendment and the citizenship, the birthright citizenship. This is the one I'm more upset about. Because I think it undermines the actual original principles of birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment, what it was specifically designed to do, and why it exists. This is this is the most shocking Supreme Court ruling I think I've ever seen in my career while I've been alive. There have been previous ones that are just terrible, like Dred Scott and many others where they're just completely wrong. But sometimes these decisions can can amplify and put fuel on civil war. That's what the Dred Scott decision did. Basically, made all African Americans not equal to white people. That's horrendous. For the same government that wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to you, even though you're a human being. Some of the greatest legal minds of the time, they get it wrong a lot because they're human beings. So to understand the ruling on birthright citizenship, basically what the Supreme Court said is that if you're born in the United States, I don't care who your parents are, I don't care if they're legal or illegal, I don't care about anything unless they're a diplomat. They're diplomats and they have a baby, the baby's not a citizenship citizen in the United States. But the 14th Amendment is kind of clear on this. They're saying that two illegal people here run over the border, pop out a baby, the baby is now a citizen, and the parents get to stay. That's Amy Comey Barrett. That's her interpretation. So, to understand the ruling, we need to start with the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was ratified in 1868. Which for you historians are at there was during the Reconstruction after the Civil War. Section one includes the citizenship clause. This is the one everybody's arguing about. All 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. This establishes birthright citizenship, where they call it just solely, or the right of the soil, which is an old, ancient law that they're that they're pulling that from. If you're born in the U.S., if you're born on United States soil and subject to U.S. laws, jurisdictions, you're a citizen. Like I said earlier, the only exceptions are diplomats who are immune from U.S. law or historically. Certain members of sovereign Indian tribes are not applicable to this either. But if you're here in the United States, you're subject to our law. You can't go around killing people. Can't rob banks, you can't do anything, you're subject to their law. They're saying we have authority over you, you have a baby, that child is a citizen of the United States of America. Is that what the 14th Amendment actually was codified to do? Or was it designed for something else? The 14th Amendment was primarily designed to overturn the Supreme Court's disastrous 1850 decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford. If you don't know anything about the Supreme Court ruling, or if you have any interest in learning, you can go to Ryanfsamuels.com, go to the news section in Supreme Court. I've spent years detailing the major decisions, and they're on there. You can read, you can learn, you can comment, you could do whatever you want, you can subscribe, and you'll get updated emails. In Dred Scott, Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that black people, free or enslaved, were not U.S. citizens and had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. Not just slaves, African Americans had zero rights from the highest pillar of justice in the United States. So what this did is it protected slavery and denied citizenship based on race and ancestry. The Fourteenth Amendment was a direct response to this. It constitutionalized the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and granted citizenship to formerly enslaved black Americans and their descendants. That's what this 14th Amendment was for. There's nothing more powerful than you can do as a country to rebute a Supreme Court ruling than to amend the Constitution. It's one of the very few things you can do to overturn their rulings. Besides wait till they die off and try it again in 30 years when people's minds have changed, even though individual rights and life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, natural law theory exist from time immemorial. Existed at the time of the drafting of Declaration of Independence and Constitution through slavery, which was completely wrong, which violates the natural law, which is why Jefferson put it in the declaration, and Madison hinted at all men are created equal, and we the people, we the human beings, in order to form a more perfect union. These men knew this at the time. So congressional debates emphasized securing equal citizenship for those who had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to foreign powers, and were fully subject to U.S. authority. It drew from English common law. A child born within the sovereign's territory are citizens. While rejecting feudal perpetual allegiance, the goal was national unity, protecting freed slaves from discriminatory quote black quotes in the southern states and ensuring citizenship could be could not be undermined by the states. While focused on black Americans, post-slavery, obviously, its broad language applies a little bit too generally. That's the problem with the 14th Amendment. It was not intended to be as narrow or race-based rule, but as a foundational guarantee. That's the problem with the 14th Amendment, is that the way it is worded, it does not say that we will any African Americans who the Supreme Court has declared are not human beings and have no rights. If they were born in the United States, they are now citizens and enjoy all the liberties of any other United States citizen. It just says if you're born on United States soil, you are a citizen. So there are people who like to legislate from the bench and use their own political thwarted analogy of history to do that. And we've seen that forever. There are people who are textual. And they say, no, that's not what the Constitution says. No, I understand what you're saying, and I understand the history. I understand why it was passed, but that's not what the words are in the Constitution. So my ruling is going to be what the words are in the Constitution. That's a textual list. We're still learning who Amy Comey Barrett is as a Supreme Court justice. She's brand new. She's only had a handful of rulings. The reason this went to the Supreme Court is because on the first day back in office in January 20th, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order protecting the meaning and value of American citizenship. It directed federal agencies to deny automatic citizenships to children born in the United States after a set date. If one, the mother was unlawfully present and the father was not a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident. Or the mother's presence was lawful but temporary, and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The plaintiffs, including the expecting parents, uh illegal of illegal, this is brought by legal aliens to the Supreme Court, and they won. Think about that, America. They argued that it violated the 14th Amendment of the immigration and the Immigration and Nationality Act, which codifies similar language. Lower courts blocked Donald Trump's order nationwide as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court granted sertory. I didn't do my uh my tongue twisters before I ow now, brown cow, before I went live. But that's okay. So in a 6-3 or 5-4 with partial joints decision, the majority struck down the executive order. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion upholding a broad interpretation of the citizenship clause. Here are the key arguments. The clause guarantees citizenship to nearly everyone born in the United States soil who is subject to the jurisdiction, which is everybody and anybody of the United States. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof is the quote. Excludes only narrow traditional categories. Children of foreign diplomats who are immune to U.S. laws, invading armies, enemies in hostile occupation, or certain Indian tribes under the tribal sovereignty at ratification. Children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visas holders are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. That's what the Constitution says. That's what the 14th Amendment says. That's the problem. The ruling is not the problem. The wording of the amendment to the Constitution is the problem. Now, the executive orders, new exceptions based on parental status, have no basis in the text, history, or precedent. Roberts noted that the order introduced words like mother, father, lawful or temporary that do not appear in the clause. Quote from Roberts: Under the Constitution, these children are citizens at birth. Historical and precedential support. The majority rooted the decision in amendments purposed to repudiate Dred Scott and restore the common law, Jus Sole rule, or just sole. It reaffirmed United States v. Wong King Arc in 1898, where the court granted citizenship to a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrant parents, legal residents, but not citizens. The clause was declaratory of the law and land already. But broad birthright citizenship was granted. Now, some people dissented. Justice Thomas Zolito and Gorsuch dissented. They advocated for a narrower originalist reading focused on the amendment's historical intent. So here are some of the key arguments of the dissenting justices. Quote, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, unquote, requires complete and primary allegiance to the United States, tied to domicile, meaning they have to live here. Permanent residents with intent to remain and no primary foreign allegiance. Mere physical presence or subjection to some laws is not enough. That's their interpretation. The clause was designed specifically for freed black slave post-Red Scott, people with no other homeland who owed full allegiance to the United States. It was not a broad feudal rule automatically granting citizenship to children of temporary visitors or undocumented immigrants. If you look at historical sources, debates the Civil Rights Act, excluding those subject to foreign powers, early executive interpretation that supports limits based on parental status. Alito and Thomas said the majority's reading is a quote serious mistake that ignores original meaning, risks dual allegiance, birth tourism, and undermines sovereignty. The executive of order was a valid effort to restore proper limits. This ruling preserves automatic birthright citizenship for nearly all children born on United States soil, affecting hundreds of thousands of births yearly. It blocks the administration's attempt to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment via executive action. Now, critics argue it encourages illegal immigration and strains resources. Supporters see it as upholding a core constitutional principle routed in equality post-slavery. Congress could still pursue statutory changes or constitutional amendment, but the decision reaffirms the clause's broadest scope. Expect this to just dominate uh immigration and election debates heading in 2026. The left side of the aisle now has the Supreme Court on their side when they argue and they debate. This is a problem. Especially when the majority of the Supreme Court are supposed to be on your side. I think if you're looking at the birthright decision from a textual perception, you're right to say that's not what it says. And that's something I wish they would do all of the time. I wish they would do that all of the time, and it would be so much better. You would lose a little here, lose a little there. But that's it. You'd win a lot more than you lost. If they were true free speech absolutists and Second Amendment absolutists, and they just read what it said, you wouldn't have all the nonsense restrictions that you have in the United States of America today. But the one time that they do it is the time that it's a problem. Now, people are very upset at Amy Comey Barrett. Very upset. It's out there, I'm sure you've seen it. I just have some some I guess I guess questions and concerns. We've talked about violent actions that happen to people on the right side of the aisle all the time. Charlie Kirk, the assassination attempts on Donald Trump. Coincidentally, right before Amy Coney Barrett makes like kind of turns a little bit on her values right before. On May 27th of this year, just a couple months ago, she was swatted at her house. Now, if you don't know what swatting is, it's when a bunch of lunatics um call the police and say, Oh my god, there's somebody in my house with a gun. Here's my address. They're killing me. Blah, blah, blah. And then the cops come in, uh, they kick in your door, uh, they raid your house, and maybe you react because you don't know why the police are here or if the police are here, and then you get killed, kind of thing. But she was just swatted by the police. Now, obviously, she's a Supreme Court justice, so they know going there that this doesn't sound right. This happened in her Virginia home. They reported false gunshots to police intending to provoke a dangerous armed response. But we've seen a pattern of threats on the Supreme Court where Barrett and her family were previously targeted. And we've also seen serious harassment against conservative justices like Kavanaugh and his assassination attempts and protests at his home. So just a question. Is she afraid if she votes for birthright citizenship that she's gonna get hurt? Is she afraid if she votes against mail-in ballot delays that she's gonna get hurt? Is she has she been compromised from fear of the left? I'm not saying because I I I generally don't know. It could be coincidental, but all of a sudden, just out of left field a month ago, you were ruling on basically everything great in our favor, and now all of a sudden it's almost like you completely switched sides. I I firmly believe that there needs to be serious judicial independence. I I think that that's great for the country. I do. I I I think that a Supreme Court justice should be able to make decisions without fear of repercussion from either side of the aisle. That's something that that we should all be striving to protect. That we should all be striving to to support. Here is JD Vance on birthright citizenship. Let me pull this up here. Here he is. Let's hear what he gotta say.

SPEAKER_07 49:32

Like to make it harder for people to actually take advantage of. I I hate to call it birthright citizenship. It's fundamentally a loophole that now exists in our immigration system that rewards illegal aliens just because they have a baby in the United States while they're in our country illegally. So I think that loophole is gonna cause a lot of problems. There are a number of things that we're already looking at in the administration, Laura, to try to close down that loophole to make it harder for people to actually take advantage of the yeah.

SPEAKER_05 50:02

Yeah, it's a good idea. Andrew Napolitano says this all the time. He's like one of my favorite people of all time. He says, The constitut does the constitution mean what it says? The answer is no. The Constitution, in some instances, does not mean what it says. Here is Representative Greg Cassar, a Democrat from Texas, celebrating this birthright citizenship ruling.

SPEAKER_03 50:39

Today, we're here to stand up for a fundamental American principle that if you're born in America, you are an American. No matter your parents' birthplace or language or creed, citizenship is a birthright in this country. No one is born a second-class citizen. And no president, no would-be king gets to pick and choose who is and who is not American. One people and equal justice for every single one of them. That is what Donald Trump was trying to undermine with his executive order. That the men and women who fought for the 14th Amendment knew the dangers of allowing people in power to pick and choose who does and does not have rights.

SPEAKER_05 51:27

Wrong. That's not typical Democrat who doesn't understand history.

SPEAKER_03 51:32

In this country, they had won a civil war to purge our country of the moral rot that follows when some people are deemed unworthy of equal rights. And today we say they will never go back.

SPEAKER_05 51:53

Ever. They won't act. You can't even get the Save America Act passed. Here is a Fox News report on birthright citizenship, which has taken all of the attention away from all of these rulings. But let's listen to this.

SPEAKER_08 52:12

Back to Shannon Bream for the view from Justice Thomas, who was a dissenter here. Shannon.

SPEAKER_06 52:19

Yeah, in his dissent, he gets to that point, Bill, that you're making there. The 14th Amendment was enacted in the wake of the Civil War, quote, with the one pervading purpose of securing equal citizenship for the freed slaves. He writes, it was enacted, as Justice Harlan wrote, to secure to a race recently emancipated the civil rights that other citizens enjoyed. So Thomas has always been about that was the purpose of the 14th Amendment. He goes on to say that the court, meaning the majority now, has repurposed the 14th Amendment to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated, and that cannot find support in the text. Today, the court does so by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens. Again, Justice Thomas adhering and agreeing with the government's argument, which they made here very passionately, that the 14th Amendment was about protecting the children of freed slaves and not what we've come to understand it as. You see his language there. He mentions birth tourism. It came up in the arguments, and clearly that's a very big concern of the dissenters. We also have dissents by Justice Salito and others, so we'll read those as well.

SPEAKER_05 53:31

One of the best Supreme Court justices in American history. Period. But you know, people like Kajan uh Katanji Brown Jackson, they're they're activists who want to legislate from the bench. Here she is in the arguments. Just listen to her.

SPEAKER_04 53:50

I was thinking about this. And I think they there are various sources that say this, that you can have, you obviously have permanent allegiance uh based on being born in whatever country you're from. That's what everybody recognizes. But you also have local allegiance when you are on the soil of this other other sovereign. And I was thinking, you know, I'm I'm I'm a US citizen and visiting Japan. And what it means is that, you know, if I steal someone's wallet in Japan, um the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. Um it's allegiance, meaning can they control you as a matter of law? I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen, to uh, you know, under Japanese law, go and prosecute the person who has stolen it. So there's this relationship based on even though I'm a temporary traveler, I'm just on vacation in Japan, I'm still locally owing allegiance in that.

SPEAKER_05 54:58

If I go visit France, and I think that that's there's something to be said about that. Here is um Donald Trump.

SPEAKER_12 55:08

So except I think it's very bad for our nation. We're the only nation that does it. No other nation does that birthright citizenship. No, it's not even close. Some did it, they ended it. It's tremendously destructive. It's extremely costly. I don't know. It's up to them. But in terms of for the good of the country, it would be great if they did the did they didn't allow it, it would be great. But I can't tell you. Uh the slaughter case was the big case today. That was really a big case because it gave strength to presidents and strength to the presidency. A very important case. It's been going on for almost a hundred years, thinking that, and this was the ruling that that that really topped everything by a lot today. Yeah. I guess you have to accept it's the same.

SPEAKER_05 55:55

You win some, you lose most. So birthright tourism is essentially exactly what it sounds like. We're gonna go on a trip to the United States of America. We're gonna go visit New York City. But my wife is pregnant, and then we're gonna have our baby here. And now she's a citizen, I'm a citizen. This happens every day, all of the time. And this does nothing to prevent that from happening, but it also doesn't restrict the government from protecting that, preventing that from happening. Today I posted something just to rile everybody up, something I do quite often, because I think it's funny to watch the the libs uh shed their tears and their blue hair dye run with their mascara. But the um I posted, well, you know, maybe we just don't allow non-citizen women to ever enter the United States. And now you don't have to worry about that. And not just pregnant women, just no women. Now what? Now what are you gonna do? Now it's gotta go back to the Supreme Court. That's obviously uh a hyperbolic and extreme example. And I'm not actually advocating for that. I I'm doing it to prove a point. That just because the Supreme Court says that you weren't born in the United States, that if you're born in the United States, regardless if you were there or not, uh, or why you're there, if you're legal or illegal and you're subject to their laws, you're automatically a citizen. Period. End of discussion, full stop. It doesn't say that you can't regulate that and prevent people from having babies here. There's that's what I'm trying to say. There's other ways around that. And that's what Congress is for. That's what the Senate is for. That's what the executive branch is there to sign into law. Here is um Kayla. Let's hear what she has to say. Sorry, Caroline.

SPEAKER_00 58:02

Well, a massive update on the Trump administration's crackdown on birth tourism. The State Department shutting down a sophisticated tourism network after the U.S. Embassy in West Africa revealed more than 100 foreign nationals were using fraudulent documents and visa fixers to illegally obtain American citizenship. And it was a similar story in North Africa. Over 100 visas were just revoked as the embassy there said expecting mothers were coming to America to give birth for the sole purpose of giving their child American citizenship. Meanwhile, in Europe, we now know that there were over 400 suspected birth tourism cases since 2024. And investigators managed to trace them to at least six companies that coached foreign nations on what to say in their visa interview. The birth tourism companies also arranged housing in America and even set up delivery plans for expectant mothers. Now, the State Department added, quote, a U.S. visa is a privilege, it is not a right. The State Department is taking action around the world to stop this abuse, to dismantle birth tourism networks, and hold accountable those who try to scam our system.

SPEAKER_01 59:13

For those that don't understand how widespread this birthright tourism industry is, let me just I don't know who this guy is. Let's just give you two let's listen. Two examples. There were 500 birth tourism companies in China whose only purpose is to bring people to America to have babies for U.S. citizenship. This is 100% exposed and it's 100% real. Let me give you one other example. Here's another birthright citizenship scam in China.

SPEAKER_05 59:42

That's just the post. I don't see any like legitimate source for that. Because Caroline Levitt just said 400 in the past four years. 400 cases in the past four years. It's not a lot, but that's who's been caught, right? So if it's something that you're looking at and something that you're now going after, because that's all they're gonna do, the federal government is just going to adjust its strategy and say, okay, if you're born here, then uh you get to stay. So we're just gonna make sure you are never born here. If you're pregnant, you're not allowed to come to the United States of America. If you're expecting, you're not allowed to come to United States of America. Or you're just we're not gonna allow whatever. You're married, yeah, you can't come. Only single. You have to be single, can't be married. You can they can do whatever they want. They the the Supreme Court on this issue, if you if I don't I don't know if it was textualism, if it was that Amy Come Barrett's afraid, because of the swatting and the the assassination attempts that have been happening with the justices. I'm certainly not. I'm I I I'm not sure. I don't know. I'm not her, I'm not in her mind. Or she looked at the text and says, it doesn't say that. Because it doesn't say that. It does not say this is for freed slaves. It says any person born in the United States under its jurisdiction is a citizen. That's all it says. Here is Clarence Thomas. I love this guy, I have so much respect for him. Let's uh listen to this.

SPEAKER_09 1:01:23

Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government. It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights.

SPEAKER_05 1:01:54

Very well said. Very well said. And he he's not wrong on any of the points that he made. So a couple problems. This does not help the Trump administration for the midterms. The Democrats are going to campaign on this. They're going to say that the they're monsters, they're out there trying to deport babies, deport pregnant women. Because that's gonna be the it's just gonna be the focus. You're pregnant, get them out of here, kick them out. That's what they're gonna look at before they become citizens. But the the Supreme Court, believe it or not, it has been controversial for forever, for hundreds of years, for 200 years, it's been extremely controversial. It's an unelected body legislating from the bench because of its and due to its interpretation. I mean, Thomas Jefferson said something along the lines of if you let professional lawyers interpretate the the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, uh, they're just gonna rip it to shreds and rebuild it from the bottom up, and it's gonna be unrecognizable by the time that they're done. He said something along those lines. He's not wrong. He's not wrong. But make sure you you like, share, and subscribe this video to this video. Go to Ryanfsamuels.com, sign up for the the newsletter. I'm gonna I'm trying to come up with a cool name for the newsletter and not just call it the newsletter. I want to call it like the Liberty Brief or I don't know, something along those lines. If you have an idea, drop them in the comments section about what it should be called. We are live Monday through Friday at 9 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Um, and the podcast is released right after the show the following morning. Thank you for tuning in. Uh God bless you, God bless our troops, and God bless the United States of America. Good night.

SPEAKER_10 1:04:08

Thanks for tuning in to the Ryan Family Show. Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe.