Immigration Myths and Birthright Citizenship

Immigration Myths and Birthright Citizenship

Author: Slate Podcasts March 14, 2026 Duration: 51:06

Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara. It’s still somewhat unbelievable that the high court will entertain arguments in favor of gutting an utterly clear constitutional commitment. Nonetheless, our motto on Amicus is “legal knowledge is power,” and in this case, historical understanding of legal knowledge … is power. On this week’s show, Dahlia Lithwick interviews constitutional and immigration scholar Anna O. Law about her forthcoming book, Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship.


In preparation for a lot of very bad originalist takes, Lithwick and Law discuss how immigration actually worked in the colonial and pre-Civil War eras and why the framers of the Reconstruction Amendments (including the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment) meant exactly what they said and said exactly what they meant. Law also explains how and why Wong Kim Ark affirmed birthright citizenship for children of Chinese immigrants, and emphasizes that the words “subject to the jurisdiction” had narrow historical exceptions. Finally, a reminder that the framers of the 14th Amendment chose to constitutionalize citizenship rather than establish it in statute—in anticipation of exactly the situation America finds itself in today. 


Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.


Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.


Dahlia Lithwick guides Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts through the complex and often opaque world of the American legal system. This isn't just a dry recap of rulings; it's a vital exploration of how the law shapes lives, freedoms, and the very fabric of society. The focus frequently rests on the Supreme Court, unpacking the philosophies, personalities, and profound consequences stemming from its nine justices. Each episode seeks to demystify the court's operations and its towering influence on everything from civil rights to everyday governance. You'll hear insightful conversations with legal scholars, journalists, and practitioners who provide clarity on landmark decisions and the simmering cases poised to change the nation. Produced by Slate Podcasts, this series operates with the understanding that justice is not a static concept but a living, breathing, and fiercely debated process. The podcast serves as an essential companion for anyone striving to understand the forces that govern us, offering narrative depth and analytical rigor far beyond the headlines. For those who want to dive deeper, a Slate Plus membership offers additional weekly episodes with extended legal analysis, alongside an ad-free listening experience across Slate's network.
Author: Language: English Episodes: 100

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts
Podcast Episodes
Trump’s Tariffs Overturned [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 1:15:06
The Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on Friday, ruling 6–3 that they vastly exceed anything federal law allows a President to do. It was a massive loss for a signature component of Trump’s econom…
The Concentration Camp Next Door [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 1:19:50
The machinery to enable Stephen Miller’s darkest deportation dreams is both tangible and legal. In this week’s show, Dahlia Lithwick explores the statutory and regulatory foundations of the Trump administration’s expandi…
Trump Has a New “Big Lie” for the Midterms [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 50:00
According to Marc Elias, Dahlia Lithwick’s guest on Amicus, “This week will be looked back on as a pivot point in terms of how the midterms play out.” Elias is a nationally recognized authority on voting rights, redistri…
Legal Blinkers, Moral Hazards [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 47:36
Lawyers love legal reasoning. It promises a clean, clear path through sticky, tricky territory. But legal reasoning can enable grotesque real-world outcomes, like torture, or arresting journalists, or masked government a…
Who Gave ICE Permission to Trample the Constitution? [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 50:17
The evidence is mounting that ICE is not only unbothered by moral boundaries, but immigration and customs enforcement agents acting on behalf of President Trump believe they are not constrained by constitutional red line…
Preview: Fed Up [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 9:20
In this member-exclusive episode, co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss the Supreme Court’s fact-free foray into Trump v. Cook, a case that economists warn could crater the economy. President Donald Trum…
Invoking the Insurrection Act [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 1:06:41
President Trump REALLY wants to invoke the Insurrection Act. He’s fallen hard for this 200-year-old law that would allow him to deploy active duty military to enforce civilian law on American streets. On this week’s Amic…
Renee Good and Trump’s Age of Immunity [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 1:01:01
You saw it. We all saw it. We all saw what happened in Minneapolis when an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good for the crime of being in her car. This week on Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern attempt to dig…
The Fast Track To Autocracy [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 56:18
In a special new year retrospective, Amicus host Dahlia Lithwick revisits an important episode from early 2025. Back at the beginning of February, Kim Lane Scheppele, the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology an…
What We Got Wrong About SCOTUS in 2025 [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 1:05:58
Over the past calendar year, the Supreme Court’s center has shifted to the right and then more to the right, and the justices’ decisions have time and again facilitated Trump’s agenda. But the Roberts majority is not sim…