Could an 'invasion' declaration undo the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling?

This courtroom sketch depicts Cecillia Wang, the American Civil Liberties Union legal director, standing center, making arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, Wednesday, April 1, 2026 in Washington, as President Donald Trump, right, departs shortly after Wang began her presentation … This courtroom sketch depicts Cecillia Wang, … more > - The Washington Times - Saturday, August 8, 2026 Sen. Jim Banks, Indiana Republican, has a plan to counter the Supreme Court’s “generational error” in its ruling this summer that the Constitution grants automatic citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. His answer: Declare illegal immigration as an “invasion.” The high court said the grant of birthright citizenship has only a few exceptions for those who fall outside the “jurisdiction” of the U.S., such as babies born to diplomats and occupying armies. Those exceptions have been recognized for more than 125 years, dating back to an 1898 Supreme Court decision. Mr. Banks’ bill, the Citizenship Act of 2026, would equate an illegal immigration invasion to an occupying army and declare that “children of invaders are not entitled to birthright citizenship.” He figures that there is support for the idea among some members of the Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas said in his dissent in the birthright case that there’s a “consensus that citizenship would not have been granted to the children of invaders.” Latest Video