On “Raging Moderates,” Jessica Tarlov and Scott Galloway praised the Supreme Court for striking down Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, arguing the decision fits the Constitution and warning that the administration may try other rout
When the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship on Tuesday, Jessica Tarlov and Scott Galloway didn’t treat it like a footnote. They treated it like a line the country can’t cross.
On the episode of “Raging Moderates,” the co-hosts praised the justices for striking down President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship—the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for anyone born in the United States.
The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts in the “Trump v. Barbara” case. said the justices agreed with the challengers that Trump’s order could not be reconciled with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. For Tarlov, the ruling felt predictable. For Galloway. it raised a different kind of question—what happens when leaders try to make a legal right behave like a political lever.
Galloway argued that immigrants, who take the risk to move their families to the United States and start a new life here, are exactly the kind of “American Dreamers” the country should want.
“I think someone who takes a risk and comes over here and drops a baby. I think that’s probably the kind of DNA we want in America,” Galloway said. “I would just like to see an argument on why this is worth going back on.”
Tarlov pushed the discussion toward motive. She teased that the Trump administration may have other reasons for wanting to keep immigrants—especially those who cross the Southern border—out of the country.
“Well because they don’t like people from other places,” Tarlov quipped. “I think that’s why.”
She also suggested the executive order wasn’t the end of the fight, even if it was blocked. Tarlov said the ruling was predicted, but she wondered how the Trump administration would handle it moving forward—implying it may still try to prevent birthright citizenship in other ways.
That point landed in a broader critique of the narrative Trump allies have used around the policy: the idea that large numbers of people are “streaming across the border. ” staying only about half an hour. having a baby. and then suddenly—“voila”—becoming American citizens and starting American families.
Tarlov acknowledged that pitch might appeal to some people, but it doesn’t change the constitutional foundation.
“This thesis that the right is putting out there that there are tons of people streaming across the border. they’re only here for half an hour. they drop a baby here and suddenly voila you have an American citizen and by extension an American family. ” she said. “It is a draw I’m sure for some, but it doesn’t change the Constitution,” she added. “Or the fact. more importantly. that immigrants are such an incredible boon to the country economically and culturally in a lot of ways.”.
Galloway returned to the stakes by putting a number on what the executive order would have taken away. He said that if it had been upheld, about a quarter of a million babies a year would have lost U.S. citizenship.
He then pressed for what comes next—what the real-world outcomes would have been if the policy shift had survived. Would crime rates go down? Would the demand for migrant workers go up?
“When you make citizenship about politics vs. geneology, the juice isn’t wortth the squeeze,” Galloway said. “Consistent laws are really valuable for America and that is for 250 years we’ve generally made citizenship a legal question not a political one … Once citizenship becomes something that politicians can selectively redefine you’re introducing uncertainty into the most valuable. a key asset of America. That is an American passport.”.
As the episode underscored, the fight over birthright citizenship didn’t end with the Supreme Court—at least not in the way Tarlov and Galloway see it. What did change is the constitutional answer: the justices ruled that Trump’s order can’t stand against the 14th Amendment.
But the debate still hangs over what comes next—whether leaders will stop at this defeat or keep hunting for a new path to the same goal, and what it would do to immigrants, to the country’s economy and culture, and to the meaning of citizenship itself.
Jessica Tarlov Scott Galloway Raging Moderates birthright citizenship Supreme Court Trump v. Barbara John Roberts 14th Amendment immigration Southern border