Ketanji Brown Jackson Makes Head-Scratching Argument Involving Japan, Wallet Theft During Citizenship Hearing

Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made a bizarre argument involving stealing a wallet in Japan during oral arguments in a birthright citizenship case.

The justices heard oral arguments in the case, Trump v. Barbara, which questions the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order which ended citizenship for children born to illegal aliens. In an attempt to argue in favor of birthright citizenship, Jackson argued that if she stole a wallet from Japan, she would owe “allegiance” to the country’s laws and its right to prosecute her.

“I was thinking, I, a U.S. citizen am visiting Japan. And what it means is that if I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me,” Jackson said. “It’s allegiance meaning can they control you as a matter of law. I can rely on them if my wallet is stolen to, under Japanese law, go and prosecute that person who had stolen it. So there’s this relationship, even though I’m just a temporary traveler, I’m just on vacation in Japan, I’m still locally owing allegiance in that sense.”

“Is that the right way to think about it? And if so, doesn’t that explain why both temporary residents and undocumented people would have that kind of allegiance just by virtue of being in the United States?” Jackson continued.

The justices questioned Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who argued on Trump’s behalf, and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney Cecilia Wang on the legality of the executive order, which Trump signed on the first day of his second term. The Trump-appointed justices, including Neil Gorsuch, appeared skeptical of the fight to end birthright citizenship.

Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back against Sauer’s argument that birthright citizenship was being exploited by wealthy foreigners. Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether the administration’s interpretation of birthright citizenship would apply to newly freed slaves.

Jackson previously sparred with her fellow justices on the court, including liberal Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. She could not get a single justice to join her dissent in the case, Chiles v. Salazar, which upheld a Christian counselor’s right to talk to gender-confused children about feeling comfortable in their own bodies.

The U.S. is one of only 30 countries with no restrictions on birthright citizenship. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment extended birthright citizenship to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” to include freed slaves and their children.

Between 225,000 and 250,000 children were born to illegal migrant parents in 2023, along with 70,000 born to temporary visitors, according to estimates from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

Trump became the first sitting president in U.S. history to attend oral arguments. He argued on Truth Social that foreign countries are “selling citizenships” for their own financial benefits. He also said Tuesday that birthright citizenship was intended to grant these rights to the children of freed slaves and not the descendants of illegal aliens.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org