Commentators blast Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling: 'A legal abomination'

By Jon Brown, Christian Post Reporter Wednesday, July 01, 2026

4. Mark Levin: 'One of the dumbest decisions'

Political commentator Mark Levin, who served as chief of staff to U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan administration, described the ruling as "one of the dumbest decisions I've ever read" and excoriated Chief Justice John Roberts for basing it in English common law.

Mark Levin blasts the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship ruling, arguing it wrongly relies on 1600s British common law instead of the U.S. Constitution:

“This has to be one of the dumbest decisions I’ve ever read. I don’t care what other legal analysts have to say. It’s… pic.twitter.com/coCT7p7CBx

— Sean Hannity ???????? (@seanhannity) July 1, 2026

In his majority opinion, Roberts argued that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment "must be understood in light of its historical context, from the English common law" onward. He traced the common-law rule of citizenship by birth, known as "jus soli," from England to the U.S., and argued that the 14th Amendment was intended to constitutionalize and repudiate Dred Scott, completing the work begun by the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

"Under the English common law, children 'born within the [sovereign's] dominions' owed a natural 'allegiance' to the sovereign who protected them at birth,'" Roberts wrote. "This common law of citizenship — known as jus soli, or right of the soil — crossed the Atlantic and prevailed in 'each and all of the states' after American independence."

Noting he doesn't "care what other legal analysts have to say," Levin said Roberts' latest opinion was "worse than the Roberts Obamacare decision."

"The fundamental core of this decision is based on British common law from the 1600s, and Chief Justice Roberts keeps referring to it. I don't know which law clerk drafted this opinion, but I know I wouldn't want them back next term," he said, going on to point out that July 4 serves a reminder that Americans "do not live under British common law."

"British common law may serve as a historical guide, but it has to be filtered through our constitutional system. The American people know, instinctively, what this decision is based on. What the opinion argues is that under 1600s British common law, if someone was born on the king's land, that person became a subject of the sovereign, the king. That, he argues, is the basis for this decision involving the 14th Amendment."