Speaker 1: President Trump is vowing to appeal after a federal judge temporarily blocked his executive order ending birthright citizenship. The Reagan-appointed judge called the order, quote, blatantly unconstitutional. Now President Trump is criticizing the ruling.

Speaker 2: Obviously, we'll appeal it. They put it before a certain judge in Seattle, I guess, right? And there's no surprises with that judge.

Speaker 1: Let's bring in FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast host Gay Lynn Druk and ABC's legal contributor Kim Whaley for more. Thank you both for coming on. Kim, the judge says in more than four decades on the bench, he can't remember another case as clear as this one. He even scolded the Justice Department attorney saying, quote, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind. So how is the White House making this argument? And what do you make of this ruling?

Speaker 3: They're rehashing a Supreme Court decision that's been resolved since 1898, a case called Wong Kim Ark, where the argument was made. It was a Chinese, someone who was born of Chinese parents who were Chinese citizens and was not let back into the country under a federal law that banned Chinese people from coming in if they were non-citizens. And the Supreme Court said that even though your parents are not citizens, you were born here. That's basically the argument they're making, that if the moms of children now are not either legally here or are temporarily here, but legal, but not full, have some kind of fuller rights of citizenship, they're carved out of the 14th Amendment. I mean, I'm really surprised the judge hasn't sanctioned these lawyers that, you know, I teach first year law students. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution and they've ruled on this very issue. So it's really out of bounds for lawyers and a shocking thing to come out of the president of the United States office. But my guess is they kind of know what they're doing, Diane. They really want to get this to the Supreme Court to reverse that case. But I agree completely with the judge and anticipated this kind of reaction.

Speaker 1: Galen, Trump has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. is the only country to offer birthright citizenship, but that's not true. So how much precedent is there for this policy?

Speaker 4: Yeah, so about 60 countries worldwide have some form of birthright citizenship. And about half of those have the type of unrestricted birthright citizenship that we see here in the United States. Most of those countries are in the Americas, so North and South America, which both have a long history of immigration. And that's part of the reason why, to clarify that the children of immigrants are citizens of those nations. I mean, if you look at Europe or other countries that have had somewhat similar histories to the United States when it comes to immigration, like Australia or maybe even New Zealand, you oftentimes do not see birthright citizenship laws. And countries like Britain, Australia and New Zealand have done away with them or significantly restricted them. So it's not that there's no precedent for changing birthright citizen laws over time and as immigration patterns change. But the reality is that this is a legal argument first and foremost. Is this constitutional? Then we can get to the sort of debate over the morality of law, of birthright citizenship laws and how they may be taken advantage of in the United States.

Speaker 1: So, Kim, do you see this going to the Supreme Court? And if so, what happens if the judges deem that former case was ruled incorrectly?

Speaker 3: It'll be a real nail biter to see if the Supreme Court takes the case. I guess it would be, if they do, a split decision even to accept it. But that would definitely be a signal that they're in the position to reverse itself. The 100 plus year old precedent to make the argument that the words jurisdiction of in the 14th Amendment are aimed to be some kind of carve out to language that is pretty straight up. It's very straight up. And remember, these are supposed to be textualists that constrain their power to the Constitution. We'll have to see. I think that is definitely the aim here, either that or just ignore the lower court ruling. I mean, that would be, of course, unprecedented as well. But these are these are unprecedented times when it comes to the Constitution.

Speaker 1: Diane Galen, what do polls show about support for limiting birthright citizenship?

Speaker 4: Yeah, it's a good question because this has not been a public debate for very long. This is a somewhat new issue. As Kim mentioned, the last time that this was really debated before the Supreme Court was 100 years ago. And so I don't think Americans have the firmest of opinions on this, but it's relatively split with a slim majority saying that America should continue having birthright citizenship, which is to say, even when you ask Americans, do you think the children of people who are in the country illegally should be citizens of the United States? A majority of Americans, according to recent New York Times polling, say yes. Now, if this is something that ends up going back to the Supreme Court, we're going to hear a lot more public debate about this. And politicians and the like will be able to make their case to Americans and we'll see if that shifts at all. But from a starting point, Americans are comfortable with and think that that birthright citizenship in this country should continue.

Speaker 1: All right. Kim Whaley, Galen Druk. Thank you both.