Fractured Court: Birthright Citizenship Upheld, Transgender Athlete Bans Allowed

This Memorial Day, as America approaches the 25th anniversary of 9-11, the Tunnel to Towers Foundation paid off the mortgages on 26 homes for Gold Star families and families of fallen first responders across 13 states. In tribute to the 343 FTNY firefighters lost on 9-11, Tunnel to Towers has committed to delivering 343 mortgage-free homes this year. Their courage will never be forgotten. Join us. Donate $11 a month at T2T.org. Who helps America go farther? Fly higher. Dream even bigger. People do. Since 1879, our people have been more than a source of energy. They've been a source of progress. Today, that same progress is helping deliver record U.S. energy production. fueling the workers, the makers, the boundary pushers, and risk takers who spark the breakthroughs that move America forward. Learn more about what our people do at chevron.com slash USA 250. I'm Jimmy Fala. I'm Madison Allworth. I'm Trey Gowdy, and this is the Fox News rundown.

Wednesday, July 1st, 2026. I'm Jessica Brosenthal. The Supreme Court is now out for summer after resolving the final cases of its term, including state bans on transgender athletes, campaign finance, and the president's attempt to end birthright citizenship. We know the court occasionally overturns a major case that some future grouping of justices feels like is an inaccurate reading of the Constitution. We speak with Fox News Sunday anchor Shannon Breen. I'm Lucas Tomlinson. The nation is days away from its landmark 250th birthday. But as Americans enjoy the festivities, we ask what would our founding fathers think about the country today? The more history you learn, the more you discover what incredibly tough times we've been through before. There's an argument that things were far more violent and polarized then, even than they are now. And I'm Joe Concha. I've got the final word on the Fox News rundown. The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its term with three final rulings, one sides with states that want to ban transgender athletes in girls and women's sports, another loosens campaign finance rules, and President Trump celebrated both as big wins with posed to his truth social account. But the Supreme Court also struck down the president's order that tried to end birthright citizenship, challenging the 14th Amendment, which says all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the U.S. and of the state where they reside. House Republican Conference chairwoman Lisa McLean told Fox News. I mean, this is why the Save America Act, I think, is really so important, number one. Number two, I think this is why we need to make sure that we have a secure and safe border because for far too long, the birthright citizenship has been taken advantage of. Democrats praised the court. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told Fox's Chad Pergram. Supreme Court majority did the right thing. Birthright citizenship is a part of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Donald Trump was endeavoring to violate the Constitution because he's a wannabe king. After the ruling, President Trump wrote that he'd like to congratulate President Xi Jinping in the great country of China on their massive birthright citizenship win. During oral arguments, Chief John Roberts asked Solicitor General John Sauer about the scope of birth tourism here in the U.S. John Sauer said, while they don't know exactly how many people come here just to have their children get their documents and return home, he said a decade ago there were media reports indicating China had hundreds of companies advertising birth tourism services in the U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said the issues surrounding birth tourism was on their radar. It's become a tourism, birthing tourism, they call it, you know, a trend where people will just come and you just come onto the soil and have your child and then they're able to avail themselves of the welfare state and everything else. It's been abused. It's one of those things that was intended to serve a noble, important purpose and has been thwarted and overused and abused. And so... I'm sure that we'll continue to look at that. President Trump said either way, Congress should work to end birthright citizenship. And the Justice Department said after the ruling that they will prioritize prosecutions of birth tourism schemes. Well, essentially, Jess, what they decided was that there is nothing in the 14th Amendment that would ban what we have recognized for years as the way we handle this in this country. Fox News Sunday, anchor Shannon Bream is also the host of the Live in the Bream podcast.

I mean, summarize it here. Children born in the U.S. to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are, quote, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. I mean, that's the language from the 14th Amendment of the United States and are citizens at birth under the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause. You know, there's a lot of back and forth here about what that 14th Amendment was really supposed to be about, Clarence Thomas and his dissent, saying it was about making sure that the children of freed slaves would have equal citizenship and opportunity in this country. And he argues the court. went too far with what the majority opinion did here, which is essentially saying, nope, if you're born on U.S. soil, that's it. Yeah, why did Clarence Thomas say in his dissent that he's not sure this ruling will hold up in the long run? Yeah, he actually hinted that he thinks it's so weak. It sounds like that he doesn't think it's going to survive in the annals of history. We know the court occasionally overturns a major case that some future grouping of justices feels like is an inaccurate reading of the Constitution. He added to there, he said, today's opinion devalues citizenship. And he talked about how the court he thinks had just gotten it wrong and made a repurposing of the 14th Amendment to meet what their goals were, he said, in putting this. together. So we had some interesting coalitions this week on this one written by the chief justice and it sees he and also Amy Coney Barrett joined the three liberal justices on the court to get to this decision. But was it kind of a six to three decision? Like what do we make of these partial concur partial dissents? It sounds like we have a partial concurrence for Brett Kavanaugh. Does that count as far as the number goes? Do we call this six to three or do we call this five four? I would call it five and a half to three and a half, I think. But listen, I think that, you know, you have probably enough of Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence in with the majority that you could argue six three. It's very clear that justices Samuel Alito Thomas and Gorses, who each wrote their own separate dissents. They're clearly in the dissent column. You got three there. Brett Kavanaugh here, splitting the baby a little bit, concurring in part dissenting in part two. Now, President Trump called the other two rulings, which we're going to talk about, big wins on his truth social account. But on birthright, he's calling on Congress to end birthright citizenship. He had shared an article previously that was about legislative efforts that are already in place to amend the 14th Amendment or to change the INA. Do you sense this will... somehow end up in like a Save America Act type effort or how do you foresee any sort of effort here, maybe ahead of midterms on this front? Yeah, it's a great question. And our Chad Pergram, who knows everything and everyone on Capitol Hill, caught up with the speaker who said, okay, yeah, we're going to try to move on this in some legislative way. So clearly, here's the message from the president. And also in Brett Kavanaugh's opinion, that concurs in part, dissents in part from the decision. He kind of seems to lay out a map. He says if Congress amends the federal statute, you mentioned there, or otherwise enacts the statute, creating new exceptions along the lines of the executive order, which the president's trying to end birthright citizenship, for children born to

foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country, such a statute as I see it, meaning this is just Brett Kavanaugh, who signed on to this, would pass constitutional muster. So maybe the White House is taking notice of that. Maybe they're already considered this, knowing that they had a tough time at arguments. And it sounds like the president is saying, listen, I support you, Congress, get after it. We know how tight the majority minorities are up here. So we'll see what they can get done. And the Justice Department says they're going to go after more birthright tourism cases. I think it was, I think Solicitor General John Sauer said he wasn't exactly sure how prevalent birthright tourism is, but this sounds like just another way to say, okay, Mr. President, we see this is an issue. We're going to tackle it on all different kinds of fronts. Yeah, and the thing is, even during the arguments, I think Chief John Roberts was one of the ones who acknowledged or used these words, birth tourism, or at least that that practice was happening. So it's not like the majority didn't acknowledge that that's a problem. And the issue is a lot of the reporting is that the very highest number of cases are out in California. Well, if you're waiting on the state there to pass a law against it, I don't think it's a priority for California to crack down on this kind of thing. But, you know, there have been all kinds of exposés about people who come to the West Coast. or safe homes kind of where people will participate in birth tourism allegedly and then leave with those children and raise them in a completely different country. So if you're waiting for states to act, I don't know that the West Coast is going to get on it where we're told is the biggest problem. So it'll be interesting to see what DOJ does, what tools they have in their tool belt to kind of go after this thing, at least from a federal perspective. There were some other cases, Shannon. The justice has ruled that states can have laws against transgender athletes competing in women and girls' sports. Brett Kavanaugh examined, it sounds like two things here, Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. What did they conclude? Well, listen, he is a dad to female athletes. He's a coach. We figured he'd probably be writing this one. He has a great appreciation for this. And he had a very long section of the opinion where he talked about, you know, it's a zero-sum game, mostly sports is. If somebody gets selected to the team, if they get put into the starting lineup, if they get a scholarship, all of those things mean that someone else is losing that spot or losing that opportunity. There was a big acknowledgement from him on that. And he said, listen, these states, there are more than two dozen of them. with the NCAA, they've come to the conclusion that women should be able to participate in sports and girls where they don't have to compete against biological males or the threat of facing some harm physically by competing with biological males. And he said these states were fully within their purview to do that, meaning banning biologically born males from female sports. But you know, there are other states where the reverse is true, where they have protections for trans athletes, guaranteeing that they can have a spot in those women's sports. This doesn't get to those state laws, but I would imagine there may be some female athletes out there who

want to take the language and reasoning of today's decision and go into some of those other states and try to mount a challenge. Let's talk about campaign finance. The justice has found, what, that limiting how much a political party spends in coordinating with a candidate, that limiting that does violate the First Amendment. And they cite, Shannon, they cite prior rulings here. I mean, we're reading about Citizens United, right? Right. And remember that was such an earthquake kind of when it was decided that political speech spending, campaign spending is political speech. And so that's the theory that it's protected by the First Amendment. And yeah, the majority in this decision said essentially this is too cumbersome. What you're doing is impinging on free speech. And so they lifted those restrictions. But they say here it's not, even though it's challenged by Republicans, this isn't a decision that's meant to benefit one party over the other. They say this will allow all parties, including the DNC and the RNC. and the respective Senate and House campaign committees, as well as other parties and party committees to participate more freely and compete more fully in the political process and to coordinate more closely with their candidates. So they say whether it's a Democrat Party, Republican Party, everybody's going to be on the same playing field when it comes to these expenditures now. And Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent, without these limits on how much a party can spend to coordinate with a candidate, it will allow the circumvention of contribution limits to an individual's campaign. That was a big part of the oral arguments, right? We kept hearing about the circumventing of other limits. Do you think that will be the result here? But also, even if that is the result, doesn't this also weaken super PACs? If you can donate directly to the party and get access to your political candidate, why do you give to a super PAC anymore? Yeah, I mean, that raises a lot of questions because you know D.C. and beyond, everybody is about getting their piece of the pie because campaigns have gotten ridiculously expensive. When we're talking about a billion dollar presidential campaign, we're talking about Senate campaigns going into the tens of millions, closing into the 100 million mark. I mean, everybody's going to want a piece of that action. So, yeah, it's going to be competing for the same, you know, dollars flowing to different places. And if the parties can say, oh, no, you've got to come through us because. now we can spend freely and coordinate with these candidates. Yeah, I think there are going to be other organizations who don't love this ruling today, but the parties have to love it. Okay, finally, Shannon, your assessment of this court. We know the president has expressed frustration with... his own appointees, particularly, of course, Amy Coney Barrett, but she sided with the administration on, like, the firing of FCC Commissioner Slaughter and on asylum. And we know Brett Kavanaugh, he defended the president on tariffs, but, you know, he was a partial concur on striking down birthright. And he said, you know, you can't remove Lisa Cook as a federal reserve governor. For all the talk of ideology, we sure do have a lot of mixed opinions. We do. And if you think that this court is not fair, it is in the president's pocket. You should look at those decisions. You should look at the tariff decision. The president resoundingly lost that case, birthright citizenship and many other things. The president has had big wins. But what these justices would argue behind closed doors, they want to be viewed as completely apolitical, no political persuasion, nothing getting in the way of them making their decisions. But it really shows you that while a lot of people from the outside want to say it's a 6-3 court and these people are going to give the president everything.

he wants. That's demonstrably false. But I tend to think of them in three trios. I mean, you've got Justice Gorsuch-Samuel Alito and Thomas who generally stick together, not always, but generally the most conservative flank of the court. You've got justices Sotomayor Elena Kagan and Jackson, no surprise that they stick together on most things. And in the middle, you have the Chief Justice, John Roberts, you've got Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And they operate as the swing votes here. And when we're in arguments, those are the three we're most keyed into because their votes can shift everything. As you've seen in a lot of these really critical decisions the last couple of days, you've seen the chief and Amy Coney Barrett go with the liberal minority, but to create a majority. And all you need are five votes. And so, yeah, they're going to be in for a lot of criticism. But you've got to see the places, as you said to, where they've given them present wins, two big wins on immigration and border law that has been a big benefit to the Trump administration last week. week. So a mixed bag. Shannon Bream, thank you for joining. Thank you, Jess. Have a great summer.

Have you ever stopped and thought about what's actually powering your day, the coffee you made this morning, the drive you took to get here, even the device you're listening on it? I'm Tanner Faust, and that's exactly the kind of thing we're going to talk about on the energy tailgate, a podcast from Chevron. I'll be your host inviting guests to discuss big energy topics and what they mean for everyday life, all from the tailgate of our truck. This is the energy tailgate. From the Fox News Podcasts Network, subscribe and listen to the Trey Gowdy podcast. Former federal prosecutor and four-term U.S. congressman from South Carolina brings you a one-of-a-kind podcast. Subscribe and listen now by going to foxnewspodcasts.com. This is Joe Concha with your Fox News commentary. Coming up. With 4th of July weekend rapidly approaching, some Americans have been rapidly descending to the national mall in our nation's capital to celebrate this country's history. Oh, we've had an awesome time. How about y'all? What did you enjoy the most out here? It's a great time, a great time a year to get the family out, get them in the city, see some of the history and everything, and celebrate 250. Others are expressing gratitude for the opportunity that is possible in this great country. We celebrate the United States because it gave us freedom. And as a result, I have two beautiful daughters, five beautiful grandchildren, the daughter that's a teacher, and the daughter that's a doctor. So this country did it all. But in order to be able to celebrate 250 years, there are mountains of history that led us to the war for American independence and even declaring independence, breaking free from British rule. As the founders argued over this democratic experiment and some of those debates are still ongoing. So after all this time, what would the founding fathers think of the country they helped build today? They probably would disagree. Jeffrey Rosen is the CEO emeritus of the National Constitution Center, an author of, Pursuit of Liberty, how Hamilton versus Jefferson ignited the lasting battle over power in America. Because they disagreed at the time. Jefferson really favored democracy, and he would have been happy that the right to vote has expanded and so many more people are enfranchised. and are part of the republic. Hamilton is really skeptical of democracy. He saw mobs form like Shay's Rebellion, which attacked the federal armory and debtors refused to pay their debts. And he wanted to create a republic rather than a democracy where populist passions would be filtered and checked. Borden Wood, he describes that. transformation from a monarchy to a republic, eventually to a democracy. But at the time of the founding, that shift to democracy hadn't yet occurred. So Hamilton and Jefferson really fought over that central issue.

You think that's where sometimes in this public discourse, perhaps people just don't know their history. When you hear terms like we've never been so divided and there's never been so acrimonious, sometimes you have to remind them, you know, we did fight a civil war that resulted in half a million Americans being killed. And you look at our founding, look at how many newspapers were out there, how many people wrote under pseudonyms. There was a lot of invectives being hurled on both sides. That's so true. The more history you learn, the more you discover what incredibly tough times we've been through before. And as you say, there's an argument that things were far more violent and polarized then, even than they are now. People would run for Congress on the ground. My left hook is better than the other guy. I can beat him up better. Charles Sumner is caned on the floor of Congress. He's almost beaten to death by this guy with a cane. And things are really violent indeed. So we are polarized, but things have been worse before. And what is really exciting about learning about history is you see that despite the violence, the challenges, we've been defined by the American ideal. And Hamilton and Jefferson disagree so strongly. But for them, disagreement is not a bug in the system. It's a feature. And that's why I end the book with that incredibly moving. Fact that after Hamilton dies in the duel, Jefferson places a bust of Hamilton across from his own in the central entrance hall of Monticello. And when he passes the bust and he's old, he smiles faintly and says, opposed in life as in death. And for Jefferson, Hamilton is not a hated enemy to be destroyed, but a respected opponent to be engaged with. And it's that spirit of civil dialogue that we've absolutely got back to today. That's incredible. Parallel, I can think of in modern times as Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill. Like, you know, people that politically, of course, were not eye on anything, but they respected one another. They met. It's, it almost feels like Washington has become a dirty word now. People don't even interact socially. I mean, back then and in colonial days, they interacted. They didn't just jet in, jet out on Tuesdays and Thursdays. You're so right about Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill. At the Constitution Center, we have a portrait of O'Neill kneeling at Reagan's bedside and then praying together. It was commissioned by Pina Templeton and thought that we've got to get back to that spirit of comedy. And at the founding, it was really important, especially if the Constitutional Convention... They lived together in the same boarding houses. The Virginia and Pennsylvania delegation showed up first. The Pennsylvania guys were already there. And they had a week just or more just talking with each other. Ben Franklin had a dinner for everyone. They drank the best Katie Porter that they'd ever had. And they were able to start to hash out their differences. And as you also say, In Congress, a generation ago, people would have meals together. And when you break bread, it's really hard to demonize someone. You learn about their kids and their challenges, and you can become friendly, even though you disagree politically. So that's really one of the biggest changes in our politics. And in that sense, the founders provide an inspiring example of how you can disagree with someone but still respect them.

What should people take away from your book or maybe without giving away too much of the plot because we want people to read it? Why should people read your book? Well, the plot is all of American history. So you've got to read the book on the 250th anniversary to understand what I call the golden and silver threads woven throughout American history. And they're the ideas, the ideas of Hamilton and Jefferson. Sometimes they cross, sometimes they pull apart, sometimes so far that they threaten to snap. But it's that productive tension between the ideals that's provided. support for the American idea of the Declaration of Independence, liberty, equality, a government by consent. Hamilton and Jefferson disagree about how to balance those values. Jefferson thinks every increase in power threatens liberty. Hamilton thinks increases in government power can secure liberty. That's why Hamilton wants a strong national government. Jefferson favors states rights. Hamilton wants liberal construction of the Constitution, Jefferson's strict construction, but despite those disagreements, which have persisted from the founding until today. There's a respect for the ideas themselves. And we are a creedal nation. We're defined by the American creed. You don't have to be born here. You don't have to have parents of any particular background or race or religion. All you need to do to be an American is, of course, take an oath of citizenship and to subscribe to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. And that's what Hamilton and Jefferson did. And that's why the American experiment, as Gordon Wood also said, is the most extraordinary triumph for liberty in all of human history. We are unique in being defined by an idea. And that's why it's so exciting to learn about the idea. And the more history you learn, the more excited you are. Talking about religion with the founders, a subject that has come up a few times. You know, we are, you know. People think, you know, we're a Christian nation. Most people would agree. Some disagree. But when you look at the founders, most of them were deists. In fact, God has only mentioned once in the Declaration of Independence. I believe that was an edit after Jefferson submitted his text. Benjamin Netanyahu Franklin famously crossed out, sacred, and put in self-evident. What can you tell us about religion when it comes to the founders? Did they think of themselves as God or they just didn't believe in the Trinity? You just don't read much about Jesus Christ when you read letters and speeches from our founders.

The truth is the founders disagreed about religion. All were religious in some way. Even Jefferson, the most deist among them, believed in an afterlife and believed in God. But there were also at the other end of the spectrum someone like Roger Sherman, who's a Puritan who believes that the state should be able to have an established religion and that our duty is to conform to the... you know, the New Testament, and we can only get salvation by grace. In the end, the big debate is whether or not you can create an established religion. And in the First Amendment, Madison, who opposes religious establishments on the grounds that they violate freedom of conscience. which he thinks is an unalienable right. In other words, I can't give you the power to tell me what to think about religion or politics because my beliefs are the product of reason and persuasion, not for surveillance. So Madison believes in God, but he does not believe in the Anglican establishment in religion. He fights against it when he's young. And the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. So what that means is that you can't have an established church at the federal level. To that degree, you can't say that we're a Christian nation because we're not allowed to have any particular religion established. But you can say that all the founders were certainly Christian, and they believed in God. And many, or if not most, thought that faith was compatible with both reason and toleration. In other words, even though they believed in a Christian God, they very strongly defended the rights of religious minorities. For James Madison, the author of the First Amendment, freedom of conscience is the very purpose of government to protect. Government is set up to protect our property rights, Madison said, and the most important property right is our freedom of thought and speech and our ability to think as we will and speak as we think. And that's why on the 250th anniversary, let's just celebrate. the fact that America protects free thought and free speech more powerfully than any other country in the world. There's no country that has such strong protections for religion and is so religiously pluralistic and is so protective of free speech. That's incredible. I think one of the most incredible stories, the epilogue, if you will, was Jefferson and Adams dying on the same day, July 4th, 1826, 50 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Some people would say maybe that is an example of divine providence. Absolutely. It was widely viewed as so at the time, how could it be otherwise? And Adams' last words, Jefferson still lives. In fact, Jefferson had died a few hours earlier. But the letters between Jefferson and Adams, when they're old, are among the most moving in all of American history. And what do they want to talk about when they're old? Not politics. They wrote the decoration together, then they fell out.

They were reconciled with the intervention of Abigail Adams and Benjamin Netanyahu Rush. They really want to talk about religion and spirituality. But just the fact that they're talking about this stuff is extraordinary. And then Jefferson, near the end of his life, says to Adams, I've learned much in my long life, but nothing more strongly do I know than that I love you with all my hearts that are able to express their irreparable affection for each other despite a lifetime of rivalry. Read the ad is Jefferson Letters, read the fabulous papers, read the books that the founders read. You can't do enough reading of primary text, which is a great way to begin. And then, of course, reading great biographies of the founders. narrative histories like I've tried to write will just, it inspires all of us to be better people, recognizing that we're all imperfects. When you just see how devoted they were to self-education, it's hard not to be inspired to try to do a little better ourselves. Well, Mr. Rosen, you certainly left me inspired. I know I speak for the entire Fox community and the Fox audience. That was inspiring, which you just had to say. And we are even more excited to celebrate this country's 250th birthday. Thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you again.

Queen Carvania stood haloed by the morning sun. An army hung on her every word. My champions, I have sold my chariot on Carvana. It was a lovely SUV, an inexplicably queenly offer. They're even coming to the castle to collect it. Tonight we feast! An offer you can feast on. Sell your car today on Carvana. Pick up fees, mani. 2026 marks 250 years of America and throughout the year. Bill Hammer takes listeners on a journey through the 250 most impactful moments in American history. Listen and follow now at Fox News Podcasts.com. Rate and review the Fox News rundown on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. It's time for your Fox News commentary. Joe Conchuk. What's on your mind? We truly are a country of two very different mindsets. In 2001, 25 years ago, 90% of Republicans were very proud to be Americans. 85% of Democrats were also proud to be Americans. This was before 9-11. But in 26, the number for Republicans has stayed exactly the same at 90% proud to be American. But among Democrats, it's less than 3 in 10. 29% are proud to be a citizen of this country. If there's another word for pathetic, I'd love to hear it because that is what this describes. I am certain there were plenty of people under the Obama administration or under the Clinton administration who were proud to be Americans, regardless of party. Obviously, based on that poll we just read from 2001 when Clinton was still in office. But now Democrats are the angry party, the petulant party, the party that blames all their problems on government instead of their own choices as individuals, as human beings. And their hatred for Donald Trump obviously guides much of that sentiment. And it's a whole bowl of wrong that even on our own country's 250th anniversary, that one quarter of Democrats, according to the same. poll will fly a flag to celebrate America. Eight words. If you don't like it here, get out, please, and find that utopia somewhere else that does not exist in other countries. I'm Joe Concha.

You've been listening to the Fox News Rundown. And now, stay up to date by subscribing to this podcast at foxnewspodcasts.com. Listen ad-free on Fox News Podcasts plus on Apple Podcasts. And Prime members can listen to the show ad-free on Amazon music. And for up-to-the-minute news, go to foxnews.com.