Author: NOVA Corp

Americans’ personal data could be collected and stored overseas — even if they’ve never downloaded a foreign-developed app themselves — according to a new FBI alert warning about the risks tied to popular mobile platforms.

That means information like a person’s name, email address or phone number could be pulled from someone else’s contact list and potentially stored abroad if a friend or family member grants an app access to their device.

The warning comes after years of scrutiny over TikTok’s ties to China, but the FBI alert suggests the concerns extend beyond any single platform to a broader range of foreign-developed apps.

In a public service announcement, the FBI said many widely used apps developed overseas, particularly those tied to China, may access extensive data once permissions are granted, including address books containing information on both users and non-users.

5 SIMPLE TECH TIPS TO IMPROVE DIGITAL PRIVACY

The bureau also warned that some apps may continue collecting data in the background after access is granted and, in certain cases, store that information on servers in countries where local laws could allow government access.

“Developer companies can store collected data on users’ private information and address books, such as names, e-mail addresses, user IDs, physical addresses, and phone numbers of their stored contacts,” the FBI said. “The app can persistently collect data and users’ private information throughout the device, not just within the app or while the app is active.”

CHINESE HACKERS REPORTEDLY BREACHED PHONES AT ‘HEART OF DOWNING STREET’ IN GLOBAL SPY CAMPAIGN

The FBI did not name specific companies, but the warning could apply to a range of widely used apps developed by Chinese firms — including video-editing platform CapCut, shopping apps like Temu and SHEIN, and social media platforms such as Lemon8 — several of which rank among the most downloaded apps in the United States.

U.S. officials have long warned that data collected by Chinese-linked platforms could be used to build detailed profiles of Americans, map personal and professional networks, and potentially support intelligence-gathering efforts, particularly if accessed under China’s national security laws.

The FBI added that apps operating in China are subject to the country’s national security laws, which could allow the government to access user data.

The FBI also pointed to possible warning signs that an app may be collecting more data than expected, including unusual battery drain, spikes in data usage, or unauthorized account activity after installation — indicators that could suggest background data collection or other suspicious behavior.

The bureau urged users to limit unnecessary data sharing, download apps only from official app stores, and regularly review permissions granted to mobile platforms. The bureau also warned that apps obtained from third-party sites may carry malware designed to gain unauthorized access to personal data.

Years of scrutiny over TikTok culminated in a 2026 deal that forced its Chinese parent company to relinquish control of U.S. operations to an American-led group in order to address fears over data access and national security.

The FBI’s latest warning suggests those risks may extend beyond a single platform to a broader range of foreign-developed apps used by millions of Americans.

The Chinese embassy could not immediately be reached for comment. 

The Iran war is making it more expensive for Americans to own a home.

Mortgage rates have climbed to their highest level in more than six months, according to Freddie Mac.

The average rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage rose to 6.38% for the week ending March 26, up from 5.98% before the conflict began. That’s the highest level since early September, as growing fears of inflation ripple through the economy.

TRUMP PROMISED LOWER COSTS; THE IRAN CONFLICT NOW THREATENS THAT PLEDGE

Just weeks ago, rates had dipped below the key 6% mark for the first time in more than three years — a psychological breakthrough that experts hoped would spark a busy spring housing market.

Now, that momentum is already slipping away as global tensions push borrowing costs higher. For many buyers, the latest jump puts homeownership even further out of reach.

Tit-for-tat strikes in Iran and across the Middle East, along with a sharp slowdown in oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, have pushed crude above $100 a barrel for the first time since 2022, rattling global markets and renewing concerns about tighter energy supplies. Rising energy costs are now stoking fears that inflation could heat up again.

THE UNLIKELY TOOL TRUMP IS EYEING TO TACKLE RISING OIL PRICES AMID THE IRAN CONFLICT

That’s pushing investors to demand higher returns on U.S. government debt, driving Treasury yields higher — and sending mortgage rates up with them. 

For everyday Americans, that means higher monthly payments and fewer affordable homes in an already strained housing market.

And it’s not just housing.

As oil climbs, fuel prices are rising quickly — especially diesel, which tends to move faster due to its ties to freight and industrial demand.

As of April 1, AAA put the national average for regular gasoline at $4.06 a gallon, up $1.08 from a month earlier. Diesel jumped to $5.04, up $1.73 over the same period.

MAPPED: WHERE GAS PRICES ARE RISING THE FASTEST FROM THE IRAN CONFLICT

“Gas prices could indeed fall, but are highly unlikely to go back to their pre-war levels for months, in part due to the amount of time needed for global inventories to build back,” wrote Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy.

De Haan said seasonal factors are also working against drivers. Demand typically rises heading into the summer months, while refinery maintenance and the switch to summer gasoline blends can further push prices higher.

With the midterm elections approaching, the rise in energy and housing costs could pose a challenge for President Donald Trump, who has pledged to make life more affordable for American families.

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson faced viral backlash from conservatives over a comment during oral arguments about birthright citizenship where she floated an analogy comparing the issue to stealing a wallet in Japan. 

“I was thinking, you know, I’m a U.S. citizen and visiting Japan and what it means is that, you know, if I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me,” Jackson said during Wednesday’s oral arguments centered on President Trump’s 2025 executive order advancing a narrower interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.

“It’s allegiance, meaning, they can control you as a matter of law. I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen to, you know, under Japanese law, go and prosecute the person who has stolen it. So there’s this relationship based on, even though I’m 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, quote-unquote, allegiance, just by virtue of being in the United States?”

KAGAN TURNS ON LIBERAL ALLY JACKSON WITH FOOTNOTE JAB OVER FREE SPEECH

Conservatives and Republican politicians quickly seized on Jackson’s comment equating territorial jurisdiction with political allegiance, arguing that her analogy fundamentally misreads the 14th Amendment’s birthright-citizenship clause.

“I don’t think KBJ knows what words mean,” conservative communicator Steve Guest posted on X.

“Leave it to Justice Jackson to defend the suicide pact of birthright citizenship for illegals by not understanding the difference between territorial jurisdiction (obeying local laws), and political allegiance,” Turning Point USA’s Andrew Kolvet posted on X. “If territorial jurisdiction means allegiance, every tourist is a US citizen, which is insane. The whole thing is so low IQ and embarrassing for the Court.”

“Oh, good grief, come on now!” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis posted on X.

“That’s not what allegiance means,” GOP Sen. Ted Cruz posted on X.

“We only have thirty more years of this, guys,” Outkick founder Clay Travis posted on X.

“Because nothing says ‘allegiance’ quite like going to a new country and immediately breaking its laws,” conservative commentator Greg Price posted on X.

“This is exactly how bad arguments get dressed up to sound intellectual,” conservative commentator A Gene Robinson posted on X.

“‘Subject to the laws’ does NOT equal allegiance. That’s where this entire thing collapses. If you step into a country… you are bound by its laws. That’s jurisdiction. It’s not loyalty. It’s not consent. It’s not allegiance. A criminal is ‘subject to the law’ the moment he commits a crime…That doesn’t make him part of the nation. It makes him accountable to it. That wallet analogy proves the opposite of what it’s trying to argue.”

TRUMP MAKES HISTORIC SCOTUS APPEARANCE FOR BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE

“Not sure if she’s aware but of all the countries to mention Japan is probably the least helpful to her cause,” journalist Miranda Devine posted on X. “Babies born in Japan can only become citizens if they have Japanese blood and are born to registered Japanese citizens whose names appear in a special book.”

“No words,” GOP Rep. Derrick Van Orden posted on X.

“Peak moron,” conservative radio host Dana Loesch posted on X.

“I cannot believe this woman is on the court, and I cannot believe anyone on the left thinks letting her air these thoughts out loud does them any favors,” Real Clear Investigations senior writer Mark Hemingway posted on X.

Wednesday’s oral arguments centered on Trump’s 2025 executive order advancing a narrower interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause so that children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily would not automatically receive U.S. citizenship. 

At issue in the case before the Supreme Court is the language in the amendment that says anyone born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is automatically a citizen. President Donald Trump and conservative legal analysts have argued the provision was a relic of the Civil War and intended for freed slaves rather than a justification of birth tourism and illegal immigration.

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.

Top congressional Democrats, party campaign arms and allied groups are suing President Donald Trump and his administration over a sweeping order he signed this week that would increase federal involvement in elections.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., along with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic Governors Association and the Democratic National Committee, filed the lawsuit Thursday.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., seeks to block Trump’s executive order signed Tuesday targeting mail-in voting and voter eligibility, as Senate Republicans continue debating the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act.

TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDER OVERHAULING MAIL-IN VOTING IN MAJOR ELECTION INTEGRITY PUSH

“The American people are fed up with Republicans’ price-spiking, health care-gutting agenda and are ready to vote them out,” Schumer, Jeffries and the committee chairs said in a joint statement. “That’s why Donald Trump is desperately trying to rig our elections by making it harder to vote for seniors, Americans with disabilities, members of the military, rural communities and other working families who rely on vote-by-mail. This move is blatantly unconstitutional, and we will fight against it.”

“We are taking action to challenge Trump’s executive order to protect the right to vote and ensure every eligible American can make their voice heard at the ballot box,” they added.

Trump has warned Republicans that if they cannot pass the SAVE America Act — which is unlikely given unified Democratic opposition in the Senate — the GOP could face major losses in the upcoming midterm elections.

GOP TRIGGERS MARATHON SENATE FIGHT TO EXPOSE DEMS’ OPPOSITION TO TRUMP-BACKED VOTER ID BILL

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson fired back that, “Only Democrat politicians and operatives would be upset about lawful efforts to secure American elections and ensure only eligible American citizens are casting ballots.”

“President Trump campaigned on securing our elections and the American people sent him back to the White House to get the job done,” she said.

The executive order, signed earlier this week, reflects Trump taking matters into his own hands amid the political reality in Congress.

The order would create federal “citizenship lists” of U.S. citizens using government databases, require those lists to be shared with states before elections, and give the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) authority over mail-in voting logistics. It would also require voters to be enrolled with USPS to receive mail ballots.

The order would allow USPS to refuse delivery of ballots from people not on its approved list and impose new federal design and processing rules for mail-in ballot envelopes.

SENATE GOP EYES BLAME GAME AS TRUMP-BACKED SAVE ACT HEADS FOR DEFEAT

Democrats argue the order is unconstitutional on several grounds, including that it overrides states’ authority over elections, violates the separation of powers, breaches privacy laws and risks disenfranchising millions of voters.

They argue Trump has “no such authority” to impose sweeping changes on elections nationwide.

“If permitted, the President’s actions would fundamentally alter the constitutional balance between the states and the federal government by allowing the executive branch to wield federal power to pressure states into adopting federal preferences for the conduct of elections,” they wrote in the lawsuit.

President Donald Trump has reportedly already fired Attorney General Pam Bondi, according to two sources familiar with the matter who spoke with Fox News Digital. 

Bondi met with Trump in the Oval Office on Wednesday night ahead of his speech to the nation on the war in Iran where was reportedly informed of her ouster, according to two sources familiar with the meeting. 

One of those sources said that by the time Trump took his place behind the podium for the address, Bondi had already lost her job and was on her way back to Florida.

HOUSE OVERSIGHT SUBPOENAS AG BONDI IN PROBE OF EPSTEIN CASE ‘MISMANAGEMENT’

Trump is reportedly considering replacing Bondi with Environmental Protection Agency Director Lee Zelin, according to the sources familiar with the matter. Trump held a meeting with Zeldin at the White House Tuesday to discuss wildfire and prevention, where talks of the transition also unfolded, according to an individual familiar with the meeting. 

That source relayed to Fox News Digital that Zeldin would be a plausible replacement, adding that Trump could change his mind at any point. 

When asked about the alleged meetings and Bondi’s ouster, a White House source stopped short of confirming the information, but relayed it was “not cold.” 

The alleged ouster follows a recent The New York Times report detailing that Trump was preparing to replace Bondi with Zeldin as the president had become increasingly dissatisfied with her performance in the role. 

WHY KRISTI NOEM’S FIRING TOOK SO LONG AS SHE WRECKED DHS AND DAMAGED DONALD TRUMP

Asked about the meetings and Bondi’s alleged ouster on Wednesday evening, the White House directed Fox News Digital to the same comment the office provided to the Times defending Bondi. 

“Attorney General Pam Bondi is a wonderful person and she is doing a good job,” Trump’s comment states. 

The Department of Justice did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment on the matter. 

The alleged ouster came the same day Bondi accompanied Trump to the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday morning for oral arguments on the high-stakes birthright citizenship case. 

FIRST ON FOX: A conservative legal group is calling on the federal government to overhaul how crime data is reported on college campuses, arguing that parents and students are being left in the dark about safety risks.

America First Legal (AFL) filed a supplemental petition on Thursday with the U.S. Department of Education, urging officials to create a centralized, publicly accessible database of campus crime logs nationwide.

The reason, AFL argues, is gaps in the Clery Act where schools are already required to maintain daily crime logs documenting reported incidents, but that information is scattered, inconsistent and often hard to access.

“AFL’s petition today brings a new level of accountability to college campuses,” Emily Percival, senior counsel at America First Legal, said in a press release. 

SIGN UP TO GET THE CAMPUS RADICALS NEWSLETTER

“Parents, students, and policymakers deserve the truth in real-time about the safety of college and university campuses. Today’s action is another step toward shining the light on the dangers that have festered at our academic institutions.”

The petition also calls for a new “Political and Religious Violence Transparency Report,” which would document incidents involving threats, assaults and harassment tied to political or religious beliefs, as well as the university’s response.

AFL is also pushing for penalties for schools that fail to comply, including fines of up to $71,545 per violation. 

The proposal comes as colleges nationwide have faced a surge in high-profile incidents involving protests turning violent, clashes between rival groups and reports of intimidation targeting students over political and religious views.

LA UNITED SCHOOL DISTRICT SCANDAL LEADS TO CHARGES AS $22M SCHEME ALLEGEDLY DRAINED FUNDS MEANT FOR STUDENTS

From disruptive demonstrations that have led to arrests and property damage, to allegations of targeted harassment, campus shootings and assaults tied to ideological disputes, campus tensions have increasingly spilled into violence, prompting lawmakers and watchdog groups to question whether universities are fully disclosing the scope of the problem.

AFL argues current reporting rules under the Clery Act allow schools to obscure the true scope of campus disorder, particularly when it comes to protest-related violence.

The AFL has previously cited some examples of egregious behavior on college campuses, including the protest that broke out at the University of California at Berkeley during a Turning Point USA event, which led to multiple arrests as demonstrators attempted to breach police barricades. 

The unrest that unfolded at UC Berkeley prompted the U.S. Department of Justice to launch an investigation.

Major schools like the University of Michigan and Columbia University dealt with hostile environments during protests that addressed the war in Gaza. Because of protests causing safety and discrimination concerns for Jewish students, the Trump administration put a freeze on federal funding at some of these schools.

Fox News Digital’s Joshua Q. Nelson contributed to this report.

As a Homeland Security shutdown drags on, the top Senate Republican says Democrats are getting “zero” of the reforms they demanded.

Congressional Democrats have taken victory laps, viewing the outcome as a key win in their push for reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). They have also accused congressional Republicans of caving to their demands.

While the Senate’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deal includes funding for ICE and much of CBP, it does not include the structural reforms Democrats spent the last 48 days pushing.

SENATE PASSES BILL TO FUND MOST OF DHS AFTER HOUSE GOP CAVES

When asked whether Republicans gave in, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom,” “No, we didn’t cave.”

“I mean, ultimately, what the Democrats did, you could say… this was all about ‘reforms,’ restrictions on ICE and CBP agents and what they could or couldn’t do,” Thune said. “They got none of that. They got zero of the reforms they were advocating for.”

Thune was responding to accusations from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who argued that “House Republicans caved” after backing down from their push for a 60-day funding extension for the agency.

HOUSE CONSERVATIVES RAGE AGAINST SENATE DHS SHUTDOWN DEAL

Schumer argued that divisions in the GOP “derailed a bipartisan agreement” and said Democrats were clear in their objectives to “fund critical security, protect Americans, and provide no blank check for reckless ICE and Border Patrol enforcement.”

“We were united, held the line, and refused to let Republican chaos win,” Schumer said.

Thune countered, “In the end, this was all about their left-wing base demanding that no funding be provided.”

HOUSE GOP RAMS THROUGH NEW DHS FUNDING PLAN WITH SHUTDOWN FAR FROM OVER

“The good news for us is we saw this coming, and we pre-funded this last summer, so ICE and CBP are funded through the end of the fiscal year. Then we’ll add to those accounts and make sure they’re funded in future years,” Thune said.

Republicans, now with the backing of President Donald Trump, are eyeing the budget reconciliation process to fund immigration enforcement operations for the foreseeable future. It’s a tricky maneuver that would require full buy-in from Senate Republicans.

Trump lauded Republicans, including Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who originally torpedoed the Senate deal, for coming together to reopen most of DHS. He also noted that he would soon sign an executive order to pay, “ALL of the incredible employees at the Department of Homeland Security,” which comes as the funding plan currently wouldn’t pay immigration enforcement support staff.

“Republicans are UNIFIED, and moving forward on a plan that will reload funding for our FANTASTIC Border Patrol and Immigration Enforcement Officers,” Trump said on Truth Social. 

In the meantime, the shutdown is still ongoing. The Senate’s redo of its funding plan Thursday morning sets up another vote in the House, where there is still significant resistance among some hardline Republicans, and the House is not expected to return to Washington, D.C., until April 13.

President Donald Trump‘s presence at the Supreme Court this week may not sway the justices, who appeared skeptical of the president’s push to curb birthright citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

But Trump’s historic appearance — no sitting president has attended oral arguments at the high court before — showcased the president’s great interest in his landmark effort to upend more than a century of legal precedent that allowed automatic citizenship to those born in the U.S.

And the president’s presence at the Supreme Court may pack a political punch by energizing MAGA voters ahead of the midterm elections, when Republicans will be defending their fragile House and Senate majorities.

INSIDE THE SUPREME COURT: HOW TRUMP HEARD BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ARGUMENTS

“Immigration is the issue that has most defined Donald Trump during his time as a national political figure, and his record on border security remains one of the core accomplishments of his second term,” longtime Republican strategist Colin Reed told Fox News Digital.

Reed emphasized that “even if the Supreme Court does not side with his perspective in this particular case, the president is making clear that he is not abandoning his commitment to the broader issue.”

TRUMP MAKES HISTORIC APPEARANCE AT THE SUPREME COURT 

On his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order which declared that children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or those on limited-duration visas would no longer be granted U.S. citizenship.

But the order never took effect, after it was quickly hit with a slew of lawsuits and was subsequently blocked by federal judges from coast to coast who argued it violated long-standing legal precedent.

The president on Wednesday stayed quiet until after he left the court, and after the arguments in the case concluded, before taking to social media to write, “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!”

Most Americans appear to disagree.

Sixty-nine percent of voters support birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal immigrants, according to a Fox News national poll conducted March 20-23.

EXPERTS FLAG ‘DISAPPOINTING’ QUESTIONS FROM JUSTICES IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE

But there’s a wide partisan divide, with 91% of Democrats and three-quarters of independents but only 44% of Republicans supporting birthright citizenship in such cases.

A majority of Republicans questioned in the poll, 55%, disagreed. And among self-described MAGA Republicans, opposition edged up to 60%.

“Combating illegal immigration has always been President Trump’s strongest issue, and he’s made our borders more secure than they’ve ever been. He’s obviously fighting a lot of battles and birthright citizenship is one of them,” seasoned Republican communicator Tim Murtaugh told Fox News Digital.

Murtaugh, a veteran of Trump’s 2020 and 2024 presidential campaigns, said “the president’s attendance at the oral arguments shows how much he cares about the issue, and draws a far brighter spotlight onto the illogic of birthright citizenship than would otherwise have happened if he hadn’t shown up.”

And Murtaugh sees the issue putting Democrats on defense in the midterms.

“It’s possible that the court will say that Congress must address the issue. If so, this would be highly relevant in the midterm elections because Democrats are very much going to be put on the defensive for their support of illegal aliens and lawlessness,” Murtaugh argued.

Immigration and border security were winning issues for Trump and Republicans and helped fuel their sweeping victories in the 2024 elections, when they won back the White House and the Senate and defended their House majority.

But in the wake of political backlash earlier this year over Trump’s unprecedented illegal immigration crackdown, polling on the issue raises warning signs for Republicans and suggests immigration may come back to take a bite out of the GOP in the midterms.

“Let’s be clear: Ending birthright citizenship is central to Trump’s broader radical agenda to target immigrant families,” Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin charged. “If Trump gets his way, overturning birthright citizenship will create chaos in our communities.”

Fox News’ Ashley Oliver and Victoria Balara contributed to this story.

FBI officials recently reached out to members of Congress to alert them to a cyber hack classified as a “major incident.”

Fox News is told that China is the culprit and that the breach could pose a threat to national security.

The FBI made this designation last week when notifying several members of Congress. 

This is a developing news story. Please check back for updates.

President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants appears to be in jeopardy following Supreme Court oral arguments on Wednesday. 

Supreme Court justices pursued what Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, described as a “disappointing” line of questioning. Liberal and conservative Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of Trump’s order, which the president has argued is necessary to end a “magnet” for illegal immigration and “birth tourism,” in which foreign nationals travel to the U.S. to give birth so their children gain citizenship.

Lawyers for the Trump administration argued that the 14th Amendment’s stipulation that individuals must be subject to U.S. jurisdiction to be American citizens means children of illegal immigrants are excluded from automatic citizenship. The administration pointed to “striking” numbers of illegal immigrants abusing current law through a type of birth tourism. Meanwhile, opposing lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union argued that Supreme Court precedent, particularly the Wong Kim Ark case, supports a broader interpretation that all those born on U.S. soil are automatic citizens.

In an interview with Fox News Digital, Swearer said that while the oral arguments went “a little bit better than anticipated” for the administration in some regards, the day was a mixed bag for the government.

SAUER CITES ‘STRIKING’ FIGURES ON SECRETIVE BIRTH TOURISM IN HIGH-STAKES SCOTUS CASE

“Most people understood coming into this, and I suspect even the government understood coming into this, that this was probably going to be a bit of an uphill battle,” Swearer said.

She said conservative and liberal justices seemed hesitant about how the government would apply Trump’s order.

Swearer said, “We did see a lot of those types of questions,” adding, “I’m not sure they are actually that important to the overall doctrinal questions of, ‘What does the 14th Amendment citizenship clause actually mean?’”

Meanwhile, she said it was “a bit disappointing” not to see more pushback from the justices on the ACLU’s broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

While there was much discussion of the Wong Kim Ark case, which revolved around the citizenship of a child of legal Chinese immigrants, Swearer said she “was disappointed” not to see discussion of other legal precedent she believes is crucial.

ALITO INVOKES SCALIA ANALOGY IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FIGHT OVER ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

“The ACLU’s argument is essentially no one up until Donald Trump ever thought that this was a viable way of framing birthright citizenship. And the reality is when you look at decisions by other presidents during the 19th century, you actually did have executive branch decisions saying, ‘No, we’re not going to issue passports to this person, even though they were born in the United States because they weren’t born subject to our jurisdiction, because their parents weren’t lawfully or permanently present in the United States.’ And I think that’s important,” she said.

“I think that was one of the missed opportunities to really push back on the ACLU’s position, and it just didn’t come up in the same way that Wong Kim Ark did,” she added.

What does this mean for the future of Trump’s order? Swearer said that while the three liberal justices’ stances are obvious, she admitted, “It’s hard to know what to make of” the six other justices’ lack of questioning on what she believes are the more “foundational questions about the history and tradition” of the citizenship issue.

Despite this, Swearer said, “I do think there’s a path forward” for a Trump victory, though it would likely be narrow and partial.

INSIDE SUPREME COURT: HOW TRUMP HEARD BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ARGUMENTS

“I would not quantify it, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see some sort of plurality of opinions splitting the baby somewhere,” she said.

Swearer speculated that possible routes the court could take include differentiating between illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders, delivering a partial victory for the administration, or deciding the question based on existing statute rather than attempting to interpret the language of the 14th Amendment, which would cut against Trump’s order.

“Maybe they split the baby that way,” she said, adding, “I think at the end of the day, there are just so many options for what this could look like.”