Sean Hannity and Gene Hamilton analyze President Trump's historic Supreme Court appearance regarding birthright citizenship, arguing the 14th Amendment excludes children of illegal immigrants. The discussion expands to international tensions, featuring proposals for Strait of Hormuz passage fees to fund U.S. wars against Iran while criticizing NATO allies for unpaid contributions and radical policies. Amidst heated debates over immigration conspiracies and nuclear threats, the episode concludes by framing these domestic legal battles and foreign policy failures as interconnected crises threatening national sovereignty. [Automatically generated summary]
Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country song.
We'll all be flying higher than a jet liner.
And if you want a little bang in your yin-yang, come along.
Throughout our meetings.
With the Iranians, we heard the following from them.
The Iranians have the inalienable right to enrich.
Go ahead, delegate.
Yes, hello.
I was standing here with my gender equity card before you called on the previous speaker.
Can't you see?
None of us are free.
No, no, no.
Still all of us are free.
Freedom is back in style.
Welcome to the revolution.
Yeah, we're coming to your city.
Gonna play our guitars and sing you a country song.
Sean Hannity.
The new Sean Hannity Show.
More behind-the-scenes information on breaking news and more bold, inspired solutions for America.
Coming up next, our final news roundup and information overload hour.
All right, news roundup and information overload hour.
Here's our toll-free telephone number if you want to be a part of the program.
It's 800-94- One, Sean, if you want to join us.
All right, so we have the president, by the way, along with the attorney general, Pam Bondi, showed up at the U.S. Supreme Court today to hear oral arguments as it relates to birthright citizenship.
I personally, I always caution people not to interpret or try to come to a conclusion based on the justices and the questioning that goes on.
I was not particularly pleased with.
The oral arguments and some of the questions of the justices.
By the way, this is the first time a sitting president has ever personally attended oral arguments before the nation's highest court.
And the issue is whether or not we will end automatic citizenship, birthright citizenship, for anybody born in the U.S., even to undocumented or illegal immigrants or to parents with temporary non immigrant visas in the U.S.
The stakes are very high.
This is, you know, a collision course of more than, you know, a century of executive branch action.
And it is, I think the arguments in many ways could have been more articulate, but that's separate and apart.
Now, if you want to look at what goes on around the world, unrestricted birthright citizenship is not allowed in most of Europe or Asia or Africa.
And John Sauer, the Justice Department attorney, pointed that out in oral arguments.
In fact, unconditional birthright citizenship is not allowed.
Is unheard of in those on those continents in Europe, Asia, Africa.
No European country currently offers fully unconditional birthright citizenship, and they largely rely on parental citizenship.
Asia, most of Africa, predominantly use highly conditional rules.
Several European countries had previously allowed broader interpretations of birthright citizenship but tightened it or ended it in recent decades.
Ireland ended unrestricted birthright citizenship in 2004, the UK in 1981, Australia, New Zealand ended it.
In recent decades as well.
You know, the president leaving, you know, it took to Truth Social to rage about birthright citizenship.
He said, We're the only country in the world stupid enough.
To allow birthright citizenship.
And it's not his first public comments on this.
And anyway, so the president went there and he departed.
Sam Alito said federal officials have not effectively enforced immigration laws, you think?
Not even close.
And you have people.
Remember, they used to talk about people that would come across the border just to have babies, just so that they would be U.S. citizens.
Anchor babies is the term that they used.
I know some people are offended.
You can't say illegal immigrant, but it is what it is.
So, you know, I watched, I listened to some of these arguments rather, and I wasn't particularly impressed with the questioning listening to this, that it was frustrating to me.
You know, here's one example Justice Katanji Brown Jackson asking Sauer what he would do in the case of a pregnant migrant woman.
And listen to this exchange.
You're not transparent.
I'm just talking about the particulars, because now you say your rule turns on whether the person intended to stay in the United States.
And I think Justice Barrett brought this up.
So, are we bringing pregnant women in for depositions?
What are we doing to figure this out?
No, as I pointed out earlier, the executive order turns on lawfulness of status.
So, if you give birth to a baby in the hospital right now, it gets the birth certificate in the system.
There's a computer system.
So, there's no opportunity, there's apparently no opportunity then for the person to prove or to say that they actually intended to stay in the United States?
Absolutely not.
The opposite is true.
Their opportunity to dispute if they think they were wrongly denied, which would only happen in a tiny minority of cases, is directly addressing that guy.
After the fact, after their baby has been denied citizenship, then we can go through the process.
Yes.
And the way that, I mean, I'm summarizing because I'm not an expert at computers, but there's a computer program that currently automatically generates a social security number.
SSA says, look, a social security number, non citizens can have them if they work authorization, so it doesn't prove citizenship.
We'll give you a social security number, provided that the system automatically checks the immigration status of the parents, which there are robust databases for, and then it appears no different to the vast majority of birthing parents.
Thank you.
All right, joining us now to weigh in on what he heard today, Gene Hamilton, president of America First Legal and the legal architect behind a majority of President Trump's executive orders.
I did not particularly like the questioning of justices, although I like to remind people don't take those questions to mean that you can interpret what the eventual outcome will be, although it didn't give me a lot of, it did not give me a high degree of confidence on the outcome.
Yeah, Sean, I mean, you're exactly right.
To remind your audience, with Supreme Court arguments, Everyone always wants to try to read the tea leaves.
They try to glean and discern where justices may land based on the types of questions they ask.
And in some cases, it's very easy to do.
If a justice like Justice Jackson is being overtly hostile, I mean, I think everyone already knew what her outcome on this case would be, but that's asking overtly hostile questions, then you know where she's going to come down.
But sometimes judges and justices, this applies in just district courts and courts of appeals as well, will ask questions.
To try to develop the record and try to develop and establish the best possible position so they can say, as they're writing their opinion or their concurrence or anything of the sort, that they covered all the bases with the parties.
And in fact, now they have all of the facts, all of the information, all the positions, and now they can render their decision.
So sometimes hard questions can actually be good for parties just because the justices want to develop the facts there.
But I do completely agree with you.
There are some real disappointing moments for folks who like to read the tea leaves, for sure.
All right.
So then, based on listening to these oral arguments today, and I've got to wonder where you think these justices are leaning, and who do you think made the most compelling argument that they should be listening to, and what is the most compelling argument they should be listening to?
Well, look, I mean, with the caveat being that it's always tough to predict, I think that we are looking at a very, very, very close.
Decision when it comes out.
Sometimes you have situations where you don't even have majority opinion.
You might have a plurality where you have different groups of justices agreeing with different parts of different positions.
I think we have, if I'm a betting person, I would say that you have certainly Justices Alito and Thomas and Kavanaugh in one camp.
I think the chief is likely with the liberal justices in this case, which means that we're kind of down to justice.
Barrett and Justice Gorsuch.
And I could see them going either way if we're going solely based on the oral arguments today.
But of course, again, oral arguments aren't always everything.
Did you glean any hope out of Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the questioning that she was making today?
Because I did not.
I share your position, Sean, but I do have to say that as a former law professor, I think that Justice Barrett likely puts more stock into the party's written submissions than the party's performance at oral arguments or into the questions that she asks.
And so I can still see her coming out the right way on this particular decision, but I think this is going to be an instance where there's going to be a lot of discussions between the justices as they try to form their coalitions and make their votes and then start the work on writing the.
The actual opinion.
So I could see maybe some of the other justices persuading her to join one camp or the other.
Why would we allow what the vast overwhelming majority of the world does not allow, and that is for people to enter our country illegally, give birth, and automatically bestow citizenship on the child that was birthed illegally in the country or birthed by their illegal parent that shouldn't even be here?
Yeah, it's absolute insanity.
I mean, this is taking, bastardizing the text of an amendment that was purely intended to cover slaves and to ensure that in the aftermath of Dred Scott, all slaves and former slaves would be considered to be citizens.
It is ludicrous that someone could cross the border illegally and be prosecuted by the Department of Justice for crossing the border illegally.
Let's say it's a couple.
And the wife is pregnant, that you could prosecute the parents for crossing the border, put them in jail, the mother gives birth, and now they have an American citizen.
So somebody who's committed a criminal act gets rewarded in the form of a child with American citizenship and ties that will eventually allow the child to petition for the parents to come to the United States under our immigration laws.
It's absolute insanity.
It's ludicrous.
It's nothing any sane nation would ever tolerate or accept.
Then it's kind of hard to, you know, it's inexplicable to me that this has a very strong chance of, you know, not being a case that we lose.
And, you know, what do you think the most compelling arguments that.
That John Sawyer made it in these arguments?
I mean, I think the most compelling arguments are related to the intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment.
And of course, its text, this phrase, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, has to mean something.
It cannot be the case that it means nothing.
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, if they had just intended for it to cover everybody, then they would have stopped.
They would have left that out.
They would have left that clause out.
And the notion that That particular phrase only covers the children of diplomats or the children of invading armies is just inconsistent with all of the legislative debate, all of the scholarship and force speeches, and all the other things that accompanied the adoption of the 14th Amendment.
It certainly doesn't appear that it was ever contemplated that folks in the situation that we're talking about today would have been covered.
By the 14th Amendment.
But yet, here we are today.
And again, it's absolute insanity.
And if the Supreme Court enshrines that this is, in fact, a constitutional right, so they leave no ambiguity, so that anybody who's born here, whether their parents are illegal, whether they're birth tourists, whomever, it is going to cause so many more additional problems for our immigration system than we can even contemplate today.
Quick break, right back.
More with Gene Hamilton, president of America First Legal, as we examine birthright citizenship, which was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court earlier today.
President Trump attended along with the Attorney General, Pam Bondi.
We'll take a quick break.
We'll come back more on the other side as we continue.
The left wants to silence Hannity.
Don't let it happen.
Make the commitment now, three hours every day at 3.50.
PM.
This is the Sean Hannity SHOW.
Court Leaning Analysis00:03:33
We continue, Gene Hamilton, President of America First Legal.
We are discussing birthright citizenship argued before the U.S. Supreme Court today.
The president was there and the attorney general, Pam Bondi, were there.
Didn't stay that long.
But anyway, we're examining which way we think the court might be leaning.
Were there any arguments that weren't made that you wish were made?
You know, look, I think that most of them were all covered.
John Sauer did a good job.
He covered the government's.
Positions quite well.
Look, I think that at the end of the day, this is just one of those situations where, when President Trump issued this executive order, there was a lot of criticism.
There was a lot of eye rolling by some of the legal, traditional kind of legal academics and talking heads and said, oh, this isn't even a close question.
This isn't even close.
It's an open and shut case.
Everyone born here is an American citizen.
And I think that the more the time has gone on and people have had.
Open and honest discussions and pursued the matter from an intellectual and historical perspective.
Come to discover that, in fact, the president's position is likely correct.
And it's really just a matter of whether a couple of these justices wake up and agree with the correct position, even though it might feel uncomfortable.
All right, Gene Hamilton, we appreciate you being with us.
This is going to be interesting to watch.
We'll find out sometime, I guess, in the summer, whether or not, in fact, the arguments.
We're able to sway these justices.
I don't go into this ruling with a high degree of confidence, I'll put it that way, unfortunately.
I wish I could tell you differently.
And I think there's a reason.
The president walked out of the room because he's probably disgusted by the line of questioning.
You can't always get what you want, but you can get Sean Hannity online at Hannity.com.
All right, let's get to our busy, busy telephones.
Let us say.
Hi to, let's see, John in my free state of Florida.
What's up, John?
How are you?
Good afternoon.
Yeah, I called to talk a little bit about winding down the conflict and some of the discussions that are going on around terms of dealing with what comes next in Iran, realizing that, you know, there are going to be requirements on both sides.
NATO and European Ties00:07:48
And my understanding is that the Iranians are seeking reparations, which can just separate discussion whether that's laughable or not.
The US, who have been abandoned by their allies and having to take on all of the financial responsibility of the armaments that are necessary to pull out the action.
Okay, so fast forward.
Let's say we're in this state of discussing terms.
Karg Island would be a perfect place to have an occupational zone where any flag that's flying under a country that did not provide direct support.
To the initiative would have to be charged for passage, and those dividends would then be split evenly or whatever ratio between Iran and the U.S.
And once the U.S.'s expenses have been fulfilled, then we would leave, unless Iran wants us to leave some kind of a force behind as another one of our bases.
Thoughts on that?
Well, I mean, I'm not really sure exactly what you're asking.
I mean, are you asking?
About Karg Island and oil and funding the war?
Are you asking about NATO's lack of commitment to being a strong alliance with the U.S.?
They want a one sided agreement.
They don't want to pay their fair share.
I'm not exactly sure what exactly you mean.
All of the above.
All of the above.
So when this thing lines down, if they didn't participate in the funding of the basically all of them.
I think they should be on their own.
Honestly, we pay two thirds of the freight.
And if this alliance is only designed for the U.S.
To protect Europe, which they have become far too dependent upon us.
I mean, we're paying two thirds of the bill, and it's their continent that is deteriorating.
They have abandoned their commitment to national security and defense.
They have embraced radical socialism and climate alarmism, which.
You know, now they're feeling the impact of their ridiculous climate policies by paying over $10 a gallon for gasoline.
That's on them.
They're the ones that even wanted to get their energy from Vladimir Putin, which is why the white flag of surrender was given by Donald Trump to Angela Merkel in his first term.
And if this is just a one sided alliance, then it's of no use to the U.S.
And I think our money is better spent elsewhere on.
Other defenses and the next generation of weaponry, which we need to really build out, and we could use that trillion dollars to do that.
So, as far as I'm concerned, I think they.
I was just going to say exactly as a penalty going forward, if they need goods and oil and energy to go through the Strait of Hormuz to their countries, they're going to have to pay for passage, and those funds would then be funneled back to the U.S. to compensate us for the war effort, as well as to Iran for reparations.
It's a way to get them on the hook to actually.
You know, pay for some of what comes next.
I just think that they have shown themselves to be unreliable partners when it matters.
And it's sad.
I mean, but sometimes relationships naturally come to an end.
You know, I like to look at, you know, there have been people that I was friendly with at one point in my life and I'm not so friendly with now or have gotten out of touch with now.
And we have seasons in our lives, right?
And maybe for a season, you know, post World War II, this was the right alliance.
To have.
If they're abandoning their commitment to us, then obviously we're free to do what we want, and I think that we will respond in kind.
Anyway, I appreciate the call.
In case you missed it, here's the president responding, or here's Kira Starmer responding to President Trump's comments on NATO.
Listen.
Is this an acknowledgement that Britain's long term security relationship with the United States is about to change?
Well, let me say a number of things in response to that.
Firstly, NATO is the single most effective military alliance the world has ever seen, and it has kept us safe.
For many decades, and we are fully committed to NATO.
Secondly, that whatever the pressure on me and others, whatever the noise, I'm going to act in the British national interest in all the decisions that I make.
And that's why I've been absolutely clear that this is not our war, and we're not going to get dragged into it.
But I'm equally clear that when it comes to defence and security and our economic future, we have to have closer ties with Europe.
Well, okay, Neville Chamberlain Starmer.
You know, we're fully committed to NATO, and you're not going to get dragged into this conflict.
Meanwhile, we discovered that the ballistic missile range that the Iranians have can hit London.
And you could thank Donald J. Trump that most of those missiles are being destroyed, if not all of them, and they won't have the enriched uranium for 11 nuclear bombs that obviously.
Theoretically, I don't even think so.
Theoretically, in reality, would ultimately enable them to keep Europe hostage and then probably eventually build it out further and it would become intercontinental ballistic missiles and it'd be a threat to our children and grandchildren.
Anyway, back to our phones.
Speaking of England, Jeff in Ohio wants to weigh in on this.
Jeff, how are you?
Glad you called, sir.
Good morning, sir.
Afternoon, son.
What's going on?
Yeah.
I was actually curious what your thoughts were about England.
I was.
Recently, watching a speech given by Alan West, and he was talking about the Islam's five plan or five point plan for takeover essentially from overpopulation.
And he stated that he thinks Britain is in stage four.
Well, that would put them not very far away from essentially being able to take over England, which would then put them in control of nuclear bombs and ICBMs, which could then get to us as well.
Well, I'm not sure what the population breakdown is.
And I don't necessarily think that, you know, I'm more concerned about radical Islamists than I am about people that have a different faith than I do as a Christian.
And I'm more concerned about the fact that they have allowed unfettered immigration without the assimilation and separation.
I mean, to allow people to come from other countries and to completely separate themselves from British mores, values, and society, and even have their own Sharia courts is madness to me.
Because then they're putting their, I mean, if that's the belief system that, Mean so much to them, why did they want to go to Great Britain in the first place?
You have to ask.
And that would be the threat.
I mean, look, London's, you know, you do have radicals that have been elected into these high positions inside of Great Britain.
And I think the Islamization, if you will, of the continent of Europe is very, very real.
And I'm not talking about the Muslim faith, I'm talking about the radicalism.
Daniel in Arizona.
Daniel, how are you?
Doing great, sir.
How are you today?
I'm good, sir.
What's going on?
Yeah, I wanted to talk to you.
Fuel Prices in California00:05:11
What are your thoughts about the double standard in the new cycle of fuel prices?
Now it looks like they suddenly care about fuel prices, but if you remember back in 2022, we had the highest fuel prices under Biden.
They were like nationally, it was like over $5 average.
And I know in California, for a fact, they were over $7 everywhere.
And it looks like we're being bombarded by the news cycle on, oh, now we care about the economy and fuel prices.
But nobody remembers that.
And that just happened a couple of years ago.
And they're not talking also about the three major refineries and a few more small ones they closed in California because all these governor Scumbag Newsome over there closing, making it so hard for them to make.
Do business in California and supporting all these green rules and regulations that they're rolling on everybody and make it impossible for these businesses and they live in California.
And it's really affecting the West Coast, at least on our side.
You already know the answer to this.
The media is abusively biased.
They have a double standard.
It's really not any more complicated than that.
Now, if I'm correct and the president's correct and Secretary of State Rubio's correct, And in the next two to three weeks, this war is going to wind down and end.
And it will not be as what the isolationists have been predicting from day one.
This is a forever war.
Donald Trump is doing exactly what he said he'd never do.
No, he's not.
And it's not going to be.
But I would argue that, and I think it's a pretty darn good bet that gas prices will return to normal.
And it probably will happen in a fairly short order.
That would be my best guess.
I don't have a.
I don't have a crystal ball.
Walter, New Mexico, next, Sean Hannity Show.
Hi.
Yeah, hi, Sean.
Hey, thank you so much for taking my call.
I would like to take a little bit of an issue regarding.
The endless wars.
Okay.
Now, look.
There is no endless war.
What's the endless war?
Yeah, but that's what I'm trying to get at.
Whether it's a short term war or a long term war, we're still fighting a war in the Middle East trying to nation build.
We're trying to tell.
We're not trying to nation build.
That's not part of the president's goal.
Okay.
Well, then, why do you take out so called dictators or leaders in another nation because they won't comply with what the U.S. wants?
Remember, this has been a joint military effort with the Israelis.
The Israelis are the ones that took out the tiers of leadership there.
America's goal has been very clear that they can't have nuclear weapons.
That has been the number one, number two, number three goal of the president.
The president ascertained with 460 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, which could be weapons grade in less than two weeks, coupled with what we now know is they have longer range ballistic missiles than we thought, that that was an existential threat.
To the world and to the U.S., and he was not willing to allow that threat to grow.
Okay.
That's what this is about.
When that is neutralized, the president will leave.
And we're on the verge of that happening, and you should be happy.
That's not a forever war.
Was it a forever war when he defeated the ISIS caliphate, or did he do the right thing?
Okay, Sean, I'm.
First off, Sean, I'm.
Answer my question.
Was it right for the president to beat the ISIS caliphate?
No, it was not.
Here's the point.
Well, you're an idiot.
Then I can't talk to you because you're an idiot.
You're not very smart.
I'm retired Air Force.
Sean, what I'm trying to do.
I appreciate that you served your country, but your commentary to not eliminate the caliphate whose motto is convert or die.
And maybe you're willing to gamble with your children and grandchildren's future with a nuclear armed Iran.
I'm not.
So we just disagree.
There will be no reconciliation in this call.
Respectfully, Sean, what I'm simply respectfully, I think you're naive and you're willing to gamble with the future of our kids and grandkids.
I'm not.
I just err on the side that if you had a chance to take out Hitler before the Holocaust, it would have been smart to do it.
To take out Iran's ability to gain a nuclear weapon with their sick, twisted death cult ideology, to me, that is the smart call.
It won't be a forever war as you proclaim.
Taking out the ISIS caliphate was wise too.
And the president's doctrine, the Trump doctrine, will, in fact, over history, will never be able to know how successful it was because they won't be able to do what they otherwise would have been able to do.
Okay, we disagree.
Trump Doctrine Success00:01:24
Have a great day.
Focused on finding solutions to today's biggest problems.
It is The Hannity Show.
And that's going to wrap things up for today.
Don't forget, President Trump will give an address to the nation as my show starts at 9 Eastern.
We will get full reaction.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Bryan Spreevis, Mike Pompeo, Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, Clay Travis tonight.