Academic Inquisition for Birthright Citizenship Dissenters

The Supreme Court has spoken on the question of birthright citizenship. Five justices concluded that the 14^th Amendment guarantees citizenship to virtually everyone born on American soil. Four disagreed. (And yes, I mean four! Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the dissenters that the 14^th Amendment itself does not mandate birthright citizenship for children of temporary visitors or those present in the country illegally.) That is how constitutional law works. Cases are argued, judges decide, and scholars continue debating what the Constitution actually means.

Or at least that is how it used to work.

In the wake of the Court’s decision, some legal academics have insisted that the losing side should not merely be answered but, also, punished. One of the most remarkable examples came from Fordham law professor John Pfaff, who declared that there “MUST be repercussions” for the law professors who argued that the 14^th Amendment does not require universal birthright citizenship. Their work, he claimed, was “parasitic.” They should be “frozen out of academic life until they recant.” After criticism, Pfaff softened his rhetoric slightly but reaffirmed the basic proposition that scholars advancing what he regarded as bad arguments should suffer professional consequences.

Notice what is missing from this demand.

Not evidence of fabrication.