Republican Senate Candidate Disagrees with Reaffirmation of Constitutional Rights

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ashley Hinson said she disagrees with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision affirming that birthright citizenship is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Hinson argues that the constitutional guarantee has been “exploited” to encourage illegal immigration. “I don’t agree with the Supreme Court here,” Hinson told reporters July 1. “I think they got it wrong.”

The Court ruled 6-3 that birthright citizenship is protected by the Constitution, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Five members of the majority concluded that changing birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment rather than executive action or ordinary legislation.

Hinson, who represents northeast Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District, is a co-sponsor of the Birthright Citizenship Act, legislation that would limit automatic citizenship to children born to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The proposal reflects the policy outlined in Trump’s executive order and would apply only to future births.

Following the Court’s ruling, Hinson said the decision makes it even more important to strengthen border security and prevent undocumented immigrants from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits. She also accused Democratic Senate candidate Josh Turek of supporting “open borders and amnesty for criminal illegals.”

Turek rejected those claims, calling them false. He pointed to his 2024 vote in favor of an Iowa law creating a state crime for illegal reentry after deportation as evidence that he supports border enforcement. Turek said he favors both secure borders and expanded legal pathways to citizenship, particularly to address workforce needs in agriculture, food processing, and healthcare.

The Supreme Court’s decision leaves birthright citizenship in place under the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning any future effort to change the policy would almost certainly face additional constitutional challenges.

Our Take

Birthright citizenship is far more than a campaign issue. It is a constitutional principle that has shaped the lives of generations of Americans, including this writer and countless Iowa families whose parents or grandparents came here seeking opportunity.

Candidates are free to advocate for changing the Constitution or to support legislation testing its boundaries. They are equally free to debate immigration policy and border security. Those are legitimate public policy discussions.

However, voters should distinguish between constitutional debates, policy proposals, and campaign rhetoric. Broad claims about an opponent’s record should be supported by specific evidence, and constitutional questions deserve thoughtful discussion beyond political sound bites.

As Iowa’s 2026 Senate race unfolds, this issue illustrates why informed voters should ask not only what candidates say, but also what evidence supports their claims and what broader constitutional questions may be overshadowed by campaign messaging.