Justice Jackson sparks online uproar after linking birthright citizenship to stealing a wallet in Japan

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.