The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in the case to end birthright citizenship in the United States. President Trump, who attended oral arguments on April 1, issued an executive order on the first day of his second term to attempt to deny birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. This case will decide whether that order is legal. Our analysts rated media coverage about the court case in our Topic of the Week.

The details of the case were described in articles published by CBS News and Scripps News. The CBS News article is an explainer, giving the history of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the arguments being made by both sides in the court case. It also lists other countries whose laws allow for birthright citizenship. Scripps News reports on what happened during the first day of arguments in the case before the Supreme Court. It summarizes the arguments made by the Trump administration’s attorney and includes comments from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who filed the lawsuit in reaction to Trump’s executive order. Both articles were rated by our analyst team as a “mix of fact reporting and analysis” with a “middle/balanced” bias.

A video from Vox argues “why birthright citizenship is crucial to the foundation of modern America” and calls Trump’s executive order “blatantly unconstitutional.” It explains the 14th Amendment and gives background about the case now before the Supreme Court. It details the arguments of both sides of the lawsuit and says if Trump’s executive order is allowed to stand it “would result in a generation or more of stateless people.” The video includes comments in support of birthright citizenship, stating, “It has encouraged generations of ambitious and highly skilled people to come to the United States with the dream of giving their children better lives.” Analysts found the video to be “analysis” with a “strong left” bias.

Both USA Today and The Hill published opinion articles about the court case. The Hill article explains its premise in the headline: “Reclaiming our own birthright: We might need to amend the Constitution.” The writer, Jonathan Turley, argues that a 28th Amendment is needed to reaffirm the meaning of citizenship in the U.S. He writes that the justices will follow the law and likely reject Trump’s argument even though they personally believe that “birthright citizenship is a foolish and harmful policy.” He believes that Americans should “amend the Constitution to join most of the world in barring birthright citizenship” because the “combination of open borders and open-ended citizenship is an existential threat to this Republic.” Analysts found the article to be “analysis” with a “skews right” bias.

The USA Today article takes an opposite view: “When leaders seek to narrow the gates of belonging, they are not just redefining citizenship for new Americans; they are attempting to rewrite who America has been all along.” The author, Alaina Jackson, who identifies herself as an African American, says that Trump’s executive order is “rooted in the belief that American belonging must be earned through the approval of those already in power.” She writes: “To question birthright citizenship is to question the very amendment that made my people American. And if that is up for debate then so, too, is the soul of the nation itself.” Jackson argues that America’s greatness lies “in its capacity to expand the circle of who counts.” Analysts categorized the article as “opinion” with a “strong left” bias.

A video from Daily Signal includes commentary from Victor Davis Hanson, who says that the concept of birthright citizenship has been abused for many years, as people come to America to give birth so that they can then use that child’s American citizenship to game the immigration system. Hanson says: “So the irony is that Mexico sends people to do that. China does it. Central America does. And none of those countries allow anybody to do it to them.” Hanson said it’s obvious that for immigrants from other countries, “their allegiance is not to the United States,” and their children should not be citizens. Hanson concludes that the Supreme Court knows that birthright citizenship is wrong and “they know that no sane nation on the globe does it,” but they will allow it to continue because they don’t “want to be tarred and feathered for overturning” it. Analysts found the video to be “opinion” with a “strong right” bias.

If you’d like to follow along on our weekly Topic of the Week exercise, you can do so by visiting our website. New Topics of the Week are posted each Monday. Read the articles and watch the videos yourself, then come back on Wednesday to compare your scores with those of our analysts. Learn more here.

Beth Heldebrandt is Director of Communications at Ad Fontes Media. She has more than 35 years of experience in the fields of journalism and public relations, and was an adjunct instructor of journalism for 17 years at Eastern Illinois University. Beth has a B.A. in journalism from Southern Illinois University-Carbondale and an M.A. in English from Eastern Illinois University. She’s a mom and grandma, and enjoys traveling, puzzles and reading.