A law professor has criticized a legal theory proposed in a Trump-aligned amicus brief filed in a Supreme Court case regarding birthright citizenship.

The argument, advanced by legal scholar Richard Epstein, suggests that the phrases 'subject to the jurisdiction' and 'within the jurisdiction' in the 14th and 13th Amendments have distinct meanings.Epstein's interpretation would allow foreigners to bring enslaved individuals into the U.S.as tourists, a concept described as 'slave tourism' by legal expert Paul Gowder.

Gowder argues that Epstein's theory is both legally flawed and ethically problematic, as it could exclude undocumented individuals and tourists from birthright citizenship rights.While Epstein is a respected legal figure associated with conservative legal circles, Gowder dismisses his argument as 'completely nuts.

' The Supreme Court recently ruled against Trump's attempt to limit birthright citizenship, but Epstein's brief remains a point of contention in legal discourse.