By the Investigative Desk
Published: July 2026
Executive Overview
When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark ruling striking down former President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, the legal text was inevitably scrutinized for its constitutional interpretations. However, the decision quickly triggered a profound ethical crisis within American newsrooms that extended far beyond judicial review.
Scattered throughout the majority opinion and various concurring and dissenting writings were dozens of historical and legal references to "alien parents," "alien nations," and "domiciled aliens." Yet it was a single sentence in Justice Clarence Thomas’s blistering dissent—specifically his unprompted use of the phrase “illegal aliens”—that reignited a long-standing, deeply divisive debate within the journalism industry: How should modern news organizations handle inflammatory, pejorative, or legally loaded language when it is deployed by the highest figures in the land?
The dilemma exposes a fault line in contemporary media ethics. On one side are traditionalists who argue that accurately chronicling history requires reporting the exact language used by public officials and judicial authorities, maintaining that direct quotation is not an endorsement. On the other side are progressives, media ethicists, and newsroom leaders who contend that repeating dehumanizing terminology makes journalists complicit in political narratives designed to marginalize vulnerable populations.
As news organizations increasingly scrutinize their own style guides, the debate over terms like "illegal alien," "undocumented," and "migrant" touches on the core tenets of objective reporting, the minimization of harm, and the responsibility of the press in a polarized society.
Detailed Chronology: The Ruling, the Dissent, and the Media Fracture
The controversy traces back to a high-stakes legal challenge over the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment. The executive order signed by former President Donald Trump sought to systematically deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil whose parents were foreign temporary visitors or lacked legal status.
On June 30, the Supreme Court struck down the administration’s policy, ruling it facially unconstitutional. While the majority opinion utilized historical legal terminology in its analysis of prior jurisprudence—such as references to "transient aliens"—it was Justice Clarence Thomas’s lengthy and pointed dissent that shifted the focus from constitutional law to journalistic ethics.
Writing in defense of the executive order, Justice Thomas did not merely cite historical legal precedents; he adopted and amplified contemporary political phrasing.
"The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens," Thomas wrote.
He continued, adding that the majority’s decision "adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support."
The inclusion of the phrase "illegal aliens" in a Supreme Court document immediately forced assignment editors, standards editors, and reporters across the country to make split-second decisions under tight publishing deadlines. Major national outlets fractured in their approaches:
- The New York Times and The Washington Post covered the substance of Justice Thomas’s dissent, quoting extensively from his arguments, but deliberately omitted the specific passage containing the words "illegal aliens."
- The Associated Press, adhering strictly to its historical mandate of verbatim accuracy when covering official actions, included the contested language.
This divergence in coverage was not an isolated incident; rather, it served as a catalyst for a broader industry-wide reckoning regarding the boundaries of acceptable reporting terminology.
Supporting Context & Metrics: The Evolution of Newsroom Language
The struggle over immigration terminology is decades old, but it has grown increasingly fraught amid shifting political rhetoric. To understand why Justice Thomas’s words caused such friction, one must examine how major American newsrooms have incrementally altered their style guides over the last fifteen years.
A major turning point occurred in 2013, when the Los Angeles Times updated its internal style guidelines regarding immigration. Scott Kraft, editor at large for enterprise journalism and special projects at the paper, noted that the policy was designed to pivot away from broad, loaded labels and toward precise, behavior-based descriptions.
The Los Angeles Times policy states:
"In covering both individuals and groups, the goal is to provide relevance and context and to avoid labels. Use the term illegal immigration to describe the phenomenon of entering or residing in a country in violation of the law. Avoid using illegal immigrant or undocumented immigrant to describe individuals except when necessary in direct quotations."
The guidance further instructs writers to detail specific actions rather than applying umbrella terms:
- Authorities said he crossed the border illegally.
- She entered the country to attend college but overstayed her student visa.
- He was brought here as a child by his parents, who entered the U.S. without a visa.
Despite these progressive style updates across many metro dailies and wire services, the challenge of handling direct quotes from high-ranking officials remains an unresolved gray area. When a Supreme Court justice, a cabinet secretary, or a president uses terms that media watchdogs classify as "borderline slurs" or dehumanizing language, standard journalistic practices pull reporters in opposite directions.
Official Statements and Industry Perspectives
To gauge the current state of media ethics, media researchers regularly consult prominent figures across journalism schools, public media associations, and major news agencies. The divergence of opinion among these leaders underscores the complexity of the issue.
The Traditionalist View: Preserving the Record
Proponents of traditional reporting argue that sanitizing the language of public officials distorts the historical record and shields powerful figures from accountability.
John Daniszewski, former vice president for standards at The Associated Press, maintains that reporting on powerful institutions requires absolute fidelity to their actual words.
"Obviously, we have to use the language they use," Daniszewski noted.
Similarly, Scott Kraft of the Los Angeles Times argues that accurately reflecting official statements is a core duty of the press.
"Reflecting exactly what is said, and holding speakers and public officials accountable for their choice of words, is not an endorsement of that language," Kraft said. "It’s an important part of journalism — to be accurate, true to the historical record and to hold people accountable."
The Ethics of Harm Minimization
Conversely, an increasing number of educators and newsroom leaders argue that traditional definitions of "neutrality" actively harm marginalized groups by normalizing pejorative framing.
Stephen J. Adler, former editor-in-chief of Reuters and director of the Ethics and Journalism Initiative at New York University, advocates for a balanced approach he calls the "truth sandwich." While Adler believes that unavoidable newsworthy quotes from public officials can be referenced, they must be handled with extreme care.
"Use the bad language once, but don’t normalize it. Don’t encourage it. Don’t make me feel as if it’s OK," Adler said. He advises journalists to use the term sparingly, place it strictly within quotation marks, and immediately follow it with contextual explanations noting that many news outlets reject such terminology.
Charles Whitaker, dean of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, takes an even firmer stance, arguing that journalists have no obligation to broadcast racist or offensive language simply because it originates from an official source. He draws a direct parallel to how sports media successfully pressured teams to drop offensive names tied to Indigenous peoples—moving from terms like the former Washington football name to neutral geographic descriptors.
"If our responsibility as the chroniclers of our time is to — as the doctors pledge — do no harm, we should strive to mitigate the harm in the language we use," Whitaker stated. He suggests that news outlets should acknowledge when officials use offensive language while simultaneously "bleating out" or explicitly contextualizing the term rather than repeating it as standard narrative.
Weaponized Language and the Political Frame
Aubrey Nagle, director of learning and community at the Public Media Journalists Association, argues that the terminology used by the Trump administration and its judicial allies is intentionally designed to alienate and demean.
"They’re using language like ‘alien,’ like ‘illegal,’ as a noun in order to speak pejoratively about people — and to make the public feel that there is an us versus them, that these people are different," Nagle said, adding that repeating these terms makes journalists complicit in political projects that leverage xenophobia.
Eric Deggans, critic-at-large at NPR, echoes this assessment, classifying the term "alien" as a "borderline slur" and noting that even terms like "undocumented" can be inaccurate when applied to asylum seekers who possess legal registration documents.
"What we’re trying to do as journalists is to be very specific about what we’re describing and get away from these generalized terms that are weighted with emotion and politics," Deggans explained. He rejects the notion that abandoning such terms is a partisan act, countering: "Using the term is political, and we’re trying to, as more objective, fair-minded journalists, pull away from that."
Future Outlook: The Ongoing Evolution of Journalistic Standards
As the media landscape adapts to an era of heightened political polarization and weaponized rhetoric, the debate over immigration terminology is unlikely to subside. The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship ruling serves as a stark reminder that offensive or exclusionary language is not confined to campaign rallies or social media posts; it is embedded in the highest legal documents of the nation.
For modern newsrooms, the path forward requires a delicate balancing act. Journalists must continue to hold public officials accountable by reporting on their actions and official statements truthfully. However, they must do so with an elevated level of critical discernment—ensuring that the pursuit of historical accuracy does not inadvertently become a vehicle for spreading derogatory labels.
Ultimately, as Adler noted, style books and journalistic ethics have never been static. Just as news organizations long ago eliminated racial and ethnic slurs from their narrative writing, the current discourse suggests that terms historically weaponized to diminish human dignity are undergoing a rigorous reassessment. The central question facing the press in the years ahead will not be whether officials use such language, but whether journalists retain the editorial courage to refuse to speak it for them.