President Donald Trump made a rare appearance at the US Supreme Court to hear oral arguments over his administration’s challenge to birthright citizenship. Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the government, urged the court to uphold an executive order Trump signed on his first day in office that would strip citizenship from children born in the US to undocumented immigrants, tying citizenship to parents’ legal status.
The order conflicts with the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Lower courts have rejected the order, and the Supreme Court is expected to issue a definitive ruling in June.
Trump is the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court; presidents previously visited only after leaving office. He sat in the front row for roughly an hour and a half, accompanied by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Protesters outside the courthouse displayed signs supporting birthright citizenship and opposing Trump.
Sauer told the justices that unrestricted birthright citizenship makes the US an outlier among modern nations, “demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship,” and acts as a “powerful pull factor for illegal immigration,” rewarding those who flout immigration laws. The arguments drew vigorous questioning from both conservative and liberal justices about the order’s legal basis and practical implementation.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked whether the administration’s approach would require documents at birth and how citizenship would be determined in delivery rooms. Chief Justice John Roberts described construing “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to limit birthright citizenship as “quirky.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted federal statutes that have been read to support broad birthright citizenship. Justice Clarence Thomas—seen as most likely to side with the government—observed that the 14th Amendment was intended to grant citizenship to Black people, including freed slaves, and questioned how much the amendment’s debates related to immigration.
ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang countered that US law follows English common law and the jus soli principle—citizenship by right of soil. She referenced an 1898 decision rejecting similar arguments and said the court previously held that the 14th Amendment embodies the common-law rule that virtually everyone born on US soil is subject to its jurisdiction and thus a citizen.
Edited by: Alex Berry