President Donald Trump made an uncommon appearance at the U.S. Supreme Court as justices considered his administration’s challenge to birthright citizenship. Solicitor General John Sauer urged the court to uphold an executive order Trump signed on his first day in office that would deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants, tying a child’s citizenship to the parents’ legal status.
The order directly conflicts with the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Lower courts have blocked the order, and the Supreme Court is expected to issue a definitive ruling in June.
Trump became the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the high court; presidents have previously gone only after leaving office. He sat in the front row for roughly an hour and a half, accompanied by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Outside the courthouse, protesters displayed signs supporting birthright citizenship and opposing the president.
Sauer argued that unrestricted birthright citizenship makes the United States an outlier among modern nations, “demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship,” and acts as a “powerful pull factor for illegal immigration,” effectively rewarding those who violate immigration laws. Justices from across the ideological spectrum pressed both sides with searching questions about the order’s legal foundation and how it would work in practice.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked whether the administration’s plan would require proof at birth and how hospitals or delivery rooms would determine citizenship on the spot. Chief Justice John Roberts described construing the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in a way that limits birthright citizenship as “quirky.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed to federal statutes that have been interpreted to support a broad reading of birthright citizenship. Justice Clarence Thomas—widely seen as most likely to favor the government—said the 14th Amendment was meant to grant citizenship to Black people, including formerly enslaved people, and questioned how the amendment’s debates related to immigration policy.
ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang countered for the challengers by emphasizing that U.S. law follows English common law and the jus soli principle—citizenship by right of the soil. She referenced an 1898 decision that rejected similar arguments and reminded the court that it has previously held the 14th Amendment embodies the common-law rule that virtually everyone born on U.S. soil is subject to its jurisdiction and therefore a citizen.
The argument drew intense attention because of the constitutional stakes and the rarity of a sitting president attending the proceedings. The court’s decision, expected in June, will determine whether birthright citizenship as currently understood remains the law of the land.
Edited by Alex Berry.