The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed prepared to dismiss a significant attempt by former President Donald Trump to restrict birthright citizenship, an effort magnified by Trump's unusual presence in the courtroom during arguments. Both conservative and liberal justices voiced skepticism about whether Trump's executive order, which declared that children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily are not American citizens, aligns with either the Constitution or federal law. This case represents another challenge to Trump's assertions of executive power, which often defy established precedent, before a Supreme Court known for its conservative majority and generally supportive stance on presidential authority.
Trump's order sought to overturn the long-held interpretation that the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, and federal law since 1940, grant citizenship to nearly all individuals born on American soil. The only narrow exceptions to this apply to children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force. Lower courts, including one in New Hampshire, have consistently struck down these citizenship restrictions, which have not been implemented anywhere in the country. The administration's argument claims that children of non-citizens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore do not qualify for citizenship, a position that drew sharp questions from the justices.
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the administration's reliance on specific, unusual exceptions to support a broad argument against birthright citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson probed the practical logistics of how the government would differentiate between eligible and ineligible children. Justice Clarence Thomas seemed to be the most receptive to Trump's viewpoint, questioning how much the 14th Amendment's debates, primarily focused on granting citizenship to Black people including former slaves, pertained to immigration. However, the overall intensity of questioning towards the administration's solicitor general, compared to the weaker questioning for the opposing counsel, suggested the court was leaning towards rejecting the executive order. The order, signed on the first day of Trump's second term, was a key component of his broader immigration enforcement strategy.
