Supreme Court Oral Argument on Birthright Citizenship
“The question presented is whether the Executive Order complies on its face with the Citizenship Clause and with 8 U.S.C. 1401(a), which codifies that Clause.”
The Supreme Court will hold oral arguments this morning regarding the Birthright Citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara. The arguments start at 10 a.m. Eastern.
The case challenges the president’s authority to place restrictions on birthright citizenship. Here is the Question Presented on which the court agreed to take the case:
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that those “born * * * in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are U.S. citizens. U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. The Clause was adopted to confer citizenship on the newly freed slaves and their children, not on the children of aliens temporarily visiting the United States or of illegal aliens. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14,160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, which restores the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause and provides, on a prospective basis only, that children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth. The Citizenship Order directs federal agencies not to issue or accept citizenship documents for such children born more than 30 days after the Order’s effective date.
The question presented is whether the Executive Order complies on its face with the Citizenship Clause and with 8 U.S.C. 1401(a), which codifies that Clause.
The full court docket is here.
We will post reactions and some commentary here.
BREAKING:
President Trump has arrived at the Supreme Court of the United States for arguments on his birthright citizenship executive order.
Stay tuned for more! pic.twitter.com/p8UMeVr5Gf
— Loomer Unleashed (@LoomerUnleashed) April 1, 2026
There’s literally a chair set up at SCOTUS for our presidents to sit in for oral argument. Your separation of powers nonsense is more imitation pearl-clutching hauteur. https://t.co/unVfZPgD9v
— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) March 31, 2026
HISTORIC: President Donald J. Trump attends U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments on birthright citizenship, the first sitting president ever to do so. pic.twitter.com/EKdtcekbBb
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) April 1, 2026
POST-ARGUMENT QUICK TAKE:
The argument is over, and I don’t see any clear signal from the Justices which way this will go. Sotomayor and KBJ are clearly against the government position, but the others — even Kagan — were harder to read. One thing I can say to a certainty, is that this was not the frivolous issue portrayed in the mainstream media The Justice seem torn as to a somewhat unclear historical and case law record. What didn’t get a lot of attention, and I think may be significant, is that the Executive Order at issue only turns on current legal status, not esoteric arguments as to domicile:
Jackson: "How does this work? Are you suggesting that when a baby is born, people have to have documents determining a newborn child is a citizen of the United States?… Are we bringing in pregnant women for depositions?" pic.twitter.com/r4zhuzuDOF
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) April 1, 2026
Cecillia Wang arguing birthright citizenship should apply to people without "domicile" in the United States receives pushback from Justices Kagan and Alito referring to Justice Horace Gray's 1898 Supreme Court opinion.
"What are those 20 domicile words doing there?" pic.twitter.com/fpRyFzzDbb
— Thomas Hern (@ThomasMHern) April 1, 2026
🚨 JUST IN: SCOTUS Justice John Roberts is VERY skeptical of President Trump ending birthright citizenship, repeatedly firing back at Trump's top lawyer
This would mean we require Amy Coney Barrett for a shot at 5-4.
SAUER: China has 500 birth tourism companies to bring people… pic.twitter.com/3nB3KtIBUd
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 1, 2026
…The three justices that I previously said were worth watching — Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch — all seemed in play and not locks for the government. The justices dismissed the relevance of policy arguments over how many countries reject birthright citizenship today. One…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 1, 2026
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This is big. I hear Trump may attend this hearing which is a bad move after the uncalled for beat down he gave the court recently and even continued through the State of the Union show. The court is judicial but in DC everything is political, even this hearing and Trump attending will make it more so.
cant make it more so..it is as you correctly stated …political
Id rather he not attend but its allll political all the time alll over the country/world
There is an actual chair at the hearing for Presidents to sit in , it’s been there for decades
I had heard that but didn’t know for sure.
Theoretically it should not matter since the issue will be decided on the law.
Yeah… right
Wanna buy a bridge?
Thanks, I needed a good laugh. ,
If you believe that, I have some oceanfront property in Kansas for sale…
April Fools!!!
its sooo simple
if you are here illegal
you are stilll here illegally and you get the choice to take your child with you as you leave
Since the parent(s) is here illegally it negates any actions in regards to offspring etc
just b/c your baby is born on an airplane doesnt mean you get to tell the pilot where to fly to
Right. But what if you are here legally, the case with Hung Cao’s (unsuccessfully ran against Tim Kaine for Senate, now Deputy SecNav) parents. Dad was in the US on a student Visa. His older sister was born in the US and was a US citizen. Supposedly the only reason they escaped from Viet Nam was because of his sister’s US citizenship.
heres the rub:
whether or not she is or should be a US citizen if a parent(s) was not/is not a citizen
dad was here legally on a visa>>>not a citizen of the usa
therefore her birth her shouldnt constitute being a usa citizen
REMEDY>>since he (dad) was here legally.on a visa……become a citizen of the USA
so if he becomes a citizen with the fact that he was here legally…and she was born here…all is good
remember..whether or not fjb was legally allowed to allow in citizens as the msm wants you to believe with their promotion of the FAILED BILL US citizenship act of 2021..that they include when talking about fjb reversing djt policies on immigration
but again,,,,the bill died in congress
I read that Trump had arrived at the Court
He must assume they don’t have the balls to do the right thing
the don’t Roberts and Barrett will screw Trump, and by extension, the country
I sort of understand the basis of the argument. However, are we missing the main point of the 14th Amendment, protect the children of slaves? I’ll be hesitant – but if anyone from anywhere at anytime can get to the US, have a baby, then claim citizenship, why should there be any standards for citizenship other than birth? How often can we absorb 10,000,000-12,000,000+ in four years (2021-2025) – if this behavior is allowed again? If it happens with the next dem president and Congress, we might as well quit trying to protect our nation.
Our basis, a Constitutional Republic is rare. In the last few decades we have watched our Founders’ goals and practices shrink, disappear. Bringing people to the US who do not meet entry standards of the previous two centuries, in essence, denies them human dignity, personal freedoms. Most will become trapped in a government controlled system.
Can we remain a Republic and be a world leader with birthright (in any form) automatic citizenship?
No, there were TWO problems related to birthright citizenship that Senate Republicans wanted to address, and did so with the 14th Amendment. Those two problems were completely unrelated.
The first was that D run States, after D’s regained legislative control through KKK Terror tactics, were refusing to acknowledge the children born of freed slaves as citizens. At the time, the States determined who was a citizen. This couldn’t be fixed by federal law because the States run elections, the 10th Amendment, and nothing in the “specified powers”.
The second problem to be addressed was children born of foreign dignitaries, foreign businessmen and travelers temporarily in the US, and children born of Indians, if born on US soil, were sometimes being treated as citizens and sometimes not depending on which State they were in and Senate R’s wanted to settle the issue nationwide uniformly, and they wanted to strictly prohibit all children born of two foreign nationals on US soil from being US citizens.
All of this is clearly spelled out in the text of the debates held in the Senate at the time.
SCOTUS ruled on this once already. The case was Elk v Wilkins. The fact that Elk was born on US soil was a “fact of the case” – undisputed. Elk’s claim was that he should be a US citizen from birth because he was born on US soil The Supreme Court ruled that he was NOT a citizen at all because neither of his parents were “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the United States.
They explained that that clause was about ALLEGIANCE. The parents owed political allegiance to their Tribe, only, and not to the United States – because they were not US citizens. Therefore, their children would have the same status and NOT be US citizens because this was prohibited by the 14th Amendment.
Note that nothing in the Amendment mentions Indians. The language was written generally because they wanted it to apply to all foreign nationals.
In the Elk case, the court notes the parents were legal residents of the US at the time of birth. Not temporary visitors. Not illegal entries.
One key argument is, under English commonlaw, whether an illegal immigrant is like someone from an occupying nation. In each case, the legal framework suggests, in eyes of the law, that someone in the country illegally cannot become a citizen by virtue of birth in the country.
I voted for this. Stop the Abuse of the Fourteenth!
What a disappointment. The Administration has the better arguments hands down but the Solicitor General is doing a terrible job and the justices overall seem to have only a grossly superficial understanding of the issues and no interest in educating themselves. I have a bad feeling about this.
Jackson must recuse herself! She has declared on screen that she don’t know nothin about bout birthin babies.
I get the impression that the Court doesn’t understand any of the textual arguments, is ignorant of the relevant history, and is almost mocking any opposition to universal birthright citizenship. They’re joking with the respondent on how perfunctorily they should reject the government’s arguments.
Dear God
Why didn’t Trump have the ATeam
They must be busy in Iran. So some genius opted for the B Team, or something.
Also highlights how egregious this performance was. The President had the political courage to issue the executive order in the first place, made the effort to come to this hearing and this is his repayment? It’s insulting.
In that regard, the question is, does a Constitutional Amendment mean something different, than what the plain text of the Amendment says.
That is going to be the most important question regarding this challenge.
well, when it comes to the other Amendments, yes Amendments do mean other that what they clearly say, for example, the 1st, 2nd, 6th, etc
Is Rubio a lawyer
He would have been great to argue this for the administration
So, I’m on the legal team representing the government in one of the most important issues that will shape this country’s future and I could either (A) Largely blow it off and fail to argue effectively and address key precedent and constitutional history or (B) Make every effort and bring every resource to present the most cogent and compelling arguments possible. The government’s legal team opted for A. Couldn’t have done worse if someone intended to sabotage this.
so important, it’s hard to believe that’s what’s happening
Well Professor, if you were a betting man…
6/3 to do nothing
We’ll get all the illegals out and shit the door on immigration
That would be a REAL pain in the …
lol shut
the american indians who were granted citizenship and the enslaved africans and others brought by force here are notttt in the same league as those who come into the usa and are “fast tracked” by the dems
its not the same thing
as usual the rubber stamped “lawyers” and blmplo afwls ( or whatever the f they are called). are mixing the stories together to create their much need confusion so that the facts and their feelings are like a mensa meeting run by the Obamas
look how many ( including “conservative” ) states allow voting by showing a utility bill
its insane that we have allowed the lefty to run and ruin america
the dems have stacked their bench and the weight is crushing civility
I get it now. The government’s performance was an April Fool’s joke. Ok very amusing. When do we get the real arguments?
Possible Outcomes:
1. Full win for Trump: EO upheld entirely. Low probability based on today’s skepticism from the bench
2. Full win against Trump: EO struck down. Possible, but unlikely for many reasons.
3. Compromise with meaningful limits: Highest-probability middle path—something must be done, otherwise the court would not hear the case.
4._____________________________________________
That was short and sour
You know Roberts took great pleasure in berating Trumps lead lawyer in front of him
Hopefully they won’t rely on the wong precedent.
IMO Sauer did very well in presenting his arguments and in response to hard, tough questions/probing of the Justices. The exchange with Jackson where she seemed to have quiver of arrows which she apparently believed would ‘single shot kill’ the argument was brutally efficient in disarming her attempts.
The issue here is not really the 14A, the intent of Congress or the understanding at the time. Even Wong doesn’t do what the opposition wants; it held that Wong was a in fact a.Citizen b/c he was born in the USA to Parents who were ‘domiciled’ here aka lawfully present resident aliens (green card holders is what they’d be today).
Those opposed to Trump’s EO desperately want to turn the EO into something it isn’t. It is prospective not retroactive. There would be a huge turmoil other than to end the birth tourism industry and to clean up the issue of allegiances. Those who view the USA as basically as solely an ‘economic opportunity zone with HoA style rules which offer passports based on geography alone without any sort of reciprocal duties/responsibilities between Nation and Citizen are full of crap.
If these illegal aliens are supposedly ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the USA’ did they remove themselves from the USA as instructed by DHS? If not then their refusal to acknowledge the Jurisdiction undercuts the application of action under jurisdiction they reject. Even a diplomat may be apprehended and detained by LEO so ‘jurisdiction’ can’t simply mean some theoretical possibility that the illegal alien would have an encounter with LEO and our Courts…. particularly given the nonsense in some States re sanctuary policies. It is absurd.
kentajiiii on the loose
are you kidding me
this mighttt be the most dumbest mutterist fooken thing ever
she claims b/c you count on the police to arrest this person you’re as good as a citizen!!!
I was thinking about this and I think there are various sources that say this, that you can have — you obviously have permanent allegiance based on being born in whatever country you’re from, that’s what everyone recognizes,” Jackson said. “But you also have local allegiance when you are on the soil of this other sovereign.”
She continued:
And I was thinking, I, U.S. citizen, am visiting Japan and what it means is that, if I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. It’s allegiance meaning, can they control you as a matter of law? I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen to under Japanese law go and prosecute the person who has stolen it. So there’s this relationship, even though I’m a temporary traveler, I’m just on vacation in Japan, I’m still locally owing allegiance in that sense.
from breit
. As I understand, the questioning seemed to suggest they will uphold birthright citizenship. If they do this, we all know that the betrayal by Biden, and Mayorkas of letting in these tens of millions of people will be repeated annd our country is dead.
These 9 people are full of themselves – they keep destroying us. These tens of millions of people were invaders. To tell invaders that you have the right to insult us, to use our medical facilities without payment, to fill up our roads, so that we hire these vicious invaders to make more roads so that we can drive on them without spending so much time of our lives on the road, that steal our tax money, That fill up our schools and slow down our own children’s education, is such an affront to decency that quite frankly, they should be shunned from society.
We all know that the list of the harms caused by these invaders is much much longer than can be posted here. I suppose, when the Chinese come over here to take us over, Roberts will be there with open arms, slobbering all over them. Except he’ll be dead, and our progeny will have to live under the boot of communism and the tower of babel, which they have created.
Basically, what they are saying is that the Democrats have won this by simply ignoring our laws, and refusing to enforce them. So Republicans take this lesson to heart: do whatever you think is best for the country regardless of what the law says, because you will be able to get away with it. Ignore the court ignore them. Ignore them ignore them. They are agents of destruction.
And the GOP should’ve impeached Mayorkas and Biden. That they didn’t just shows how unserious they are, and how worthless they are.
Who is writing the divorce agreement?
Your take on this way too upbeat.
congress wont do their job and the EO is becoming more and more prevalent which in turn is giving more *legislative* powers/directives from the courts
Trump was always going to lose this case. That has been obvious from the beginning. If we are lucky, SCOTUS may allow Congress to legislate some narrow exceptions to reduce the incentives for birth tourism, but that exception would have to be limited to babies that immediately leave the USA after birth with their mothers, either by deportation or just returning home, so they are no longer under US jurisdiction.
There’s no way to separate the progeny of birth tourism from the progeny of illegal aliens. Both groups of Parents are transients, neither group is ‘domiciled’ in the USA, neither group owes allegiance to the USA in fact both groups reject the ‘jurisdiction’ of the USA by purposefully violations of the Sovereignty of the USA. IOW both groups are either ‘in’ or both are ‘out’.
What did Thomas say
To whom it may concern,
If the onerous duty of maintaining documentation to be an American Citizen is being equated to a tourist I will point out the inequality being placed upon documented American Citizens.
A country of legalisms is all we are now.
I loathe all of these idiots running our once great nation.
Lawyers define the world in their terms, then spend forever arguing the meaning of those terms. Shakespeare was right.