Donald Trump appeared at the Supreme Court on Wednesday as justices weighed his administration’s effort to limit birthright citizenship, marking what appears to be an unprecedented moment for a sitting president.
The court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a high-stakes challenge to an executive order seeking to deny automatic citizenship to some children born on U.S. soil. Trump’s presence in the courtroom would make him the first sitting president known to attend Supreme Court oral arguments, according to reporting by Reuters.
While Trump’s attendance drew attention, former presidents have had prior connections to the court, most notably William Howard Taft, who later served as chief justice.
The administration, represented by Solicitor General John Sauer, argued that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause does not extend to children of parents without lawful status. “The clause thus does not extend citizenship to the children of temporary visa holders or illegal aliens,” Sauer said early in the proceedings.
Sauer contended that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires allegiance tied to lawful domicile, not mere physical presence. He framed the clause as primarily intended to secure citizenship for formerly enslaved people after the Civil War, adding that modern interpretations have gone beyond that original purpose.
Lawyers challenging the policy, including American Civil Liberties Union legal director Cecillia Wang, argued that the amendment codifies a broad rule of birthright citizenship rooted in English common law. “It’s crystal clear from Wong Kim Ark and from the debates that the framers of the 14th Amendment meant to have a universal common law rule of citizenship subject to the closed set of exceptions,” Wang said.
The questioning from justices reflected skepticism and division across ideological lines. Chief Justice John Roberts pressed the government’s reliance on narrow historical exceptions, calling some examples “very quirky.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett repeatedly questioned whether any exceptions to birthright citizenship are fixed or could expand to modern circumstances, such as illegal immigration.
Justice Elena Kagan also challenged the administration’s reading of the amendment, suggesting it relies on an “esoteric” interpretation of jurisdiction not grounded in the text.
The dispute centers in part on how to interpret the court’s 1898 precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that a child born in the United States to foreign parents was a citizen. Sauer argued that the decision leaves room to limit citizenship based on parental status, while Wang said it establishes a near-universal rule with only narrow exceptions, such as for children of diplomats.
Outside the courtroom, demonstrators gathered as the president arrived and departed. Trump did not speak during the proceedings and left after listening to much of the argument, according to reports.
The case follows a recent clash between Trump and the court over his tariff policies, which the justices struck down earlier this year. In recent days, Trump has publicly criticized the court and urged it to uphold his administration’s position on birthright citizenship, The New York Times reported.
Legal scholars say the outcome could have sweeping consequences. If the court sides with the administration, it could reshape interpretations of the 14th Amendment and affect the citizenship status of children born to noncitizens in the United States. Opponents argue that such a ruling could create risks of statelessness for some children.
A decision is expected by late June or early July.
