The US Supreme Court on Wednesday heard a politically explosive case over Donald Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship — with the Republican president planning to sit in the courtroom, a move widely described as unprecedented.
Trump’s decision to attend the hearing is expected to draw criticism as potentially pressuring the justices. The case centers on Trump’s executive order declaring that children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically be granted citizenship.
Lower courts have blocked the executive order as unconstitutional, citing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to nearly everyone born on US soil.
The White House confirmed late Tuesday that Trump would be present for the oral arguments — believed to be the first time a sitting president has attended a Supreme Court hearing in a case brought by his own administration.
Trump has spent the first year of his second term asserting expansive executive powers, frequently attempting to sideline Congress and pressuring the judiciary. Last week, he criticized two Supreme Court justices he appointed for ruling against his tariff policies, calling judges who disagreed with him “rogue” and “criminal.”
The case tests the legal definition of citizenship in a country historically shaped by immigration. Trump’s administration argues that the 14th Amendment, passed after the 1861–1865 Civil War, addresses citizenship rights of former slaves, not the children of undocumented migrants or temporary visitors.
The executive order asserts that children born to those in the country illegally or on visas are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore not entitled to automatic citizenship.
Steven Schwinn said the court is likely to reject Trump’s challenge. “This is a court that has looked to history and tradition as a significant guide in understanding the Constitution. And it would be a little surprising if, after 150 years, we suddenly discovered we were applying the Citizenship Clause all wrong,” Schwinn told AFP.
Although conservatives hold a 6-3 supermajority on the high court, three of the justices were appointed by Trump.
John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, argued that to be eligible for citizenship, a person must be both born “in the United States” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” He claimed that children of temporarily present aliens or illegal immigrants are not “subject to” US jurisdiction and that automatic citizenship encourages illegal migration and “birth tourism.”
The American Civil Liberties Union, defending birthright citizenship, said Trump’s move seeks “nothing less than a remaking of our Nation’s constitutional foundations.”
A Supreme Court decision in the case is expected by late June or early July.
