Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order

The Supreme Court held oral arguments on Wednesday concerning a challenge against President Donald Trump’s executive order to eliminate birthright citizenship.

In a notable moment, Trump made history by becoming the first sitting president to attend a SCOTUS hearing, staying for over an hour before departing just after Attorney General John Sauer concluded his remarks.

On social media, around noon, Trump expressed his views, stating, “We are the only country in the world stupid enough to recognize ‘natural-born’ citizenship!”

Sauer contended that a previous lower court’s decision, which deemed Trump’s order unconstitutional, misinterpreted the meaning of “birth in U.S. territory confers citizenship to persons subject to U.S. law.”

He addressed the 14th Amendment, arguing that the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” implies that the child’s parents must be residents with allegiance to the United States.

Sauer noted this clause was introduced after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants, highlighting their long-standing commitment to this country.

“This clause did not extend citizenship to children of temporary visitors or illegal immigrants,” he asserted, maintaining that this aligns with the original interpretation.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Sauer’s argument, labeling it “very strange.” He remarked, “You emphasize ‘subject of jurisdiction,’ but your examples seem quite far-fetched.” He referenced children of ambassadors and others in unique circumstances.

Sauer further argued that birthright citizenship has led to a “vast industry of birth tourism,” with many foreign nationals from potentially hostile nations coming to give birth in the U.S.

American Civil Liberties Union Legal Director Cecilia Wang presented an opposing viewpoint, referencing the 1898 Supreme Court case USA vs. Wong Kim Ark, which granted citizenship to children born in the U.S. to Chinese nationals. She emphasized the necessity of considering the domicile of parents in similar cases.

“Thirty years post-ratification, this court recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment upholds English common law,” Wang highlighted, insisting that all individuals born on U.S. soil are generally subject to its jurisdiction.

Justice Samuel Alito countered Wang’s assertion, suggesting he might agree if the opinion didn’t include aspects that seemed irrelevant. He asked why those details were a part of the case if they held no significance.

In her reply, Wang mentioned the importance of precedent, stating that the rules governing the decision must be adhered to for consistency.

Justice Elena Kagan appeared to resonate with Alito’s reservations, raising questions about the necessity of certain words in the opinion.