President Donald Trump is making an unprecedented visit to the Supreme Court today to hear oral arguments in a landmark case over his fight to end birthright citizenship.
No sitting president has attended Supreme Court arguments in the nation’s history, and Trump’s attendance has raised critical questions over the separation of powers and his antagonistic relationship with a judiciary that has repeatedly ruled against him.
Proceedings are set to begin at 10 a.m.
“I'm going,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday. “I think so. I do believe. Because I’ve listened to this argument for so long.”
Justices will determine whether Trump can unilaterally redefine who gets to be an American citizen with the stroke of a pen, after the president signed a sweeping executive order in an attempt to deny automatic citizenship to newborns of certain immigrant parents.
That order was almost instantly challenged by states, civil rights groups and pregnant immigrants who argued the order violates the 14th Amendment and a long-held principle that nearly every person born in the U.S. is a citizen.
The case before the court is among an avalanche of legal challenges against the Trump administration as the president tests the limits of his executive actions.
A decision is expected by June or July.
Key Points
- No president has ever attended Supreme Court arguments
- What is birthright citizenship?
- What does Trump's executive order say?
- Who is arguing before the Supreme Court?
If the court upholds Trump's order, what happens?
14:59 , Alex WoodwardIf the Supreme Court sides with Trump, more than 250,000 babies born in the U.S. each year would be denied citizenship, according to the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University’s Population Research Institute.
But the order would throw the process of having a child deeper into chaos, with additional hurdles beyond merely having a birth certificate to be granted rights as an American citizen.
If justices find that Trump’s order violates federal law that dates back to 1940, but not the 14th Amendment, it would be a victory for the plaintiffs but an “incomplete and unstable one” that could “invite future executive or congressional attempts to restrict birthright citizenship,” according to Arthi Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus.
The ACLU is optimistic for a victory on either constitutional or statutory grounds.
Trump arrives at Supreme Court with Pam Bondi
14:41 , Alex WoodwardAttorney General Pam Bondi was spotted with Donald Trump as the presidential motorcade left the White House for the Supreme Court.
The president made his way to the court shortly after 9:30 a.m. and entered at roughly 9:40 a.m.
The motorcade passed by several school groups touring the National Mall, “with one man saluting us with the double bird,” according to the White House press pool.
Oral arguments are scheduled to begin at 10 a.m.
Protesters demonstrate at Supreme Court steps before Trump's arrival
14:35 , Alex Woodward
The man behind Trump's push to end birthright citizenship arrives at Supreme Court
14:31 , Alex WoodwardJohn Eastman, an architect of Trump’s attempt to reverse his election loss in 2020, elevated fringe right-wing legal theories against birthright citizenship to the White House.
The administration’s briefs to the Supreme Court don’t mention Eastman, but they closely track with his legal theories that have been roundly rejected by the judiciary.
He arrived at the Supreme Court to listen to arguments this morning.
24 state attorneys general 'optimistic' for decision against Trump's order
14:21 , Alex WoodwardA coalition of 24 state attorneys general who have joined legal challenges against Trump’s attempt to rewrite the 14th Amendment by fiat says they are “optimistic” that the Supreme Court will strike it down.
“The President’s executive order redefining birthright citizenship violates our Constitution, federal statutes, and the rule that has governed our Nation for more than 150 years,” they wrote.
“We were proud to lead the fight against this unlawful order, and grateful for the injunctions we obtained that prevented this action from ever taking effect,” the coalition added. “We are optimistic the U.S. Supreme Court will agree with every judge to consider this executive order on the merits and hold that it violates this fundamental constitutional right.”
Trump is welcome to watch lawyers ‘school him in the meaning of the Constitution,’ ACLU says
14:10 , Alex WoodwardDonald Trump’s unprecedented plan to watch today’s arguments is welcomed by ACLU lawyers who say the president can watch them “school him in the meaning of the Constitution and birthright citizenship.”
“Any effort to distract from the gravity and importance of this case will not succeed,” said ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero.
“The Supreme Court is up to the task of interpreting and defending the Constitution even under the glare of a sitting president a couple dozen feet away from them,” he added.
“This is one of the most important cases in the last hundred years. The outcome of this case will very well decide the rights and liberties of over 200,000 children born to immigrant parents each year. The 14th Amendment guarantees that children born in the United States are citizens. Period.”
Trump wants to show his 'fight' in the face of uphill legal battle with presence at Supreme Court
14:05 , Andrew Feinberg in Washington, D.C.Donald Trump’s decision to attend in-person as the Supreme Court considers whether to uphold his effort to restrict birthright citizenship is meant as a signal to his political base that he's invested in the signature policy even as his administration is widely expected to face an uphill climb with the high court.
A person familiar with his thinking told The Independent late Tuesday that Trump wants to show “fight” in the face of widespread agreement among legal experts that the court is unlikely to uphold the policy.
He also believes his presence could be enough to sway the court's conservative justices — three of whom he appointed.
Birthright citizenship, explained
14:00 , Alex WoodwardThe 14th Amendment, among civil rights amendments to the Constitution in the aftermath of the Civil War, states that a child must be born inside U.S. borders and the parents must be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” the United States to be an American citizen.
Justices will decide what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” actually means.
Morgan Marietta, a professor of American civics at the University of Tennessee, takes a closer look:
What is birthright citizenship and when could the Supreme Court issue a decision?
Who is arguing before the Supreme Court?
13:50 , Alex WoodwardCecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU, will argue on behalf of plaintiffs challenging Trump’s executive order.
She has worked as a lawyer for the national civil rights organization for more than two decades, leading challenges against the Trump administration’s anti-immigration agenda, including his previous family separation policy, so-called Muslim ban, and failed attempts to add citizenship questions to the Census.
“This is the case of the century — the stakes are unfathomably high,” ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero said last year as he announced Wang as a lead counsel in the case before the nation’s high court.
“Can a president of the United States unilaterally end birthright citizenship by executive order — overriding more than 150 years of settled constitutional law, and redefining who is recognized as American at birth? Absolutely not.”
Arguing for the government is U.S. solicitor general D. John Sauer, Trump’s former criminal defense attorney.
Trump appointed Sauer as the nation’s top lawyer after taking office.
As Trump’s personal attorney, he famously defended the president at the Supreme Court over his sweeping claims of presidential “immunity” from criminal prosecution.
In briefs to the Supreme Court in the birthright citizenship fight, Sauer claimed the 14th Amendment was intended to apply primarily to the children of formerly enslaved people, and that newborns must be under the direct “political jurisdiction” of the U.S. and not have any allegiance to another country to be considered citizens.
He cited, among other cases, the 1884 case of Elk v Wilkins, which affirmed that Native Americans did not, at the time, have birthright citizenship. That case “squarely rejected the premise that anyone born in U.S. territory, no matter the circumstances, is automatically a citizen so long as the federal government can regulate them,” Sauer wrote.
How did the case get here?
13:25 , Alex WoodwardToday’s hearing actually marks the second time within Trump’s second term in office that the Supreme Court has heard a case involving legal challenges against his birthright citizenship order.
Last year, the justices heard a case involving the scope of nationwide injunctions issued by several federal judges against his executive order.
Courts across the country struck down Trump’s attempt to strip citizenship from newborn Americans born to certain immigrant parents, but the administration argued those decisions should be limited to the individual states — and pregnant mothers — who sued him and won.
During oral arguments in that case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called the administration’s position a “catch-me-if-you-can kind of regime,” where court orders would protect only the individuals in a case, not the millions of Americans who could be impacted.
The justices ultimately ruled that judges went too far with their rulings, which “exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to the federal courts,” according to the ruling. But the Supreme Court did not touch the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause at the center of the fight.
Those legal battles resumed, and Trump appealed to the Supreme Court once again asking explicitly whether the 14th Amendment “provides that those ‘born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ are U.S. citizens.”
That’s the question before the justices this morning.
Trump officials cite racist scholars and white supremacists in case before Supreme Court, critics warn
13:15 , Alex WoodwardIn their briefs to the court, Trump administration lawyers cite several scholars who campaigned against birthright citizenship in the 1800s, a movement fueled by anti-Black and anti-Chinese racism in the aftermath of Reconstruction and a rise in anti-immigrant views.
At the time, a group of anti-immigrant scholars advanced the argument that the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excluded the children of Chinese immigrants.
The Supreme Court was unpersuaded. A landmark decision in the case of United States v Wong Kim Ark in 1898 held that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to virtually everyone born in the country.
The Trump administration has cited those scholars throughout its argument to the court to revisit the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause more than a century later.
Dive deeper:
Trump officials invoke racist scholars in major push to end birthright citizenship
What does Trump's executive order say?
13:00 , Alex WoodwardTrump’s birthright citizenship executive order, which he signed on his first day back in the White House, would deny citizenship to newborns if their mother was “unlawfully present” or had “lawful but temporary” status, and if the father “was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”
The 14th Amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” For more than 100 years, the Supreme Court has upheld the definition to apply to all children born within the United States.
Critics have warned that allowing the president to effectively rewrite a core component of the 14th Amendment would create a patchwork system of constitutional rights and citizenship benefits, including the right to vote.
Tens of thousands of newborns would be denied citizenship every year under Trump’s order, opening the door for stateless families with mixed citizenship status and uneven constitutional rights, according to the plaintiffs.
How many babies are born with parents without legal status?
12:33 , Alex LangIn 2023, about 300,000 babies were born in the U.S. to parents without legal status, according to NPR.
Those babies had been granted citizenship in the past - but Donald Trump is looking to change that.
If his executive order stands, those babies would not be granted automatic citizenship.
What is birthright citizenship?
12:16 , Alex LangBirthright citizenship is when babies born in the U.S. are automatically granted citizenship.
The 14th Amendment has long been interpreted to give citizenship to any person born - regardless of whether their parents are citizens- inside the U.S. or one of its territories.
The 14th Amendment reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Quiet night at the Supreme Court
11:55 , Alex LangImages show a quiet night at the Supreme Court, before a historic day when Donald Trump becomes the first president to attend arguments
No president has ever attended Supreme Court arguments
11:52 , Alex LangNo U.S. President has ever attended Supreme Court oral arguments - but Donald Trump is not one for tradition.
On Wednesday, Trump is set to visit the Supreme Court and break a tradition that has been around since 1790.
Trump announced plans to attend and hear arguments on whether his move to end birthright citizenship is Constitutional.
"The case is about the powers of the presidency as an institution," Richard Pildes, a professor of constitutional law at New York University, told NBC News. "By showing up in person, the President would instead be personalizing the case, as if it’s a personal confrontation between him and the justices."
