The Supreme Court’s questions during oral arguments Wednesday suggested deep skepticism of President Donald Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship, as justices weighed whether the administration’s order matches the Constitution and federal law. The hearing, which lasted more than two hours in a packed courtroom, was heightened by Trump’s unprecedented decision to attend as a sitting president.
Trump faced questions from multiple justices as the court considered his order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens. The dispute also came into focus as the court weighed what it said is the longstanding view that the 14th Amendment and federal law confer citizenship on most children born on American soil, with narrow exceptions for certain diplomatic circumstances and children born to those in foreign occupying forces.
The courtroom attendance added unusual elements to the proceeding. Trump, the first sitting president to attend arguments at the nation’s highest court, was in the chamber alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Actor Robert De Niro sat in seats reserved for justices’ guests, according to the account of the proceedings.
As the argument unfolded, justices appeared to probe both legal theory and practical administration. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked a logistical question about the government’s ability to determine eligibility: she asked, “Is this happening in the delivery room?” The exchange reflected concerns about how the administration would define who qualifies and how officials would identify it in real time.
Chief Justice John Roberts challenged Sauer’s framing of the administration’s position. Roberts suggested Sauer’s argument relied on “quirky exceptions” to citizenship to build a case about a far broader group of people, noting he was “not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.” Roberts also pressed Sauer after Sauer raised “birth tourism” as a rationale, responding that “It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.”
Sauer, appearing for the Trump administration, argued that the administration’s restrictions are consistent with what he said is the Constitution’s meaning and with federal law. He also said unrestricted birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration and “birth tourism,” while acknowledging that officials do not know how significant “birth tourism” is, but suggesting that large-scale travel changes the incentives. Roberts replied in court that the Constitution still applies even if the world has changed.
Justice Clarence Thomas sounded among the most likely justices to side with Trump, according to the account of the questioning. Thomas asked how much of the debate around the 14th Amendment had to do with immigration and pointed to the amendment’s purpose of granting citizenship to Black people, including freed slaves.
When Trump’s order was described in constitutional terms, the justices’ discussions also drew attention to the role of precedent. The dispute invoked the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in Wong Kim Ark, which held that the U.S.-born child of Chinese nationals was a citizen. Sauer argued that Wong Kim Ark should be read to support the administration’s approach, while other conservative justices pressed questions about how much weight to give to that precedent.
The hearing also addressed the administration’s use of the word “domicile” in the Wong Kim Ark decision, an issue challengers say is not decisive. Roberts said the word appeared 20 times in the 1898 ruling and asked if it should concern the court. Challengers, through attorney Cecillia Wang, responded that the Chinese parents in Wong Kim Ark were domiciled in the United States but that the decision did not turn on that fact.
The arguments were heard as lower courts have already blocked the citizenship restrictions. The Supreme Court heard Trump’s appeal of a ruling from New Hampshire that struck down the restrictions, and the administration’s order had not taken effect anywhere in the country, according to the account.
Trump signed the order on the first day of his second term, and the case is the first of his immigration-related actions to reach the Supreme Court for a final ruling. The administration has defended the move as part of a broader crackdown on immigration, while challengers argue the restrictions conflict with the constitutional text, which says, “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.”
After the court adjourned, Trump posted on Truth Social, saying: “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” He added, “Actually, about three dozen countries, nearly all of them in the Americas, guarantee citizenship to children born on their territory,” according to the account. The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected by early summer.