Trump leaves Supreme Court as justices appear skeptical of his birthright citizenship arguments; Fetterman among Dems opposed to order

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday on one of the most important cases of the age, one that’s expected to define who gets to be a citizen of the United States.

Arguments in Trump vs. Barbara started at about 10 a.m. and went on for two hours, with a ruling expected this summer. The president traveled to the court to hear the arguments in person, leaving after his lawyers wrapped up their presentation.

The justices asked many pointed and specific questions, although there was no immediate indication on how they might rule. Several seemed skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments.

President Donald Trump, who wants to see the practice eliminated, repeated his opposition to it in a social media post.

“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow “Birthright” Citizenship!” he posted from the White House.

Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser, also weighed in on the Supreme Court arguments. He’s the architect of many of the president’s immigration-related policies.

Michele Madera, chair of the Philadelphia chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said if Trump’s executive order were permitted to take effect “it would cause America to lose one of its most fundamental principles — citizenship by birth — and would lead a vulnerable population to statelessness.”

The statelessness of children who were born in this country would have far-reaching consequences for international law and order, she said. U.S. Citizens could need to hire immigration lawyers to prove that their parents were legally here when they were born, and the parents' intent at the time of the births could be called into question.

“The case today is about a legal principle first established over a hundred years ago,” said Philadelphia immigration attorney William A. Stock, former president of the national American Immigration Lawyers Association. “Being born in the United States makes one a citizen, excepting only children of diplomats or invading armies.”

Cecillia Wang, the American Civil Liberties Union legal director facing off against Solicitor General D. John Sauer, often centered her arguments around American courts’ reliance on English common law, which provides for citizenship based on the legal concept of jus soli, or “right of soil.”

“When the government tried to strip Mr. Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship on largely the same grounds they raised today, this court said no,” she said, adding “this court held that the 14th Amendment embodies the English common law rule: Virtually everyone born on U.S. soil is subject to its jurisdiction and is a citizen.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch drilled down into the aftermath of the Wong Kim Ark decision and trying to get Wang to clarify.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, said Congress might have used different language in laws enacted in 1940 and 1952 if it wanted to make clear that children of people here illegally or temporarily were not entitled to citizenship.

Judge Samuel Alito asked about the humanitarian issue of people who have been in the U.S. for a long time and are “subject to removal” but in “their minds” have made a permanent home in America.

Alito also said that immigration laws in the U.S. have been “ineffectively and in some cases unenthusiastically” enforced over the years.

Conservative and liberal justices are questioning Solicitor General. D. John Sauer’s history of the debates that led to the adoption of the 14th Amendment. Justice Neil Gorsuch says there’s precious little discussion about domicile, a key part of Sauer’s argument.

Justice Elena Kagan told Sauer the case rests “on some pretty obscure sources" and that the 14th amendment text "does not support you."

Chief Justice John Roberts said, "It’s a new world, but the same Constitution."

Carol Nackenoff, the Swarthmore College Richter Professor Emerita of Political Science, literally co-wrote the book on Wong Kim Ark with Julie Novkov. It’s called American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship.

Nackenoff warned on Wednesday that if birthright citizenship is stripped from some people, they will endure suspicion and possible detention. And the complications won’t end there, she said.

“If the court agrees with the administration on how to read Wong Kim Ark, that still doesn’t answer who can make the determination to end birthright citizenship for certain categories of people,” Nackenoff said. “It is highly possible the court could say: this isn’t among the powers of the Executive. I don’t think they will buy the argument that earlier presidential administrations just got it wrong.”

Advocates argue ending birthright citizenship would upend the lives of hundreds of thousands of families, creating a permanent subclass of U.S.-born children who would be denied rights as Americans.

They point to a defining Supreme Court ruling — United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held in 1898 that children born in the United States are citizens.

Wong Kim Ark was a Chinese American cook, born in San Francisco to immigrant parents. In 1890, both parents returned to China, and Wong, about 21, visited them there that year. On his return, he was admitted into the United States on the sole grounds that he was a native-born American citizen.

All eight Democratic federal lawmakers representing Pennsylvania have opposed President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship.

Along with 208 other Democrats in Congress, they signed an amicus brief in February that argued the 14th Amendment set a "constitutional minimum — a floor — for birthright citizenship” and that the administration’s arguments were incoherent. They wrote that Trump, ignoring their authority as lawmakers, overstepped after decades of failed attempts to change the law by constitutional means.

“Those efforts having failed, the President now seeks to attain his goals by unilateral executive fiat,” the Democrats wrote. Rather than trying to persuade Congress to amend or repeal the Immigration and Nationality Act, "he seeks to evade that process with an unconstitutional power grab.”

On Wednesday the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in one of the most important cases of our age, one that's expected to define who gets to be a citizen of the United States.

Arguments in Trump v. Barbara are scheduled to start at 10 a.m., with a ruling expected in summer.

President Donald Trump wants to overturn long-established law that says anyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen — and to deny citizenship to children born here to undocumented parents.

President Donald Trump plans to sit in on Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing on birthright citizenship, making him the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the nation’s highest court.

The Republican president’s official schedule, sent out by the White House, included a stop at the Supreme Court, where justices will hear Trump’s appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down his executive order limiting birthright citizenship.

The order, which Trump signed on the first day of his second term, declared that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens. It’s an about-face from the long-standing view that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment and federal law since 1940 confer citizenship to everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions.

Birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the Constitution, specifically by the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, after the end of the Civil War. It 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.”

President Donald Trump and other opponents argue that entices people to enter the country illegally, so children who are born here will automatically gain U.S. citizenship. Those citizens, at age 21, can sponsor close family members to live permanently in the United States.

The Trump administration contends birthright citizenship had limited intent, meant only to ensure that formerly enslaved people and their children were U.S. citizens.

On the day he was inaugurated in 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants born in this country.

The ACLU sued within hours, and New Jersey officials went to court the next day, with then-Attorney General Matt Platkin proclaiming, “Presidents in this country have broad powers, but they are not kings.”

Wednesday’s argument represents the first time that the Supreme Court will officially consider the legality of Trump’s executive order.