Supreme Court seems poised to reject Trump's birthright citizenship
limits as he attends arguments
[April 02, 2026]
By MARK SHERMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seemed poised Wednesday to reject
President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship in a
momentous case that was magnified by his unparalleled presence in the
courtroom.
Conservative and liberal justices questioned whether Trump's order
declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States
illegally or temporarily are not American citizens comports with either
the Constitution or federal law.
Arguments lasted more than two hours in a crowded courtroom that
included not only Trump, the first sitting president to attend arguments
at the nation’s highest court, but also Attorney General Pam Bondi and
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and in seats reserved for the
justices' guests, actor Robert De Niro.
The case frames another test of Trump’s assertions of executive power
that defy long-standing precedent for a court with a conservative
majority and a robust view of presidential power, which has largely
ruled in the Republican president’s favor. In the notable exceptions
when the court has not, Trump has responded with starkly personal
criticisms of the justices. A definitive ruling is expected by early
summer.
Trump, the media-savvy president, spent just over an hour inside a
courtroom that prohibits cameras and all electronic devices for
arguments made by the Republican administration's top Supreme Court
lawyer, Solicitor General D. John Sauer. The president departed shortly
after lawyer Cecillia Wang began her presentation in defense of broad
birthright citizenship.
After court adjourned, Trump posted on Truth Social: “We are the only
Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!”
Actually, about three dozen countries, nearly all of them in the
Americas, guarantee citizenship to children born on their territory.
Justices ask about the Trump order's legal basis
Trump heard Sauer face one skeptical question after another. Justices
asked about the legal basis for the order and voiced more practical
concerns.
“Is this happening in the delivery room?” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
asked, drilling down into the logistics of how the government would
actually figure out who is entitled to citizenship and who is not.
Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that Sauer was relying on quirky
exceptions to citizenship to make a broad argument about people who are
in the country illegally. “I’m not quite sure how you can get to that
big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples,” Roberts
said.
Justice Clarence Thomas sounded the most likely among the nine justices
to side with Trump.
“How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do
with immigration?” Thomas asked, pointing out that the purpose of the
amendment was to grant citizenship to Black people, including freed
slaves.
Several courts have blocked the citizenship restrictions
The justices heard Trump’s appeal of a lower-court ruling from New
Hampshire that struck down the citizenship restrictions, one of several
courts that have blocked them. The restrictions have not taken effect
anywhere in the country.
The birthright citizenship order, which Trump signed on the first day of
his second term, is part of his Republican administration’s broad
immigration crackdown.
Birthright citizenship is the first Trump immigration-related policy to
reach the court for a final ruling. The justices previously struck down
global tariffs Trump had imposed under an emergency powers law that had
never been used that way.
Trump reacted furiously to the late February tariffs decision, saying he
was ashamed of the justices who ruled against him and calling them
unpatriotic.
He issued a preemptive broadside against birthright citizenship and the
court on Sunday on his Truth Social platform, referring to “dumb judges
and justices” and saying wealthy pregnant women from China and elsewhere
come to the U.S. to give birth so their newborns will have American
citizenship.
What would Trump's order do?
Trump's order would upend the long-standing view that the Constitution’s
14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, and federal law since 1940 confer
citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions
for the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign
occupying force.
[to top of second column]
|
President Donald Trump's motorcade arrives at the U.S. Supreme
Court, Wednesday, April 1, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Tom
Brenner)
The 14th Amendment was intended to ensure that Black people,
including former slaves, had citizenship, though the Citizenship
Clause is written more broadly. “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,”
it reads.
In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down the
executive order as illegal, or likely so, under the Constitution and
federal law. The decisions have invoked the high court's 1898 ruling
in Wong Kim Ark, which held that the U.S.-born child of Chinese
nationals was a citizen.
The Trump administration argues that the common view of citizenship
is wrong, asserting that children of noncitizens are not “subject to
the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore are not
entitled to citizenship.
The court should use the case to set straight “long-enduring
misconceptions about the Constitution’s meaning,” Sauer wrote.
Appearing before the court, Sauer said unrestricted citizenship
encourages illegal immigration and also “birth tourism.”
Roberts asked Sauer how significant “birth tourism” is.
No one knows for sure, he said, adding, “but of course, we’re in a
new world now” where 8 billion people are a plane ride away “from
having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.”
The chief justice replied, “It’s a new world. It’s the same
Constitution.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, also revealed his
skepticism of Sauer's position when the solicitor general said the
1898 Supreme Court case should be read to endorse Trump's view of
citizenship. "I’m not sure how much you want to rely on Wong Kim
Ark,” Gorsuch said.
Yet another conservative justice appointed by Trump, Brett Kavanaugh,
suggested to Wang that the court could resolve the case in Wang’s
favor either with a “short opinion” saying that the Wong Kim Ark
case was correctly decided and it means Trump’s order is
unconstitutional.
Or, he said, the justices could avoid constitutional questions and
find that the order is illegal under federal law.
No court has accepted the Trump administration's argument, and
lawyers for pregnant women whose children would be affected by the
order said the Supreme Court should not be the first to do so, Wang
told the justices.
Questions about the word ‘domicile’
The most difficult questions Wang faced, from several justices,
dealt with the repeated use of the word “domicile” in Wong Kim Ark,
which the administration says indicates that the court's view of
birthright citizenship excluded people in the country temporarily or
illegally.
Roberts said the word is used 20 times in the 1898 decision. “Isn’t
it at least something to be concerned about?” he asked.
Wang says it’s true that the Chinese parents in that case were
domiciled in the U.S., but that the decision did not turn on that
fact.
Generally, though, the intensity of the justices' questions dropped
off during her presentation, often a signal of where the court will
come out.
More than one-quarter of a million babies born in the U.S. each year
would be affected by the executive order, according to research by
the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University’s
Population Research Institute.
While Trump has largely focused on illegal immigration in his
rhetoric and actions, the birthright restrictions also would apply
to people who are legally in the United States, including students
and applicants for green cards, or permanent resident status.
___
Associated Press writer Darlene Superville contributed to this
report.
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
