Supreme Court Appears Skeptical Of Trump’s Bid To End Birthright Citizenship

President Donald Trump’s unusual presence at the Supreme Court on Wednesday didn’t seem to sway the justices, who sounded broadly skeptical about his attempt to upend the country’s long tradition of birthright citizenship.

Trump looked on from the front row of the public gallery as Solicitor General John Sauer attempted to defend Trump’s executive order that would deny U.S. citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and foreigners on temporary visas.

The court’s conservative majority joined the liberals in aggressively questioning Sauer about the potential implications of disturbing the decades-long consensus on citizenship.

The president sat through about an hour of arguments before silently exiting after a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union stepped to the lectern to attack Trump’s policy as a violation of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment and Supreme Court precedent dating back to the 19th century.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested it was strange for the administration to seize on some narrow exceptions to the birthright citizenship rule, such as an exclusion for American Indians and for children of diplomats, in order to justify denying citizenship to millions of children of undocumented immigrants and visitors.

“I’m not quite sure how you get to that big group from such tiny and idiosyncratic examples,” Roberts said.

Even Justice Samuel Alito, one of the court’s most strident conservatives, expressed some discomfort with the administration’s claim that the children of undocumented immigrants who’d spent years living in the U.S. could be denied citizenship on the grounds that their parents were not “domiciled” here. However, Alito laid blame for the situation at the feet of prior administrations.

“We have an unusual situation here because our immigration laws have been ineffectively and in some instances unenthusiastically enforced by federal officials,” Alito said. “So, there are people who are subject to removal at any time….but they have, in their minds, made a permanent home here and have established roots and that raises a humanitarian problem.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch also expressed doubt about the administration’s claim that one has to be living legally in the U.S. to be domiciled here and get citizenship for a child. He noted that when the 14th Amendment was adopted in the 1860s the U.S. had no real immigration laws and left foreigners free to take up residence here. “That was perfectly fine,” he said.

Roberts also responded sharply when Sauer claimed that illegal immigrants could be viewed as the modern equivalent of “temporary sojourners” that legislators never intended to permit to obtain citizenship for their children.

“It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” the chief justice declared.

On Trump’s first day back in office last year, he signed an executive order declaring that children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or those on limited-duration visas don’t get U.S. citizenship. The order was immediately hit with a flurry of lawsuits and never took effect, after being blocked by federal judges on both coasts, who said it violated long settled precedent.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed concern that departing from the bright-line rule used for the past century, that almost anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, could lead to complicated disputes about the intent and status of the parents at the time.

“I can imagine it being messy in some applications,” she said.

Sauer repeatedly emphasized Wednesday that Trump’s order only applies to children that would be born in the future, but several justices said a ruling that the 14th Amendment doesn’t automatically confer citizenship on those born in the U.S. would also cast doubt on the citizenship of those already born and assumed to be citizens.

Trump held off until the arguments had concluded before weighing in on them via social media. “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” he wrote on Truth Social.

It was not an argument that seemed to have much traction with the justices, even the Trump appointees.

“We try to interpret American law with American precedent based on American history,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. “It’s certainly what I try to do…..Why should we be thinking about, even though as a policy matter I understand the point, ‘Gee, why don’t European countries have this?’”

Security at the court was stepped up for Trump’s visit with Secret Service agents shadowing Supreme Court police at the court’s entrances and elsewhere in the building.

Trump entered the ornate courtroom shortly before arguments began. He sat in a row of the gallery that is typically occupied by lawmakers and senior government officials.

Trump sat next to his White House counsel, David Warrington, with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Attorney General Pam Bondi sitting nearby in the same row.

Although many of the justices have been on the receiving end of sharp attacks and social media slams from Trump in recent weeks, the members of the court appeared nonchalant as they entered Wednesday. Alito looked briefly in Trump’s direction, but the president did not appear to monopolize any of their attention.