Supreme Court justices grill both sides on Trump birthright citizenship order

President Donald Trump attended Wednesday's oral arguments for more than an hour, with sources in the room telling Fox News he remained focused on the arguments.

Trump arrived roughly 10 minutes before the session began and stayed through the entirety of Solicitor General John Sauer's argument, which lasted 65 minutes.

Trump then stayed for seven minutes of argument from ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang's reply,

Trump did not speak for the duration, as court rules require. He left without making comment to the press.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on President Trump's effort to limit birthright citizenship in late June or early July after wrapping up oral arguments on Wednesday.

The court does not announce when it will had down specific opinions.

Oral arguments have concluded at the Supreme Court after justices heard Solicitor General John Bauer defend President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.

Sauer gave a closing statement after ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang argued against the Trump administration's move.

The court is expected to issue a ruling in the case by the end of June.

ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang says her side has "two paths" to victory over President Donald Trump's effort to limit birthright citizenship.

Wang made the statement under questioning from Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday.

"Last question, though, why would we address the constitutional issue? This is the last one. Why would he address the constitutional issue, given your argument on the statutory? Our usual practice, as you're well aware, of course, is to resolve things on statutory grounds and, and, not to do a constitutional ground," Kavanaugh said.

"Sure. You know, I think we obviously have these two paths to a win here. We're happy to win on either or both of them. I do think it would be prudent for the court to reaffirm its decision in Wong Kim Ark, where it's a landmark decision about the definition of national citizenship in this country. I just think it would be prudent for the court to go ahead and reaffirm that. But of course, we're happy to take a win on any ground," Wang responded.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said her colleague Justice Samuel Alito made a "good" point about the interpretation of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark on Wednesday.

The point of agreement between the two typically opposed justices came as they were questioning ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang regarding birthright citizenship."

"Can I offer a possible explanation for why, Justice Gray made a point of putting domicile in what he said was the holding of the case," Alito said, referring to Wong Kim Ark. "There were many, many [migrants] who were horribly exploited, brought to the United States to work on the transcontinental railroad, to work in mines. they were worked to death. They were treated horrifically...They were overwhelmingly men. There wasn't an indication that they were-that they would stay here. They could stay here. They didn't have permanent homes. And the and the opinion is drawing a distinction between those two categories of people who would have been well understood at the time when Wong Kim Ark was decided."

"No, Justice Alito, I don't think that's a plausible explanation for why domiciles mentioned in Wong Kim work. Because, again, the controlling rule of decision based on the English common law and cases from schooner exchange to lynch versus clerk to state versus manual, which was the North Carolina decision that said, look, the rule in the United States from independence on has been the English common law rule," Wang said.

"But Miss Wang, isn't that explanation, I take Justice Alito's point, and I think he actually makes a good one in the sense that it could be that Justice Gray emphasized domicile to help the public accept the outcome of this case. You're suggesting that the emphasis on domicile was not a part of the rule, meaning he wasn't saying you had to be like a foreigner who is doing everything they can and who can't be naturalized. But he might have emphasized those facts in this case, precisely because Chinese immigrants were unwanted, precisely because he had to get this out into the public, and people were going to say, whoa, you're saying these people have to this this baby has to be a citizen. And so one could imagine that it was important from a standpoint of helping people accept this citizen rule under these circumstances, to emphasize that these particular people in this case were, in Justice Alito's first category," Jackson said.

" I think that is very possible, Justice Jackson and as evidence of that, I would point to the fact that if you look at the briefing in Wong Kim Ark, you'll see that even though the parties had stipulated in the in the district court that Wong Kim Ark's parents were domiciled in the United States, when the case came to the Supreme Court, the government's brief argued that it was impossible for Chinese immigrants to have domicile because they expressed the view that was common among people who opposed immigration by Chinese nationals to the United States. There was a common view that Chinese people were inherently temporary sojourners in the country. And so I do think it's possible Justice Alito and Justice Jackson, that he was trying to dispel that notion," Wang said.

President Donald Trump departed the Supreme Court after listening to more than an hour of oral arguments regarding his executive order blocking birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens.

Large groups of people crowded the street as he departed the building, shouting both praise and criticism of the president.

Justice Samuel Alito pressed ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang on her reading of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, a central case in the birthright citizenship issue.

"I might agree with you if domicile had simply been sprinkled in the opinion, but, in Wong Kim Ark, it's a long opinion, but it begins by saying, here's the question, and it ends by coming back to the question, and it says, here's the question stated at the beginning of the opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States of parents of Chinese descent who at the time of his birth are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States. And or are carrying on business. And he states the diplomatic exception. And he says, for the reasons above stated, this court is of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative," Alito said.

"So why put domicile in? Sometimes it's hard to figure out what is the holding of the case here. He tells us this is the holding of the case. Why put domicile in there? It's just something it's it's something irrelevant that he wanted to throw in. It's like, you know, whether a child born in the United States of parents of Chinese descent who once resided at a particular, address in San Francisco who attempted to enter the country at the port of San Francisco. Why put it in if it's irrelevant?" Alito asked.

"Well, Justice Alito, I'll I can, I'll give you two responses. The first is that, again, it was a stipulated fact. The second is that regardless of what the judgment in the case was, which again, was an [unknown] application of the rule of decision. The rule of decision in Wong Kim Ark has binding precedential effect. Even if you think that Wong Kim Ark decided the case based on the stipulated facts, you have to follow that controlling rule of decision. And if you follow that rule, you get the same result. For people without domicile, one can Mark says, six times in the first parts of the opinion as well as on the page. The government focuses on that domicile is not relevant," Wang responded.

ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang has begun her oral argument against President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship before the Supreme Court.

"Ask any American what our citizenship rule is and they'll tell you everyone born here is a citizen alike," Wang began. "That rule was enshrined in the 14th amendment to put it out of the reach of any government official to destroy."

"When the government tried to strip Mr. Wong Kim Ark's citizenship on largely the same grounds they raised today, this court said no," Wang argued. "Thirty years after ratification, 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. It excludes only those cloaked with a fiction of extraterritoriality because they are subject to another sovereign's jurisdiction, even when they're in the United States. A close set of exceptions to an otherwise universal rule."

"My friend has now clearly said that the government is not asking you to overrule Wong Kim Ark. That is a fatal concession because Wong Kim Ark's controlling rule of decision precludes their parental domicile requirement. The dissent understood that, and the majority tells us six times in the opinion that domicile is irrelevant under common law. Lynch versus Clark was already the dominant American case on citizenship, and it held that the US born daughter of temporary visitors from Ireland who took the baby back to Ireland with them, that that daughter was a US citizen," she continued.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Solicitor General John Sauer about perceived "hurdles" to his arguments on Wednesday.

"Good morning, general. So I guess I am looking at your position in this case, and it boils down to requiring us to do at least these two things. One is believed that the framers were not importing the common law rule and understanding of birthright citizenship. And the second is to believe that what they were doing was departing from that common law rule in the way that you suggest, that is, in the they were seeking to have this turn on domicile. I think you have a number of hurdles to accomplish those two things," Jackson said.

"One of which I think is that when we look at this court's case law and no one I think has mentioned Schooner Exchange. But it appears that that was an 1812 case in which it seems as though the court had already accepted at the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment, that the allegiance that you were talking about was the English common law rule, that, in other words, allegiance meant, that you are, covered by the laws of the jurisdiction that you can rely on the jurisdictions protection," she continued.

"Now, you're saying today. No, no, allegiance meant something about loyalty or that kind of idea. But if the Supreme Court had, prior to the 14th Amendment, established that allegiance meant the common law definition, I think your first hurdle is to help us understand why we would believe that when the common when the 14th amendment was ratified, the framers weren't just incorporating what we had previously said it meant," she said.

Solicitor General John Sauer says that Native Americans are birthright citizens to the U.S. under the Trump administration's proposed changes to birthright citizenship.

Sauer made the statement during questioning from Justice Neil Gorsuch.

"Do you think Native Americans today are birthright citizens under your test and of your friends test?" Gorsuch asked.

"I think so. I mean, obviously they've been granted citizenship by statute," Sauer responded.

"Put aside the statute. Do you think they're birthright citizens?" Gorsuch pressed.

"No, I think the clear understanding that everybody agrees in the congressional debates is that the children of tribal Indians are not birthright citizens," Sauer said.

"I understand that's what they said, but your test is the domicile of the parents, and that would be the test you'd have us apply today, right?" Gorsuch responded.

"I think so on our test. Yeah. If they're lawfully domiciled here. Not sure I have to think that through, but but I'll that's my reaction," Sauer said.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito argued federal officials have failed to effectively enforce immigration laws on Wednesday.

Alito made the point while questioning Solicitor General John Sauer at oral arguments on birthright citizenship.

"Under the minimum definition of domicile, which I think existed in 1868 and continues to exist today, a person's domicile is the place where he or she intends to make a permanent home. Now, normally you would think that a person who is subject to arrest at any time and removal could not establish a domicile. But we have an unusual situation here because our immigration laws have been ineffectively and in some instances, enthusiastically enforced by federal officials," Alito said.

"So, there are people who are subject to removal at any time if they are apprehended and they go through the proper procedures, but they have, in their minds, made a permanent home here and have established roots. And that raises a humanitarian problem. And I wonder if you could you could address that," Alito added.

"If I make one legal and one humanitarian. The legal point is, if you look at those cases, for example, Park, Carson against Reid, Park against Barr, this court's decisions in Elkins and against Moreno, they talk about the legal capacity to, you know, to create a domicile, excluding someone who may have the subjective intent, which otherwise would be determinative as being excluded on the humanitarian point," Sauer responded.

"I would point out, as I said at the beginning, Justice Alito, that the United States rule of nearly unrestricted birthright citizenship is an outlier among modern nations. It's a very small minority of nations that have that rule. For example, every every nation in Europe has a different role in the notion that they have a huge humanitarian crisis, as a result of not having that restricted birthright citizenship, I don't think is a strong argument. And I point out, obviously, for, you know, for reliance related," Sauer added.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked Solicitor General John Sauer how common the practice of "birth tourism" is in the U.S.

"You mentioned in your your briefing and also this morning the problem of, birth tourism. do you have any information about how common that is or how significant a problem it is?" Roberts asked.

"It's a great question. No one knows for sure. There's a March 9 letter from a number of members of Congress to DHS saying, do we have any information about this," Sauer responded.

"The media reports indicate estimates could be over one point a million, or 1.5 million from the People's Republic of China alone. The congressional report that we cite in our brief talks about certain hotspots, like Russian elites coming to Miami through these birth tourism companies. And I mean, here's a fact about it that I think is striking. Media reported as early as 2015 that based on Chinese media reports, there are 500 500 birth tourism companies in the People's Republic of China whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to, to to that nation," Sauer continued.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan pressed the Trump administration to explain its arguments against the current expression of birthright citizenship on Wednesday.

"I think, General Sauer, you know, you know, where does this principle come from? Allegiance. Domicile? Allegiance. I think you point to a Lincoln funeral speech as your primary example of where this principle comes from. It's certainly not what we think of when we think of the word jurisdiction. And I appreciate that jurisdiction has many meanings. But, you know, the first meaning is like, if you're subject to jurisdiction, you're subject to the authority of, one doesn't say, oh, what that means is a certain kind of allegiance that domiciliary have and nobody else does," Kagan said, questioning U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer.

"So the text of the clause, I think, does not support you. I think you're sort of looking for some more technical, esoteric meaning. And then the question comes, OK, if the text doesn't support you, if there's a real history of people using it that way. But as far as I can tell, you know, at the time of the 14th, you're, you're you're using some pretty obscure sources to get to this, concept," Kagan continued.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the Trump administration's examples of individuals who are in U.S. territory but who are not considered "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" on Wednesday.

The Trump administration has argued that the 14th Amendment applies birthright citizenship only to those who have an allegiance to the United States, in addition to being inside its territory, pointing to exceptions such as the children of foreign ambassadors.

"Well, starting with that theory, you obviously put a lot of weight on 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'" Roberts told U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer. "But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky."

"You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships," Roberts continued. "And then you expand it to a whole class of, illegal aliens are here in the country. I'm not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples."

"There are those sort of narrow exceptions for ambassador, foreign public ships, tribal Indians, enormous one that they were very focused on in the debates as well," Sauer responded. "But what I do is I invite the court to look at the intervening step, which is the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. And they or they didn't say subject to the jurisdiction thereof there it says not subject to any foreign power."

Solicitor General John Sauer began arguments before the Supreme Court by stating that birthright citizenship does not apply to foreigners.

"The citizenship clause was adopted just after the Civil War to grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves and their children, whose allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile here. It did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens who have no such allegiance. This conclusion reflects the original public meaning of the clause," Sauer said.

"When Congress used the term not subject to any foreign power in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it rejected the British conception of allegiance. Senator Trumbull explained that subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the clause means not owing allegiance to anybody else. And in 1884 this court recognized that subject to the jurisdiction means owing direct and immediate allegiance. The clause thus does not extend citizenship to the children of temporary visa holders or illegal aliens. Unlike the newly freed slaves, those visitors lack direct and immediate allegiance to the United States," he continued.

Sauer went on to say that the current practice of birthright citizenship has caused "a sprawling industry of birth tourism, as uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States."

Oral arguments kicked off Wednesday morning as the Supreme Court considers a challenge to President Donald Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.

Solicitor General John Sauer began arguing the government's case first, and he will be followed by ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang, who will argue against Trump's order.

Attorney General Pam Bondi is expected to attend Supreme Court oral arguments alongside President Donald Trump on Wednesday.

Bondi arrived with the president in his motorcade Wednesday morning, Fox News has learned.

The pair will witness the court as it hears arguments over Trump's 2025 executive order ending birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.

Fox News' David Spunt contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump arrived to the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning to observe oral arguments regarding his effort to end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.

Trump's attendance is the first time in U.S. history that a sitting president has attended oral arguments before the court.

Other presidents have attended ceremonies in the court and even argued their own cases.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero responded to news that President Donald Trump plans to attend oral arguments on birthright citizenship on Wednesday.

ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang will argue in the courtroom for the immigrant plaintiffs that brought suit challenging Trump.

 “If President Trump wishes to come to the Supreme Court to watch the ACLU school him in the meaning of the Constitution and birthright citizenship, we will be glad to sit alongside of him in that very court.

 “Any effort to distract from the gravity and importance of this case will not succeed. 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.

 “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.”

Gene Hamilton, the President of America First Legal, broke down what could happen depending on how the Supreme Court handles Wednesday's birthright citizenship case.

In a Fox News op-ed, Hamilton pointed to heavy potential consequences if the court upholds the practice in a robust manner, it could lead to an "explosion" of birth tourism.

"Foreign nationals already travel to the United States to secure citizenship for their children (at least until the Trump administration took steps to end the practice). A broad ruling would supercharge this practice in future administrations. Any pregnant woman who reaches American soil — on a tourist visa, by overstaying, or by crossing the border illegally — could guarantee her baby U.S. citizenship. American hospitals and taxpayers would bear the added costs," Hamilton wrote.

He went on to say there would be grave national security risks as well, with the U.S. presenting an even more enticing target for illegal immigration.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in what could be one of the most significant cases of the 21st century: birthright citizenship.

Before the Court is whether the Trump executive order that ends birthright citizenship complies with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, after multiple judges blocked the order from taking effect as it was litigated. 

In plain speak, the Court will look at whether someone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a citizen irrespective of their parents’ status. 

Given that courts have routinely upheld birthright citizenship for over a century now, the Trump administration faces an uphill battle. 

However, the current Court has not shied away from overturning high-profile decisions: think Dobbs overturning Roe (abortion), and Loper overturning Chevron (the administrative state). The mere fact the Court decided to take up this issue at all is very interesting. As always, the devil will be in the details in terms of how broadly, or narrowly, they decide the case – or if they find some way to punt it altogether.

This is an excerpt from an article by Fox News' Kerri Kupec Urbahn.

Constitutional attorney Mark Smith joined Fox News on Wednesday to discuss President Donald Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court, analyzing the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause.

President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship for illegal aliens prompted a flurry of lawsuits in the days after its signing last year.

Critics argued that, among other things, the order violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to "all persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang will argue against Trump's order before the court on Wednesday.

President Donald Trump's administration will be represented by Solicitor General John Sauer during oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Sauer urged the high court to take up the birthright citizenship case last October, arguing that a pair of lower court rulings were overly broad and relied on the "mistaken view" that "birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law."

"Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people," he said at the time.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday will weigh the legality of President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. — a landmark court fight that could profoundly impact the lives of millions of Americans and lawful U.S. residents.

At issue in the case, Trump v. Barbara, is an executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office. The order in question seeks to end automatic citizenship — or "birthright citizenship" — for nearly all persons born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, or to parents with temporary non-immigrant visas in the U.S.

The stakes in the case are high, putting on a collision course more than a century of executive branch action, Supreme Court precedent, and the text of the Constitution itself — or, more specifically, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. 

Trump administration officials view the order, and the high court's consideration of the case, as a key component of his hardline immigration agenda — an issue that has become a defining feature of his second White House term.

Opponents argue the effort is unconstitutional and unprecedented, and could impact an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually to non-citizens. 

A ruling in Trump's favor would represent a seismic shift for immigration policy in the U.S., and would upend long-held notions of citizenship that Trump and his allies argue are misguided. It would also yield immediate, operational consequences for infants born in the U.S., putting the impetus on Congress and the Trump administration to immediately act to clarify their status.

This is an excerpt from an article by Fox News' Breanne Deppisch.

President Donald Trump is set to attend the Supreme Court's oral arguments regarding his executive order banning birthright citizenship on Wednesday, according to the White House schedule.

His presence would be the first time a sitting president has ever personally attended oral arguments before the nation's highest court.

The order in question seeks to end automatic citizenship — or "birthright citizenship" — for nearly all persons born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, or to parents with temporary non-immigrant visas in the U.S.

The stakes in the case are high, putting on a collision course more than a century of executive branch action, Supreme Court precedent, and the text of the Constitution itself — or, more specifically, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. 

Trump administration officials view the order, and the high court's consideration of the case, as a key component of his hardline immigration agenda — an issue that has become a defining feature of his second White House term.

Fox News' Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report.