The Supreme Court of the United States appeared deeply sceptical of efforts by President Donald Trump to restrict birthright citizenship, with several justices raising concerns that the administration’s position could overturn more than a century of established legal precedent.
During more than two hours of oral arguments on Wednesday, a majority of the nine-member bench signalled unease with the administration’s attempt to reinterpret the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to individuals born on US soil.
Trump, who attended the hearing in person in a rare move for a sitting president, underscored the political and legal weight of the case, which could reshape US immigration law and test the limits of presidential authority.
At the centre of the dispute is Trump’s January 2025 executive order seeking to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants and certain temporary visitors. The administration has framed the policy as a necessary step to curb illegal immigration and protect national security.
Arguing for the government, US Solicitor General John Sauer told the court that the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment had been wrongly expanded over time. He contended that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should be narrowly applied, excluding children of individuals who do not owe full allegiance to the United States.
“Jurisdiction means allegiance,” Sauer argued, maintaining that citizenship should hinge on permanent residence and legal domicile rather than mere birthplace.
That interpretation drew immediate scrutiny from several justices. Chief Justice John Roberts, often seen as a pivotal swing vote, openly questioned the scope of the administration’s argument.
“I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group,” Roberts said, referring to the millions of individuals who could be affected by such a reinterpretation.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan pushed back more directly, arguing that the administration’s position would dismantle a deeply rooted legal tradition.
“What the 14th Amendment did was accept that tradition and not attempt to put any limitations on it. That was the clear rationale,” she said, pointing to the historical continuity of birthright citizenship dating back to English common law.
Several justices also referenced the landmark 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that a child born in the United States to immigrant parents was entitled to citizenship. The case has long served as a cornerstone of modern interpretations of the 14th Amendment.
Representing the challengers, American Civil Liberties Union attorney Cecillia Wang argued that the precedent set by Wong Kim Ark directly undermines the administration’s position.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that if the court agrees with that reading, the ruling could be straightforward. “If we agree with you how to read Wong Kim Ark, then you win,” he said, hinting at a potentially narrow path to striking down the policy.
Despite the apparent scepticism, it remains unclear how broadly the court will rule. Legal experts note that the justices could avoid a sweeping constitutional judgment by instead relying on statutory grounds, including a 1952 federal law that codified birthright citizenship.
Such an approach would allow the court to invalidate the executive order without directly redefining the Constitution, consistent with its general reluctance to decide constitutional questions unnecessarily.
A decision is expected in June, and it will mark the first major immigration ruling on the merits since Trump began his second term. The outcome could either reinforce long-standing constitutional protections or significantly expand presidential power over immigration policy.
The stakes are particularly high for Trump, whose broader immigration crackdown has been a defining feature of his political agenda. A ruling against the administration would represent a major setback, coming shortly after the court struck down his global tariff policy, signalling limits to executive authority.
A victory, however, would deliver a major policy win and advance a long-standing goal among conservatives to restrict birthright citizenship.
Following the hearing, Trump reiterated his opposition to the current system, claiming on social media that the United States is alone in granting such rights an assertion widely disputed by legal experts. Speaking later at a White House event, he argued that the 14th Amendment was originally intended to grant citizenship to the children of formerly enslaved people, not to the children of foreign nationals.
Erizia Rubyjeana
Follow us on:
