President Donald Trump took an extraordinary step by appearing inside the chamber of the Supreme Court of the United States as justices weighed whether his administration can end automatic citizenship for children born on American soil — a case with consequences that could reach hundreds of thousands of families and reshape the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The president entered the courtroom shortly before arguments began in the case known as Trump v. Barbara, seated prominently in the public section before leaving after the government completed its presentation. His presence marked a rare moment in which a sitting president attended oral arguments in person as his own policy faced intense scrutiny.
Anthony Romero, the executive director of the ACLU, said if Trump wishes to come to the Supreme Court to watch the ACLU school him in the meaning of the Constitution and birthright citizenship, they would be glad to sit alongside him.
“This is one of the most important cases in the last hundred years,” said Romero.
At issue is Trump’s executive order (EO) signed on his first day back in office, which seeks to deny citizenship to babies born in the United States to undocumented immigrants and certain temporary residents. The order has never taken effect after multiple federal courts blocked it, ruling that it conflicts with more than a century of precedent and statutory law.
Inside the courtroom, several justices signaled concern with the administration’s arguments. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. described part of the government’s position as “quirky,” while pressing Solicitor General D. John Sauer on whether modern concerns such as so-called birth tourism justify a departure from long-standing constitutional interpretation.
“Well, it certainly wasn’t a problem in the 19th century, no,” Sauer said, adding, “We’re in a new world now.”
Roberts responded, “Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.”
Other members of the court’s conservative majority, including Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, also raised questions that suggested unease with the administration’s attempt to reinterpret the citizenship clause, which declares that all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens.
The court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that principle, holding that a man born in San Francisco to noncitizen parents was a U.S. citizen. Legal scholars and advocates say overturning or narrowing that precedent would mark a dramatic break with settled law.
According to research cited in court filings, as many as 200,000 babies each year could be denied citizenship if Trump prevails, with projections estimating that millions of U.S.-born children could lack legal status by mid-century. Opponents warn that such a ruling would create widespread uncertainty for families and could leave some children stateless.
“The outcome of this case will very well decide the rights and liberties of over 200,000 children born to immigrant parents each year,” Romero continued. “The 14th Amendment guarantees that children born in the United States are citizens. Period.”
Trump Targets Mail-In Voting
The arguments at the high court come as Trump also moved to tighten control over federal elections, signing a sweeping executive order targeting mail-in voting. The order directs federal agencies to compile state-by-state citizenship lists and threatens to withhold funding from states that do not comply, while also seeking to expand federal influence over how ballots are cast and counted.
“Democracy only works when all our communities can participate in it, and today, we’re witnessing yet another attempt to box us out from exercising that right,” said Hani Mirza, power and democracy program director at Advancement Project. “Mail-in voting has been a critical lifeline for voters of color, people with disabilities, rural voters, and working people, and this order to assert federal control over the mail-in ballot process is undoubtedly unconstitutional.”
Many have noted that federal courts have already blocked earlier executive attempts to impose nationwide election rules, including proof-of-citizenship requirements and federal control over voter registration.
“This executive order is an attempt to create additional barriers for Americans seeking to cast their ballots,” said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen.
“President Trump is a hypocrite who uses mail in voting himself. But what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander when voter suppression is the goal. This EO is an attempt to federalize our elections, and is inappropriate, undemocratic, and unconstitutional.”
Trey Walk, a researcher and advocate at Human Rights Watch, said the administration has systematically attacked every form of accountability, including the press, judiciary, and independent oversight.
“Now it’s coming after the right of the people to choose their leaders. But this attempt to evade accountability will not succeed,” Walk said. “The harder you make it to vote, the more determined people become to do it. Under international human rights law, the right to vote should be universal and free from discrimination. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United States has ratified, requires governments to ensure free and fair elections without unreasonable restrictions.”
