U.S. President Donald Trump appeared at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on the 1st local time for arguments over an executive order to limit birthright citizenship.
Trump attended the arguments that began at 10 a.m. that day. This is the first time a sitting U.S. president has appeared before the Supreme Court.
Earlier, Trump had signaled he would personally appear for Supreme Court arguments in a case over the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the basis for reciprocal tariffs, but withdrew that plan. In that case, on Feb. 6, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that reciprocal tariffs and fentanyl tariffs imposed under the Trump administration's IEEPA authority were unlawful.
Trump's break with precedent to show up in court is seen as driven by concern that a loss in this case could heighten the political cost.
Birthright citizenship is a right set out in the U.S. Constitution. It specifies that those born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. After taking office in January last year, however, Trump issued an executive order saying he would not grant citizenship to children born to parents who are undocumented or lack permanent residency.
He argued that the birthright citizenship system was created after the Civil War to grant citizenship to enslaved people and their children, and that it is not a system for so-called birth tourism or undocumented immigrants. The view overturns the prevailing legal interpretation and sparked fierce backlash over the prospect of stripping nationality from a large population born to immigrant families.
Twenty-two states led by Democratic governors, along with Washington, D.C., sued, claiming the executive order is unconstitutional, and the plaintiffs have prevailed in the first and second instances.
Following the ruling that reciprocal tariffs were unlawful, an additional decision finding unconstitutionality in this case would inevitably deal Trump political damage. Some analysts say that is why he went to the Supreme Court in person to try to exert influence.
The curbs on birthright citizenship are also seen as part of a midterm election strategy alongside the policy of deporting undocumented immigrants and the "voter ID mandate" bill (SAVE bill).
Trump did not argue his own views in court. John Sauer, the solicitor general representing the administration, handled the arguments. Sauer argued that citizenship should be granted based not simply on birthplace but on the parents' lawful presence and their allegiance to the U.S. system.
The justices questioned the validity of the government's logic by citing the 1898 Wong Kim Ark precedent, which recognized citizenship for a U.S.-born person to parents with Chinese nationality.
They were also said to have pressed the government's position on the interpretation of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides that "a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen."
A Supreme Court decision is expected this summer. For now, the prevailing view is that an outcome unfavorable to Trump is likely.