US EditionWhat Oral Argument Told Us in the Birthright Citizenship Case
Justices questioned the administration’s reading of the 14th Amendment as four conservative appointees pressed for limits on who can claim citizenship.
- On Wednesday, April 1, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments challenging President Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship. Trump attended the proceedings, a first for a sitting president, though he left before the challengers presented.
- U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued the 14th Amendment requires parents to have "lawful domicile" for their children to gain citizenship, contending the amendment was intended to exclude children of foreign nationals without legal status.
- Justices challenged Sauer's interpretation by citing the 1898 Supreme Court decision U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship. Chief Justice John Roberts noted "domicile" appeared 20 different times in that ruling.
- Conservative justices appeared skeptical of the government's attempt to reinterpret constitutional language, and courtwatchers anticipate the administration will lose the case, potentially by a 7-2 or 8-1 margin.
- The ruling will likely settle the legal question regarding birthright citizenship, though it will not end the broader immigration debate, as the 14th Amendment's text remains central to the case.
15 Articles
15 Articles
What oral argument told us in the birthright citizenship case
Empirical SCOTUS is a recurring series by Adam Feldman that looks at Supreme Court data, primarily in the form of opinions and oral arguments, to provide insights into the justices’ decision making and what we can expect from the court in the future. As Amy Howe reported for SCOTUSblog on Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard just over two hours of oral argument on April 1 in Trump v. Barbara, the challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive ord…
Sweaty Mike Davis Melts Down Over Looming SCOTUS Birthright Citizenship Ruling
Mike Davis, a chief counsel for the nominations of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh and a judicial advisor and friend of Donald Trump, is worried that the Supreme Court will rule against Trump's executive order wiping out the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provision. Davis' main argument is an interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which requires more than physical presence but also allegiance to the US. Dav…
The Birthright Citizenship Arguments Are a Reminder that the Independent Judiciary Is a Good Thing
Adding to his list of broken norms and precedents, on April 1, President Donald Trump sat in the audience during the Supreme Court’s oral arguments over his executive order ending birthright citizenship. As the court’s sketch artist captured, Trump stared down the justices as they questioned his Solicitor General, D. John Sauer. The president left early, walking out while the plaintiff’s lawyer presented. The Associated Press characterized Trum…
There is a 'Popularized Conception of Birthright Citizenship, Which May Not be Accurate'
My quick take on SCOTUS oral argument: "I think one of the big takeaways is this challenge to birthright citizenship has been dismissed as frivolous, as meaningless, as bad faith. But these Justices took it very seriously."
Coverage Details
Bias Distribution
- 37% of the sources lean Left, 36% of the sources are Center
Factuality
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
