People demonstrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of the scheduled arrival of U.S. President Donald Trump on April 1, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Al Drago | Getty Images
THE Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on whether an executive order from the president Donald Trump can upend what has long been the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for people born in the United States, regardless of the nationality of their parents immigration Status.
Trump was present in the courtroom for the arguments of the birthright citizenship case known as Trump vs. Barbaraa first for a sitting president.
Trump stayed more than an hour, listening to a presentation by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who defended the executive order, then left.
If Trump’s order is followed, tens of thousands of babies born in the United States each month would be left to undocumented immigrants or visitors without U.S. citizenship.
Trump, on his first day back at the White House on January 20, 2025, signed an executive order stating that 30 days after its effective date, babies born in the United States would not be eligible to be issued citizenship documents if their parents were illegal immigrants or undocumented workers.
Sauer told the justices that automatically granting citizenship to people born in the United States “demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship.”
“It functions as a powerful pull factor for illegal immigration and rewards illegal aliens who not only violate immigration laws, but also put themselves ahead of those who follow the rules,” Sauer said.
“This has given rise to a sprawling birth tourism industry as thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile countries have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating an entire generation of American citizens abroad without meaningful ties to the United States,” Sauer said.
“We are now in a new world, while Justice [Samuel] Alito pointed out, where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a U.S. citizen child,” Sauer said.
Read more about CNBC’s politics coverageChief Justice John Roberts questioned Sauer over his contention that the children of illegal immigrants did not deserve citizenship under the Constitution.
Roberts said: “You place a lot of emphasis on the issue of jurisdiction in referring to the argument that children born in the United States are subject to the laws of their biological parents’ countries.
“But the examples you give in support seem very original to me,” continued the chief justice.
“You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships. And then you extend that to a whole class of illegal aliens who are here in the country,” Roberts said. “I’m not really sure how you can get to this big group from such a small, idiosyncratic group.”
People demonstrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of the scheduled arrival of U.S. President Donald Trump on April 1, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Al Drago | Getty Images
Cecilla Wang, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, opposed Trump’s order.
Wang is a birthright herself, having been born in Oregon to Taiwanese parents who lived there while on student visas. The New York Times reported Wednesday.
“Ask any American about our citizenship rule, and they will tell you that everyone born here is also a citizen,” Wang argued.
“This rule was written into the 14th Amendment to put it beyond the reach of any government official when the government attempted to strip Mr. Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship for the same reasons discussed today,” Wang said, referring to the San Francisco man born to Chinese parents who was the subject of an 1898 Supreme Court case that upheld the concept of birthright citizenship.
Trump’s executive order contradicted what had been, for more than 150 years, the legal interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which automatically granted citizenship to babies born in the country, regardless of the status of their parents.
This amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. ”
Several federal district court judges ruled that Trump’s order violated the Constitution. And two federal appeals courts have upheld injunctions blocking the entry into force of the order.
