Wednesday’s Supreme Court arguments regarding birthright citizenship proved unfavorable for Donald Trump. The former president observed from the front row as a majority of justices voiced significant doubts about his executive order aiming to deny U.S. citizenship to the American-born children of many immigrants.

Trump's Executive Order Faces Scrutiny

Trump left the courtroom during the arguments and later expressed his frustration on Truth Social, criticizing the nation for upholding this fundamental right. Even Trump, not known as a legal expert, seemed to recognize the likely outcome of the case.

A Pivotal Exchange with Justice Barrett

While no single moment definitively turned the tide against the administration, an exchange between Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Solicitor General John Sauer may have sealed the government’s fate. Justice Barrett rigorously questioned Sauer’s theory that children are not entitled to birthright citizenship if their parents lack “domicile” in the United States or demonstrate “allegiance” to a foreign power.

The Question of Intent and Trafficking

Barrett pressed Sauer on how the government would determine whether immigrants intended to remain in the country or maintain loyalty to another nation. She posed a challenging hypothetical: What about a woman illegally trafficked into the U.S. who then gives birth? Would that child automatically be a citizen?

Drawing Parallels to Slavery

The Justice then connected the argument to the historical context of the 14th Amendment, which was designed to overturn the Dred Scott decision and grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children. Barrett asked: “What about slaves who were brought to this country illegally and against their will, as many were? Surely some of them still ‘felt allegiance to the countries where they were from’ and intended ‘to return as soon as they can.’ So wouldn’t their children be excluded from birthright citizenship, too?”

Undermining the Government's Theory

According to legal analyst Mark Joseph Stern, Barrett’s line of questioning revealed her belief that the core principle of citizenship should be based on birth within a territory governed by a nation, rather than the domicile or allegiance of parents. She argued that applying a domicile requirement to enslaved people would render the 14th Amendment ineffective in achieving its primary goal of overruling Dred Scott.

Sauer's Concession

Stern noted that Sauer was forced to concede that his theory was incompatible with the historical purpose of the 14th Amendment. This moment, he believes, may have effectively lost the case for the government. Sauer’s argument hinged on the idea that children of those who entered the country illegally should not receive birthright citizenship, but Barrett countered that this logic would also exclude the children of enslaved people.

Further Questioning of the ACLU

Barrett also questioned Cecillia Wang of the ACLU, who argued against Trump’s order, pressing her on whether Congress could expand the exceptions to birthright citizenship. While Barrett found Wang’s response unsatisfactory, lacking a strong textual or historical basis, Stern believes the case will likely conclude with a 7–2 ruling against Trump, with Barrett joining the majority.