The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a significant case that could alter over a century of established law regarding birthright citizenship. The case involves a 2025 executive order issued by former President Donald Trump, which seeks to restrict the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to nearly anyone born on U.S. soil.

Executive Order and Constitutional Debate

Trump’s executive order would deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order is currently blocked by lower courts and has not been implemented. The central question before the Court is whether the 14th Amendment requires both birth within U.S. territory and allegiance to the United States for citizenship to be granted.

Davis Criticizes Justices

Attorney Mike Davis, a former clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, voiced strong criticism of the Court’s approach. He argued that a strict interpretation of the Constitution would support upholding the executive order. Davis stated, “If the Supreme Court does their 'job' and follows the 'very simple law, this executive order should be upheld.”

Davis contends that the 14th Amendment’s language requires not just birth in the U.S., but also subjection to U.S. jurisdiction, meaning allegiance to the country. He pointed to a previous Supreme Court ruling regarding Native Americans, who were initially not considered citizens because they were not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, although Congress later granted them citizenship in 1924.

Allegations of Political Influence

Davis expressed concern that the justices were allowing political considerations to influence their decision-making. “The issue is that there’s this whole thing called politics and I am concerned, after listening to today’s oral arguments, that these justices didn’t wear their robes today,” Davis said. “They wore their capes today.”

He attributed this perceived influence to the legal education of more recently appointed justices, suggesting that law schools have become “more Marxist” and encourage a form of “acceptable conservatism” that prioritizes fitting in over strict legal adherence. He specifically contrasted these justices with Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who he believes come from a “different generation.”

Skepticism from Conservative Justices

Despite Davis’s assertions, several conservative justices appeared skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned the historical understanding of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, noting its long-standing interpretation of guaranteeing citizenship to nearly all born within U.S. borders.

Justices Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett also raised concerns, questioning the practical application and legal consistency of the proposed restrictions. Gorsuch inquired about determining parental “domicile” or “allegiance,” while Barrett questioned whether the administration’s claims aligned with existing Supreme Court precedents.

Predictions on the Outcome

Former state attorney Dave Aronberg predicted a unanimous 9-0 ruling against Trump, while commentator Megyn Kelly disagreed, anticipating support from Justices Thomas and Alito. Kelly suggested the outcome would hinge on the votes of Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett, noting Kavanaugh’s apparent skepticism during oral arguments.