The Supreme Court convened on Wednesday to hear arguments concerning the legality of President Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. The case, Trump v. Barbara, centers on whether the presidential directive aligns with the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and federal immigration law from 1952.

Background of the Executive Order

President Trump issued the executive order on the first day of his second term as part of a broader immigration crackdown. However, due to rulings from lower courts deeming it likely unlawful, the order has not been implemented. The White House schedule indicated President Trump would attend the arguments, potentially making him the first sitting president to do so.

Previous Attempts to Attend

President Trump had previously expressed interest in attending oral arguments during a challenge to his tariffs in November, but ultimately decided against it, stating he didn’t want to “distract from the importance of this Decision.” Leading up to Wednesday’s arguments, the president used social media to defend his plan and criticize the courts.

The 14th Amendment and Citizenship

The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, adopted after the Civil War, aimed to overturn the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision. It states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This language was later codified in the Nationality Act of 1940 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

Historical Interpretation

For over a century, the Citizenship Clause has been broadly interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the U.S., with limited exceptions. Mr. Trump’s executive order proposes a narrower interpretation, seeking to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily, including those on student or work visas.

The Legal Challenge

The legal battle began in July when three plaintiffs with children potentially affected by the executive order filed a class-action lawsuit challenging its legality. U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante ruled in their favor, and the Supreme Court agreed in December to directly review the legality of the measure, bypassing the appeals court.

Arguments from Both Sides

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the 14th Amendment was intended to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, not to those with parents who are undocumented or in the U.S. temporarily. He claimed that a “misreading” of the amendment has led to citizenship being granted to individuals who do not qualify. Conversely, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the plaintiffs, asserted that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship based on birth in the U.S., regardless of parental nationality or immigration status.

Key Question: “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof”

A central question for the Supreme Court is the interpretation of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The Trump administration argues this means being “completely subject” to the country’s political jurisdiction, while the plaintiffs contend it simply means being subject to U.S. laws.

Precedent and Potential Impact

The Supreme Court previously addressed the meaning of the Citizenship Clause in 1898 in Wong Kim Ark, ruling that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese citizens was indeed a citizen. The administration argues this ruling applied to those with a “permanent domicil and residence.” More than 250,000 babies born each year could be impacted by the executive order, according to estimates. A decision is expected by late June or early July.