The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments concerning the interpretation of birthright citizenship, a practice established by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in 1868. The case stemmed from questions posed to President Donald Trump’s solicitor general, D. John Sauer.

The 14th Amendment at Issue

The 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Sauer argued that, contrary to 160 years of understanding, the amendment does not automatically grant citizenship to all babies born in the U.S.

Sauer's Argument

Sauer contended the 14th Amendment was originally intended to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their children, and no more. He asserted President Trump was within his rights to sign an executive order limiting birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are illegally present or on long-term visas.

Justices' Scrutiny

Several justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, questioned Sauer’s reasoning. Roberts remarked, “The examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” and challenged the expansion of the argument to a “whole class of illegal aliens.”

Concerns About Practicality

Justice Neil Gorsuch raised practical concerns, asking how paternity would be determined and how the government would assess a parent’s intent to remain in the U.S. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned the feasibility of investigating pregnant women to determine their immigration status.

Historical Context and Precedent

Justices also explored the historical context of the 14th Amendment. Sauer maintained that the 1906 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship, was based on the understanding that Wong’s parents were legally domiciled in the U.S.

A Revisionist View?

Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that Sauer’s position represented a “revisionist” interpretation of U.S. history. Cecillia Wang of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued that the 14th Amendment was designed to establish a universal rule of citizenship with limited exceptions.

Arguments for Universal Citizenship

Wang emphasized that the amendment’s framers intended to remove the question of citizenship from political manipulation. Justice Brett Kavanaugh inquired whether the 14th Amendment’s provisions were fixed, to which Wang affirmed they were.

Trump's Presence and Public Reaction

President Trump attended the oral arguments, becoming the first sitting president to do so. He expressed his opposition to birthright citizenship, stating, “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” However, roughly three dozen countries currently offer birthright citizenship.

Outside the court, ACLU volunteers and immigrant rights organizations rallied in support of birthright citizenship. ACLU staff member Anu Joshi stated, “It’s what makes us America.” Stephanie Sanchez, a first-generation Mexican-American, shared her personal connection to the issue.

Looking Ahead

ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero expressed confidence after the arguments, stating, “We are fighting for the heart and soul of this country.” A decision is expected by this summer and is anticipated to be a landmark ruling.