President Donald Trump’s appearance at oral arguments before the Supreme Court marked a historic moment. However, his effort to dismantle birthright citizenship is unlikely to succeed, according to legal observers.

Trump's Attendance and Initial Setback

Trump sat in the front row of the public section during the proceedings, departing after Solicitor General John Sauer faced significant challenges during the counterargument presented by Cecillia Wang, the ACLU’s legal director. Previously, Trump had threatened to attend a hearing concerning the legality of his tariffs, but seemingly misinterpreted the outcome of that case last month.

The 14th Amendment at the Core

The case centers on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States.” The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the understanding that individuals born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents are, in fact, citizens.

In the first days of his second administration, Trump signed an executive order linking citizenship to the status of a newborn’s parents, fulfilling a long-held goal shared with Stephen Miller. Trump recently stated the aim was to prevent individuals from traveling to the U.S. solely to gain citizenship for their children.

Justices Express Doubts

During oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas appeared somewhat receptive to the administration’s claim, and Justice Samuel Alito indicated a willingness to follow the Trump administration’s lead. However, other justices voiced strong skepticism.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned Solicitor General Sauer about the implications of his argument for children of trafficking victims, drawing parallels to the descendants of slaves who were historically entitled to birthright citizenship. Chief Justice John Roberts similarly challenged Sauer’s argument regarding “birthright tourism,” stating, “It’s a new world, but it’s the same constitution.” Justice Neil Gorsuch also pressed Sauer on how the framework would apply to Native Americans.

ACLU's Argument and Historical Context

Cecillia Wang argued on behalf of the challengers, including ACLU chapters and representatives of individuals who would lose citizenship if the order were implemented. Wang, a second-generation American, emphasized the importance of the 14th Amendment and the repeal of discriminatory immigration laws. Outside the court, she expressed confidence in the outcome, reflecting on her parents’ and ancestors’ experiences.

Historians Martha S. Jones and Kate Masur have highlighted that the Senate engaged in a robust debate at the time of the 14th Amendment’s passage, fully understanding the implications of extending citizenship to all individuals born in the U.S.

Potential Outcome and Court Dynamics

The Supreme Court receives approximately 8,000 cases annually, accepting around 80 for full oral arguments. When presented with a case that asks the Court to disregard established law and precedent, it typically issues a brief order upholding the lower courts’ rulings. The fact that the Court agreed to hear this case with full consideration suggests some justices may have sought an opportunity to demonstrate their independence from Trump.

Despite this possibility, the Trump administration’s attempt to narrow the scope of birthright citizenship is likely to be unsuccessful, at least for now. While justices asked Wang challenging questions, the legal arguments presented by the administration appear flimsy and unsupported by historical context.