President Donald Trump broke with longstanding tradition on Wednesday by becoming the first modern president to attend an oral argument before the Supreme Court.

A Break with Norms

Presidents have historically avoided attending oral arguments to avoid even the appearance of influencing a coequal branch of government. Trump, however, has repeatedly challenged established norms, particularly when seeking desired outcomes. This visit followed two years of discussing the possibility and came after a significant Supreme Court defeat in February regarding tariffs.

The Case at Hand: Birthright Citizenship

The case argued on Wednesday centered on Trump’s executive order concerning birthright citizenship. The President sought to overturn the long-held interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to children born to non-citizens on US soil. Legal challenges have consistently blocked this order in lower courts.

Skeptical Justices

Solicitor General D. John Sauer faced intense questioning from the justices, including those appointed by Trump. Chief Justice John Roberts challenged Sauer’s claims about “birth tourism,” pointing out that this wasn’t a concern when the 14th Amendment was ratified. Roberts famously stated, “Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.”

Timing and Potential Backfire

Trump departed the hearing as arguments shifted to Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU. The timing of the visit, coinciding with escalating tensions with Iran and ahead of a primetime address, underscored the President’s desire to signal his priorities to the court. However, the hearing, combined with a series of recent adverse rulings, may have inadvertently highlighted his limited influence over the judicial branch.

Recent Court Losses

Over the past few weeks, the court has issued rulings unfavorable to the administration on several key issues. While these cases are ongoing, they contribute to a pattern of judicial setbacks for Trump’s policies.

Trump's Frustration with Appointees

Trump has publicly criticized justices he appointed, including Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, when they ruled against him. Following the tariffs decision, he labeled Barrett and Neil Gorsuch as “an embarrassment to their families.” He has expressed frustration that these justices prioritize appearing independent.

“They Want to Show Their Independence”

After returning to the White House, Trump lamented the justices’ perceived independence, stating, “Republican judges and justices, they always want to show they’re independent.” He suggested they feel compelled to rule against him to demonstrate their impartiality.

It remains to be seen how the court will rule, with a decision expected in June or July. Based on the arguments, a decision could be even more decisive than the 6-3 ruling in the tariffs case, potentially with all three Trump appointees voting against him. This outcome could demonstrate that Trump’s attempt to exert influence may have backfired.