Today in court
• Birthright brawl: Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism during oral arguments over President Donald Trump’s executive order that attempts to end automatic birthright citizenship.
• What the justices said: In response to the Trump administration’s argument that “we’re in a new world” since the 14th Amendment was passed, Chief Justice John Roberts shot back: “It’s the same Constitution.” Conservative justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch also questioned Trump’s central arguments.
• Trump in court: The president attended the arguments for about 90 minutes, the first sitting president to do so.
• High stakes: The court’s decision, expected by the end of June, could have enormous practical implications for millions of people, including US citizens. The arguments also come as the White House is still smarting from the court’s decision in February to strike down Trump’s sweeping global tariffs.
Catch up on what Supreme Court justices said during today's arguments
The Supreme Court expressed skepticism during oral arguments over President Donald Trump’s executive order that attempts to end automatic birthright citizenship. In the first hour of arguments, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer faced a series of deeply skeptical questions from both the court’s liberal and conservative justices.
Trump, the first sitting president to attend Supreme Court arguments, made an early exit roughly halfway through arguments.
Here’s what justices focused on in their questioning:
- Chief Justice John Roberts skewered Sauer over his argument that the nation’s tradition of birthright citizenship is being exploited by wealthy foreigners. “Well, it’s a new world,” Roberts said. “It’s the same Constitution.”
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed incredulity Trump’s order is practically workable, asking: “So, are we bringing pregnant women in for depositions?”
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused on an argument raised by the immigrant rights groups fighting Trump — suggesting the more centrist justice also has concerns with the administration’s position.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether the Trump administration’s theory for who is covered under birthright citizenship would apply to all the newly freed slaves who were the subject of the 14th Amendment’s passage.
- Justice Neil Gorsuch ripped into a central argument from the Trump administration that parents of a child must have “domicile” to be entitled to birthright citizenship.
- Justice Elena Kagan told Sauer the constitutional clause at issue in the case did not support his arguments in defense of the executive order.
Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, represented a group of children and their parents challenging Trump’s effort to end automatic birthright citizenship.
Here’s how justices questioned her:
- Several conservative justices asked Wang questions about her position supporting near-automatic birthright citizenship, although in most cases they seemed more clarifying rather than direct attacks.
- Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett both pressed Wang on her assertion that the carveouts in the 14th Amendment should be seen as frozen in time.
- Several justices pressed Wang on the question of domicile.
CNN’s John Fritze, Austin Culpepper, Devan Cole and Tierney Sneed contributed to this report.
Several high-profile guests attended today's arguments, but all eyes were on Trump
While some notable names were in attendance at the Supreme Court today, the focus remained on President Donald Trump inside the courtroom.
Oscar-winning actor Robert De Niro — a fierce critic of the president — attended oral arguments, alongside other Trump officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick.
Trump is the first sitting president to attend Supreme Court arguments, according to the court’s historical society. Audible murmurs rippled through the gallery as he exited halfway through arguments. Visitors also experienced heightened security due to the Secret Service’s presence.
Outside the Supreme Court, crowds gathered, chanting “protect birthright citizenship!” and holding signs with messages like “Families belong together” and “Dump Trump.”
President Donald Trump became the first sitting US president to attend Supreme Court oral arguments. The Supreme Court is hearing a case about President Trump's executive order that attempts to end birthright citizenship. CNN's Paula Reid reports.
CNN’s Audry Jeong contributed to this report.
Our experts analyzed today's SCOTUS arguments. Here's what they said
Trump again slams birthright citizenship after attending oral arguments
About an hour after leaving the Supreme Court’s oral argument on the matter, President Donald Trump again criticized birthright citizenship with a false claim he’s made before.
“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” he posted on Truth Social.
About 30 other countries also allow birthright citizenship.
Trump listened to arguments in the court today for about 90 minutes, leaving shortly after the government concluded arguments on its position.
Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of Trump’s birthright citizenship order
The Supreme Court appeared highly skeptical of President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, with several conservative justices tearing into the administration’s reading of the history and precedents tied to the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.
With Trump sitting in the audience for part of the argument, several of the justices — including those he appointed during his first term — aggressively questioned US Solicitor D. John Sauer about the president’s effort to reimagine birthright citizenship as it has been understood for at least a century.
Sauer argued that the president’s first-day executive order is geared toward “birth tourism.” Roberts said that the framers of the 14th Amendment couldn’t have understood what they were enacting at the time would apply to that situation because it didn’t exist in the 19th Century.
“We’re in a new world now,” Sauer responded.
“It’s a new world,” Roberts shot back. “It’s the same Constitution.”
Even the court’s stalwart conservatives seemed to have reservations with Sauer’s position.
The tenor of the arguments shifted slightly during the second half of the session as several conservative justices also pressed ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang about her position. Those questions were particularly focused on Wang’s argument that people don’t necessarily have to establish “domicile” in the United States to obtain citizenship. In most cases, however, the questions from the conservatives to Wang seemed to be more clarifying than direct attacks on her position.
Trump left the courtroom after Sauer’s session concluded.
A decision is expected before the end of June.
Kavanaugh and Barrett ask if the 14th Amendment’s carveouts are frozen in time
Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett both pressed ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang on her assertion that the carveouts in the 14th Amendment should be seen as frozen in time rather than something that could be extrapolated to the modern era by analogy.
Kavanaugh raised the question first, while referencing the exercise in finding historical analogies that the court has embraced in Second Amendment cases.
He pointed specifically to children of undocumented children and wondered whether in the modern circumstances they could be seen as fitting under the 14th Amendment’s exceptions.
Wang shut down the idea that children of undocumented immigrants could be carved out by analogy, even as Kavanaugh pressed her on Congress’ ability to rewrite the birthright citizenship statute to exclude them. She said Congress could only expand who is covered by birthright citizenship through changes to immigration law, not narrow it.
Barrett meanwhile grilled Wang on her arguments as they applied to children on tribal lands and as they would apply in a hypothetical if the United States carved out a portion of a state from its jurisdiction.
Didn’t the Supreme Court already rule on Trump’s birthright order? Sort of…
You’d be forgiven if you feel some déjà vu while today’s arguments unfold at the Supreme Court. That’s because the justices already looked at President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order last spring — but for different reasons.
When Trump’s executive order first reached the court, the justices didn’t decide whether it was legal, as they’ll do this time around.
Instead, they answered a highly technical — but important — question of whether lower courts had the power to block its implementation through nationwide injunctions, in which a single judge can prevent officials from carrying out a government policy across the entire country, not just their judicial district.
In a 6-3 ruling penned by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court’s conservative majority said that such rulings were improper in cases brought by private plaintiffs.
But the justices left intact the ability of state attorneys general to seek such broad blocks on a policy and said that private litigants can also bring class-action lawsuits that could still result in a policy being stalled across the US.
Several class-action lawsuits against Trump’s order were swiftly filed last summer, and a judge in New Hampshire sided with the challengers in the case that is now before the high court.
Crowds gather outside the Supreme Court
Crowds have grown outside the Supreme Court as justices inside hear oral arguments over birthright citizenship.
With the sun shining on a warm spring day, protesters have gathered directly next to the court, chanting “protect birthright citizenship!”
People hold signs with messages ranging from “Defend the Constitution” and “Families belong together” to “Dump Trump.”
Conservative justices press ACLU on broad birthright citizenship argument
The tenor of the Supreme Court’s arguments has shifted during the second half of the argument, with several conservative justices asking ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang difficult questions about her position supporting near-automatic birthright citizenship.
Justice Samuel Alito, in particular, pressed the idea that the framers of the 14th Amendment might have understood birthright citizenship to apply to a more narrow group of people — citing a hypothetical about a child born to Iranian parents. In some cases, he said, “it sure seems like that makes them subject to a foreign power.”
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett also asked difficult questions of Wang.
In most cases, however, the questions from the court’s conservative wing seemed to be more clarifying rather than direct attacks on her position — as they were when US Solicitor General D. John Sauer was addressing the court.
Immigration advocates appeal to a higher power to sway conservatives
Some advocates fighting President Donald Trump are speaking directly to conservative justices on how fundamental one’s faith can be to identity and citizenship.
Several groups that have filed briefs refer to the moral imperative of welcoming strangers (with references to scripture) and call attention to the kind of practical dilemmas believers might face if the Trump administration restricted the 14th Amendment guarantee that all children born in the US are citizens.
They are addressing a Catholic court majority that has favored religious interests in disputes over education funding, Christian displays and various government policies.
Many legal analysts across the ideological spectrum believe Trump’s ideas here are radical and bound to fail. But the high court has been receptive to other elements of Trump’s bold agenda, and immigrant-rights advocates and other challengers have brought forth a variety of arguments, including related to religion.
Read more about religious groups pressing the court on birthright citizenship.
Trump leaves the Supreme Court before arguments conclude
President Donald Trump made an early exit from the Supreme Court today during oral arguments over his attempts to limit birthright citizenship.
The president left around 11:20 a.m. ET, roughly halfway through the arguments. He stayed throughout Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s questioning, and left silently while the justices were questioning ACLU lawyer Cecillia Wang. According to his schedule, Trump was hosting an Easter lunch at the White House at 12:30 p.m.
Trump was seated in the first row of the public section, typically reserved for members of Congress. He is the first sitting president to attend Supreme Court oral arguments, and his presence led to heightened security at the court.
President Donald Trump became the first sitting US president to attend Supreme Court oral arguments. The Supreme Court is hearing a case about President Trump's executive order that attempts to end birthright citizenship. CNN's Paula Reid reports.
Native Americans and an 1884 case feature heavily in Trump’s argument
Throughout the birthright citizenship case, the Trump administration has repeatedly pointed to Native Americans to argue that not all people born in the United States are necessarily citizens.
The Justice Department leans heavily on an 1884 Supreme Court precedent — handed down just a few years after the 14th Amendment was ratified — to make its case, something Justice Neil Gorsuch has just asked about in oral arguments.
Elk v. Wilkins centered on John Elk, who was born into a Native American tribe but later left the tribe and attempted to vote in an election in 1880. Charles Wilkins, the election official in Omaha, denied his registration.
Elk sued, and the high court decided that the guarantee of citizenship for people born on American soil didn’t apply to Native Americans because they owed their allegiance to the tribe to which they were born. That is a nearly identical argument that Solicitor General D. John Sauer is making about immigrants who are in the country illegally.
“The court’s earliest cases interpreting the clause squarely rejected the premise that anyone born in US territory, no matter the circumstances, is automatically a citizen so long as the federal government can regulate them,” Sauer told the Supreme Court, citing the Elk case.
The groups opposing the government counter that the Elk decision simply reinforces longstanding exceptions to the rule that were in place at the nation’s founding. The exceptions, the American Civil Liberties Union says, “rest on inter-sovereign dynamics inapplicable to ordinary foreign nationals, whether domiciled here or not.”
Congress in 1924 passed a law that ensured all Native Americans born within the US would be granted American citizenship.
Decades later, Congress passed a separate law with language mirroring the citizenship clause that immigrant groups say covers the same people the administration is targeting with its executive order.
Jackson questions practical effect of Trump’s order
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson closed out US Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s primary round of arguments expressing her incredulity that President Donald Trump’s order is practically workable.
Guidance documents released by federal agencies suggested that even newborns of US citizens will have to jump through extra hoops to claim access to public benefits. Sauer still touted the guidance today as creating a “completely transparent” process.
Sauer said that parents would instead have the opportunity to dispute wrongful determinations denying their children citizenship. Otherwise, he said, it will be verified by either an automated check of a parent’s legal status within federal database or by the presentation by parents of documents showing their permanent lawful residence or citizenship.
Roberts, Kagan press ACLU on "domicile" argument
Several of the justices are pressing Cecillia Wang, who is representing the class of immigrants challenging President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order, on the question of domicile.
One of the government’s leading arguments is that Wong Kim Ark, a key precedent that granted citizenship to a man of Chinese dissent in the 19th century, repeatedly stressed the idea that in order to be entitled to birthright citizenship, a person must intend to permanently live in the country — in other words, to be domiciled.
Wang responded by saying that the domicile, while included in the opinion, was not a central holding of the Wong Kim Ark precedent and therefore not required.
“You dismiss the use of the word of ‘domicile,’” Chief Justice John Roberts told Wang. “It appears in the opinion 20 different times.”
In a potentially concerning sign for the ACLU, even Justice Elena Kagan, a member the court’s liberal wing, asked at one point: “What are those 20 domicile words doing there?”
Top ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang representing children challenging Trump's order
Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, is representing a group of children and their parents challenging President Donald Trump’s effort to end automatic birthright citizenship.
A former Supreme Court clerk, Wang has been a lawyer with the ACLU for more than two decades. She is making her second presentation to the high court, though she has overseen some of the group’s most notable challenges in recent years, including cases involving Trump’s border wall policies and his effort to add a citizenship question to the census.
Wang, a Yale Law School grad and the first woman to serve in her role, last argued before the justices in 2018 in a case called Nielsen v. Preap that involved mandatory detention for certain migrants who committed certain crimes. The court ruled 5-4 for the first Trump administration (and against the ACLU) in that case.
She started at the ACLU in the late 1990s and worked as an attorney with the federal public defender’s office for the Southern District of New York and at a private firm. She was a clerk to retired Justice Harry Blackmun and also worked in the chambers of Justice Stephen Breyer.
Trump’s birthright citizenship order faces deep skepticism in early arguments
President Donald Trump faced an uphill battle on his birthright citizenship order before he even walked into the Supreme Court today.
The first segment of the argument only affirmed the president’s difficulties. None of the conservative justices came to US Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s aid — a particularly bad sign for the administration.
During the first hour of the arguments about Trump’s effort to limit birthright citizenship, Sauer faced a series of deeply skeptical questions from both the court’s liberal wing and the court’s most stalwart conservatives.
Conservative justices such as Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch pressed Sauer on his logic, his history and his reliance on past precedent that, the justices seemed to suggest, appear to work against the government’s position.
Sauer also faced tough questions from more centrist conservatives like Chief Justice John Roberts, who said the 14th Amendment’s meaning has not changed with time — despite the administration’s effort to reimagine it for illegal immigration. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked why Congress would have passed a law with the same language as the 14th Amendment in 1940 and 1952 if they wanted to limit birthright citizenship.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that Trump’s proposed caveats to birthright citizenship are not explicitly included in the law, calling them “not textual.”
Kavanaugh: Congress passed laws that did not change birthright citizenship language
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a key vote, focused on an argument raised by the immigrant rights groups fighting President Donald Trump — suggesting the more centrist justice also has concerns with the administration’s position.
Congress, Kavanaugh noted, passed laws in 1940 and 1952 mirroring the 14th Amendment’s language. By then, lawmakers had viewed birthright citizenship with the broad understanding it still has today. Why, Kavanaugh pressed, would lawmakers not have changed the language if they intended to exclude immigrants?
“Congress repeated that same language knowing what the interpretation has been,” Kavanaugh said.
Kavanaugh, Trump’s second nominee to the Supreme Court, also knocked US Solicitor General D. John Sauer for pointing to other countries, including the United Kingdom, that have ended automatic birthright citizenship.
“I’m not seeing the relevance as a legal constitutional interpretative matter,” the justice said.
Roberts: "It's a new world. It's the same Constitution"
As Chief Justice John Roberts skewered Solicitor General D. John Sauer over his argument that the nation’s tradition of birthright citizenship is being exploited by wealthy foreigners, he made clear that that modern reality doesn’t mean the court should disrupt the long-held understanding of a 19th-century constitutional provision.
So-called birth tourism “wasn’t a problem in the 19th century,” Roberts told Sauer.
“No. But of course, we’re in a new world now,” the solicitor general responded. “Where eight billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who is a US citizen.”
Throughout the first round of arguments in the case, Roberts has repeatedly voiced skepticism toward Sauer’s arguments in defense of President Donald Trump’s executive order.
"That’s not textual": Barrett questions Trump's attempts to fill a hole in his arguments
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether the Trump administration’s theory for who is covered under birthright citizenship would even apply to all the newly freed slaves who were the subject of the amendment’s passage.
Trump is arguing that the amendment is aimed at children of parents who have allegiance to the United States because they are permanent residents, not temporary visitors or unlawfully present migrants.
Barrett noted some of the freed slaves who would have been granted birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment would have been only recently brought to the US from Africa against their will.
Those recently enslaved parents may still feel “allegiance to the countries where they were from,” Barrett said. Trump has argued that the 14th Amendment applied to them, nonetheless, because it was designed to put all newly freed slaves and their children on equal footing.
“That’s not textual. How do you get there?” she pressed Solicitor General D. John Sauer, suggesting the administration is trying to fill a hole in its arguments with an explanation that’s not in the Constitution’s text.
Gorsuch skeptical of Trump’s domicile argument
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch ripped into a central argument from the Trump administration: that to be entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, the parents of a child must have “domicile” in the United States.
The groups on both sides of the case have debated how to define that term. The administration says the children of immigrants in the United States illegally cannot establish that they are domiciled in the country.
Gorsuch’s questions indicated that yet another conservative justice — and one who was President Donald Trump’s first nominee to the high court — is skeptical of the administration’s argument.
“How are we going to determine domicile?” Gorsuch asked. “Do we have to do this for every single person?”
When Solicitor General D. John Sauer raised Wong Kim Ark, a key precedent from the 19th century in which the court ruled that the son of Chinese nationals had citizenship, Gorsuch shut that down.
“I’m not sure how much you want to rely on Wong Kim Ark,” he said.
