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.
Our live coverage of today’s historic oral arguments on birthright citizenship has ended. Click here to read takeaways from the court and scroll down to read more observations and details from the day.
See inside the Supreme Court as President Trump watches the arguments
No TV or still cameras are allowed in the Supreme Court for oral arguments, but sketch artist Dana Verkouteren was inside the courtoom to view the justices consider the case under the watchful eye of President Donald Trump.
The immigrant population in the US, by the numbers
Birthright citizenship is a nearly 160-year-old practice enshrined in the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born on American soil.
President Donald Trump’s executive order attempts to end automatic birthright citizenship, a move that could increase the undocumented population in the US by nearly 25% over the next 50 years, according to projections from the Migration Policy Institute. That’s because, if Trump’s order is allowed to continue, children born to undocumented parents would also be considered unlawful residents.
People migrate to the US from all over the world, but the country of origin for the largest number of immigrants is Mexico — more than double the next two countries, India and China, combined.
Trump has said illegal immigration to the US amounts to an “invasion,” using the term in his executive orders and agency memos. The word choice is intentional, legal experts say, because the administration could rely on the invasion rationale to justify possible future actions.
Read more about US immigrant populations, in charts.
Sauer says he needs "to think through" if Native Americans born now are birthright citizens
During a somewhat awkward exchange with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, Solicitor General D. John Sauer struggled to say definitively whether he thought Native American children born today would be entitled to birthright US citizenship under the type of ruling he’s asking the Supreme Court to issue.
“Do you think Native Americans today are birthright citizens under your test?” Gorsuch asked.
“I think so. I mean obviously they’ve been granted citizenship by statute,” Sauer said, referring to a federal law passed in the 1920s that ensured all Native Americans born within the US would be granted citizenship.
But the justice wanted Sauer to answer the question notwithstanding that law. Under the test the solicitor general is asking the court to adopt — which would grant birthright citizenship only to the children of noncitizens who intend to live permanently in the US — Gorsuch asked whether newly born Native American babies are still entitled to US citizenship.
ACLU says courtroom was “business as usual” despite Trump appearance
Despite President Donald Trump’s appearance in the courtroom, it was “business as usual,” an ACLU lawyer said.
“Though the president attending today’s arguments was a focus in the media, it was just business as usual in the courtroom,” Grace Choi, a Skadden Fellow at ACLU Immigrants Rights Project, told CNN. “The real focus was on the legal arguments in this case as well as the ramifications that the order could have if it went into effect.”
Immigration rights advocacy groups organized outside the Supreme Court today to protest during the oral arguments on Trump’s birthright citizenship case.
Hannah Steinberg, a staff attorney with ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project told CNN the justices seemed “very skeptical of the government’s position,” hammering in on “how it would work.”
She emphasized that Trump left shortly after the solicitor general’s arguments, which she says underscores the president’s policy priorities.
Steinberg “fully expects” after hearing the arguments that the court will strike down Trump’s executive order.
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.
Former Trump lawyer and birthright citizenship opponent John Eastman was also in attendance
Among those in attendance in the Supreme Court courtroom today: John Eastman, former lawyer for President Donald Trump, who is well-known for his efforts to block the 2020 election and as a leading proponent for ending birthright citizenship.
Eastman spoke with CNN after the hearing, saying that US Solicitor General D. John Sauer and the ACLU’s Cecillia Wang presented “sophisticated highbrow arguments across the board,” but that he can’t predict “one way or the other for sure” how the justices will rule.
Eastman, who submitted an amicus brief in the case, also attended arguments on birthright citizenship and the power of judges last May.
When asked about the president’s appearance in the courtroom, Eastman said that reactions suggesting a violation of the separation of powers are “laughable.”
“Almost every argument I’ve been to, there are usually members of Congress sitting there, and nobody’s ever raised a claim that a member of Congress observing is a separation of powers [issue],” Eastman said.
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?”
