The Supreme Court has appeared sceptical of President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship, a sign the justices could strike down a key element of his immigration agenda.
A majority of the court seemed unconvinced the US should stop granting citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary US visitors. The administration has argued that limiting birthright citizenship is necessary to rein in illegal immigration. Opponents argue it would upend more than a century of precedent and unravel a cornerstone of US immigration law.
Trump attended the oral arguments on Wednesday, a rare move by a sitting president that underscored the case's high stakes. A defeat for the Republican president would mark a second straight setback at the high court, following the decision last month that invalidated his global tariffs. A win would help Trump deliver on his pledge to reshape America's immigration policies.
During more than two hours of arguments, US Solicitor General John Sauer sought to convince the justices that the 14th Amendment - which establishes birthright citizenship - and subsequent court rulings mistakenly expanded this right. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Trump's authority to exclude children of undocumented immigrants from receiving US citizenship, expressing concerns over the implications of such a broad stroke.
The oral arguments turned on a key clause in the 14th Amendment, stating that all people born or naturalized in the US are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Sauer argued that this should apply only to a limited group, including the children of foreign diplomats.
However, several justices indicated that this interpretation could fundamentally reshape the understanding of US birthright citizenship. Justice Elena Kagan highlighted that such a move would attack a legal tradition dating back to English common law.
With the court expected to decide by June, this case marks the first major immigration ruling under the Trump administration's second term, amidst broader attempts to enforce stricter immigration policies. The outcome could either reinforce or dismantle long-standing precedents in American democracy and citizenship.
A majority of the court seemed unconvinced the US should stop granting citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary US visitors. The administration has argued that limiting birthright citizenship is necessary to rein in illegal immigration. Opponents argue it would upend more than a century of precedent and unravel a cornerstone of US immigration law.
Trump attended the oral arguments on Wednesday, a rare move by a sitting president that underscored the case's high stakes. A defeat for the Republican president would mark a second straight setback at the high court, following the decision last month that invalidated his global tariffs. A win would help Trump deliver on his pledge to reshape America's immigration policies.
During more than two hours of arguments, US Solicitor General John Sauer sought to convince the justices that the 14th Amendment - which establishes birthright citizenship - and subsequent court rulings mistakenly expanded this right. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Trump's authority to exclude children of undocumented immigrants from receiving US citizenship, expressing concerns over the implications of such a broad stroke.
The oral arguments turned on a key clause in the 14th Amendment, stating that all people born or naturalized in the US are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Sauer argued that this should apply only to a limited group, including the children of foreign diplomats.
However, several justices indicated that this interpretation could fundamentally reshape the understanding of US birthright citizenship. Justice Elena Kagan highlighted that such a move would attack a legal tradition dating back to English common law.
With the court expected to decide by June, this case marks the first major immigration ruling under the Trump administration's second term, amidst broader attempts to enforce stricter immigration policies. The outcome could either reinforce or dismantle long-standing precedents in American democracy and citizenship.
