President Donald Trump did not sit for Cecillia Wang’s entire argument in the Supreme Court on Wednesday. As the ACLU legal director spoke in favor of birthright citizenship, the 79-year-old left the courtroom. This comes after Trump became the first sitting US president to attend oral arguments in the chamber. He could be seen leaving with his motorcade to the White House.
Supreme Court raises concerns
This comes as the apex court appeared doubtful of the Trump admin’s restrictions on birthright citizenship. The case centers on an executive order signed on the first day of Trump’s second term, which seeks to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are either undocumented or in the country temporarily. The move is part of a broader immigration crackdown by the administration and could impact more than a quarter of a million births annually, according to estimates from the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University.
During oral arguments on Wednesday, both conservative and liberal justices pressed the administration on the legal and practical implications of the policy. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns about how such a rule would even be enforced in real time, asking, “Is this happening in the delivery room?”
Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas appeared more open to the administration’s position, questioning the historical scope of the 14th Amendment: “How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration?”
Wong Kim Ark case
The case comes before the court after multiple lower courts, including one in New Hampshire, blocked the order from taking effect nationwide. Those rulings relied heavily on long-standing precedent, particularly the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that children born on US soil are citizens regardless of their parents’ nationality.
At the heart of the dispute is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” While historically applied broadly, Trump’s administration argues that children of noncitizens are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Sauer urged the court to revisit what he described as flawed assumptions underpinning decades of legal interpretation, writing that the justices should correct “long-enduring misconceptions about the Constitution’s meaning.”
Opponents of the policy, however, warn that the administration is attempting an unprecedented redefinition of citizenship. “We have the president of the United States trying to radically reinterpret the definition of American citizenship,” said Wang.
The policy’s reach extends beyond undocumented immigrants. It would also affect children born to individuals legally present in the country, including students and green card applicants, further broadening its impact.
(With AP inputs)
