nside Supreme Court: How Trump heard birthright citizenship arguments

Fox News ^ | 4/1/2026 | Eric Marc, Shannon Bream, Bill Mears

[sopo]

President Donald Trump made an extraordinary appearance Wednesday for Supreme Court arguments — an American presidential first — as his administration seeks to unwind birthright citizenship during two hours of dramatic oral arguments.

The Supreme Court voiced strong pushback against efforts to restrict who can be called an American, a politically divisive case over automatic citizenship for some children born in the United States to foreign nationals.

Trump, wearing a red tie and dark suit, entered the courtroom around nine minutes before the court gaveled into session and did not speak during the session, per court rules....

Trump heard a majority of justices taking turns expressing varying levels of skepticism at the administration's claim that the citizenship "privilege" has been historically abused and wrongly granted to those whose mother gave birth while in the country illegally or temporarily.

At issue is the executive order the president signed on his first day back in office to redefine birthright citizenship, part of a broader crackdown on immigration that has led to increased deportations and decreased admittance of refugees and asylum seekers at the border....

Roberts, appointed by Republican George W. Bush, questioned the government's legal position when it came to the 14th Amendment's limited exceptions to citizenship.

"The examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky," Roberts said. "You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships — and then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens who are here in the country.

"I'm not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny, and sort of idiosyncratic, examples."

---

TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthright

[sopo]

quirky? How about Chicoms sending women to US to give birth, returnibg to China, children claiming voting rights? Did anyone who listened hear that example, supposedly 1m over the years, was the argument made or did Roberts selectively omit that?

[dpetty121263]

The Gov Lawyer had some strange arguments... Was he the best they could do?

[Regulator]

The ACLU attorney is an Anchor Baby herself: both parents here on Student Visas in 1971.

Did her father register for the draft? Would he have objected by saying he was a Chinese citizen only here temporarily?

Obviously he didn’t register and most certainly would have asserted his Chineseness in resisting the draft. Meaning, he ain’t a citizen and wouldn’t have agreed that he was “subject to the jurisdiction”.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

quirky? How about Chicoms sending women to US to give birth, returning to China, children claiming voting rights? Did anyone who listened hear that example, supposedly 1m over the years, was the argument made or did Roberts selectively omit that?

I hate to say it, but that is more of a policy-based argument than a legal one. My guess is that a majority of the justices quite rightly believe that birthright citizenship is a really bad idea. The problem is that it isn't the role of the Court to make decisions based on the wisdom of the policy.

[Fireone]

” then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens”
Do none of these robed morons (not you, Clarence) see the word “Illegal” in that statement?
Acts committed during the commission of a crime, are illegal acts.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

The Gov Lawyer had some strange arguments... Was he the best they could do?

I actually think he did as good a job as could be expected under the circumstances. The arguments he had to make may seem strange because he knew the arguments that seem good to laypeople were not legally valid.

[escapefromboston]

Besides hurting someone’s feelings what argument does the pro birth right citizenship side even have ? The law was created for the freed slaves , anything else is really stretching the spirit of the law.

[pepsi_junkie]

The law was created for the freed slaves , anything else is really stretching the spirit of the law.

Yes but for my money, SCOTUS will not strip citizenship away from tons of people so they will come up with a way to hand wave it into being justifiable no matter what. Roberts sure isn't going to lobby for anything other than that, and then it's settled law, forever, because SCOTUS will make it so.

[FamiliarFace]

Listening to Roberts, I have the feeling that it will be 5-4 or 6-3, with Trump on the losing side of this ruling.

[dpetty121263]

Well this really was about Policy more than Law and I am sure he did the best he could with what he had to work with, to bad we have a do nothing Congress.

[thegagline]

I hate to say it, but that is more of a policy-based argument than a legal one. My guess is that a majority of the justices quite rightly believe that birthright citizenship is a really bad idea. The problem is that it isn't the role of the Court to make decisions based on the wisdom of the policy.

⬆️This is the best post of the day ⬆️

[Regulator]

Oh please.

The Amicus Curiae brief by Eastman and Meese in Hamdi spells out much of what you call “laymans” arguments.

https://www.claremont.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CCJ-Amicus_Hamdi-v_-Rumsfeld1-1.pdf

Feel free to critique. Sauer brought some of it up tangentially.

PS - The ACLU attorney is an Anchor Baby. Born to parents in Oregon on student visas. Question 1: does she also have or is eligible for a Chinese passport? Question 2: did her father register for the draft, and would he have freely allowed himself to be drafted? I had a few friends drafted around that time...some ended up in the jungle shooting people who were supported by Wang’s relatives back home.

So are we really obliged to accept her as “one of us”?

[Tell It Right]

Considering the justices on the court, perhaps two types of arguments are needed to win: a legal argument and a political hype one.

The political hype argument should have been that the left's reinterpretation of Amendment 14 undermines the status of citizenship uniquely awarded to black former slaves. Only that type of argument has a chance at winning over the left and center justices.

[escapefromboston]

The decision for the Supreme Court has already been made , replacing Americans with 3rd worlders has been the plan for decades and no one is going to be allowed to stop that.

[moviefan8]

The amendment should have specified it was for slaves. It did not. This was an oversight.

Persons born here are citizens.

[Orosius]

The Democrats are determined to fundamentally transform the United States into a Marxist dictatorship supported by a dependent class of illegal alien serfs, so there’s that.

[plain talk]

“”The examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” Roberts said. “You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships — and then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens who are here in the country. “I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny, and sort of idiosyncratic, examples.””

I do! What a truly stupid remark. And the examples flew right over his head!

Children of ambassadors born here are more limited in number. one-offs. somewhat rare.

On the other hand illegal aliens have been pouring across in huge numbers aided by democrats.

[Regulator]

They’re currently winning!

Percentage of US Births to Foreign Born Mothers:
1980: 6.5%
1990: 10.3%
2000: 15.8%
2010: 18.5%
2020: 22.6%
2025: 23.5% projected

[Regulator]

“somewhat rare”

Oh No. It’s perfectly rational that Jacob Howard wanted to amend the Constitution to take care of what, 20 or 30 people per year born to the legations of other countries?

Sure he did.

[Bob Wills is still the king]

Here’s the line that tips their hand:

“It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution”

— Chief Justice John Roberts