The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments on a major Trump administration executive order challenging the scope of birthright citizenship. The order denies automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the country if the mother is unlawfully present and the father lacks citizenship or legal permanent residency, or if the mother’s status is temporary, such as a tourist, student, or work visa, and the father similarly lacks lawful status.
So far, the court has shown skepticism toward the Trump administration's arguments in Trump v. Barbara, with both the Solicitor General and the ACLU lawyer facing tough questioning from the conservative majority, an exchange made even more remarkable by the president’s unprecedented attendance at the oral arguments.
While liberal justices are expected to oppose the Trump administration regardless, several conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, also voiced skepticism. Justices Barrett and Gorsuch raised concerns about the legal lines the administration sought to draw, though neither indicated outright opposition.
Early in oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts described Solicitor General Sauer’s arguments as “very quirky” and dismissed points about Chinese birth tourism, saying, “that has no impact on the legal analysis” of the case.
🚨 JUST IN: SCOTUS Justice John Roberts is VERY skeptical of President Trump ending birthright citizenship, repeatedly firing back at Trump's top lawyer
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 1, 2026
This would mean we require Amy Coney Barrett for a shot at 5-4.
SAUER: China has 500 birth tourism companies to bring people… pic.twitter.com/3nB3KtIBUd
Justice Kavanaugh delivered one of the sharper exchanges, pressing Sauer on a key textual discrepancy. He questioned why the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" differed from the Civil Rights Act of 1866's "not subject to any foreign power" if both aimed to codify identical limits on birthright citizenship, a key argument of the administration.
Justice Kavanaugh delivered one of the sharper exchanges in the birthright citizenship arguments, pressing Solicitor General Sauer on why the 14th Amendment used different language than the Civil Rights Act of 1866 if they were meant to say the same thing.
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) April 1, 2026
Sauer answered… pic.twitter.com/eumspvQIOR
Two other conservative justices pressed the Solicitor General with tough questions, expressing skepticism at times, though their ultimate stance in the case remains unclear.
Justice Gorsuch appeared skeptical of a central Trump administration argument regarding the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment. Solicitor General Sauer contended it requires parents to have lawful permanent residence in the U.S., excluding children of illegal immigrants or temporary visitors from automatic citizenship. Gorsuch also questioned whether the administration’s test could be applied to Native Americans.
GORSUCH PRESSES ON “DOMICILE” TEST
— Real America's Voice (RAV) (@RealAmVoice) April 1, 2026
Justice Gorsuch challenged @realjohnsauer's argument that citizenship depends on parents’ domicile, questioning whether illegal status would even matter under the original 1868 understanding of domicile and how courts would determine it today. pic.twitter.com/7raSIxRG4z
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the Trump administration’s push to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, pressing Sauer on the broader consequences of rewriting how the 14th Amendment is applied.
🚨 BREAKING: SCOTUS Justice Amy Coney Barrett now appears skeptical of striking down birthright citizenship for illegals
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 1, 2026
"I can imagine it being messy in some applications."
"What if you don't know who the parents are?"pic.twitter.com/wGsti2tivu
Justice Alito seemed receptive to the administration’s arguments, while Justice Thomas, as usual, remained silent, offering no hint of support or skepticism.
🚨 BREAKING: SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito says it PERFECTLY on birthright citizenship
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 1, 2026
He suggests that just because illegal aliens were not a problem at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted does NOT mean they shouldn't be addressed today
Nailed it.
ALITO: "Justice Scalia had… pic.twitter.com/0ha6nk8QDb
While the Justices’ questioning was intense, the ACLU’s lawyer faced just as fierce scrutiny in arguing against the administration.
🚨 HOLY SMOKES. Justice Sam Alito just sounded the alarm that unlimited birthright citizenship means a Chinese, Iranian or Russian foreigner can have a child in America, and that US citizen owes MILITARY ALLEGIANCE to a foreign adversary
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 1, 2026
"They have the duty of military service.… pic.twitter.com/01aAzfJJVh
Cecillia Wang arguing birthright citizenship should apply to people without "domicile" in the United States receives pushback from Justices Kagan and Alito referring to Justice Horace Gray's 1898 Supreme Court opinion.
— Thomas Hern (@ThomasMHern) April 1, 2026
"What are those 20 domicile words doing there?" pic.twitter.com/fpRyFzzDbb
The ACLU's entire argument boils down to "everyone born here is a citizen" because... reasons, and any change would cause the sky to fall.
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) April 1, 2026
This is the BEST that Dipsht Dems have to offer and it's PATHETIC. pic.twitter.com/TSuh0ZrH4g
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.
Early on, John Sauer faced a gulp moment when the Chief Justice referred to his examples of different classes to show the narrower meaning are "quirky." Sauer is doing, as usual, an excellent job...
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 1, 2026
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member