SCOTUS : Birthright U.S Citizenship Constitutionally Enumerated - President Trump Contests - Oral Arguments Begin April, 2026

sear

Administrator
Staff member

The key arguments in the birthright citizenship case​

By Amy Howe / on Mar 27, 2026
On April 1, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in one of the highest-profile cases of the 2025-26 term – and indeed, one of the biggest cases in several years. Trump v. Barbara is a challenge to President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. All of the lower courts that have weighed in so far have ruled that the order is unconstitutional, but the Trump administration contends that those rulings – as well as the longstanding view that virtually everyone born in the United States is entitled to U.S. citizenship – are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution.

A "fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution"?

ARTICLE#14: Ratified July 9, 1868
SECTION1. 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.
 
"We're in a new world now," Sauer said, noting that "some 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a U.S. citizen."
"It's a new world, but it's the same constitution," Roberts said in response.
 
1775068932762.png

BREAKING: Trump STORMS OUT of Supreme Court after his own Justices tear apart his birthright citizenship case.

Donald Trump showed up to the Supreme Court on Wednesday to intimidate nine justices into stripping citizenship from 200,000 American-born babies a year. He left humiliated, with his motorcade speeding away down Independence Avenue before the other side had even finished arguing.

Trump made the unprecedented decision to personally attend oral arguments in his birthright citizenship case — the first sitting president in American history to do so. He was escorted in ten minutes early and seated in the front row, presumably to send a message. The message the justices sent back wasn’t exactly what the adamantly anti-immigrant crusader had in mind.

Within 90 minutes, multiple members of the court's own conservative supermajority — justices Trump either appointed or championed — were openly dismantling his administration's arguments.

Chief Justice John Roberts called a key part of the government's position "quirky." Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett both signaled serious skepticism. And when Trump's solicitor general, D. John Sauer, tried to argue that modern realities like "birth tourism" justified rewriting 157 years of constitutional interpretation, Roberts delivered the most perfectly devastating response of the entire term: "Well, it's a new world. It's the same Constitution."

Trump didn't wait around to hear more. His motorcade was spotted zipping away from the Supreme Court at 11:25 a.m., while the challengers' lawyer was still being questioned. The man who came to project dominance fled before the other team even got to speak.

Here's what was actually at stake in that courtroom. Trump's executive order — signed on day one of his return to power — would eliminate automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders.

It has never gone into effect, blocked by courts from the moment it was signed. If ultimately upheld, it would strip citizenship from approximately 200,000 babies born every year. By 2050, according to a new study, it would create 6.4 million U.S.-born children with no legal status — stateless in the only country
they have ever known. It would disproportionately affect Hispanic and Asian families. It would even potentially leave abandoned infants with no citizenship anywhere on earth.

All of this to undo the 14th Amendment — ratified in 1868 specifically to guarantee that America would never again create a permanent underclass of people born on its soil with no claim to its protections.

The Constitution has answered this question for 157 years. On Wednesday, even Trump's own justices seemed to know it. While we’ll have to wait for an official ruling to see what the Justices ultimately decide in this particular challenge, Trump’s hasty retreat from the Court proceedings presages what the expected decision will be — and it’s not what the Racist-in-Chief was intimidating the Justices for.

Trump came to the Supreme Court to make history. He made it — just not the kind he was hoping for.

Please like and share this post if you believe every child born in America is an American, no matter what Donald Trump says.
 
1775069299227.png

BREAKING: Trump’s birthright citizenship scheme implodes after lawyer’s JAW-DROPPING courtroom blunder about Native Americans.

Donald Trump sent his top lawyer to the Supreme Court to argue that birthright citizenship should be stripped from hundreds of thousands of American-born babies. It went so badly that his own solicitor general nearly argued Native Americans aren't citizens either — and had to be rescued by a Trump-appointed justice.

In one of the most jaw-dropping exchanges of Wednesday's already disastrous hearing, Justice Neil Gorsuch — appointed by Trump himself — pressed Solicitor General D. John Sauer on the logical consequences of the administration's own legal theory. The exchange was as stunning as it was revealing.

Gorsuch asked a simple question: under the administration's proposed test for birthright citizenship, are Native Americans born today automatically citizens?

Sauer's answer was a slow-motion legal train wreck. First, he said yes — obviously. Then Gorsuch pushed him to set aside the statutes granting Native Americans citizenship and answer based purely on the administration's own constitutional theory. Sauer's answer changed: "No." Under the 1868 congressional debates, he explained, children of tribal Indians were not considered birthright citizens.

The courtroom went quiet.

Gorsuch pressed harder. But under your test — the domicile test you want this court to adopt today — are tribal Native Americans born on U.S. soil birthright citizens?

Sauer fumbled. "I think so... I have to think that through, but that's my reaction."

"I'll take the yes," Gorsuch replied — essentially throwing the solicitor general a life preserver before he could drown any further.

Let's be absolutely clear about what just happened. The Trump administration walked into the highest court in the land with a legal theory so sweeping, so poorly thought through, that when a justice applied it logically, the government's own lawyer couldn't guarantee that Native Americans — people whose nations existed on this continent thousands of years before the United States did — would qualify as birthright citizens.

This is the constitutional chaos that Trump's executive order invites. Once you start unraveling the 14th Amendment's guarantee that all persons born on American soil are citizens, there is no clean stopping point. The administration's own lawyer proved that in real time, in front of the entire nation, while Trump was still in the building — before he turned tail and fled.

The 14th Amendment was written to be clear precisely because America had already lived through the horror of deciding that some people born here weren't really citizens. The Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship for 157 years.

And Trump's lawyer just demonstrated, in spectacular fashion, exactly why those 157 years of precedent exist.

Please like and share this post if you believe the Constitution means what it says — for everyone born on American soil.
 
BREAKING: Trump’s birthright citizenship scheme implodes after lawyer’s JAW-DROPPING courtroom blunder about Native Americans.

Donald Trump sent his top lawyer to the Supreme Court to argue that birthright citizenship should be stripped from hundreds of thousands of American-born babies. It went so badly that his own solicitor general nearly argued Native Americans aren't citizens either — and had to be rescued by a Trump-appointed justice.

In one of the most jaw-dropping exchanges of Wednesday's already disastrous hearing, Justice Neil Gorsuch — appointed by Trump himself — pressed Solicitor General D. John Sauer on the logical consequences of the administration's own legal theory. The exchange was as stunning as it was revealing.

Gorsuch asked a simple question: under the administration's proposed test for birthright citizenship, are Native Americans born today automatically citizens?" S2 #4
This is comedy script the equal of broadcast farce I've seen.
Trump's confluence of adversities including age, dermatology apace, comical sentence structure, the U.S. economy / consumer $prices, and the unnecessary War Trump dragged U.S. into.

This confluence produces a synergy to which Trump grows progressively more vulnerable. Trump careens toward a brick wall. He'll never undo his 80th birthday.
Trump has already made his contempt for U.S. military service clear.
In this exceptional case it's not certain presidential succession will proceed as the Constitution instructs.
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE # 25: Ratified February 10, 1967
SECTION 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
SECTION 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. *

When he purged the Pentagon Trump "retired" an extensive reservoir of our national defense capability [1] and political conscience. Many of them would preside more responsibly, and their schedule is open.
Speaker Johnson didn't want to be speaker, tried to avoid it, but wasn't allowed. And now that Johnson has tasted power, he's open-minded about more. That would reassure his political puppet-masters.
Or president MTG ? Not sure what they'll do with VP Vance.

Even if those that invoke Art25 try to make it look as little like a palace coup d'état as they can, there will still be political diversity and power-contest among some battle-tested competitors.
They may even cite Jan.6 as justification for the Trump bump.

This is not a prediction. To the contrary, it's insight Trump may need to keep his 1600 Penn Ave address for a few more years. Is there a better way to inform him than posting this warning to him on his Internet? Isn't that how he's been communicating to me / U.S. ? Trump is a prolific twitter. It's 6 o'clock Don. Watch it.

[1] Many of them have been to war. As stalwart human beings they would like to spare their countrymen the ordeal of mortal combat, even if it means not slaughtering strangers. Many in the Pentagon were peace-lovers, perhaps seemingly a contradiction to the warrior profession. Perhaps not. I suspect Trumps address as commander in chief was intended to purify his coterie, as North Korea's Kim Jong Un, and Russia's Vlad Putin have.


* ARTICLE # 25: Ratified February 10, 1967
SECTION 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

SECTION 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

SECTION 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

SECTION 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting President.
Thereafter,when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. There upon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or,if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
 
* ARTICLE # 25: Ratified February 10, 1967
SECTION 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Only thing is, replacing Trump with Vance is like shitting your pants and changing your shirt as a result.
 
Back
Top