The US Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a landmark case that could determine whether President Donald Trump's executive order restricting automatic birthright citizenship will stand. The courtroom was packed as justices from both ideological divides questioned whether the order—declaring children of parents in the country illegally or temporarily ineligible for citizenship—aligned with constitutional or federal law. Arguments lasted over two hours, with Trump himself present, the first sitting president to attend Supreme Court proceedings. His administration's top lawyer, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, faced sharp scepticism from justices including Ketanji Brown Jackson and John Roberts, who probed the legal and logistical feasibility of the policy. Justice Clarence Thomas raised doubts about the historical intent of the 14th Amendment, while Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared unconvinced by Sauer's reliance on a 1898 case to justify the order. Trump left shortly after arguments began for Cecillia Wang, who defended the long-standing practice of birthright citizenship. The case stems from a New Hampshire court's rejection of the restrictions, which have yet to take effect anywhere in the US. A ruling is expected by early summer.
When Trump writes that birthright citizenship is "about the BABIES OF SLAVES!" he is weaponising history to justify a policy that would strip millions of children of rights. The fact that he frames it this way—ignoring that the 14th Amendment was written to end Black exclusion—shows how far he will go to weaponise the Constitution for political gain. That matters because the Supreme Court now has to decide whether to let an executive rewrite citizenship law based on a president's personal grievances rather than legal precedent.