WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court of the United States signaled skepticism Wednesday toward an executive order by Donald Trump that would restrict birthright citizenship, as justices questioned its legality during oral arguments attended by the president.
Both conservative and liberal justices raised concerns about whether the policy complies with the Fourteenth Amendment and federal law. The order would deny citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily.
Trump, the first sitting president to attend arguments at the high court, observed proceedings for just over an hour, during which Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the administration’s position. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned how the policy would be implemented in practice, while Justice Clarence Thomas raised questions about the historical context of the amendment.
The court is reviewing an appeal of a lower court ruling from New Hampshire that blocked the policy. Multiple courts have halted the order, and it has not taken effect nationwide.
The executive order, signed on Trump’s first day of his second term, challenges the long-standing interpretation that the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, with limited exceptions. That interpretation is supported by the court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
The administration argues that children of noncitizens are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore are not entitled to citizenship. Attorneys opposing the order, including representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union, said the policy would significantly alter the definition of citizenship and affect more than 250,000 births annually.
A decision in the case is expected by early summer.
