Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical on Wednesday of the Trump administration’s argument that the 14th Amendment does not extend birthright citizenship to the children of noncitizen parents.
The high court heard oral arguments on April 1 in Trump v. Barbara, a landmark case that will determine whether President Donald Trump can essentially redefine who is considered an American by restricting which babies born on U.S. soil have the right to citizenship.
The bulk of the Trump administration’s argument centered on whether the children of noncitizen or temporary-status immigrants have an allegiance to the United States, and whether they can claim a “permanent domicile and residence” inside the country.
Multiple justices raised questions about how the administration defines “domicile” and the logistics of how that definition might be applied if the executive order were to go into effect. Notably, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett — three of the six justices who make up the court’s conservative majority — appeared unmoved.
“The examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” Roberts said.
Barrett questioned how the administration’s argument might apply to the children of people trafficked illegally into the country. All the while, Trump listened in, becoming the first president in history to attend a Supreme Court argument.
In its challenge to the administration, Cecillia Wang, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that establishing a permanent domicile was not the focus of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. The ACLU is representing a group of parents and children who would be affected by Trump’s order.
“The 14th Amendment’s fixed bright line rule has contributed to the growth and thriving of our nation. It comes from text and history. It is workable and it prevents manipulation,” Wang told the justices.
She added: “The executive order fails on all those counts; swaths of American laws would be rendered senseless. Thousands of American babies will immediately lose their citizenship, and if you credit the government’s theory, the citizenship of millions of Americans past, present and future could be called into question.”
On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order denying birthright citizenship to children born to immigrants without legal status and temporary visitors from foreign countries. The order ushered in some of the most aggressive immigration enforcement in U.S. history, one that has had a notable impact on immigrant families.
In a number of lawsuits, civil rights and immigrant advocacy organizations, as well as four states, argued that the order violates the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause and longstanding legal precedent that has upheld birthright citizenship for the children of noncitizens. A federal judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the administration’s ability to enforce the order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”
The Trump administration filed an emergency petition last year asking the Supreme Court to limit federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, also known as “universal” injunctions. In June 2025, the court’s conservative majority weakened the power of lower courts to issue injunctions that block the implementation of White House policies nationwide.
The ACLU argues the scope of birthright citizenship, and its inclusion of the children of noncitizen parents, was affirmed by the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which ruled in favor of a man born in California to Chinese parents. If the Trump administration seeks to overturn the Ark ruling, the ACLU states, then it has not provided enough evidence to justify its interpretation of the citizenship clause.
Many legal experts contend that birthright citizenship is settled law, strengthened by years of prior court rulings. But in recent years, the court’s conservative majority has overruled long-standing legal precedent, such as overturning federal abortion protections and sharply limiting the consideration of race in college admissions.
Narrowing the scope of birthright citizenship threatens to expand the number of people living in the country without authorization for generations. An estimated 2.7 million additional people would be unauthorized by 2045, and 5.4 million additional people by 2075, according to projections published by the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University.
During Wednesday’s oral arguments, the three liberal women justices pressed the administration on how enforcing the order would work in practice.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether the administration seeks to retroactively “unnaturalize” people born to noncitizen parents but have already secured birthright citizenship. The administration responded that they do not intend to take retroactive action.
“Now you say your rule turns on whether the person intended to stay in the United States,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said. “Are we bringing pregnant women in for depositions?”