The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in Trump v. Barbara, the administration's challenge to birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. The reception was cold [1].

Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed the government's lawyer on the 14th Amendment's text, noting it was enacted specifically to define citizenship broadly after the Civil War [2]. Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the administration's "domicile-driven" framework, asking how birth status could depend on information about parents that may be unknowable at the time of birth [3]. These are Trump appointees. Their skepticism was the story.

SCOTUSblog's analysis concluded that "the court appears likely to side against Trump on birthright citizenship," a framing echoed by NPR and NBC News [1][4]. The ACLU, which argued in opposition, published live coverage describing the justices' questions as "probing and appropriately skeptical" [5]. Politico noted that Trump made the unprecedented decision to personally attend the oral arguments -- the first sitting president in American history to do so in his own case [6].

The executive order, signed in January 2025, attempted to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented parents and those with temporary immigration status. Lower courts blocked it immediately. The question before the court is whether the 14th Amendment means what it says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens."

A ruling is expected by June. The text has not changed since 1868.

-- Anna Weber, Washington