The Supreme Court heard arguments April 1 in Trump v. Barbara, with Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch all challenging the administration's novel birthright citizenship theory.
The Supreme Court heard two hours of oral arguments on April 1 in *Trump v. Barbara*, a constitutional challenge to President Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents without lawful immigration status or permanent residence [1]. The administration, through Solicitor General D. John Sauer, advanced a "domicile" theory, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause extends only to children of parents who are lawfully domiciled in the country [3]. The Court's questioning indicated substantial resistance to that position across ideological lines [2].
The case is a nationwide class action brought by the ACLU on behalf of affected families, consolidated with parallel state-court challenges [1]. It reached the Court after lower federal courts had blocked the executive order, and the justices agreed to hear the matter on an expedited basis [2]. Trump attended the argument in person, a historically uncommon step for a sitting president, though he departed before ACLU lead counsel Cecillia Wang argued for the challengers [1].
Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch each pressed Sauer on the administration's textual reading of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" [2]. Roberts observed that the constitutional text itself has not changed even as the administration proposes a novel interpretive framework, remarking that the Constitution remains constant regardless of shifting policy environments [1]. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh similarly pressed whether the domicile theory was consistent with the Court's existing citizenship precedents [2]. Post-argument analysis identified the precise meaning of "domicile" as the pivotal doctrinal question, noting that the term carries distinct definitions across immigration law, common law, and constitutional interpretation, and that the Court's ultimate resolution may turn on which definition it applies [3].
A ruling against the administration on the domicile theory would mark the Court's first authoritative interpretation of Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship since *United States v. Wong Kim Ark* in 1898, settling longstanding ambiguity in the constitutional text [3]. The decision would also constrain executive power to reshape citizenship policy through unilateral action rather than legislation [2]. The Court is expected to issue its opinion by late June 2026 [1].