The Supreme Court heard oral argument April 1 on Trump's birthright citizenship order; justices across ideological lines questioned the administration's domicile theory.
The Supreme Court held two hours of oral argument on April 1, 2026, on whether President Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship survives constitutional scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment [1]. The hearing marked the first time a sitting president attended oral argument before the Court [1]. Justices across the ideological spectrum pressed the government's position, with multiple members expressing open skepticism of the administration's core legal theory [1].
The case, *Trump v. Barbara*, centers on an executive order directing federal agencies to deny citizenship documentation to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders [1]. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued for the administration, advancing a "domicile" theory, which holds that "subject to the jurisdiction" in the Fourteenth Amendment requires a parent to be lawfully domiciled in the country at the time of birth [2]. Cecillia Wang argued in opposition, representing challengers coordinated with the ACLU [1]. The case arose from lower-court injunctions blocking the order, and the Court agreed to hear the merits after earlier emergency proceedings on the scope of nationwide injunctions [2].
The justices' questioning signaled significant resistance to the government's position. Chief Justice John Roberts described the historical examples Sauer cited in support of the domicile theory as "quirky," suggesting they carried limited precedential weight [1]. Justice Elena Kagan characterized the theory as "revisionist," invoking the Court's longstanding interpretation that the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on virtually all persons born on U.S. soil [1]. Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh also pressed the government on how its reading could be reconciled with more than a century of administrative practice and judicial precedent treating birthright citizenship as settled [1]. The government's theory, if adopted, would represent a departure from *United States v. Wong Kim Ark* (1898), the foundational precedent on the clause's scope [2].
The ruling's stakes extend well beyond the parties before the Court. The Court's interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" will govern citizenship eligibility for an estimated tens of thousands of births per month [1]. An adverse ruling for the government would leave the executive order permanently enjoined. A ruling for the administration would effectively overrule over a century of settled practice and could strip citizenship from a substantial class of U.S.-born individuals. A decision is expected by late June 2026 [1].