The Gavel

5 things to watch as Supreme Court weighs birthright citizenship

by Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld - 04/01/26 8:00 AM ET

NOW PLAYING

Thank you for signing up!

Subscribe to more newsletters here

The latest in politics and policy.

Direct to your inbox.

Keep reading for our interview with an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney who is the challengers’ counsel of record.

President Trump is headed to Supreme Court this morning to see up close when his bid to end birthright citizenship falls into the justices’ hands.

The face-to-face moment will make Trump the first known sitting president to attend an oral argument.

It raises the stakes in a moment when the Supreme Court was already preparing for one of its most direct confrontations yet with Trump on his second-term agenda, after months of emergency rulings that have largely sided with the president.

The justices will weigh whether Trump’s Day 1 executive order clamping down on the long-held principle of birthright citizenship is legally sound.

The directive restricts birthright citizenship for children who don’t have at least one parent with citizenship or permanent legal status.

Its consequences, immigration advocates warn, could be dire. But the Trump administration says bestowing citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil incentivizes illegal immigration and that the Constitution has, for decades, been misread.

Here are five things to watch out for during the arguments.

1. The impact of Trump’s attendance

Trump’s attendance has become a last-minute wildcard for the argument.

“And I’m going,” the president said in the Oval Office on Tuesday when asked about the case.

“I think so, I do believe,” Trump said, “because I have listened to this argument for so long.”

His official White House schedule has him at the Supreme Court for the 10 a.m. arguments.

It’s common for plaintiffs or even sometimes administration officials to sit in for an argument. But they are often sat in the back of the room, and it’s not always clear the justices realize they are there.

The justices will easily recognize Trump, of course, not to mention his accompanying Secret Service detail.

The unprecedented moment comes as Chief Justice John Roberts attempts to keep the court above the political fray, even as the president steps up his criticisms.

Last week, Roberts during a public talk condemned “dangerous” personal attacks on judges, saying they have “got to stop.” The chief did not name Trump, but the comment came after the president called for Republican lawmakers to pass a crime bill cracking down on “rogue judges,” whom he derided as “criminals.”

Trump in particular has intensified attacks against the high court recently, including some of his own appointees. The president remains enraged by the court’s tariffs decision, and he is now turning his attention to the birthright citizenship battle.

On Monday, Trump wrote on Truth Social that birthright citizenship is “not about rich people from China,” but instead, the “babies of slaves.” He blamed courts for interpreting the law as anything otherwise, saying “dumb judges and justices will not a great country make.”

“The World is getting rich selling citizenships to our Country, while at the same time laughing at how STUPID our U.S. Court System has become (TARIFFS!),” Trump wrote.

Trump has been in the Supreme Court twice before, for the investiture ceremonies of two of his court nominees.

But the president has long expressed a desire to attend oral arguments involving him. He wanted to go to the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity arguments, but he was on criminal trial in New York at the time and the judge there didn’t let him.

And when tariffs came before the court earlier this year, Trump floated going before opting against it.

Now, he is poised to finally make his appearance.

2. How broadly the justices interpret Wong Kim Ark

An 1898 Supreme Court precedent, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, will loom large. Watch if the justices think Trump’s order complies with it. If they do, that’s a good sign for the president.

In that decision, the court ruled Wong Kim Ark was a citizen. He was born in San Francisco to Chinese citizens.

More than 125 years later, the challengers to Trump’s executive order say that precedent is the start and end of their case.

The liberal justices already signaled sympathy last year, when the case came to them to decide if judges could issue nationwide injunctions.

“As far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor sai