WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court’s oral arguments in the birthright citizenship case Trump v. Barbara revealed deep skepticism toward the Trump administration’s attempt to restrict automatic citizenship, according to legal scholars Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar, whose post-argument analysis focused on the justices’ repeated reliance on constitutional text, history and precedent.
The case stems from Executive Order 14160, signed by President Donald Trump in 2025, which would deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States if their parents lack U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent residency. Challengers argue the order conflicts directly with the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the class-action lawsuit in July 2025 seeking to block enforcement of the order. During arguments on April 1, 2026, Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the administration, while attorney Cecillia Wang argued for the challengers.
In their review on SCOTUSblog’s “Brothers in Law,” the Amars, with Vikram Amar playing a central role in evaluating the justices’ constitutional reasoning, said the questioning largely tracked concerns they had raised previously about the administration’s reading of the Citizenship Clause. They highlighted how multiple justices pressed Sauer on whether modern policy concerns could override the original meaning of the amendment.
Chief Justice John Roberts sharply questioned one of the administration’s key rationales — so-called birth tourism. When Sauer argued the nation was facing new circumstances, Roberts responded, “Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” a line the Amars viewed as reinforcing that changing policy debates do not alter constitutional commands.
Justice Clarence Thomas asked Sauer to address the Citizenship Clause in light of Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 ruling that denied citizenship to enslaved people and helped spur adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Amars criticized Sauer’s response, particularly his argument that the word “reside” applies only to state citizenship and not national citizenship, calling the reasoning unpersuasive.
Justice Samuel Alito questioned Wang about differences between the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Wang said the two provisions carry essentially the same meaning, though the Amars noted that answer opened the door to further scrutiny over whether the court should instead rely on the statutory language. Later, Justice Brett Kavanaugh confirmed that the two citizenship tests are not identical, allowing for a more distinct analysis of each provision.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed to United States ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, in which the court recognized that a child born in the United States was “of course, an American citizen by birth,” despite the parents’ immigration status. The Amars said that exchange underscored the weight of historical precedent favoring birthright citizenship.
Justice Elena Kagan was even more direct, telling Sauer, “The text of the clause, I think, does not support you.” Justice Neil Gorsuch similarly focused on the language of the amendment, observing that it centers on the child born in the United States rather than the immigration status of the parents.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised practical concerns with the administration’s approach, questioning how officials could determine citizenship at birth if they first had to assess a parent’s intent to remain in the country. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Sauer on why “parental allegiance” should matter when that phrase appears nowhere in the amendment.
The Amars concluded that Sauer “had no good answer in any of his formal filings, and he had no good answer at oral argument.” Their overall assessment, driven in significant part by Vikram Amar’s close reading of the constitutional issues, was that many justices appeared unwilling to abandon longstanding precedent tying citizenship to place of birth rather than parental status.
Although the court has not yet ruled, the tenor of the questioning suggested substantial resistance to the administration’s effort to rewrite one of the Constitution’s clearest guarantees.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
