The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) heard more than two hours of oral arguments on April 1, 2026, in a closely watched case challenging the long‑standing interpretation of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, marking the first major immigration case to reach the Court on its merits since President Donald Trump began his second term.
At issue is whether the federal government may narrow the scope of birthright citizenship, which has traditionally granted US citizenship to most individuals born on US soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Background
Shortly after beginning his second term, President Trump issued an executive order directing federal agencies to reinterpret the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, asserting that birthright citizenship should not extend to children born in the United States to parents who are not US citizens or lawful permanent residents.
The executive order marked a sharp departure from long‑standing constitutional interpretation and was immediately challenged in federal court. Multiple lawsuits were filed by states, immigrant‑rights organizations — such as American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and individual plaintiffs, arguing that the order violated:
- The text and historical understanding of the 14th Amendment
- The Supreme Court’s 1898 precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed automatic citizenship for most individuals born on US soil
- Federal statutes enacted by Congress codifying birthright citizenship
Lower federal courts issued nationwide injunctions blocking the order from taking effect, concluding that the executive branch lacked authority to unilaterally redefine citizenship and that existing precedent was controlling. The administration appealed, and after conflicting rulings across appellate courts, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Oral Arguments Before the Court
During oral arguments, Solicitor General John Sauer urged the justices to fundamentally reinterpret the 14th Amendment, contending that the current understanding goes beyond what the amendment was intended to guarantee. Sauer argued that the Court should reconsider Wong Kim Ark as well as subsequent federal statutes codifying birthright citizenship.
Throughout the hearing, several justices questioned whether the government’s position was consistent with the Court’s precedents and constitutional structure.
Chief Justice John Roberts and multiple members of the Court pressed Sauer on the practical and legal consequences of overturning more than a century of settled law, including whether such a shift would create uncertainty about citizenship status for millions of people.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly focused on the strength of existing precedent. At one point, he noted that if the Court were to conclude that Wong Kim Ark clearly resolves the issue, the case could be decided narrowly and quickly.
Other justices raised concerns about inviting the Court to rewrite constitutional meaning in a way that would depart sharply from long‑established interpretations relied upon by Congress, federal agencies, and the public.
President Trump also attended the oral arguments in person, an unusual appearance by a sitting president at a Supreme Court hearing.
What’s Next
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision by June, in line with the end of the Court’s current term. Regardless of the outcome, the ruling is likely to have far‑reaching implications for immigration law, constitutional interpretation, and federal authority over citizenship.
Erickson Insights & Analysis
Erickson Immigration Group will continue to monitor developments and share updates as more news becomes available. Please contact your employer or EIG attorney if you have questions about anything we’re reporting above or if you have case-specific questions.