Read the full article on KETV 7
President Donald Trump made history Wednesday by becoming the first sitting president to attend Supreme Court arguments as the justices weighed whether his executive order to end birthright citizenship holds up.Arguments presented before the Supreme Court focused on the 14th Amendment, which supporters said grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. But the Trump administration argued the law has been misinterpreted.The administration’s lawyer argued that the law excluded children whose parents are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily by examining the first sentence stated in the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…””‘Subject to the jurisdiction’ means owing direct and immediate allegiance,” John Sauer, solicitor general, said in court Wednesday. “The clause thus does not extend citizenship to the children of temporary visa holders or illegal aliens. Unlike the newly freed slaves, those visitors lack direct and immediate allegiance to the United States.”If the president’s order is upheld, the restrictions would not only target undocumented immigrants but also more than a quarter million babies born in the U.S. each year, as well as students and people with green cards, according to the Migration Policy Institute.Hearst Television’s Get The Facts Data Team found that more than 30 countries currently allow birthright citizenship, just like the U.S.That argument raised questions from some justices, who wondered if the president’s executive order would upend decades of precedent.”You obviously put a lot of weight on the subject to ‘the jurisdiction thereof,'” Chief Justice John Roberts said in reply to Sauer’s arguments. “But, the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky.”Lawyers for the respondents in the case warned against the president’s order, arguing the 14th Amendment was designed to protect citizenship, not restrict it.”That rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of the reach of any government official to destroy,” Cecillia Wang, ACLU’s legal director, said. “Virtually everyone born on U.S. soil is subject to its jurisdiction and is a citizen.”Trump’s visit to the Supreme Court broke over 200 years of precedent. Other presidents have dealt directly with the court, but not while in office. In total, the president spent just over an hour in the courtroom, heard arguments from the solicitor general, then left shortly after Wang started her presentation.Following his visit, Trump weighed in with a short post online. “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow “Birthright” Citizenship!” his Truth Social post read. While unprecedented, legal experts said the president’s attendance is not subject to law or regulation; it just hasn’t been customary for a sitting president to attend such arguments. One expert suggested that the president’s presence demonstrated how important the case is to him, but likely wouldn’t help the chances of his administration’s case.A ruling is expected by early summer.Watch the Washington News Bureau’s latest coverage:
President Donald Trump made history Wednesday by becoming the first sitting president to attend Supreme Court arguments as the justices weighed whether his executive order to end birthright citizenship holds up.
Arguments presented before the Supreme Court focused on the 14th Amendment, which supporters said grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.
Advertisement
But the Trump administration argued the law has been misinterpreted.
The administration’s lawyer argued that the law excluded children whose parents are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily by examining the first sentence stated in the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”
“‘Subject to the jurisdiction’ means owing direct and immediate allegiance,” John Sauer, solicitor general, said in court Wednesday. “The clause thus does not extend citizenship to the children of temporary visa holders or illegal aliens. Unlike the newly freed slaves, those visitors lack direct and immediate allegiance to the United States.”
If the president’s order is upheld, the restrictions would not only target undocumented immigrants but also more than a quarter million babies born in the U.S. each year, as well as students and people with green cards, according to the Migration Policy Institute.
Hearst Television’s Get The Facts Data Team found that more than 30 countries currently allow birthright citizenship, just like the U.S.
That argument raised questions from some justices, who wondered if the president’s executive order would upend decades of precedent.
“You obviously put a lot of weight on the subject to ‘the jurisdiction thereof,'” Chief Justice John Roberts said in reply to Sauer’s arguments. “But, the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky.”
Lawyers for the respondents in the case warned against the president’s order, arguing the 14th Amendment was designed to protect citizenship, not restrict it.
“That rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of the reach of any government official to destroy,” Cecillia Wang, ACLU’s legal director, said. “Virtually everyone born on U.S. soil is subject to its jurisdiction and is a citizen.”
Trump’s visit to the Supreme Court broke over 200 years of precedent. Other presidents have dealt directly with the court, but not while in office.
In total, the president spent just over an hour in the courtroom, heard arguments from the solicitor general, then left shortly after Wang started her presentation.
Following his visit, Trump weighed in with a short post online. “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow “Birthright” Citizenship!” his Truth Social post read.
While unprecedented, legal experts said the president’s attendance is not subject to law or regulation; it just hasn’t been customary for a sitting president to attend such arguments.
One expert suggested that the president’s presence demonstrated how important the case is to him, but likely wouldn’t help the chances of his administration’s case.
A ruling is expected by early summer.
Watch the Washington News Bureau’s latest coverage:
