On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments over the legality and constitutionality of Trump’s January 20, 2025 executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship in the United States.
Trump appointed three of the nine justices on the court, and, in a pair of rulings in 2024, the court made Trump’s second term possible — first by preventing states from enforcing the Insurrection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, keeping Trump on the ballot, and second by dramatically expanding the scope of presidential criminal immunity, delaying Trump’s criminal trials beyond his re-election.
Now, days after millions of people came out across the nation in protest of this man and his presidency, the Trump administration will be asking the justices to uphold Trump’s executive order as “compl[ying] on its face with“ the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, as well as federal law implementing the same.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” the amendment states.
No court has sided with the Trump administration on that question thus far. No district court, no appeals court, no judicial body. In Trump’s first year back, the conservative justices blocked “universal injunctions” in cases about the birthright citizenship executive order, but the opinion from Justice Amy Coney Barrett made clear the decision was only about the universal injunction remedy — not the merits of Trump’s order. When cases went back down, and a new case was filed, courts again found paths to keep the order broadly blocked — through multi-state litigation or class-action litigation.
That should not change when the Supreme Court rules — likely this June — but we will get a picture of where things stand when the justices take the bench to consider Trump v. Barbara, the new case filed after the universal injunction decision, on Wednesday.
Ultimately, this should not be a close case. As American Immigration Council’s Aaron Reichlin-Melnick told Law Dork on March 27, “My hope is that what we hear is that it’s going to be at minimum 7-2, and that we don’t lose any further justices than that.“ Although his view is one I share, it does reflect the alarming reality that Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito are more willing to align with Trump — and Miller — in their ideological project than anyone else on the court, even more so than the three Trump appointees.
Whether they do so here — and whether they have any other support — will be front and center on Wednesday. Coming out of Wednesday, Trump — and the rest of us — will have a better idea of what people remain able and willing to stand up against Trump’s anti-immigrant authoritarian project and whether those people include a strong majority of the Supreme Court.
And, though I believe the court will not side with Trump, any possibility that the justices are even considering doing so will be an extremely alarming sign for the United States and its future, as well as the stability of the world in which we exist.
what is the likelihood that they would rule in his favor? they don’t seem to have any regard for the constitution or precedent.
basically none, as things stand--it's just a matter of whether there are 5, 6, 7, or 8 votes in favor of birthright citizenship at this point. but given that the 14th is completely textually unambiguous it is categorically disqualifying that any justice could ever support the proposed interpretation being pushed by Trump and his administration. in a better world we'd immediately depose any justice stupid enough to say that there is no birthright citizenship in this country