First Sitting US President in History to "Attend High Court Hearing"! Trump Likely to Lose "Birthright Citizenship" Battle

Despite Trump breaking with convention to become the first sitting U.S. president in history to personally attend a Supreme Court hearing, signals from the proceedings suggest that this immigration policy, which attempts to overturn a long-standing constitutional consensus in the U.S., is likely to face a defeat.

According to CCTV News, on April 1st, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments on the legality of Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship. Trump attended in person, becoming the first sitting president in U.S. history to attend a Supreme Court hearing.

During the oral arguments, which lasted over two hours, the Supreme Court justices showed extreme caution regarding the executive order. Although the court currently has a 6-3 conservative majority, several conservative justices expressed clear unease about overturning the existing birthright citizenship system. Chief Justice John Roberts stated in court: "This is a new world, but it is the same Constitution."

Currently, lower courts have completely blocked the executive order's enforcement, directly citing its clear unconstitutionality. The Supreme Court is expected to make its final ruling by the end of June this year (summer). Analysts point out that the ultimate direction of this policy will directly impact expectations for the U.S. labor market and demographic structure. If the Supreme Court ultimately supports the Trump administration's position, the citizenship status of up to 250,000 newborns annually could be affected, with ripple effects for millions of families.

Historic Moment: Sitting President Appears at Supreme Court for the First Time

According to CCTV News, Clare Cushman, resident historian at the Supreme Court Historical Society, stated that Trump is the first sitting president in U.S. history to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court. While there are precedents of presidents appearing in Supreme Court cases in the 19th century, including John Quincy Adams, Grover Cleveland, and Benjamin Harrison, they had all left office by then.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump, accompanied by several cabinet members and White House legal advisors, sat in the front row of the spectator seats and listened to approximately one hour of the hearing. Throughout the entire debate, the name "Trump" was only mentioned once – at the beginning of the hearing when Chief Justice John Roberts announced the case name, "Trump v. Barbara."

The report pointed out that Trump's attendance is the latest move in his ongoing efforts to break with tradition and pressure the Supreme Court. Since the Supreme Court overturned his global tariffs order in February this year, Trump has repeatedly publicly disparaged the loyalty, patriotism, and intellectual capacity of justices who voted against him, using language unprecedented in modern presidencies.

Edward Whelan, a legal commentator who served in the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush, stated, "He is clearly trying to intimidate and pressure the justices, but this should not affect their ruling, and I don't think it will."

Core Controversy: A Century of Interpretation Disputes over the Fourteenth Amendment

The core of this case lies in the "birthright citizenship" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

For a long time, this clause has been interpreted to mean that anyone born in the United States automatically obtains citizenship, with only a few exceptions such as children of diplomats.

The Trump administration's executive order argues that the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" in the amendment only applies to individuals who have a "primary allegiance" to the United States, thereby excluding children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas.

Previously, multiple lower courts had blocked the executive order's enforcement, with one judge stating that in his forty years on the bench, he had never encountered a case with such a clear outcome.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Justice Samuel Alito, quoting Winston Churchill, described this key five-word clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma."

Justice Neil Gorsuch repeatedly questioned whether indigenous people fell under the government's interpretation framework for birthright citizenship—a question that directly addressed the internal logical flaws in the government's argument.

The report noted that after the hearing, Trump posted on social media that the U.S. is the only country in the world "stupid enough to allow birthright citizenship." However, according to data from the U.S. Library of Congress, approximately thirty countries worldwide practice unconditional birthright citizenship, most of which are located in the Western Hemisphere.

Justices' Stances: Conservatives Cautious, Liberals Opposed

According to reports, the Supreme Court's handling of this hearing differed from the previous tariffs case. In the tariffs case hearing last November, the justices' questions clearly indicated an unfavorable outcome for Trump; however, in the birthright citizenship case, the justices' attitudes were more complex, without clear indications of a leaning.

While Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the government's position, his wording was cautious. He stated, "This is a new world, but it is the same Constitution." Conservative justices, when questioning the American Civil Liberties Union's lawyer, also showed genuine concern about the government's historical arguments, not outright dismissal.

Liberal justices, on the other hand, were clear in their stance. Justice Elena Kagan stated that given the long history of birthright citizenship in the U.S., the court should require extremely compelling evidence before accepting the government's so-called "revisionist theory."

Currently, the Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority, with three justices nominated and appointed by Trump during his first term. Despite this, the Wall Street Journal points out that Trump may still lose this case by a significant margin, as some conservative justices have explicitly expressed unease about overturning this historical interpretation of birthright citizenship.

The case is expected to be decided by the end of June this year. If the Supreme Court ultimately supports the Trump administration's position, up to 250,000 newborns born in the U.S. annually will face citizenship status issues, with ripple effects for millions of families.