...
By Gabe Whisnant
News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A hush fell over the Supreme Court on Wednesday as President Donald Trump took a front‑row seat in the public gallery, becoming the first sitting president to observe oral arguments in person.
Spectators whispered and strained for a view as Trump sat silently, hands folded in his lap, the Associated Press reported, showing none of the bombast that typically defines his public appearances.
The justices gave no outward sign that they had noticed him. Accustomed to commanding attention, Trump instead watched without speaking in a display that underscored the unusual nature of his presence in the courtroom.
Read More on Politics
...
Why Did Trump Go to the Supreme Court?
Trump arrived alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to hear the administration defend his executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship. The policy aims to overturn long‑standing interpretations of constitutional and statutory protections that grant citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States.
For about 90 minutes, Trump listened as justices from across the ideological spectrum pressed the government’s lawyer with pointed questions. Several conservative justices, including three appointed by Trump, appeared skeptical of the administration’s position, raising concerns about the legal foundation for limiting birthright citizenship.
...
Trump Departs, Then Takes His Criticism Online
Trump left the courtroom during arguments by opposing counsel, departing before the session concluded.
About an hour later, he weighed in publicly, posting on social media, “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” It's a claim found false by Newsweek's fact-check.
Around three dozen countries automatically grant citizenship to children born within their borders, though Trump’s post reflected a broader pattern of direct and personal criticism of the judiciary.
What Is the Birthright Citizenship Case?
The birthright citizenship case before the Supreme Court challenges an executive order signed by Trump that seeks to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States if their parents are in the country illegally or on temporary visas. The case, known as Trump v. Barbara, centers on the 14th Amendment, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, with narrow exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats.
Trump’s order, signed on January 20, 2025, has never taken effect after being blocked by multiple lower courts, all of which found it unlawful. Challengers, including families and advocacy groups, argue the order conflicts with more than a century of Supreme Court precedent and the plain language of the Constitution. The administration contends the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was never intended to apply to all children born in the U.S., a position that drew skepticism from several justices during oral arguments.
When Will the Supreme Court Rule on Birthright Citizenship?
Following arguments, the justices typically take weeks or months to deliberate before issuing a decision, rather than ruling immediately from the bench.
A decision is expected by early summer, before the court’s term ends in late June. Until then, the executive order will remain blocked, and existing rules governing birthright citizenship will stay in place.
...
Growing Tension Between the President and the Court
In recent weeks, Trump has escalated his attacks on the Supreme Court, singling out several justices by name. He said he was “ashamed” of six members who ruled against him in an earlier case and questioned their patriotism, directing particular anger at Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, two of his own appointees, whom he called “an embarrassment to their families.”
Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to address the climate last month without naming Trump directly, warning that personal attacks on judges are dangerous and “have got to stop.”
Legal Experts Doubt Any Intimidation Effect
Some legal scholars questioned whether Trump’s courtroom appearance was meant to pressure the justices, but said such tactics were unlikely to succeed. Adam Winkler, constitutional law professor at UCLA, said Supreme Court justices “pride themselves on their independence, even if some agree with much of Trump’s agenda.”
Richard Re, constitutional law professor at Harvard University, likened Trump’s attendance to “a reversal of the justices’ frequent appearances at the State of the Union address.” He added, “I don’t think the justices will be intimidated, no matter what the president does.”
Trump’s presence nonetheless injected a heightened sense of spectacle into the normally restrained setting. Legendary actor Robert De Niro, a vocal Trump critic, was also in attendance, seated in the justices’ guest box reserved for friends and family. The two men did not interact.
...
This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
In a polarized era, the center is dismissed as bland. At Newsweek, ours is different: The Courageous Center—it's not "both sides," it's sharp, challenging and alive with ideas. We follow facts, not factions. If that sounds like the kind of journalism you want to see thrive, we need you.
When you become a Newsweek Member, you support a mission to keep the center strong and vibrant. Members enjoy: Ad-free browsing, exclusive content and editor conversations. Help keep the center courageous. Join today.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines