...
By Dan Gooding and Anna Commander
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.
As the Supreme Court weighs whether or not to allow President Donald Trump to change how birthright citizenship works, he lashed out a couple times on Tuesday at the conservative justices he nominated to the bench.
The comments made on CNBC were not the first time Trump has criticized Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, all of whom he nominated during his first term, and has suggested during his second that they should vote in his favor.
"Now they have birthright citizenship, they’ll probably rule against us," Trump said. "No country in the world has it. It’s horrible for our country, and I just see it, you know. I see some of these Republicans that are nominated by me asking real bad questions—and looks like maybe we’re gonna lose that one too."
Read More on Politics
In his comments, Trump repeated a long-debunked claim that the U.S. is the only country with birthright citizenship. Multiple countries have automatic citizenship for anyone born on their soil.
Trump also took a swipe at his High Court appointees on social media Tuesday, saying in part that they "totally misrepresented who they were."
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Trump's executive order aiming to restrict birthright citizenship to babies of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents in early April, with a ruling expected in a few months.
...
Why It Matters
Trump's appointments of the three conservative justices—Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett—marked some of his most consequential moves during his first term in the Oval Office. With the trio on the bench, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and played a role in other monumental decisions, including the 2024 presidential immunity ruling.
Trump’s remarks highlight ongoing friction between the White House and judiciary branch on the heels of a tariff ruling and as the High Court weighs its ruling on birthright citizenship.
What Was Trump's Swipe Against the Conservative Justices?
Taking to Truth Social on Tuesday night, the president posted, "Wacko James Carville, a so-called Democrat 'strategist,' wants the Democrats to make D.C. and Puerto Rico States and, most importantly, pack the Supreme Court, putting 13 Justices on the Court. Other Dems want 21 Justices. If they pull off adding these two States, these Country Destroying Sleazebags will dominate politics in America, if we even have a Nation left, for 100 years (TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER!). They are already doing great with the Supreme Court, however.
"The Democrat Justices stick together like glue, totally loyal to the people and ideology that got them there. They are an immovable force, and there is nothing that can be done to change that. Frankly, I respect that, a lot! Certain Republican Appointees let the Democrats push them around, always wanting to be popular, politically correct, or even worse, wanting to show how 'independent' they are, with very little loyalty to the man who appointed them or, more importantly, the ideology from which they came to be Nominated and Confirmed.
"Everyone knows that, as an example, Birthright Citizenship, which is Unconditional and Absent from any other developed or successful Country, is a disaster for the United States of America. No Country can be successful with such an anchor wrapped firmly around its neck but, based on the questioning by Republican Nominated Justices that I watched firsthand in the Court, we lose. As another example, if the Supreme Court put in one sentence stating that any money paid in Tariffs to the United States of America, to this point, does not have to be returned (to many people who hate our Country!), they would have saved American Taxpayers a minimum of $159 Billion Dollars. All they had to do was read the Dissent, written by Justice Kavanaugh, it was a close call, it wasn’t a 9-0 decision — What a difference it would have made for our Country. I put certain people on the United States Supreme Court who totally misrepresented who they were, and the true ideology for which they stand! President DONALD J. TRUMP"
In February, the Supreme Court ruled against his emergency tariff plan in a 6-3 ruling. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Kavanaugh dissented.
Legal analyst and former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade told Newsweek via email on Tuesday night: "Historically, presidents have recognized the independence of the judiciary and respected decisions of courts as a product of fact and law. President Trump undermines the rule of law when he suggests that he should be able to count on his appointees to rule in his favor."
Why Is the Supreme Court Reviewing Birthright Citizenship?
At the center of the Supreme Court case on birthright citizenship is whether or not Trump can alter how it works.
As it stands, the 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This language became the legal foundation of birthright citizenship, affirming the rights of formerly enslaved people and anyone else born on U.S. soil.
Trump has long argued that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause has been misinterpreted and that children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders should not automatically receive citizenship, because they are not legal, long-term residents.
In an executive order following his inauguration, Trump tried to restrict the right, prompting legal challenges.
What Did Supreme Court Justices Ask?
During a roughly two-hour hearing on April 1, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from the Trump administration and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Most of the debate was around language of the 14th Amendment and the two sides' interpretations of what "domiciled" meant when referring to parents.
While liberal justices largely appeared in favor of ruling against the Trump administration, some conservative justices also showed skepticism of the government's position.
Barrett, for example, questioned whether amending the right would create "a new kind of citizenship" and appeared dissatisfied with the government's response when asking whether babies dropped off at hospitals with no obvious immigration status would be considered citizens.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer's answers also drew questions from Gorsuch, while Kavanaugh said Congress might have worded things differently in laws enacted in 1940 and 1952 if lawmakers wanted to make clear that children of people here illegally or temporarily were not entitled to citizenship.
Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W Bush, also pushed Sauer on the issue of the phrase "the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment, which administration officials argue excludes undocumented immigrants.
"You obviously put a lot of weight on subject 'to the jurisdiction thereof,' but the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky," Roberts told Sauer. "You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships, and then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens are here in the country. I'm not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples."
Trump left after Sauer had given his thoroughly questioned testimony, later posting on Truth Social, again, that, "We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!"
What Happens Next
A decision from the court is not expected until at least June. If it rules against the Trump administration, birthright citizenship would remain as it has been for decades. A ruling in favor of the changes could have widespread ripple effects on how births are registered in the future, and whether undocumented immigrant parents choose to seek health care.
Update 4/22/26, 11:14 p.m. ET: This article has been updated with additional information and comment from McQuade.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines