WASHINGTON D.C.U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Wednesday of attempts by President Donald Trump’s administration to limit birthright citizenship, an effort supported by U.S. Sen. James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) in a brief amici curiae authored by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) advocating a more restrictive interpretation.

As the sun rose over Capitol Hill, spectators and protesters from advocacy groups across the nation had already gathered around the Court building, eager to see how the argument would unfold. Signs read “American-born children are American children” and “Donald and Barron Trump are the children of immigrants.”

The 14th Amendment holds that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” For more than a century, the amendment has been interpreted to mean anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen.

On Wednesday, Trump became the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court as his administration sought to bar children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors from obtaining automatic citizenship. Trump sat in the first row of the court, typically reserved for members of Congress, and left shortly after Solicitor General D. John Sauer began taking questions from the sitting justices.

With his emotionless face and stoic poise, Trump’s presence in the court apparently did little to deter the judges’ wariness about his interpretation of what he considered the framers’ intent for the 14th Amendment.

After only an hour of attendance, Trump posted to his Truth Social that “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” despite virtually the entire western hemisphere, including Mexcio and Canada, granting similar protection to newborn children.

Birthright citizenship has been an issue for Trump since at least 2015 when he launched his first bid to become president.

So it came as no surprise when only hours after he was sworn in as the 47th President that he issued Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” seeking to exclude certain “persons who were born in the United States but not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The administration’s central argument on Tuesday focused on the meaning of “domicile” and whether that concept defines the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Sauer argued that jurisdiction implies allegiance to the nation, and that allegiance requires domicile. They framed that as a key distinction in how the court should interpret the precedent set in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, compared with how it has been applied for more than 100 years.

But justices questioned whether that interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment could be applied to illegal immigration, an issue that was not relevant when the amendment was adopted.

Justice Elena Kagan said, “you’re using some pretty obscure sources to get to this concept.”

In its petition, the administration argued, “The Citizenship Clause of the 14th. Amendment was adopted to grant citizenship to newly- freed slaves and their children – not to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens.”

The administration argued the clause has been misinterpreted for 128 years, stating that “children who are completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States” must show “direct and immediate allegiance to the nation and may claim its protection.”

The concept of “jus soli,” meaning citizenship by birthplace, was central to the 6-2 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The 1898 case established that children born in the United States to noncitizens are citizens, a principle that underlies modern birthright citizenship.

Although the administration did not seek to overturn the 1898 case, it argued the decision applies only to children of parents with established domicile in the United States.

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to parents who maintained a “permanent domicile and residence” there. After traveling abroad at age 21, he was denied reentry. The court considered whether a child born in the United States to Chinese citizen parents that were lawful residents was a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court held he was a citizen because his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic official capacity under the Emperor of China,” and therefore “the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically makes him a U.S. citizen.”

One concept the solicitor general pointed to was “birth tourism,” which is the concept of immigrants coming to the U.S. to have children with the goal of securing their citizenship. “It’s a new world,” Sauer said.

“It’s the same Constitution,” Chief Justice John Roberts replied.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned why Congress used similar language in laws passed in 1942 and 1950 if it intended a different interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Much of the skepticism centered on how the government arrived at its interpretation. American Civil Liberties Union attorney Cecillia Wang faced questioning about how citizenship could be granted under current exceptions.

Wang argued that the government’s interpretation of Wong Kim Ark, that domicile is required for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, misreads the decision. While the opinion references domicile, she said it was not central to the precedent it established.

“You dismissed the use of the word ‘domicile,’” Roberts told Wang. “It appears in the opinion 20 different times.”

Kagan also pressed the point, asking, “What are those 20 domicile words doing there?”

The administration also pointed to Elk v. Wilkins to argue that not all people born in the United States are automatically citizens. In that case, the court held that Native Americans were not citizens at birth because their allegiance was to their tribe.

Wang countered that this example reinforces the limited exceptions to the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1924, Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act, granting citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States.

Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson asked how citizenship would be determined for newborns if the court adopted a narrower interpretation. Sauer pointed to modifying the Enumeration at Birth process, which is used for most newborns who are assigned Social Security numbers, to require proof of parental citizenship or immigration status and to verify that information through federal databases.

A decision is expected in June. The outcome could have significant implications nationwide, including in Oklahoma, where thousands of children could be affected.

Gaylord News is a reporting project of the University of Oklahoma Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication. For more stories by Gaylord News go to GaylordNews. net.