The case centers on Trump’s order, signed after his return to the White House, which would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil to parents residing illegally or temporarily in the country.

Federal courts previously halted the measure, citing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the United States.

The administration argues that the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, was intended to secure citizenship rights for formerly enslaved people and does not extend to children of undocumented migrants or temporary visa holders.

In filings, Solicitor General John Sauer contended that eligibility for citizenship requires both birth in the United States and being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” a phrase the administration interprets narrowly.

Lower courts rejected that interpretation, relying on longstanding precedent, including the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed citizenship for a U.S.-born individual of foreign parents.Legal scholars cited in the proceedings said the court’s historical reliance on precedent may weigh against the administration’s position.

Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, said the court has traditionally looked to historical practice in constitutional interpretation.Trump confirmed he would attend the hearing, marking a rare instance of a sitting president observing oral arguments in a case involving their own administration.

While presidents have historically maintained distance from court proceedings, Trump has previously attended judicial ceremonies, including the 2017 investiture of Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The Supreme Court currently has a 6–3 conservative majority, with three justices appointed by Trump during his first term.The administration has argued that automatic citizenship for children of undocumented migrants acts as an incentive for illegal immigration and so-called “birth tourism.”

Opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said the policy would undermine constitutional protections and create uncertainty over the citizenship status of millions of Americans.

The case follows a separate setback for Trump in February, when the Supreme Court struck down much of his global tariff policy. Trump criticized that ruling and renewed his attack on judicial decisions ahead of the current hearing.

A decision on the birthright citizenship case is expected by late June or early July.

During oral arguments, several conservative justices signaled openness to the government’s request to revive the practice known as “metering,” which caps the number of migrants allowed to apply for asylum at official border crossings.

The U.S. Department of Justice argued the measure is a necessary tool to manage surges in migration and has been used under multiple administrations.

Critics, including immigration advocates, said the policy previously triggered a humanitarian crisis by forcing asylum seekers to wait in Mexico, often in makeshift camps, before being allowed to present claims.

The practice is not currently in force, and Trump has separately ordered a broader suspension of asylum processing during his second term.

The case centers on interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which guarantees that individuals who “arrive” in the United States may apply for asylum if they fear persecution. Government lawyers contend the provision applies only once migrants are physically inside U.S. territory, not when they are turned away at the border.

Attorneys representing migrants argued the law has long been understood to include individuals presenting themselves at ports of entry, and that restricting access violates statutory protections.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether current interpretations create incentives for illegal entry over lawful arrival, while Chief Justice John Roberts pressed both sides on where legal eligibility for asylum begins.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised procedural concerns, noting the absence of an active policy and questioning whether the court was evaluating hypothetical scenarios rather than a live dispute.

Metering was first introduced during the administration of Barack Obama and later expanded nationwide under Trump. The policy ended in 2020 amid pandemic-related restrictions and was formally rescinded by Joe Biden in 2021.

That same year, a federal district court ruled the practice unlawful, finding it violated both constitutional protections and federal asylum law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision, though internal divisions among judges highlighted ongoing legal uncertainty.

The case is one of several major immigration disputes before the court this term, including challenges related to birthright citizenship and the administration’s efforts to roll back protections for migrants fleeing conflict and instability.U.S. law allows individuals granted asylum to remain in the country, work legally, reunite with immediate family members, and eventually seek permanent residency and citizenship.