President Donald Trump greets Supreme Court justices after addressing a joint session of Congress, March 4, 2025. Image via Screengrab / PBS.
This Wednesday, April 1, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case involving President Donald Trump's claims on birthright citizenship. Trump, in an executive order, declared an end to birthright citizenship, but many legal scholars are countering that Trump's order is blatantly unconstitutional — as birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.
Adopted in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, the 14th Amendment specifically states, "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."
In a column published on March 30, legal writer and former prosecutor Jordan Rubin lays out some reasons why Trump is on pins and needles over the High Court's April 1 hearing.
Trump, on his Truth Social platform, posted, "Birthright Citizenship is not about rich people from China, and the rest of the World, who want their children, and hundreds of thousands more, FOR PAY, to ridiculously become citizens of the United States of America. It is about the BABIES OF SLAVES! We are the only Country in the World that dignifies this subject with even discussion. Look at the dates of this long ago legislation - THE EXACT END OF THE CIVIL WAR! The World is getting rich selling citizenships to our Country, while at the same time laughing at how STUPID our U.S. Court System has become (TARIFFS!). 'Dumb Judges and Justices will not a great Country make!'"
According to Rubin, "multiple things" in Trump's post "are incorrect or misleading."
"Another point, which may be more relevant to the legal issue, is that the operative time frame isn't only the post-Civil War period, when the 14th Amendment was ratified," Rubin explains. "The (14th) Amendment's Citizenship Clause says, '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'…. 20th Century legislation that mirrors the amendment's provision of birthright citizenship is a separate ground on which the justices could rule against Trump's executive order, which seeks to singlehandedly redefine citizenship in the face of the Constitution, law and precedent…. It makes sense to refer to the tariffs case in the same breath as the citizenship case, because the latter is another rare example of a key Trump policy that may lose even at this Supreme Court, because of how obviously illegal it is."
Rubin adds, "Monday's post follows another one last month that apparently sought to soften the blow of a possible birthright citizenship loss. Fresh off his tariffs defeat, Trump wrote then that the 'next thing you know,' the Court will rule against him on birthright citizenship."
Republicans presently have a hard-right 6-3 supermajority on the High Court, half of which consists of justices Trump appointed during his first presidency. But Rubin stresses that having so many Republicans on the Court doesn't guarantee Trump a victory in Trump v. Barbara.
"We should get a better sense on Wednesday whether the president is correct, when we hear the justices' questions and comments to the lawyers arguing the case," Rubin observes. "But, as the president has foreshadowed, it would be surprising if he has reason to get happier about this issue as the week goes on."