April 4, 2026, 4:01 a.m. ET
On April 1, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Trump administration’s reinterpretation of birthright citizenship, and it became clear that the justices, per usual, would not be swayed by outside pressures.
Every justice on the court expressed some level of skepticism about the administration’s position.
In this case, some of the outside pressures came from inside the courthouse, in the form of President Donald Trump actually attending the oral arguments, becoming the first sitting president to attend an argument session at the nation’s highest court. Trump has been a vocal critic of many of the justices throughout his second term, particularly Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, two of his own appointees who ruled against him in the tariff case in February.
The president’s attendance strikes me as another attempt to drive pressure on the justices.
Supreme Court skeptical of Trump’s birthright citizenship argument
Trump’s frustrations with the Supreme Court come because they are not a branch he can pressure through his traditional avenues. They do not respond to his insults, threats or other forms of pressure, certainly not in the same way elected representatives do.
At the outset of his second term, Trump attempted to reinterpret birthright citizenship to exclude both the children of undocumented immigrants and “birth tourists.” Such a stance had few supporters, even among legal conservatives.
In 2025, the matter of birthright citizenship was before the Supreme Court, but on a procedural question of whether lower courts could issue “nationwide injunctions” blocking the policy from taking effect anywhere in the country. The justices partially sided with the administration there but declined to address the policy’s merits.
Almost a year later, the court has finally taken up the underlying policy, and Trump appears no more likely to succeed than he has at any point of the past year.
Solicitor general John Sauer had a rough day at the office, receiving pointed questions from nearly all of the justices. Much of the discussion centered around the original public meaning of the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, and whether that was understood to include the children of undocumented immigrants or those temporarily present in the United States.
“It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” Chief Justice John Roberts quipped in response to Sauer’s arguments about the differences in the immigration landscape from the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 and now.
Other justices pressed Sauer as well on myriad issues:
- Gorsuch questioned why the original congressional debates surrounding the birthright citizenship clause lacked any discussion of the status of the parents, instead opting for the birth status of the child.
- Barrett expressed concern over the practical issues of deciphering the intent of parents who have children here but are not citizens.
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh had questions about the language Congress used and why it used the same language as established Supreme Court precedent if it wanted it to mean something different.
How the case will precisely shake out is murky, but the Trump administration appears to have had a difficult time making its case. It’s hard for me to count five justices who would be willing to rule in favor of the president’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Trump is frustrated by SCOTUS because justices refuse to be pressured
Trump’s presence in court for such oral arguments is highly irregular, especially for such a major case involving his administration. His appearance strikes me as a way of making this case personal between him and the justices, rather than one of law.
In every other area of government, Trump can exert his influence to demand loyalty. In those arenas, that goes a long way, because the president can actually deliver punishment to those who cross him.
When it comes to the courts, however, Trump is more or less powerless. One of the great foresights of the American founders was life tenure for federal judges. Such an appointment grants judges immense insulation from the political winds of our federal government, so much so to the point that judges appointed by Trump are able to become the most painful thorns in his side.
Unlike elected officials, where Trump can threaten them with a primary opponent and generally get his way, he has no power over members of the Supreme Court, and that fact is incredibly frustrating to him.
Trump has been uniquely combative with Supreme Court justices, particularly those he himself nominated, who have ruled against him. His attitude has done damage to the institutional strength of the nation’s highest court, but its impact stops there.
The court frustrates Trump because he can do nothing to sway the justices to his side. It’s an unfamiliar territory for Trump, in which he actually needs to win on merit, rather than through gamesmanship.
Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
