The first sitting U.S. president to attend a high court trial! President Trump is highly likely to lose the battle over "birthright citizenship" at the Supreme Court.

Although Trump broke with convention and became the first sitting president in U.S. history to personally attend the Supreme Court’s highest-court hearings, the signals released during the hearing show that this immigration policy—an attempt to upend the long-standing constitutional consensus in the United States—will most likely end in a loss.

According to CCTV News, on April 1, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments on the legality of Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship for children born to citizens. Trump attended in person and became the first sitting president in U.S. history to take part in Supreme Court proceedings.

During the more than two hours of oral arguments, the Supreme Court justices showed an extremely cautious attitude toward the executive order. Although the Court currently has a conservative majority by a vote of 6 to 3, several conservative justices expressed clear unease about overturning the existing birthright citizenship system. Chief Justice John Roberts said bluntly during the hearing: “It’s a new world, but it’s the same Constitution.”

Currently, lower courts have fully blocked enforcement of the executive order and directly called it clearly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a final ruling by the end of June this year (during the summer). Analysis points out that the final direction of this policy will directly affect expectations for the U.S. labor market and population structure. If the Supreme Court ultimately supports the Trump administration’s position, up to 250,000 new babies’ citizenship determinations each year could be affected, triggering ripple effects for millions of families.

A historic moment: A sitting president’s first personal attendance at the Supreme Court

According to CCTV News, Clare Cushman, the resident historian of the Supreme Court Historical Society, said that Trump is the first sitting president in U.S. history to attend oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Historically, there are precedents of 19th-century presidents appearing before the Supreme Court, but including John Quincy Adams, Grover Cleveland, and Benjamin Harrison, they had all already left office at the time.

According to The Wall Street Journal, with Trump accompanied by multiple cabinet members and the White House’s legal counsel, he sat in the front row of the gallery and attended the entire hearing for about an hour. During the entire debate, the name “Trump” was mentioned only once—at the start of the hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts read the case title, “Trump v. Barbara.”

The report said that Trump’s attendance is the latest move in his ongoing pattern of repeatedly breaking with convention and putting pressure on the Supreme Court. Since the Supreme Court overturned his global tariff order in February of this year, Trump has repeatedly publicly disparaged the loyalty, patriotism, and intellectual caliber of the justices who voted against him; the wording has been more intense than anything unprecedented among modern presidents.

Legal commentator Edward Whelan, who previously worked in the Department of Justice during the George W. Bush administration, said, “He’s obviously trying to intimidate and pressure the justices, but that shouldn’t have any effect on their rulings, and I also don’t think it will have any effect.”

The core of the dispute: The century-old interpretation battle over the 14th Amendment

The core of the dispute in this case lies in the “birthright citizenship” clause in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

For a long time, that clause has been interpreted to mean that anyone born in the United States can obtain citizenship, with only very rare exceptions, such as the children of diplomats.

Trump’s executive order argues that the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” in the amendment applies only to people who have a “primary relationship of allegiance” to the United States, thereby excluding children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants or those holding temporary visas.

Previously, multiple lower courts had successively blocked the executive order from being enforced. One judge said that in his 40 years of judicial career, he had never seen a case with such an unequivocally clear result.

The Wall Street Journal said that Justice Samuel Alito, citing Churchill’s way of expressing it, described the crucial five-word phrase in the 14th Amendment as “a mystery inside a mystery, with another mystery outside the mystery.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch repeatedly asked whether Native Americans fall under the definition of birthright citizens within the government’s interpretive framework—an issue that directly exposes an internal logical flaw in the government’s argument.

The report said that after the hearing ended, Trump posted on social media saying the United States is the only country in the world that is “stupid enough to allow birthright citizenship.” However, according to data from the U.S. Library of Congress, around more than 30 countries worldwide implement unconditional birthright citizenship, and most of them are in the Western Hemisphere.

Justices’ attitudes: Conservatives cautious, liberals clearly opposed

According to reports, the Supreme Court’s approach in this hearing differed from the prior tariff case. In the tariff case hearing last November, the justices’ questions had already clearly signaled that the outcome would likely be unfavorable to Trump; but in the birthright citizenship case, the justices’ stance was more complex, without showing any clear directional signal.

Although Chief Justice John Roberts challenged the government’s position, his wording was careful. He said, “It’s a new world, but it’s the same Constitution.” When conservative justices questioned attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, they also showed genuine concern about the government’s historic argument, not blanket rejection.

The liberals’ stance is clear-cut. Justice Elena Kagan said that given birthright citizenship’s long history in the United States, before the Court accepts the government’s so-called “revisionist theory,” it should demand extremely thorough evidence.

At present, the Supreme Court is led by conservatives with a 6-to-3 majority, and three justices were nominated and appointed by Trump during his first term. Even so, The Wall Street Journal pointed out that Trump could still ultimately lose this case by a wide margin, and some conservative justices have already clearly expressed unease about overturning this historical interpretation of birthright citizenship.

The case is expected to be decided by the end of June this year. If the Supreme Court ultimately supports the Trump administration’s position, up to 250,000 newborns born in the U.S. each year would face citizenship determination issues, with ripple effects across millions of families.

Risk warning and disclaimer

        There are risks in the market; invest cautiously. This article does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account the special investment objectives, financial conditions, or needs of any particular user. Users should consider whether any opinions, viewpoints, or conclusions in this article align with their specific circumstances. Accordingly, investment decisions are at the investor’s own risk, and responsibility is assumed by the investor.