Trump Tried to End Birthright Citizenship. Even His Handpicked Court Isn’t Having it

He showed up in person, only to walk out when the argument turned against him. The case calls into question long settled Constitutional norms.

What Just Happened

A lot. And if it’s making you feel insane, that’s the point. But cutting through the noise, here’s the big story, why it matters, and what comes next.

Today, it’s Trump’s pet project: ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders. The Supreme Court heard arguments today challenging the executive order Trump used to enact it on day one of his second term.

The case centers on the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which was passed in the wake of the Civil war to grant the children of slaves and former slaves all the rights of citizenship.

This whole thing is extraordinary for a few reasons, not least of all that birthright citizenship is a cornerstone of our democracy. More on that in a second. In a somewhat stunning turn of events, Trump himself attended the hearing - the first time in history a sitting president has done it. Maybe they’ve avoided it until now because of the appearance of literally walking all over the separation of powers.

Unsurprisingly, Trump - who can barely make it through one of his own press conferences without falling asleep - left as soon as arguments against his position began. This guy’s skin is so thin you could read the Constitution through it, if you still believed in it. Which, TBD for him.

The 14th Amendment enshrined this concept of birthright citizenship in the Constitution. Once you start chipping away at it, you’re setting a precedent that other foundational concepts are up for debate.

Even though this wasn’t a rout by any means, and it’s impossible to predict how they’ll rule, the Justices at least appeared inclined to side with the plaintiffs. Nowhere was it more obvious than when Justice Kavanaugh, talking to attorney Cecilia Wang, laid out how, with “just a short opinion,” there are two ways the Court could rule against the government.

Wang said she’d be “happy to win on either or both of them.”

What’s actually going on

This is an argument about the bedrock of the United States itself. Trump wants to fundamentally change the definition of who gets to be an American.

And it’s connected to all of Trump’s other fetishes: his obsession with voter fraud and making sure “the right people” (re: white people) are the ones voting. His brutal immigration policies. His thinly veiled White-Nationalist-coded anxiety about changing demographics in America writ large.

The fact that the case made it all the way to the Supreme Court shows you just how much the ground has shifted. Even a few years ago, this argument wouldn’t have made it beyond the fringe of crackpot legal theories.

Speaking of, here are just a few points that the Trump administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General D. John Sauer relied on. Chief Justice John Roberts called many of these “quirky.”

• “Birth tourism,” by “thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations”

• Chinese media reports

• They “don’t do it in Europe.” (Kavanaugh’s response: “We try to interpret American law with American precedent based on American history.” Yeesh.)

• Roman law sources

He used all of these things to paint a picture of a United States that’s under siege by “hostile foreigners” and an onslaught of “illegal aliens.” He described a world where “8 billion people are a plane ride away” from being U.S. citizens. He called it a new world.

Justice Roberts came in with the mic drop there.

“It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.”