Trump calls birthright citizenship 'stupid' as US top court weighs legality

Donald Trump calls birthright citizenship "stupid" as the US Supreme Court examines the legality of his administration's restrictions on the policy

US President Donald Trump described birthright citizenship as “stupid” on Wednesday, shortly after attending a hearing at the Supreme Court of the United States examining the legality of his administration’s restrictions on the policy.

 

In a post on Truth Social after leaving the courtroom, Trump said the United States was “the only country… stupid enough” to allow automatic citizenship by birth.

 

His remarks came after he became the first sitting US president to attend court arguments in person.

Judges question legal basis of Trump’s order

During the hearing, justices from across the ideological spectrum raised concerns about whether Trump’s executive order aligned with the US Constitution and existing federal law.

 

 

The order sought to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who were either in the country illegally or temporarily.

 

Several judges pressed the administration on both legal interpretation and practical implementation.

 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned how such a policy would work in real-world settings, asking whether citizenship decisions would effectively need to be made at birth.

 

Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas appeared more open to the administration’s position, noting that debates around the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution historically focused on granting rights to formerly enslaved people rather than immigration.

Case tests limits of executive power

The case reached the Supreme Court after multiple lower courts blocked the order, ruling it likely violated constitutional protections. As a result, the policy had not been implemented anywhere in the country.

 

At its core, the dispute tested how far presidential authority could go in redefining long-standing interpretations of citizenship law.

 

Trump’s administration argued that the widely accepted reading of the Constitution, that anyone born on US soil is automatically a citizen, had been misunderstood for decades.

 

Government lawyers contended that children of non-citizens were not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore did not qualify for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

Opponents, including civil liberties groups, warned that such an interpretation would mark a radical departure from established legal precedent.

Long-standing precedent under scrutiny

Birthright citizenship in the United States has traditionally been grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, which states that all persons born or naturalised in the country are citizens.

 

The principle was reinforced by the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed citizenship for children born in the US to foreign parents.

 

Lower courts that reviewed Trump’s order relied heavily on this precedent when striking it down.

 

Legal experts argued that overturning this framework would affect a significant number of births annually and reshape the country’s immigration system.

Part of broader immigration crackdown

The executive order formed part of a wider push by the Trump administration to tighten immigration rules during his second term.

 

While Trump frequently focused on illegal immigration in his rhetoric, the proposed restrictions would also have applied to individuals legally residing in the United States, including students and those seeking permanent residency.

 

The case marked the first major immigration policy from Trump’s current term to reach the Supreme Court for a final ruling.

Tensions with court remain high

Trump’s relationship with the judiciary has remained strained, particularly after earlier rulings that went against his administration.

 

In recent months, he had openly criticised judges over decisions related to trade tariffs and other executive actions.

 

Ahead of the hearing, he again took aim at the judiciary on social media, arguing that judges opposing his stance were undermining the country.

Final ruling expected in June or July

The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its decision by late June or early July, with the outcome likely to have far-reaching implications for constitutional law, immigration policy, and the scope of presidential power.