Trump's Supreme Court appearance on birthright citizenship backfired due to weak legal arguments
Source: Mark Joseph Stern. "Trump shows up to Supreme Court for birthright citizenship, and it backfires badly.." April 1, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The author argues that Trump showed up to the Supreme Court hoping to pressure the justices, but it completely backfired. Most of the justices, including conservatives, clearly thought the government's legal arguments were terrible and will likely strike down Trump's order.
Conclusion
Trump's attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court by attending oral arguments in person failed because the justices rejected his administration's weak legal theory against birthright citizenship
Premises
- Seven out of nine justices expressed profound skepticism toward the government's revisionist interpretation of the 14th Amendment
- Trump's solicitor general presented an ahistorical and atextual theory that contradicts established precedent like Wong Kim Ark (1898)
- The administration's legal theory is based on flawed scholarship that contains errors and lies
- Conservative justices like Roberts, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh actively challenged the government's arguments with hostile questioning
- The government's position creates unworkable practical problems and contradicts the constitutional text's plain meaning
- Only two justices (Thomas and Alito) showed any support for the administration's position
Assumptions
- Supreme Court justices' questioning during oral arguments accurately predicts their final votes
- Trump's physical presence was intended as intimidation rather than normal presidential interest
- The 14th Amendment's original meaning and established precedent should control constitutional interpretation
- A 7-2 or better majority against the administration represents a clear defeat