Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen
  • Listen Now Playing Listen
Civics & Democracy

Trump plans to attend Supreme Court hearing on birthright citizenship

Donald Trump sits behind a big desk in a gilded room with boom mics overhead.
President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters after signing an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House Tuesday, March 31, 2026, in Washington, as Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick listens.
(
Alex Brandon
/
AP
)

This story is free to read because readers choose to support LAist. If you find value in independent local reporting, make a donation to power our newsroom today.

Updated April 01, 2026 at 13:01 PM ET

President Trump became the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, when he showed up to watch proceedings in a case challenging one of his executive orders.

Trump's motorcade arrived at the court just before 10 a.m. ET, as reflected on his public schedule for the day. He disappeared into a relative black box, as the Supreme Court strictly prohibits cameras and other electronic devices.

His motorcade departed around 11:20 a.m., as Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrapped up his opening argument in favor of the administration, facing questions that seemed to convey even conservative judges' skepticism. Trump did not stay to hear the American Civil Liberties Union make its opposing argument.

"We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow 'Birthright' Citizenship!" he wrote on Truth Social about an hour later, seemingly ignoring the fact that over 30 other countries (mostly in the Western Hemisphere) do.

Barbara v. Trump revolves around an executive order that Trump signed on the first day of his second term, seeking to deny automatic citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to parents who were in the country either illegally or temporarily. It hasn't gone into effect because multiple lower courts immediately ruled it unconstitutional.

The legal principle of birthright citizenship — which makes anyone born within the U.S. or its territories a citizen — has been widely interpreted as being enshrined in the Constitution since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Trump's order was immediately hit with lawsuits, including from immigrants' rights groups and states' attorneys general, and lower court rulings blocked it from taking effect.

Sponsored message

The Trump administration, which argues that the amendment has been interpreted too broadly, appealed those rulings to the Supreme Court, which agreed to weigh in. It's expected to issue a decision at the end of its term in late June or early July.

Demonstrators rally in support of birthright citizenship outside the Supreme Court during oral arguments on Wednesday.
(
Kent Nishimura
/
AFP via Getty Images
)

This is not the first time one of Trump's policies has come before the nation's highest court: The Supreme Court considered some two dozen emergency cases involving his administration's actions in 2025 alone (and most often ruled in his favor).

But this is the first time Trump — or any sitting president — has been in the audience for oral arguments.

Presidents have occasionally interacted with the court directly, including attending oath ceremonies or welcome events for justices they appointed, as Trump did for Neil Gorsuch in 2017. And at least eight presidents argued cases before the Supreme Court in their careers as lawyers, according to the American Bar Association. But, the historical record indicates, none have commuted in from the White House just to listen, until now.

Trump told reporters on Tuesday that he planned to go in person "because I have listened to this argument for so long."

While seating is open to the public, the president's presence is controversial, as it could be interpreted as an attempt to put pressure on justices. The court is designed to be an independent check on the White House, though it is currently made up of a 6-3 conservative supermajority.

Sponsored message

Even Trump himself has acknowledged that his attendance could be distracting, as he explained his decision not to sit in on oral arguments in a different case last year.

Trump decided not to attend oral arguments last year 

Trump publicly flirted with the idea of attending Supreme Court arguments in U.S. businesses' case against his global tariffs last November.

"If we don't win that case, we will be a weakened, troubled, financial mess for many, many years to come," he told reporters in the Oval Office in October. "That's why I think I'm going to go to the Supreme Court to watch."

That plan was criticized by some Democratic lawmakers and even one Trump ally, Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., who told Politico he thought it was a mistake: "Some may interpret it as an attempt to put pressure on the justices, and I think if the justices receive it that way, I'm not saying they will or they won't, but if they do perceive it that way, I think it will backfire."

Trump is sitting in on oral arguments in his administration's appeal of lower court rulings against his birthright citizenship order.
(
Andrew Harnik
/
Getty Images
)

Trump reversed course days later, tucking the news midway through a lengthy Truth Social post about the case itself.

Sponsored message

"I will not be going to the Court on Wednesday in that I do not want to distract from the importance of this Decision," he wrote.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent ended up attending oral arguments. The Supreme Court ruled against Trump's tariffs by a 6-3 vote in February.

Shortly after, Trump held a press conference excoriating the three conservative judges who sided against him — particularly Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, whom he appointed to the bench — calling them disloyal and unpatriotic.

When asked on Tuesday which justices he would be listening to most closely, Trump said "I love a few of them, I don't like some others."

He again characterized Republican-nominated justices who rule against him as stupid and disloyal, while alleging that justices chosen by Democratic presidents rule against him on principle.

"You could have the greatest case ever, they're gonna rule against you," he said. "They always do."

Copyright 2026 NPR

You come to LAist because you want independent reporting and trustworthy local information. Our newsroom doesn’t answer to shareholders looking to turn a profit. Instead, we answer to you and our connected community. We are free to tell the full truth, to hold power to account without fear or favor, and to follow facts wherever they lead. Our only loyalty is to our audiences and our mission: to inform, engage, and strengthen our community.

Right now, LAist has lost $1.7M in annual funding due to Congress clawing back money already approved. The support we receive from readers like you will determine how fully our newsroom can continue informing, serving, and strengthening Southern California.

If this story helped you today, please become a monthly member today to help sustain this mission. It just takes 1 minute to donate below.

Your tax-deductible donation keeps LAist independent and accessible to everyone.
Senior Vice President News, Editor in Chief

Make your tax-deductible donation today