Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

US Supreme Court Questions Trump Birthright Order in Washington

Featured Replies

The Supreme Court of the United States appeared doubtful about President Donald Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship during oral arguments over a key immigration policy.

Get today's headlines by email image.png

A majority of the justices signalled concern about the administration’s claim that children born in the United States to undocumented migrants or some temporary visitors should no longer receive automatic citizenship.

The case centres on an executive order issued by Trump that aims to narrow the interpretation of the Constitution’s citizenship clause. The administration says the change would help curb illegal immigration.

Opponents argue the order conflicts with more than a century of legal precedent and threatens a central principle of US immigration law.

Trump attended the hearing in Washington, an unusual move by a sitting president that highlighted the political stakes surrounding the case.

Debate over the 14th Amendment

The arguments focused on the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which grants citizenship to anyone born or naturalised in the country and “subject to the jurisdiction” of US law.

US Solicitor General John Sauer argued the clause had been interpreted too broadly in the past. He said the provision should apply only to limited categories such as the children of foreign diplomats.

Sauer told the court that parents living in the country illegally retain allegiance to their home nations and therefore fall outside full US jurisdiction.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the president had the authority to deny citizenship to such a large group of people.

He said he struggled to see how the administration could justify excluding so many children from automatic citizenship under the current legal framework.

Several justices suggested the government’s interpretation could fundamentally alter long-standing views of citizenship in the United States.

Precedent and historical practice

Justice Elena Kagan said the amendment reflected a tradition rooted in English common law that broadly recognised citizenship based on birthplace.

She argued the constitutional provision adopted that approach without imposing the restrictions now proposed by the administration.

During the hearing, lawyers and justices repeatedly referred to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 Supreme Court ruling that upheld birthright citizenship for a child born in the US to Chinese immigrant parents.

Civil liberties lawyer Cecillia Wang, representing the challengers, cited the decision as decisive precedent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that if the court accepted that interpretation of the case, the ruling could be relatively brief.

Legal analysts say the justices may avoid a sweeping constitutional ruling. Instead, they could focus on a federal law passed in 1952 that codified birthright citizenship in statute.

Immigration law specialist Stephen Yale-Loehr said courts generally prefer narrower decisions that sidestep constitutional questions when possible.

Decision expected later this year

The court is expected to issue a decision in June.

The case represents the first major immigration dispute decided fully on its merits since Trump began his second term in office.

A ruling against the administration would mark another setback following a recent decision by the court that struck down Trump’s global tariff policy.

If the president prevails, the outcome would support a long-standing conservative effort to reinterpret birthright citizenship and could reshape US immigration policy.

Trump defended his stance after the hearing, repeating criticism of birthright citizenship on social media and arguing the policy was originally intended to grant citizenship to the children of formerly enslaved people following the Civil War.

Critics have accused the president of attempting to pressure the court by attending the proceedings in person.

Join the discussion? Create account. orange.png

Already a member? haveyr-say.png


image.png
Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 2 April 2026


View full article

5 minutes ago, webfact said:

A majority of the justices signalled concern about the administration’s claim

This just the start of Trump's headwinds, or what did he expect after openly insulting the judges in his SOTU?

What the Court could say in a middle opinion is just that, if the conventional birthright opinion is to be changed, and we make NO opinion on that, just that it has to be done by legislation and can not be done by Executive Order.

4 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

This just the start of Trump's headwinds, or what did he expect after openly insulting the judges in his SOTU?

You think the court rules depending on whether or not their feelings are hurt?

Trump tried his intimidation tactic by being at the court only for Justice Amy Coney Barrett to insult his citizen scheme in his face. Hand picked by Trump and often praised, Justice Barrett was brutally direct about Trump's attempt to overturn the constitution. When the Solicitor General John Saucer tried the technical route with immgration law, he was cut off by Barrett and tongue lashed with a rebuke "yeah, yeah.........but what about the constitution". Looking at another lost Donny?

4 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Trump tried his intimidation tactic by being at the court only for Justice Amy Coney Barrett to insult his citizen scheme in his face. Hand picked by Trump and often praised, Justice Barrett was brutally direct about Trump's attempt to overturn the constitution. When the Solicitor General John Saucer tried the technical route with immgration law, he was cut off by Barrett and tongue lashed with a rebuke "yeah, yeah.........but what about the constitution". Looking at another lost Donny?

I hear Trump's getting two new Justices in June, nice!

27 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I hear Trump's getting two new Justices in June, nice!

Alito and Thomas are resigning

15 minutes ago, JerryM said:
39 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I hear Trump's getting two new Justices in June, nice!

Alito and Thomas are resigning

So looks like that only can make it worse for Trump.

AI Overview

Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are the most conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, often voting together (97% agreement in the 2024-25 term). They are known for strict originalism, strong religious liberty advocacy, and have faced criticism over recusal calls regarding January 6th cases. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

You think the court rules depending on whether or not their feelings are hurt?

Judges are also humans and have feelings. I'm sure that if the decision is a coin on its side, that I know which side it will fall over to.

And for sure judges don't appreciate to get bullied into a ruling

I really have no idea if they are resigning. But if Trump is to get 2 justice appointments in the next 2 months, that's about the only way how.

3 minutes ago, JerryM said:

I really have no idea if they are resigning. But if Trump is to get 2 justice appointments in the next 2 months, that's about the only way how.

I looked it up and it seems to be just another fable from a delusional MAGA.

AI Overview

As of April 2026, there are no scheduled or announced replacements for U.S. Supreme Court justices in June 2026. Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, and changes typically only occur upon retirement or death, not on a set calendar schedule.

2 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Judges are also humans and have feelings. I'm sure that if the decision is a coin on its side, that I know which side it will fall over to.

And for sure judges don't appreciate to get bullied into a ruling

I do not remember you howling about all the leftists protesting illegally at the homes of the conservative judges in the past, that was all great.

And you loved it when Chuck Schumer was on the steps of the court howling and threatening Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, yes?

53 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I do not remember you howling about all the leftists protesting illegally at the homes of the conservative judges in the past, that was all great.

And you loved it when Chuck Schumer was on the steps of the court howling and threatening Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, yes?

No idea what you are talking about, but since 99% of your posts are troll posts without ever a credible link, I put this one in the folder.

2 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

No idea what you are talking about, but since 99% of your posts are troll posts without ever a credible link, I put this one in the folder.

Yeah, not surprising, the leftist "news" outlets you prefer likely did not cover those.

If Trump’s birthright citizenship order were upheld, a child born in the U.S. to parents without permanent legal status could, under certain conditions, end up stateless.

This risk arises because the U.S. would deny citizenship at birth, and the parents’ home country might not automatically grant citizenship to children born abroad.

1 hour ago, Jim Waldron said:

If Trump’s birthright citizenship order were upheld, a child born in the U.S. to parents without permanent legal status could, under certain conditions, end up stateless.

This risk arises because the U.S. would deny citizenship at birth, and the parents’ home country might not automatically grant citizenship to children born abroad.

This happens a lot around the world stateless people take Thailand as an example !! very very Antiquated laws

1 hour ago, Jim Waldron said:

If Trump’s birthright citizenship order were upheld, a child born in the U.S. to parents without permanent legal status could, under certain conditions, end up stateless.

This risk arises because the U.S. would deny citizenship at birth, and the parents’ home country might not automatically grant citizenship to children born abroad.

It’s not going to happen even if it did it would take a constitutional amendment that takes time the felon can’t do it by decree nor it seems by attempting to intimidate the justices.

What does this mean given that Melania trump was not legally in the US and was working as a "model/escort" without a work permit??

image.png

From NY Times:

Despite (Trump's) presence, things did not go well for the administration. It is never a good sign, for instance, when the first question from the chief justice calls your key argument “very quirky.”

2 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

It means you have posted an AI generated photo and been duped.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/melania-trump-pole-dancing-epstein/?collection=472552

He knows it's phony, he just hates Trump, and anyone associated with him

The Mooch has some thoughts an observations; Trump knows he is going to lose this, but thats not the point. The actual point is Article 2, and that everything else is negotiable. If Trump wins this, then he can declare who is a US Citizen by Executive Order.

The power argument....if you redefine who counts as a citizen by executive order, you've claimed so much... enormous presidential power....and Trumps theory, and the Looney Tunes around him, is a maximalist position for the President and therefore Article 2 blows out Article 1 and Article 3, and I now have the maximalist power, where if I win this, I' winning everything after this, so this is the Touchdown throw........He's going to lose the case....but this was not the war....this is a small battle that he's losing....the war is about establishing that everything is negotiable, even the Constitution and Article 2, for me, makes me the supreme ruler of the United States, and so therefore everything in that constitution I'm going to push and shove at over the next three year

How it used to be. Sounds a million years ago. Trump the Anti-Politician.

3 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

It means you have posted an AI generated photo and been duped.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/melania-trump-pole-dancing-epstein/?collection=472552

Oh well, the AI stuff these days is so good it can make trump seem almost human!!

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.