- Title: 'A radical rereading': Legal analyst on Trump's birthright citizenship argument
- Date: 1st April 2026
- Summary: NEW YORK, NEW YORK, UNITED STATES (APRIL 1, 2026) (REUTERS) (SOUNDBITE) (English) COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL, CLINICAL PROFESSOR OF LAW AND DIRECTOR OF THE IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS CLINIC, ELORA MUKHERJEE, SAYING: “If the executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship takes effect, everyone in the United States, almost, will feel the consequences. Every person who's giving b
- Embargoed:
- Keywords: Supreme Court Trump Trump v Barbara USA birthright citizenship executive order oral arguments
- Location: VARIOUS
- City: VARIOUS
- Country: US
- Topics: Crime/Law/Justice,Judicial Process/Court Cases/Court Decisions,North America
- Reuters ID: LVA00B905031032026RP1
- Aspect Ratio: 16:9
- Story Text: Columbia Law School professor Elora Mukherjee told Reuters on Wednesday (April 1) that the Trump administration's position in the birthright citizenship case before the U.S. Supreme Court amounts to "a radical rereading" of the 14th Amendment.
Mukherjee, who directs Columbia's Immigrants' Rights Clinic, said the administration's argument is at odds with the amendment's text, history, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent.
"On January 20th, 2025, the President signed an executive order that purports to end birthright citizenship in the United States. It would be a radical rereading of the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment if it is approved by the Supreme Court,” she said. “To date, every single court that has considered this question has held that the executive order is blatantly unconstitutional.”
With President Donald Trump present, U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled skepticism on Wednesday toward the legality of his directive to restrict birthright citizenship in the U.S., part of his hardline immigration approach that would upend the long-held understanding of a key constitutional provision.
In his historic visit to the top U.S. judicial body, Trump, wearing a red tie and dark suit, sat in the front row of the public gallery of the ornate courtroom after arriving by motorcade from the White House. The Republican president then left midway through the proceedings not long after the Justice Department lawyer arguing for his administration completed his presentation.
Most of the nine justices, conservatives and liberals alike, grilled the lawyer with questions about the legal validity of Trump's executive order and its practical implications. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.
The justices heard more than two hours of arguments in the administration's appeal of a lower court's decision that blocked his directive. Trump's order had instructed U.S. agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States if neither parent is an American citizen or legal permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder.
Trump became the first sitting president to attend a Supreme Court oral argument, according to Clare Cushman, the Supreme Court Historical Society's resident historian. Joined by White House Counsel David Warrington, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Trump was at the courthouse for a bit more than an hour and a half.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that most nations do not grant automatic birthright citizenship.
The United States is among 33 countries with automatic birthright citizenship policies, according to the Pew Research Center. Trump wrote on social media after the arguments that the United States is "STUPID" for having birthright citizenship.
The lower court found that Trump's directive violated citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment as well as a federal law codifying birthright citizenship rights, acting in a class-action lawsuit by parents and children whose citizenship is threatened by the directive.
The 14th Amendment has long been interpreted as guaranteeing citizenship for babies born in the United States, with only narrow exceptions such as the children of foreign diplomats or members of an enemy occupying force.
An eventual ruling by the Supreme Court endorsing the administration's view could affect the legal status of as many as 250,000 babies born each year, according to some estimates, and require the families of millions more to prove the citizenship status of their newborns.
The Supreme Court has backed Trump on other major immigration-related policies since he returned to the presidency. It is expected to rule by the end of June.
(Production: Hussein Al Waaile, Christine Kiernan) - Copyright Holder: FILE REUTERS (CAN SELL)
- Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2026. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
- Usage Terms/Restrictions: None