President Donald Trump took the unprecedented step of attending oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday as his administration fights to uphold his early executive order banning birthright citizenship.
Trump reportedly arrived about 10 minutes before the session began, marking the first time in history that a president has attended a Supreme Court session.] “I’m going,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday. “Because I have listened to this argument for so long.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi traveled in the motorcade with Trump and will sit with him on Wednesday to listen to oral arguments in the birthright citizenship case.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed to NBC News that Trump planned to attend Supreme Court oral arguments on Wednesday concerning the constitutionality of a January 2025 executive order that seeks to limit birthright citizenship to individuals with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
According to the court and the Supreme Court Historical Society, there is no official record of a sitting president attending oral arguments at the Supreme Court.
Trump has previously attended ceremonial events at the court, including those confirming his appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, but has not attended arguments before.
The Supreme Court announced in December it would hear arguments in a case challenging birthright citizenship, the constitutional principle that grants U.S. citizenship to nearly all children born on American soil as laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The case centers on a statutory and constitutional question over whether the amendment’s Citizenship Clause applies to children born in the United States to parents who are not legal permanent residents. The plaintiffs argue that the original meaning of the clause does not extend automatic citizenship to children of parents in the country illegally.
The justices agreed to take up the appeal after lower courts rejected constitutional challenges brought by a group of petitioners who had sought to limit birthright citizenship. Oral arguments are expected to focus on historical evidence and interpretations of the 14th Amendment’s text and intent of Congress at the time the post-Civil War measure was ratified.
Richard Pildes, a professor of constitutional law at New York University, told NBC News that Trump’s presence during oral arguments “certainly raises the temperature of the argument, which might be the President’s intent.”
“The case is about the powers of the presidency as an institution,” Pildes said in an email. “By showing up in person, the President would instead be personalizing the case, as if it’s a personal confrontation between him and the justices.”
Presidents have typically avoided attending oral arguments, as there is a consensus that the court’s decisions pertain to the presidency as an institution rather than to any individual president’s term in office.
“They have understood it’s not good for the country to up the level of confrontation by representing the dispute as a more personalized one through showing up in person,” Pildes said.
The case, Trump v. Barbara, challenges the legality of an executive order issued by Trump his first day back in office, January 20, 2025. The order terminates automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are in the country without lawful status or who are only temporarily present.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case comes amid ongoing national debate over immigration policy and border security, with supporters of ending birthright citizenship saying it will reduce incentives for illegal immigration and critics warning that any change could leave thousands of U.S.-born citizens in legal limbo.
Observers say Wednesday’s session will be one of the most closely-watched cases of the term, with potential implications for millions of people and longstanding U.S. immigration law.
A ruling in the case could reshape federal immigration policy and raise questions about citizenship status for children born in the country to parents without lawful status. The Supreme Court is not expected to issue a decision before late June.