The Supreme Court heard arguments on President Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors. Chief Justice John Roberts called a key aspect of the administration's position 'very quirky' during the session attended by President Trump himself. The case centers on whether the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship applies to children whose parents lack legal status.

A central issue was the meaning of 'domicile' in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark precedent, which the administration argues supports limiting citizenship to children of legal permanent residents. Justices questioned whether the frequent references to domicile in the earlier ruling were legally significant or merely descriptive. Justice Gorsuch noted the absence of 'domicile' in 19th-century debates over the 14th Amendment, while Justice Kagan pressed why the term appeared so often in the opinion. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors are not 'domiciled' in the U.S., making their children ineligible for citizenship.

Justice Barrett raised concerns about practical implications, including foundlings - babies abandoned at birth whose parents are unknown. The administration's position could leave such infants stateless under a strict reading of the 14th Amendment. Several justices indicated that policy arguments about birth tourism and international practices should not influence their constitutional interpretation.