by Sharon Rondeau
(May 15, 2025) — At approximately 10:38 a.m. EDT, this writer was able to access audio of oral arguments being presented in three cases challenging President Trump’s executive order expressing his interpretation of “birthright citizenship” as excluding children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens or to individuals sojourning within its borders.
A key focus of the litigation is whether a district court judge can issue an injunction affecting the entire country, as occurred in the three cases currently before the Court.
The hearing was scheduled for 10:00 a.m.; whether there was a delay or technical problems is unknown as of this writing.
A link to the hearing is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/; scroll down to the green “Live” button.
As of 10:49, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor is questioning the administration on the history of the 14th Amendment, the crux of the “birthright citizenship” issue.
Plaintiffs in the cases argue the 14th Amendment bestows citizenship on virtually every child born in the U.S., regardless of his or her parents’ status, while the executive order states, “…the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that ‘a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.”
Sotomayor opined to Solicitor General Dean John Sauer that “the government” has “lost” in the lower courts. “Every court has ruled against you,” she said at 10:53. “The government has no incentive to bring this case to the Supreme Court…,” she said, referring to the underlying “birthright” issue.
Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh predicted if the administration were to “win” the litigation, an explosion in “classes” of people filing suits would occur.
Sauer maintained Supreme Court “Rule 23” is the justification for the administration’s argument.
“There is a tradition of equity in this country…,” he said.
Kavanaugh then asked about the “30-day” holding period in the EO as it was originally written. If the administration were to “win,” Sauer responded, the 30-day period would then commence.
“Do you think they can get it together in time?” Kavanaugh asked, referring to the states if the administration prevailed and the 30-day period were to launch, imposing a change on their processes when considering citizenship for newborns, to which Sauer answered in the affirmative.
Oral argument was scheduled for 60 minutes.
[…] January 20, 2025, one of the first executive orders Trump signed was to declare birthright citizenship a violation of the intent of the 14th […]
https://www.westernjournal.com/clarence-thomas-makes-point-day-supreme-court-hears-arguments-birthright-citizenship-case/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=top-news-alert&utm_campaign=news-alert&utm_content=2025-05-16
“We the [legal U.S. citizen] People” of the past versus today’s “We the People” is what the U.S. Supreme Court MUST soon judge upon, or else, We the People on Main Street USA, YOU and me, MUST demand past generations of interpretations herein be honored, in spite of a possible “U.S. Supreme Criminals'” contrary usurpation-rulings in 2025!
Illegal Aliens aren’t subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States; The US couldn’t conscript an illegal alien into the US armed forces if a draft were conducted. Additionally, Congress the entity that is responsible for declaring what US Citizenship said in 2008 with Resolution 511 that Natural Born Citizens are the children of American parents. This is why Kamala Harris isn’t a Natural Born Citizen and had she won in 2024 Congress would’ve been faced with legal challenges along with a very awkward proposition of certifying an election of a candidate who can’t meet the standard of their own resolution.
President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, dated January 20, 2025, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship falls short of a peck of apples. Thus, the current hearings in this US Supreme Court decision will be greatly biased by not including all factors to make a Constitutional decision.
EO 14160 fails to identify children born of two (2) foreign parents who are currently not US citizens under any circumstance. All children born in the USA where both parents are not USA citizens are not eligible for automatic citizen status, regardless if the parents are here legally in the USA to eventually naturalize, whether they are here legally under temporary visa status, or whether they are here illegally.
This listed URL contains the below four paragraphs, verbatim citing important Congressional debates prior to both The Civil Rights Act legislation of 1866 and the 14th Amendment.
http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/14thamendment.html
Very well written