Live updates: Supreme Court justices question Trump's move to restrict birthright citizenship
This version of Trump Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Dhs Shutdown Live Updates Rcna266114 - Politics and Government | NBC News Clone was adapted by NBC News Clone to help readers digest key facts more efficiently.
The president issued an executive order that would restrict citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. who has at least one parent who is a citizen or a permanent resident.
What to know today
- BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE: The Supreme Court is hearing arguments this morning on President Donald Trump's push to limit the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship for anyone born in the U.S. who has at least one parent who is a citizen or a permanent resident. Trump attended the hearing but left around 11:30 a.m.
- TOUGH QUESTIONS: Several justices expressed skepticism about Solicitor General D. John Sauer's arguments, questioning the administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the meaning of "domicile" and other legal concepts. Justices are now questioning Cecillia Wang, a top lawyer for the ACLU who is arguing the case on behalf of the plaintiff, a woman referred to as "Barbara."
- TRUMP TO SPEAK ON IRAN: Trump will address the nation tonight on the war with Iran. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt did not provide details on what the president will say in his remarks, which are scheduled for 9 p.m. ET.
What did the Supreme Court decide in the landmark Wong Kim Ark case?
The plaintiffs' argument centers on a landmark Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, a decision in 1898 that established the precedent that anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parent’s nationality or citizenship status, is automatically a citizen under the 14th Amendment.
The case focused on Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to parents who were both Chinese citizens. At age 21, he took a trip to China to visit his parents. When he returned to the United States, he was denied entry on the grounds that he was not a U.S. citizen.
In a 6-2 decision, the Fuller Court, named after Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller, ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. Because he was U.S. born, and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” Section 1 of the 14th Amendment — the citizenship clause — automatically made him a U.S. citizen.
Much of the disagreement in the case surrounded the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Looking to limit birthright citizenship, Trump turns to an 1884 Supreme Court ruling against a Native American man
In a moment that could take on new significance almost 150 years later, Omaha election official Charles Wilkins on April 5, 1880, refused to register John Elk to vote on the grounds that he was Native American, and therefore not an American citizen.
Elk — believed to have been a member of what is now known as the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska — objected, saying he had severed all ties with his tribe and had willingly subjected himself to the authority of the United States.
He launched a legal challenge, arguing among other things that he was a citizen at birth because he was born within United States territory.
But the Supreme Court, in an 1884 case called Elk v. Wilkins, ruled against him, saying that Native Americans born within the territory of the United States did not have birthright citizenship. They had the same status as “the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,” the court said.
The Trump administration is now citing that case as it defends the president's plan to end automatic birthright citizenship, putting a new spin on the long-standing interpretation of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
Justice Gorsuch says Elk case 'may not be' helpful to Wang's argument
Speaking about the 1884 Elk v. Wilkins case that decided Native Americans were not automatically American citizens, Gorsuch told Wang, "Well, there's a lot in Elk, and some of it's not terribly helpful for you."
Noting that the same justice who authored Elk wrote the opinion in Wong Kim Ark, Gorsuch said, "it's a struggle."
"Sure," Wang agreed, adding, "let me help you out with that," and explained why she believes that there are some parts of Elk that are helpful to the ACLU's argument.
Justice Alito says the 1866 Civil Rights Act is 'pretty straightforward'
Alito asked Wang if she agrees that the citizenship test in the 14th Amendment is the same as the test in the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
Wang said the "the framers were trying to do the same thing with the language in both."
"So then I think we can turn to the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, because it's more straightforward," Alito said. "You know, subject to the jurisdiction thereof is like the, you know, the puzzle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a mystery, but not subject to any foreign power, is pretty straightforward."
ACLU lawyer arguing case is a birthright citizen
Cecillia Wang, the ACLU legal director who's arguing in favor of birthright citizenship, is a birthright citizen herself.
Wang told The New York Times that her parents, who were from Taiwan, were in the country on student visas when she was born in Oregon in 1971, which made her a U.S. citizen by birth.
“Your parents could be undocumented immigrants who fled here with nothing but the clothes on their back, or your ancestors could have come on the Mayflower,” she told the paper. “But you and I are exactly the same as U.S. citizens.”
What is 'domicile' as a legal concept?
Numerous judges have peppered Sauer about his arguments on the importance of the "domicile" of a child's parents.
Sauer contends the 14th Amendment does not extend to the children of undocumented immigrants because their parents don’t owe "allegiance to the United States by virtue of domicile," or permanent residence.
The Law Dictionary defines domicile as: "That place in which a man has voluntarily fixed the habitation of himself and family, not for a mere special or temporary purpose, but with the present intention of making a permanent home, until some unexpected event shall occur to induce him to adopt some other permanent home."
Justices press ACLU lawyer about the use of 'domicile' in prior court case
Justices are pressing Wang about the term "domicile," which refers to permanent residence.
Chief Justice John Roberts said that the ACLU dismisses the use of the word "domicile" in the Wong Kim Ark case.
"Isn't it at least something to be concerned about to say that since it's discussed 20 different times and has that significant role in the opinion that you can just dismiss it as irrelevant?" he asked.
Shortly after, Justice Elena Kagan circled back to asking about the use of the word "domicile" repeatedly in the 1898 case.
Justice Samuel Alito also brought up the fact that "domicile" was referenced repeatedly in the case.
"Why put it in if it's irrelevant?" he asked.
Wang responded, arguing "it was a stipulated fact" and that the Wong Kim Ark decision "has binding precedential effect."
"Even if you think that Wong Kim Ark decided the case based on the stipulated facts, you have to follow that controlling rule of decision," she said.
Justice Gorsuch says legal community's interpretations of Wong Kim Ark case is 'a mess'
In his initial questions for Wang, Justice Gorsuch told her, "if we’re trying to understand how the legal community understood what happened in Wong Kim Ark, seems to me it’s a mess. So maybe you can persuade me otherwise."
"I think I can Justice Gorsuch," Wang answered, going on to argue that the Wong Kim Ark case clarified that domicile is "not relevant" in the question of birthright citizenship.
Trump leaves Supreme Court as birthright citizenship arguments continue
Trump has departed the Supreme Court after attending his solicitor general's arguments for more than an hour.
The plaintiff's attorney, Cecillia Wang, is now delivering her arguments against the president's executive order.
The motorcade carrying President Donald Trump departs the Supreme Court today. Kent Nishimura / AFP - Getty Images
Lawyer for plaintiffs in birthright case begins arguments
The plaintiffs' lawyer, Cecillia Wang, has begun her arguments. She serves as the national legal director for the ACLU.
Wang argued that the administration not asking to overturn the Ark decision is a "fatal" error.
Justice Jackson asks why Sauer believes framers didn't adopt common law when considering allegiance
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson told Sauer that he has "a number of hurdles" in his argument, including explaining why he believes that the framers didn't adhere to common law at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified.
"It seems as though the court had already accepted at the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment that the allegiance that you were talking about was the English common law rule that," Jackson told Sauer.
"Allegiance meant that you are covered by the laws of the jurisdiction that you can rely on that jurisdiction's protection," Jackson added. "That's what allegiance meant. Now you're saying today, 'No, no, allegiance meant something about loyalty or that kind of idea.'"
Justice Barrett weighs potential 'messy' applications of new interpretation
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Sauer on potential "messy" applications of a new interpretation of birthright citizenship.
"I can imagine it being messy in some applications," she said.
"What if you don't know who the parents are?" she asked moments later, asking Sauer about how the Constitution may address this issue.
"Domicile is a constitutional standard in all kinds of other situations," Sauer said, referring to permanent residence.
The justice also pointed out that in some cases, it may not be clear if the parent, including citizens, intends to stay in the U.S.
"What if you have someone who is living in Norway with their husband and family, but is still a U.S. citizen, comes home and has her child here and goes back," she said. "How do we know whether the child is a U.S. citizen because the parent didn't have an intent to stay?"
Sauer said that Trump's executive order focuses on immigration status.
"Taking evidence, so to speak, under subjective intent wouldn't be done," he said.
Justice Kavanaugh doubts whether the administration's point about other countries is legally relevant
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said to Sauer, "I get the point thinking about, 'Gee, European countries don’t have this, or most other countries, many other countries in the world don’t have this.'
"I guess I’m not seeing the relevance as a legal, constitutional interpretive matter, necessarily, although I understand it’s a very good point as a policy matter," he added.
Sauer said, "Our point is, you know, it’s a very small minority, because almost every country, and certainly all European countries, have a different rule, and the world hasn’t ended."
Justice Kavanaugh presses Sauer on his interpretation of a 19th-century law
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed Sauer on why Congress repeated language in the 1940s and 1950s about "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and did not try to disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark.
The 1898 Wong Kim Ark case established precedent that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen, regardless of their parent's nationality or citizenship status.
"One might have expected Congress to use a different phrase if it wanted to try to disagree with Wong Kim Ark on what the scope of birthright citizenship or the scope of citizenship should be, and yet Congress repeats that same language, knowing what the interpretation had been," Kavanaugh said.
Trump is the first sitting president to attend high court arguments
Trump is the first sitting president to attend an oral argument at the high court, but not the first to be in the courtroom, according to the Supreme Court Historical Society.
Trump has been there twice before in 2017 and 2018, attending the formal investiture ceremonies of Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the society noted. Both were held on days the court was not in session.
Other presidents have attended swearing-in ceremonies as well, but only one stayed to witness any court proceeding — Richard Nixon in 1969. The then-president watched the swearing-in of Warren Burger and read a tribute to retiring Chief Justice Earl Warren, and listened to decisions that were being handed down by the court before he spoke, the society said.
Others presidents have argued cases as lawyers before the court, but did so before or after serving in the White House, and not while they were in office, the society said.
They include John Quincy Adams, who argued four cases before becoming president and one after he was president, and Nixon, who argued a case in 1966.
The others who did so were Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison and William Howard Taft.
Taft argued the most cases — 39 of between 1890 and 1892 while he was serving as solicitor general, according to the society. He then served as chief justice of the Supreme Court after his one term in the White House.
Justice Gorsuch asks if Native Americans are birthright citizens
Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Sauer if Native Americans would be considered birthright citizens today under his argument.
"I think so?" Sauer said. "I mean, obviously they've been granted citizenship by statute."
Gorsuch asked again and Sauer said, "No, I think the clear understanding that everybody agrees in the congressional debates is that the children of tribal Indians are not birthright."
"I understand that's what they said," Gorsuch said, "But your test is the domicile of the parents, and that would be the test you'd have us apply today, right?"
"Yes, yes," Sauer said.
Gorsuch eventually responded, "I'll take the yes."
Justice Sotomayor asked Sauer whether he's asking the court to overturn the Wong Kim Ark decision
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer whether he's asking the court to overturn United States v. Wong Kim Ark, a case decided in 1898 that established the precedent that anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parent's nationality or citizenship status, is automatically a citizen.
"We're not asking you to overrule Wong Kim Ark," Sauer said.
He added later, "We think that's similar to a drive-by jurisdictional ruling, where there's a simple statement that's not debated, there's no further analysis of it. There's really an assumption there."
Wong Kim Ark appears in an image attached to his 1894 departure statement fom San Francisco. National Archives
Justice Thomas questions Sauer on whether 19th century domicile text applies to current day immigration
Justice Clarence Thomas questioned Sauer on whether the 19th-century cases he cites can be applied to today's era of immigration, which features many more immigrants to the U.S. than there were back then. Thomas made the distinction between immigration and citizenship.
"Generally, you're getting a lot of questions about immigration, and they harken back, of course, to citizenship, which is defined in or set out in the 14th Amendment. How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration?" Thomas asked.
Sauer said that many of the debates about the 14th Amendment, when it was discussed, were about Native American tribes, not immigrants.
Justice Barrett presses administration on theory about children of enslaved people
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Sauer on the administration's arguments related to formerly enslaved people, saying that enslaved people "were here against their will, and so maybe felt allegiance to the countries where they were from."
"And you say that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to put all slaves on equal footing, newly freed slaves on equal footing, and so they would be citizens," she said. "But that's not textual. So how do you how do you get there?"
The Trump administration has argued that children of undocumented migrants do not owe allegiance to the U.S. because they do not have legal status to establish permanent residence.
Sauer said that 19th-century Antebellum law treated enslaved people's presence as lawful.
Justice Gorsuch questions Sauer's reasoning on 'domicile'
Justice Neil Gorsuch said to Sauer that he's pointing to laws against immigration that are "much more restrictive" than they were in the 19th century.
"We really didn’t have laws like that we do today until maybe 1880," he said. "So if somebody showed up here in 1868 and established domicile, that was perfectly fine, without respect to anything, any immigration laws, there they were. And so why wouldn’t we, even if we were to apply your own test, come to the conclusion that the fact that someone might be illegal is immaterial?"
He continued, "It's a natural extension whose domicile matters. I mean, it's not the child, obviously, it's your, it's the parents. You'd have us focus on. And you know, what if, is it the husband? Is it the wife? What if they're unmarried, whose domicile?"
Gorsuch asked how is domicile determined.
Sauer argued that he doesn't see a strong distinction between 1868 and now. "Domicile is a high-level concept, has been pretty consistent over centuries, which is lawful presence with the intent to remain permanently."
Gorsuch responded, "It's striking that in none of the debates do we have parents discussed. We have the child's citizenship and the focus of clauses on the child, not on the parents, and you don't see domicile mentioned in the debates. That's the absence is striking."
Justice Jackson asks Sauer if 'domicile' is controlled by Congress
Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson asked Sauer if he was arguing that domicile is controlled or will eventually be controlled by Congress.
"Who is domiciled? I'm struggling to figure out who is domiciled," she said.
Sauer said, "Domiciliaries are people who are lawfully present and have an intent to remain permanently." He said that Congress "can't dictate that certain classes of people legal entrance and so forth, cannot lawfully lack the legal capacity to form a legally binding..."
Jackson responded, "Doesn't it make the domicile for the purpose of the 14th Amendment turn then ultimately on Congress' will in a way that the framers did not intend?"
Sauer said it's his understanding that the framers put the citizenship clause into the Constitution "to prevent future Congresses from being able to affect citizenship in this way."
Justice Kagan questions Sauer's argument about undocumented immigrants
Justice Elena Kagan questioned Sauer about his argument that children of undocumented immigrants shouldn't be granted U.S. citizenship, saying that temporary visitors to the U.S. aren't the same as undocumented immigrants.
"Most of your brief is not about illegal aliens. Most of your brief is about people who are just temporarily in the country," Kagan told Sauer.
Later, she asked Sauer to explain where he's drawing his argument about undocumented immigrants from, telling the solicitor general, "You're using some pretty obscure sources to get to this concept."
Chief Justice Roberts questions the administration's 'quirky' arguments
Chief Justice John Roberts said in his line of questioning that the examples the administration are raising to support its argument are "very quirky."
"You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships," he said. "And then you expand it to the whole class of illegal aliens are here in the country. I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples."
Justice Thomas asks first question
The justices' questions for attorneys kicked off with Justice Clarence Thomas asking Sauer about the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford case.
Thomas specifically asked Sauer to explain the government's position on state citizenship versus national citizenship.
ACLU national policy director says Supreme Court case is 'fundamental to what it means to be American'
Mike Zamore, the ACLU’s national director of policy and government affairs, said outside the court that “this case is really fundamental to what it means to be American and what America means.”
“What Donald Trump is trying to do in rewriting the 14th Amendment is essentially say that there are two different kinds of people in this country, and that there's a permanent underclass, essentially, who's not good enough for citizenship, and we just fundamentally reject that,” he said.
He said he was interested to watch if justices ask about the practical implications for reshaping birthright citizenship.
“I think there's also an interesting question about, just like, the practical implications of what Trump is trying to do, and it'll be interesting, I think, to see whether some of the justices push the administration on these questions of like, ‘Yeah, but how? Like what would the implications of this really be?’” he said.
Mike Zamore, the ACLU’s national director of policy and government affairs. Megan Lebowitz / NBC News
Oral arguments in birthright citizenship case begin
Oral arguments in the challenge to Trump's birthright citizenship order have begun, with Solicitor General D. John Sauer delivering his opening remarks.
Trump leaves White House with Pam Bondi to head to Supreme Court
Trump just left the White House with Attorney General Pam Bondi. They are heading to the Supreme Court to attend oral arguments in the birthright citizenship case.
President Donald Trump's limousine arrives at the Supreme Court today. Win McNamee / Getty Images
ACLU calls Trump's visit to Supreme Court today an 'effort to distract from the gravity and importance' of the case
The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is leading the legal challenge to Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship at the heart of today's oral arguments, blasted the president's decision to attend oral arguments today.
“If President Trump wishes to come to the Supreme Court to watch the ACLU school him in the meaning of the Constitution and birthright citizenship, we will be glad to sit alongside of him in that very court," Anthony D. Romero said in a statement.
Romero called Trump's visit to the court an effort "to distract from the gravity and importance of this case" that "will not succeed."
"The Supreme Court is up to the task of interpreting and defending the Constitution even under the glare of a sitting president a couple dozen feet away from them," he added, later calling today's case "one of the most important cases in the last hundred years."
Protester calls birthright citizenship 'essential'
Mary Wertsch, 74, protested outside the Supreme Court with umbrellas adorned with messages like “due process” and “rule of law.”
“This is fundamental,” she said of birthright citizenship. “I can't believe the court even is looking at it. It could not be clearer in the Constitution, this is essential.”
Wertsch said she has protested a lot, adding that “since the inauguration, I put everything else in my life on hold. This is what I do.”
She said she was affiliated with the group Third Act, a liberal advocacy group for people ages 60 and older.
Mary Wertsch. Megan Lebowitz / NBC News
Protesters demonstrate against Trump's birthright citizenship order
Kathleen Otal, 54, protested against the Trump administration outside the Supreme Court with a sign that read “Born in the U.S.A. = true American."
“Our democracy is being assaulted and attacked in the most basic of ways, and I'm here to defend democracy and defend the human rights of all Americans,” she said.
Otal has protested the Trump administration before, including at "No Kings" protests, but said this was her first time demonstrating in front of the Supreme Court.
“This is something that is fundamental to our country, is that we were built on immigrants,” she said. “And people who were born here are true Americans, and they always will be, and we're not willing to give that up.”
Kathleen Otal. Megan Lebowitz / NBC News
Birthright citizenship arguments — and Trump — draw college students' interest
Fabio Crynen, 28, arrived outside the Supreme Court at around 5:30 a.m. with a group of fellow Georgetown students for a chance to see the arguments. Crynen, from Germany, said he was interested to see the court because it was very different “concerning the legal culture from our countries.”
“The significance of the single justices is quite unique in the U.S." Crynen said.
"Secondly, of course, because the case is a landmark case, and it tells a lot about the differences about methodology, originalism, living Constitution, so it's quite interesting from a legal perspective,” he said, adding that he was also interested to see Trump.
Fabio Crynen. Megan Lebowitz / NBC News
Supreme Court observers go without sleep to 'witness history in the making'
Rose Griffis, 39, has been waiting outside the Supreme Court since about 1:30 a.m. for the chance to “witness history in the making.”
“Precedence has already been set in many courts before this moment, and now here we are rehashing this fight all over again,” she said.
Griffis says she’s been awake since 9 a.m. yesterday, except for maybe a 45-minute nap on the sidewalk.
“It's been a little cold, but great people are all around us, and so it's had a tinge of excitement to the air," she said. "It's not every day that you get to be a part of a moment like this, and it's certainly not every day that the president of the United States shows up to give his two cents.”
Despite the lack of sleep, she said she felt “straight adrenaline.”
Rose Griffis outside the Supreme Court. Megan Lebowitz / NBC News
Jiashuo Wang, a high school student, flew from the Bay Area during his spring break to try to attend the arguments with a friend. The two slept on the ground last night, and Wang said he got just an hour of sleep.
“It's not really cold now, but the floor is hard, but for such case, it's worth it,” he said.
“I really like constitutional laws,” he said. Rattling off other citizenship cases, Wang added that today marks “really a landmark case for the whole United States” in the past hundred years.
Political junkie spends 'freezing' nights outside Supreme Court
Leo Contreras, 43, flew in from Kansas City and slept two nights outside to try to ensure a spot inside the Supreme Court for the arguments on Trump's birthright citizenship order.
Leo Contreras. Megan Lebowitz / NBC News
“The problem is that this is something that Republicans have for a long time been trying to do away with,” said Contreras, a self-described politics junkie. “And in my opinion, this is going to affect every American.”
Contreras said he slept on the sidewalk and got a sleeping bag for the second night. He took turns with another man for bathroom breaks and to go to a store.
“It was horrible, especially the first night,” he said. “It was super cold, super, super cold, freezing, freezing concrete.”
Transportation secretary says renaming of Palm Beach's airport after Trump is official
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a post on X that the renaming of Palm Beach International Airport after Trump is official.
"The FAA is working on changing PBI’s airport code RIGHT NOW… the name change to Donald J. Trump International Airport already official! Stay tuned @FAANews," he wrote.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signed a bill Monday to rename the airport after the president.
King Charles to address Congress on April 28 during state visit
King Charles will address a joint meeting of Congress on April 28, congressional leaders announced this morning.
In a letter to the king, RepuBlican and Democratic leaders said the speech "will provide a unique opportunity to share your vision for the future of our special relationship and reaffirm our alliance at this pivotal time in history."
Charles' late mother, Queen Elizabeth II, last addressed a joint meeting of Congress in May 1991. The leaders referred to her remarks in their letter, saying she told lawmakers the U.S.-U.K. relationship was rooted in shared "spirit of democracy."
Charles' address will come as he makes a state visit to the White House.
What to know about the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship arguments
The Supreme Court will tackle a question that most people had assumed was settled law: Is a child born in the United States a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether the parents are?
For 158 years, the answer to that question has largely been yes. The Trump administration will argue today that no, U.S. citizenship does not extend to the children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders, and Trump’s January 2025 executive order limiting birthright citizenship should stand.
The Trump administration’s arguments, laid out in a 66-page brief submitted by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, focuses on what may be the five most-focused-on words in the world today: "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
The administration is arguing that the children of undocumented immigrants don’t owe allegiance to the United States by virtue of domicile, or permanent residence, because undocumented immigrants lack the legal capacity to establish legal residence here, and therefore are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
It also says considering anyone “subject to U.S. law” as a citizen is far too broad, bringing up several exceptions to birthright citizenship in its brief, including the children of Native Americans, who the Supreme Court ruled in 1884 did not have birthright citizenship (which was remedied by President Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s).
The case was brought by a Honduran named Barbara who lives in New Hampshire. The plaintiff represents a class of families who argue that Trump's order is “squarely contrary to the constitutional text, this Court’s precedents, Congress’s dictates, longstanding Executive Branch practice, scholarly consensus, and well over a century of our nation’s everyday practice.”
“Their view would allow Congress to decide who is entitled to birthright citizenship, by enacting statutes to manipulate domicile rules,” her lawyers wrote in their brief. “That is obviously untenable, as the whole point of the Clause was to prevent the political branches from stripping away birthright citizenship.”
Pete Hegseth says Army aircrew who flew helicopters near Kid Rock’s home won’t be punished
There will be no punishment and no investigation after two Army military helicopters were flown by Kid Rock’s house over the weekend, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said yesterday.
The Army had suspended the aircrew in Saturday’s incident, a U.S. official said earlier in the day, but Hegseth announced last night that the suspension was lifted and no punishment would be forthcoming.
“No punishment. No investigation,” Hegseth wrote on X. “Carry on, patriots.”
American journalist kidnapped in Iraq
An American journalist was kidnapped in Iraq yesterday by suspected Iranian-backed militants, according to the State Department and the country’s Interior Ministry.
The journalist was identified in the hours after her kidnapping came to light as freelancer Shelly Kittleson, with Al-Monitor, one of the publications she works for, calling for her “safe and immediate release.”
Federal judge temporarily blocks further demolition of the White House for Trump’s ballroom
A federal judge in Washington has issued an order temporarily blocking the further demolition of the East Wing of the White House and the construction of Trump’s expansive new ballroom.
“I have concluded that the National Trust is likely to succeed on the merits because no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have,” wrote U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush.
The ruling yesterday blocks the administration “from taking any action in furtherance of the physical development of the proposed ballroom at the former site of the East Wing of the White House, including but not limited to any further demolition, site preparation work, landscape alteration, excavation, foundation work, or other construction or related work, other than actions strictly necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House and its grounds.”
Leon paused his order from taking effect for 14 days to allow time for appeal.
Trump signs executive order on voting, criticizes mail-in ballots
Trump signed an executive order yesterday outlining new rules for voting by mail.
In doing so, he criticized mail-in voting, telling reporters in the Oval Office without evidence that “the cheating on mail-in voting is legendary.”
The order directs the federal government to review voter roll data across the country to verify voter eligibility. It also asks the U.S. Postal Service to take measures to ensure ballots are sent only to eligible voters. Trump acknowledged that the order could be challenged in court.
Trump cast a mail-in ballot this month in a special election in Florida, just days after he had said voting by mail was “mail-in cheating.” He later told reporters that he decided to use mail-in voting because he is president and couldn’t be in Florida, as he “had a lot of different things.”
Trump to address the nation tonight with ‘important update on Iran’
Trump will give an “important update” on the Iran war in an address to the nation tonight, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on X.
The address is scheduled for 9 p.m. ET. Leavitt did not provide details about what Trump will say.
Trump told reporters yesterday that he expects the U.S. to “leave” Iran in two or three weeks. He added that Iran does not have to make a deal with the U.S. for the war to end.
“Whether we have a deal or not, it’s irrelevant,” he said in the Oval Office.
Trump plans to attend oral arguments in Supreme Court birthright citizenship case
Trump said he plans to attend arguments at the Supreme Court today in the case that could end birthright citizenship.
“I’m going,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “Because I have listened to this argument for so long.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later confirmed to NBC News that Trump plans to be there this morning when Supreme Court justices hear arguments on the constitutionality of a January 2025 executive order he signed that seeks to limit birthright citizenship to anyone who has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident.
Both the court and the nonprofit Supreme Court Historical Society said in October that there is no official record of any sitting president having attended oral arguments at the high court.
Supreme Court weighs Trump’s contentious attempt to limit birthright citizenship
WASHINGTON — Tackling one of President Donald Trump’s most provocative policies, the Supreme Court today considers the lawfulness of his proposal to limit the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil.
Announced on the first day of Trump’s second term in office as part of his hard-line immigration policy, the executive order at issue would limit birthright citizenship to people who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident.
