U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments Trump v. Barbara
Apr 1, 2026
Ms. Wong, respondent counsel defending broad birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. General Sauer, senior government advocate arguing for a narrower, domicile-based reading. They spar over whether citizenship hinges on territorial birth or parental allegiance, the role of Wong Kim Ark, historical sources about temporary sojourners, and how statutes should align with constitutional meaning.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Allegiance Not Presence Drives Citizenship
- The government argues the Citizenship Clause targets allegiance, not mere presence, so birthright applies only to those with domicile-based allegiance.
- General Sauer pointed to congressional debates and 19th-century commentators claiming temporary sojourners' children were excluded from citizenship.
Wong Kim Ark Emphasized Domicile Link
- General Sauer told the Court Wong Kim Ark focused on domiciled parents and that the Clause presupposes domicile when it says 'reside'.
- He cited Justice Story and argued 'reside' means domicile, linking parental domicile to children's citizenship.
Historical Consensus Against Sojourners' Citizenship
- The government treats the Clause as a broad rule that incorporates specific exceptions and can be applied to new situations like illegal immigration.
- Sauer argued commentators from 1881–1922 consistently excluded temporary visitors' children, extending naturally to unlawful entrants.