U.S. Representative Yvette Clarke has strongly criticized former President Donald Trump for attending oral arguments at the Supreme Court in a case involving birthright citizenship.
Trump’s appearance marked the first time a sitting president has attended oral arguments before the Supreme Court in person, according to reports. The case, Trump v. Barbara, centers on the constitutionality of an executive order issued on January 20, 2025, that seeks to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
- Advertisement -
The executive order proposes denying automatic citizenship to children born in the United States whose parents are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents. This interpretation challenges long-standing legal understandings of the amendment, which generally grant citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.
Legal analysts warn that if the injunctions currently blocking the order are overturned, the policy could leave thousands of children born in the United States without clear legal status.
Clarke, who represents Brooklyn, condemned both the policy and Trump’s presence at the court in a sharply worded statement.
“The 14th Amendment’s promise of citizenship to all those born on our soil is unambiguous,” Clarke said. “But Donald Trump has never believed the Constitution should come before his prejudices. His unprecedented decision to attend today’s oral arguments in the Supreme Court is nothing more than a deeply cheap intimidation tactic against a coequal branch of government.”
During the hearing, several justices reportedly expressed skepticism toward the administration’s arguments.
Following the proceedings, Trump took to the social media platform Truth Social, writing that the United States is “the only country in the world stupid enough to allow birthright citizenship.”
However, research by the Pew Research Center indicates that the United States is not alone in maintaining such policies. At least 32 countries, including Canada and Mexico, recognize birthright citizenship under their legal systems.
The case is expected to have significant implications for immigration policy and constitutional interpretation in the United States.
