What a Day – SCOTUS Takes On Birthright Citizenship

Host: Jane Coaston
Guest: Melissa Murray, NYU Law Professor, co-host of "Strict Scrutiny"
Date: April 2, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode dives deep into the Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) consideration of birthright citizenship—a constitutional right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment that grants U.S. citizenship to nearly all born on American soil. With a controversial executive order from President Trump attempting to end this practice for children of undocumented immigrants or those here temporarily, the episode examines both the legal landscape and the unprecedented presidential drama unfolding as Trump himself attended the oral arguments. Jane Coaston calls in constitutional expert Melissa Murray for a substantive, clear-eyed discussion on the stakes, the arguments, and why history, precedent, and the plain language of the Constitution are all at issue.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Stage: Trump, Birthright Citizenship, and SCOTUS

• [00:42] Coaston outlines Trump’s executive order ending citizenship for certain U.S.-born children and notes the clear constitutional language:

  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States...”

• The administration argues that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply universally, contradicting longstanding legal precedent.

2. Trump’s SCOTUS Spectacle

• [03:01] Trump’s attendance at the Supreme Court for oral arguments was unprecedented.
• Quote:

  “It's not every day you see a sitting president roll up to the court. In fact, it's not any day you see a sitting president do that.” (Melissa Murray, [03:16])

• Murray highlights that Trump’s relationship with his own appointees is strained, and his presence did not faze the justices:

  “It took a lot of stones to show up in their house on Wednesday, especially since they didn't seem especially fazed to have him there and certainly weren't in any mood to give him and his arguments any quarter.” ([03:29])

3. The Case for—and Against—Birthright Citizenship

• [05:03] Murray explains the 14th Amendment and its roots as a repudiation of the Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship based on race.

• The only exceptions are children of diplomats and (historically) Native Americans, later corrected by Congress.

• Trump’s team argues that the amendment only intended citizenship for families of freed slaves, not immigrants’ children—a claim Murray labels as ahistorical.

• Quote:

  “The 14th Amendment citizenship clause was a direct repudiation of that [Dred Scott]. Everyone understands that. The Trump administration, however, twists that history and says...the framers...were only intending to confer birthright citizenship to...the babies of slaves. That's not true.” (Melissa Murray, [07:57])

• The historical context made clear that birthright citizenship was meant broadly, with immigration top of mind even in the 1860s.

4. The Courtroom Dynamics

• [09:02] Justice Alito floated the idea that the founders couldn’t have foreseen undocumented immigration—a line of argument Murray critiques as inconsistent with originalist logic:

  “That kind of logic...people have been using about the prospect of being able to regulate firearms... If they wanted everyone to have a gun, then everyone should have a gun. And I think the same logic should hold here.” ([09:26])

• [10:32] Most justices appeared skeptical of Trump’s position.

  • Justice Sotomayor was “put out” that the question was even being considered.
  • The Trump administration's legal team struggled with basic questions, especially about Native Americans—a point of particular interest to Justice Gorsuch.

• Memorable Analogy:

  “It's a little bit like jeggings. Like, you know, we never would have thought about it five years ago, but you just keep wearing them, and eventually you wear it down, and all of a sudden...jegging, they're happening. That's what kind of happened here.” (Melissa Murray, [11:11])

5. The Native American Question

• [12:25] Solicitor General John Sauer appeared unprepared for Gorsuch’s pointed questioning about Native American citizenship.
  • Coaston:

    “No one on the court cares as much about how the law can impact Native Americans as Neil Gorsuch. That's his sweet spot.” ([12:25])

  • Murray:

    “It is literally like going to the Supreme Court and arguing before Cookie Monster and being shocked when he's like, do you have a cookie?” ([12:35])

6. What’s at Stake for the Court—and the Country

• [13:16] Coaston asks how a ruling against the executive order could affect Trump’s perception of the Court.

• Murray warns that, while the likely result is a Trump loss, that should not be used to exonerate or lionize the Court:

• Quote:

  “This should be unanimous. The fact that it won't be is a travesty. And you should remember that when all of the other media are talking about how great this court is for standing up to Donald Trump, like, this was amazing that they did this. They stood up to him... Of course they dealt him a loss. This was the easiest question in the world...” ([14:09])

• Murray cautions listeners not to overlook previous court decisions that have enabled Trump in other ways, even if he loses this round.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Melissa Murray on Trump’s courtroom presence:

  “But it's very Mafia like though, just to roll up.” ([04:20])

• On the absurdity of the debate:

  “I, too, was surprised that in the year of our Lord 2026, we were literally debating whether we were going to strip citizenship from people whose parents were from another country in this nation of immigrants.” (Melissa Murray, [10:36])

• On institutional responsibility:

  “The winner here is this court, this court that gets to burnish this patina of independence that is undeserved...” (Melissa Murray, [15:08])

Timestamps of Key Segments

• 00:42–03:01 — Intro to birthright citizenship and Trump’s executive order
• 03:01–04:40 — Trump’s Supreme Court appearance and media spectacle
• 05:03–09:00 — Legal history and intent of the 14th Amendment
• 09:02–12:25 — Courtroom arguments and justices’ reactions, especially Alito and Gorsuch
• 13:16–15:36 — Political implications, Court’s perceived independence, warning against overpraising SCOTUS for “obvious” decisions

Conclusion

Jane Coaston and Melissa Murray provide a sharp, accessible breakdown of how an issue most Americans presumed settled entered the Supreme Court—and the broader legal, political, and historical context that makes this case so fraught. The episode clarifies the clear intent and settled precedent behind birthright citizenship, the current climate of legal argumentation, and the political gamesmanship of the Trump administration. Murray’s warnings about the “patina of independence” attributed to the Court, even as it entertains fringe arguments, provides crucial perspective for listeners on the stakes of this SCOTUS decision—and on how to read Court victories and losses in a charged political era.