Thread: President Trump SITS INSIDE Supreme Court as Historic Oral Arguments BEGIN — First Si

President Trump SITS INSIDE Supreme Court as Historic Oral Arguments BEGIN — First Sitting President Ever to Do So

by Jim Hᴏft Apr. 1, 2026 10:00 am59 Comments

Audio By Carbonatix



President Donald Trump is inside the United States Supreme Court right now as oral arguments have officially begun in one of the most consequential cases in modern American history.


This is history unfolding in real time. For the first time ever, a sitting president is physically present during Supreme Court oral arguments.
Moments ago, President Trump entered the hallowed halls of the U.S. Supreme Court, taking a seat INSIDE the courtroom to personally oversee oral arguments in the monumental case Trump v. Barbara.


This marks the FIRST TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY that a sitting president has attended oral arguments at the nation’s highest court.


While previous presidents hid behind their desks and let activist judges dismantle our borders, President Trump is leading from the front. He is there to defend his January 2025 Executive Order aimed at ending the “Birthright Citizenship” magnet that has incentivized illegal migration for decades.


The radical ACLU and their “open borders” allies are currently pleading with the Justices to keep the floodgates open, but they have to do it while looking the President of the United States right in the eye.
“I’m going. I think so. I do believe,” Trump told reporters yesterday.


And he kept his word. He is there to ensure the 14th Amendment is finally interpreted the way the Founders intended, not as a loophole for lawbreakers.

Trump: I have listened to this argument for so long. And this is not about Chinese billionaires who are billionaires from other countries, who all of a sudden have 75 children, or 59 children in one case, or 10 children, becoming American citizens.
This was about slaves. And if you take a look—slaves—we’re talking about slaves from the Civil War. And if you take a look at when it was filed, all of this legislation, all of this—everything having to do with birthright citizenship—it was at the end of the Civil War.

The reason was it had to do with the babies of slaves and the protection of the babies of slaves. It didn’t have to do with the protection of multimillionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get American citizenship.

It is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen. It’s been so badly handled by legal people over the years. If you look at the original birthright citizenship papers, they all happened right after the Civil War. The reason was it had to do with the babies of slaves.

And hopefully it’s going to stay, because our country is being scammed. We’re getting all of these people—they’re selling the rights to them.

Representing the American people is Solicitor General D. John Sauer—the same legal powerhouse who secured the massive presidential immunity victory. He is squaring off against the ACLU’s Cecillia Wang in a battle for the soul of our Constitution.
Solicitor General John Sauer already came out swinging, dismantling the Left’s long-standing interpretation of birthright citizenship.

Sauer: This conclusion reflects the original public meaning of the clause. When Congress used the term “not subject to any foreign power” in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it rejected the British conception of allegiance.

Senator Trumbull explained that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the clause means “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” In 1884, this Court recognized that “subject to the jurisdiction” means owing direct and immediate allegiance.
The clause, thus, does not extend citizenship to the children of temporary visa holders or illegal aliens. Unlike the newly freed slaves, those visitors lack direct and immediate allegiance to the United States.


For aliens, lawful domicile is the status that creates the requisite allegiance, and the text of the clause presupposes domicile. For decades following the clause’s adoption, commentators recognized that the children of temporary visitors are not citizens.

And illegal aliens lack the legal capacity to establish domicile here. Unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations.


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...t-as-historic/

Related:

LIVE: Birthright Citizenship At Supreme Court


https://www.alipac.us/f13/live-birth...-court-438009/