Supreme Court to weigh birthright citizenship limits
Justices hear arguments on Trump’s push to restrict birthright citizenship, testing a century-old precedent and its implications for immigration enforcement.
FIRST THINGS FIRST
👋🏾 Hi, hey, hello! It’s Wednesday morning. Thank you for waking up with Congress Nerd Sunrise. Say hi or send me a tip: michael@onceuponahill.com.
FYI: President Donald Trump will deliver an address to the nation on Iran at 9 p.m.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments this morning on whether President Donald Trump can restrict birthright citizenship by executive order in a case that could upend more than a century of constitutional precedent and reshape the scope of his immigration crackdown.
Crowds are expected to gather early outside the Court as arguments begin, with heightened security and advocacy groups mobilizing around a case that cuts to the core of who is recognized as American. The line to attend the arguments began forming on Sunday. Trump will attend as well.
The case, Trump v. Barbara, centers on Trump’s directive denying automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents without legal status—an interpretation that directly challenges the Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
Lower courts have blocked the policy from taking effect, setting up a fast-moving legal fight that now lands before the justices with unusually high stakes and no clear off-ramp short of a definitive ruling.
At issue is the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which grants citizenship to those born in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The administration argues that undocumented immigrants do not meet that threshold, while challengers say the clause has long been understood to apply broadly, with only narrow exceptions.
The consequences would be immediate. A ruling for the administration could force federal and state agencies to rethink how citizenship is documented at birth, raising questions for hospitals, state vital records offices and federal systems that rely on birthright status.
The policy could also affect hundreds of thousands of births each year, creating a new class of U.S.-born children without automatic citizenship and setting up further legal fights over their status.
That shift would reinforce Trump’s mass deportation agenda. By narrowing who qualifies as a citizen, the policy would expand the population potentially subject to immigration enforcement over time—particularly as affected children grow up without lawful status, intersecting with the administration’s push to increase ICE capacity and funding.
Opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union, argue the order conflicts with settled law and risks destabilizing a constitutional guarantee that has defined American citizenship since Reconstruction. Advocacy groups are expected to rally outside the Court during arguments to underscore those stakes.
Inside the courtroom, the justices will confront whether to revisit Wong Kim Ark directly or interpret it more narrowly in a modern immigration system. A decision is expected by late June, but Wednesday’s arguments will offer the clearest signal yet of how far the Court is willing to go.
What to watch: Whether conservative justices signal openness to reexamining precedent, how the Court defines “jurisdiction,” and whether there is a path to a narrower ruling that avoids a sweeping rewrite of birthright citizenship.
THE COURTS
SCOTUS sides with therapist in conversion therapy case
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors violates the First Amendment when applied to a therapist’s talk therapy, concluding the state cannot restrict speech based on viewpoint in counseling sessions.
In a 66-page decision in Chiles v. Salazar, the justices said the law impermissibly allows therapists to affirm a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity while prohibiting conversations aimed at changing or reducing those feelings. The Court held that it constitutes viewpoint discrimination, one of the most disfavored forms of speech regulation under the Constitution. The ruling adds to the Court’s broader expansion of First Amendment protections into professional settings.
The case centered on Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor who argued the law restricted what she could say to clients seeking help aligning their behavior or identity with personal goals. She does not use medication or physical interventions, only conversation.
Lower courts had upheld the law as a regulation of professional conduct and applied a deferential standard. The Supreme Court rejected that argument and emphasized that when the “treatment” is purely speech, the First Amendment applies in full force—even for licensed professionals.
The ruling does not invalidate all conversion therapy bans. The Court stressed that states may still regulate harmful conduct and coercive practices. But laws that target speech itself—especially those that permit one perspective while banning another—will face strict scrutiny.
In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned the decision could limit states’ ability to protect minors from harmful practices tied to conversion therapy.
VOTING RIGHTS
Trump signs sweeping order on voter verification and mail ballots
President Trump signed a far-reaching executive order aimed at tightening citizenship verification and imposing new federal guardrails on mail-in voting, setting up a legal clash with states and voting rights groups.
The order directs the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration to compile and regularly share federal “citizenship lists” with state election officials, drawing from immigration and federal records to help identify who is eligible to vote. It also instructs the Justice Department to prioritize investigations and prosecutions tied to alleged noncitizen voting or improper ballot distribution.
A central piece of the directive targets voting by mail. Trump ordered the U.S. Postal Service to begin rulemaking that would require tracked ballot envelopes with unique identifiers, limit ballot delivery to voters on pre-approved state lists and create federal standards for how ballots are processed and mailed ahead of elections.
The order also raises the possibility of withholding federal funds from states or localities deemed out of compliance and requires election-related records—such as ballot envelopes—to be preserved for five years.
The move builds on earlier reporting that Trump allies were exploring ways to expand federal authority over elections, underscoring long-running tensions over the Elections Clause, which gives states primary control over how federal elections are conducted. If pursued aggressively, the approach could trigger yet another constitutional showdown over the limits of presidential power.
Trump defended the move as necessary to “protect the integrity of Federal elections,” though existing evidence shows noncitizen voting is exceedingly rare.
Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and voting rights advocates such as Democratic attorney Marc Elias immediately signaled legal challenges.
“See you in court,” Schumer wrote on X. “You will lose.”
House Administration Committee Ranking Member Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) said in a statement to me that Trump fears the American people and is willing to violate the Constitution to stop them from voting.
“His executive order is illegal, dangerous and subversive,” Morelle said. “It will not stand.”
THE COURTS
Judge halts Trump WH ballroom project
A federal judge has ordered an immediate halt to President Trump’s planned White House ballroom, siding with preservationists who argued the project lacked congressional approval.
In a ruling Tuesday, a U.S. District Court judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking further construction, finding the National Trust for Historic Preservation is likely to succeed in its claim that Trump exceeded his legal authority. The court said no existing law “comes close” to authorizing the president to demolish the East Wing and build a new structure on White House grounds, even if funded with private donations.
The decision turns on a core separation-of-powers issue: Congress, not the president, controls federal property and construction in Washington. A key statute explicitly bars new structures on federal land in D.C. without congressional approval, undercutting Trump’s argument that existing authorities covering maintenance and improvements were sufficient.
The ruling comes after months of rapid construction. The East Wing was fully demolished in October, and work on a roughly 90,000-square-foot ballroom—projected to cost about $400 million—was already underway and advancing toward above-ground construction.
The injunction pauses the project indefinitely unless Congress steps in to authorize it, injecting new uncertainty into one of Trump’s highest-profile White House initiatives.
Trump blasted the lawsuit and the ruling in a social media post, calling the preservation group a “Radical Left” organization and defending the project as “under budget, ahead of schedule” and “at no cost to the taxpayer.” The president later continued his criticism during a Q&A session with reporters after he signed the mail-voting executive order, saying the project did not require congressional approval.
The administration immediately appealed and has signaled it will fight to revive the project and likely seek a stay that could allow construction to resume while the case plays out.
CAMPAIGNS
Peltola rolls out anti-corruption plan in Senate bid
Former Rep. Mary Peltola on Tuesday unveiled a sweeping anti-corruption policy agenda aimed at “fixing the rigged system” in Washington, as the Alaska Democrat mounts a Senate bid that could reshape the state’s political map in 2026.
Peltola—who lost her at-large House seat in 2024—is now challenging Sen. Dan Sullivan, the Republican incumbent, while aligning her campaign message with Democrats’ broader push to win back the House majority and make gains statewide. Her campaign has positioned the rollout as a response to voter frustration with “self-dealing politicians” and outside influence in federal politics.
The plan centers on structural reforms to curb what Peltola describes as entrenched corruption in Congress. It calls for 12-year term limits, a ban on stock trading by members of Congress and their immediate families, and passage of the DISCLOSE Act to increase transparency around political donations. She also backs a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision, targeting the role of outside spending in federal elections.
Peltola said the proposal reflects feedback from Alaskans and her experience in Congress. She argues that curbing financial conflicts and dark money is key to lowering costs and restoring accountability.
Democrats are expected to lean on anti-corruption themes in 2026 as they try to reclaim the House and expand the Senate map, with races like Alaska emerging as longer-shot battlegrounds in what the party hopes is a favorable electoral environment.
IN THE KNOW
— A federal judge blocked a Trump executive order cutting off funding to NPR and PBS, ruling it likely violated the First Amendment by targeting the outlets’ views. The injunction halts enforcement for now, with an appeal expected.
— House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Military and Foreign Affairs Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) demanded answers from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after a report that his broker sought to make multimillion-dollar investments in defense firms ahead of U.S. strikes on Iran. The lawmakers are probing whether Hegseth attempted to profit from military action he was overseeing, calling it a potential abuse of power and breach of public trust.
— Vice President JD Vance announced an upcoming book to be released in June about his personal journey and how he found his way back to his faith.
HAPPENINGS
The House and Senate are out.
President Trump will attend Supreme Court arguments at 10 a.m., participate in an Easter lunch at 12:30 p.m. and a policy meeting at 3 p.m. and deliver an address to the nation at 9 p.m.
READ ALL ABOUT IT
“Is Trump walking out on his own war?” by Chas Danner: “He may just let everyone else figure out how to reopen the Strait of Hormuz so he can be done with the whole thing.”
“Why some American accents have endured—while others have faded away” by Jonquilyn Hill: “The history of how we talk mirrors the history of the country.”
“How a massive KitKat heist turned into crisis PR gold” by Natasha Khan and Kelly Cloonan: “The Nestlé response to the stolen chocolate shows how there’s no bad news if you can turn it into a meme.”