Sign up for Executive Dysfunction, a weekly newsletter that surfaces under-the-radar stories about what Trump is doing to the law—and how the law is pushing back.

On Wednesday, Donald Trump became the first sitting president to attend Supreme Court arguments in person. It must have been a brutal morning for him. The justices heard Trump v. Barbara, a challenge to the executive order purporting to strip birthright citizenship from the children of many immigrants—and it quickly shaped up to be a blowout against the administration. Seven justices expressed profound skepticism toward the government’s revisionist history of the 14th Amendment, with most sounding downright hostile toward the pseudo-originalist theory cooked up to legitimize the policy. Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito asked questions friendly to the administration, and none of their colleagues sounded persuaded by their strained defenses. It appears that Trump’s attack on birthright citizenship—in some ways, the centerpiece of his nativist immigration agenda—is about to go down in flames.

From the outset, the justices gave Trump’s solicitor general, John Sauer, a frosty reception. He pressed an ahistorical, atextual theory of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The clause’s central purpose was to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children. When ratifying the amendment in 1868, however, Congress explicitly recognized that it would also apply to the American-born offspring of immigrants. The Supreme Court affirmed that principle in 1898’s Wong Kim Ark, and ever since, these children have received U.S. citizenship at birth regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Nonetheless, Trump issued an executive order on his first day back in office ordering the government to deny citizenship to the children of immigrants who lack permanent legal status and temporary visa-holders.

To justify this unprecedented order, Sauer tried to rewrite the 14th Amendment’s history with the aid of recent “scholarship” parsing the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” He claimed that the citizenship clause only applies to the children of parents who owed “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States, and that Wong Kim Ark applied only to those who were........

© Slate