Ann E. Marimow

So what's interesting is that the skepticism about the administration's use of history extends from the liberal justices to some of the key conservative votes like Justice Barrett and Justice Gorsuch.

And Gorsuch asks questions about this word domicile and says, if that's so critical to your argument, where is that in the debates surrounding the drafting of the 14th Amendment?

Where is that in the history?

What was the understanding of that word at the time?

Well, he says that there are 19th century sources that talk about domicile, but really returns to Wong Kim Ark and the language in that opinion.

And Gorsuch goes so far as to suggest that the Solicitor General not rely on the decision in Wong Kim Ark that was taken as a broad affirmation of birthright citizenship.

Right.

By the time John Sauer was finished with his argument, you had Chief Justice Roberts asking him about his quirky idiosyncratic theory.

You had Justice Amy Coney Barrett asking, how is this going to work on a practical level with the parents of newborn babies and asking them about their immigration status?

And you had Justice Gorsuch saying this precedent you're relying on is probably not your best case.

So it was not looking good for the administration.

So this is Cecilia Wong, who is legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, and she's representing the group of expectant parents who have sued the Trump administration on behalf of their future babies.

And Wong makes the case that it's a simple reading of the 14th Amendment.

That it's been interpreted broadly for generations and understood in court rulings throughout the years and executive actions by past presidents.

And she says very strongly that the interpretation of the 14th Amendment should not be changed now.

And Wong says that the government's case is particularly weak because it's asking the court not to overrule Wong Kim Ark, which, again, she says stands for this broad principle of birthright citizenship.

She says the government's emphasis on the word domicile was not the point of that opinion.

So if they continue to say that it should not be overruled, then the ACLU should win.

Right.

But then she faces some major pushback from the justices.