Nina Totenberg

Thank you.

Well, A, that's the million-dollar question. At one level, it's about birthright citizenship, namely the constitutional provision that, as you say, guarantees automatic citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

Well, A, that's the million-dollar question. At one level, it's about birthright citizenship, namely the constitutional provision that, as you say, guarantees automatic citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

Well, A, that's the million-dollar question. At one level, it's about birthright citizenship, namely the constitutional provision that, as you say, guarantees automatic citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

The Justice Department, knowing that it almost certainly will lose its claim that the 14th Amendment doesn't really mean what it says, the department has instead asked the court to focus on a separate question, a technical legal question that could make the legal process for challenging any Trump policy far more difficult and lengthy. Okay. So this might be an odd one.

The Justice Department, knowing that it almost certainly will lose its claim that the 14th Amendment doesn't really mean what it says, the department has instead asked the court to focus on a separate question, a technical legal question that could make the legal process for challenging any Trump policy far more difficult and lengthy. Okay. So this might be an odd one.

The Justice Department, knowing that it almost certainly will lose its claim that the 14th Amendment doesn't really mean what it says, the department has instead asked the court to focus on a separate question, a technical legal question that could make the legal process for challenging any Trump policy far more difficult and lengthy. Okay. So this might be an odd one.

Can you lay it out for us, please? Sure. Not only does the text of the 14th Amendment guarantee automatic citizenship, the Supreme Court 127 years ago unanimously declared that is clearly the meaning of the amendment. And that precedent has never been disturbed. And to put icing on the cake, Congress passed a statute codifying birthright citizenship almost a century ago.

Can you lay it out for us, please? Sure. Not only does the text of the 14th Amendment guarantee automatic citizenship, the Supreme Court 127 years ago unanimously declared that is clearly the meaning of the amendment. And that precedent has never been disturbed. And to put icing on the cake, Congress passed a statute codifying birthright citizenship almost a century ago.

Can you lay it out for us, please? Sure. Not only does the text of the 14th Amendment guarantee automatic citizenship, the Supreme Court 127 years ago unanimously declared that is clearly the meaning of the amendment. And that precedent has never been disturbed. And to put icing on the cake, Congress passed a statute codifying birthright citizenship almost a century ago.

President Trump, however, has never accepted any of that. So on day one of his second presidential term, he issued an executive order barring citizenship for any child born in the U.S. whose parents were either not here legally or who were here legally but on a temporary basis, like a work visa. Immigrant rights groups and 22 states promptly challenged the Trump order in court,

President Trump, however, has never accepted any of that. So on day one of his second presidential term, he issued an executive order barring citizenship for any child born in the U.S. whose parents were either not here legally or who were here legally but on a temporary basis, like a work visa. Immigrant rights groups and 22 states promptly challenged the Trump order in court,

President Trump, however, has never accepted any of that. So on day one of his second presidential term, he issued an executive order barring citizenship for any child born in the U.S. whose parents were either not here legally or who were here legally but on a temporary basis, like a work visa. Immigrant rights groups and 22 states promptly challenged the Trump order in court,

Since then, three federal judges, both conservative and liberal, have ruled that the Trump order is, as one put it, blatantly unconstitutional. And three separate appeals courts have refused to unblock those orders while appeals are ongoing.

Since then, three federal judges, both conservative and liberal, have ruled that the Trump order is, as one put it, blatantly unconstitutional. And three separate appeals courts have refused to unblock those orders while appeals are ongoing.

Since then, three federal judges, both conservative and liberal, have ruled that the Trump order is, as one put it, blatantly unconstitutional. And three separate appeals courts have refused to unblock those orders while appeals are ongoing.

Well, as I said, the department certainly knows it's going to lose on birthright. So instead of asking the court to rule on the legality of Trump's executive order, the administration is asking the court to do something else.

Well, as I said, the department certainly knows it's going to lose on birthright. So instead of asking the court to rule on the legality of Trump's executive order, the administration is asking the court to do something else.

Well, as I said, the department certainly knows it's going to lose on birthright. So instead of asking the court to rule on the legality of Trump's executive order, the administration is asking the court to do something else.

to curb the power of federal district court judges to do what they did here, not only rule against the administration, but bar enforcement of Trump's executive order nationwide.