GORSUCH: Do you think Native Americans are birthright citizens under your test? SAUER: Ah, I thi...
Watch the Original
Engagement Metrics
About the Creator
Aaron Rupar is a prominent liberal political commentator and journalist known for his rapid-fire Twitter threads and video clips highlighting moments from political events, particularly those involving conservative figures. His style is concise, often sarcastic, and focused on exposing perceived hypocrisies or stumbles in real-time. Rupar has built significant credibility among left-leaning audiences for his consistent coverage of Trump-era politics and Supreme Court proceedings.
What's This About?
This Twitter post captures a tense exchange during Supreme Court oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, where Justice Neil Gorsuch questions Solicitor General John Sauer on whether Native Americans would qualify as birthright citizens under the Trump administration's proposed test for the 14th Amendment. Sauer hesitates, saying 'Ah, I think ... so. I have to think that through,' highlighting potential flaws in the administration's challenge to birthright citizenship. The case stems from Trump's executive order limiting citizenship to children of citizens or legal permanent residents, invoking historical precedents like Elk v. Wilkins (1884), which initially excluded Native Americans born on tribal lands from birthright citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Key themes include the scope of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' historical treatment of Native Americans, and the risk of upending long-standing interpretations from United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).[1][3][5][6]
🔥Why It's Trending
The clip is trending due to oral arguments occurring on March 31, 2026, just before a potential July 2026 decision that could redefine U.S. citizenship amid ongoing immigration debates. Sauer's hesitation draws attention to vulnerabilities in the Trump administration's position, amplified by Rupar's influential account with millions of followers. It resonates now as it ties into broader discussions on the 14th Amendment's original intent and exceptions for groups like Native Americans.[1][2][4]
💡Fun Facts
- 1Native Americans were not granted birthright citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, over 50 years after the 14th Amendment.
- 2In Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that Native Americans born on tribal lands were not 'subject to U.S. jurisdiction,' unlike children of immigrants.[5][6]
- 3United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) affirmed birthright citizenship for children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants, setting a broad precedent.[1][3]
- 4Only about 30 countries worldwide practice unrestricted birthright citizenship like the U.S., making it relatively rare globally.[2]
- 5Today's babies born on tribal lands are citizens by statute, not solely the 14th Amendment, per post-1924 law.[8]
📚Read More
US Supreme Court to decide if Trump can end birthright citizenship
SCOTUS will hear arguments April 1, 2026, in a case challenging the President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-364/380988/20251029143516758_BrOfRespts_States.pdf
Birthright citizenship: the exceptions provide the rule
The battle over birthright citizenship is a battle over its exceptions. The 14th Amendment’s first sentence proudly proclaims that “[a]ll persons born . . . in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction […]
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark-1898
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/31/us-style-birthright-citizenship-is-uncommon-around-the-world/
← Swipe to see more →
More Trending on Twitter
Dear Supreme Court Justices: Your job is to follow the law. Even when it’s politically difficul...
Dear Supreme Court Justices: Your job is to follow the law. Even when it’s politically difficult. The law is clear: We The People, as the sovereign citizens, never gave birthright citizenship to illegals. Not in the 14th amendment. Not any statute after. If we change our minds, we will have our elected representatives in Congress change the law for us. Like we did for American Indians. You wear robes, not capes.
by 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: Did I understand you to say that domicile is controlled by Congres...
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: Did I understand you to say that domicile is controlled by Congress? Trump's Solicitor General Sauer: Congress can't dictate certain classes of people lack the legal capacity to form a legally binding domicile. Jackson: My understanding was the framers put this citizenship clause into the Constitution to prevent future Congresses from affecting citizenship in this way. Sauer: I... uh, uhhh... no I don't think so.
by Headquarters
Donald Trump’s attorney Solicitor General John Sauer needing to “think” about whether or not Nati...
Donald Trump’s attorney Solicitor General John Sauer needing to “think” about whether or not Native Americans are American citizens while arguing against birthright citizenship in front of the Supreme Court is absolutely wild. https://t.co/rcplkZSdb0
by Art Candee 🍿🥤