Trump, in historic first, attends Supreme Court arguments on birthright citizenship
US President Donald Trump departs the North Portico of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 1, 2026. (Shawn Thew/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, a historic first for a sitting president, as the justices consider his executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.
“I’m going,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday.
No cameras are allowed inside the courtroom. Trump’s motorcade arrived outside the building on Wednesday morning shortly before arguments began. His motorcade later departed the court after Solicitor General John Sauer’s presentation on behalf of the government.
Trump previously floated attending arguments last year when the court took up his global tariff policy, but ultimately he did not attend.
Trump has repeatedly attacked the Supreme Court in the wake of the ruling invalidating most of his tariffs, including two justices he appointed, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.
“I love a few of them, I don’t like some others,” Trump said on Tuesday when asked which justices he would be listening for most closely.
Trump is asking the justices to uphold his Day 1 executive order eliminating birthright citizenship under a novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment and requiring parents to prove their own legal status before citizenship is granted to their children.
Lower courts have struck down Trump’s executive order.
American Civil Liberties Union Legal Director Cecillia Wang argued on behalf of the class of plaintiffs. Wang herself is a birthright citizen, born in Oregon to Taiwanese parents.
ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero addressed Trump’s attendance, saying he will “watch the ACLU school him in the meaning of the Constitution and birthright citizenship.”
“Any effort to distract from the gravity and importance of this case will not succeed. The Supreme Court is up to the task of interpreting and defending the Constitution even under the glare of a sitting president a couple dozen feet away from them,” he said.
(WASHINGTON) — In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy” for minors as a likely violation of counselors’ free speech rights under the First Amendment.
LGBTQ groups, who have hailed conversion therapy bans as critical to the mental health of minors figuring out their identities during adolescence, say the decision will mean more kids are “traumatized” going forward.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, in the court’s opinion, said the law — enacted in 2019 to protect minors from efforts by mental health providers to change their sexual orientation or gender identity — “censors speech based on viewpoint” and must be subjected to the highest form of legal scrutiny, which a lower court had not applied.
“Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same,” Gorsuch wrote.
“But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country,” he continued. “It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth. However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter.
“Our precedents do not compel this conclusion,” Jackson wrote. “Speech uttered for purposes of providing medical treatment may be restricted incidentally when the state reasonably regulates the speaker’s provision of medical treatments to patients.”
A Christian licensed therapist from Colorado Springs, Kaley Chiles, brought the legal challenge, alleging the law violates her free speech rights and prevents her from openly talking with clients about their desire to rid themselves of same-sex attractions or better align with their biological sex.
“Colorado law does not just regulate the content of Ms. Chiles’ speech. It goes a step further,” Gorsuch wrote, “prescribing what views she may and may not express.”
The decision sends the case back to a lower court for further review of the law.
Colorado will likely no longer be able to forbid state licensed providers from attempting to change a patient’s orientation through talk therapy.
“States cannot silence voluntary conversations that help young people seeking to grow comfortable with their bodies,” said Jim Campell, the attorney for Chiles who argued the case before the court. “The decision today is a significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children.”
Conversion therapy has been widely discredited by major American mental health and medical organizations for decades. Half the states in the U.S. have outlawed the practice as ineffective and harmful to minors, often on a bipartisan basis. Those laws are now in question.
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said that more kids will “suffer” as a result of this decision.
“Today’s reckless decision means more American kids will suffer. The Court has weaponized free-speech in order to prioritize anti-LGBTQ+ bias over the safety, health and wellbeing of children,” Robinson said in a statement.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who has defended the state’s conversion therapy ban in court, called Tuesday’s ruling a “setback for Colorado’s efforts to protect children and families from harmful and discredited mental health practices.”
“For generations, states have set and enforced standards to ensure that licensed professionals provide safe and appropriate care,” Weiser said in a statement. “We strongly disagree with the court’s reasoning and are carefully reviewing the decision to assess its full impact on Colorado law and on our responsibility to protect consumers and patients.”
Abigail Spanberger, governor of Virginia, during an inauguration ceremony at Capitol Square in Richmond, Va., Jan. 17, 2026. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a rising star in the Democratic Party who captured the governor’s office last year by a large margin, will deliver the Democrats’ response Tuesday night to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, focusing on affordability and the chaos she believes the Trump administration has caused at home and abroad, her team told reporters.
Spanberger, who was inaugurated in January after serving three terms in the House of Representatives, will discuss lowering the persistently high costs of housing, health care, energy and groceries despite the administration’s insistence that some of these costs have come down.
The daughter of a law enforcement officer and a nurse, Spanberger focused relentlessly on affordability throughout her 2025 gubernatorial campaign. Despite the economy being the top issue Trump ran on in the 2024 election, it’s been one of the issues he’s struggled with the most during his second term, as Americans still haven’t felt the “Trump boom” they were promised.
In an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll, 57% of Americans disapprove of how Trump’s handling the economy, and 64% disapproved of how he’s handling tariffs on imported goods.
Spanberger, a former CIA officer, will also address how the Trump administration is contributing to greater worldwide uncertainty.
Trump and his team have spent a large portion of his second term so far focusing on foreign policy, including Trump going head-to-head with some U.S. allies and becoming more aggressive on the world stage. A former federal law enforcement officer who worked on narcotics and money-laundering cases for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Spanberger will also address what critics call the chaos caused by the Trump administration, which continues its immigration enforcement efforts that Americans are seeing in their communities.
She is also expected to challenge Republicans in Congress for not standing up to Trump.
Several Democrats have invited survivors of late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to attend Trump’s address, while others plan to skip the event altogether in protest.
The governor will give her speech live from Colonial Williamsburg, the restored 18th century capital where Virginian representatives voted for its delegation to Congress to propose independence for all 13 colonies from Great Britain, and later adopted the Virginia Declaration of Rights — which influenced the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.
There are at least two major counter events that several Democrats plan to attend, including MoveOn’s People’s State of the Union, which is promoting the participation of more than 20 members of Congress; and the “State of the Swamp” event by Defiance.org that features a handful of celebrities appearing by video or in person, such as Robert De Niro.
Spanberger prepared for her remarks by watching speeches other Democrats have delivered in response to Trump’s previous addresses to Congress.
A view of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts which was recently renamed The Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the performing arts in Washington, DC on December 29, 2025. (Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s plan for a “Complete Rebuilding” of the Kennedy Center in Washington has sparked a legal debate over whether he — or Congress — has the power to control the high-profile cultural institution.
The battle began in December, when Trump’s name was added to the building’s facade — above the existing signage that reads “The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts” — following a unanimous vote by Trump’s hand-picked board of center trustees.
It escalated recently, when Trump announced it would close in July for two years — to make major renovations he said were necessary.
Some members of Congress are pushing back, including in court, alleging Trump’s actions are unlawful and should be reversed.
What does the law say? Here’s a closer look at what the law and history say on the question:
Since Congress created the cultural institution in a federal statute, designating it as a living memorial in 1964 shortly after President John F. Kennedy’s death and then through its expansion in the 2010s, it has been operated by both the executive and legislative branches — contributing to the legal debate.
While the executive branch oversees the appointments of the center’s board of trustees, Congress has the ultimate say on what money gets appropriated and what projects get approved.
The House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies grants the center’s board the power to act on any proposed and approved changes.
According to the top Democrat on the subcommittee, Rep. Chellie Pingree, the panel has historically controlled all funding, project management and security, separate from the executive branch or what is voted on by the center’s trustees.
Congress has proposed and authorized expansive construction projects, such as the REACH expansion adjacent to the Kennedy Center, designed for artist collaboration, to smaller standard year-to-year maintenance costs.
When Trump’s signature legislation passed in July, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” it circumvented the subcommittee, instead directly appropriating $256,657,000 for “necessary expenses for capital repair, restoration, maintenance backlog, and security structures of the building.”
In a statement, the Kennedy Center’s new president, Richard Grenell, a Trump appointee, said, “I am grateful for President Trump’s visionary leadership. I am also grateful to Congress for appropriating an historic $257M to finally address decades of deferred maintenance and repairs at the Trump Kennedy Center.”
The Trump administration has suggested these already appropriated funds will cover any costs of his proposed major renovation.
“It desperately needs this renovation and temporarily closing the center just makes sense — it will enable us to better invest our resources, think bigger and make the historic renovations more comprehensive,” Grenell said. “It also means we will be finished faster.”
Limits on the president’s power? Georgetown University law professor David Super told ABC News that even though the money for those changes is already appropriated by Congress, Trump and his administration do not have total freedom to make decisions.
“The Constitution says that no money shall be drawn for the Treasury except in accordance with an appropriation passed by Congress,” Super said. “He can spend that money for any of the purposes Congress provided it for, and that includes deferred maintenance, repair, restoration, renovation. It does not allow him to rebuild it.”
While Trump has suggested major renovations, no plans have been officially released or shared with the congressional subcommittee overseeing the center. During an Oval Office photo, Trump said the steel would be “fully exposed” but not removed.
“I’m not ripping it down. I’ll be using the steel,” he said. “So, we’re using the structure. We’re using some of the marble and some of the marble comes down, but when it’s opened, it’ll be brand new and really beautiful. It’ll be at the highest level.”
Super said if those renovations align with the language of the law Congress has passed, it is within Trump’s legal right both as president — and chair of the Kennedy Center’s board — to go forward. If the renovations go beyond what the law spells out and allows, Super said, his moves would be unconstitutional.
“Some of his remarks about ‘maybe, they will use the marble, maybe they won’t’, imply that he’s planning something much more than renovation or repair,” Super said. “If so, then he would be violating the language of the appropriation, and therefore the Constitution.”
When asked whether the president would keep his plan within the constraints laid out by Congress, White House spokeswoman Liz Hudston told ABC News: “While the Democrats neglected the Trump-Kennedy Center for years, President Trump immediately stepped up to rescue and revitalize the institution.”
Hudston also included some intended uses of the funds for maintenance, including “repairing and, where necessary, replacing elements on the exterior of the building,” and “work to bring the Trump-Kennedy Center into compliance with current life safety codes and security standard.”
So far, there are no lawsuits alleging Trump’s proposed renovations to the center are illegal.
The renaming The center’s controversial renaming presents another legal question.
When the building was designated a living memorial in 1964, Congress wrote in explicit language on how the center should be named and operated.
U.S. Public Law 88-260 dictates the U.S. must “be held to designate or refer to such Center as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”
“They really left very little to the imagination, and detailed what they wanted the Kennedy Center to be,” Super said, adding, “there are many things Congress creates that it doesn’t name, and that’s left to the president to name, but here is a law saying it shall be known as the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”
Super said that regardless of what the board of trustees decides, the name will legally remain as written in the statute.
“And as a duly passed law of Congress, this binds you, it binds me, and it binds the president,” Super said. “The money that the president says he wants to spend on renovating the Kennedy Center is money that was appropriated for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, not for the Trump-Kennedy Center. So, if he in fact uses that money, he is acknowledging that its name did not change.”
A former Kennedy Center trustee, Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty, has filed a lawsuit to stop Trump and the board of trustees from changing the Kennedy Center’s name and wants Trump’s name removed.
U.S. Code § 76j states that “the Board shall assure that after December 2, 1983, no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”
“Because Congress named the center by statute, changing the Kennedy Center’s name requires an act of Congress,” Beatty’s lawsuit said. “But on December 18 and 19, 2025 — in scenes more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes than the American republic — the sitting President and his handpicked loyalists renamed this storied center after President Trump.”
Pingree said her subcommittee has been told little about Trump’s plans and that she had instead learned about his proposed changes through social media.
“What’s going to happen now?” Pingree told ABC News, adding,” he tore down the East Wing. Does this mean he thinks he’s going to tear down the Kennedy Center and just rebuild it as a monument to himself?”
With lawmakers beginning discussions on funding for 2027, Pingree said she is working with her Republican counterpart to demand information.
“We will certainly say to them, we’re not going to allocate any money in this cycle until you give us more information about what you’re doing,” Pingree said.
“If that money is currently being used just to keep the place afloat because ticket sales are off and performers won’t perform, then it’s not going to go to the desperately needed. I believe there are some really important things that need to be done to that building,” she said.
