College football champion Indiana Hoosiers to visit White House this month: Source

(WASHINGTON) — Solicitor General D. John Sauer got a somewhat frosty reception from at least two key Supreme Court Justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch — as oral arguments in the Supreme Court’s landmark birthright citizenship case got underway Wednesday.

President Donald Trump arrived at the Supreme Court Wednesday morning, making him the first sitting president to attend the high court’s arguments. 

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. 

Roberts noted that the Trump administration is relying on “very quirky” arguments, saying they are using “narrow exceptions” to claim that a much broader class of people should be ineligible for birthright citizenship. 

“You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships, and then you expand it to the whole class of illegal aliens here in the country. I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples,” said Roberts. 

Gorsuch also remarked that the Trump administration seems to be relying on outdated “Roman law sources” and court precedents that do not work in their favor. 

“I’m not sure how much you want to rely on Wong Kim Ark,” Gorsuch remarked about the landmark 1898 case that enshrined birthright citizenship. 

Justice Elena Kagan similarly voices concerns about the sources cited by the Trump administration. 

“You’re using some pretty obscure sources to get to this concept,” she said. 

Justice Samuel Alito initiated a discussion on “illegal immigration” by noting that it was “something that was basically unknown” at the time when the 14th amendment was adopted in the 1860s. 

“What we’re dealing with here is something that was basically unknown at the time when the 14th Amendment was adopted, which is illegal immigration,” Alito said. “So how do we deal with that situation when we have a general rule?”

Sauer responded by agreeing with Alito, saying that “illegal immigration did not exist [then],” and “the problem of temporary visitors didn’t exist.”

Sauer pointed to “commentators” from 1881 to 1922 who, he claimed, were “uniformly saying the children of temporary visitors are not included.” He argued that this logic “naturally extends” to those who enter the country illegally.

Justice Elena Kagan challenged Sauer’s argument on immigration, saying his arguments in his brief did not focus on “illegal immigration.”

“Most of your brief is about people who are just temporarily in the country where there was quite clearly an experience of an understanding that there were going to be temporary inhabitants,” Kagan said. “And your whole theory of the case is built on that group.”

“You don’t get to talking about undocumented persons until quite later, and at much lesser … I think it’s like 10 pages to three pages or something like that,” she said.

Sauer began his arguments by arguing that the longstanding understanding of the 14th Amendment is incorrect. 

“The citizenship clause was adopted just after the Civil War to grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves and their children whose allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile. Here, it did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens who have no such allegiance,” he said. 

In his opening statements, Sauer laid out one of the Trump administration’s key arguments about why birthright citizenship should not be extended to the children of undocumented immigrants, claiming that if it remains “unrestricted” it will continue to be a “pull factor for illegal immigration” and would “reward” immigrants who violate immigration laws. 

“It has spawned a sprawling industry of birth tourism as uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States,” Sauer said. 

The Trump administration has often claimed that birth tourism — the idea that foreign nationals travel to the U.S. with the sole purpose of having a child here — poses a national security risk and undermines birthright citizenship. 

Justice Roberts pressed Sauer to explain how common the problem is, but Sauer was unable to give a clear answer.

“No one knows for sure. There’s a March 9 letter from a number of members of Congress to DHS saying, ‘Do we have any information about this?’ The media reports indicate estimates could be over one million, or 1.5 million from the People’s Republic of China alone. The congressional report that we cite in our brief talks about certain hotspots, like Russian elites coming to Miami through these birth tourism companies,” Sauer said. 

Sauer went on to claim that media reports indicate there are 500 “birth tourism companies” in China, prompting Justice Roberts to interject to ask if Sauer agreed that had “no impact on the legal analysis before us.” 

“We’re in a new world now as Justice Alito pointed out, to where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who is a U.S. citizen,” Sauer added later.

In a statement this morning, ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero addressed Trump’s attendance at the proceedings, 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. 

Although the proceedings should provide a sense of how interested the judges are in Trump’s reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, a ruling in the case isn’t expected until the end of June.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — House Minority Whip Katherine Clark told ABC News she will not attend President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night, making her the highest-ranking House Democrat to skip the event.

“And let me tell you why,” Clark told ABC’s Linsey Davis in an exclusive interview. “What we have seen from this president is a series of lies, of disrespect for the American people. He campaigned that he would lower costs on Day 1, he would keep people safe and secure. And he has done just the opposite.”

“So, I’m going to spend my evening, while he is spewing his misinformation tonight, talking to my constituents about their state of the union and how this administration is impacting them,” Clark said.

Dozens of Democrats, at least 45, are set to skip the State of the Union address. Many instead are opting to take part in a counter-program on the National Mall sponsored by the progressive group MoveOn.

House Speaker Mike Johnson earlier Tuesday criticized Democrats who will be absent, saying it was “shameful that they would boycott an address.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has made the case for members of his caucus to attend without outbursts or to sit it out altogether.

“It’s our expectation that there will be some members who attend and attend in silent defiance, and there will be other members who will choose not to attend. And it’s up to every individual member to make the decision that makes the most sense for their constituents,” Jeffries told reporters on Tuesday afternoon.

Still, a majority of Democrats are expected to attend Trump’s speech, which is one of the president’s most high-profile opportunities to address Americans ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Notable guests of Democratic lawmakers include survivors of late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the business owner who successfully challenged Trump’s global tariffs and individuals affected by the administration’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis.

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger will deliver the Democratic response following Trump’s remarks. The two main themes she will focus on are affordability and the chaos the Trump administration has caused at home and abroad, according to Spanberger’s team.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The man accused of ambushing West Virginia National Guard members near the White House in November, where one was killed and another severely wounded, pleaded not guilty in federal court on Wednesday.

Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national who previously worked with the CIA in Afghanistan, was arraigned on nine charges, including first-degree murder, assault with intent to kill and illegal possession of a firearm.

Lakanwal appeared in court on Wednesday in a wheelchair, seemingly still recovering from the injuries prosecutors say he sustained in the incident.

The Justice Department’s push for the death penalty remains incomplete, with prosecutors telling Judge Amit Mehta that none of the current charges allow them to seek capital punishment. Prosecutors said in court they are reviewing potential additional charges that could make the case death penalty-eligible. Lakanwal is due back in court in early March.

“We will do everything in our power to seek the death penalty against that monster who should not have been in our country,” Attorney General Pam Bondi told Fox News in November.

While the District of Columbia abolished the death penalty decades ago, prosecutors can still seek capital punishment in federal court, where Lakanwal’s case is being handled, under limited circumstances. It remains unclear what additional charges the Justice Department is pursuing — officials with the department did not return a request for comment.

Lakanwal was one of thousands of Afghans evacuated to the United States after the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in 2021 and his application for asylum was approved in 2025 under the Trump administration.

Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died of her injuries on Nov. 26, the day before Thanksgiving. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe suffered a gunshot wound to the head and remains in recovery.

Court documents say Lakanwal shot Beckstrom and Wolfe in the back of the head with a .357 Smith & Wesson revolver. A National Guard major returned fire, and another Guard officer subdued Lakanwal. Wolfe is still recovering and will have cranioplasty, or skull reconstruction surgery, in March, according to Melody Wolfe, his mother.

In Afghanistan, Lakanwal was affiliated with a so-called Zero Unit, working closely with the CIA and special operations, ABC News reported in December. He was considered a trusted member of the unit, which carried out U.S. counterterrorism missions, officials with direct knowledge explained.

Investigators believe Lakanwal was under financial strain after his work permit expired and may have been experiencing a mental health crisis, sources told ABC News. Investigators are also examining whether the recent death of an Afghan commander Lakanwal had worked with and might have admired may have worsened his mental and emotional state, according to sources.

The two guard members were a part of President Donald Trump’s surge of troops into Washington, D.C., for law enforcement. After the shooting, the president deployed an additional 500 guard members into D.C., where some 2,600 are currently deployed performing civic duties like cleaning garbage off the street and patrolling the city’s tourist spots and Metro rail stations.

The guard deployment will last through 2026, two officials told ABC News in January.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.