Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has come under fire for opposing President Trump’s push to do away with birthright citizenship, getting into a tense back-and-forth with U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer about whether the Trump Administration would follow court precedent, adding to a larger debate about whether judges should be able to block executive actions.
For context, the argument between Barrett and Sauer took place during a May 15, 2025, hearing as part of a case regarding President Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship, with Justice Barrett, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, saying that the Trump Administration was not following court precedent based on the ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that the president’s birthright citizenship order went against the Constitution.
According to press accounts, Barrett began by telling Sauer she wanted to address “a potential tension,” before backtracking and saying, “Well, no, not a potential tension, an actual tension that I see in answers that you gave to Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Kagan.” Next, Barrett asked if the Trump Administration was trying to “reserve its right to maybe not follow a Second Circuit Court precedent, say, in New York, because you might disagree with its opinion?”
Continuing, Barrett said that Sauer “resisted Justice Kagan when she asked you whether the government would obey” the precedent set by the Second Circuit Court, to which Sauer replied, “Our general practice is to respect those precedents. But there are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice, and that is not …” Barrett cut him off, asking if Sauer meant the practice of the Trump Administration or “”the long-standing practice of the federal government?”
In response, Sauer defended his previous statements, saying, “Yes, as it was phrased to me, we generally respect circuit precedent, but not necessarily in every case.” He added, “Some examples might be a situation where we are litigating to get that circuit precedent overruled and so on.” However, Barrett was unsatisfied with Sauer’s answer, saying, “That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about this week.”
Continuing the back-and-forth, Barrett asked Sauer about the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that President Trump’s birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional, to which Sauer replied, “Generally, we follow this,” defending the idea that the Trump Administration is adhering to federal court precedent. Barrett shot back, “So, you’re still saying generally? And you still think that it’s generally the long-standing policy of the federal government to take that approach?”
In response to the incident, conservatives were outraged online, with YourVoice America host Bill Mitchell writing on X, “Who else is sick and damn tired of any Amy Coney Barrett voting with the Liberals on everything?” In response, X user Pam Morris speculated, “I say she’s been compromised. Maybe her family threatened? She’s a mom first. Notice the others don’t have kids.”
"*" indicates required fields
In addition, Abraham George, Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, responded to the back-and-forth by saying, “The Supreme Court MUST end Birthright Citizenship!” George added, “Amy Coney Barrett & John Roberts hold the key. It’s absurd that foreign nations send pregnant women to ‘anchor’ their families. This wasn’t the intent—time to fix this lunacy! Immigration reform is pass (sic) due.”
Listen to the tense exchange:
Featured image credit: screengrab from the embedded video