Trump Seeks Supreme Court Do‑Over on Birthright Citizenship and Carroll Verdict – Experts Say Odds Are Near Zero
Background of the Two Challenges
The Supreme Court’s June 30, 2026 ruling affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, striking down the Trump administration’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. In a separate case, a New York jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million to writer E. Jean Carroll for defamation and sexual‑abuse claims. Both decisions were celebrated by civil‑rights groups and seen as major defeats for the former president’s agenda.
Trump’s Rehearing Request
On July 9, 2026, Trump posted on Truth Social that he would “IMMEDIATELY” file petitions for rehearing on both matters. He framed the birthright citizenship decision as an “absurd” reinterpretation of a recent Fox News report about billboards in Mexico, and described the Carroll judgment as a miscarriage of justice that would "destroy America" if left unchanged.
How the Supreme Court Handles Rehearings
Under Court rules, a party has 25 days to request a rehearing, but the Court grants such petitions only in rare circumstances. The last time the Court reheard a decided case on the merits was in 1965 (Maryland v. U.S.). Experts such as Georgetown law professor Stephen Vladeck and William & Mary Bruhl note that a rehearing on a full‑merit decision is “exceedingly unlikely,” and even petitions concerning a denied certiorari are granted “once in a blue moon.”
Legal Opinions on the Viability of Trump’s Move
Law professors argue that the procedural barriers are substantial. The birthright case was decided after full oral arguments and a written opinion, meaning the Court would need a convincing change in factual or legal perspective—something that has not occurred in decades. The Carroll petition seeks a rehearing of a denial of certiorari, which the Court rarely revisits unless new, decisive developments arise.
Political Context and Potential Fallout
Trump’s push for a rehearing appears aimed at rallying his base ahead of upcoming elections. While his supporters have called for a total shutdown of birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court’s decision remains the law of the land. A failed rehearing request could further erode Trump’s standing and intensify calls for congressional action, but any legislative fix would require a constitutional amendment—a tall order given the current political climate.
Conclusion
Despite the president’s forceful language, the legal consensus is clear: the odds of the Court granting a rehearing are minuscule. The Supreme Court’s historical reluctance to overturn its own rulings, combined with the lack of new evidence, means Trump’s strategy is more symbolic than substantive. As the legal battles continue, voters and lawmakers alike will watch how the administration navigates these setbacks.
