President Donald Trump said he plans to take the extraordinary step of attending Supreme Court oral arguments Wednesday in a case that could end birthright citizenship in the U.S.Subscribe to read this story ad-free Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content.”I’m going,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday. “Because I have listened to this argument for so long.”White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later confirmed to Jattvibe News that Trump plans to be there Wednesday morning when Supreme Court justices hear arguments on the constitutionality of a January 2025 executive order he signed that seeks to limit birthright citizenship to people who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident.Both the court and the nonprofit Supreme Court Historical Society said in October that there is no official record of any sitting president having attended oral arguments at the high court.Trump has previously attended the formal ceremonies at the court confirming his Supreme Court appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, but never before for arguments.Trump’s presence would come weeks after his attacks on justices following the court’s ruling against his tariffs. At the time, he called justices “disloyal to the Constitution.” In the days leading up to oral arguments in that case, Trump indicated he might attend them at the Supreme Court, but ended up not going.Trump is by no means the first president to publicly comment on a pending case tied closely to a White House agenda. President Barack Obama drew criticism in 2012 after he said the Supreme Court would be taking an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” if it struck down the 2010 Affordable Care Act.Chief Justice John Roberts has worked hard to keep the Supreme Court independent from the two other branches of government, frequently speaking out against threats to and attacks on the judiciary. Many of those attacks have come from Trump, the head of the executive branch.”The problem sometimes is that the criticism can move from a focus on legal analysis to personalities,” Roberts said on March 17. “And you see from all over, I mean, not just any one political perspective on it, that it’s more directed in a personal way, and that, frankly, can be actually quite dangerous.””Personally directed hostility is dangerous and has got to stop,” he added.