SpaceX Files for What Could Be the Biggest IPO Ever

Jessica Mendoza (0:00)

Hey, this is Jessica Mendoza, host of The Journal Podcast, our show about money, business and power. If you're looking for more deeply reported stories like we share every day, consider becoming a subscriber to The Wall Street Journal. Visit subscribe.wsj.com/thejournal, all lowercase, to subscribe now.

Alex Ossola (0:23)

The Supreme Court hears arguments on birthright citizenship. The outcome could redetermine who gets to be an American.

Lydia Wheeler (0:29)

You have people who have been relying on this automatic birthright citizenship for over a century. And so I think that there's always concern about how whatever they decide will play out in the real world.

Alex Ossola (0:42)

Plus SpaceX files for what could be the biggest IPO in history. And NASA's planning to go where no one has gone before, or at least not since 1972 It's Wednesday, April 1st. I'm Alex Ossola for The Wall Street Journal. This is the PM Edition of What's News, the top headlines and business stories that move the world today.

The Supreme Court heard arguments today on possible limits to birthright citizenship in the US. As expected, President Trump sat in on part of the hearing, the first known example of a sitting president to attend arguments before the Supreme Court. On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order that would end automatic birthright citizenship for babies born to unauthorized immigrants or people living here temporarily. At least six courts have already said the order violates the Fourteenth Amendment. WSJ Legal Affairs reporter Lydia Wheeler joins me now from Washington. Lydia, what was the Trump administration's argument here?

Lydia Wheeler (1:39)

So the Trump administration is arguing that the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to confer citizenship on newly freed slaves and their children, not on the children of immigrants in the country temporarily or illegally. And so what they're really focused on is that the citizenship clause says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and this is the key words subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. And the government argues that it's those words in the jurisdiction thereof that creates this condition that requires a child's parents to be citizens of the United States or permanent residents both under the Constitution and federal law.

Alex Ossola (2:20)

How did the justices seem to respond to those arguments?

Lydia Wheeler (2:23)

So the justices across the court's ideological divide voiced skepticism of the government's position that the citizenship clause was never designed to include the citizenship of people in the United States temporarily or illegally. And even Justice Samuel Alito at one point was like, isn't this a humanitarian problem? You know, he said that normally when you think about someone who is subject to an arrest potentially because they're here illegally, that they wouldn't say that they are domiciled or have a permanent residence in the US., but because of our ineffective immigration laws, he said, people have come to think of themselves as being permanent residents.

Samuel Alito (3:02)

There are people who are subject to removal at any time if they are apprehended and they go through the proper procedures, but they have in their minds made a permanent home here and have established roots, and that raises a humanitarian problem.

Lydia Wheeler (3:25)

So it seemed like right from the start that the government was having a hard time. But then there was this notable shift kind of halfway through the arguments, where it really started to seem like maybe some of the courts conservative majority was actually in favor of the president's arguments here. I think that there's always concern about how whatever they decide will play out in the real world.

Alex Ossola (3:49)

So you walked through the Trump administration's arguments, and what is the other side arguing?

Lydia Wheeler (3:53)

Right, so civil rights attorneys representing the individuals in this class action are challenging the order, and they say that the Trump administration is trying to radically reinterpret what has been a pervasive understanding of the Constitution, as well as the court's own precedent and federal law for well over a century. And they say that it's trying to erroneously add this domicile requirement for U.S.-born children with foreign national parents.

Alex Ossola (4:20)

Okay, guess we'll have to wait and see. That was WSJ Legal Affairs reporter Lydia Wheeler. Thanks Lydia.

Lydia Wheeler (4:25)

Thanks so much for having me.

Alex Ossola (4:26)

A decision is expected by the end of June. In his first comments after the arguments, President Trump posted on social media that the US was, quote, stupid for allowing birthright citizenship.

Anthropic is scrambling to contain the fallout after it accidentally exposed the underlying instructions it uses to direct its popular AI agent app, Claude Code. As of this morning, Anthropic representatives had requested the removal of more than 8,000 copies and adaptations of its raw Claude Code instructions, known as source code, that developers had shared on programming platform GitHub. WSJ tech reporter Sam Schechner joins me now. Sam, an Anthropic spokesman, said the league didn't expose any consumer information or data. So, just what was leaked here?