The recent declaration that former President Trump intends to ask the Supreme Court to rehear a case concerning birthright citizenship has certainly sparked a considerable amount of discussion and, frankly, a good deal of bewilderment. The core of this issue revolves around the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. The idea of asking the highest court in the land to revisit a decision, particularly one on such a fundamental aspect of American law, raises immediate questions about the process and the likelihood of such a request being granted.
It’s important to understand that the Supreme Court does not typically rehear cases that have already been fully argued and decided.… Continue reading
In a concurring opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply criticized Justice Clarence Thomas and the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Jackson deemed their arguments “ahistorical” and a misinterpretation of the amendment’s universalist vision of equality. She contended that their approach incorrectly pitted Black Americans against immigrants, contrary to the amendment’s intent to prevent caste and subjugation. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld birthright citizenship, rejecting the administration’s attempt to limit it based on parental “domicile” and allegiance.
Read More
Stephen Miller, a key figure in the Trump administration’s immigration policies, has urged the Supreme Court to issue a unanimous decision overturning birthright citizenship, arguing that anything less would signify a non-functioning democracy. He contends that the 14th Amendment, originally intended to enfranchise formerly enslaved people, was not meant to grant automatic citizenship to the children of immigrants. Miller emphasized that a country allowing individuals to gain citizenship simply by setting foot on U.S. soil and having a child would diminish the sanctity of citizenship itself, posing a threat to the nation’s future. The Supreme Court has heard arguments on this matter, with President Trump also attending some proceedings.
Read More
During Supreme Court arguments regarding birthright citizenship, a majority of justices expressed strong skepticism towards President Trump’s executive order. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s questioning of Solicitor General John Sauer, particularly concerning his theory of “domicile” and “allegiance,” appeared to seal the administration’s loss. Barrett highlighted the historical context of the 14th Amendment, questioning how Sauer’s theory could reconcile with granting citizenship to formerly enslaved people, whose circumstances did not align with notions of voluntary domicile. Ultimately, the exchange suggested that the justices favored a simpler, “jus soli” approach to citizenship, based on place of birth, over the complex familial and allegiances proposed by the government.
Read More
Even conservative justices expressed significant doubt regarding the Trump administration’s bid to alter birthright citizenship. Probing questions from Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Gorsuch and Barrett challenged the administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, suggesting the arguments presented were not persuasive. The case hinges on the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, with the administration arguing it was intended only for freed slaves, a view contested by opponents who highlight a century of precedent.
Read More
President Donald Trump made a historic appearance at the Supreme Court, attending oral arguments concerning his order to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. This marked the first time a sitting president has observed arguments at the nation’s highest court. Trump later reiterated his stance on Truth Social, calling the current policy “stupid.” The case centers on interpreting the 14th Amendment’s clause regarding those “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Read More
President Donald Trump made an unprecedented appearance at the Supreme Court to argue against birthright citizenship. However, his bid to overturn the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment faced significant skepticism from several justices, including his own appointees. After less than 90 minutes, Trump departed, later posting on social media that the U.S. is “STUPID” for allowing birthright citizenship. The hearing centered on an executive order aiming to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents, a move already blocked by lower courts and contested by legal scholars who deem it highly unlikely to succeed.
Read More
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on the constitutionality of President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship via executive order. This decision offers the court the chance to revisit a settled legal issue, potentially upending a long-standing tenet of American law. The case stems from an executive order signed in January, and while lower courts have unanimously rejected the administration’s arguments, the Supreme Court’s ruling, expected by the end of June, could have significant implications for citizenship and immigration. Arguments will be heard next year and will likely hand down a decision by the end of June.
Read More
The Supreme Court has decided to review a case concerning birthright citizenship, a constitutional right dating back over a century. This review stems from a challenge to the established practice, potentially impacting the citizenship status of children born to migrants in the U.S. illegally or on temporary visas. The court’s decision will determine whether birthright citizenship is upheld or if it will be terminated. Oral arguments between the government and the plaintiffs, including immigrant parents and their children, will be scheduled in the coming months.
Read More
Second US appeals court rejects Trump’s order curtailing birthright citizenship. Well, isn’t that something? The second court of appeals has now tossed out Trump’s attempt to chip away at birthright citizenship. You know, the one enshrined in the 14th Amendment? This isn’t just a legal issue; it strikes at the very heart of who we are as Americans. It’s about the promise of equal protection under the law, a promise that’s been a cornerstone of our nation since the Civil War.
This whole situation is like watching a slow-motion train wreck. You know where it’s headed: potentially all the way to the Supreme Court.… Continue reading
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker