The Supreme Court heard arguments regarding President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, focusing less on the order’s constitutionality and more on the use of nationwide injunctions by lower courts. The administration argued that these injunctions create inefficiencies and encourage forum shopping, while Justice Jackson countered that eliminating them would force countless individual lawsuits, effectively allowing the government to circumvent judicial review indefinitely. This debate highlights the tension between individual rights and the efficient implementation of federal policy, with the Court’s decision to potentially limit nationwide injunctions having far-reaching consequences. The case touches upon historical precedent, the 14th Amendment, and the practical implications of resolving such disputes on a case-by-case basis.
Read More
Senator Ted Cruz recently denounced birthright citizenship as “terrible policy” during a Fox News interview, despite benefiting from it himself. This 14th Amendment guarantee of citizenship for those born in the U.S. has faced criticism from some conservatives, with Cruz’s statement sparking immediate backlash on social media. Many users highlighted the irony of Cruz’s position given his own Canadian birth and subsequent acquisition of citizenship via his mother. Cruz has yet to clarify whether his stance would retroactively affect his own citizenship.
Read More
During Supreme Court arguments concerning birthright citizenship, Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the Trump administration’s legal strategy, challenging the solicitor general’s assertion that expedited legal challenges were impossible. This sharp questioning, defending Justice Kagan’s concerns, directly contradicted the Trump administration’s position and sparked significant backlash from MAGA supporters. Her actions were interpreted as undermining conservative goals and prompted online accusations of disloyalty and calls for her removal from the Supreme Court. The case itself centers on the legality of a Trump executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Read More
President Trump, in a series of Truth Social posts, vehemently attacked birthright citizenship, labeling the U.S. as “stupid” and its citizens as “suckers,” while the Supreme Court considered a case challenging the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to those born within U.S. borders. Trump’s claims falsely narrowed the 14th Amendment’s historical context to solely encompass the children of slaves, ignoring its broader application and established legal precedent. Despite this, the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, overturned the Dred Scott decision and has been consistently interpreted to include children of immigrants, as affirmed by the 1898 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court is now tasked with resolving the conflict between Trump’s executive order and longstanding legal interpretation.
Read More
House Democrat unveils articles of impeachment against Trump. This action, while symbolically significant, faces an uphill battle given the current political landscape. The sheer number of potential grounds for impeachment highlights the gravity of the accusations leveled against the former president. Many believe his actions, from tariffs deemed illegal and widely unpopular, to alleged comfort and aid given to insurrectionists, warrant serious consequences.
The 14th Amendment, specifically Section 3, provides a compelling legal argument for impeachment. This section prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding office. Given the accusations surrounding Trump’s role in the January 6th events and subsequent pardons granted to those involved, this argument carries considerable weight, suggesting a direct violation of the Constitution.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, focusing on injunctions against his executive order. This order, based on a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, seeks to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen mothers. Several lower courts swiftly issued nationwide injunctions against the order, which the administration unsuccessfully attempted to overturn. The Court must decisively reject the administration’s arguments to uphold birthright citizenship and maintain the integrity of the judicial system.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s decision to consider former President Trump’s attempt to ban birthright citizenship via executive order is deeply troubling. The very notion that such a fundamental right, enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, could be overturned through an executive action, rather than the constitutionally mandated process of amendment, is alarming. This isn’t just a legal battle; it’s a direct challenge to the bedrock principles of American citizenship.
The sheer audacity of attempting to circumvent the Constitution through an executive order is astounding. The established legal framework for altering constitutional rights is clear and deliberate, yet this attempt seeks to bypass it entirely.… Continue reading
A North Carolina federal court issued a preliminary order directing election officials to comply with a state court ruling that could disenfranchise thousands of military and overseas voters in a contested state Supreme Court election. However, the federal court also blocked election certification pending a ruling on the state court remedy’s constitutionality. This action risks undermining election legitimacy, mirroring concerns raised in *Bush v. Gore* regarding the premature announcement of questionable vote recounts. Legal experts argue the state court’s actions violate the 14th Amendment’s due process clause by retroactively changing eligibility rules and potentially disenfranchising voters who complied with existing law. The optimal course is to resolve the constitutional questions before attempting to collect further voter information.
Read More
The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn nationwide injunctions blocking its attempt to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. Lower courts have consistently rejected the administration’s argument, deeming the executive order unconstitutional and contrary to established legal precedent interpreting the 14th Amendment. The administration’s appeal focuses on limiting the scope of the injunctions, not directly challenging the constitutionality of the policy itself, though it presented arguments questioning the long-held interpretation of birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court will likely issue a briefing schedule soon, requiring a rapid response from those opposing the administration’s efforts.
Read More
Luigi Mangione’s lawyer is seeking to suppress evidence—including a 3D-printed gun, fake ID, and a notebook expressing hostility toward wealthy executives—obtained during his arrest in Pennsylvania. The motion argues that Altoona police illegally searched Mangione’s backpack and person without a warrant after deeming him “suspicious.” This evidence is crucial in both the Pennsylvania firearm and forgery charges, and the New York murder case stemming from the death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. A similar motion to suppress evidence will be filed in the New York case, where Mangione faces life imprisonment without parole if convicted.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood