In an unusual early morning social media post, President Donald Trump expressed strong opinions regarding the Supreme Court’s deliberation on birthright citizenship. He suggested that the justices should have viewed a particular Fox News program to understand arguments against granting citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants. The President’s remarks follow the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on his executive order to end birthright citizenship, a move that has been rejected by lower federal courts. Despite the conservative leanings of the current Court, including justices appointed by Trump, skepticism has been apparent regarding the executive branch’s authority to alter this constitutional provision.
Read More
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was hospitalized last month after falling ill at a Federalist Society dinner in Philadelphia, where he was treated for dehydration. While this incident was previously unreported, Supreme Court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe confirmed the visit and stated Alito returned home that night and resumed his duties the following Monday. The news has fueled speculation about Alito’s potential retirement, though sources close to him indicate no immediate decision has been made.
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 ruled against Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ youth, finding it raises free speech concerns under the First Amendment. In an 8-1 decision, the majority sided with a Christian counselor who argued the law censors speech based on viewpoint. This ruling is expected to impact similar laws in other states, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing states should be able to regulate healthcare.
Read More
The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case concerning Mississippi’s law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five days, a practice common in many states and rooted in states’ rights for election administration. This case arises from Donald Trump’s persistent claims of a rigged 2020 election and his subsequent challenges to mail-in ballot counting. Despite the established legal precedent and historical acceptance of such laws, the Republican argument, which suggests that Congress’s 1845 Election Day Act implies votes must be *received* by Election Day by government officials, has gained traction with some justices. The outcome remains uncertain, but the author suggests the Court may be swayed by political pressure stemming from Trump’s grievances, potentially overturning settled law and jeopardizing established voting procedures.
Read More
The United States Supreme Court has denied a petition from the Chinook Indian Nation seeking judicial restoration of federal recognition under the 1994 List Act. This decision marks another setback in the Chinook’s century-long fight for recognition, forcing them to continue pursuing legislative avenues through Congress. Despite opposition and past challenges, including the rescission of their federal recognition in 2022, the Chinook remain determined, viewing congressional action as their most viable short-term solution for achieving the justice their ancestors and future generations deserve.
Read More
The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from journalist Priscilla Villarreal, who was arrested for asking a police officer to confirm information regarding a fatal accident and a suicide. Justice Sonia Sotomayor sharply dissented, arguing that Villarreal’s arrest for performing routine journalistic duties violated her First Amendment rights and that the doctrine of qualified immunity improperly shields the officials involved. Despite a prior Supreme Court instruction to reconsider the case in light of new precedent, the lower court again ruled in favor of the officials, leaving Villarreal without a remedy. This decision highlights concerns about the application of qualified immunity in cases involving free speech and journalistic inquiry.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker