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
The idea that four Supreme Court justices should face impeachment over the issue of birthright citizenship is a deeply contentious one, rooted in a strong interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of this argument is the belief that the Constitution unequivocally states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The very notion that the Court might have been a single vote away from overturning such a fundamental right, a right seemingly guaranteed by the nation’s highest law, is seen as profoundly alarming by proponents of impeachment.… Continue reading
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down an executive order on birthright citizenship, Sean Davis, CEO of The Federalist, has advocated for extreme measures. In a social media post, Davis proposed a seven-point plan that includes banning pregnant foreigners, requiring sterilization of all visitors, and even the dissolution of the Union. These “unhinged” remarks suggest that if the judiciary oversteps its bounds, more drastic actions are warranted to control national citizenship. Davis asserts that a nation unable to restrict citizenship cannot truly be a nation.
Read More
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
The Supreme Court has definitively upheld birthright citizenship, ruling in a 6-3 decision that the Constitution automatically grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment’s language, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens,” was intentionally broad. This ruling directly refutes the executive order that sought to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas, reinforcing a legal precedent stretching back over a century, exemplified by the landmark Wong Kim Ark case. The Court concluded that the Founders intended to confer citizenship upon children born within the nation’s borders, irrespective of their parents’ immigration status, with the exception of children of foreign diplomats.
Read More
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship on constitutional grounds, rebuking an executive order that sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who had entered the country illegally or held temporary visas. The Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s clause stating “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” to mean that all individuals born on U.S. soil are automatically granted citizenship, with very few exceptions. This decision reinforces a legal norm that has been in place for approximately 160 years, referencing the landmark Wong Kim Ark case and subsequent codifications of this principle.
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
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
The political arena has once again been set ablaze, this time by a Congresswoman’s unvarnished and forceful response to Donald Trump’s actions. The phrase “f— him to his face” has become a rallying cry, encapsulating a sentiment of profound frustration and defiance directed squarely at the former president. This outburst, sparked by Trump’s attendance at oral arguments concerning birthright citizenship, highlights a growing impatience with what many perceive as his deliberate provocations and his continued disregard for established norms.
The Congresswoman’s initial statement, though laced with strong language, resonated with a significant portion of the public who feel that Trump’s behavior has pushed the boundaries of acceptable political discourse for far too long.… Continue reading
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
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker