Kim Davis’s appeal against a $100,000 judgment for denying same-sex marriage licenses was argued before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Her lawyer, Mat Staver, argued that the payment is unwarranted, citing the First Amendment and questioning the quantifiability of emotional distress. Conversely, the plaintiffs’ attorney contended that Davis violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights while acting under color of law, emphasizing that her actions weren’t protected by the First Amendment in her official capacity. Staver aims to reach the Supreme Court, hoping to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges using similar reasoning as the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Read More
Pregnant women nationwide are leading lawsuits against the federal government, challenging President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. These suits, filed in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington, allege the order is unconstitutional, violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which has been upheld for over 150 years. Multiple states and cities have joined the legal fight, arguing that the President lacks the authority to unilaterally revoke this established right. The lawsuits contend that the order would render children stateless and deny them fundamental rights.
Read More
The Trump administration, in legal filings challenging birthright citizenship, argued that the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause requires individuals to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” citing the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which excluded “Indians not taxed.” This interpretation, supported by the Supreme Court’s Elk v. Wilkins decision denying citizenship to Native Americans due to tribal allegiance, contends that the government’s connection to children of undocumented immigrants is weaker than its relationship with tribal members. This position represents a significant shift from the government’s previous stance on Native American citizenship.
Read More
President Trump’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship, issued on the same day as his constitutional oath, directly contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment’s explicit guarantee of citizenship to those born within U.S. jurisdiction. His attorney general nominee’s noncommittal stance further highlights the potential conflict. Multiple lawsuits challenging early executive orders are now before federal courts, many presided over by judges appointed during Trump’s first term. The outcome of these legal challenges will significantly depend on the rulings of these judges, a substantial portion of whom hold conservative viewpoints.
Read More
Eighteen states are challenging President Trump’s executive order aiming to curtail birthright citizenship, a move that has sparked intense debate and legal action. The order directs federal agencies to halt the issuance of citizenship documents to U.S.-born children of undocumented mothers or mothers on temporary visas, provided the father is not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. This action has raised serious questions about the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the potential consequences for affected children.
The lawsuit filed by these states highlights the severe implications of denying citizenship to these children, arguing that it would render them stateless. This is a particularly concerning issue, given the existence of programs in some states and cities that allow mothers to anonymously relinquish newborns.… Continue reading
Connecticut’s attorney general has declared he would be the first to file a lawsuit if Donald Trump were to attempt to abolish birthright citizenship. This bold statement highlights the significant legal and political ramifications of such a move.
The assertion underscores the deep-seated belief that birthright citizenship, enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, is a fundamental principle of American law. Challenging this long-standing legal precedent would undoubtedly trigger widespread legal challenges, and the Connecticut AG’s willingness to spearhead such a fight is a strong indication of the seriousness with which this threat is viewed.
It’s a testament to the potential for such an action to spark widespread opposition, particularly among those who view birthright citizenship as a cornerstone of American identity and the promise of equal opportunity.… Continue reading
In essence, the Trump administration’s actions wouldn’t abolish birthright citizenship, but rather hinder undocumented immigrants’ ability to prove their citizenship if challenged. This strategy relies on manipulating documentation processes to create a legal challenge, potentially forcing the Supreme Court to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court’s willingness to overturn precedents raises the possibility of this occurring, mirroring the historical significance of cases like *Dred Scott*, which profoundly impacted legal interpretations of citizenship. Ultimately, the administration’s efforts aim to achieve through judicial action what it cannot accomplish directly.
Read More
The recent Supreme Court ruling regarding Trump’s eligibility to be on the Colorado ballot for the 2024 Presidential primary has sparked quite a bit of debate and discussion. The 9-0 ruling, with all nine justices in agreement, emphasizes that it is not up to the states to decide the eligibility of federal candidates, highlighting the importance of federal issues being handled by Congress rather than individual states.
There are various viewpoints on this ruling, with some expressing relief that this decision prevents states from potentially abusing their power to remove candidates they dislike from the ballot. Imagine the chaos that could ensue if swing states were allowed to kick off candidates based on partisan grounds—it would undermine the very essence of a fair and democratic election process.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood