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
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
The US Supreme Court is currently reviewing a challenge to a Trump administration attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, but the core issue isn’t the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself. Instead, the justices are focusing on whether lower courts have the power to issue nationwide injunctions blocking executive actions, a legal maneuver known as a “universal injunction.” This procedural question, while seemingly technical, has enormous implications for birthright citizenship, as a ruling against universal injunctions would effectively gut the lower courts’ ability to prevent the administration’s policy from taking effect.
The central argument before the court revolves around the limits of judicial power to intervene in executive actions on a nationwide scale.… Continue reading
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
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker