From what I understand, its not the supreme court ok’d his move rather they stopped other lower federal courts from creating injunctions that stop the entire process, and they now limited them to stopping only those who bring forth lawsuits and who are affected by whatever it is.
Looking into it this whole thing is way more complicated than the headline makes it sound. The Supreme Court didn’t actually give Trump permission to end birthright citizenship, they just made a ruling about how courts can block federal policies nationwide.
Basically what happened: Trump’s birthright citizenship order has been blocked by multiple federal judges who said it’s probably unconstitutional. Instead of arguing the constitutional issue (which he’d probably lose), Trump’s team asked the Supreme Court to limit judges’ power to issue nationwide blocks on policies. The Court agreed 6-3, but they specifically did NOT rule on whether ending birthright citizenship is legal.
So now Trump’s celebrating like he won, but really all that changed is the procedural stuff. The constitutional problems with his order are still there: the 14th Amendment is pretty clear about birthright citizenship. Lower courts still have to reconsider their rulings, and immigrant rights groups are already filing new lawsuits.
It’s more of a tactical win for Trump that might let him try to implement parts of his agenda in some places, but the fundamental legal challenges haven’t gone away. The Truthout article is at least a little hyperbolic imo.
He did win though, because by telling federal judges that their rulings against executive orders cannot be… Federal, nationwide, the supreme court took away about 99% of the (already mediocre) checks and balances against Trump’s power (and any presidents power). To pass it off as just some procedural stuff misses how impactful this is, the only court powers that can stop his kings laws by edict (‘executive orders’) now are: case by case state-based rulings for federal judges, and the supreme court itself for nationwide rulings.
This is largely what Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent: this is a huge expansion of presidential powers by the SC removing restrictions from the president, over an issue that is abundantly clearly illegal (denying birthright citizenship), and it leaves the door wide open to further illegal orders.
Her dissent is worth a read, it begins on page 54: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
Fair point.
I was definitely too focused on the narrow “did they rule on birthright citizenship” question and missed the bigger picture. You’re right that this is way more than just procedural, it’s a massive shift in executive power.
The fact that federal judges can now only issue piecemeal, state-by-state rulings essentially breaks their ability to actually check presidential overreach in any meaningful way.
I think I got too caught up in fact checking the specific headline and missed how big Trump’s win actually was here, just not in the way the headlines suggested. Thanks for the correction.
My prior understanding of the issue at hand is that the probable downside for limiting the nationwide application of some federal judge rulings is that the federal agencies have the resources to select a jurisdiction to enact rules that local judges have determined to be unconstitutional to one where local judges have not. Ex. if Feds can’t violate someone’s civil rights in New York, just move that someone to Florida where the Federal Agency can violate their civil rights.
Certainly there are scenarios in which federal judges being able to issue nationwide rulings is detrimental to left leaning causes as well (mifepristone bans), however without the supreme court first taking up the case of the constitutionality of birthright citizenship before making this current ruling on application of nationwide rulings, they’re just being a bunch of shit fuck cowards.
100% on both counts.
The forum shopping issue you’re describing is exactly the problem. Trump’s team can now basically pick and choose where to implement policies that have been ruled unconstitutional elsewhere. It creates this patchwork where your constitutional rights depend on geography, which is obviously fucked.
And you’re spot on about the cowardice. The Supreme Court absolutely should have ruled on the constitutional question first. That’s the actual substantive issue everyone cares about. Instead they took the cop out that gives Trump more power without having to make the hard call on whether his order is constitutional.
Honestly it looks like classic Roberts Court behaviour: make big changes to how government works while pretending you’re just doing technical legal housekeeping. They know damn well that ruling on birthright citizenship would be messy and politically explosive, so they found a way to help Trump without having to own the constitutional implications.
Your point about this cutting both ways (like with mifepristone) is important too, but the timing here makes it pretty clear what they’re really doing.
Question : didn’t the supreme court just say that lower level judges can’t block him? Which would mean that appeal judges can? So this question is far from settled?
I think they said the judge didn’t have the right to block it nation wide, only for the states that sued, which was 22 or something like that.
If you end birthright citizenship, then nobody gets to be a citizen by birth. If you can’t be a citizen by birth, the only way to become a citizen is naturalization. If the only citizens are naturalized people, the country is 100% immigrants.
It’s just the title, it even says in the article he would move forward with trying to redefine the 14th amendment. Basically it’ll be if your parents are citizens, and your born here, you’ll be a citizen. (My best guess)
I see, so he wants to change it to what it is already? Makes sense.
No, right now if your parents aren’t citizens, and you are born here, you become a citizen. Say you come on a student visa, get pregnant your junior year and drop out of college to take care of your baby and try to figure out a life, the baby is a U.S. citizen. Very clearly as you can see that mother and child are a huge risk to national security. A person going to work and paying taxes while raising a kid and helping with the birthrate decline they supposedly care about is something we just can’t have.
If the only citizens are naturalized people, the country is 100% immigrants.
What do they think America is founded on?
A mix of first generation immigrants, 2nd generation, 3rd generation, 4th generation, a few remaining natives.
100% first generation immigrants would be a major shift.
And if immigrants don’t need due process and can be sent to concentration camps then it’s really easy to make anyone disappear
If immigrants don’t get due process, then nobody gets due process.
You could arrest Bill Clinton and claim he’s an immigrant. If that means he doesn’t get due process, he can never prove he’s not an immigrant, and so he’s stuck in Guantanamo forever.
Boston witch hunt all over again.
That’s pretty much the plan imo
It’s still a right embedded in the constitution. The supreme court didn’t say he could do it…but the orange Cheetos in chief probably thinks they did because his mother gave birth to him at the top of a ladder
So… He’s goin to deport Baron Trump then, right?
I’m all for deporting all of the Trumps, but technically he has citizenship because of his terrible father, regardless of birth location or his mother’s citizenship status.
Where in the Constitution do we spell out that citizenship is granted to a child on the basis of the status of the father, regardless of birth location or their mother’s status?
No we should deport the Trumps. I’m sure we can find some minor error or omission in his father’s old citizenship application. Do what they’re doing - go back up the family tree, declare their ancestor’s citizenship fraudulent, and deport their whole rotten family tree.
Moron is literally BEGGING
He is much closer to his stated goal
The power to deport any natural Born Citizen on demand for no reason at all
He has stated he wants… Needs this
On Exactly why he has been vague
That means him first motherfucker because Trump is a birthright citizen. His grandfather was an immigrant.
Not like me is like 12 generations removed but still immigrant. Except on my mother’s side that native American. But guess Trump will deport them too, because if you got technical they also are immigrants.
On unrelated news, what would happen if people stopped paying federal taxes?
I.e., if all of california, or blue states in general, stopped paying federal taxes simultaneously, what would realistically be the outcome?
How would it affect the US? How would it affect the states?
And: Is there a proper place to discuss ideas such as this one?
My (very rough) understanding is that people pay income taxes to the federal tax agency directly. From there, the central US government sends parts of it back to the states, to do things with it such as public services.
Blue states are more economically heavy than red states. They pay in more than they get out. If they stop paying taxes, the US suffers but they get to keep a larger share to themselves? My understanding is very rough, it’s just a rough idea.
It could weaken Trump’s government?
To get a meaningful amount of people to withhold their taxes from the Fed you’d probably need to get enough people working and acting together that you’d already have been able to elect progressive politicians to begin with.
Last time shit got real bad economically we had general strikes, the building of unions, trust and monopoly regulation, etc.
Wait … Doesn’t “citizenship” mean where you’re born?
It’s either where you’re born or where you live. Which is it?
Wtf even is citizenship then?
“I’m from Ireland” is synonymous with “I’m Irish”… Right?
So if you’re born in America, wouldn’t you… Be American?
If he takes that away, you aren’t just magically from nowhere, you’re still American.
This is stupid and makes no sense, it’s all just classism and racism. I hate everything.
The thing about ending birthright citizenship is that it would just create a stateless individual. Where would they even deport children of undocumented immigrants to? Are they going to make an El Salvadorian gulag for them too?
The former SCOTUS ruling on the 14th amendment was really clear - if you are born here, you are a citizen regardless of your parent’s legal immigration status. I don’t understand why the SCOTUS is even bothering to hear this case when even a constitutional literalist would have difficulty trying to weasel-word their way into a ruling that supports the Republican position on this one.
I can thing of few things more cruel than a state that looks at a literal child who was born here, lived here all their lives, speaks the language, attends school, has friends and family and a support structure and would otherwise be indistinguishable from any other American child born to American-born parents, and deport them to a country they’ve never set foot in for no real discernible reason other than they are anti-immigrant racists.
You’ve just given it ten times more thought than the Trump team has.
Its the same as the election between Obama and McCain, in ways a lot of people dont realize.
Obama, by virtue of having a non-traditional name and not being white, was hounded by birthers despite being born an American citizen clear as day with absolutely no question about it.
McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone the year before people born in the canal zone were granted citizenship at birth. Arguably he was not a citizen at birth under the definitional requirements of the constitution to be president. He was naturalized as a citizen retroactively.
Palin is part native, and was pretty heavily involved with Alaska Native movements that rejected US sovereignty and thereby rejected claims to citizenship. But no one talked about that either because shes also largely seen as just being a white American.
And yet Obama, who was American thru and thru from birth without question, never was involved with Hawaiian sovereignty movements, is the one whos citizenship was questioned.
“White makes right” is the rule of law to these people
Ted Cruz ran in the Republican presidential primary despite being an Albertan
Sounds about white.
Doesn’t “citizenship” mean where you’re born?
Only in the new world continents. In Africa, Europe, and Asia it normally means what country your parents and grandparents are from, unless someone in the chain naturalises to a different country.
Yup, and when you don’t have any citizenship, you’re stateless. It causes a lot of issues internationally, because a stateless person can’t have a passport, can’t immigrate, can’t hold a legal job because they can’t get a work visa without a passport, etc… Notably, the US is one of the few countries that refused to sign on with the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Basically, the convention would prevent a country from revoking someone’s citizenship if they don’t have a valid claim elsewhere. And the US refused to sign.
Most people are citizens of where they also live and give birth so this distinction doesn’t come up in most cases. But for children born to immigrants or travelers it does.
Citizenship can either be assigned by where you were born, or who you were born to.
Birthright citizenship, as we use the term in the US, is mostly a new world invention. In nearly all countries in the americas, any children born here are citizens without exception. No matter the parents, no matter the circumstances.
In the old world, most countries require a parent to be a citizen in order for the child to also be a citizen.
Generally if an american couple gives birth in Europe, the child will just be american, despite where they were born. If a European couple gives birth in any of the americas, their child will be a citizen of the americas, despite anything else
You operate under the assumption that this is a public service. That would make no sense.
But if the assumption is them accumulating more power, then it makes perfect sense.
To be honest I get more mad at people being surprised by their actions. At this point it is so obvious what is happening and why. How can anyone be surprised by any of this?
“Why does this rabid dog bites? How does this make for a better world?”
It is a rabid dog, how could you ever expect something positive to begin with? Put it down already. You don’t argue with crazy.
rabbit dog
Furthermore aren’t, at least some of, his kids from ? The youngest psychopath is definitely of imported genetics, does that mean the next oppositional president (ha, like Fatboy is ever going to let go of all that power now he’s king of the us) could kick all tRUMPs offspring out?
At what point does everyone say “if he’s not following the law, then neither should we”?
At the very least, I would like to see every Democratic lawmaker calling for the open violation of Supreme Court rulings. They are a fundamentally illegitimate institutions. Their opinions should be given less respect than the opinions of a shit-covered hobo holding an “the end is near” sign by the side of the road.
That point was sometime around the first term but the “wE aRe NOt thERe Yet” crowd keeps moving the goal post
I came to that conclusion when he won the election despite his numerous crimes.
I break laws all the time now. They have no meaning. It’s like the wild west now
As long as it doesn’t immediately result in you dead or in jail.
Guilty. I’ve stolen 2 elections already and dogwhistled so much
Can you please just give them back? We’ve been looking for them literally everywhere
Also, those whistles give me a headache
so it was YOU!!
At what point are you willing to sacrifice your life for your cause?
I’m ready if you are
This is the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution. As a lawyer for the federal government, I need everyone to know that this officially marks the end of United States rule of law. Protect yourselves, and godspeed.
I’m coping so hard by hoping that we swing very hard to the left, if only just so that these cynical, fossilized assholes live to see their bullshit rulings used against them.
Billionaires and politicians. No one else matters. Don’t be distracted by the broke Nazis at ICE. The true threat numbers in the hundreds.
This is definitely worrisome.
But is it the end of the Constitution quite yet?
The Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in on the executive order trying to negate birthright citizenship, they said that lower courts couldn’t block EO’s at a national level.
Implicitly, their not commenting on the EO feels like they’ll let it stand when the case arrives, if they choose to hear it. Then I’d say the US Constitution is toast.
I’m an engineer, not a lawyer. I’d love to hear what someone more knowledgeable about this thinks.
They ended the ability of the Judiciary to check the Executive. That’s the very foundation of the government, set out in the Constitution: https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation01.html
So yeah, it’s the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution.
I’m not happy about this either, but let’s just make sure we’re all on the same page here:
They ended the ability of the Judiciary to check the Executive.
No, they ended the ability of the lower courts to check the executive nationwide. The supreme court can still check the executive (and the US Court of Appeals?).
Now I’m trying to figure out if the lower courts can still check the executive, but only in their respective areas, or if they can make a decision, but it has to be confirmed by (at least?) the court of appeals.
From what I’m reading here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
It looks like a lower court can still request to check the executive, but the higher courts will need to grant it. At least according to Kavanaugh’s opinion:
the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court will inevitably weigh in on district court decisions granting or denying requests for preliminary injunctions.
Yes, let’s make sure we’re on the same page. You’re talking about theory, I’m talking about practice - which, in theory, are the same. In practice, however…
Oh, in practice it’s been dead for decades.
There isn’t going to be a single moment where the constitution stops existing. It’s not like a light switch. It’s a rapid erosion, like the start of a landslide, and the snow is already moving
Yes it is. Trump can effectively ignore any constitutional amendment for more than long enough to start sending people to concentration camps. This also probably isn’t the end of it, as I doubt the justices will be more willing to stand up to him in the future once he’s consolidated power further.
Lest we forget:
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Pretty hard to argue that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” doesn’t mean what it clearly states. It’s not even in legalese. The fact that this wasn’t laughed out of court says everything.
I saw a person trying to all caps “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” screaming that this specific clause somehow is the piece that excludes birthright citizenship because something something loyalty to other countries?
So like …kids of illegal aliens are … sovereign citizens?
I think the argument was that if your parents are not naturalized citizens, then that means they’re not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. So like, if the parents ‘owe allegiance’ to their previous country then it makes the kid a citizen of the parents’ original country, and not the U.S.
But it’s all actually bullshit to try and justify not wanting brown people to be U.S. Citizens tbh.
I mean, the 2nd amendment is clearly only about militias, but you can see how that went.
States need to criminalize the behavior of ICE officers and start arresting them en masse. ICE agents will be free to challenge their imprisonment individually.
That’s what the Constitution says, and Trump now has nothing that can legally stop him from doing it.
Which means the Constitution is dead letter.
That goes both ways, and states need to start acting on it. They need to start passing a flurry of laws criminalizing ICE tactics. Pass laws making it a felony to:
-
Conduct law enforcement while masked
-
To search homes without a warrant
-
To enter various protected locations for law enforcement purposes when there isn’t an immediate threat.
They need to take cues from the anti-abortion playbook. Pass a law requiring all immigration detainees be transported in limousines. Require ICE to old prisoners in five star hotels. Require immigration officers to have at least two doctoral degrees. Make it a felony to do immigration enforcement without doing these things. Just start writing dozens of crazy laws criminalizing every aspect of ICE’s operations. Then let the individual ICE agents try and challenge them individually.
Better than that remove all immunity from law enforcement officers if…
They do not have a signed judicial warrant.
They do not verbally and visually identify themselves and the branch or organization they work for.
Without those two things, they cannot be verified as law enforcement acting in official capacity, and they should be treated as regular civilians. If a bunch of regular Joes jump out of a can and try to black bag you, you should have the right to defend yourself with lethal force.
I would go even further. A masked individual tries to abduct people? It’s perfectly legal for anyone to shoot them dead right on the spot. Law enforcement who dress like human traffickers should be put in the ground like human traffickers.
-
They haven’t decided on the legality of it yet. They just decided that courts cannot issue universal injunctions. They can only stop it at a case by case level for those who are suing. If they decide it’s unconstitutional, then it’ll have to stop nationally, but a lot of damage can be done before then. I think they’ll decide in October…
I’m looking forward to fucktons of individual suits absolutely slamming the courts every time an EO is issued. crowdfund the filing fees. turn petitions into copypasta. DDoS the Court system. they literally asked for this.
It is just a fucking piece of paper.
If the judges and politicians and police don’t care and no one else can do anything then it means nothing.
It is this or bloody revolution and that would lead to the US being invaded by multiple other countries and shit getting worse and worse.
North Korea of America is where we are now.
Uggh. I can work out whether to upvote you for the accurate summary of the source of law & state power or downvote you for the utter idiocy of the invasion statement.
Russia can’t - they’re struggling to take over a country a fifth their size and have burnt through their Soviet stockpiles.
UK & EU certainly won’t invade, at most they’d send a peacekeeping force to protect civilians at a UN request (UN probably wouldnt pass it)
Canada will be stretched just keeping fighting out of its borders.
Mexico might just on principle (payback’s a bitch) but has bugger all capacity.
Same for South American Asian and African countries.
That leaves China, and if you think the Chinese are stupid enough to insert themselves in your civil war and create a sole enemy for both sides to fight you have zero understanding of the Chinese strategy.
The Chinese will wait for you all to decimate the country and each other, then come in and buy up the bits they want. Oh and invade Taiwan while y’all are busy destroying your country.
Putin’s plan to destroy the US has worked magnificently.
Canada will be stretched just keeping fighting out of its borders.
Canada just needs to send one guy over to say “you should be our eleventh province” and most of New England will say “yes please, I’m sick of whatever shit the regressives are doing now”
Mexico might just on principle (payback’s a bitch) but has bugger all capacity.
More accurately, we literally can’t be bothered. Our state of affairs doesn’t allow for a war, and by that, I mean that a huge national protest would ensue, and many politicians would strike it down for many reasons. Nobody here is interested, and after fighting narcos for so long, we’d rather have peace.
It is this or bloody revolution and that would lead to the US being invaded by multiple other countries and shit getting worse and worse.
No other nations are going to be invading the US, let alone multiple of them. They don’t have the logistics for it.
Why bother? The US is doing just fine destroying itself.
Other nations wouldn’t invade. But in the event of a civil war, you can be certain they would be sending in plenty of heavy weaponry.
Or the desire, who the hell would want to try a hostile occupation of the US ?
who the hell would want to try a hostile occupation of the US ?
This administration, it seems.
That’s technically not what they ruled on
The problem is and has always been “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
People have been twisting that to mean that anyone that isn’t born to American citizen parents means that you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Funny because that sounds to me like the "illegals"can’t be illegal then. Sounds like they’re not subject to the law anymore.
Yeah, this is the thing that’s ignored because it would let the whole narrative collapse.
Either you can’t deport them because they’re American citizens, or you can’t deport them because they’re not subject to your laws anyway. But in the end, this would just lead to (more) unlawful / illegal deportations.
No state shall…but the feds can?
He controls the feds. He’s certainly not stopping himself.
So literally what happened here is Trump said, “I want to violate the Constitution” and the Supreme Court said, " Okay — go ahead."
And that’s it for the rule of law in the US.
All that’s left now is to tally the mass murders along the way to the inevitable collapse of the US, and to hope that our descendents can build something better out of the rubble.
That’s not literally what happened at all. Trump said, “I want to violate the constitution and issued an order”. Then states cities and organizations sued across three cases and courts issued universal injunctions. Trump said “wah! Help me puppet kourt!” Then the Supreme Court was like, “be still mein führer. We will not allow these injunctions to apply to the entire nation. Only to those who have sued.”
They gave him second base. Let’s see if they go all the way for Don Don.
I’m not a USer so correct me if wrong here, but is the implication then that something can be considered constitutional in one state but not in another? How does that work?
It doesn’t. The ruling makes little sense and is just showing that playing the game with absolutely no ethics works very well.
No. The core issue has not been decided. When courts in one state rule differently from courts in another, it goes up to federal court. When federal courts in different circuits rule differently, it goes up to SCOTUS. This issue isn’t at that point just yet.
The US collapsing is going to absolutely affect the rest of the world. This is very VERY bad.
This title isn’t true. The court has not “given the OK”
This is just cope. They did give the OK. They didn’t technically say he could revoke birthright citizenship, but they removed the ability for people to effectively challenge the revocation of their citizenship. If you can’t actually exercise your rights, then your rights don’t exist.
But keep huffing the copium.
Right, they only said “nobody can stop you from doing illegal things.”
Completely different.
It was about whether or not a federal court can issue a nationwide injunction.
The verdict has much more to do with active cases of deportees suing the US than it does to do with birthright citizenship.
This is technically true, but it’s also wrong.
Yes, they didn’t technically rule on birthright citizenship, but it doesn’t matter. Without national injunctions, your right to birthright citizenship doesn’t actually exist as a practical matter.
By the time you can file your individual case challenging the revocation of your citizenship, you’ll already be in an ICE concentration camp. And you don’t have a right to an attorney during immigration proceedings.
The supreme court did give the ok saying that it comes down to states and individuals to stop it.
That isn’t true. That is what sensationalist headlines said the verdict was. The verdict had nothing to do with birthright citizenship.
We desperately need media literacy training as a species.
Edit: go no further. There is nothing of value beyond this point. You’re welcome.
It is true. It’s not a ruling on birthright citizenship but it does stop the injunction against it.
Edit to explain because I doubt you grasp: Without the injunction he’s free to act on a birthright citizenship ban unless sued by individuals or states on the behalf of said individuals. So over 20 states have no limit to this executive order pausing the deportation of people born in the US because they haven’t sued the federal government for breaking the 14th amendment.
If anything this is far worse than just birthright citizenship because Trump can write executive orders far faster than lawsuits can be brought against the administration and lower federal courts can’t file injunctions against the administration, states or individuals have to sue.
Again: The supreme court did give the ok, saying that it comes down to states and individuals to stop it because it removed the lower courts’ ability to file injunctions.
Because you doubt I’ll grasp… Why?
You’re the one who ate up the sensationalistic news headlines and regurgitated them like a good little boy?
I’m not going to read the content of your response because you open with inflammatory bullshit. Grow up.
Tagged as “fucking douche.”
Ohh your feelings hurt because everyone downvoted you. Cool, take it out on me. That’s the Hallmark of someone to take seriously in conversation.
Because you doubt I’ll grasp… Why?
I’m not going to read
Heh
Start media literacy training by never citing YouTube videos as sources. It’s far better to learn to read.
The word for learning to read books is literacy.
I was talking specifically about learning to read things that are not books.
