Trump tries to end birthright citizenship with an executive order (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

I think this deserves its own thread. Perhaps we can try to migrate discussion from the other thread to this one.

Here is the Executive Order:

Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship – The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.

www.whitehouse.gov

The order presents itself on existing good-ground to exclude children of unlawful immigrants, but that's false - the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not have an ambiguous history.

Twenty-two states and others filed immediate lawsuits to suspend and ultimately rescind the order.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/lawsuits-challenge-trumps-birthright-citizenship-other-orders-2025-01-21/

 

[wardorican]

What do you think Chuck?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

How is this even a thing? Has the 14th Amendment been repealed or has it just been regulated to a suggestion just like the 4th Amendment?

 

[Sendai]

So basically the Supreme Court is going to answer the question of does a District Court have the power to issues decisions that have nationwide application.

Wouldn’t surprise me if they throw in an addendum preserving birthright precedent as well.

 

[MT15]

So basically the Supreme Court is going to answer the question of does a District Court have the power to issues decisions that have nationwide application.

Wouldn’t surprise me if they throw in an addendum preserving birthright precedent as well.

This would surprise me - the addendum part - they have increasingly been making narrower and narrower rulings and not straying from the precise question before them. Especially if it would be unpopular with the WH.

If they do add such an addendum, it would surprise me if it was unanimous. I think at least 2 justices are politically compromised and will do whatever Trump wants.

 

[superchuck500]

This would surprise me - the addendum part - they have increasingly been making narrower and narrower rulings and not straying from the precise question before them. Especially if it would be unpopular with the WH.

If they do add such an addendum, it would surprise me if it was unanimous. I think at least 2 justices are politically compromised and will do whatever Trump wants.

Technically, the citizenship/14th amendment question isn't before them - so saying anything at all about it would be dicta. But I agree with Sendai that there will certainly be an opportunity here either with some kind of note, paragraph or even in how the characterize the injunctions (which require basic findings on the merits) that will indicate where the Court sees the underlying issue even if they aren't deciding it. It's reasonable to expect that the Court is not favorable on the administration's position and that they might be willing to indicate as much.

But also, because it isn't actually before them, they may elect not to and that wouldn't be punting or dodging.

 

[MT15]

Technically, the citizenship/14th amendment question isn't before them - so saying anything at all about it would be dicta. But I agree with Sendai that there will certainly be an opportunity here either with some kind of note, paragraph or even in how the characterize the injunctions (which require basic findings on the merits) that will indicate where the Court sees the underlying issue even if they aren't deciding it. It's reasonable to expect that the Court is not favorable on the administration's position and that they might be willing to indicate as much.

But also, because it isn't actually before them, they may elect not to and that wouldn't be punting or dodging.

My guess is that they don’t mention it. My further guess is that they wouldn’t be unanimous if they did mention it.

 

[Sendai]

Technically, the citizenship/14th amendment question isn't before them - so saying anything at all about it would be dicta. But I agree with Sendai that there will certainly be an opportunity here either with some kind of note, paragraph or even in how the characterize the injunctions (which require basic findings on the merits) that will indicate where the Court sees the underlying issue even if they aren't deciding it. It's reasonable to expect that the Court is not favorable on the administration's position and that they might be willing to indicate as much.

But also, because it isn't actually before them, they may elect not to and that wouldn't be punting or dodging.

I do expect that federal district court judges are about to be reminded of their appointment to a specific geographic area of responsibility. They aren’t national

 

[RobF]

My guess is that they don’t mention it. My further guess is that they wouldn’t be unanimous if they did mention it.

I think they've got a bit of a headache. They'd probably, generally, be minded to preserve birthright citizenship, but to rule against non-party injunctions... but this is probably a great example of a case where wider injunctions make sense.

Because, especially if they were inclined to think it's unconstitutional, with an injunction limited to the parties, there would be a clear risk - certainty even - of constitutional rights being denied to the non parties in the interim, and it'd clearly be unrealistic to expect everyone potentially affected to become a party.

 

[MT15]

I think they've got a bit of a headache. They'd probably, generally, be minded to preserve birthright citizenship, but to rule against non-party injunctions... but this is probably a great example of a case where wider injunctions make sense.

Because, especially if they were inclined to think it's unconstitutional, with an injunction limited to the parties, there would be a clear risk - certainty even - of constitutional rights being denied to the non parties in the interim, and it'd clearly be unrealistic to expect everyone potentially affected to become a party.

all they have to do is look at what this admin is doing with the illegal flights to El Salvador to know that if there isn’t a complete and total rejection of this executive order the admin will push it out nationwide immediately.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I do expect that federal district court judges are about to be reminded of their appointment to a specific geographic area of responsibility. They aren’t national

So their rulings are only admissible in their districts?

Bruh.

 

[Sendai]

So their rulings are only admissible in their districts?

Bruh.

I didn’t say that. District court judges are free to use other District court judges opinions.

They don’t have a binding national jurisdiction.

It’s not unusual for district courts to have competing and opposing opinions. No district court judge is bound by another district court judges opinion.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I didn’t say that. District court judges are free to use other District court judges opinions.

They don’t have a binding national jurisdiction.

It’s not unusual for district courts to have competing and opposing opinions. No district court judge is bound by another district court judges opinion.

That's is not how the LAW works. If there's an opposition to ANY Fed decision, that decision is then appealed and any further opposition his heard by SCOTUS.