Trump EO eliminates Birthright Citizenship; 18 states and civil rights organizations sue to stop implementation, pointing to the 14th Amendment

[essentialsaltes]

Appeals court rules against lifting the block of Trump's birthright citizenship order​

Judge Danielle Jo Forrest -- who Trump nominated to the Ninth Circuit in 2019 -- defended the court's decision ... arguing that rushing the decision ... risks "eroding public confidence" at a critical moment in the country's history.

Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship was blocked by four separate federal judges across the country, each of whom determined that the policy directly violated the Constitution.

 

[Bradskii]

'Judge Danielle Jo Forrest -- who Trump nominated to the Ninth Circuit in 2019 -- defended the court's decision ... arguing that rushing the decision ... risks "eroding public confidence" at a critical moment in the country's history.

Maybe Trump can get his lawyers onto this. Which now apparently include the US attorney for Washington DC: Outcry as DC US attorney claims he and colleagues are ‘President Trump’s lawyers’

'The interim US attorney for Washington DC Ed Martin has explicitly declared himself and other federal attorneys to be the president’s lawyers rather than an independent, law-abiding officer sworn to uphold the constitution.

“As President Trumps’ [sic] lawyers, we are proud to fight to protect his leadership as our President and we are vigilant in standing against entities like the AP that refuse to put America first,” the US attorney’s office posted in a image on X, signed by Martin.

The statement directly contradicts the federal oath of office Martin swore, which requires attorneys to “conduct myself uprightly and according to law” and “support the constitution of the United States” – with no mention of personal loyalty to any president.

The Virginia congressman Don Beyer posted: “Washingtonians deserve federal law enforcement who will protect their rights without violating the constitution, and focus on fighting crime rather than trying to censor the free press and political opponents.'

And I did like his parting shot...

"Basic understanding of punctuation would be nice, also.”

 

[essentialsaltes]

Although this is currently blocked nationwide, the Trump Administration has asked SCOTUS to limit the adverse court thingy only to the states that are suing.

Trump asks Supreme Court to allow birthright citizenship ban in some states​

If the Trump administration were successful in convincing the Supreme Court to limit the injunctions to states participating in the litigation, it could allow the administration to begin denying automatic citizenship to the children born in 28 states and other U.S. territories.

“Every court to consider President Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship by Executive Order has found it is flagrantly unconstitutional, and all three appellate courts to review DOJ’s emergency applications have rejected them," [NJ AG] Platkin said in a statement. "We expect that the Supreme Court will reject it too."

 

[essentialsaltes]

Although this is currently blocked nationwide, the Trump Administration has asked SCOTUS to limit the adverse court thingy only to the states that are suing.

Trump asks Supreme Court to allow birthright citizenship ban in some states​

SCOTUS keeps the nationwide block in place, but will take up that specific issue (as I understand it).

Supreme Court keeps hold on Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship but sets May arguments​

The Republican administration had sought to narrow those orders to allow for the policy to take effect in parts or most of the country while court challenges play out.

 

[DaisyDay]

No clear decision emerges from arguments on judges’ power to block Trump’s birthright citizenship order

The Supreme Court on Thursday was divided over whether a federal judge has the power to block President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship while the case moves through […]

www.scotusblog.com

I really don't get this one. It's in the Constitution, 14th Amendment. This argument about the EO on birthright citizenship centers more on the issue of universal injunctions.

 

[Fantine]

This case isn't about whether birthright citizenship is unconstitutional.

Instead, it's about whether a federal district court judge can prevent his ghastly illegal executive order from being implemented--except in their own district--while the Supreme Court makes a decision as to the constitutionality of birthright citizenship.

There are numerous lawsuits moving through the ranks on the way to the Supreme Court--but the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule on birthright citizenship itself until June, 2026.

In the meantime, except in the districts with judges who understand the Constitution better than DJT, people will live in fear--and some will be deported even if they are citizens.

 

[JSRG]

No clear decision emerges from arguments on judges’ power to block Trump’s birthright citizenship order

The Supreme Court on Thursday was divided over whether a federal judge has the power to block President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship while the case moves through […]

www.scotusblog.com

I really don't get this one. It's in the Constitution, 14th Amendment. This argument about the EO on birthright citizenship centers more on the issue of universal injunctions.

That's because the case is about universal injunctions, not birthright citizenship.

The practice of universal injunctions--a judge declaring that a law cannot be enforced not only against the party in the lawsuit, but against anyone--has become more and more common in the courts.

Terminology time. An injunction is when, before a final decision is given, a judge puts a hold on enforcing of a law while it plays out in the courts. A universal injunction is when this is done for everyone. So let's take this current situation. The government decrees that birthright citizenship isn't granted to people born of illegal or temporary residents. If someone sues to stop that, and a judge puts an injunction, that injunction only applies to the individual members of the lawsuit. It says the government can't enforce the law against the people suing, but could against other people. A universal injunction is when the judge goes further and says they can't enforce it against anyone.

Some judges in these birthright citizenship cases issued universal injunctions, saying that the executive order can't be enforced against anyone. The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to reduce those to only applying to the parties involved in the case, but isn't asking it to decide on the merits (yet). Theoretically the Supreme Court could just decide what to do with the universal injunctions in this specific case without saying anything larger on the subject, but there have been some statements by justices on the issue of universal injunctions in general before, and they may be wanting to offer a more clear opinion on them (some have suggested that univrsal injunctions may not even be legal).

Setting aside the question of legality and into policy considerations, though, universal injunctions have become increasingly controversial, and have gotten criticized by people on both the right and the left, though it's one of those things where which side is criticizing it swaps depending on who is getting more use out of them. So, for example, Republicans seemed to have little problem when conservatives were using universal injunctions against Biden, but now that Trump is on the receiving end it's suddenly important to pass a law to stop the process.

In terms of policy, one of the major criticisms of universal injunctions is the fact that if the issue goes in front of 10 different judges and 9 of the judges say there's no need for any injunction, but the 10th one says there is and issues a universal injunction, that means one single judge has overruled those 9 others. And it gets worse, because people who want to get those injunctions deliberately engage in "forum shopping", which consists of filing the cases somewhere that you're more likely to get a judge who is more likely to issue a universal injunction. Remember, you only need to get one judge to issue a preliminary injunction, and then every other case doesn't matter (at least until appeal).

On the other hand, for policies that affect a whole lot of people, it seems odd to require every single one to go to court to argue on the subject. Though I suppose this could be solved via a class action lawsuit.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Trump's on a roll today.

And another amicus brief:

 

[comana]

Trump's on a roll today.

View attachment 365073

And another amicus brief:

View attachment 365074

Hand over the phone grandpa, it’s time for your nap. (we really need to update the Constitution with a Presidential upper age limit)

 

[dogs4thewin]

This case isn't about whether birthright citizenship is unconstitutional.

Instead, it's about whether a federal district court judge can prevent his ghastly illegal executive order from being implemented--except in their own district--while the Supreme Court makes a decision as to the constitutionality of birthright citizenship.

There are numerous lawsuits moving through the ranks on the way to the Supreme Court--but the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule on birthright citizenship itself until June, 2026.

In the meantime, except in the districts with judges who understand the Constitution better than DJT, people will live in fear--and some will be deported even if they are citizens.

What will they fear ( unless the birthright cititzenship thing if struck down is found to apply to people already here which really would make no sense.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And another amicus brief:

And another ugly popstar and curious quotemarks.

 

[Belk]

And another ugly popstar and curious quotemarks.

View attachment 365082

My, but those grapes sure must be sour.

 

[Bradskii]

So statesman like. The US citizenry must be so proud.

Just apropos nothing at all really, but I caught him on the news a day or so ago talking about the current problem between India and Pakistan. He literally said 'they've been fighting each other for centuries'.

 

[Bradskii]

Trump's on a roll today.

Here's what you could do. Make up something monstrously ridiculous that Trump never said and post it alongside an actual quote from his social media and we have to guess which is the real one. No cheating, one a day and last man standing wins.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

He literally said 'they've been fighting each other for centuries'.

They were capturing airports back when Alexander the Great was just Alex.

 

[Bradskii]

They were capturing airports back when Alexander the Great was just Alex.

Do you think he became Alexander the Great straight off at some point? Or did they call him Alexander The Pretty Good at some point in his rise to greatness.

 

[perplexed]

Those fools Aryeh and Bradskii think there is a spectrum of greatness and believe in the myth that people can be
good or OK.
They are not like me and my excellent friend Donald who knows that you have to describe everyone as the most horrible or the most wonderful that anyone has ever seen

 

[essentialsaltes]

And another ugly popstar and curious quotemarks.

Showing his superiority over mediocre talents like Swift and Springsteen. Ludicrous AI video.

 

[Bradskii]

Ludicrous AI video.

Ludicrous president. And the guitar seems to have 7 strings. He got the extra one from the guitar in this vid. It's only got 5.

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

truthsocial.com

It seems there is no point at which people are embarrassed.