Sean CastenIt's not surprising that the Trump administration is relying on legal opinions by discredited racists to justify their attacks the 14th Amendment. But IMO the bigger problem is that SCOTUS even agreed to hear the case. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/03/30/trump-birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-case/
The plain text of 14A is that if you're born in the US you're entitled to citizenship. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes ambassadors, invading armies and tribal sovereigns. This is well established in the record. See our amicus brief: https://litigationtaskforce.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/litigationandresponse.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/birthright-citizenship-executive-order-amicus-briefpdf.pdf
14A - like the other reconstruction amendments - was ratified begrudgingly by southern states as a condition of readmission to the union. IOW, the idea that people who weren't white could be afforded equal rights & citizenship has been controversial from the jump.
The intellectual descendants of 14As early opponents then tried to argue it didn't apply to non-white immigrants in the Wong Kim Ark case. Precedent, and the court disagreed. And yet these are the arguments the Trump admin is now resurrecting.
Equality remains controversial. And the AKC purebred racist line runs from Robert E. Lee, through Francis Wharton & George Collins and down to Stephen Miller & his modern ilk. Like I said, no surprise they are dusting off this claptrap.
But SCOTUS didn't have to grant cert. All the arguments have been rebutted. The Congressional record that led to the drafting of 14A and the jurisprudence of Wong Kim Ark is just as clear today as it ever was. If originalism and stare decisis matter, there is no case here.
Put another way, a Court that respects the legislative branch (who drafted 14A), the plain text of the Constitution, the American people who ratified 14A and past precedent necessarily has nothing to add here.
Should we assume they have an intent to gut this provision of 14A, just as they've already gutted Section 3 of 14A? Are they just so high on their own supply that they want another opportunity to lecture us on their virtues? I don't know. But neither are the mark of wise jurists.
Anyway, a SCOTUS that consistently tramples on the will of the people and the Constitution needs to be checked by the other branches while we still can, or else we are complicit in their destruction. And it's why I'll keep pushing back. /fin https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5785711-judicial-system-loses-trust/
ferricoxide@SeanCasten
Sadly, they probably need to be checked by the ultimate source of government power (the aforementioned "will of the people", likely expressed through terms that are unequivocal). Honestly, it's more difficult, with each passing day, to feel like this doesn't all end up getting re-litigated like it did in the 1860s.
Sadly, they probably need to be checked by the ultimate source of government power (the aforementioned "will of the people", likely expressed through terms that are unequivocal). Honestly, it's more difficult, with each passing day, to feel like this doesn't all end up getting re-litigated like it did in the 1860s.
Nicole ParsonsLike Congress, the US Supreme Court is owned by Koch Network.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/22/clarence-thomas-koch-revelations-calls-supreme-court-reform
Its decisions are available for purchase by billionaires.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/supreme-court-john-roberts-voting-rights-brnovich-dark-money-1194487/
Roe vs Wade's overturn was bought with $1.6 billion in Irish tax evasion from Barre Seid & Leonard Leo.
https://www.propublica.org/article/barre-seid-heartland-institute-hillsdale-college-gmu
Who knows what Koch Network paid to buy the EPA decision, the end of the Voting Rights Act, presidential immunity, & Citizens United.
https://theintercept.com/2022/06/30/supreme-court-epa-climate-charles-koch/
@Npars01 @SeanCasten
"Re-litigated" would be a euphemistic use of the term (i.e., "pay attention to the date notation").
"Re-litigated" would be a euphemistic use of the term (i.e., "pay attention to the date notation").