The ruling doesn’t make his EOs any less unconstitutional, but Fuckface von Clownstick and his minions will act like it does make them constitutional.
14 Likes
12 Likes
And here’s the thing that bugs me about this: if we don’t have birthright citizenship, how far back does that go? How does it work? If Melania’s citizenship is revoked because she entered the country on a fraudulent visa, does Barron’s citizenship also go away? What about someone whose great-great-great-grandparents weren’t citizens when their great-great-grandparents were born? Does the whole thing flow down to descendants? Is anyone who isn’t a descendant of enslaved people (explicitly granted citizenship) or Native Americans even a citizen? That would be hilarious.
18 Likes
It’s an attempt to exclude POC. The core reason for the 14th was to ensure citizenship rights for former slaves. The attempt to get rid of it must be read through that lens. People like Melania Trump will get a pass.
19 Likes
This would be the perfect outcome.
13 Likes
Of course are Native Americans really citizens? What if they were born in Alaska or Hawaii between the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and when those areas became states?
The missus is native american and the possibility that the 1924 act could be revoked, somehow, is a real worry
18 Likes
Yeah, to be clear, SCOTUS made no decision on the merits of the case. This just blocked standing injunctions. Which is still really fucking bad, and will have repercussions no one has imagined yet, but they issued no decision on birthright citizenship itself.
14 Likes
So, up next is invalidating the citizenship of large swaths of Americans (via DOGE’s pilfered records).
Which will happen first: individual court cases for each one of those citizens to restore their citizenship or sending them off by the train-car load to concentration camps?
15 Likes
I am done trying to predict what this Court will and won’t do. This may go down as the worst Court in US history. I never thought a Court could do worse than the Taney Court, but here we are.
23 Likes
More. Puerto Rico federal district court, DC, Virgin Islands, Guam and Mariana Islands.
17 Likes
So there are 94 Federal District Courts, and 13 circuits of the U.S. courts of appeals. I’m not sure which of those numbers is more relevant here but either way it’s way too many when it comes to the possibility of conflicting decisions on basic matters of human rights.
9 Likes
I really need to read the actual opinion, but I’m not sure I could control my rage right now. It really sounds like bad law.
17 Likes
More like lawless, to me… 
15 Likes
Ok, I’m reading it now. The first thing that I think is important to note is this, because I’m 100% certain Trump, Stephen Miller, and all of their supporters will claim that this decision ends birthright citizenship, when it clearly does not. So if you run into anyone claiming that, this is from the introductory paragraph of the opinion:
The applications do not raise—and thus the Court does not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act. Instead, the issue the Court decides is whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.
17 Likes
Ok, they’re reaching back to the English Chancery courts before the Constitution for what injunctions could and could not do, and Barrett says this, which I don’t understand how is relevant to this case:
“As a general rule, an injunction” could not bind one who was not a “party to the cause.” F. Calvert, Suits in Equity 120 (2d ed. 1847); see also Iveson v. Harris, 7 Ves. 251, 257, 32 Eng. Rep. 102, 104 (1802) (“[Y]ou cannot have an injunction except against a party to the suit”). Suffice it to say, then, under longstanding equity practice in England, there was no remedy “remotely like a national injunc-
tion.” Bray, Multiple Chancellors 425.
Except here, no one is trying to bind anyone who isn’t a party to the case. The United States is a party to the case, and they’re the only party bound by the injunction. The “universal injunction” as they’re now calling it, only binds the United States government. None of these injunctions are binding anyone else. So how the fuck is this relevant to shit?
18 Likes
Ok, I’ve read enough. The twisting of law and history the majority is going through to justify this is ridiculous. But basically, what they’re saying is that universal injunctions were not a thing until relatively recently (as in the last 20 years or so), they’re getting out of hand, and they’re going to stop them. But they’re completely ignoring the why of why there have been so many universal injunctions, which is that the executive branch has been grabbing more and more power, well beyond it’s Constitutional authority, and people who recognize this keep suing to stop it. And Trump has taken it to a new level.
History notwithstanding, this is really simple to me. If the government enacts a law, or issues an executive order, that is unconstitutional, why on Earth would you issue an injunction to block the enforcement of said law or order against only the people who filed a lawsuit against the government? They’re saying that what needs to happen is that all affected people need to join the lawsuit, or do it as a class action lawsuit. Which is asinine.
The other thing I noticed is that the majority went out of their way to completely ignore the subject of these lawsuits, because ignoring the specific issue here is the only way you can coldly rule on what you’re claiming is the bigger issue of universal injunctions. Sotomayor calls the majority out on this and spends quite a bit of time talking about birthright citizenship, its origins in English law, and how blatantly unconstitutional the EO is, which underscores why a universal injunction is needed here. If the Court ever gets to the merits of this case, there should be no way they could find the EO legal. But they’ve now created this situation where ever single individual who might be affected by this order is going to have to sue and ask for an injunction, potentially flooding the federal courts with tens of thousands of lawsuits. This decision is pure insanity and it sets a precedent that could completely shut down the federal court system under an avalanche of lawsuits. Because it’s not just this EO. How many EOs are out there right now that are clearly unconstitutional but affect different people? Are there millions of people affected by these EOs? Probably. And they all have to sue and ask for injunctions? This is just . . . holy shit, I don’t know, this is . . . I don’t have words for how bad this is.
23 Likes
Thank you for reading it and giving a summary. I damned well couldn’t get through the first 3 paragraphs without feeling like I needed to throw something
17 Likes
But that’s not all!
But wait, there’s still more!
The latter case began as close-but-not-quite-local news (i.e. in the next county). Glancing at the documents, it looks like some of the plaintiffs dropped out. I’m not sure when, or why, that happened. But, knowing a bit about who the former plaintiffs are (& without going into specifics), I want to believe that they realized the leopards will eat their faces, too.
18 Likes
So parents can remove kids from American History classes that discuss the Supreme Court’s decisions on lgbt people?
15 Likes