The Supreme Court: Fuck the King’s Birthday
The Supreme Court shut the door on Trump’s birthright citizenship restrictions on Tuesday, ruling that his banner immigration policy is unconstitutional.
Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by all three liberal justices and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote that the 14th Amendment guarantees automatic citizenship for nearly all children born on U.S. soil, even those born to parents in the country unlawfully.
A sixth justice, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, disagreed but voted to block Trump’s order under federal law.
The decision marks one of the Supreme Court’s most stinging blows against Trump’s second-term agenda, nullifying a key prong of the president’s immigration crackdown.
Trump made his birthright citizenship executive order one of his Day 1 policies upon retaking the White House.
It would require a baby born on U.S. soil to have at least one parent with citizenship or permanent legal status.
The importance of the policy spurred Trump to observe oral arguments at the high court himself in April, a first for a sitting president.
Afterward, he repeatedly predicted publicly he wouldn’t win the case.
The policy never went into effect amid an onslaught of litigation by Democratic-led states, immigration services organizations and individual mothers.
They insisted it runs afoul of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all persons born in the country who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Many legal experts have long argued that only leaves room for narrow exceptions, like the children of ambassadors, enemies during a hostile invasion, tribal members and those born on warships.
The administration challenged that conventional understanding.
Its position had some longtime backers, including John Eastman, who became well-known for writing legal memos advocating for Congress to reject certification of the 2020 election results.
But the president’s order invigorated a debate that played out for months across the country at conservative legal conferences and in academic writings and newspaper op-eds.
The legal battle has reached the Supreme Court twice.
Last year, the justices took up the dispute to clamp down on lower judges’ ability to issue universal injunctions blocking the president’s policies.
But that decision left unaddressed whether Trump’s moves on birthright citizenship were actually legal.
#trump #bithday #supreme #court
📱 American Оbserver - Stay up to date on all important events 🇺🇸
The Supreme Court shut the door on Trump’s birthright citizenship restrictions on Tuesday, ruling that his banner immigration policy is unconstitutional.
Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by all three liberal justices and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote that the 14th Amendment guarantees automatic citizenship for nearly all children born on U.S. soil, even those born to parents in the country unlawfully.
A sixth justice, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, disagreed but voted to block Trump’s order under federal law.
The decision marks one of the Supreme Court’s most stinging blows against Trump’s second-term agenda, nullifying a key prong of the president’s immigration crackdown.
Trump made his birthright citizenship executive order one of his Day 1 policies upon retaking the White House.
It would require a baby born on U.S. soil to have at least one parent with citizenship or permanent legal status.
The importance of the policy spurred Trump to observe oral arguments at the high court himself in April, a first for a sitting president.
Afterward, he repeatedly predicted publicly he wouldn’t win the case.
The policy never went into effect amid an onslaught of litigation by Democratic-led states, immigration services organizations and individual mothers.
They insisted it runs afoul of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all persons born in the country who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Many legal experts have long argued that only leaves room for narrow exceptions, like the children of ambassadors, enemies during a hostile invasion, tribal members and those born on warships.
The administration challenged that conventional understanding.
Its position had some longtime backers, including John Eastman, who became well-known for writing legal memos advocating for Congress to reject certification of the 2020 election results.
But the president’s order invigorated a debate that played out for months across the country at conservative legal conferences and in academic writings and newspaper op-eds.
The legal battle has reached the Supreme Court twice.
Last year, the justices took up the dispute to clamp down on lower judges’ ability to issue universal injunctions blocking the president’s policies.
But that decision left unaddressed whether Trump’s moves on birthright citizenship were actually legal.
#trump #bithday #supreme #court
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔥10😱5🤬5😢4🙏4🤯3✍1👍1💯1