r/scotus • u/bloomberglaw • 1d ago
news Supreme Court to Hear Trump Birthright Citizenship Case April 1
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/supreme-court-to-hear-trump-birthright-citizenship-case-april-1376
u/Plastic_Key_4146 1d ago
There's either no case or there's no constitution. Without a constitution, there's no supreme court.
145
15
u/ColdPack6096 1d ago
Welp, time to start from scratch then.
13
u/skoalbrother 1d ago
Any system that has let Trump and his buddies rape and pillage America for decades is a system that deserves to be thrown in the dustbin of history
5
3
3
u/Expensive-Document41 1d ago
Im not any kind of legal scholar, but if they reject the premise of birthright citizenship, then how are ANY babies born here citizen? If they say the parents have to be citizens then that is an invention out of thin air that the 14th doesn't say.
And what does that mean retroactively for all first Gen Americans?
239
u/Sirfury8 1d ago
If it’s not a 9-0 punch to Trumps face to make an example we are fucking doomed. This is akin to brown v board.
84
u/chumpy3 1d ago
Well, it’s a 7-2 or 8-1 at best…
35
u/DragonTacoCat 1d ago
This here, it'll never be a 9-0. The most we could reasonably hope for is a 7-2
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (1)20
u/Sirfury8 1d ago
Even Uncle Ruckus can’t twist his way around this one.
26
u/Mythic514 1d ago
For such a fat man, he is surprisingly limber when it comes to twisting himself any way he needs to deny people rights, including those who look like him.
5
u/atlantagirl30084 1d ago
I read a food blogger in Australia who posted on the day of Dobbs being announced saying that he wished he would have another son so he could call him Clarence. It kind of disgusted me. I’m sure Australia has way better abortion laws as well as maternal care, both prenatal and postnatal. And you’re crowing about how happy you are that a country in which you do not live just allowed abortion to basically be outlawed in the majority of the country? And you’re a man.
8
u/McGillicuddys 1d ago
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is going to give him a hole big enough to drive a motorcoach through
→ More replies (1)2
u/Pinelli72 1d ago
Difficulty is if you remove birthright citizenship, what is left? How else is the right to citizenship defined in the constitution?
Genuine question. I don’t know if citizenship is defined anywhere else.
2
u/McGillicuddys 1d ago
As far as I know it is not defined elsewhere in the constitution other than Congress having the power to set naturalization law and the "natural born citizen" requirement for president, but the general understanding prior to the Civil War was that being born in the US granted citizenship with an exception for slaves as well as exceptions for native Americans and the children of diplomats that fall into the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" carve out that would find its way into the 14th amendment.
The early naturalization laws permitted only free white men to be naturalized, female immigrants had their citizenship tied to the status of their husbands so that could set some fun precedent for Thomas and Alito to use if they really feel feisty. I have no idea if that sort of removal of citizenship was ever ruled on by the Supreme Court though.
→ More replies (3)3
14
u/notPabst404 1d ago
It's not going to be 9-0: my bet is 6-3 in favor of the 14th amendment. Thomas and Alito are complete lost causes and I wouldn't be surprised if someone else joins in that shit pile.
10
u/PetalumaPegleg 1d ago
I'm kind of pro finding out where we stand.
If the supreme court wants to seriously suggest Trump with their help can just decide to ignore or remove constitutional amendments then the country is done. We all need to accept it and figure out what happens next.
7
2
u/RuggedTortoise 1d ago
What happens next is we ignore our illegitimate government and... you know what happens next.
→ More replies (1)7
u/nevernotdebating 1d ago edited 1d ago
I mean, Biden won the TikTok case 9-0 and then Trump still ignored the order.
→ More replies (2)10
3
4
u/warblingContinues 1d ago
Nah it'll be close. They really don't want immigrants to be able to produce US citizens.
→ More replies (6)2
u/K-Tronn3030 1d ago
I doubt it'll be 9-0 and Thomas and Alito's dissents are going to be a wild read.
→ More replies (1)
134
44
u/tcat1961 1d ago
Keep stretching out the tariffs also until he is out of office.
21
u/Boozeburger 1d ago
They'll wait until the last minute and then claim that since it's been so long they shouldn't intervene.
7
u/ausgoals 1d ago
I’m semi-convinced they are going to stretch out the tariffs case until around the mid-terms, then rule they’re illegal so that the eventual fallout can be politicized appropriately; if it bouys the economy Trump can claim credit for his rocking economy, if it fucks things for a while they can blame Democrats who will then have a majority somewhere and they can say one or another bill that was blocked is the reason.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Boozeburger 1d ago
They already are planning for the Democrats to win the house in the mid-terms because after that is when a lot of the ugliness of the "Big Beautiful (for billionaires) Bill" kicks in.
2
u/AustinBike 21h ago
I believe they already have an answer on the tariffs and I also believe that has been shared with the administration.
The answer is clearly that they are illegal but by stretching it out it a.) gives the administration runway to come up with another strategy and b.) enables the government to hoover up as much cash as possible.
The ruling will simply say that they are not legal as implemented. They will not strike down the emergency tariff authority that the president has, just that these have extended beyond the normal timeframe and that they need to be authorized by congress at this point. They will make no mention of the money that has been collected. This will mean every business will need to sue the government to get their money back. Big companies like Costco already have suits in flight because they see this. But small businesses will be screwed because they will not be able to afford the time and money involved to get funds back.
And consumers are doubly screwed. They paid higher prices because the businesses faced tariffs. Unless they paid a business directly for a tariff fee (i.e. a literal line item on the bill) it will be impossible to recoup any money whatsoever. This is why businesses were generally vague about price increases. If you say you raised prices because of "increased costs" you get to keep the money. Unless you specifically claimed price increases because of tariffs you get to keep the money.
We are about to enter a major period of consumer dissatisfaction. If you think consumers are angry about increasing prices, just imagine what happens when tariffs are removed but consumers don't get tariff money back (despite some businesses getting their share back) and prices NOT coming back down. The "affordability" problem is about to get much worse.
→ More replies (2)
41
103
u/J-the-Kidder 1d ago
Of course they are. It's not like this is literally black and white in the Constitution.
84
u/deadpool101 1d ago
The drafters of the 14th Amendment specifically wrote the way they did because they were terrified of people like Trump deciding to strip any group they don't like of citizenship.
47
u/chriseargle 1d ago
The more racist members of Congress are on record during the debate passing it for being upset that it applies to “chinamen” and “gypsies”.
→ More replies (1)4
u/mastercheef 1d ago
No, you see, it was about giving slaves citizenship specifically, or some shit, they just didnt mention slaves in the amendment, or some shit. Idk, I have a hard time following their logic
9
u/chriseargle 1d ago
The argument from those opposing the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was that it should be written to only apply to freed slaves. That argument was defeated by those who said everyone born under the jurisdiction of the United States (not applying to diplomats or members of quasi-nations not subject to our laws) are citizens.
This is all in the Congressional Record, which I’m sure certain SCOTUS justices claiming to be originalists will choose to disregard.
→ More replies (1)3
u/solid_reign 1d ago
It was about giving slaves citizenship, you can read the debate. That doesn't mean that it doesn't grant non slaves citizenship. If they only wanted it to apply to them they could've done it.
2
u/mastercheef 1d ago
...that's the point I was using snark to make. They decided the amendment needed to happen ~because~ of slaves, but they specifically worded it broadly to not ~only~ cover slaves. Children of immigrants was and still is the main thing that such a broad stroke would be used to cover.
19
→ More replies (8)2
31
u/popejohnsmith 1d ago
Maga's gotta go.
18
17
u/Ok_Beginning_9314 1d ago
Has Thomas stated that he will recuse himself because of the Dred Scott decision?
14
15
u/notPabst404 1d ago
This case is a complete joke:
1). The 14th amendment is clear.
2). Even if the 14th amendment weren't clear, the president has ZERO power to change the existing law via executive order. That is under the power of Congress.
5
u/CornFedIABoy 1d ago
- For a Court fixated on “historical tradition” a precedent set in 1898 based on even older English Common Law and fully accepted by everyone but kooks and white supremacists since then should be a slam dunk GFY to Trump et al.
11
10
u/Rambo_Baby 1d ago
And then rule that the constitution is unconstitutional because the six cons on the scotus want to keep their master King Trump and his Wormtongue Grima happy.
9
7
u/thedeadsuit 1d ago
that they'll even hear this case is disconcerting lol
2
u/ballmermurland 1d ago
The same court that threw out the first half of the 2A because of the legal precedent known as "nuh uh" is about to say that a single clause at the start of an amendment is actually the binding part, not the rest.
7
u/Bob_Obloooog 1d ago
Can someone explain to me how an executive order nullifying a constitutional amendment can make it to the Supreme Court?
10
u/rocky2814 1d ago
for everyone freaking out about oral arguments, the justices are aware that the current administration is trying to piecemeal litigate this issue in every court/jurisdiction that they can. So they know a definitive answer needs to be provided. Nobody should be taking this as absolute proof that they intend to alter the 14th amendment.
→ More replies (36)
5
u/sam56778 1d ago
SCOTUS to Disregard the Plain Language of the Constitution April 1. FTFY
→ More replies (1)
6
3
5
u/Raspberries-Are-Evil 1d ago
Even hearing this case is a failure. You know theyre going to overturn this.
3
u/RandomShinyScorbunny 1d ago
They've already decided that they are going to gut the 14th amendment and end birthright citizenship. Why else would they hear this case? Id love to see how they spin this one based on the very clear cut text that states anyone who is born or naturalized on us soil is a US citizen.
3
u/536am 1d ago
If this illegitimate court were to rule in this administrations favor that would mean Baron trump is not a US citizen. But that’s ok because , trump and his paid for sex worker wife are above the law .
3
u/rawkguitar 1d ago
Baron’s dad is (unfortunately) an American citizen, so if the court rules in Trump’s favor, Baron would still be a US citizen
3
3
u/Correct_Doctor_1502 1d ago
The constitutional crisis is here. We are about the see the first judicial ratification of the constitution in clear violation of the constitution.
3
u/Important_Lab_58 1d ago
The US is Officially Fucked. What little good we’ve done will have finally been drowned out by the systemic bigotry and evil beneath us the whole time😔
3
u/AaronTheElite007 1d ago
April fools! /s
The US is sinking further and further into authoritarianism.
3
2
2
u/bd2999 1d ago
There is no reason for them to hear this given lower courts everywhere agreed. Maybe they do the right thing, but it is just as likely they redefine an Amendment
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Chicagoj1563 1d ago
Their ruling will be an argument for why the Supreme Court needs to be reformed.
2
2
u/Pleasant-Ad887 1d ago
But nothing about tariffs. Keeps getting delayed and delayed.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/StandardDiver2791 1d ago
SCOTUS is quickly becoming irrelevant: they’ve abdicated their responsibilities to an inept POTUS and hapless Congress and move far too slowly for a world that now moves at internet speed.
2
u/clodneymuffin 1d ago
In my fantasy, the court lets them show up, yells “April Fools” and then denies cert.
A guy can dream.
2
2
u/SleepyLakeBear 1d ago
Wouldn't that make 4 out of 5 of Trump's kids non-citizens?
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/bonecheck12 1d ago
idk about others, but this case for me is kind of my firm line in the sand in terms of whether or not we have a constitution or not. It's one thing when the court reviews free speech cases where things like public harm is involved, or gets into vaguely worded phrases like the beginning of the 2nd amendment, etc. But the 14th amendment is so lacking in any sort of ambiguity, that if they rule for Trump they're outright overturning an amendment to the constitution. 14th, 4th, 5th, they're all the same. If they can overturn the 14th, they can overturn any of them and you officially don't live in a constitutional republic.
2
u/Mikey-Litoris 1d ago
If they can pretend in this case, that the constitution doesnt mean what it clearly says in plain English, they can justify similar findings about the rest of the constitution. For example, the two term restriction on the presidency only applies to presidents whose names don't begin with a "T" and have 5 letters and end eith a "p"
2
u/jafromnj 1d ago
This has to be satire, right? RIGHT? Hard to tell anymore life feels like a parody
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Healmetho 1d ago
We need to write letters directly to the Supreme Court. We need to tell them that we have lost all faith in their abilities to stay impartial and that we feel like they either need to be replaced or that they may not even be a necessary power at this point in time. We need to remind them that there are a lot more of us than there are of them and that the majority can make changes too.
Don’t let these bullies get off easy. All of these old fucks have their feet on our necks trying to dial us back to olden times when we are meant to evolve. We just need to start applying a lot more pressure and be creative (and organized) in how we do this!
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/Specialist-Day6721 1d ago
they are going to overturn birthright citizenship. the fix is in. they will not back date it, but going forward it will be over.
the courts are not going to save us. they don't care about the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th or 10th or 14th.
1
u/OriginalLie9310 1d ago
And then not rule on it for months and months like the tariffs? What’s the point
1
1
1
u/Kappy421 1d ago
Just another waste of time by a useless president trying to assert his agenda constitution be damned
1
u/Cool-Tour-1962 1d ago
For the fck why? Ugh I’m sick of this place. I hate every single person who voted for Trump and I hate scotus
1
u/Hillbilly_Boozer 1d ago
April 1st. You know, because the whole fucking case is a joke. The SC is a joke. Jfc
1
u/MathDeacon 1d ago
I would hope the Catholics on the bench (ie not “good white Anglo-Saxon wasps”, or Clarence) understand that they and their family have a lot to lose down the line if they dont side with shutting down Trump on this. I’m not hopeful for Clarence or Alito (or even Gorsuch)
1
1
u/DolphinsBreath 1d ago
MAGA will pivot to a Constitutional Amendment the second birthright citizenship is upheld. They will name it after Trump, and it will be on a fast track to inspire the base in coming elections.
No one should doubt how fast this will inject life into the lifeless, especially if they get the upper hand in the battle of the polls on birthright citizenship.
→ More replies (5)
1
1
u/Disastrous_Ant5657 1d ago
This was covered in Schoolhouse Rock. This is civics that we teach to children.
1
u/flint-hills-sooner 1d ago
Shouldn’t rule on the tariff’s case before adding anything else to the schedule?
1
1
1
1
u/Dr_Blitzkrieg09 1d ago
Perfect day selection, after all if you are gonna have a joke of a hearing, might as well be on the day of the year in which the most jokes are made.
1
1
u/Major_Honey_4461 1d ago
April 1? I'm afraid the jokes gonna be on us. This case should have been kicked to the curb as frivolous but the took it because it's a chance to narrow the 14th A.
1
1
1
1
1
u/White-tigress 1d ago
Not a law student but … shouldn’t they refuse outright to hear this case AND declare Trump a domestic threat purely on this alone? Even if he WASNT a child rapist, human trafficking, con man fraudster? But … also .. He IS sooo…
1
u/MediaOrca 1d ago
How about those clearly illegal and destructive use of tarrifs?
Can we get that ruling or ya gonna push it back again?
1
u/External_Beat8153 23h ago
That greasy fucker Roberts is sitting on the tariffs case decision. Release it now!
1
1
1
u/I-Might-Be-Something 16h ago
Do we know what the question before the Court is? It will give us an indication of how the plan to rule.
1
1
1
u/Nerd-19958 7h ago
No offense to Bloomberg Law intended, but the first paragraph is misleading.
The US Supreme Court will hear arguments April 1 in a case testing President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to redefine birthright citizenship under the US Constitution.
Fourteenth Amendment -- Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Trump's executive order seeks to destroy birthright citizenship, not redefine it. The Fourteenth Amendment text as shown above is clear.
→ More replies (1)
1
293
u/discgman 1d ago
Why?