The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments regarding President Trump's executive order aiming to eliminate birthright citizenship for individuals without at least one U.S. citizen or green card-holding parent. During the hearing, justices expressed skepticism towards the administration's arguments, with notable challenges from justices such as Kagan and Barrett. The primary legal question was not the constitutional merits of the order but rather the validity of nationwide injunctions against such policies. Ultimately, the discussion exposed the government's tenuous position on established legal precedent surrounding citizenship, indicating potential difficulties ahead.
At an abruptly scheduled hearing on Thursday, the justices had not been asked to rule on the substance of President Donald Trump's day-one executive order purporting to erase birthright citizenship...
Solicitor General John Sauer wasn't wrong when he started out his argument calling nationwide injunctions 'a bipartisan problem,' even if almost everything else he said was false.
...there is nothing novel or difficult about birthright citizenship - which is spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment and has repeatedly been reinforced by generations of Supreme Court decisions.
The government argues that the citizenship clause only applied to 'children of former slaves,' proposing a narrow interpretation of citizenship that challenges established legal precedents.
Collection
[
|
...
]