SCOTUS Takes Challenge to Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order

Thursday, April 17, 2025

The U.S. Supreme court Thursday deferred any ruling on President Trump's claim that there is no automatic guarantee to birthright citizenship in the Constitution. The court said it would hear arguments in the case on May 15, with a decision likely by late June or early July.

Posted by Corky at 08:33 PM | 33 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Trump on birthright citizenship: "It's all about slavery and if you look at it that way, we should win that case."

[image or embed]
-- Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) April 17, 2025 at 4:42 PM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"To date, every court to have considered Trump's executive order banning birth right citizenship, issued on day one of his administration, has blocked it.

But he has doggedly persisted in his contention that birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, an idea widely considered a fringe view because the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary 127 years ago, and that decision has never been disturbed."

;;
=

Roberts still in Trump's pocket; kicking the can down the road on what has been a no-brainer decion for 127 years.

We'll all be under Marshall Law by the summer anyway after his stooges in 'Justice' tell him on Easter that he can indeed release his inner Fuehrer.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2025-04-17 04:53 PM | Reply

decision

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2025-04-17 05:29 PM | Reply

This is not merits argument. The only thing to be argued is the application for a partial stay:

Consideration of the application (24A884) for partial stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument. Consideration of the application (24A885) for partial stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument. Consideration of the application (24A886) for partial stay presented to Justice Jackson and by her referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument. The applications are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. The applications are set for oral argument at 10 a.m. on Thursday, May 15, 2025.

reason.com

#3 | Posted by et_al at 2025-04-17 06:12 PM | Reply

So, kicking the can WAY down the road.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2025-04-17 08:34 PM | Reply

Yeah, pretty much. Earlier I was looking at stuff about the Buffoon's threat to Harvard's 501(c)(3) tax exemption. Seems Bob Jones University lost theirs for being political. Took thirteen years before the SC said nah. So, here the stay is important but I just can't see the Court letting a few people being protected while thousands are not. Then again, I didn't see Roe being overruled, so there's that.

#5 | Posted by et_al at 2025-04-17 09:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Republicans seem to be okay with Trump seizing the newborns and deporting them, separately from their parents.

Gonna have ICE agents raiding the Maternity Ward, snatching the babies out of incubators, Kuwait Style.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-17 09:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Republicans seem to be okay with Trump seizing the newborns and deporting them, separately from their parents.
Gonna have ICE agents raiding the Maternity Ward, snatching the babies out of incubators, Kuwait Style.
#6 | Posted by snoofy"

Why would you deport the baby and not the parents? If the parents aren't being snatched, it would mean they are citizens. If that is the case, the babies are US citizens by blood.

If the parents aren't citizens, they they can be deported as a family unit.

#7 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-04-18 03:02 AM | Reply

Executive fiat overrules a Constitutional amendment. Why am I not surprised? Nucking Fidiot.

#8 | Posted by et_al at 2025-04-18 08:04 AM | Reply

"Why would you deport the baby and not the parents?"

Same reason Trump separated the baby from the parents in 2017.

According to people like you, parents who bring their children into the country are trafficking children.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-18 08:14 AM | Reply

"Executive fiat overrules a Constitutional amendment.
#8 | Posted by et_al"

The amendment does not need to change - we are only talking about interpreting it correctly.

#10 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-04-18 08:32 AM | Reply

#10

Enlighten me, how do you interpret the words "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens ...?"

#11 | Posted by et_al at 2025-04-18 09:03 AM | Reply

""All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens"

That is the key part - I am 100% positive that you have had this explained to you before so there is no point in me saying anything additional on the matter.

#12 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-04-18 09:17 AM | Reply

"Why would you deport the baby and not the parents?"

Because babies can't actually pick vegetables or fruit.

10 years from now we will be giving cash bobuses to returning migrant workers because we need them to harvest the food we eat every day. Trump and his xenophobic supporters will be the biggest whiners when crops rot in the fields which will drive the price up for available fresh vegetables.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2025-04-18 09:40 AM | Reply

#13: The US will suffer more "food deserts," as if we don't have that problem today: draxe.com

#14 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-04-18 09:44 AM | Reply

"#13: The US will suffer more "food deserts
#14 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS"

AKA, the places places in deep blue -------- cities where you liberals keep the blacks and browns so they aren't near your schools or stores.

#15 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-04-18 09:48 AM | Reply

The------------- is going to make food-borne illness great again.

FDA Guts Food Safety Testing in Latest Move to Make America Healthy Again'

gizmodo.com

#16 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2025-04-18 09:55 AM | Reply

That is the key part - I am 100% positive that you have had this explained to you before so there is no point in me saying anything additional on the matter.

Yeah it was explained by the Supreme Court in the late 19th century i.e. if you are present in the US you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Otherwise, nucking fidiots like you seem to contend that illegals in the country are not subject to prosecution for their crimes because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." I mean, seriously, just how g** d*** stupid can you be?

#17 | Posted by et_al at 2025-04-18 10:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The US will suffer more "food deserts"
#14 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS

AKA, the places places in deep blue -------- cities
#15 | POSTED BY SCOTTS

You don't know what a "food desert" is, do you.

Typical, ignorant, deplorable Trumping MAGAt.

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-04-18 10:27 AM | Reply

""All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens"

That is the key part
#12 | POSTED BY SCOTTS

You unwittingly bolded the portion the Trump administration is denying the people he's sending to El Salvador.

Bravo.

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-04-18 10:30 AM | Reply

"#18 | Posted by ClownShack"

Name a wealthy, white area in a deep blue -------- city that is a food desert ------- - there aren't any. You limit that to the ghettos where you store your blacks and browns.

#20 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-04-18 10:47 AM | Reply

"You unwittingly bolded the portion the Trump administration is denying the people he's sending to El Salvador.
#19 | Posted by ClownShack"

They are El Salvador citizen and subject to their jurisdiction.

#21 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-04-18 10:48 AM | Reply

Name a wealthy, white area in a deep blue -------- city that is a food desert ------- - there aren't any.
#20 | POSTED BY SCOTTS

You really should look up what a food desert is instead of doubling down on proving how ignorant you are.

Also, blue cities have plenty of wealthy areas. Multiple in the case of some.

#22 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-04-18 10:50 AM | Reply

They are El Salvador citizen and subject to their jurisdiction.
#21 | POSTED BY SCOTTS

That's not how it works, idiot.

You seem to enjoy proving how stupid you are.

We get it. You're a moron.

Congratulations.

Mission accomplished.

#23 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-04-18 10:52 AM | Reply

They are El Salvador citizen and subject to their jurisdiction.
#21 | Posted by ScottS

Wait till you find out that people can be subject to jurisdiction in multiple places at one time...

When Can the U.S. Government Prosecute Someone for Acts Abroad?
fmamlaw.com

#24 | Posted by censored at 2025-04-18 10:54 AM | Reply

we are only talking about interpreting it correctly.

#10 | POSTED BY SCOTTS

lol ok

STFU idiot.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2025-04-18 02:29 PM | Reply

Scotts: the interpretation is the same as it always has been- the only people not subject to American jurisdiction are foreign government representatives granted diplomatic immunity.
Their children are citizens of their parents country and not the foreign country they might be born in.
Everybody else, citizen, visa holder, undocumented alien and tourist are subject to American laws.

#26 | Posted by northguy3 at 2025-04-18 08:29 PM | Reply

@#21 ... They are El Salvador citizen and subject to their jurisdiction. ...

When they are in the US, they are subject to the Constitution.

Due process to remove them from the US. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously, 9-0.

And that due process of the Constitution was denied to them.

Pres Bukele has said that he is holding the prisoners because Pres Trump is paying him to do so. (tossing the blame back to Pres Trump. So he, apparently, doesn't like his role in this..., imo)

My guess would be that that tweet may become dissidence on future court cases, along with the pictures of a US Senator meeting with Mr Garcia in an apparently staged setting.

#27 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-04-18 08:57 PM | Reply

Due process to remove them from the US. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously, 9-0.

Where is this ruling? I have looked on the SCOTUS site but can't find it.

#28 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-04-18 09:06 PM | Reply

And that due process of the Constitution was denied to them.

AEA has habeas review.

Provided always, and be it further enacted, that if any alien so ordered to depart shall prove to the satisfaction of the President, by evidence to be taken before such person or persons as the President shall direct, who are for that purpose hereby authorized to administer oaths, that no injury or danger to the United States will arise from suffering such alien to reside therein, the President may grant a license to such alien to remain within the United States for such time as he shall judge proper, and at such place as he may designate.
www.archives.gov

#29 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-04-18 09:09 PM | Reply

This entire "dialogue" between the 9-0 Supreme Court and the Trumpers.

It's a great example of why Asimov had to invent the Third Law of Robotics.

These MAGAs are saying it does not matter that the United States did something illegal, because it's already been done.

And because the result of United States illegal action places the subject outside United States control, there is nothing the United States is compelled to do address our own illegal action.

It's a recipe for fascism.

That's why it makes so much sense to them.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-18 09:28 PM | Reply

@#28 ... I have looked on the SCOTUS site but can't find it. ...

Do try harder in your current alias' trolling.

#31 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-04-18 09:45 PM | Reply

Where is this ruling? I have looked on the SCOTUS site but can't find it.

You likely don't know what or where to look just like you are irrefutably ignorant law. That said, second link down. www.supremecourt.gov

#32 | Posted by et_al at 2025-04-18 09:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#29 | Posted by oneironaut

The AEA has be through amendments since 1798, you ignorant twit. Here's the current version. www.law.cornell.edu

Section 23 appears to require some form of "due process" though its quite ambiguous and vague. Nevertheless, did the Buffoon minimally attempt to comply with Section 23?

#33 | Posted by et_al at 2025-04-18 10:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1