Question about Supreme Court ruling on the birthright citizenship thing.

[Baitball Blogger]

The ruling pertained to national injunctions against Trump's orders. That federal courts can't rule against a national injunction because it's above their pay grade. So that means, Trumps is able to make sweeping, broadbrush orders and no one can stop him. Right?

Next question: Even if he can do broadbrush orders, can someone who is affected by those orders use citizenship birthright to counter in court? The Supreme Court did not rule on that exact issue, so Trump can only be defeated on a one by one basis. Is this everyone's take?

[D. Spaulding]

1. Didn't Rubio become a citizen based on birth right citizenship?

N/T

[FBaggins]

7. Yes and no

He is a citizen because he was born here… so “yes”

But the “birthright citizenship” that MAGA wants to end would apply to people who were born in the US to parents who were not here legally.

That wouldn’t apply to Rubio. His parents were not citizens, but were legal immigrants.

[edhopper]

10. Except they have redefined

what being here legally means. So it applies to anyone born here of immigrants.

[FBaggins]

11. Not in a way that's relevant to the conversation

They had visas to immigrate to the US from Cuba

[edhopper]

12. People with Visas

have been deported. People with Green Cards have been deported. People born to an American parent have been deported.
There is no longer a legal definition of legal.

[FBaggins]

13. Their visas have been revoked - which has always been possible

Until it's revoked, you're in the country legally and any children born are US citizens by either the longstanding standard or the ones they're pushing for.

Which, again, is irrelevant to the conversation. No decision now could retroactively remove a pair of immigration visas from the 1950s and call Rubio's citizenship into question.

[edhopper]

14. The converstaion t hand

is that Trump can deport anybody he wants without redress.

[FBaggins]

15. Oh... I see now

You got lost and ended up on the wrong thread.

[edhopper]

16. The OP

The ruling pertained to national injunctions against Trump's orders. That federal courts can't rule against a national injunction because it's above their pay grade. So that means, Trumps is able to make sweeping, broadbrush orders and no one can stop him. Right?

Next question: Even if he can do broadbrush orders, can someone who is affected by those orders use citizenship birthright to counter in court? The Supreme Court did not rule on that exact issue, so Trump can only be defeated on a one by one basis. Is this everyone's take?

Looks like the right thread to me.

[Johnny2X2X]

17. I think that assumes their intent

This ruling gives Trump the power to deport literally anyone in the country. We are all citizens because we were born here, that's no longer a thing under this ruling. You are a citizen if and only if Trump says you are and can stay, period.

[FBaggins]

23. Not at all.

The ruling doesn't say that he can deport anyone in the country. It just says that individual circuit court judges cannot block the administration's actions nationwide... they can only rule to the extent needed to pause proceedings on the people involved in the case before them. The ruling explicitly did not address whether the president has the powers that he's trying to exercise.

More importantly... even the most expansive version of the president's policy does not undo "birthright citizenship" in the sense that being born here does not automatically grant citizenship. The change - while significant - is nowhere near that sweeping. Birthright citizenship is still a thing in Trump's imaginary world... it just only applies to people who were born of at least one parent who was legally in the country at the time. The only people he's trying to deny citizenship to are those for whom neither parent was legally in the country at the time.

[Blue Full Moon]

21. So himself, his mother came here illegally.

[FBaggins]

22. No. His parents came legally and he was born here

There is no world where the current debate has anything to do with them.

Now, a legitimate critique could be that under the immigration policies Rubio supports - people like his parents might not have received immigration visas in the first place. But they were legal immigrants when he was born so he's a citizen. And, of course, they became citizens a few years later.

[Blue Full Moon]

26. She was the one who reported

1940 census document which lists Mary as being both the wife of Frederick Trump as well as a naturalized citizen, despite the fact that she was not granted citizenship until 1942. That document (behind a paywall), which has an "X" next to her name indicating that she was the one providing the census with her family's information, has the letters "Na" entered in the citizenship status box, indicating "naturalized":

[FBaggins]

28. Rubio is not descended from The Trumps

If what you're talking about was actually Trump...? Once again - your parents don’t have to be citizens for you to become one at birth. Even under Trump’s notion , they just need to be legally in the country. Dad was a citizen and mom was a legal immigrant... either one makes him a citizen (under both correct readings of the law and Trump's imaginary one).

[Lovie777]

2. No injunctions from lower courts.....................

which I perceive that no lower courts can do that anymore, i.e. blocking birth control pills across the country or anything else.

In the matter of class actions???????????????/

Right now, it's up the the individual and the courts.

[SSJVegeta]

9. No nationwide* injunctions

They can still do injunctions within the specifc area or concern of the case. I think?

[surfered]

3. Every plaintiff will have to ask individually for relief, if they are given the opportunity.

And not just whisked off to some hell hole.

[Ms. Toad]

19. No. They can do district-wide injunctions. Just not injunctions for the entire country.

That means at least 50 suits - maybe a suit in each district. I haven't read the decision yet, so I don't know whether a district court can issue an injunction for only their district, or for the entire state.

[surfered]

31. I'm betting only by District.

[Ms. Toad]

32. The news suggests state by state,

But they often get it wrong, and I've been too busy dealing with water emergencies (no water, no hot water, water damage to stuff near the pump) to find and read the case.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. Lower-court injunctions are still in effect in some places -- it just varies by states/jurisdictions across the nation.

[Scrivener7]

5. Literally, one of their main purposes is to rule against unconstitutional national injunctions and limit the power of

the presidency.

These people are vile.

[SARose]

6. Wait until a Democrat outlaws "long guns"

By Executive Order. 😈

[allegorical oracle]

8. Two attorneys I've watched this morning pointed out that class action lawsuits may be

available as one remedy. As it stands now, though, it appears to me that it will be a chaotic state-by-state decision on what citizenship is available to children born to undocumented immigrants. Would expect that to result in a sizeable shift in populations from some states to others.

Worrisome is that Executive Orders have just become edicts, as I understand it. So it's birthright citizenship today (until the merits of that matter is settled). Tomorrow it may be an EO banning or barring some other right (like the legality of gay marriage). And where will this country be in 3 1/2 years?

[mainer]

18. If it's state by state, red states are in trouble

Immigrants will move to blue states. They won’t visit red states even as tourists for fear of getting snatched by ICE. Red states will lose all their immigrant labor, their economies will collapse, and their tax base will vanish.

[mainer]

24. Immigrants contribute more than they take

They’re the tax base that support our aging population

[FBaggins]

25. It is untrue that no one can stop him

It's a massive ruling - but it's still true that all they did was keep federal district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions rather than more targeted injunctions that hold the status quo for the case in front of them.

Those injunctions are temporary while the trial goes on. They eventually result in actual rulings that could say that the president lacks the power to do a certain thing under the Constitution, and appellate courts (and SCOTUS) could still block unconstitutional actions.

Taking the instant case - the judge can't block the administration's immigration policy (except for the people in the case in front of him)... but SCOTUS explicitly did NOT say that Trump's policy was unconstitutional. They just said that such a ruling has to come at the end of a much longer process. We can't just ask a district judge to block something while we argue in court.

[mzmolly]

27. ACLU just filed a class action suit.

Last edited Sat Jun 28, 2025, 03:00 PM - Edit history (1)

I don’t know all the specifics.

[sop]

29. If the SC allows this line of Constitutional interpretation then a citizen's rights can be suspended unless they

sue individually to get them back. And no rights are constitutionally protected until individuals sue to have them granted. Problem is most people cannot afford to file a lawsuit, so now only those who can afford to do so will be granted their constitutional rights.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

30. A couple of Class Action lawsuits have already been filed to get around this ruling

Class actions are a way around this ruling

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

That was quick

There are already TWO new class action lawsuits challenging Trump birthright citizenship order

Suits designed to adjust to today's Supreme Court ruling

Including one by ACLU, which says "This executive order directly opposes our Constitution, values & history"