General Discussion

karynnj

(60,413 posts)

62. They didn't specifically answer the underlying question - birthright citizenship

Sat Jun 28, 2025, 02:29 PM

Jun 28

What they did is enormous. They ruled that a judge can not make a universal ruling on anything. This means that a ruling will affect just their jurisdiction.

On birthright citizenship, this is a terrible decision for many reasons. Two of the most compelling are:

1) this is a right dictated in the Constitution. Apparently, the strick constructionist Federal Society justices are not so "strick constructionist" if it disagrees with their preferences. The nature of the underlying issue should have required they rule on the underlying question.

2) This could lead to children born in the US being automatically citizens in some states and not in others. This will be a nightmare when people move around. I would assume a person born in a state giving them citizenship would retain that citizenship no matter where they move, but who knows in MAGA world. In addition, what happens anyone born before yesterday in a red state? I also wonder if for those close to a state border, could this lead mothers living in a red state to choosing a hospital in a blue state? ( Example some one in Lake County Indiana delivering in nearby Illinois. In that case, the baby would be born in Pritzler's Illinois rather than Braun's Indiana.)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Yes, they did rule on Birtright Citizenship [View all] edhopper Jun 27 OP

They are going to build gulags by the dozens. rubbersole Jun 27 #1

The Court gave 30 days to seek relief in other jurisdictions Sympthsical Jun 27 #2

And a Constitutional Right edhopper Jun 27 #4

Exactly-- it's fucking disgraceful, disgusting, depressiing, evil, etc LymphocyteLover Jun 27 #23

Potentially, that sets up an internal migration wave NickB79 Jun 27 #48

I think people misunderstand the executive order Sympthsical Jun 27 #57

I was thinking more along the lines of parents moving to protect their children NickB79 Jun 28 #60

Oh sure, absolutely Sympthsical Jun 28 #61

it's bullshit though!!! LymphocyteLover Jun 27 #54

There's one positive angle, though. It discourages forum-shopping for judges like Kacsmaryk Ocelot II Jun 27 #3

Only if you apply logic and precedent newdeal2 Jun 27 #5

You know way more about legal stuff than I so I defer to your wisdom as always, but I have to wonder AZJonnie Jun 27 #6

Thats correct, anytime theres a dispute between rulings, Volaris Jun 27 #7

Thomas has already said he wants to do that. Ocelot II Jun 27 #8

Oh, well see Loving is different. The principal is the same yes, Volaris Jun 27 #26

IANAL, but does this apply retroactively to other nationwide injunctions Arazi Jun 27 #18

This means Trump has an even tighter grip on John Roberts Attilatheblond Jun 27 #9

Eek! Wonder how this will apply to adoptions? Arazi Jun 27 #19

As things are going at present, have to consider it will be wielded like a weapon Attilatheblond Jun 27 #27

He adopted a boy and a girl Celerity Jun 27 #20

Irish woman adopeted the kids, as required by Irish law at the time. Then she took them to South American country Attilatheblond Jun 27 #28

District courts can still pass lkmited injunctions for specific cases. SSJVegeta Jun 27 #10

Constitutional rights edhopper Jun 27 #11

Well, they're more like regional privileges now 0rganism Jun 27 #12

Ya.. SSJVegeta Jun 27 #13

Ya SSJVegeta Jun 27 #14

It is a stunning new power they gave to Trump now Johnny2X2X Jun 27 #15

Thinking it's time to park the smart phone and only carry a dumb phone if necessary Attilatheblond Jun 27 #29

NO. Read the executive order. Ms. Toad Jun 27 #33

I think the six conservatives mountain grammy Jun 27 #16

I expect red states like mine will take every inch of this rope 2 Meow Momma Jun 27 #17

You are right in your thinking. edhopper Jun 27 #21

You aren't wrong JustAnotherGen Jun 27 #25

My parents immigrated to the U.S. in 1949 Wicked Blue Jun 27 #22

were they undocumented or have temporary VISA status when you were born? LymphocyteLover Jun 27 #24

This will not impact your son. Ms. Toad Jun 27 #32

No, they were legal, but with this evil crew in charge Wicked Blue Jun 27 #38

yes, that is my great fear LymphocyteLover Jun 27 #52

No. Not unless you were born February 19 or later this year - Ms. Toad Jun 27 #31

No. They did not. Ms. Toad Jun 27 #30

You are naive to think so edhopper Jun 27 #34

That had nothing to do with the executive order on birthright citizenship, or the court's decision. Ms. Toad Jun 27 #35

My claim is that edhopper Jun 27 #36

Wrong. Ms. Toad Jun 27 #40

They said going forward edhopper Jun 27 #41

Correct. Which is why it makes it much harder and expensive to fight him going forward. Ms. Toad Jun 27 #43

Because after this ruling edhopper Jun 27 #44

Extremely unlikely. Ms. Toad Jun 27 #46

Like anybody ICE deems illegal edhopper Jun 27 #47

That's not careful legal strategy from the Project 25 folks. Ms. Toad Jun 27 #51

Doesn't matter does it edhopper Jun 27 #53

It may well be - or at least the birthright citizenship narrowly interpreted. Ms. Toad Jun 27 #56

I am sorry edhopper Jun 27 #49

I don't believe you've heard anything unrealistic about what he or the courts would do from me. Ms. Toad Jun 27 #55

No, not from you edhopper Jun 27 #58

Ms Toad, you clearly are unaware that the role of the judiciary Seeking Serenity Jun 27 #39

Thanks OC375 Jun 27 #59

A couple of Class Action lawsuits have already been filed to get around this ruling LetMyPeopleVote Jun 27 #37

SCOTUS still has to rule on these edhopper Jun 27 #42

And how far back do you have to go? Bettie Jun 27 #45

Playing the long game, going beyond the foreseeable future... Efilroft Sul Jun 27 #50

They didn't specifically answer the underlying question - birthright citizenship karynnj Jun 28 #62