(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Awful SCOTUS Birthright Decision [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2025-06-27

SCOTUS Birthright Decision–The “Disunited States of America”--June 27, 2025

On June 27, 2029, the reactionary Roberts SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) majority issued one of the worst decisions it has ever made in recent times. In a 6-3 conservative-liberal lineup, the High Court gave Demagogue/Dictator wannabe Donald the ability to end birthright citizenship in many areas throughout the United States. And bet on lots of “Red” states jumping into the legislative fray to do just that as soon as they can. Birthright citizenship, remember, gives, under the post-Civil War 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil, even if their parents are not citizens. In the words of the 14th Amendment, in place for more than 150 years, “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.” This birthright citizenship is considered, according to the New York Times, a tenet of immigration law. In 1898, the Supreme Court affirmed this right in a landmark case, “United States v. Wong Kim Ark.” For more than a century, courts have upheld that interpretation. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/27/us/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court

True, in the present case, SCOTUS did not directly repeal birthright citizenship and said as much. However, the High Court indirectly gave states the ability to do just that.

In this awful decision, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, SCOTUS limited the ability of federal judges to temporarily pause by nationwide injunctions Trump’s ability to upend birthright citizenship as well as other draconian orders he has issued including withholding funds from schools with diversity programs and removing protection from deportation for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/27/us/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court

Although both Democratic and Republican policies have been blocked via nationwide injunctions for years,Trump and his GOP right-wing followers have lately become obsessed with curbing nationwide injunctions which have recently halted many of their extremist policies. This case arose from an executive order signed by Donald on the first day of his second term that attempted to upend birthright citizenship. After Trump signed this executive order trying to repeal birthright citizenship, 22 Democratic-led states, immigration advocacy organizations, and pregnant women, concerned that their children might not be granted citizenship, started litigation. Within days, federal judges in Washington State, Maryland, and Massachusetts temporarily blocked Trump’s anti-birthright executive order, according to the NY Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/27/us/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court

In its majority holding, the six conservative Justices justified their ruling by going back to an old statute, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and giving it a very cramped interpretation. This is what conservative/reactionary judges like to do–interpret what they thought the original Congress with its long-dead members “believed,”-- a debatable proposition. The “Reactionary Six,” held that this 1789 act did not give district court judges the power to issue nationwide injunctions and can only grant relief to specific plaintiffs. Since when did the Judiciary Act have to mention nationwide injunctions? According to this majority, if issuing nationwide injunctions, and probably other issues were not mentioned in the 1789 Judiciary Act, these matters are not covered. The 1789 legislation has no such limitations. Apparently, this Court also forgot that injunctions, for centuries, have been part of a court’s equity power, separate from many legal remedies in their ability to give relief to people. In a separate dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson rightly called the majority’s 18th Century technical arguments about judicial authority a “smokescreen” that gives the president “the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate.” https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/27/us/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court

Reading her dissenting opinion from the bench to express her vehement disagreement, Justice Sonia Sotomayor aptly stated,

“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law- abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief. That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals not parties to a lawsuit.” https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/27/us/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court

SCOTUS said that Trump’s executive order will not go into effect for 30 days to allow legal challenges to it, including class actions representing large numbers of people who would be affected by the executive order. After 30 days, Trump’s anti-birthright citizenship order will take effect in the 28 states that have not challenged the measure. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/27/us/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court

In effect, welcome to the “Disunited States of America” in a “less formed perfect Union,” contrary to the Constitution’s Preamble. In New York, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, etc. birthright citizenship will be upheld. However, in states lying in the Deep South, parts of the Midwest, and Rocky Mountain areas, IMHO, birthright citizenship will be endangered. In his concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that class action lawsuits will still be permissible to challenge this executive order. However, class action lawsuits are very cumbersome and the Roberts Court has severely limited them. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/27/us/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court You get the idea.

Mercifully, this 2024-2025 Supreme Court term has come to an end. However, it is very clear that the Roberts Court 6-3 conservative majority is now emboldened to push their views upon the rest of the country and is blatantly writing some very reactionary decisions. Again, how did we end up this way? By letting Donald get elected in 2016 and once again in 2024. In those elections, far too many Democrats stayed home because they disliked Hillary or because of plain old-fashioned misogyny against her and Kamala Harris. And they helped GOPers take the House and Senate majority by staying home. In Campaign 2026, we must come out in droves to take back the House and at least get more Senate seats. Again, I repeat, voter turnout is EVERYTHING. To quote what President Barack Obama said in 2012, “Don’t boo. Vote.”

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/6/27/2330446/-Awful-SCOTUS-Birthright-Decision?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.