Yes, they did rule on Birtright Citizenship

[edhopper]

By dismissing the injunction by the Judge, they gave Trump free reign to deport anybody they want, whether or not they were born here. They might not rule on upholding the 14th Amendment until next year, and we we can't know if these fascist will rule against Trump.
It doesn't matter if they explicitly said anything about birthright citizenship with this ruling.
The De Facto result is it is no longer in place, for the foreseeable future.

[rubbersole]

1. They are going to build gulags by the dozens.

Gonna be a long summer.

[Sympthsical]

2. The Court gave 30 days to seek relief in other jurisdictions

They've stayed the Executive Order for 30 days starting today.

So, the next month is going to be extremely active in District Courts.

[edhopper]

4. And a Constitutional Right

can be denied depending on the District.
Rights are no longer universally applied.

[LymphocyteLover]

23. Exactly-- it's fucking disgraceful, disgusting, depressiing, evil, etc

[NickB79]

48. Potentially, that sets up an internal migration wave

Lots of current US citizens moving to Blue states that grant them citizenship, fleeing Red states.

And lots of current US citizens unable to travel to Red states for work or vacation for fear of being deported.

It would be sheer madness.

[Sympthsical]

57. I think people misunderstand the executive order

It’s not retroactive. People who previously had citizenship don’t suddenly not have it. The order applies only to those born after February 20th, 2025.

It’s very specific about this. It had to be in order to even have a snowball’s chance in hell before courts.

There are a lot of issues with this ruling. I haven’t read Kavenaugh’s concurrence yet, which I’m told is instructive in terms of “What’s next?”

But people who were citizens before the order are still citizens after it.

[NickB79]

60. I was thinking more along the lines of parents moving to protect their children

Much as how parents of trans kids have started to leave regressive red states for blue ones.

[Sympthsical]

61. Oh sure, absolutely

There is a lot of shit going down in school districts in areas with heavy immigrant populations. It's creating all kinds of fear and uncertainty.

I just noted it, because in reading through threads, it seems a lot of people think it revokes existent citizenship in some way.

[LymphocyteLover]

54. it's bullshit though!!!

Why should a constitutional right depend on where you live in the US?

[Ocelot II]

3. There's one positive angle, though. It discourages forum-shopping for judges like Kacsmaryk

in Amarillo, Texas, which is where the anti-choice fundies and other right-wingers have been filing their cases, knowing he'll always decide in their favor. Now he can't issue national injunctions against abortion rights and other Trump causes, either.

[newdeal2]

5. Only if you apply logic and precedent

In reality, they will probably carve out some crazy exception for his injunctions being OK.

[AZJonnie]

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

What's to stop them from fast-tracking every Kacsmaryk decision to SCOTUS (and ruling whatever he ruled, cause that's what they'll want too) but then letting any case decided in a more liberal (you know, constitutionally-sound) way languish endlessly, affecting only that district judge's district? Doesn't this basically open the door to that sort of gamesmanship?

[Volaris]

7. Thats correct, anytime theres a dispute between rulings,

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter. So, come next term they're 1) gonna be a lot busier, and 2) they've just potentially given themselves a lot more opportunities to make decisions in Trumps favor, that WILL affect the entire nation.
My bet would be this will be the avenue they try to use to overturn gay marriage.

[Ocelot II]

8. Thomas has already said he wants to do that.

There has to be a case before them, though. I wonder how he feels about Loving v. Virginia, which was decided on the same principles as Obergefell?

[Volaris]

26. Oh, well see Loving is different. The principal is the same yes,

But Loving was about god-approved straight people, not about those godless heathen perverts that make me feel things that I don't like. Clearly, you can see the OBVIOUS difference.

[Arazi]

18. IANAL, but does this apply retroactively to other nationwide injunctions

from Biden’s term?

Also, what’s to stop blue states from weaponizing this ruling?

- Go back into Judge Kaczmaryk's court to dissolve all of his nationwide orders.

- Pass gun bans and insist any order applies only to plaintiffs.

-Religious exception rulings apply only to the plaintiffs.

- Environmental regulations continue to be enforced despite rulings against them (just not against plaintiffs).

- and on and on.

Why can’t the left use this decision too?

(It'll be chaos, but that's what the Justices get).

[Attilatheblond]

9. This means Trump has an even tighter grip on John Roberts

As Robert's sons were born in Ireland and adopted via a straw adopter as an end run around Irish law at the time.

[Arazi]

19. Eek! Wonder how this will apply to adoptions?

[Attilatheblond]

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

Nothing like another tool for coercion to keep dictators in power.

And thinking back to all the church related 'adoptions'* of children separated from immigrant parents incarcerated under Trump the last time around, this could be another hammer to pound certain well off white families into continued financial support for the autocrats.

*Remember, Betsy DeVos (sister of mercenary force leader Erik Prince) was a moving force in farming out many of those 'lost in the shuffle' children back in Trump 1.O And what is Erik Prince doing these day? Recruiting and supplying nasty racists to 'help' ICE purge the nation of law abiding brown people.

As much as I would like to believe having Trump out of office eventually will solve our problems, it is foolish not to recognize just how dug into our institutions these autocrats are. And they are digging in more every day.

[Celerity]

20. He adopted a boy and a girl

Jack and Josephine (Josie)

The adoption was processed in Brasil to skirt Irish law. AFAIK there was no 'straw' adoptor because of that.

[Attilatheblond]

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

with looser laws, and the Roberts adopted them from her. Straw man adoption to circumvent the law at the time.

[SSJVegeta]

10. District courts can still pass lkmited injunctions for specific cases.

[edhopper]

11. Constitutional rights

are not regional.

[0rganism]

12. Well, they're more like regional privileges now

I miss the Old Republic

[SSJVegeta]

13. Ya..

[SSJVegeta]

14. Ya

[Johnny2X2X]

15. It is a stunning new power they gave to Trump now

Basically any and all Americans can be deported now if Trump and his cabal decide to deport you. This applies to you and I no matter where you, your parents, or your grand parents were born.

With a wave of his hand, Trump can direct ICE to snatch me up without a warrant and send me to god knows where without charges, without judicial oversight, and without a warrant. I was born in Michigan, so were my parents and my grandparents. If I say something the executive branch doesn't like right now I can end up in a prison in El Salvador or Rwanda without even a hand wave of due process. I can spend the rest of my life in that place without ever being charged, I can die in that place. Furthermore, I can end up in that place without anyone ever knowing I was sent to that place.

[Attilatheblond]

29. Thinking it's time to park the smart phone and only carry a dumb phone if necessary

Since the pseudo ICE thugs are going thru phones to see if there are any disparaging memes, carrying those phones could be a real threat to people's freedoms.

[Ms. Toad]

33. NO. Read the executive order.

It doesn't impact anyone born before February 19, 2025

[mountain grammy]

16. I think the six conservatives

On this court are more dangerous than trump. They really seem to hate America and the people in it except the ones who bribe them.

[2 Meow Momma]

17. I expect red states like mine will take every inch of this rope

to further their cleansing of POC. It will make them confident to test the Birthright Citizenship Constitutional right.

Am I wrong in my expectations?

[edhopper]

21. You are right in your thinking.

[JustAnotherGen]

25. You aren't wrong

[Wicked Blue]

22. My parents immigrated to the U.S. in 1949

so theoretically the new Gestapo could deport me.

[LymphocyteLover]

24. were they undocumented or have temporary VISA status when you were born?

It's still very awful that is up for grabs but the scope is limited.

My wife and I check this because our son was born when she was not a citizen yet. She did have a greencard though, so in theory he is ok. But who the fuck knows what they will come for next.

[Ms. Toad]

32. This will not impact your son.

It only impacts people born 30 days or more after the executive order was signed.

[Wicked Blue]

38. No, they were legal, but with this evil crew in charge

they will use any possible excuse to get rid of people

[LymphocyteLover]

52. yes, that is my great fear

[Ms. Toad]

31. No. Not unless you were born February 19 or later this year -

And somehow I don't think you would be participating in DU at 0-4 months old.

Read the executive order. It is bad, but also very limited and NOT retroactive.

[Ms. Toad]

30. No. They did not.

The only people this potentially impacts NOW are children born after February 19, 2025, to infants whose " (1) . . . mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) . . . mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and (whose) father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth - AND who live in a state in which an injunction was not yet issued.

They did not rule on birthright citizenship, and no it does not apply to "anybody they want, whether or not they were born here"

And when they rule on the matter, it won't be whether to "uphold the 14th amendment," - it will be on how the 14th amendment is interpreted.

Its bad - but it is not the overwhelmingly bad outcome you are describing.

[edhopper]

34. You are naive to think so

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g8yj2n33yo

"Three US citizen children, one with cancer, deported to Honduras, lawyers say "

[Ms. Toad]

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

Your claim was that the court decided the birthright citizen issue.

They did not.

Nothing the court did today has anything to do with these children, since none of them were born after February 19, 2025.

[edhopper]

36. My claim is that

the de facto result is that Birthright Citizenship no longer protects anyone.
The result of their ruling is the removal of a Constitutional Right.

[Ms. Toad]

40. Wrong.

The decision, by the text of the executive order, ONLY applies to people born AFTER February 19, 2025.

That doesn't mean they aren't going to try other things, but even the substantive fight itself is ONLY how the constitution is interpreted as it applies to newborns going forward.

[edhopper]

41. They said going forward

only the SCOTUS can decide on nationwide bans on Trump's actions.
Read Sotomayor.

“With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution,” Sotomayor wrote. “Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way. ”

[Ms. Toad]

43. Correct. Which is why it makes it much harder and expensive to fight him going forward.

BUT - under all existing laws and executive orders, the only threat to birthright citizenship as it has always been interpreted is to infants born after February 19, 2020.

That is why your assertions that the court ruled on the substantive question of birthright citizenship is utter nonsense.

They ruled on whether nationwide injunctions can be issued - which, on their face, have NOTHING to do with birthright citizenship. The only impact this decision has on citizenship is on infants born after February 19, 2020 in the states which have not yet issued injunctions. Until injunctions are issued in those states, the US is prohibited from issuing citizenship documents to those infants.

Those infants in states that have issued injunctions are safe until an appellate court reverses the injunction.

The citizenship of those born before February 19, 2020 is not impacted one iota by this ruling, nor could it have been because (1) the issue was only about the validity of injunctions and (2) the underlying issue was only about certain people born after February 19, 2020.

[edhopper]

44. Because after this ruling

I fully expect Trump to order that BC be ignored for all going forward, and I don't see the SCOTUS stopping him.
Sotomayor said as much.
Thus my use of De Facto and real implications.

[Ms. Toad]

46. Extremely unlikely.

The executive order was very carefully crafted by someone other than Trump with enough knowledge of the intricacies of constitutional law to be narrow enough they believed it had a chance to survive judicial scrutiny. Every single court that has reviewed the question of injunction (which inherently involves the question of success on the merits) has issued the injunction because even the narrowly drafted EO was unlikely to be constitutional.)

They won't issue a broader order - probably not even after this one goes through the courts. First, property rights are legally far harder to remove once granted than they are never to give in the first place. That is the reason for the starting date 30 days after the executive order took place. They aren't taking rights from anyone, they simply aren't granting them to new people.

Not to mention that trying to pick a starting date for the change in interpretation of who is a citizen, if it isn't a starting date in the future, is ridiculously complicated. The only two logical points would be those born in America to the people who originally lived here, or people born in America after the amendment was adopted. Either one, as the furor today suggests, would leave virtually no birthright citizens.

[edhopper]

47. Like anybody ICE deems illegal

can be deported without due process will never happen?

[Ms. Toad]

51. That's not careful legal strategy from the Project 25 folks.

That's just make 'em drink from a fire hydrant strategy.

Different things. They are using both, sometimes simultaneously. But the EO on citizenship was carefully crafted designed to change the law - the deportation without due process is brute force to get "those folks" out of the country. They are not going to give up what they believe is a real chance to change how the constitution is interpreted as to citizenship.

[edhopper]

53. Doesn't matter does it

in the end the Constitution is still throw out. In the End we no longer have the country we did. In the end we have fascism.

[Ms. Toad]

56. It may well be - or at least the birthright citizenship narrowly interpreted.

I hope not - but it was crafted with a real hope of changing how we read that provision.

[edhopper]

49. I am sorry

Since he was elected I have heard from people on what is "extremely unlikely" or things "he wouldn't do". And hgow the Court would check him.
So far, he does what he wants and the Court greenlights him.
So pardon me if I see no optimism here.

[Ms. Toad]

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

The lower and intermediate courts are the only branch of government holding him in check at all - and they can't do the job alone. And the legal process is, by design, a slow deliberative process.

The media, big law firms, educational institutions, and Congress are failing in their jobs. The only thing that has surprised me are a (1) few Supreme Court decisions that went the right way, and a couple of times Roberts has spoken both in opinions and in public on matters which weren't directly before him - such as a right to due process before deportation and (2) how quickly media, big law firms, and many institutions caved.

And I think if you go back 8 years when people were predicting that someone would limit what he could do that I was one of the realists who kept saying things like, "He's president. He doesn't have keepers who will protect us."

And my prediction on this matter isn't optimism. I don't have a lot of optimism for how the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the birthright question - they may well adopt his interpretation. The care with which it was crafted the Executive Orer actually makes me more pessimistic about the ultimate outcome. The people who crafted it know how the Supreme Court works. It isn't a negotiation, like the things Trump claims to be a genius at. You don't go in asking for the sun and hoping to settle for the moon. You make your best case and then you win or lose. Part of making your best case is asking for just enough, without asking for too much. That's what they did here.

[edhopper]

58. No, not from you

I was speaking generally.
I said the day he was elected this will be worse than anyone can say.

[Seeking Serenity]

39. Ms Toad, you clearly are unaware that the role of the judiciary

Is to prevent the Bad Man from having any chief executive authority, and maybe even commander-in-chief powers as Justice Bill Douglas would have had it, without clearing each proposed action before judges in Boston, the SDNY, San Francisco, and Seattle first.

Just as the Founders wanted it!

[OC375]

59. Thanks

Thanks for taking time to explain. I don’t get a lot of nuance sometimes with court decisions and the news is all over the place on this.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

37. 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"

[edhopper]

42. SCOTUS still has to rule on these

and they are siding with Trump

[Bettie]

45. And how far back do you have to go?

So, I was born here to two people who were also born here.

Am I a citizen?

What if one of my parents was a naturlized immigrant and one was born here? What then?

They can make anyone "not a citizen" at any time.

Will they do that, probably because they are all assholes.

[Efilroft Sul]

50. Playing the long game, going beyond the foreseeable future...

… the successor nation, the more perfect union, that rises out of the former United States needs a new constitution. The one we currently have has been riddled with system exploits and is being weaponized against us instead of guaranteeing our rights. The Article II executive branch reigns supreme over a supine Article I legislative branch and an enabling Article III judicial branch. And if all three branches aren't properly abiding by the constitution now, then why should the successor nation of the future? We can do better.

[karynnj]

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

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.)