In It to Win It
In It to Win It's JournalThe Constitution Is On Life Support - Jay Willis @ Balls and Strikes
https://ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/birthright-citizenship-opinion-constitution-on-life-support/Trump v. Barbara is probably the highest-profile case of the term, in part because of its real-world stakes for millions of people, and in part because it is not every year that the Supreme Court has to answer a question like “Does the Constitution allow the president to ignore more than a century of Supreme Court precedent simply because he doesn’t like brown people?” Because this case received so much media attention, and went against Trump, and came down on the last morning of the term (the drama!), over the next few days, you are going to be soaked by a broken fire hydrant of fawning op-eds informing you that the result in Barbara proves once and for all the Court’s independence from Trump, and that the institution remains resolutely committed to its mission of Doing Law, Not Politics.
The decision does none of these things. Trump v. Barbara is the stupidest Supreme Court case in recent memory: the nation’s nine fanciest lawyers spending God knows how many hours pondering a question about the Fourteenth Amendment’s meaning that a bright sixth-grader could have answered without difficulty in roughly 30 seconds. The fact that a bare majority of the Court eventually arrived at the howlingly obvious, so-simple-it-feels-like-a-trick-question result—and only after months of forcing noncitizen parents wonder if their children would soon be rendered stateless—is not evidence of the justices’ boundless intellect or analytical rigor. It is a damning indictment of an institution that is teetering on the brink of stuffing the entire enterprise of constitutional governance in the garbage.
The fact that FOUR sitting Supreme Court justices were willing to greenlight Trump's racist attack on the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship is a national embarrassment. Tear down the institution, it is beyond saving.
— Jay Willis (@jaywillis.net) 2026-06-30T17:08:07.385Z
Clarence Thomas is such a fucking disgrace, the most unworthy replacement of Justice Thurgood Marshall 😑
Leah Litman - I cannot fucking believe that birthright was 5-4!
I cannot fucking believe that birthright was 5-4! On whether the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship!
— Leah Litman (@leahlitman.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:41:08.700Z
🚨 SCOTUS strikes down Trump's attack on birthright citizenship
The fact that this is news is a terrible sign of where we are in politics.
Final #SCOTUS ruling is birthright citizenship.
— Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:35:03.237Z
For a 6-3 majority (Thomas, Alito & Gorsuch, dissenting), Chief Justice Roberts *strikes down* President Trump's executive order purporting to limit which individuals born in the United States would automatically be US citizens; preserves status quo:
Justice Kavanaugh dissented from the majority's constitutional holding, so it's 5-4 on that. But he agreed that the executive order violates the existing federal *statutes,* so the underlying judgment is 6-3.
— Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:37:11.900Z
BREAKING: The Supreme Court holds that the Fourteenth Amendment protects birthright citizenship, blocking Donald Trump's executive order to end it.
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:38:21.103Z
Roberts has the opinion for the court, which is 5-4 on the constitutional question and 6-3 on whether federal law protects birthright citizenship.
The Supreme Court strikes down Trump's attack on birthright citizenship. By a 5–4 vote, it holds that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to children born of unauthorized and temporary immigrants. Roberts and Barrett join the three liberals. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:35:46.109Z
BREAKING: Supreme Court rejects Trump effort to limit birthright citizenship. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:36:02.395Z
Birthright Citizenship is in. The court strikes down Trump's executive order. It's 6-3, with Roberts, the liberals, Kav and ACB. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent.
— ElieNYC (@elienyc.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:36:00.381Z
it's actually 4 - Kavanaugh says the order doesn't violate the Constitution
— Leah Litman (@leahlitman.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:39:48.972Z
BREAKING: The Supreme Court rules 6-3 to strike down Trump’s bid to eliminate birthright citizenship as part of his attack on immigration in all forms.
— Democracy Docket (@democracydocket.com) 2026-06-30T14:36:04.360712081Z
The ruling affirms unanimous lower court decisions that blocked the effort for violating the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause.
SCOTUS holds that federal coordinated party expenditure campaign-finance limits violate the First Amendment
BREAKING: The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, holds that federal coordinated party expenditure campaign-finance limits violate the First Amendment. Kavanaugh has the opinion for the court. Kagan has the dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:26:17.878Z
Goddamn it. Kavanaugh also has the campaign finance case. 6-3, spending limits on dark money violate the First Amendment.
— ElieNYC (@elienyc.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:26:25.377Z
Peter Theil's boy comes through for him, throwing WIDE the gates on the billionaire class buying elections.
Between this and the bribery case a couple of years ago, they've really decided to let Kavanugh be the point person on *allowing billionaires to buy politics* and *unvarnsihed public corruption.*
— ElieNYC (@elienyc.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:27:53.003Z
The Supreme Court's second opinion is NRSC v. FEC. By a 6–3 vote, the court guts another campaign finance statute and overturns a 2001 precedent that upheld restrictions on political parties' coordinated expenditures with candidates. The three liberals dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:25:58.527Z
The supermajority's decision in NRSC allows wealthy donors to circumvent limits on contributions to individual candidates by donating much larger sums to political parties, which can now spend the money in direct coordination with specific candidates. An open invitation for quid pro quo corruption.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:27:58.261Z
Second (but *not* last) #SCOTUS ruling is in the campaign finance case.
— Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:25:19.555Z
Usual 6-3 majority, per Justice Kavanaugh, holds that federal statutory limits on coordinated campaign expenditures by political parties violate the First Amendment:
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
For the usual 6-3 majority, SCOTUS *upholds* state bans on transgender athletes in public sports
First (but *not* last) #SCOTUS ruling is the two transgender discrimination cases.
— Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:02:14.522Z
For the usual 6-3 majority, Justice Kavanaugh *upholds* state bans on transgender athletes in public sports under *both* Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment:
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
One clarification: It's 6-3 on equal protection (the big question); it's actually unanimous on Title IX, but on *very* different grounds.
— Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:06:47.665Z
First case is West Virginia v. PBA. "Coach" Kavanaugh --who famously touts that he coaches girls basketball even though he's been accused of attempted rape-- writes WVA is allowed to exclude trans girls from sports.
— ElieNYC (@elienyc.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:03:51.223Z
The Supreme Court's first decisions are the trans athlete cases. By a 6–3 vote, the court holds that Title IX and the equal protection clause do NOT stop states from excluding trans women and girls from female sports teams. The three liberals dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:02:49.684Z
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, agrees that the trans plaintiff's Title IX claim fails, but accuses the majority of reaching an overly broad conclusion about Title IX's tolerance of anti-trans discrimination. The three fully dissent on equal protection. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:06:45.710Z
BREAKING: The Supreme Court upholds West Virginia and Idaho's laws banning trans girls and women from women's sports. Justice Kavanaugh has the opinion for the court, holding that states "may" make sports eligibility based on "biological sex." www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:04:33.735Z
The Supreme Court Just Gave Trump New Powers (with Mark Joseph Stern) - Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick
This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Visit http://www.slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.
The end is nigh!
Or, the end of this Supreme Court term is nigh, at least.
On the second to last day of this term, the court’s right wingers delivered a sweeping ruling that will reshape the federal government for years to come. In Trump v. Slaughter, the conservative supermajority voted 6-3 to allow the president to fire members of independent regulatory agencies—overturning Humphrey's Executor, a 91-year-old unanimous precedent—and handing Trump effective control over agencies that regulate consumer protection, nuclear energy, union activity, mine safety, and more. But the Roberts majority weren’t quite ready to hand the nation’s credit card (and their investment portfolios) over to the mad king, and so the Federal Reserve got a carve-out in a separate 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Cook. How did they reach these wildly different conclusions in such closely related cases? Justice Roberts offered a barely argued rationale, but who needs a rationale if your red lines are painted in a crimson of pure cynicism?
The Supreme Court Wants to Make Trump a King - Jamelle Bouie
John Roberts' decision in Trump v. Slaughter, joined by the five other Republican justices, is a massive expansion of presidential power, a huge assault on the ability of Congress to govern the nation, and a stealth judicial power grab. I talk about most of those issues in this video. Stay-tuned for more.
BREAKING: SCOTUS MASSIVELY Expands Trump's Presidential Power - Strict Scrutiny Podcast
In this emergency episode, Leah and Kate break down today’s incredibly consequential decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, which followed the Project 2025 playbook to rewrite almost a century of precedent regarding presidential power.
They also discuss how close the Court came to ruling that states can’t count absentee ballots that are cast by election day but received after election day in Watson v. RNC.
BREAKING: Supreme Court REJECTS Trump In MAJOR Rulings (with Kate Shaw) - What A Day
On Monday, we got four more decisions from the nation’s highest court, and they were… well, confusing.
We also got a surprisingly good ruling on mail-in voting, and a separate victory for privacy and the Fourth Amendment. So is there any method to the seeming madness in the Supreme Court’s decisions this term? To find out, we spoke to Kate Shaw. She’s a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and co-host of Crooked Media’s Strict Scrutiny.
And in headlines, Trump says the U.S. will meet with Iran in Qatar on Tuesday for further negotiations, Russian President Vladimir Putin admits Russia is facing fuel shortages in its war with Ukraine, and the WHO names Europe the fastest-warming continent on the planet.
Chapters:
00:00 Opening
00:53 Headlines: Iran update
01:45: Russia facing fuel shortages
02:08: Europe is heating up
02:47: New poll: “National pride is low.”
03:07: Supreme Court Rulings
03:56: Interview with Kate Shaw on SCOTUS rulings
11:44: Ad break
13:44: Interview with Kate Shaw cont.
18:30: This F*cking Guy Promo
19:06: Closing
Profile Information
Member since: Sun May 27, 2018, 06:53 PMNumber of posts: 12,922