The S Ct today did NOT deny anyone birthright citizenship; it addressed "nationwide injunctions," limiting courts from issuing them. They can issue injunctions within their district. Remember: this will prevent conservative judges from issuing nationwide injunctions in mifepristone and other cases.
Hundreds of such injunctions stood under Joe Biden. How did they suddenly become unconstitutional?
Wasn’t the abortion ruling one of these
📌
I'm glad you are pointing out a positive side of a decision that seems awful to many, as it is especially hard to understand how birthright citizenship - which is in the Constitution - is even being called into question. And how is that not a nationwide right???
So let me get this right, if in the future a President issues an EO saying ownership of guns is no longer a right, a Federal Judge can only rule that’s unconstitutional district by district. Interesting!
Unfortunately SCOTUS, or at least 6 of its members are not just complicit but actively facilitating an ongoing coup that is set on destroying the US as a constitutional Republic. I think this cannot be stated too often or too clearly
We are close to Trump becoming a dictator. Next step cancel elections, abolish opposition parties, dismantle the judiciary, make the US a white Christian nationalist theocracy modeled after apartheid South Africa. When will people wake up and go to the streets to overthrow this despot?
Good 👊🏻😊💯👏🏼👏🏼
Am I wrong to think this is not good for 1st the judges & 2nd the American ppl?
Sir, does this apply to the regional districts? So there could be 12 different ways the constitution can be interpreted?
Cuts both ways, and we know dems are smarter, so they will be able to manipulate this much easier.
So does that mean Bidens student loan relief injunctions only apply to Texas 30 days from now?
I think what everyone is missing is that SCOTUS as seated is meant to return all federal power to the states. That is the goal of all far-right extremist groups. We are now 50 nations paying a King and his court jesters on SCOTUS to strip us of our rights.
@joyannreid.bsky.social said that SCOTUS wanted a King, and they wanted to have final approval on the King's actions. I also think they don't see us having elections moving forward or what? They are giving all this power to a Dem President? Realize this today. Not 3 years from now, everyone.
Optimistic, but this decision makes clear federal civil rights are subject to the whim of a federal district court judge, and are not guaranteed nationwide.
You think SCOTUS won't interject in those cases?
So you hope. The Taney II court is pretty good about cherry-picking special cases when it needs to justify its ideology.
No, it will not. The 6 will, as they have before, erect a bullshit originalist framework to serve Leonard Leo's orgasmic dreams.
And the game of whack a Mole begins.
It's a step too far all of this has been wake the fuck up
An extremely polarized society being further fragmented by SCOTUS. Almost time to drop “United” from the name
No it won’t prevent conservative judges from doing that. This isn’t a principled legal stance this is a power grab.
Weissmann STILL pretending this scotus is operating in good faith. Same argument as “oh Dem presidents will be able to to this and this too then”… no, their rulings are for orange emperor and none are for any future Dem president
They are behaving as if they are confident there will never be consequences, electoral or legal. Pundits should ask why that is
youtu.be/tCeWssrKuRk?...
Yeah, this is the same type of silver lining bs we heard from him and his kind right before they took away women reproductive rights.
Does this open the opportunity for district injunctions on 2nd Amendment 'rights'?
Thank you Andrew. That is a bit comforting. I thought Thomas had received another Winnebago and Alito was flying his tRump flag outside his house.
@weissmann.substack.com how far back does this ruling go? Can it undo nationwide injunctions that were blocked during Biden’s term?
Correction: “Implemented in Biden’s term” ( blocked was wrong word)
Why cannot they argue the Commerce Clause re uniformly in birthrights cases ?
Yes, but the fact that SCOTUS has refused to address nationwide injunctions until now, even tho it came up several times during the Biden administration is suspect. It rightly makes you question whether the court remains partisan and impartial.
Oh, there is no question this court is partisan and nowhere near impartial
i want to believe you. But, a big part of me says that SCOTUS will make a carve out for injunctions they - and or their leader Trump- like. I hope i'm wrong
You’re not wrong. The people telling you to calm down this will also apply equally to right-wing causes are naive, dumb, or just lying to you. It won’t.
So they side step upholding basic tenants of our constitution once again…….putting our RULE OF LAW in more peril….
Serious Q from a non-lawyer: Does that mean that the nationwide injunctions issued by Trump judges like Judge Kacsmaryk can now be challenged and reversed?
Can they be challenged - sure. Will they be reversed - probably not.
Parsing like that is wrong headed Thinking that there is not a national denial of birthright citizenship is not the issue for God's sake
Until the SC rules that laws only apply to Democrats
It will not stop them preventing the transport of mifepristone through their district.
The delay gave Donald rope to deny citizenship, kidnap immigrants, deny their rights, and imprison them. Why did SCOTUS put it off until October? It’ll be too late to fix what they’ve broken, in the same way it’s been difficult to rejoin all the families DJT separated. Roberts: “official act.”
Please explain further?
Nice try
But if he issues an unconstitutional executive order during an election, what happens now?
Oh they will find a way to accept that tho. Come on- be real
Didn’t there use to be a principle/standard applied in federal circuit adjudication of presidential decrees (used to be “executive orders”) that deference to status quo and potential harm was maintained until it was fully litigated? Was this changed or somehow abused and is no longer the doctrine?
apnews.com/article/jan-...
That’s correct, but what does this practically mean for *enforcement* of the unconstitutional anti-birthright citizenship EO? If you’re not a plaintiff or member of a defined class, you’re SOL.
Some good comes from every act.
THAN YOU!!! Threads is unusable currently with everybody yelling about the end of birthright citizenship.
It is a two-way street for now!
Thank you for the concise explanation.👍
Will it, Andrew? Will it?
News Report tonight by ICE Head-"don't think they'll be here more than a couple of days. The FL Nat Guard is going to come in and act as Immigration Judges." WTF-The LA AG is Helping. 🚨Florida get on the phones, 🔥up the email to your State Rep's yo Protest this. FL Lawyers jump in there!
💔🤬💪❗SCOTUS has officially become Victor Orbans version of high court. they will find a way to get rid of the dissenters. However, if they want to be the "law" authoritarians of the country-they need to go to work full-time; ¬ drop these bomb shells and retreat for 3mos
Does this decision create a predicate for a future administration to, for example, limit second amendment rights and avoid nationwide injunctions stopping the implementation of these executive imposed limitations?
Why do I get the feeling that if an injunction happens for something maga wants, then they will claim that it's national regardless.
Do you think Trump will try to say undocumented individuals aren't subject to US laws in order to deny them citizenship? That is the requirement to not be considered to be a citizen, correct.
Understood. But why is SCOTUS even entertaining doing so over a constitutional amendment that is clear on its face and even litigating it?
Excellent Q. Hope @weissmann.substack.com & Mary McCord will get into this on their next Main Justice podcast. I’ll be listening to @davidfrenchjag.bsky.social & Sarah Isgur’s take on the Advisory Opinions pod as well.
I'm so jaded I believe the Fascist Scotus will carve those out of their rulings
Need this reminder. Mahalo.
That glass isn't even a quarter full. The damage that this administration can do under that ruling is potentially enormous.
donnie thinks he's been given the go ahead to proceed with ending constitutional rights, said so just now from a podium and everything, so maybe tell him nah.
You and legal community failed Americans by not rising up. ABA & all elite legal scholars should hold press conferences and condemn Thugs of the Supreme Court and awake citizens. Failing which Shut up & never show your face on TV.
Didn’t they decline to take the case when Biden asked for limitations on these injunctions? Or did I remember that incorrectly?
Yes, they did. You remember correctly.
🤬
It’s hard to keep up, but I thought that was the case.
It definitely is hard. I was lucky to catch Melissa Murray on something.
What about the injunctions against deporting folks without due process?
Mr. Weissman, with all due respect, I'm pretty sure this ruling only applies to liberal judges. Just like presidential immunity will only apply to republican presidents...
The SC just fulfilled the orange one’s dictator fantasies. Buckle up for what is coming.
This SCOTUS will find a way to endorse nationwide injunction exceptions for issues dear to them.
Remember: This could prevent......
Thanks. Good to know.
We can’t still be this naive. It won’t limit that at all. These are white nationalist bigots drunk on their own power. When the abortion drug case reaches them, suddenly that WILL qualify for a nationwide injunction. They are engaged in white nationalist politics, not law.
In all seriousness, why wouldn't the next Dem president (if there is one) simply issue EOs banning assault weapons and the like? Trumpy judges would issue injunctions in their courts, but it would simply take effect everywhere else until litigated on the merits?
So it's a 'good' thing? Or just questionable.
So I think you’re saying there’s some good to this decision! I hope so because to watch the coverage of this is very discouraging!
In theory, you’re right. In practice, I’m way less confident. The right never, ever, ever acts in good faith. What they want isn’t popular, so they have to lie, cheat and steal to impose it.
My first thought
It does allow injunction within their districts, so if you happened to live there you affected and have to run to other districts to enjoy liberty
Justice Sotomayor seems to see it as having a broader context, and a very detrimental one at that. ?
Judge Matt in Amarillo isn't going to like this...
Can we get an apology from Boasberg? His overreach did this. Now we can’t have nationwide injunctions cuz he went too far. Why couldn’t we have saved this for something more important!
I'm afraid this is wishful thinking, and it's heartbreaking to behold. The Republican majority on the court has made it ubundantly clear that they are partisan agents whose job it is to enforce one (bat-shit-crazy, evil) party rule in this nation. 🤢
Why wouldn't they simply announce the "Trump Exception" to the rule of law - i.e., SCOTUS now deems that whatever Trump wants becomes law
until it doesn't -- SCOTUS has ways to get around everything
I very much doubt it will prohibit conservative judges from doing so, just as I imagine scotus will issue a different ruling if a Dem retakes the white house.
According to other legal experts, you are missing the point bsky.app/profile/evan...
Thank you for clarifying this. Too many people are acting as if SCOTUS did away with birthright citizenship.
My first thought was no more shopping our case to that guy in Texas cuz he’s with us.
But SCOTUS will uphold conservative nationwide injunctions this court sets aside precedent (even their own) when it furthers their and their financiers cause
True enough Andrew. But it seems to Me this opens up the door to have 50 different rulings on one Law creating a confused Patchwork of legislation.
It’s still a bullshit decision. Some people can get relief from unconstitutional acts, but not everyone.
This court fundamentally rejects equality.
You’d think so. But I’ll believe it when I see it. This lawless Court seems perfectly willing, to me, to simply carve out exceptions for anything they agree with. We’ll see, I suppose.
Their opinion could have easily just read, “WE decide, not you”
Say more please