Supreme Court agrees to decide if Trump may end birthright citizenship

[muriel_volestrangler]

Source: CNN

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide if President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship with an executive order is constitutional, offering the justices an opportunity to revisit what has widely been considered settled law since the 19th Century.

By granting the appeal, the court is directly taking on the merits of a controversy that it largely avoided earlier this year, when it sided with Trump on technical grounds dealing with how the challenges to the policy were handled by lower courts.

Though the legal theories advanced by the Trump administration’s appeal have long been considered fringe even by many conservatives, the case will nevertheless draw considerable public focus to the Supreme Court term that began this fall. It is yet another test of the court’s willingness to embrace a boundary-pushing legal argument from the White House.
...
The court will hear arguments next year and will likely hand down a decision by the end of June.

Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/05/politics/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-birthright

[dobleremolque]

1. SCOTUS Sycophant Six plan to tamper with birthright citizenship, otherwise

they wouldn't have accepted the case. Bet on it.

[Endlessmike56]

2. Pretty sure we all know the answer

[PSPS]

7. You're exactly right.

Since there's no question what the law specifically states, their accepting the case means they're going to make up some pretzel logic to overrule it.

[Retrograde]

13. 13th, 14th and 15th are invalid?

I can just imagine Alito’s mental gymnastics claiming these amendments should be scrapped because not all of the states that seceded had rejoined

[wolfie001]

25. He'll cite another 17th century Brit jurist

Another witch-burner.

[img][/img]

[C_U_L8R]

3. 'Executive Orders as Lawmaking' needs to end

It’s lazy, it’s corrupt and it’s unconstitutional.

[31st Street Bridge]

4. This court, this regime

are wholly illegitimate.

[bluestarone]

5. They are making their move to completely take over our laws

Before our election. They are almost in control.

[Norrrm]

6. Precedence... Republicans say that Hitler did some good things.

Trump's perfect judge... Roland Freisler
Such a keen legal mind that he put into law that birthright citizenship of Jews could be revoked...
Start approx 1:53 on the timeline.

?t=113

[iemanja]

8. I have to believe they will rule against Trump

If not, they need to be impeached.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Impeaching them would just have the Republicans blocking it (nt)

[iemanja]

14. I didn't mean now

but when Democrats have control.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Impeachment needs two thirds in the Senate

and I can't see that happening. Shameless Supreme Court judges, like these 6, would just shrug it off (at least attempted impeachment of politicians means an argument to use against them in their next election; these guys don't have to worry about that).

[iemanja]

21. You're probably right.

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. Such a ruling would instantly make the court powerless and irrelevant

If they rule against black-letter constitutional rights (never done before AFAIK) that confer citizenship to all born on US soil, then NO constitutional right is protected, including the sacred second amendment.

If no right is protected, and subject to the whims of the executive, then the constitution is essentially null and void, and there is no role for the court.

I don’t see them committing judicial suicide with such a ruling.

[twodogsbarking]

10. Has a transition team been assigned for when he, well, you know, croaks.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Roughly like this?

(guest appearance by Stephen Miller - "you're not even a person! You're a testicle!"

[onenote]

15. No dissents to the grant of certiorari were noted.

[SunSeeker]

29. SCOTUS already granted certiorari months ago for the injunction issue (with vociferous dissents from the 3 liberals).

Today (Dec 5, 2025) likely involves procedural steps or appeals related to the implementation of the June ruling, not a new decision to hear the main case itself. The lack of a new order today means the status quo from the June decision prevails.

It is utterly inappropriate to suggest the 3 liberal justices want to give up birthright citizenship.

[onenote]

32. You are mistaken.

Preliminary nationwide injunctions were issued in three cases in early 2025 with respect to the Trump executive order on birthright citizenship: Trump V. Washington, Trump v. Casa, Inc., and Trump v. New Jersey.

On March 13, 2025, the government filed with the Supreme Court an application for a partial stay of the injunction issued in the Casa case, albeit with an acknowledgment that a decision on the issue of a nationwide injunction in that case also would apply to the other two cases. The case was assigned Docket No. 25-113. The Court's decision, issued on June 27, 2025, granted the partial stay. It expressly disclaimed going any further, with both the majority and dissents acknowledging that no petition for certiorari had yet been filed, not surprisingly since the merits of the legality of the executive order was still pending in the district courts.

It was only on September 26, 2025, after yet another district court, in another case brought by another plaintiff -- the District of New Hampshire, with "Barbara" as the representative of a class action -- had issued a preliminary injunction that Trump filed a petition for certiorari before judgment -- that is before a ruling by the First Circuit on a challenge to the New Hampshire District Court case. An identical, simultaneous petition for cert was filed with respect to the District of Washington case, which had been affirmed on remand by the Ninth Circuit in July 2025. These two cases were assigned docket numbers 25-365 and 25-364.

These two petitions for certiorari, effectively consolidated as one, were presented to the Court for consideration in conference on December 1. That is the first, and only time, that the Court considered a petition for certiorari on the decisions on the underlying merits issue relating to the legality of the executive order. That petition was granted today.

It is not a procedural step related to the June ruling. It is a ruling in a different case on a different issue. The three liberal justices dissented from the order on the nationwide injunction. At the time they made it clear that they believed that the executive order was unconstitutional. But they also expressed concern that the issue might never end up being brought to the Supreme Court depending on the outcome in the lower courts. In effect, they essentially challenged the government to file a petition for cert if, as they expected would be the case, the lower courts ruled that the executive order was unconstitutional. Thus, while I think that they still adhere to the view that the lower court decisions were correct, the fact that they did not use the occasion of the grant of certiorari to argue that the Court shouldn't take up the case is interesting/

[SunSeeker]

33. It is you who is mistaken. There is absolutely no basis to suggest that Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan have flipped.

The three liberal justices' position in favor of birthright citizenship and in opposition to Trump's position is quite clear.
Sotomayor joined by Jackson, Kagan in fiery birthright citizenship dissents
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5373118-supreme-court-liberal-dissent-birthright/

All of these birthright citicenship cases, including Trump v. Barbara, specifically sought reviwed of Trump's Executive Order 14,160 that attempts to redefine what "within the jurisdiction of the United States" means in the 14th Amendment, so as to deny citizenship to the US-born children of undocumented parents or parents in the US temporarily.

Further, as noted downthread, a writ of certiorari is granted if just four of the nine justices vote in favor of hearing the case. The vote is internal and generally not disclosed to the public.

[onenote]

35. I'm absolutely, positively not wrong.

Did you read the article? It's from June and it is about the decision on the application for a partial stay and was focused on the issue of whether a nationwide injunction was appropriate. The "fiery" dissent was on that issue. It wasn't on whether a petition for cert should be granted on the underlying question of the constitutionality of the executive order because, well, no such petition had been filed, something all of the justices acknowledged. Indeed, the upshot of the partial stay decision was that the injunction against the executive order remained in effect, but only with respect to the named plaintiffs in the lower court case, not nationwide. And, in fact, when the cases went back to the lower courts, they ended up being transformed into class actions and the executive order has been and remains effectively enjoined a nationwide basis.

The Court couldn't have already granted cert because no petition for cert was filed until September -- months after the Court's ruling on the partial stay -- and was only considered this week. Those are facts. Period.

It also is a fact, which I noted in my post, which I suggest that you re-read -- that the three liberal justices made clear that they believe the executive order is unconstitutional. I have no doubt that they still are of that view and I think they are correct. But is a a fact --again an undeniable fact -- that when the case was presented to them with a petition for certiorari on the question of the constitutionality of the order, they did not note their dissent to the granting of that petition. Why? I don't know. I'm sure its not because they have doubts about the constitutionality. Indeed, it is hardly unknown for the Court to affirm lower court decisions unanimously even when they've granted cert.

So, once again, the notion that they already had granted cert is simply, unequivocally wrong. They had no opportunity to do so until a petition was filed and that didn't happen until months after the separate, narrow ruling on the partial stay and the issue of nationwide injunctions.

I've read these decisions, and the dissents. I recommend you do the same.

[SunSeeker]

36. Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan have not flipped. You are dead wrong in suggesting they did. nt

[onenote]

38. Wow. Just wow.

I'm not sure why you keep misstating not only the facts but also my posts. Let's review.

My first post simply stated in its entirety that "No dissents to the grant of certiorari were noted." That is an undeniably true statement.

You responded by claiming that "SCOTUS already granted cert months ago." That is an undeniably untrue statement since no petition for cert was even filed until late September.

I explained why you were mistaken in my next post, but went on to clarify that the three liberal justices not only had dissented from the grant of a partial stay, but also had "made it clear that they believed the executive order was unconstitutional" and, for good measure, I added that I think they still adhere to that view.

Notwithstanding my having, I thought, clarified where I believe the three liberal stand notwithstanding the absence of any dissents to the grant of cert, you came back with a post that essentially reiterated what I had said, but somehow construed what I said as saying the opposite.

So I tried again, posting that "I have no doubt that the three justices are of the view that the executive order is unconstitutional" and that I think they are correct. I also indicated that I don't know why they didn't note a dissent to the grant of cert, but that its not uncommon for justices to support cert even when they believe the lower court ruling is correct.

I would have thought that would end it, but instead, you have invented out of whole cloth the semi-libelous claim that I've suggested that the three justices have "flipped" on whether birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me. But then again you still haven't conceded that cert wasn't actually granted with respect to these cases until this week, not months ago as you have claimed

Facts matter, my friend.

[struggle4progress]

16. john brown's body

[struggle4progress]

18. Battle Cry of Freedom

[struggle4progress]

19. Marching Through Georgia

[struggle4progress]

20. Nazi Punks Fuck Off

[TomSlick]

22. This is the litmus test case I have been fearing.

The constitutional language is clear and not open to interpretation.

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.

Anyone; other than children of foreign diplomats, born in the US is a citizen. There is no other reasonable reading.

If SCOTUS sides with Trump, all hope is lost the Court will finally show some credibility.

[OMGWTF]

23. Originalists, my ass! WTF is there to decide?

[turbinetree]

24. While they are at it just give him immunity..............oh yeah the 6 maga POS already did that...........

they don't need any ratified stinking amendments..........

[SunSeeker]

26. Absolutely disgusting. There is no reason to take up Trump's patently ridiculous argument.

There is no disagreement among the circuits on this issue that the Supreme Court needs to resolve. Everyone --but the Sick Six--understand Trump is talking out his ass, in direct contradiction to the plain language of the US Constitution.

[johnnyfins]

27. They took this case in order to overturn the law.

Plain and simple.

[Dangling0826]

28. It just takes four to agree to take a case

I don't think they have the fifth vote even this court as extremely bad and so willing to bend to the knee of Trump have shown they do have a few limits. This court agreed to hear Trump v. Slaughter that was the unitary legislature case if they agreed with it, it would have let States do whatever they wanted with elections no checks from any state or federal court even this court said that went too far.

[Shipwack]

30. Asking seriously: which is easier...

Impeaching 6 justices, or expanding the court?

[Blasphemer]

34. Expansion is by simple Congressional legislation.

The # of SCOTUS justices has been changed 7 times. The last change (to 9) was in 1869. The GOP knows that Dems are very likely to do this in 2028 when they have the White House and Congress back. If the Roberts Court was smart, it would try to keep that from happening by being a little bit more sane. They won't.

[DallasNE]

31. Practical Aspect Considerations

How does the Supreme Court draw a line other than birthright citizenship? This is the only country most of these people have ever lived in. Here are some examples of people born here with parents from various countries.

1. Mother is a citizen of Country A, and the father is a citizen of Country B.
2. Mother is a citizen of the USA, and the father is a citizen of Country B.
3. Mother and father are citizens of Country A.
4. Mother and father are USA citizens under birthright citizenship, with children born in the USA.

What country would the government deport these current citizens to? The country of the mother or father, and what happens if those countries won't take them, since they have never lived there. Does age make a difference? What is the start time for the age?

Now, let's go into multiple children born in the USA. Child A is 18, Child B is 12, and Child C is 3. Now apply that to the 4 examples above, also considering age.

The chaos would be unimaginable as millions of people would be affected.

[lonely bird]

37. Imo, fwiw, which is nothing...

They will strike it down. This SCOTUS, and, indeed, many SCOTUS decisions are the personal beliefs of the justices.

So…

They will claim that the language only applied to the children of slaves/former slaves and nobody else. They will uphold the citizenship of those who were made citizens under the amendment prior to their decision because it would be a nightmare otherwise.

The flexibility of the the belief structures of the conservatives can be seen particularly in the second amendment case which affirmed blanket ownership of weaponry outside of the militia wording that was plainly and openly in the amendment as a criteria for owning arms.