Supreme Court agrees to decide if Trump may end birthright citizenship

[onenote]

47. You said certiorari had been granted. It hadn't and you have to know that by now. Not even the same case.

Again, show me the petition for cert you claim was filed months ago. You haven't because you can't because it doesn't exist.

In fact, the case in which cert was sought and granted last week isn't even the same case in which you claim cert was granted last June.

The partial stay decision issued in June addressed challenges to the nationwide injunctions granted by three different district courts in three separate cases, each assigned a separate Supreme Court docket number but consolidated for resolution of the challenged nationwide injunction.
Trump v. Casa, Inc., Docket No. 24A884, arising in the District of Maryland
Trump v. Washington, Docket No. 24A885, arising in the Western District of Washington
Trump v New Jersey, Docket No. 24A886, arising in the District Court of Massachusetts

Here is a link to the docket for the cases addressed in the June partial stay order:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a884.html

The cert petition granted last week was filed in a completely separate case, Trump v. Barbara, Docket No.25-365, arising in the US District Court of New Hampshire. Here's a link to that docket.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-365.html

Finally, I'll note again that in her dissent to the June partial stay order, Justice Sotomayor expressed concern as to whether there would ever be a petition for cert filed in the cases before the Court, stating on page 41 that "There is a serious question, moreover, whether this Court will ever get the chance to rule on the constitutionality of a policy like the Citizenship Order." That would be a very strange thing for her to write if cert had "already" been granted.

Finally, why did I find it interesting that no dissents were noted? Well, for one thing, folks tend to be curious as to whether or not any of the justices expressed separate views with respect to the grant or denial of cert. Despite your unfounded belief that I had some ulterior motive, that's it. While we know that Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan all believe that the executive order is unconstitutional, and there is no reason to think they have changed their minds, we don't know whether or not they opposed or supported the grant of cert. There are reasons for not them not to have opposed it given that the issue was arising in multiple courts and denying cert, which has no precedntial value, would not have stopped such cases from going forward at considerable cost and with a modicum of uncertainty for the plaintiffs. Having the Supreme Court address the matter once and for all without waiting for case after case to come down may have been reason for granting cert, although none of us can say for sure. All we know, which is all I pointed out, is that none of the justices noted a dissent to the grant of cert. If having that information offends you, so be it.