Post

Make no mistake: In all but nullifying nationwide, “universal” injunctions in these cases, where a uniform rule of law for birthright citizenship is gravely needed, the Supreme Court chose chaos. Yes, the right still exists. But a lot of needless confusion, fear, and litigation lie ahead.

Mike Sacks@mikesacks.bsky.social

Justice Barrett writes for the right-wing supermajority reining in nationwide injunctions and letting Trump unconstitutionally end birthright citizenship in areas of the country where judges have not yet blocked Trump's citizenship-stripping executive order. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

Today's holding, dressed up in legalese and procedural language, is a neo-Confederate holding: If no one sues in a red state, there's no birthright citizenship there. The Republican justices studiously avoid talking about the illegality of ending birthright citizenship because it's indefensible.

162 reposts472 likes

So you can be a US citizen in one state but not in another state? It seems like that raises some serious full faith and credit issues.

Now in article form: bsky.app/profile/cris...

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias.com

Here’s my takedown of the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship non-ruling: Amy Coney Barrett takes balkanized, neo-Confederate approach where you’re only protected in areas where states or individual plaintiffs can sue—and nowhere else. No way to run a railroad, let alone a nation of laws.

I'm half expecting them to shred birthright citizenship right out of the Constitution. They had no problems with nationwide injunctions when it came to Biden's, but NOW "they must be stopped!"