Post

It’s genuinely a challenge for legal journalists to cover the birthright citizenship case, because one side’s argument is “the Fourteenth’s Amendment intent and text and a century of uninterrupted Supreme Court precedent all support birthright citizenship,” and the other side’s argument is “nuh-UH”

The traditional Supreme Court press corps is used to framing cases as “here are two possible answers to a hard, novel legal question.” Not a ton of room in that framework for “this case is just thirsty law professors recycling dogshit arguments because they want the racist president’s attention”

The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship case is roughly analogous to holding a scientific debate, in 2026, about whether the earth is round or flat. Yes, sure, there are people who will put on a straight face and argue each side. And also, there is NO doubt which one of them is correct.

Can I interest you in reading the first post I ever published on Balls and Strikes dot org? ballsandstrikes.org/legal-cultur...