SCOTUS to Hear Oral Argument on Nationwide Injunctions, “Birthright Citizenship” May 15

[Elderberry]

The Post & Email

ADMINISTRATION QUOTES VATTEL; ALL CITE WONG KIM ARK

On April 17, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its scheduling of oral argument for May 15 to resolve legal challenges to President Donald Trump‘s January 20, 2025 executive order rescinding the practice of awarding citizenship to virtually anyone born within the United States.

Numerous cases filed just after the executive order was issued resulted in three temporary “nationwide” injunctions from federal courts in the Western District of Washington, the District of Massachusetts and District of Maryland.

The Trump administration has appealed each injunction to the high court, which, rather than acting on the appeals individually, scheduled a one-hour hearing for May 15 at 10:00 a.m.
The Cases

Washington

The Washington lawsuit involves four state plaintiffs — Illinois, Arizona, Washington and Oregon — claiming the executive order violates the 14th Amendment and Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Terming it the “Citizenship Stripping Order,” the states filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to preclude its implementation.

-----

Massachusetts

The Massachusetts case was filed by 18 states, the city of San Francisco and the District of Columbia. “Plaintiffs bring this action to protect their states, localities, and residents from the President’s flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage,” the lawsuit begins. “The principle of birthright citizenship has been enshrined in the Constitution for more than 150 years. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment unambiguously and expressly confers citizenship on ‘[a]ll persons born’ in and ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States. More than 125 years ago, the Supreme Court confirmed that this entitles a child born in the United States to noncitizen parents to automatic citizenship. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Congress subsequently codified that understanding in the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1401). And the Executive Branch has long recognized that any attempt to deny citizenship to children based on their parents’ citizenship or immigration status would be ‘unquestionably unconstitutional.’”

-----

Maryland

A suit filed by five expectant women represented by CASA, Inc. of Maryland and Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, Inc. of New York, claimed on page 4, “The 14th Amendment’s language is clear. Over a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause means that people born in the United States are U.S. citizens at birth without regard to their immigration status, except for children born to foreign diplomats, on foreign ships, to occupying armies, or to Indian tribes.1 See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898). The Court has adhered to that understanding time and again in the ensuing decades.”

-----

The Executive Order

Relying heavily on the text of the 14th Amendment, the executive order, titled, “PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP,” reads, in substantial part:

    Section 1.  Purpose.  The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift.  The Fourteenth Amendment states:  “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.”  That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.

-----

Much Much More: https://www.thepostemail.com/2025/04/24/scotus-to-hear-oral-argument-on-nationwide-injunctions-birthright-citizenship-may-15/

[rustynail]

May 15?  Careful, don't want to rush into things.

[Polly Ticks]

Beware the Ides of May?

[Fishrrman]

rusty swings but misses with:
"Careful, don't want to rush into things"

NO.
Let's get this issue settled insofar as the courts of the United States are concerned.
Once and for all. No use dragging it on.

If the Supreme Court declares "birthright citizenship" to be the law of the land, then there's only one other way to fix that.
And you know what that is.

[rustynail]

"Careful, don't want to rush into things"  really means why wait Three Weeks get this done Now!

[Elderberry]

“Birthright Citizenship” and the Amicus Curiae

The Post & Email  by Joseph DeMaio

Introduction

In the law, there is a term known as amicus curiae. In English, the term translates from Latin to mean a “friend of the court.”  Normally, the term refers to a legal brief prepared by people or organizations other than the actual party-litigants and purporting to be friends of the court articulating points that may assist the court in reaching a correct determination on the issue presented by the actual litigants.

In days long gone, a true “amicus” would present to the court matters or points that have not been brought to the court’s attention by the parties and/or which the amicus believed needed to be addressed in order to better inform the court in its task of reaching a “correct” decision.

In more recent times, however, the amicus curiae has become far more “interested” and “invested” in a particular result, such that instead of being merely an independent “friend of the court,” the amicus becomes more of a friend to one side or the other in a contested case.  Stated otherwise, today’s amicus looks more like a quasi party, actually supporting one side or the other and making advocacy arguments in support of (or in opposition to) that party.  It is akin to “lobbying” the court.

Such is the case with the matters now pending before SCOTUS in three docketed cases, i.e., Docket Nos. 24A884; 24A885 and 24A886. Each case, with different parties, involves the “birthright citizenship” question which is the subject of President Trump’s Executive Order 14160. That order draws into question the validity of that principle under the 14th Amendment.  Your humble servant addressed the matter recently here.

Across those aggregated but related cases, a total of 69 – not a typo: sixty-nine, many in identical verbiage – amicus curiae briefs have been filed either (a) supporting President Trump‘s application for a partial stay against lower court injunctions or temporary restraining orders barring the operation of Executive Order 14160 or (b) seeking a denial of his application for a stay, thereby allowing lower district court “nationwide injunctions” to bar implementation of the Executive Order.

By far, the highest number of claimed amici curiae “friends of the court” signing on to an amicus brief is the “Amici Curiae Brief of Members of Congress” filed April 29, 2025, the last day ordered by the Court for filing amicus briefs.  Signing on to that brief in opposition to President Trump are 183 (yes, one hundred eighty-three) Democrat members of the House of Representatives.  Zero Republican House members signed it, since their own “GOP” amicus brief supporting President Trump had been prepared and timely filed on March 14, 2025.   

Interestingly, “only” 183 of the House Democrats – out of a total of 213 Democrats (two vacancies currently exist) – signed on to the brief.  They include: Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (no surprise there); Al Green (same no surprise); Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (ditto); Ilhan Omar (ditto); and Henry “Hank” (“Guam-might-capsize-if-we-send-more-military-personnel-there”) Johnson.  Doing the math, 30 (thirty) Democrats declined to sign on to their own brief.  Oddly, one prominent Democrat’s name missing from the list of amici curiae opposing President Trump: Former Speaker of the House Nancy (“I-left-my-brain-in-San-Crapcisco”) Pelosi.  One must ask: Why?

More: https://www.thepostemail.com/2025/05/02/birthright-citizenship-and-the-amicus-curiae/

[Elderberry]

SCOTUSblog

SCOTUS FOCUS  By Amy Howe
 
Questions about Thursday’s oral argument in the birthright citizenship dispute? We have (some) answers.

On May 15, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the federal government’s efforts to be able to generally implement President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship to virtually everyone born in the United States.

The dispute is one of the relatively rare proceedings that came to the justices as an emergency appeal – on the so-called “shadow docket” – only to be set for oral arguments.

Here is some more information about the dispute and the upcoming oral argument.
 
What are the justices actually considering on Thursday?

Though the dispute comes to the justices through challenges to Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship, the primary issue before the court on Thursday is whether lower-court judges can issue what are known as universal injunctions to block an order nationwide. With a universal injunction, a federal judge (or several in this case) can bar the government from enforcing an executive order – or, in another case, a law or policy – anywhere in the country. The Trump administration, which has been blocked by many such injunctions in recent months, argues that the practice is unconstitutional.

In virtually all of the cases in which the Supreme Court hears oral arguments, the justices have done so after the party that lost in the lower court filed a petition for review, known as a petition for certiorari. The petition begins with a “question presented” – the question that the party is asking the justices to take up. Unless the Supreme Court indicates otherwise, that question is the issue before the justices.

Very Long Article: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/questions-about-thursdays-oral-argument-in-the-birthright-citizenship-dispute-we-have-some-answers/