The Supreme Court will take up the issue of whether your favorite federal judge can issue a nationwide injunction. So just speaking hypothetically, if the Government decided to round up Japanese Americans and place them in internment camps, could a Judge in Miami stop the Feds from doing it in California? Or would the judge’s order just extend to Hialeah?
The backdrop to this issue is even juicier: on day one of his reign of terror, the current president signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship. Lawyers filed motions arguing that the plain language of the amendment clearly conferred citizenship to anyone born in the United States. Plus, they argued, a long line of cases held the same thing and since the cases were not about abortion, they were accorded precedential value. District Court Judges who had no illusions about being elevated to their circuit court with this president, who were assigned the case issued nationwide injunctions.
But now there is serious consideration being given to the argument that the 14th Amendment was about slavery and applied to granting slaves citizenship in the state they were born in. Congress did not intend to extend the right of citizenship to the children of foreign nationals who just happened to be born while passing through Kennedy International Airport.
So before we weigh in, what say you?
Here is the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment for you robed readers who don’t do your own legal research:
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
65 comments:
SAO should have a reality show on A&E.
Why is the intent argument relevant when the plain meaning is unambiguous? The word jurisdiction has plain meanings in both normal parlance and legal jargon. Everyone, with less than a handful of exceptions (e.g., diplomatic immunity), is within the jurisdiction of U.S. courts when on U.S. soil. For instance, for purposes of taxation, violations of criminal laws, immigration enforcement, involuntary hospitalization, etc. Are proponents of this ridiculous interpretation seriously arguing that the illegal parents of children born in the U.S. can walk into any courts, in these types of proceedings, and move to dismiss because these courts have no jurisdiction over them by virtue of their illegal status? Yet another asinine argument by lawyers who have no business having bar cards because they can’t adhere to one of the most fundamental oaths of the profession: not advancing frivolous positions.
Egg prices fell for the first time in months. Will they get any cheaper? USA Today
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/05/13/egg-prices-dropped-april-fall-or-rise/83602609007/
Plain language should control, but SCOTUS, having read out of the constitution the "well-regulated militia" bit as just "prefatory language" is perfectly capable of reading into the constitution some sort of manufactured legislative intent (query if that matters in constitutional amendment ratified by state legislatures). What I wonder is: if the plain language does not control, is the ruling retroactive? We could undo the citizenship of a vast portion of the population if we go back just a few generations. So if my grandmother came over from Scotland, does that mean my mother's citizenship and therefore mine can be undone? Asking for a friend.
This sentence is very funny Rump "... since the cases were not about abortion, they were accorded precedential value."
Says what is says - very clearly - that this is a discussion is absurd.
The language in the constitution on this seems to be pretty clear. It's a stretch to argue otherwise IMHO. If folks don't like this law, they should work to change it the lawful way. The nationwide injunction issue is a bit more complex. But I believe injunctions are rare and issued sparingly only when necessary. Scary that the verbal/tweet attacks on judges (we lawyers can't do that under the Bar rules BTW) have become the norm and unfortunately, now judges may be thinking about the impact on themselves (and their families) should they make certain rulings that the current administration (including allies/friends) may not like. I think I've seen the negoative impact of this situation in at least two cases that I know of with recent rulings.
We get it, Adam.
Totally off topic but anyone know when the new Civil Courthouse is supposed to open?
michelle is the best
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a little more complicated than the above posters believe. American Indians were not granted citizenship under the 14th A - even though subject to US law - because they were considered members of tribal nations to whom they owed allegiance, not the United States. They did not become citizens until IIRC 1923 through an Act of Congress.
This is the argument against birthright citizenship for illegal alien children. Children belong to their parents and the parents’ allegiance is to another country.
I believe you misinterpret the 14 Amendment's grant of "birthright citizenship". As I understand, Trump relies on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), a U.S. Supreme Court petition for writ of habeas corpus issued October 2, 1895 recognizing birthright citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to parents who were Chinese nationals legally present in the United States: Father, Wong Si Ping, and mother, Lee Wee, emigrated from Taishan, Guangdong, China and were not United States citizens, but they were legally in the United States. That is the key, the parents must be legally present in the United States for birthright citizenship to attach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
Contrast Wong Kim Ark with people who unlawfully enter the United States with no right to be here. These people are not vetted. It is absurd to think that they can enter the USA illegally, give birth on American soil, then claim "birthright citizenship". This is wrong on so many levels, and I don't understand the outrage on the left.
First, unlawful entry into the United States is a crime, and puts the person outside the law, not subject to it. If I break into your home when you are away on vacation, can I claim a homestead right as a squatter?
Second, this type of "birthright citizenship" is a slap in the face to immigrants who follow the process legally. Yes, we need immigrants. I want the immigrants who enter our home to be properly vetted. In the past the United States did this on Ellis Island when the primary mode of entry was by ship from Europe. People got turned away who were not qualified for entry.
The left completely misunderstands the outrage felt by Trump's supporters, which is one of many, many misunderstandings that got Trump elected. Again. Immigrants must be vetted and follow the process. You would understand if your daughter was killed by someone who should not have been in the United States. See the Murder of Laken Riley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Laken_Riley
And for immigrants who come here to protest, and raise hell, that is just stupid. We don't need any more stupid people. You are in our home, conditionally. Be on your best behavior.
Yes, there should be refugee status for people who legitimately qualify. Otherwise, there are millions of ordinary Americans who need help. Cry for them. Help them.
DOJ Press Release: Chinese National Pleads Guilty to Running ‘Birth Tourism’ Scheme that Helped Aliens Give Birth in U.S. to Secure Birthright Citizenship
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/chinese-national-pleads-guilty-running-birth-tourism-scheme-helped-aliens-give-birth-us
"SANTA ANA, California – A Chinese national pleaded guilty today to federal criminal charges for running an Orange County-based "birth tourism" business that catered to wealthy pregnant clients and Chinese government officials, charging them tens of thousands of dollars to help them give birth in the United States so their children would get U.S. citizenship."
Taji is free
In other news, MVZ made an appearance at Marie Mato’s investiture. Now that’s the type of friendship that should warm your hearts.
What happened to the Pino videos?
Obviously the President cannot change the Constitution by executive order. When he tries to do so 100 times in 100 days, you'd have to be Thomas to sit around and wonder if there is a way to justify it.
Local and judicial politics is a better discussion. Talk about the corruption at the SAO
Florida judge is accused of sharing 'objectively unrealistic' fake recording with editorial board
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/florida-judge-is-accused-of-sharing-objectively-unrealistic-fake-recording-with-editorial-board
I hope it never does. De la O is going to leave REG (aka Rats Everywhere Gross) when the pretty new building opens.
I am no expert, but they should be open weekdays from around 8am to 5pm
Stop the press Rump-- you watching the hockey game??--- Toronto at Florida! Tonight!!
Who cares
I heard it’s supposed to open before the end of 2023.
The Supreme Court in Wong (1898) ruled that the Constitution grants citizen status to persons born in the US. The Court notes that Wong was born in San Francisco to Chinese illegal immigrant parents, but broadens the ruling by emphasizing that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes matters such as race or nationality irrelevant to do the issue of citizenship.
Keep in mind that there are some exceptions to this rule.
Where can I get some overtime?
July/august 2025
Actually I spoke to de la O about that rumor after I heard it and he said absolutely not.
Wong's parents were not "Chinese illegal immigrant parents". No, that statement is factually incorrect. Wong's parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
"United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a landmark decision[2] of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.[3] Wong Kim Ark was the first Supreme Court case to decide on the status of children born in the United States to alien parents. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution."
🥰
Not just an appearance, she gave him a shout out. Geeez
Amicus brief by John Eastman for Trump in the birthright citizenship case discussed by Robert Gouveia Esq. on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31J9TjPuA8Y
Rump how was Prague?
Proud of Marie 🥲
They were deleted
Rump is Canadian
Of course he has several Minions
Marie is a delightful person. Although her friend may have acted unethical. Marie was not on the controversial case. He was just there in her support. There are no unethical accusations on Marie.
Cannot wait to hear Democrats explanation for Biden’s late stage prostate cancer diagnosis.
Not sure how Democrats are responsible for President Biden's prostate cancer. Or its late diagnosis. But you do you.
So you're relying on the history of America's genocidal treatment of its indigenous populations in support of denying birthright citizenship to people born here?
Either you didn't read Wong Kim Ark or you don't know how to read case law. The parents' immigration status was irrelevant to the holding; only the fact that Wong was born here controlled.
Does this fact change the meaning of the constitution?
The exceptions have nothing to do with the immigration status of Wong's parents. They have to do with diplomatic status, or the fact that the parents were here as part of an invading army.
Need a lawyer any recommendations?
The White House covered it up. Any other explanation is laughable and a lie, which is pretty much on par with every other Democrat talking point.
State prosecutors open criminal investigation relating to Hope Florida
Marie is great. Beyond reproach. And the fact that her friendship and loyalty toward MVZ, one of the most egotistical, narcissistic and corrupt prosecutors in Miami, is further proof of her strength of character and moral compass. Assuming she knew he was going to attend, she had to have known that people would question his presence, and even criticize her in silence, but, in the purest teachings of Jesus Christ, she puts love and forgiveness above all transgressions no matter how evil. God bless her.
Meanwhile Israel is commiting a genocide and crickets...
What is hope Florida?
The fact that MVZ showed up at all, when he could’ve watched it through zoom, confirms the depth of his narcissism and egomania. Even if she insisted he show u, a selfless friend would’ve declined so as to not detract from the moment with his presence. But he’s a showman. He likes the limelight and attention. This was his return from infamy. And he chose to do it at the expense of someone who, ironically, is the polar opposite in humanity and integrity. He’s still a fucking dick.
Won’t be up to him will be up to Fajardo.
Just doing America’s dirty work.
We are all responsible for our own actions. But I foresee the need of Democrats to explain the complete lack of transparency from Biden’s family, physicians, and fools. I cannot square the medical facts of his prostrate cancer diagnosis with his handler’s assertion he was running circles around his White House staff. Somebody’s lying to themself, but you do you.
Hope Florida is a nonprofit run by Casey DeSantis that got a $10 million cherry on top from husband Ron DeSantis.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2025/05/20/hope-florida-foundation-desantis-jack-campbell-state-attorney-investigation-medicaid/
The Constitution has been misinterpreted for some time. The birthright citizenship issue was settled in 1898 in Wong Kim Ark. But over time respect for the ruling has faded from lack of enforcement, and outright ignored during my lifetime, and I'm old. Trump rightly wants to restore in the public domain, and enforce, the 1898 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.[3] Wong Kim Ark was the first Supreme Court case to decide on the status of children born in the United States to alien parents. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
Wong has to do with Wong's parents having a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States". Wong's parents were not diplomats, and were not part of an invading army. They were legally here pursing legitimate business. Trump is trying to end the "anchor baby" scam. Birthright citizenship means more than illegal entry to drop a kid on American soil.
Is it fraud like the every SAO plea deal that includes a donation to the Denise Moon foundation?
The same people who can’t believe someone like Mato could be friends with MVZ have no qualms about schmoozing with disgraced lawyers and judges at various functions. It’s all one big cesspool of hypocrisy to curry favors, influence, donations, and votes. Most of these people who pretend to be friends and colleagues can’t stand each other.
It’s all about money
And yet you still live here and enjoy all of the freedoms the “colonisers”created here for you and your family to be able to sit and judge from the comfort of your own home?
One would think an attorney would know the actual definition of genocide. Go ahead and Google it whilst we wait.
Lawyers discussing an important constitutional issue, and citing Wikipedia as your sole authority? That's the best any of you could do?
Are the above two posters even lawyers? Not a hint of legal reasoning - just feelz.
Lazy people throw words around. Genocide was a word coined in the 1940s but humans killing humans has been happening since the beginning of human history. God nearly wiped us out in the flood during the time of Noah. God told Israel to wipeout people as they conquered the Promised Land in the book of Joshua. But he provided a way. White people kill black people. Black people kill white people. People kill babies. And yet God said, “Thou shalt not kill.” God provided a way and we killed Him too. So maybe crickets are smarter than people.
Post a Comment