Second lawsuit filed against the birthright citizenship EO. Given the 30 day delayed implementation, there will undoubtedly be at least one court order blocking the program before then. I'll also add that I will personally judge any DOJ lawyer defending this. Either refuse or quit. Period. - ThreadSky

reichlinmelnick.bsky.social • 32 days ago

Second lawsuit filed against the birthright citizenship EO. Given the 30 day delayed implementation, there will undoubtedly be at least one court order blocking the program before then.

I'll also add that I will personally judge any DOJ lawyer defending this. Either refuse or quit. Period.

Reposted from Big Cases Bot

I'm now following Doe v. Trump (birthright EO II):

View Full Case | Background Info | Complaint

#CL69560588

Comments

deborah-c.bsky.social•32 days ago

Given that it’s prospective, not retrospective, how does anyone have standing yet?

rdilipk.bsky.social•32 days ago

Pregnant women who are slated to give birth in a month or so?

reichlinmelnick.bsky.social•32 days ago

Yes, a number of the plaintiffs are in that situation. They are pregnant people who expect to give birth after this goes into effect.

deborah-c.bsky.social•32 days ago

Thank you

rdilipk.bsky.social•32 days ago

One quick question while I have your attention. What precisely is the point of this? They must know there will be a deluge of lawsuits with injunctions forthcoming. I have to imagine they believe SC will eventually grant cert and start carving out exceptions.

goobermunch.bsky.social•32 days ago

In order to get a ruling from the Supreme Court, they need cases filed.

forceholy.bsky.social•32 days ago

They could only uphold the portion that denies citizenship to the children of the undocumented.

Ultimately, this is a test on how far Trump can go on mandates against the constitution.

deborah-c.bsky.social•32 days ago

And challenging that part could be difficult if being in a position to sue means surfacing yourself in court and promptly getting detained by ICE and deported

kbkorb.bsky.social•32 days ago

I would think Trump's attempt to rewrite the constitution would be an impeachable offense.

Not that that matters for Trump v1 or v2.

dfeldman.org•32 days ago

Presumably there are at least one or two DoJ lawyers who intend to defend it… poorly

txlawyer.bsky.social•32 days ago

Rule 11.

zahavastadler.bsky.social•32 days ago

Are there public interest law orgs that will be leading this fight that you recommend for donations?

forceholy.bsky.social•32 days ago

ACLU is on it.

schnorkles.bsky.social•32 days ago

One of the fun parts of Trump v1 was the constant inability to find lawyers in DOJ who would actually defend whatever various gongshow going on was.

reichlinmelnick.bsky.social•32 days ago

Yeah. Make the people at the very top write the damn briefs themselves. You have a duty as an officer of the court not to present frivolous legal arguments.

schnorkles.bsky.social•32 days ago

Hey I wonder what happens to attorneys who can make a lot more money in the private sector if you make their jobs miserable. Sure seems like it might degrade DOJ's ability to, you know, go after ol' Donny's enemies and defend his lunacy in court. But what do I know.

cjfuego98.bsky.social•32 days ago

Hey @schnorkles.bsky.social what did you think of his schedule f executive order? I think a lawsuit was filed against that in the dc circuit courts

cjfuego98.bsky.social•32 days ago

I was just curious on your take because I’ve read it’s potentially illegal

schnorkles.bsky.social•32 days ago

Section F is pretty procedurally gibberish and against the statute from my reading, but my best guess is it ends up in front of SCOTUS sometime next year.

careycuprisin.bsky.social•32 days ago

The birthright citizenship litigation is a professional ethics test for government lawyers in the same way that torture was during the regime of George W. Bush. Some will flamboyantly fail the test.

natewhite.bsky.social•32 days ago

people should be filing bar complaints against the DOJ lawyers who are defending these suits. I’m so beyond serious

wheystandard.bsky.social•32 days ago

Odds that John Eastman is brought in to defend his baby?

jjgass.bsky.social•32 days ago

Tricky to pro hac when he’s in the process of being disbarred.

wheystandard.bsky.social•32 days ago

Do attorneys appearing on behalf of DOJ have to apply for pro hac admission in DC federal district court?

jjgass.bsky.social•32 days ago

Don’t know. And I don’t know if he has a DC Bar admission anyway in addition to the California one.

wheystandard.bsky.social•32 days ago

He does! But it’s under a temporary disciplinary suspension lol

jjgass.bsky.social•32 days ago

If have thought the DOJ exemption (so, eg, AUSAs don’t have to be admitted in the state where they practice) would require that the person be in good standing SOMEWHERE, but I haven’t the energy to check.

accountabilabuddy.bsky.social•32 days ago

But that's just ethics, and it's been established those have no place at the supreme court.

pitchforkslingshot.bsky.social•32 days ago

Well said, but if they haven't quit yet ...

premiumsteve.bsky.social•32 days ago

I’m sorry to tell you every lawyer who does the work for this administration not only won’t face judgment for it, they’ll be treated normally even after Trump leaves and no one will ever hold their collaboration against them.

kingkurt42.bsky.social•30 days ago

Apparently it was defended by Brett Shumate in Seattle. The judge was not amused.

mad-pat.bsky.social•32 days ago

Reminder for drumpf et al.

Neither of Rubio's parents was a U.S. citizen at the time of Rubio's birth..

lwhensler3.bsky.social•32 days ago

Don't you think Trump wants them to quit?

This is not my field. What's the correct dividing line between those who are subject to the jurisdiction of the US and those who are not?

amtappeals.bsky.social•32 days ago

Diplomats, foreign occupiers, and Indians not taxed.

lwhensler3.bsky.social•32 days ago

So tourists are subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

samcb.bsky.social•32 days ago

yes? do you think tourists are exempt from US law?

lwhensler3.bsky.social•32 days ago

Do you think "foreign occupiers" and "Indians not taxed" are exempt from US law? For that matter, I have no confidence that diplomats are "exempt from US law" (although I've been told so).

amtappeals.bsky.social•32 days ago

As noted elsewhere, there are no “Indians not taxed” anymore. But when there were, they were not subject to US laws while on their land. And we haven’t had any foreign occupiers since the War of 1812. But in general, no, an occupying force would not be hauled into a US court.

reichlinmelnick.bsky.social•32 days ago

Of course. To be subject to the jurisdiction of a location just means that you are subject to their laws.

If you live in New York and you go commit a crime in New Jersey, which law enforcement can charge you with a crime, NY or NJ?

New Jersey. Because the crime was committed in their jurisdiction.

lwhensler3.bsky.social•32 days ago

Under that approach, it sounds like "Indians not taxed" would be subject to the jurisdiction of the US, maybe foreign occupiers as well?

amtappeals.bsky.social•32 days ago

Correct. Although there aren’t any “Indians not taxed” any more.

michaelander45.bsky.social•32 days ago

The same one that has been in place for 100 plus years

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply