Just read this.
While I wholeheartedly agree with all competent lawyers that the EO is facially unconstitutional, I did wonder about the standing issue for states to sue for relief.
Will that be a problem going forward?
Because it's a totally bogus position they've been advocating for years for racist political reasons, and at least the lawyers among them know that, but figure they can bully enough people into obeying and maybe get SCOTUS to overturn it now that stare decisis is no longer a SCOTUS policy.
I'm not a lawyer but if the undocumented parents in question aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, how could it be illegal for them to be here? If they're dragged before a deportation hearing can't they just claim the court lacks jurisdiction over them?
You're not supposed to use logic when evaluating Trump's actions. Putting 'illegals' before courts with jurisdiction doesn't mean they have jurisdiction. Having US consumers pay extra tariffs doesn't mean prices will go up. Releasing people who beat police means you're for LAW & ORDER! And so on.
This reads to me as if they're claiming anyone subject to non-US jurisdiction at birth (whether or not subject to US jurisdiction) is ineligible for citizenship. So anyone eligible for dual citizenship, State citizenship (separate sovereign, separate jurisdiction), Tribal jurisdiction (same), etc.
Not that I'm any expert, but as a Tribal citizen, I'm at least aware of and kind of familiar with the concepts of jurisdiction and sovereignty. So I could be wrong, but it's how it sounds.
To be clear, the "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924” does exactly what it says on the tin, and Congress (NOT the president and NOT the courts) has plenipotentiary power over Tribal relations.
With Gorsuch on the court, I actually feel pretty confident this one won't survive.
On top of that, the vast majority of us a) have to trace our ancestry to someone on tribal rolls several generations ago, and b) have at least one (usually several) ancestor born to a non-Native who was a US citizen by birth or by explicit naturalization. And those of us who aren't enrolled in /
According to this argument the 1.1million Americans adopted abroad since 1952 are also non-citizens. Which creates an interesting problem because their birth countries have highly varied policy on whether those adults, who emigrated as children, are citizens. Stateless people coming out all over!
The failure to refer lawyers to the bar for filing material the judge considers unconstitutional and lacking merit continues, ensuring bullshit continues to be what the courts keep having to deal with.
Question: Does this have a practical effect on the implementation given that (according to their motion opposing the TRO), the EO only applies to births after Feb. 19th?
The courts are largely on his side, so that’s a good way to make them not on his side.
And there’s logistical issues that states - when asking for, say, SSNs for newborns - would follow the actual law and not your hypothetical lawless order to DOJ.
It's a bit early in the term for a Constitutional crisis, but if it happens it creates enormous scope for fully justified obstruction, including in the states where Trump would presumably need cooperation for this to matter at all.
The President doesn't make the law.
We already have a constitutional crisis. He told DOJ to ignore Bostock already in his attacks against transgender people. Trump is ALREADY ordering DOJ to ignore established law.
Yes, but it creates a real issue for SCOTUS. Do they take the next step and strip Trump's subordinates of their qualified immunity? Do they do that all the way down the chain of command? Do the issue the ruling and acknowledge they're powerless to stop it?
I have a process question. The EO is set to go in effect 30 days from 1/20. The preliminary injunction hearing is due 2/6. Assuming that is decided before 2/19, what's the use of the TRO? Does it stop the USG preparing for implementation?
Please give the relevant legal context: a TRO granted with hearing on preliminary injunction in 14 days, which is granted or denied on basis of whether petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits, pending trial. This is a NO BRAINER, because an EO always loses vs the Constitution. Even now.
It is not like this is close or an open question. Say so. Trump’s case is 🐕 💩. Call it what it is. The only way the opposite result is reached is corruption or intimidation. Thank you.
Shumate clearly has a TEN-FOOT POLE UP HIS ASS, PLANTED THERE BY THE ORANGE TURD. He isn't even resisting--he's insisting on a blatant, disgusting lie!
Already wasting taxpayer money I see. Two weeks ago this same DOJ lawyer would have agreed it was unconstitutional but it is obvious he was given marching orders to support it. I would think this would be grounds to be disbarred or at least reprimanded.
Yep. The judge is going to issue the nationwide injunction on the 6th. The only real question here is whether SCOTUS even takes this one. Probably not.
The Heritage Foundation, who likely wrote the EO in question, has a defense for this BS to get it to the kangaroo court, I mean Supreme Court as soon as possible
Comments
While I wholeheartedly agree with all competent lawyers that the EO is facially unconstitutional, I did wonder about the standing issue for states to sue for relief.
Will that be a problem going forward?
https://bsky.app/profile/shipwreck75.bsky.social/post/3lggy2jdork2z
https://bsky.app/profile/emmynawjoopinga.bsky.social/post/3lgglst7rek2m
With Gorsuch on the court, I actually feel pretty confident this one won't survive.
State agencies that issue birth certificates and coordinate with SSA, hospitals, and birthing centers have to prepare for the changes now.
On top of that, states now have thousands of births no longer eligible for Medicaid.
And mainly it’s to coordinate the lawsuits.
And there’s logistical issues that states - when asking for, say, SSNs for newborns - would follow the actual law and not your hypothetical lawless order to DOJ.
The President doesn't make the law.
Thank you.