From what I understand, its not the supreme court ok'd his move rather they stopped other lower federal courts from creating injunctions that stop the entire process, and they now limited them to stopping only those who bring forth lawsuits and who are affected by whatever it is.
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
587 points (97.4% liked)
News
30555 readers
4269 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Looking into it this whole thing is way more complicated than the headline makes it sound. The Supreme Court didn't actually give Trump permission to end birthright citizenship, they just made a ruling about how courts can block federal policies nationwide.
Basically what happened: Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by multiple federal judges who said it's probably unconstitutional. Instead of arguing the constitutional issue (which he'd probably lose), Trump's team asked the Supreme Court to limit judges' power to issue nationwide blocks on policies. The Court agreed 6-3, but they specifically did NOT rule on whether ending birthright citizenship is legal.
So now Trump's celebrating like he won, but really all that changed is the procedural stuff. The constitutional problems with his order are still there: the 14th Amendment is pretty clear about birthright citizenship. Lower courts still have to reconsider their rulings, and immigrant rights groups are already filing new lawsuits.
It's more of a tactical win for Trump that might let him try to implement parts of his agenda in some places, but the fundamental legal challenges haven't gone away. The Truthout article is at least a little hyperbolic imo.
My prior understanding of the issue at hand is that the probable downside for limiting the nationwide application of some federal judge rulings is that the federal agencies have the resources to select a jurisdiction to enact rules that local judges have determined to be unconstitutional to one where local judges have not. Ex. if Feds can't violate someone's civil rights in New York, just move that someone to Florida where the Federal Agency can violate their civil rights.
Certainly there are scenarios in which federal judges being able to issue nationwide rulings is detrimental to left leaning causes as well (mifepristone bans), however without the supreme court first taking up the case of the constitutionality of birthright citizenship before making this current ruling on application of nationwide rulings, they're just being a bunch of shit fuck cowards.
100% on both counts.
The forum shopping issue you're describing is exactly the problem. Trump's team can now basically pick and choose where to implement policies that have been ruled unconstitutional elsewhere. It creates this patchwork where your constitutional rights depend on geography, which is obviously fucked.
And you're spot on about the cowardice. The Supreme Court absolutely should have ruled on the constitutional question first. That's the actual substantive issue everyone cares about. Instead they took the cop out that gives Trump more power without having to make the hard call on whether his order is constitutional.
Honestly it looks like classic Roberts Court behaviour: make big changes to how government works while pretending you're just doing technical legal housekeeping. They know damn well that ruling on birthright citizenship would be messy and politically explosive, so they found a way to help Trump without having to own the constitutional implications.
Your point about this cutting both ways (like with mifepristone) is important too, but the timing here makes it pretty clear what they're really doing.
load more comments
(3 replies)
If you end birthright citizenship, then nobody gets to be a citizen by birth. If you can't be a citizen by birth, the only way to become a citizen is naturalization. If the only citizens are naturalized people, the country is 100% immigrants.
This was initially what was Donald’s EO and such, but blue states (of course) noticed he fucked up (imagine having so much money and you can’t have a better team looking over your shit), that they had to change it.
Now it states that parents in the US legally can have a kid and it will be a citizen. But not parents who’s here visiting and such. But what if a mom is an illegal and dad is legal? What would the kid be?
But what if a mom is an illegal and dad is legal? What would the kid be?
How brown is their skin?
And if immigrants don’t need due process and can be sent to concentration camps then it’s really easy to make anyone disappear
If immigrants don't get due process, then nobody gets due process.
You could arrest Bill Clinton and claim he's an immigrant. If that means he doesn't get due process, he can never prove he's not an immigrant, and so he's stuck in Guantanamo forever.
load more comments
(2 replies)
If the only citizens are naturalized people, the country is 100% immigrants.
What do they think America is founded on?
A bunch of religous people who were welcomed into multiple countries but then got mad that everyone around them didn't belive in their exact same religon they did so they found a new place and committed some genocide before building up a mythology about how they had to do it in order to flee religious persecution?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
He is much closer to his stated goal
The power to deport any natural Born Citizen on demand for no reason at all
He has stated he wants.... Needs this
On Exactly why he has been vague
load more comments
(1 replies)
Question : didn't the supreme court just say that lower level judges can't block him? Which would mean that appeal judges can? So this question is far from settled?
I think they said the judge didn't have the right to block it nation wide, only for the states that sued, which was 22 or something like that.
This is the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution. As a lawyer for the federal government, I need everyone to know that this officially marks the end of United States rule of law. Protect yourselves, and godspeed.
load more comments
(13 replies)
Wait ... Doesn't "citizenship" mean where you're born?
It's either where you're born or where you live. Which is it?
Wtf even is citizenship then?
"I'm from Ireland" is synonymous with "I'm Irish"... Right?
So if you're born in America, wouldn't you... Be American?
If he takes that away, you aren't just magically from nowhere, you're still American.
This is stupid and makes no sense, it's all just classism and racism. I hate everything.
You've just given it ten times more thought than the Trump team has.
Its the same as the election between Obama and McCain, in ways a lot of people dont realize.
Obama, by virtue of having a non-traditional name and not being white, was hounded by birthers despite being born an American citizen clear as day with absolutely no question about it.
McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone the year before people born in the canal zone were granted citizenship at birth. Arguably he was not a citizen at birth under the definitional requirements of the constitution to be president. He was naturalized as a citizen retroactively.
Palin is part native, and was pretty heavily involved with Alaska Native movements that rejected US sovereignty and thereby rejected claims to citizenship. But no one talked about that either because shes also largely seen as just being a white American.
And yet Obama, who was American thru and thru from birth without question, never was involved with Hawaiian sovereignty movements, is the one whos citizenship was questioned.
“White makes right” is the rule of law to these people
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)