Since when does a potus & scotus get to overturn a Constitutional Amendment? I am confused about the 14th...

[Hekate]

Legal Eagles of DU please help me here — I thought the 14th (birthright citizenship) was nailed down tight. I’ve had a lot to say — but here I am just asking: how is this even a legal thing to do, the way they are?

I have more questions, as well. The Sleazy Six apparently want to throw the issue back to the 50 states — which would leave a brown child born in California or Hawai’i a US citizen, but if born in Texas or Mississippi that child would be stateless.

How is this even legal for the Court to contemplate?

Finally, my mind circled back to Dobbs, which was thrown back to the tender mercies of the 50 states, and is creating chaos and dead women.

Again, I’ve had a lot to say about that — but today, this is my question: is SCOTUS complicit in trying to break apart the USA?

Quite literally, is there something going on at that high a level to fulfill the fantasies of secessionists at last?

[Abnredleg]

1. The case was about nation wide injunctions

And it just happened to involve birthright citizenship. The SC did not rule on the merits of birthright citizenship- that will likely happen in the fall. Right now the injunction against Trump’s policy is still valid for 30 days, and during that time class action suits, which the SC said is a valid alternative to nationwide injunctions, will be filed. If the class is defined as all children born in the US then it will apply to all 50 states.

[Hekate]

9. Right -- except nothing "just happens" with this court. They intended for Birthright Citizenship to be...

…in the crosshairs. Over the last few days it has come up numerous times among talking heads in the media.

Why this? Why now?

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. The court's ruling wasn't about birthright citizenship

It was a ruling about whether lower courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

The court said no, their rulings can only affect their jurisdictions.

The question of birthrights citizenship was not directly addressed in this case or with this ruling.

Barrett did leave a rather large loophole, exempting class actions from this restriction.

Several class actions have already been filed, and watch over the next 30 days, before the ruling takes effect, for many, many more to be filed.

In the interim, until the question of birthright citizenship comes before SCOTUS, the potential for this ruling to sow chaos is high, with the possibility of numerous babies being born stateless, at least temporarily (although I’m certain suits will be filed in their behalf as a class action)

[marble falls]

7. If lower courts automatically over-ride federal courts, the SCOTUS would be a bull's teat ...

... this ball is certainly very much at play. When you have the money of MAGA and the weight of the WH to be able to appeal right up to SCOTUS, one court level at a time.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. They got away with ignoring 14A Sec 3 on insurrection

so they're going for the rest of it.

The Constitution and therefore rule of law is being dissolved. Question is does anyone know what to do about it? A general disregard for law, rulings, adjudication, civility will not end.

[republianmushroom]

4. When ? Now, who is going to stop them ?

[Lovie777]

5. This last decision concerning the 6 assholes was only for "injunctions".............

they stating that the lower courts did not have the authority. The Birthright Citizenship is still in litigation, discovery and onto trial. It will be decided on first in the lower courts, and eventually go to the 6 RW assholes.

shithole and cronies are trying to overturn Birthright from the 14th amendment, and any other constitutional realities that they don't like.

[Maru Kitteh]

6. Yeah Dobbs was merely the first purposeful tred on the constitution

by this court.

[unblock]

8. They haven't ruled on the "central issue". It's all procedural games

Basically. They're saying the lower courts can't make broad, nationwide injunctions, leaving the Supreme Court itself as the only court capable of issuing those nationwide injunctions.

It's objectively stupid for many reasons. Unless and until the Supreme Court resolves confusion on any issue, each lower court has to do largely redundant work on the same issue instead of just leaning on what was already decided elsewhere. This leaves a confusing mess of different treatment in different parts of the country, unless and until the Supreme Court steps in.

But the Supreme Court often doesn't resolve matters for years, waiting for the right case or managing their own workload. In the meanwhile, this lets an administration like this one, with no regard for the law or constitution, get away with even blatantly unconstitutional acts across the country as long as that particular lower court has decided the issue or at least issued an injunction.

In short, it maximizes the ability of a tyrant to engage in tyranny. Only the Supreme Court itself can effectively stop it.

[Ocelot II]

10. By definition, the Constitution *can't* be unconstitutional but its provisions are subject to interpretation.

The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment simply says: "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." The Trump's EO purports to add conditions to the birthright citizenship clause by stating two different situations where a person is not a U.S. citizen at birth: When the mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. and the father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident when the person was born; or when the mother was in the U.S. lawfully but on temporary status, such as a student visa, work visa, tourist visa or under the Visa Waiver Program, and the father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident when the person was born. These exceptions apply to anyone born after February 20, 2025. Several courts have held the EO to be blatantly unconstitutional and enjoined its application, but SCOTUS said those courts' injunctions don't apply nationwide but only within their jurisdictions, meaning the EO is still blocked in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin - that is, states which have Democratic attorneys general. In the remaining states, Trump's order can go into effect 30 days after Friday's ruling, pending any further legal action. SCOTUS will have to decide the question, and to uphold the EO they will have to interpret the plain language of the 14th Amendment as meaning something other than what its words seem to say. The issue seems to have been pretty well resolved back in 1898 in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, https://perma.cc/C5PG-SQSP where the court held that a person born in the US to Chinese parents was a citizen despite the current law limiting the immigration of Chinese people. The language of that case cites so much history and English common law supporting the doctrine that a person born within the boundaries of a country by operation of law and custom becomes a citizen of that country, that even the troglodytes on the current SCOTUS should be satisfied (but you never know with that bunch).

In the meantime, though, babies born after February 20 are US citizens in half of the states but might not be in the other half, at least pending further proceedings.

[Hekate]

11. It keeps coming up...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220440487

Also, I went searching thru my e-Library looking for something else, and saw an article* from last year after the election, pointing out that Trump has wanted to do away with Birthright Citizenship for many years — it’s one of those things he has brought up again and again. Like a lot of things he can’t shut up about, it’s like an itch he can’t scratch. I think it was another of his Day One promises/threats, which means he will do it if he can.

* LOS ANGELES TIMES/ 12-17-2024/ Page A2

[Ms. Toad]

12. As others have said, this case was about injunctions, not birthright citizenship.

But the Supreme Court doesn't get to overturn constitutional amendments. They interpret them - and the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof "has not yet been interpreted. It has been assumed to have a specific meaning, but the Supreme Court always has the final say as to how the constitution is interpreted. The general question in connection with immigrants present in the United States in accordance with immigration laws has been interpreted. Trump's claim is that if you aren't here in accordance with immigration laws, you are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. I think it is a ludicrous claim - but it is a phrase in the amendment which has not yet been interpreted by the courts.

[edhopper]

13. The Court knew damn well that

this ruling would mean that Trump could ignore Birthright Citizenship for as long as it takes for the Court to finally decide on it. And only then if they rule and rule to uphold the 14th.
Their "narrow" decision gave Trump the greenlight to deport people born here.
The effect is the same, whether explicit or by default.

[Hekate]

14. Kind of what I thought...