bitmineincreasesethstake

Key Supreme Court Justices Skeptical Of Trump's Limits On Birthright Citizenship-Which Trump Blasts After Hearing The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a landmark case over the legality of President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship for children of noncitizens, with justices suggesting they were broadly skeptical of the order—as the president made history by attending a portion of the arguments, before criticizing birthright citizenship as “stupid” in a subsequent post.
Key Facts
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in Trump v. Barbara, a case concerning the legality of Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship to only children of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
Trump briefly attended the oral arguments, becoming the first sitting president to attend a Supreme Court argument, though the Associated Press reports he left after the government finished its side of the arguments.
The president then criticized birthright citizenship in a subsequent post on Truth Social as arguments wrapped up, falsely claiming, “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!”
The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which has historically guaranteed citizenship by birth in nearly all cases, except for children of foreign diplomats or enemy soldiers.
The Trump administration instead argues children of undocumented immigrants or temporary U.S. residents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., and Trump’s executive order states children born in the U.S. are not citizens unless at least one of their parents is a citizen or permanent resident at the time of their birth.
Parents and children impacted by the decision, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, argue the order is unconstitutional and the court should affirm the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to children even when their parents aren’t permanent residents or citizens.
The court’s decision is still unclear, but conservative-leaning justices on the court signaled they could rule against Trump’s executive order, expressing skepticism of the government’s arguments and the notion the 14th Amendments exemptions to citizenship are much broader than previously interpreted.
What Did The Justices Say?
Chief Justice John Roberts asked an early question suggesting he was unsure of the administration’s claims, noting the exceptions to birthright citizenship have typically been narrow and “quirky”—like children of diplomats—and he’s “not quite sure how” the Trump administration can expand those exceptions to “that big group” of all children of noncitizens. Other conservative-leaning justices also signaled they were wary of the government’s position, with Justice Neil Gorsuch questioning how the court would determine how someone is “domiciled” in the U.S.—which the Trump administration has said should be the basis to decide if a child should have citizenship—and Justice Samuel Alito noting many undocumented immigrants have roots in the U.S. and are “domiciled” here, even if they’re subject to removal. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked why Congress would have used the same language as the 14th Amendment, when it codified birthright citizenship in a 1952 immigration law, if it had meant to restrict birthright citizenship to children of citizens or permanent residents. Similarly, Justice Amy Coney Barrett similarly questioned why the authors of the 14th Amendment would not have more explicitly discussed the parents’ residency if they had meant for the rule to have a more restrictive view of who can be citizens.
$STO $D $NOM
#DriftProtocolExploited #ADPJobsSurge #GoogleStudyOnCryptoSecurityChallenges #BitmineIncreasesETHStake #AsiaStocksPlunge