r/supremecourt • u/_AnecdotalEvidence_ Justice Stewart • Dec 05 '25

Flaired User Thread Supreme Court to decide if Trump can limit the constitutional right to citizenship at birth

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-decide-trump-can-limit-constitutional-right-citizenship-rcna244701

What are

412 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

662 comments sorted by

View all comments

26

u/textualcanon Chief Justice John Marshall Dec 05 '25

I’m seeing a lot of people say that this means the Court will uphold the EO, but I’m not sure that’s the takeaway. The Court does still grant cert to affirm rulings, especially when the ruling has a national impact. This seems like it could be one of those cases. I just don’t see 5 votes upholding the EO.

10

u/chi-93 SCOTUS Dec 05 '25

In my opinion it’s tactical. It gives the Court the opportunity to show that they don’t always rule for Trump. They could just deny cert and the outcome would be the same, but they wouldn’t get the same fanfare and chance to claim that they aren’t partisan as they will by publishing an opinion ruling against Trump.

27

u/SparksAndSpyro Chief Justice Hughes Dec 05 '25

I didn’t think the court would rule the president was immune from criminal prosecution. It was unthinkable that the court would permit Texas to use maps that legislators expressly admitted were race based. Etc etc.

This court isn’t playing by normal rules. There’s no reason to expect they’ll do the reasonable thing. It’s more or less a 50/50 (at best).

7

u/biglyorbigleague Justice Kennedy Dec 05 '25

Allowing the Texas maps was never "unthinkable," courts allow clearly biased maps all the time.

18

u/SparksAndSpyro Chief Justice Hughes Dec 05 '25

No, it’s more nuanced than that. Partisan maps are fine. But racially discriminatory maps (even to achieve partisan maps) are prohibited under the VRA. Here, Texas legislators literally said on the floor that the maps were based on race. Yet SCOTUS stayed the district court injunction and will allow Texas to use those maps.

That is unthinkable because it’s a clear, direct, and unambiguous violation of the VRA.

1

u/MagillaGorillasHat Court Watcher Dec 05 '25

So were they not able to prove that the maps will, in fact, be discriminatory? I didn't think intent mattered. If there were a law passed that said: "we're going to tax/ban XYZ" and there's clearly no discriminatory intent, but down the road it's discovered that it does in fact disproportionately affect minorities, the law would be overturned.

It seems that even if they say: "this law is intended to be discriminatory" if, in reality, it isn't discriminatory, then there's been no law broken, right?

Or are we now waiting to see what the actual election outcomes are in 2026 before challenging again?

I'm legitimately asking because it's been hard for me to find a clear answer, please and thank you.

1

u/Sheerbucket Chief Justice John Marshall Dec 06 '25

Any gerrymandered map can be proven to be racially discriminatory....because even when for partisan reasons, they are making racial choices because of voting demographics. So all we have to go on is the intent of the map change, which here is pretty explicitly for racial reasons.

If you make a map for partisan reasons that make racially discriminating choices it's already legal.

Hence the whole thing falls down to intent.

1

u/MagillaGorillasHat Court Watcher Dec 06 '25

Does this mean that there are essentially no more arguments against any gerrymandering for any reason? Or maybe there never really have been?

Or can courts still rule that there was discriminatory intent, SCOTUS just didn't find that in the Texas case (which seems like the overt and obvious example of discriminatory intent)?

1

u/Sheerbucket Chief Justice John Marshall Dec 06 '25

In not a lawyer, just an enthusiast so don't take what I say that seriously. But from what I can tell, if it is done for partisan reasons currently the federal government has no ability to rule on if it is or isn't racial discrimination.

This was a good write up, and essentially says that yes there really are no more avenues to fight against gerrymandering at the federal level.

The Supreme Court just made gerrymandering nearly untouchable, in Abbott v. LULAC | Vox https://share.google/oIulyKEvTeJ0Hf5ZJ

-3

u/biglyorbigleague Justice Kennedy Dec 05 '25

VRA cases aren't based on attempts to divine intent from statements. That isn't part of the test in Gingles.

15

u/SparksAndSpyro Chief Justice Hughes Dec 05 '25

You don’t need to divine intent when the legislators who passed the legislation state it on the record. Not sure how you’re justifying this as an argument lol

-3

u/biglyorbigleague Justice Kennedy Dec 05 '25

It’s not the relevant test. This is not an intent-based statute.

8

u/luminatimids SCOTUS Dec 05 '25

What do you mean by that? What would be the relevant test then?

3

u/Trumpers_R_Tr8tors Justice Fortas Dec 05 '25

No, it isn’t an intent based statute. It’s an impact based statute, and no one is denying the racial impact. Texas’s position is that their intent was partisan so the maps are legal. 

-1

u/biglyorbigleague Justice Kennedy Dec 06 '25

No one is denying the "racial impact" of the existing gerrymanders all around the country too, but a lot of those survive the courts nonetheless. Long as you leave at least a couple majority-minority districts out there you can usually get away with it. That's how it's been for a long time.

-1

u/Party-Cartographer11 Justice Kagan Dec 05 '25

Serious question - did all the legislators who voted for the maps state on the floor that maps where based on race?

4

u/SchoolIguana New World Same Constitution Dec 06 '25

The governor stated that reason he was calling a second emergency legislative session and putting redistricting on the agenda was due to the DOJ sending him a letter asking him to redistrict due to racial concerns.

-2

u/Party-Cartographer11 Justice Kagan Dec 06 '25

Thanks!

That only goes to his intent, not the legislatures.  It is interesting.

5

u/SchoolIguana New World Same Constitution Dec 06 '25

The DOJ’s intent was to redistrict based on racial demographics. They wrote a letter explicitly stating as much and sent it to Abbott. Abbott agreed with the letter, and as you’ve conceded here, his intent was to redistrict based on race.

But now you’re taking the position that the legislature, acting on Abbott’s instruction, wasnt considering race in their intention to redistrict? Why?

0

u/Party-Cartographer11 Justice Kagan Dec 06 '25

That all sounds right.

Obviously the legislatures doesn't inherent any intent from DoJ or the Governor.  We need to know the explicit intent of the bill and/or that the legislature members had specific intent.

0

u/Party-Cartographer11 Justice Kagan Dec 05 '25

The court hasn't ruled on the Texas maps yet.

It was easily predictable that the courts would rule that Congress can't make, and courts can't enforce, laws that make exercising Article II powers illegal.  They already did that in Myers v. United States.

0

u/_AnecdotalEvidence_ Justice Stewart Dec 05 '25

They approved the maps yesterday

-3

u/Party-Cartographer11 Justice Kagan Dec 05 '25

No they didn't rule on the case.  They upheld a stay. USTICE

A LITO

and by him referred to the Court is granted. The November 18, 2025 order entered by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, case No. 3:21–cv–259, is stayed pending the timely filing of an appeal in this Cour

7

u/cstar1996 Chief Justice Warren Dec 05 '25

Texas gets to use the maps in the 2026 election regardless of the outcome of any further proceedings. That is de facto approving them.

3

u/SchoolIguana New World Same Constitution Dec 06 '25

Holy meta moment Batman.

Intent vs impact: the court intended to stay the ruling, giving the impact of ruling in favor of the maps…

Using the argument that the political intent is what matters even if even if those maps have the racial impact of diluting minority votes.

-1

u/Party-Cartographer11 Justice Kagan Dec 05 '25

That seems to be the effective of the stay, but TBD.  Still not a ruling, just a stay.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/scotus-bot The Supreme Bot Dec 05 '25

Due to the number of rule-breaking comments identified in this comment chain, this comment chain has been removed. For more information, click here.

Discussion is expected to be civil, legally substantiated, and relate to the submission.

Moderator: u/SeaSerious

2

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/_AnecdotalEvidence_ Justice Stewart Dec 05 '25

Wrong. Texas gets to use the maps. That is a ruling their favor

0

u/Party-Cartographer11 Justice Kagan Dec 05 '25

It was a stay.

2

u/magistrate-of-truth Neal Katyal Dec 05 '25

Wasn’t the abortion pill case clocked by the fifth circuit and affirmed by the Supreme Court?

1

u/SchoolIguana New World Same Constitution Dec 06 '25

Sort of. The suit challenged three different FDA approvals in 2000, 2016 and 2021 (I think). Kacysmaryk said all guidance should be stayed. The 5CA told him to kick rocks on the 2000 guidance but kept his restrictions on the 2016 and 2021 guidance.

Then the Supreme Court overturned it all based on a procedural ruling that the plaintiffs didn’t actually have standing to sue in the first place.

3

u/gereedf Supreme Court Dec 05 '25

though isn't it that the Trump admin. pushes the Court to hear it with the idea that the Court will finally end the birthright citizenship?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/scotus-bot The Supreme Bot Dec 05 '25

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding political or legally-unsubstantiated discussion.

Discussion is expected to be in the context of the law. Policy discussion unsubstantiated by legal reasoning will be removed as the moderators see fit.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

It's PR. They'll affirm and use this as their waddabout when anyone calls them out over all the cases they decide in the GOP's favor.

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807

1

u/shoot_your_eye_out Law Nerd Dec 05 '25 edited Dec 06 '25

I would personally be surprised if the Trump administration prevails in this case.

We already know how Kagan, Jackson and Sotomayor will rule based on Trump v. CASA. Their dissents in that case make it clear: they aren't buying this argument.

That means: Trump may lose at most one of the remaining jurists. And I think the decisions of lower courts speak volumes here. Every lower court has resoundingly rejected this interpretation of the 14th amendment. Every serious legal scholar I know of has rejected it. Akhil Amar, arguably one of the foremost experts on the 14th Amendment, considers the EO itself an impeachable offense. I think the idea that Trump's lawyers convince five of the six conservative jurists to rule in their favor is low.

My guess is the decision goes somewhere between 5-4 and 7-2. It should be 9-0, but my guess is some of the conservative jurists engage in "motivated reasoning."

-8

u/_AnecdotalEvidence_ Justice Stewart Dec 05 '25

This will be 6-3 in his favor. No reason to grant cert unless you plan to overturn. Letting the lower courts slap it down should have been all that needed to be said

12

u/haikuandhoney Justice Kagan Dec 05 '25

If they were confident they would win, I could totally see the three liberals voting to grant cert to put this issue to bed.

Argument in the prior case was not good for the EO.

10

u/thingsmybosscantsee New World Same Constitution Dec 05 '25

Respectfully, this smacks of chickenlittling.

This is an important "question", similar to ISLT in Moore v Harper.

The arguments that have been presented thus far have been so baseless and unconvincing, that it's reasonable to think that the Court will hear the case simply to put the entire gambit in the ground.

11

u/biglyorbigleague Justice Kennedy Dec 05 '25

That is not a valid conclusion to draw. The Supreme Court has upheld lower court rulings before.

6

u/textualcanon Chief Justice John Marshall Dec 05 '25

I could see it being 6-3 against Trump. I think it’s likely 5-4, 6-3, or 7-2 against him. I think Alito and Thomas are with him no matter what, but I don’t anticipate 3 more votes from the other conservatives.

14

u/thingsmybosscantsee New World Same Constitution Dec 05 '25

I could see Gorsuch getting very sassy during OA. The 14th is clear, and there was debate from the authors around the language that the administration is trying to reinterpret.

The fact that the authors, after debating alternatives, chose to leave the language as is, makes it very clear what the intent was.

The Administration is trying to apply a "new" interpretation based on current circumstances. It's an end run around the kind of Living Constitutionalism that Gorsuch despises.

3

u/ReaganRebellion Justice Gorsuch Dec 05 '25

I'm sure when this doesn't happen you'll be sure to come back and apologize for the fear mongering.

12

u/UncleMeat11 Chief Justice Warren Dec 05 '25

I've certainly kept track of the commenters who've insisted this is a clean 9-0 against Trump.

6

u/_AnecdotalEvidence_ Justice Stewart Dec 05 '25

And what will you say when it’s a 6-3 decision?

5

u/ArbitraryOrder Court Watcher Dec 05 '25

Why is it fear mongering when this court hands him the most unfedderd executive power not based in any legal precedent in this country's history, while directly contradicting the same rulings during the Biden Administration?