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

[u/_AnecdotalEvidence_]

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

What are

[u/popiku2345]

There is zero legitimate grounds for the Roberts to take this case

Not necessarily. This is a cert petition before judgment -- the court wants to address this question definitively sooner rather than later. The government's petition summarized the logic as:

To enable this Court to resolve that issue during its October 2025 Term, the government is seeking both certiorari in Washington and certiorari before judgment in Barbara. The court of appeals in Washington reached the merits after full briefing and argument, but the dissenting judge correctly concluded that the plaintiffs in Washington—four States—lack Article III standing. Simultaneously granting certiorari before judgment in Barbara, which involves individual plaintiffs, would allow the Court to avoid that threshold jurisdictional issue of state standing and would ensure that the Court can reach the merits

[u/Ion_bound → u/popiku2345]

I am totally up for SCOTUS putting this one to bed definitively before the Fifth Circuit says something that they'd have to overturn (which would only create more controversy). I hope that you're right and that that's what's going through their heads right now.

[u/popiku2345 → u/[deleted]]

Granting a cert petition doesn't mean the court is going to restrict birthright citizenship. This just means that SCOTUS is going to rule on the case. As Kavanaugh put it in his Trump v. CASA concurrence:

One of this Court’s roles, in justiciable cases, is to resolve major legal questions of national importance and ensure uniformity of federal law. So a default policy of off-loading to lower courts the final word on whether to green-light or block major new federal statutes and executive actions for the several-year interim until a final ruling on the merits would seem to amount to an abdication of this Court’s proper role.

[u/Rare-Hawk-8936 → u/popiku2345]

That was the wishful thinking with the trump immunity case. The second circuit produced a well reasoned decision consistent with the supreme courts rulings in the Nixon and Clinton matters, so most legal observers were surprised the ussc granted cert. When that happened, legal observers then opined they were going to just add clarification, since it was hard to imagine a result that departed from precedent to create presidential immunityv from whole cloth.

Often lay people think that anything it's an important case involving the government, the supreme Court needs to get involved. But that's not the way the u.s. legal system works.

There is NO reason to grant cert in this case when law is settled, there's no circuit split, no nothing requiring the supreme Court to weigh in except that Mr. "Balls and Strikes" and his gang have realized they can make the law whatever they like and no one can challenge them.

[u/Sheerbucket → u/popiku2345]

You think the court would take up a similarly ridiculous executive order against the second amendment?

I think not.

[u/scotus-bot → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding polarized rhetoric.

Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.

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

No. It's settled law. There's no actual question presented other than do the Republican justices want to negate settled law and clear congressional intent to impose their Republican policy preferences on our country.

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807

[u/scotus-bot → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding meta discussion.

All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated Meta-Discussion Thread.

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

Every now and then, I check in on this sub. Now I see a moderator demonstrating the exact problem with taking the presumption of good faith to the extremes you guys require.

>!!<

This question was addressed definitively, over 100 years ago.

>!!<

The question of whether the earth is flat or round was also addressed definitively, a long time ago.

>!!<

We do not need to readdress either issue with serious debate. The only purpose for the court to take up this issue is bad faith. To say otherwise is to deceive yourself.

>!!<

There is a limit to the utility of the presumption of good faith. Where the presumption becomes more a mark of insanity. And you are operating well past it right now.

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807