SCOTUS Upholds Birthright Citizenship

A number of posts have discussed birthright citizenship.

 Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship to virtually everyone born in the United States. In a decision by Chief Justice John Roberts, in Trump v. Barbara, the justices agreed with the challengers, as well as all of the lower courts around the country that have considered the issue, that Trump’s order cannot be reconciled with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which confers citizenship on anyone “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Writing for the majority, Roberts emphasized that the “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause.” “Under the Constitution,” he concluded, “they are citizens at birth.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito called the ruling both “one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court” and “a serious mistake.” “Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption,” Alito argued, “shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead,” he contended, “the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”

Trump issued the executive order at the center of the case on Jan. 20, 2025, shortly after he was sworn into office for a second term. It provided that babies who are born in the United States to parents who are in this country either illegally or temporarily are not automatically entitled to citizenship.

Goodbye, Humphrey's Executor

Many posts have discussed regulation and the administrative state. 

Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog:

The Supreme Court on Monday gave President Donald Trump sweeping new authority over approximately two dozen multi-member agencies that Congress intended to be independent. By a vote of 6-3, the justices struck down a federal law that bars the president from firing members of the Federal Trade Commission except in cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” That law, a majority of the justices ruled, violates the constitutional separation of powers between the three branches of government. And in reaching that decision, the court overruled its 91-year-old decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the law at the center of the dispute.

More broadly, Monday’s decision was a major victory for proponents of the “unitary executive” theory – the idea that the president should have complete control over the executive branch. Under this theory, the president should be able to fire any member of the executive branch, and laws – like the one that the court struck down – that restrict his ability to do so violate the separation of powers.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts contended that “the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a 49-page dissent that was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Today,” she wrote, “the Court discards” the “democratic regime” created by the Constitution “in favor of one that distorts the structure of Government to fit the majority’s theory of unitary, total executive control. The result,” she concluded, “is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before.”

The Districts Are Too Damn Big

Many posts have discussed reapportionment and redistricting.  There have long been proposals to enlarge the House, thereby creating less populous districts.

Bruce Mehlman:

At the Constitutional Convention, George Washington spoke only once — to urge that representation remain close to the people, with a ratio of one representative for every 30,000. For more than a century, Congress followed that blueprint, with the House growing steadily from 65 members in 1789 to 435 by 1913. And then it stopped. Today, the actual ratio is roughly one representative for every 760,000 Americans. Is there any population at which a House district becomes too big to represent?

Justice Kagan Notes Trump's Racism

Many posts have discussed immigration and asylum.

Justice Kagan's dissent in Mullin v. Doe (25-1083)

The Haiti plaintiffs have yet another claim that is likely to succeed: that race entered into the decision to terminate Haiti’s TPS designation, in violation of equal protection.

 ...

It is more than plausible: Even putting the clear-error standard aside, the Haiti plaintiffs have carried their burden. The evidence they have offered includes statements by the President so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print.  (Indeed, one measure of the President’s way of speaking about Haitians is to compare it with the majority’s, which is unfailingly respectful.4) So here are some of those statements. Haitians are “eating the dogs . . . . They’re eating the cats. They’re eating—they’re eating the pets of the people that live [in Springfield, Ohio].” 2 App. 802; see id., at 644.  And: Haitians are also eating “other things too that they’re not supposed to be.” Id., at 698–699.  And: Haitians in the United States “probably have AIDS.”  Id., at 698. And: Haiti is a “shithole country,” which is “filthy, dirty, [and] disgusting.” Id., at 698–699. And: Haitian immigration is “like a death wish for our country.”  Id., at 698. And: Haitians, along with some others, are “poisoning the blood” of our country. Id., at 698.  And: “Why is it we only take people from shithole countries” like “Haiti [and] Somalia”? “Why cannot we have some people from Norway [and] Sweden?” Id., at 699. The majority briefly replies that those remarks are not “overtly racial,” ante, at 21, but it is hard to know what that means. Haitians are Black.  (Norwegians and Swedes not so much.)  The references—of filth, disease, and primitiveness—are shot through with racial stereotypes and tropes. It is hard to imagine the statements being made today of any White community.  No very “sensitive inquiry,” of the kind Arlington Heights compels, is needed to see them for what they are, 429 U. S., at 266; judges, as we often say, are “not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free,” Department of Commerce, 588 U. S., at 785.  The statements fairly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into the President’s resolve to remove Haitians from this country.

\

Passports, Visas, and Trump

Many posts have discussed myths and misinformation. 

Also – "Welcome, but be good"? Who's Trump's target audience for that?

Might be fitting for a visa. But for a passport? Is he saying even we citizens are welcome here only at his sufferance? Or is it just a S.N.A.F.U.? pic.twitter.com/iubFHUR5iI

— Ira 'Greybeard Homer' Goldman 🦆🦆🦆 (@KDbyProxy) June 26, 2026

Stripes at 45: A Patriotic Movie

  Many posts have discussed patriotism and American exceptionalism.

Stripes premiered 45 years ago today.  Two years ago, Rich Cohen wrote at WSJ:

Released in 1981, “Stripes” is the story of a burnout named John Winger who, seeking direction, joins the Army. It was the first summer after the election of Ronald Reagan, whose campaign had been powered by the eerily familiar slogan, “Let’s Make America Great Again!” It was a time of high inflation, simmering tension with a communist rival and deep polarization in our politics.

In other words, a moment much like our own, which might explain why Murray’s speech still speaks so powerfully to my own teenage kids. I can’t think of a better statement of what ails us and what still makes America and Americans exceptional.

“We’re not Watusi,” Murray tells his fellow grunts in a moment of disunity and crisis. “We’re not Spartans. We’re Americans, with a capital ‘A,’ huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We’re the underdog. We’re mutts!…But there’s no animal that’s more faithful, that’s more loyal, more lovable than the mutt.”

Murray played it for laughs, and it was funny, but it was serious too. It celebrates our tolerance, stick-to-it-ness and ethnic jumble. It’s John Winthrop’s City on a Hill remade in the shadow of “Saturday Night Live.” I rank it with FDR’s First Inaugural and Lincoln at Gettysburg. It’s the speech we need today.

...

 This silly speech in a silly movie expressed a powerful truth. The Germans of World War II were all the same because they were all the same. We are all the same because we are all different. Which means those differences don’t really matter. Our ancestors came to this country to leave all that B.S. behind. It was the American creed rephrased in the vernacular. It was beautiful. 

Only later did I fully appreciate that Murray, along with screenwriters Harold Ramis and Len Blum, had given us a great gift: a way to love our country without feeling gullible, sentimental or corny.

America: The Signers Would Be Disappointed

 Many posts have discussed patriotism and American exceptionalism.

Andy Kemp at Gallup:

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, just 19% of Americans say the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be pleased with how the country has turned out.

Just over three in four Americans (77%) now say the founders would be disappointed, compared with 71% in 2013 and 42% in 2001. The latest findings come from a May 2026 Gallup survey.