Category: Supreme Court
Supreme Court will hear arguments for ending birthright citizenship
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear arguments for and against President Donald Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship.
The Trump administration appealed a lower court order that struck down the restrictions in July over a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of children affected by the policy.
‘We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.’
Trump issued the Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship executive order on his first day in office of his second term. The order prohibits granting citizenship to persons born in the country to mothers illegally or temporarily in the U.S. and whose father is not a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident.
Opponents of birthright citizenship say it stems from a false reading of the 14th Amendment, which was intended to apply only to former slaves when it was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War.
“Congress has never passed a federal statute that confers birthright citizenship. So it’s not in the Constitution, it’s not in federal law, it’s not in the legislative history, and yet it is being used,” argued BlazeTV host Mark Levin.
“Birthright citizenship is the argument, is the position, is the policy the Democrat Party holds on to because they want monopoly power for all time,” he added, “and they don’t care if it’s foreigners or not.”
Supporters of the policy point to the longstanding precedent of automatically granting citizenship to babies born in America.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” said ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
The case will be heard in the spring, and a decision is expected by early summer.
RELATED: DHS slams Newsom over illegal alien accused in death of 11-year-old boy on Thanksgiving
Others point to the troublesome practice of “citizenship tourism” as justification for the order.
“There is a tourism industry surrounding this whole birthright citizenship. Women come here before they give birth so that they can just give birth here, and then their babies become United States citizens. That’s nuts, and to [Trump’s] point, nobody else does this,” said Sara Gonzales of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” on BlazeTV.
The birthright order would not take away citizenship from those who already obtained it before the order went into effect.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Supreme Court allows Texas redistricting map for midterm elections; liberals dissent
The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily approved the redistricting map in Texas for the midterm election over the dissent of the liberal justices.
The 5-3 partisan vote means Republicans will likely gain several seats from Texas. The decision blocks a lower court injunction just as politicians begin to qualify for elections in the state.
‘Congratulations to Texas for advancing the rule of law.’
The court has not yet issued a permanent decision on the lawsuit, claiming that the redistricting effort pushed by Republicans is discriminatory and unlawful.
Republicans hope the redrawn map will lead to five additional seats in the U.S. House, but Democrats have countered with their own redistricting effort, including one in California.
The Trump administration is suing against the new district map in California.
“To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map,” U.S. District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown previously wrote in the Texas case. “But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”
U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi praised the decision on social media.
“Federal courts have no right to interfere with a State’s decision to redraw legislative maps for partisan reasons,” she asserted.
“A federal district court ignored that principle two weeks ago, and the Supreme Court correctly stayed that overreaching decision tonight,” she added. “Congratulations to Texas for advancing the rule of law, my Solicitor General John Sauer, and our team of lawyers for their excellent brief supporting Texas in this important case.”
RELATED: Gov. Hochul says New York is jumping into redistricting feud between California and Texas
The redistricting effort in California was championed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who campaigned to push the proposition by characterizing it as a chance for Californians to push back against President Donald Trump.
The president accused them of rigging the election for the redistricting proposition, which passed easily.
“The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Trump said at the time. “All ‘Mail-In’ Ballots, where the Republicans in that State are ‘Shut Out,’ is under very serious legal and criminal review.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The imperial judiciary strikes back
So far, more than 100 federal court judges have ruled against the Trump administration in hundreds of lawsuits filed by states, unions, nonprofit organizations, and individuals.
While some of these rulings are fairly grounded in the Constitution, federal law, and precedent, many are expressions of primal rage from judges offended by the administration and moving at breakneck speed to stop it.
Trump sometimes exceeds his authority. Activist judges substitute ‘frequently’ for ‘sometimes.’ The Constitution and the Supreme Court disagree.
According to a Politico analysis, 87 of 114 federal judges who ruled against the administration were appointed by Democratic presidents, and 27 by Republicans. Most of the lawsuits were filed in just a few districts, with repeat activist judges leading the opposition.
Lawsuits against the administration may be filed in the District of Columbia and, often, also in other districts. Initially cases are randomly assigned. Plaintiffs focus on districts with predominantly activist, progressive judges. Because related cases are usually assigned to the same judge, later plaintiffs file in districts in which related cases were assigned to friendly activists.
Conservative judges generally believe they should interpret the law and avoid ruling on political questions, while liberals tend to see themselves as protectors of their values. After 60 years of domination by activist liberals, the Supreme Court and conservative appeals court judges are finally demanding that district court judges respect the Constitution. The Supreme Court is also re-evaluating precedents established by far-left justices who substituted their values for the words and intentions embodied in the Constitution.
To date, the Supreme Court has reversed or stayed about 30 lower court injunctions blocking the administration, and appeals courts have reversed or stayed another dozen. Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson imposed an administrative stay on a district court decision requiring the immediate resumption of SNAP payments.
Federal judges who oppose Trump’s agenda are openly opposing the Supreme Court. In April, D.C. Chief Federal Judge James Boasberg sought to hold administration officials in criminal contempt for violating an order the court had vacated. In May, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ho criticized the court’s demand that district courts act promptly on administration requests. In a September ruling, Boston Federal Judge Allison Burroughs challenged the court for expecting lower courts to treat its emergency orders as binding legal precedent.
Ten of 12 federal judges interviewed by NBC News in September, and 47 of 65 federal judges responding to a New York Times survey in October, thought the court was mishandling its emergency docket. They described orders as “incredibly demoralizing and troubling” and “a slap in the face to the district courts.”
Deservedly so. Though the Supreme Court and appeals courts judges have rebuked district court judges for ignoring higher courts and abusing their authority, they continue to do so with rulings focused on identity politics and a progressive lens on the woes of immigrants, minorities, women, and workers. They likely expect to be reversed on appeal, but they secure wins by causing delay and creating fodder for progressive activists to rally their supporters.
There is little that can be done about these judges. Removal requires a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate. With Democrats supporting these judges, those votes are unrealistic.
RELATED: Who checks the judges? No one — and that’s the problem.
Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images
Just a few of the dozens of examples of politicized judicial decisions:
In May, Myong Joun, a Biden appointee in Boston, enjoined layoffs at the Department of Education in a decision featuring an encomium to its anti-discrimination mission. The Supreme Court stayed his injunction.
Despite this precedent, Susan Illston, a Clinton appointee in San Francisco, issued a nationwide injunction barring the administration from firing union employees during or because of the government shutdown. Ignoring settled law, she bemoaned the “trauma” of workers who had been under “stress” ever since Trump’s election. Illston gambled correctly that the shutdown would end before her order could be reversed.
Indira Talwani, a federal district court judge in Boston, went further. Declaiming her fear that defunding Planned Parenthood would deprive women of access to abortions, she elided Article I of the Constitution, which requires all federal spending to be approved by Congress, nullifying a duly enacted statute that suspended funding of large abortion providers for a year. By the time she is reversed, the suspension will have expired.
In June, after San Francisco Federal Judge Charles Breyer enjoined Trump from federalizing the California National Guard, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit unanimously stayed his order, explaining that on military matters, the president’s judgment stands unless it is dishonest. Nonetheless, Oregon Federal Judge Karin Immergut subsequently blocked deployments in Portland, substituting her assessment of the situation for the president’s.
An Obama-appointed judge recently interviewed by NBC explained, “Trump derangement syndrome is a real issue. As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane.”
Trump sometimes exceeds his authority. Activist judges, who self-reverentially believe progressive technocrats and judges are democracy’s guardians, substitute “frequently” for “sometimes.” The Constitution and the Supreme Court disagree.
Graham Platner Calls To Stack the Supreme Court and Impeach ‘At Least Two’ Sitting Justices
SKOWHEGAN, Maine—Senate candidate Graham Platner called to stack the Supreme Court and impeach “at least two” of its sitting justices, moves he said should be top priorities for Democrats should they retake the upper chamber next year.
The post Graham Platner Calls To Stack the Supreme Court and Impeach ‘At Least Two’ Sitting Justices appeared first on .
The Next Social Epidemic Is Already Here: Legalized Sports Gambling
In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. A fractured court, led by a conservative…
HUGE: Supreme Court Will Decide If ‘Election Day’ Still Exists in Wild Vote-by-Mail Case
From PJ Meida: The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will hear a case that will decide if Election Day actually exists in America anymore. SCOTUS will decide if states can accept mail-in ballots days after the designated Election Day. Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton, whose organization wrote an amicus (friend of the court) brief in support of […]
The post HUGE: Supreme Court Will Decide If ‘Election Day’ Still Exists in Wild Vote-by-Mail Case appeared first on Judicial Watch.
Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump administration to extend pause in SNAP funding
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s request to extend the pause of an order to fully fund food aid benefits for a few days.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson previously granted the emergency pause on an order from U.S. District Judge John McConnell from Rhode Island for the government to fully fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Many on the left excoriated her for what they perceived as a pro-Trump order.
‘The only way to end this crisis — which the executive is adamant to end — is for Congress to reopen the government.’
Solicitor General John Sauer argued in the emergency appeal on behalf of the government.
“The core power of Congress is that of the purse, while the executive is tasked with allocating limited resources across competing priorities,” he said.
“But here, the court below took the current shutdown as effective license to declare a federal bankruptcy and appoint itself the trustee,” Sauer contined, “charged with picking winners and losers among those seeking some part of the limited pool of remaining federal funds.”
While the Trump administration had agreed to partially fund the program by about 65%, McConnell’s order called the government to use a separate pool of funding to fully support the program.
“The only way to end this crisis — which the executive is adamant to end — is for Congress to reopen the government,” Sauer said.
That effort to end the government shutdown appeared to be successful after Democrats caved to Republicans demands.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi thanked the court for the ruling.
“Our @TheJusticeDept attorneys just secured a further administrative stay through Thursday at midnight at the Supreme Court to prevent further judicial upheaval for the SNAP and Child Nutrition programs,” she wrote. “Thank you to the Court for allowing Congress to continue its swift progress to end the shutdown WITHOUT last-ditch disruption from lower courts. We will continue fighting and winning to protect President Trump’s agenda from meritless judicial activism.”
RELATED: Woman goes viral after admitting to being on SNAP benefits for 3 decades
Critics of the SNAP program point to examples on social media of recipients proudly admitting to abusing the program. In on case, a woman said she had been on SNAP for nearly three decades, though that report did not indicate whether she was suffering from disabilities.
“The first thing I did was grab my phone and call, and when I heard ‘zero dollars,’ my chest went into my throat!” said Maggie Aragon of New Mexico to KOAT-TV. “I have depended on those benefits since the 1990s, and it’s detrimental to my life if I don’t get them.”
About 42 million people rely on SNAP benefits.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Trump reveals what’s at stake if Supreme Court rules against his tariffs: ‘Devastating’
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday regarding President Donald Trump’s authority to impose reciprocal and fentanyl-related tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Given the skepticism expressed by liberal and conservative justices alike, there is cause to suspect that things may not go in the president’s favor.
Trump has since underscored in a series of posts on Truth Social that a loss for his administration in this case would prove to be a “catastrophe” for the economy and national security.
Skepticism on the high court
One day prior to the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments in the consolidated cases Trump v. V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the president noted that the outcome of the case could mean “LIFE OR DEATH for our Country. With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, Financial and National Security. Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other Countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us.”
‘The US Supreme Court was given the wrong numbers.’
While Justice Samuel Alito appeared sympathetic to some of the government’s arguments, his conservative colleagues didn’t come across as entirely convinced.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, for instance, joined his liberal colleagues last week in trying to poke holes in U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s defense of Trump’s tariffs, suggesting that the danger of too liberal a reading of the IEEPA in the president’s favor risks creating “a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives.”
RELATED: Trump’s SHOCKING 25% truck tariff: A matter of national security?
Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Chief Justice John Roberts, like some of the other justices on the high court, took issue with the absence of the word “tariffs” in the IEEPA, which empowers the president to regulate imports of “property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest” during a declared national emergency.
“You have a claimed source in IEEPA that had never before been used to justify tariffs. No one has argued that it does until this — this particular case,” said Robert.
Roberts, whose note on the unprecedented nature of the interpretation was also raised by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, added that tariffs amount to an “imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress.”
Concern in the White House
Trump, no doubt aware of how the oral arguments went, has emphasized in the days since what is at risk.
Hours after indicating that any money left over from his proposed $2,000 tariff dividend for American citizens “will be used to SUBSTANTIALLY PAY DOWN NATIONAL DEBT,” Trump suggested on Monday that the cost of the Supreme Court’s invalidation of his tariffs — which Barrett said would likely be “a mess” — could be far higher than previously suggested.
Trump noted in a Truth Social post on Monday, “The ‘Pay Back’ Numbers being quoted by the Radical Left Lunatics, who would love to see us lose on Tariffs because of how bad it would be for our Country, are much higher than those being stated by our Fake Opposition — Opposition mainly from Foreign Countries that would do anything to be allowed to charge us Tariffs without retribution.”
‘Possibly non-sustainable!’
“The actual Number we would have to pay back in Tariff Revenue and Investments would be in excess of $2 Trillion Dollars, and that, in itself, would be a National Security catastrophe,” added the president.
In a subsequent post, Trump wrote, “The U.S. Supreme Court was given the wrong numbers. The ‘unwind’ in the event of a negative decision on Tariffs, would be, including investments made, to be made, and return of funds, in excess of 3 Trillion Dollars.”
As all revenues from tariffs, including new and pre-existing ones, through September of this year had raised between $174 and $195 billion, Trump’s allusion to a figure over $3 trillion appears to refer to the potential tariff revenue lost over the next decade.
According to a recent Tax Foundation report, Trump’s tariffs “will raise $2.4 trillion in revenue over the next decade on a conventional basis and reduce US GDP by 0.6 percent, all before foreign retaliation.” Other estimates put potential revenue as high as $3 trillion.
The Congressional Budget Office released an estimate in August indicating that “increases in tariffs implemented during the period from January 6, 2025, to August 19 will decrease primary deficits (which exclude net outlays for interest) by $3.3 trillion if the higher tariffs persist for the 2025-2035 period.”
Trump suggested further that the loss of tariff revenue and return of funds “would truly become an insurmountable National Security Event, and devastating to the future of our Country — Possibly non-sustainable!”
U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer told “Mornings with Maria” last week that the reciprocal tariffs at issue have netted over $100 billion but less than $200 billion and noted further that if they are invalidated, specific plaintiffs might receive a refund, but it remains unclear what will happen to the remainder.
“As for the rest of it … I’ll hand that file to the secretary of the treasury,” said Greer.
“You’ll have all these importers and importing interests who are going to want that money back, and so, you know, we’ll have to figure out — probably with the court — what kind of a schedule might look like and what the rights are of these parties and what rights the government has to that money.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
