Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the nationwide injunctions issued by some federal judges blocking Trump’s “birthright citizenship” attempted overrule of the Constitution. By all accounts the Trump attorneys’ arguments were utterly shredded. Yet most of the commentary today is saying that the justices are “split” and that the Court may give Trump some of what he wants, even though chaos would ensue, and the birthright citizenship ban is blatantly unconstitutional.
The question before the Court, as I understand it, wasn’t about birthright citizenship itself but whether a federal district judge can issue a decision that affects the whole nation and not just that district. Universal injunctions sometimes can be problematic, such as when a Texas judge decided to ban the abortion pill mifepristone. On the other hand, no universal injunction would require countless individuals to have to file the same suit to protect their rights against government overreach.
Also, it came out in the arguments that there are a ton of unanswered questions about how Trump’s birthright citizenship block would work if it became law. Who would decide which babies got to be citizens and which would be stateless? The hospitals? Or would states have to set up some kind of bureaucracy, or make all parents apply for citizenship for their babies? And then if birthright citizenship were still in effect in some states but not others, would a stateless baby gain citizenship by moving into a “birthright” state?
Ultimately, one assumes, the question of whether Trump’s block is constitutional would go to the Supreme Court. But what if it didn’t?
Several justices on Thursday also seemed to vent frustration that if the government keeps losing in the lower courts but decides not to appeal the underlying merits of the case to the Supreme Court, the justices would not have an opportunity to rule on the constitutionality of banning birthright citizenship.
“There’s nobody else who’s going to appeal, they’re winning. It’s up to you to decide whether to take this case to us” said Kagan, who served as solicitor general during the Obama administration. “If I were in your shoes, there is no way I’d approach the Supreme Court with this case.”
It’s also worthy of note that the four women justices, including Amy Coney Barrett, brilliantly grilled U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, leaving him in little tiny bits that will take lots of vacuuming to get out of the carpet. The five men were all unusually quiet.
Yeah, I wouldn’t mess with them, either. Notorious RBG must be proud. I am reading that MAGA is furious with Barrett.
It’s possible the justices will decide to block Trump’s birthright citizenship order at the same time that they put limits on universal injunctions. That might help Trump save face with a token win, although he’ll throw a temper tantrum anyway. A guy at the New York Times proposed that “it wouldn’t be surprising if the court finds a way to allow some national injunctions against sweeping presidential orders, and eventually rejects Trump’s. Among other reasons, the conservatives want to preserve the ability to overrule Democratic presidents.” So there’s that. But most of the commentary I’ve seen predicts the five guys on the Court will try to give Trump something. We just don’t know what.
Update: Other Stuff That Happened Today
Trump’s big, bad budget bill failed to make it out of committee. All of the Dems and some hard-right Republicans on the House Budget Committee voted no. The Republicans objected to the bill because it didn’t cut Medicaid enough. And there are at least some Republican senators who are nervous about the Medicaid cuts that were in the bill. I honestly don’t think this bill or anything remotely resembling it can go the distance. They’re going to have to break it up. But it may take a while to get to that realization.
Also today, the Supreme Court did something somewhat useful and indefinitely extended a ban on deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. The Associated Press:
Over two dissenting votes, the justices acted on an emergency appeal from lawyers for Venezuelan men who have been accused of being gang members, a designation that the administration says makes them eligible for rapid removal from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
The court indefinitely extended the prohibition on deportations from a north Texas detention facility under the alien enemies law. The case will now go back to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which declined to intervene in April.
Alito and Thomas were the dissenters, naturally. But I hate these tepid little limited decisions. Just stop Trump from deporting people without due process, period.
DOGE attempted to take over the Government Accountability Office, which is part of the legislative branch. The GAO told DOGE to get lost.
A spokesperson for GAO confirmed DOGE’s outreach, and reiterated that “as a legislative branch agency, GAO is not subject to Executive Orders and has therefore declined any requests to have a DOGE team assigned to GAO.”
In an announcement to employees posted Friday afternoon, GAO leadership said they sent a letter to Acting Administrator of DOGE Amy Gleason and notified members of Congress, according to a copy of the notice shared with NPR by an employee not authorized to speak publicly.
“Did I understand you correctly to tell Justice Kagan that the government wanted to reserve its right to maybe not follow a Second Circuit precedent, say, in New York, because you might disagree with the opinion?” Barrett asked Sauer point blank.
Got that, folks? That's Trump appointee Barrett citing a remark to Kagan that maybe the DOJ would or would not follow a Second Circuit order. And from what I read, she kept at it. drilling down on the implication that POTUS is only bound by decisions of the USSC (which they are currently ignoring.) Which brought up the question that if DOJ can ignore the Circuit Court, and they are losing consistently at that level, WHY would they ever appeal to the USSC?
OT, Great news, retired Rear Admiral Eileen Laubacher is running against Lauren Boebert.
Someone forwarded me a video of Laubacher speaking (sorry no linkee) – she comes off as solid, down-to-earth and pointedly brings up her opponent's nonsense. I'd argue it's because of Lauren Boebert that Laubacher entered politics. Her campaign ads are going to be devastating.
Elsewhere "the Bride of Chucky", Kristi Noem is said to be working on a Hunger Games-like reality show to vet immigrants trying gain citizenship. They deny it now, but anything's possible with these people. "May the odds be ever in your favor."
I don't think people are doing a good enough job of scoring what Trump is doing according to his "tweets" on TS. (I can't bear using the word "truth" associated with Trump's website or posts.)
First, Trump told Walmart not to raise prices because of tariffs, demanding that the retailer and China "eat the costs." Ignoring the implicit admission that tariffs will cause prices to rise, Trump is freaked that he will be blamed for higher prices. Trump was able to intimidate Bezos not backing down from posting the tariff cost on Amazon next to goods. Ford IS raising prices on models made in Mexico that have incurred tariff costs, up to $2000 for some models. This is despite Trump calling automakers to tell them they cannot increase prices. Trump tweeted recently that countries who are not negotiating with the US need to do so now or Trump will assign tariff costs.
You don't have to be Einstein to see where Trump is. He's petrified that he will be held responsible for the cost to consumers caused by his tariffs. Everybody is supposed to support the fallacy that tariffs are free money. Trump is desperate to claim that what he's doing with tariffs has caused the entire world to surrender to his demands. IMO, Trump will sign any 'deal' that codifies the exact status quo before tariffs were announced so Trump can pretend the existence of a 'deal' proves he won.
Prices will go up and they won't return to pre-tariff levels. I think we're looking at inflation AND reduced consumer spending. That spells recession with a capital 'R.' I see no reason to think it will be a brief economic dip.
Second, Trump claims that he's going to talk to Putin on Monday in an all-caps tweet. It's pathetic how Trump wants a Nobel Peace Prize because Obama got one. Even if there is a settlement in Ukraine, Trump will never get credit for it. (Nor should he.) Whenever the war ends, Trump will say he did it if he has to sit up in his grave to tell the lie.
Third, Trump is railing against Taylor Swift and Bruce Springsteen. Swift hasn't made any recent comments I'm aware of but Trump resents her for being female, successful (on her terms) and liberal. Bruce made powerful comments in England about what is happening in "America." I suspect immigration will be waiting to hassle Springsteen when he returns. I don't think he will take it. But Trump is aware that his popularity is sinking in the US and powerful voices are still speaking out. Trump wants to be loved and/or feared. He risks becoming the butt of a joke, ridiculed (not feared) for the last three years of his term, causing much of the GOP in Congress to pretend they don't know Trump. Think of the card dealer in "Tombstone" bitch-slapped by Wyatt Erp trying to bluff Erp into backing down. All threats and bluster.
IMO, using the DOJ to threaten people is an empty bluff. They can arrest but they have to charge and prosecute. (the law is clear and failure is cause for dismissal.) There's a speedy trial provision in federal law – DOJ can't charge and sit on a BS charge. If they got nothing, it will be dismissed by a judge summarily. If it's political, with no evidence to support the charge, I hope the defendant may ask for his defense costs to be paid by DOJ as a deterrent to frivolous prosecution. I don't know that it can work that way in criminal cases but it has been done to Trump in civil cases. It's never happened in modern times (that I'm aware of) that DOJ brought totally bogus charges to trial for political retribution. (Open to correction on that point.)
Barret is turning out to be a wild card on the USSC. Trump will be shot down on some things and other things will be allowed that should not. I suspect the USSC will cook their own goose if the backlash against Trumpism is as vitriolic as I hope, after a few years of recession and clear abuses of civil rights. MAYBE the Democrats in the Senate with a majority in 2029 will do away with the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court. It would be totally legal and we could roll back Citizens United. If the misery Trump spreads is deep, long, and wide we might get a political will strong enough.
And then if birthright citizenship were still in effect in some states but not others, would a stateless baby gain citizenship by moving into a “birthright” state?
This was the question in the Dred Scott case, that by moving to a "free" state, freedom should be granted since the laws of that state make slavery illegal. Roger B. Taney who was the chief justice on the court at the time, and a known pro-slavery racist, essentially used slaves as property, and then invoked property rights for slaveholders as to why becoming free by virtue of moving to a free state was unconstitutional.
Thinking about this, and the planned "conservative" assault on the Civil Rights Act, the place they want this society to end up is frightening. And these changes won't just adversely affect black folk. Unfortunately, the pace of this is akin to a frog in boiling water, and I'm afraid that by the time society collectively realizes how hot the water is, it may be too late
The House let fearless leader have a veto on a harsh immigration bill while he was running for president. SCOTUS kicked in a get out of jail free card that was reusable and at least partially permanent. Now SCOTUS -2 (yes, those two) wants some control back on the issues. So does the public, as the mile taken is exceeding the inch given by outrageous amounts. Haste is making huge waste with messy and chaotic only weakly descriptive of the current process. Ugly thuggery with rampant errors and a cadre straight from the Lord of the Flies with a social maturity to match doesn't help redeem the process either. They put the muddle in a Middle-Muddle School Mentality better than most. and drag forth a lawless immigration policy fit for a petty despot and a few South African's fleeing the fall of apartheid.
Meanwhile, our national credit rating got a downgrade, and we continue to reap the apparent perceived "benefit" of the moron premium. Fearless leader and company seem to think this Brexit consequence helped the British Empire, but having an even higher cost of borrowing money is not an admirable achievement. It does excite the Libertarian wing who do have lines they refuse to cross. One must rue the day that only they show a backbone in what was once called a grand old party. Well today is that day.
Mired in debt like Marie Antonette and the French just before the French Revolution. Tonight seems the PBS episode where they all eat cake and set the stage for the coming of Napolean and Waterloo. They have done well since, though, and can borrow money at a much lower rate than us now. Good for the French, they seem to learn from history and are not in pursuit of the errors of the Brits and the Moron Premium. I wish I could say the same for us.