Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

Post by datsci_est_2015 » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:21 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #258

atonse wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't agree that any of these cases are "most obvious" given that it's gone all the way through various appeals courts to the supreme court - and that's the mission of the Supreme Court, to interpret all the various situations for these cases and how they apply constitutionally.

The Trump administration found not one judge or panel of judges who agreed with their opinion ... until SCOTUS, where it found three. Including Clarence, whose "hilarious" dissent says that undocumented persons are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which might be of note to ICE.

Post by arjie » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:23 PM UTC

mothballed wrote: post #297

arjie wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many historical curiosities in this whole thing. Hawaii vs Puerto Rico, for instance, the latter having more people but not a state. I imagine we put up with the Samoan rules because we wanted the strategic base. My own citizenship rests on the fact that other territories have been included into birthright citizenship by statute.

Hawaii also bizarrely has 14th amendment violating land laws. There is a non-Indian-reservation, state owned land called the "Hawaiian Homelands" where only those of "the blood" of the right people can lease from. This violates the 14th amendment (SCOTUS has ruled Indians are exempted, but Hawaiians were determined in Rice v Cayetano to not be Indians) protections on equal protection under the law of different races…

Post by derdi » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:24 PM UTC

Telemakhos wrote: post #225

fmobus wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it doesn't matter. If the SCOTUS decides that some people, in certain circumstances, are not in jurisdiction of US law, then they have to apply that notion everywhere. They can't pick and choose "oh no they are in jurisdiction of law A but not in law B". Jurisdiction is a fundamental concept, there's no middle ground. As for whether people are really doing birth tourism: sure, there might be some cases, but wel…

The fourteenth amendment doesn't say "within the jurisdiction" but "subject to the jurisdiction": if you break a window as a tourist, you expect to be prosecuted because you committed a crime within that jurisdiction, but you do not expect to be conscripted into military service or to pay income tax, because you are not subject to the jurisdiction. Birth tourism is definitely an issue for conservatives worried about…

Post by ceejayoz » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:25 PM UTC

qingcharles wrote: post #336

ceejayoz wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So reversing the scenario - an illegal immigrant kills me - can't be prosecuted? Because they're not under US jurisdiction?

Unless you were snuffed out on federal land, I think state law would reign in this situation, and the states can have jurisdiction over you just by being on their territory. In fact, I seem to remember a time when you could be a citizen of a state, but not of the United States, to further complicate matters.

Post by enoint » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:26 PM UTC

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #332

azeemba wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But since we have the dissent opinions, it's not tricky at all to see why they are dissenting. Alito and Thomas straight up believe that the constitution does not provide birthright citizenship and the executive order is valid. Gorsuch mostly agrees but makes an exception if the parents plan to stay in the US. Kavanaugh agrees that birthright citizenship is not provided by the constitution, instead he argues its a fe…

Literal calvinball by the conservative justices. None of that is in the constitution.