this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
75 points (98.7% liked)

politics

30237 readers
2165 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Donald Trump has nevertheless spent years condemning what’s known as “birthright citizenship” and vowing to undo it despite the plain language of the Constitution. Indeed, on Inauguration Day 2025, the new Republican president kept one of his uglier campaign promises and issued an executive order designed to gut the constitutional principle and directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize U.S. citizenship for children who do not meet the administration’s new standards.

Not surprisingly, Trump’s radical gambit struggled in the courts, which relied on generations’ worth of legal precedent, but he was undeterred. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, he engaged in direct lobbying in ways Americans hadn’t seen before — sitting in attendance during oral arguments and even publicly demanding “loyalty” from the justices he appointed to the high court.

This plan fell short. Four Republican-appointed justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas — issued dissents in Trump v. Barbara, suggesting Trump could ignore the 14th Amendment by way of an executive order, but this radical view fell one vote shy of a majority.

Two hours later, the president responded by way of his social media platform. His online statement read in its entirety:

The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process. No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!

In other words, as far as Trump is concerned, his defeat at the high court was disappointing, but the setback was temporary. Seizing on the dissent, the Republican sees a new legislative path, in which Congress can simply change the meaning of a constitutional amendment with a bill signed by the president.

That might sound absurd, given how our system of government is supposed to work, but it’s apparently what Trump hopes to accomplish based on the guidance of four Republican-appointed justices.

To that end, there is a bill pending in the House to undo birthright citizenship, which currently has 87 Republican co-sponsors, and a companion measure in the Senate has eight GOP co-sponsors. With the president’s online statement in mind, it’s likely that both bills are poised to get a fresh look from the party’s members and leaders.

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 16 points 22 hours ago (2 children)
[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 18 points 21 hours ago (1 children)
[–] ShredderFeeder@shredderfood.net 6 points 21 hours ago

I have a bottle of champagne in the fridge for that very moment.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

He's merely the surface of a festering wound that rots deep to America's bones.

[–] Steve@startrek.website 9 points 20 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

They're working their way up to it.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 13 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

What a cuck. He installed a third of the justices and couldn't find better rubber stamp cronies than this?

[–] unspkbl_horror@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago

Exactly this!

'I Nominated 3 Supreme Court Justices and All I Got Was This Stupid Shirt'

[–] unspkbl_horror@lemmy.world 9 points 21 hours ago

I agree it never should have been this close but to push back on the doomsayers, here's antoher viewpoint...

Heritage Foundation and their ilk spent billions to put Trump in office over the years, they got to put THREE Supreme Court Justices on the bench and STILL can't get everything they want when they want it.

It turns out Democracy IS for sale but its waaaaaaaaaaaaay more expensive than these morons anticipated and these old fucks just are not going to see a complete rewriting of the Constitution in their lifetimes. Eventually, they'll be dead and next time, it won't even get to the Supreme Court.

[–] yakko@feddit.uk 10 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

He sure does seem firmly intent on creating a shortage of low-earning labour. Probably nothing to unpack there!

[–] wheezy@lemmy.ml 2 points 17 hours ago

Why have low cost labor when you can put them all in camps and have zero cost labor? Gotta fill the private prisons.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

What should happen if that law is passed is that it's found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But if it happens under Trump they will go ham and try to strip citizenship and deport as many people as possible before it's overturned.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago

But if it happens under Trump they will go ham and try to strip citizenship and deport as many people as possible before it’s overturned.

What happens is a "harmed" party goes to court and gets a Temporary Restraining Order (the courts hand those out like candy), then the parties will argue about whether that escalates to an injunction. Injunctions are when the appellate stuff will kick off from. But, the TRO is what lets the party/parties get their shoes on to fight it out in court.

And then it will be too late and Trump will be joking about how he can't just break them out of foreign prisons to bring them back.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Trump: "I'm going to deport whomever I feel like."

Court: "Let me see your reasoning."

Trump: "Fuck, idk, here. Read this. Now let me get back to mass deportations."

Court: "5 our of 9 of us think you need to stop deporting people."

Trump: "No. Here's another thing you can read explaining why I'm going to keep doing it."

Far-Left Extremist Tankie Radicals: "We're going to take to the streets and end this."

Liberals: "No no. Let me finish reading the new thing he wrote to see if we agree."

[–] dan1101@lemmy.world 5 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Court: “5 our of 9 of us think you need to stop deporting people.”

More precisely the supreme court ruled that, like the constitution says, you can't deport people born in the USA. This ruling does nothing for most of the detentions and deportations going on right now.

[–] ShredderFeeder@shredderfood.net 2 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Like someone said... You don't need giant warehouse detention facilities if the goal is to deport people...

[–] dan1101@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago

But trump's ass-kissers make money on the detention centers, so we will keep seeing both.

[–] wheezy@lemmy.ml 2 points 17 hours ago

Then why are they building - oh...

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

the supreme court ruled that, like the constitution says

Gorsuch authored the opinion, declaring that it was NOT the Constitution which prohibited this particular deportation. It was a reading of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which contradicted how the Trump Admin attempted to enforce the law. Monsalvo was not contesting his deportability in order to obtain a hearing on different grounds (because of the byzantine way in which the Trump and the courts were executing these laws), and the consequence of this ruling was such that he could contest it directly, overriding the procedural obstacle put in his way. And Gorsuch chose to read the "60 Day" challenge period to exclude non-business days.

If you get into Gorsuch's decision-making, much of it hinges on the strict textualist interpretation of legislative statute. Vanishingly little discussed the underlying constitutional grounds of removal.

Should the current or a future Congress advance legislation that changes these textual queues, it's very easy to see Gorsuch on the other side of a 5-4 decision in the future.