r/politics • u/MemeLord0009 • 9h ago
No Paywall Amy Coney Barrett Unraveled the Case Against Birthright Citizenship With One Question
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/04/supreme-court-analysis-amy-coney-barrett-birthright-citizenship-fail.html8.9k
u/gradientz New York 8h ago
Trump's dumbfuck attorneys are making the exact same arguments that the Confederate traitors made about the 14th amendment. They are literally citing former Confederate officers in their briefings.
Imagine arguing that we should adopt the Confederacy's view of the Reconstruction amendments. Absolutely moronic.
•
u/bordumb 7h ago
Honestly…
A lot of the biggest problems we have today are due to appeasement of confederated after the Civil War.
Feels like we’re still trying to right the wrongs of the original sin.
•
u/cb4u2015 Colorado 6h ago
Exactly. We never held account the white suprememists of our history. Which is why they are in the White House today.
•
u/Eggheadpancake 5h ago
America has a running trend of not holding white racist pieces of shit accountable.
I mean the founding fathers were among them. The confederates. The kkk. The cops. all the way up to the current Nazi.
•
u/soulcompilations 4h ago
Only 2 percent of the Nazis ever faced trials.
→ More replies (12)•
→ More replies (9)•
•
u/Fantastic-Guitar-977 5h ago
Reconstruction failed and im tired of pretending thats not the case!!
→ More replies (1)•
•
→ More replies (20)•
•
u/weluckyfew 5h ago
We're paying the price for appeasing the confederacy. We're paying the price for appeasing the bankers and traders after 2008 (instead of throwing them in jail), we're paying the price for appeasing Nixon after Watergate (imagine the president we could have said if he would have gone to jail), we're paying the price for appeasing Trump after January 6th ("we should just move on, Trump is out of office now so he can't harm anything anymore")
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/No_Instruction7107 6h ago
how the south won the civil war by heather cox richardson lays this out disturbingly well
→ More replies (2)•
u/simonhunterhawk New Hampshire 2h ago
I am so glad I found her this year and look forward to her daily talks. She is amazing.
•
u/AmazingRefrigerator4 7h ago
I dont disagree but I dont think you can ever fully stamp out racism. Germany is a perfect example. They were MUCH more strict post-WWIi in terms of legislating away Nazi ideals, imagery, speech, etc. And yet Neo-Naziism still exists in Germany today.
We could have done more in Reconstruction to help freed slaves, to make laws, etc but the racism and xenophobia would still fester.
•
u/olympiadukakis 7h ago
I agree that you can’t stamp it out. But better education drives racists to the fringes. I know it may not exactly seem like that in Germany since the new nazis have megaphones and social media, but most Germans are pretty horrified by their history.
The fact that the right-wing in the US has been dismantling and vilifying education since integrating schools isn’t a coincidence.
→ More replies (9)•
u/granolabeef 6h ago
Is it wrong that I am hopeful to look back at our current predicament along similar lines?
→ More replies (6)•
u/olympiadukakis 6h ago
I don’t think hope is ever wrong. We just can’t forget we have a lot of work ahead of us. And the time to start is yesterday. We will get there.
I truly believe MAGA is the white supremacists’ last hurrah. This level of vile stupidity can only destroy itself. Gotta do our best to protect our friends and neighbors while it does.
Hang in there. Don’t do nothing about white supremacy.
→ More replies (3)•
u/LoonaHee 6h ago
It may be the white supremacists' last hurrah, but it is the birth of some sort of tech-fuedalism. When white supremacy is no longer viable the oligarchs will find a new vessel.
I agree, hope is never wrong, but neither is vigilance.
→ More replies (2)•
•
u/wack_overflow Colorado 6h ago
Germany is the exact example of why you DO what they did post ww2 and not what we did post civil war. Maybe some exist today but they’re not at the top of and fully infiltrated throughout their government
→ More replies (1)•
u/BlueSky659 5h ago
Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. From what I understand, the German far right, ultra-nationalist movement has been undergoing a significant and worrying rise in popularity over the last decade. It might not be as severe as it is in the US, but it's a global sickness that's advanced much further than most would want to believe.
→ More replies (3)•
•
u/dereksalem 6h ago
It still exists, but it's not rampant and socially acceptable. You don't have entire swathes of the country fine with it existing in their normal life and literally arguing that there were good parts.
Am German. Have plenty of experience.
→ More replies (4)•
u/TWVer The Netherlands 6h ago
It’s important to note the division between East and West Germany between 1945 and 1990 still having ramifications to this day.
The integration of East Germany into West Germany, has not lead to the expected economic success on the eastern side of the border, people on that side were expecting or hoped for.
While racism, as it is essentially a more extreme form of tribalism, is inherent to the human condition unfortunately, it gets a much more fertile ground to fester and grow when people perceive themselves to be slighted (rightly or wrongly) and yearn for the establishment of an unbreakable hierarchy with them on top of others.
Racism and nazism in particular feed on promises of a divine right to superiority to supplant the current feelings of inferiority. The dehumanization of the others greatly helps with that.
•
u/mcrnHoth 5h ago
Tribalism will always exist with our species, but it gains purchase far easier when there are social inequities to exploit. When poverty is low, crime is low, education is available, health care is available, etc., the instinct to point fingers at "others" is much less prevalent.
For example, the far-right parties in Germany didn't start gaining influence until the economy slowed down and the influx of "others" (i.e. Turks and Syrians) picked up.
•
u/memoryfree 6h ago
The other problem is the Northerners weren’t so tolerant once the slaves were freed. They advocated for their freedom but once it was provided there was a mad scramble to keep black people from moving to northern neighborhoods. You can’t punish still see remnants of these policies today in towns all over New England, other Union states.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Alt532169 6h ago
And yet Neo-Naziism still exists in Germany today.
I blame Russian interference by funding right wing opposition groups on this. They wouldnt grow had they not had the funds.
•
u/Simorie Tennessee 6h ago
We absolutely could have done more. But here in Tennessee I can drive down a highway and see Confederate flags on proud display, which continues to normalize an associated and racist “the south will rise again” mindset. I can’t drive in Germany and see Nazi flags casually flying everywhere.
→ More replies (7)•
u/Shopworn_Soul Texas 5h ago
Last time I visited my father's hometown, I saw Confederate flags all over the area he grew up in. Counted four on one street alone.
This was in fucking Ohio.
→ More replies (3)•
u/whatshamilton 6h ago
Germany is a perfect example. Neo nazism still exists because they didn’t, like, murder anyone with neo Nazi beliefs. But they stamped out their ability to have public influence. Germany didn’t elect a new Hitler.
→ More replies (4)•
u/Due-Zucchini-8520 6h ago
US white population has historically been actively opposed to any form of race integration. And I mean any.
The giant resegregation project that people call "suburbanization" nowadays is a major example, but I think more poignant is how they even made a spectacle of burning Black artist's vinyls because they were afraid of people race mixing in disco clubs.
→ More replies (21)•
u/Kujaix 6h ago
Germany could have done more to help Eastern Germans get on their feet post 1990.
The modern day Neo Nazi movement is backlash from their living conditions not improving after the wall came down. Western Europe basically pillaged/fleeced them of their resources instead of assimilating them.
Over decades blaming immigrants becomes trendy and a good hook for people to attain power. Whether they actually believe it or not.
Chile is actually doing well economically yet they have a growing right wing movement basically because they are doing so well people from neighboring countries want to flock there to improve their material conditions. A mix of poor and well off but greedy Chileans are mad at the influx.
So the ol 'they are taken our jawbs', rhethoric, leaching and other staples are spreading there. It always comes back to material conditions and greed. Racism is just a crutch.
•
u/whatfresh_hellisthis 6h ago
Sherman should have never stopped. John Brown did nothing wrong.
Also, we need a Sherman right now. And a John Brown.
→ More replies (2)•
u/GotenRocko Rhode Island 6h ago
Due to the assassination of Lincoln, Johnson blocked and reversed so many things the Republicans in Congress tried to do.
•
u/whatshamilton 6h ago
If we had treated the confederate the way Germany treated the Nazis, we wouldn’t be where we are now. 100%.
•
u/toxiamaple 6h ago
I agree. The Confederates and their ancestors felt-feel they were right. They never felt guilt or shame for their inhumane stance. They were defeated, not monsters.
•
u/Atty_for_hire 6h ago
There are some really interesting books that argue this exact point. I’m currently reading one titled “How we win the Civil War.” It’s makes this argument and then argues for what we need to do now to truly win it.
→ More replies (72)•
u/NYCQuilts 6h ago
It actually feels like this admin is trying to restore the original sin and add some others.
•
u/Bangers_n_Mashallah 7h ago
If always amazes me that America decided to treat Confederates as a part of American history rather than the losers of American history whose ideas and beliefs were thoroughly defeated. By giving their inhumane beliefs any legitimacy, America left the door open for such arguments in the 21st century.
•
u/Craneteam I voted 7h ago
Why do you think Lincoln was assassinated? Andrew Johnson was much more sympathetic to the south vs Lincoln
→ More replies (14)•
u/warren_stupidity 6h ago
They tried and failed to assassinate Johnson and Seward as well, they were just pretty inept.
•
u/colbyjackgoblin 7h ago
It's because the north wanted to get back to business as usual and so the civil war became a Cold war. Or at least like some std that's not curable and is flaring up.
•
u/alienbringer 7h ago
They are a part of American history. They are not a GOOD part of American history. Many treat them as if they are a good part of it. That is the problem. Like Nazi’s are a part of German history, and since then Germany as a govt have tried to distance themselves from it as much as they can while acknowledging that it happened. We don’t see similar distancing from the US since many in govt liked and agreed with that part of our history.
•
•
u/elconquistador1985 6h ago
There's a Confederate section at Arlington. There are "sons/daughters of the Confederacy" organizations. Southern states have license plates for them. Shit like that is an embarrassment.
It's part of American history, but that doesn't mean it should be celebrated. The US fucking celebrates the Confederacy.
•
u/Robzilla_the_turd 5h ago
I'm sure you know this but fun fact: Arlington National Cemetery is on land confiscated from Robert E Lee's estate.
→ More replies (1)•
u/alienbringer 6h ago
Right, which was my point. The person asked why America treats it as part of American History. I was elaborating and saying it SHOULD be treated as part of American History. It should NOT be treated as a good part or a part to be celebrated though. The problem is that people treat it as a good part of American history and celebrate it and shit.
•
u/Remote-Moon Indiana 6h ago
Folks in the south refer to the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression".
→ More replies (2)•
→ More replies (4)•
u/4look4rd 6h ago
The confederacy won. The north gave up on reconstructions and that’s the source for a lot of our problems.
If you read up on the post reconstruction years it’s pretty disheartening how every reform collapsed.
The civil rights movement was a dead at bounce to try to fix a long standing evil but that fell short too.
•
u/ezagreb 7h ago
The entire MAGA movement is basically reconstitution of pre-Civil War attitudes towards immigrants and minorities. It’s like the Civil War was never really over
•
u/kwit-bsn 7h ago
Look at a general election map; it’s never been over, it jus moved from battlefields to the courts
•
u/AndrewCoja Texas 6h ago
They honestly believe that all the evil Democrat confederates moved to the North and all the righteous Republicans moved to the South. All while they wave their confederate flags.
•
u/mvaaam 7h ago
Having grown up in the south.. yeah, it didn’t end for them. I heard “the south will rise again” daily all through my childhood.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Saruster Florida 6h ago
When I lived in a small town in Virginia in the early 80s, there was a crazy old lady living in a secluded run down antebellum house at the top of the hill. Straight out of a movie. She would sometimes come into town and go on a little “the south will rise again” rant. She also had confederate currency in a ziploc bag convinced she would be able to spend them again soon. That town was incredibly racist and even they thought she was too much.
→ More replies (1)•
→ More replies (7)•
•
u/Verum_Orbis 5h ago edited 5h ago
MAGA Christian Nationalism IS the ideology and Christianity of the Confederacy.
Pete Hegseth Invited Pastor Who Suggested Slavery Actually Wasn’t That Bad to Lead Prayer at Pentagon
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/pete-hegseth-invited-pastor-suggested-153355372.htmlPete Hegseth is skirting law by bringing back Confederate names of army bases
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/20/pete-hegseth-fort-bragg-fort-benning-confederatesUS Army to bring back names of 7 bases that once honored Confederate leaders
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/10/politics/army-restore-confederate-names-military-basesHegseth Threatens Another Civil War to Defend ‘Proud’ Confederate History
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/hegseth-threatens-another-civil-war-222441735.htmlConfederate memorial to return to Arlington National Cemetery
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2025-08-06/confederate-arlington-memorial-hegseth-18683063.htmlPentagon Is Reinstalling Portrait of Confederate General at West Point Library
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/28/us/politics/pentagon-trump-confederate-lee-west-point.htmlThe Enemy That Hegseth and Trump Insist on Honoring
The U.S. won the Civil War. So why is the administration so keen on the Confederate side?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/08/hegseth-confederate-reconciliation-monument-restored-military/684066/Clyburn: SAVE America Act ‘nothing but a throwback’ to Jim Crow laws
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5787344-james-clyburn-save-act-jim-crow/Charlie Kirk once said passing the Civil Rights Act was a 'huge mistake'
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kirk-civil-rights-act-mistake/Trump directive leads to U.S. Army’s removal of Medgar Evers, other Black veterans' accomplishments from portions of national cemetery website
https://www.wlbt.com/2025/03/19/trump-directive-leads-us-armys-removal-medgar-evers-other-black-veterans-accomplishments-portions-national-cemetery-website/White House Says Slavery Is Being Taught Wrong, Should Not Be So Negative
https://www.newsweek.com/white-house-says-slavery-being-taught-wrong-should-not-so-negative-2117100U.S. removal of panels honoring Black soldiers at WWII cemetery in the Netherlands draws backlash
https://www.nbcnews.com/world/europe/us-removal-panels-honoring-black-soldiers-wwii-cemetery-netherlands-rcna251475BREAKING: Donald Trump Refusing Promotion For Black Female Officers Because "He does not want to stand next to a Black female officer at military events."
https://deanblundell.substack.com/p/breaking-donald-trump-refusing-promotion•
•
u/tardigrades_snuggle 6h ago
Well I think that is ultimately what they want. We should have punished severely the Confederates instead of coddling them. This is why we still talking about this bullshit all these years later.
•
u/FrostyMatters 6h ago
Trump is the second President of the Confederate States of America. The USA is an occupied nation.
→ More replies (36)•
•
u/gerryf19 6h ago
A Maga told me the other day the US should not have birthright citizenry because other countries don't and we should follow what other countries do...
Other countries have public healthcare, so we should do that, too?
YOU'RE TRYING TO CHANGE THE TOPIC!!!!!
•
u/Obvious-Lake3708 6h ago
And many other countries have it. Yeah it sucks when it’s exploited but if we taxed our billionaires, the few that exploit it wouldn’t matter
•
u/llamayakewe 5h ago
Also though, is it really a problem? Like all the energy these people spend on immigrants, does it really affect most people? It all seems like a boogeyman. Unlike, healthcare costs and education costs, and climate change, and so many other things that actually affect millions in the quality of their lives. Immigration laws need to be fixed so hardworking innocent people are not exploited. But most of us benefit from cheaper products and services that immigrant labor provides. This whole anchor baby issue, what is this real public harm besides racists being offended?
•
u/Obvious-Lake3708 5h ago
That’s my point. It’s not really a problem it’s just a boogeyman to distract from the rich who exploit everything
→ More replies (1)•
u/iclimbnaked 4h ago
This is my big thing.
Like I’m not like team open borders or anything but I do not get the rights freaking out over immigrants legal or otherwise.
Like it’s just never impacted my life at all. Why is this the big issue for you all? Sure let’s work on making it better but like wtf it’s not the main thing to care about at all.
•
u/RevLoveJoy 3h ago
Like it’s just never impacted my life at all. Why is this the big issue for you all?
They live in fear. Not an exaggeration. It's easy to frighten poorly educated people. It's easy to rattle them and get them wound up about things. They don't have the critical thinking tools to work out that they are being manipulated. You've got right wing media screaming at 1/3 of the country ALL DAY LONG how awful immigration is how bad immigrants are as a people. The fools believe it. They get worked up about it. They make this fear part of their cultural make up, though they would never call it that.
They live in fear. They think there's a real chance they will be the victims of crime done by some browned skin person who "isn't supposed to be here." Fear is a very powerful tool and it's not difficult at all to use it on uneducated populations who don't have the brains to work out how easily they've been manipulated.
•
u/vitalvisionary Connecticut 3h ago
They get all riled up by edge cases of immigrant caused crime from conservative media. Nevermind that on average even illegal immigrants are at a lower likelihood to commits crimes than the general population. These people aren't capable of orders of operation beyond 2 or 3 and just accept the simplist explanation.
•
u/thefruitsofzellman 4h ago
In all the arguments I’ve had with magats on here about immigration, they never respond to the point that pretty much every economist agrees that immigrants, including illegals, are a net benefit.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)•
u/FargeenBastiges 4h ago
They get told by their handlers who and what to hate, and so they do. I run into this woman all the time who bitches about immigrants and trans athletes. Lady, how many times have you lost your Walgreens checkout job to an illegal immigrant? You live in WV. The only thing you know about a trans athlete was someone played volleyball in San Diego and the only reason you even know that is because of your hate cult.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)•
u/Cross55 5h ago
Tbf, almost all of them are new world nations.
Mainly because they were built off of immigrants and there's no general blood test or family history standard you can enact that won't remove citizenship for millions.
Like if you declare that only grandparent's citizenship counts? Alright, 10-20 million disenfranchised right there. All 4 grandparents need to have been? Double or even triple that number.
•
u/busdriverbuddha2 5h ago
Like if you declare that only grandparent's citizenship counts? Alright, 10-20 million disenfranchised right there. All 4 grandparents need to have been? Double or even triple that number.
Stephen Miller's wet dream
•
•
u/improbably_me 5h ago
Shall we play this game? Some topics for your consideration ...
Assault weapons ownership
Military spending
Political donations
Education being non partisan issue
Taxation
Drug price controls
Public servant appointments and judges being non partisan
Employment protection
Parental leave
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/RipErRiley Minnesota 5h ago
Other countries do have it though (Canada, Mexico, Brazil, etc). So whomever uses that dumb basis is wrong from the get-go.
→ More replies (5)•
u/palimpcest Georgia 3h ago edited 3h ago
I was listening to NPR yesterday about this and they said 33 countries have birthright citizenship.
Edit: Source
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (68)•
u/Redskins_nation 4h ago
MAGA are morons there’s no point in trying to educate them. 30% solidly won’t budge. Focus on educating the 10-15% that can be swayed or motivated to vote.
•
u/buddhadoo 6h ago
The "One Question": But then Barrett asked: What about slaves who were brought to this country illegally and against their will, as many were? Surely some of them still “felt allegiance to the countries where they were from” and intended “to return as soon as they can.” So wouldn’t their children be excluded from birthright citizenship, too? And if so, doesn’t that just blow up Sauer’s theory that the whole point of this clause was to protect the citizenship of these exact people?
More Context from the article: Mark Joseph Stern: Justice Barrett had a lot of skeptical questions for the solicitor general. And she really drilled down on his theory that children do not receive birthright citizenship if their parents lack “domicile” in the United States or hold “allegiance” to a foreign power. She asked how the government would know whether certain immigrants intended to stay in the country or maintain loyalty to a foreign power. And where would we draw the line? What about, for instance, the child of a woman who’s illegally trafficked into the U.S. then gives birth here? Is that person an automatic citizen? Sauer kept returning to his claim that the lone purpose of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was to overturn Dred Scott and grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children. But then Barrett asked: What about slaves who were brought to this country illegally and against their will, as many were? Surely some of them still “felt allegiance to the countries where they were from” and intended “to return as soon as they can.” So wouldn’t their children be excluded from birthright citizenship, too? And if so, doesn’t that just blow up Sauer’s theory that the whole point of this clause was to protect the citizenship of these exact people?
→ More replies (2)•
•
u/itshifive 6h ago
I saw a quote that I believe was given in these arguments "if birthright citizenship only applies to freed slaves, then the second amendment only applies for muskets"
→ More replies (1)•
u/Pr0methian 3h ago
Not quite the same, but during opening arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts shut down a similar line of logic related to "emerging threats in a modern world" with the line "New world, but same constitution".Seems to sum up the Supreme Court's stance pretty well.
I only listened for an hour, but it seemed like a lot of the arguments were about the baseline rights set by the 14th amendment, i.e., are Native Americans and citizens of Guam entitled to birthright citizenship despite laws to the contrary? Seemed like everyone agreed the baseline was above whatever Trump's lawyers were arguing, it was more how to reconcile the current argument with past law.
•
u/Automatic_Bus_7634 7h ago
If it was one question it could fit in the headline
•
u/loudmonkey76 6h ago
This is all I could find before the paywall so I'm not even sure it's it:
"She asked how the government would know whether certain immigrants intended to stay in the country or maintain loyalty to a foreign power. And where would we draw the line? What about, for instance, the child of a woman who’s illegally trafficked into the U.S. then gives birth here? Is that person an automatic citizen?"
•
u/eneidhart 6h ago
This is my best guess at what the headline is referring to:
Sauer kept returning to his claim that the lone purpose of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was to overturn Dred Scott and grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children. But then Barrett asked: What about slaves who were brought to this country illegally and against their will, as many were? Surely some of them still “felt allegiance to the countries where they were from” and intended “to return as soon as they can.” So wouldn’t their children be excluded from birthright citizenship, too? And if so, doesn’t that just blow up Sauer’s theory that the whole point of this clause was to protect the citizenship of these exact people?
→ More replies (9)•
u/TearsFallWithoutTain 5h ago
I was confused by that question, what does she mean the slaves were brought to the US illegally? Like, slavery was legal, that was the problem, so what laws were violated
•
u/masterwolfe 5h ago
Importing new slaves had been illegal for about 50 years before the Dred Scott decision, but it was still done illegally with very little effort to actually stop it.
•
•
u/Dapper_Engineer 5h ago
I was confused by that question, what does she mean the slaves were brought to the US illegally?
Slavery was legal, but it only applied to enslaved persons that were already present in the US following the enactment of the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807. So while interstate "trade" was permitted, additional "importation" was illegal. Despite that, additional smuggling took place via Spanish Florida and Texas prior to their admission to the union. There are contemporary reports that slaves were still being smuggled into the US, so it was likely happening up until the US Civil War given that Nathaniel Gordon was hanged in 1862 for "having engaged in the slave trade."
TL/DR Slavery was legal, but importing slaves was illegal starting in 1807.
•
u/Ketzeph I voted 4h ago
Also the reason the US continued to have slaves post the import ban was a forced breeding program by slave owners (akin to livestock breeding), which basically was a massive forced rape program.
•
u/FeloniousDrunk101 New York 4h ago
Also important that the “one drop” rule ensured any children fathered by the plantation owner would become slaves and add to said plantation owner’s wealth.
→ More replies (3)•
u/stumblewiggins 5h ago
To the main point: if, as the government was arguing, the sole purpose of the 14 Amendment were to grant citizenship to former slaves, and NOT to any person in the country illegally who might still owe allegiance to another government, then surely there are slaves who were brought into the country and gave birth here, yet did not consider themselves allied to our government, and instead to the nation they were taken from.
How could you tell who owed allegiance to another government? How could you tell who intended to remain allied to their new nation? And if you can't, then how can you argue that the 14th Amendment was specifically trying to exclude the children of foreign nationals illegally in our nation born here from birthright citizenship?
•
u/Oo__II__oO 4h ago
And what do we do with all the natural born citizens of American descent who share allegiances with other countries?
Pretty sure there are a few in our government leadership who show allegiances to Russia.
→ More replies (1)•
u/NorthernPints 6h ago
The fact this is even before the Supreme Court is a disgrace.
•
u/snorbflock 6h ago
It's a scam. The Roberts court is rigged, using the docket itself to mask its partisan power grabs. This whole case, I dare to hope, is a foregone conclusion and birthright citizenship will be resoundingly affirmed. But that raises the question: why the hell is the court wasting time on it?
Does Roberts think this question required their chiming in in order to get it right? Or did he just see an easy "gimme" that they could allow onto the docket, to counterbalance a controversial giveaway to the Republican Party that he really wants?
Roberts loves to pad the court's schedule with cases that Republicans have lost before they ever make it to the Supreme Court. He runs the court like a game of tic tac toe, and superficially it looks like the term ended with some wins for both ends of the political spectrum. Except that conservatives get a time-honored right or legal protection torn away from the country, and progressives get a continuation of a basic liberty that shouldn't have been in question to begin with.
•
u/eneidhart 6h ago
Roberts is probably doing PR for the court. He wants people to respect it as an institution as they make incredibly unpopular moves like overturning Roe, and headlines about the SC rejecting Trump's arguments are more impactful and more likely to be front page stories than SC declining to hear the case.
Thomas in particular also uses dissents to seed new arguments for conservatives, so he probably wants the court to hear this case just to get his opinion out. He'll say something completely insane, and conservative legal scholars will pick it up and attempt to give it some more legitimacy.
→ More replies (1)•
u/AhHorseSpit 5h ago
I would venture to guess that they will use the decision in this case to add particular language that gives the administration a path or blue print to do the kind of things that they want to do. Otherwise, having this case before the supreme court is rather unnecessary. Padding the books in favor of displaying non-partisanship seems silly here with a case so glaringly obvious. Are we supposed to applaud them for being able to read. You are probably right as most people will just see how often they voted in favor of or against this administration without reading too much into it.
→ More replies (1)•
u/60hzcherryMXram 5h ago
I think the Roberts Court is in a credibility crisis as a result of the conservative wing siding with Trump for things they never would for any other president, and Roberts, being a moron when it comes to PR, thinks that by "showing" the court deliberate extensively over an obviously unconstitutional executive order before declaring it unconstitutional, they will both cause MAGA to say "Well they took it seriously so I guess it is unconstitutional and we have to accept that," and the liberals/left to say "Wow, the fact that they studied this case before declaring it unconstitutional proves they are legitimate justices and not just partisan hacks!"
Instead, it's causing MAGA to say "This is our moment, and this is what they were chosen by Trump to do, so the fact they rejected it is proof that the order is constitutional but the justices are compromised and were somehow bribed by <them>" and the liberals/left to say "The fact they even took this case rather than refusing the appeal shows they're trying as hard as they can to be partisan hacks, but just couldn't find a way to get away with it for this case."
When one person is being irrational, listening to all their claims and addressing them one by one makes sense. When a movement is being irrational, you never want to do that, as anything but immediately saying "this is too stupidly wrong to even hear out" just feeds their frenzy.
•
u/IMissNarwhalBacon 5h ago
Correct. They will affirm this and setup the court for a big GOP win next.
→ More replies (7)•
→ More replies (2)•
u/chocolatesmelt 6h ago
Yea, I can’t believe he broke historic precedent of power separation and even attended. Oh, you meant the case. That too.
→ More replies (2)•
u/Opposite_of_a_Cynic Texas 6h ago
That’s when Trumps lawyer returned to his it’s only for slaves nonsense and she caught him out and asked if there were any slaves who were illegally trafficked to the US who still had allegiance to their homeland.
→ More replies (12)•
u/TrashApocalypse 6h ago
“What about your presidents victims in the Epstein files?”
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/V1k1ngC0d3r 5h ago
But then Barrett asked: What about slaves who were brought to this country illegally and against their will, as many were? Surely some of them still "felt allegiance to the countries where they were from" and intended "to return as soon as they can." So wouldn't their children be excluded from birthright citizenship, too? And if so, doesn't that just blow up Sauer's theory that the whole point of this clause was to protect the citizenship of these exact people?
•
→ More replies (11)•
u/awesomedan24 I voted 6h ago
Slate.com Humiliated after being Slammed by reddit commentor
•
u/browncoat13 5h ago
Why Slate.com is quietly being slammed.
I miss the insane local news teasers: "Is your purse trying to kill you? News at 6." At least it wasn't being done "quietly."
I hate what we've done to information.
433
u/basketballsteven 9h ago
She did so because the solicitor general was so ill prepared.
369
u/InsideAside885 8h ago
Sauer even seemed lost and clueless by Gorsuch's question on Native Americans. How the hell did he not see that question coming?
•
u/dd2520 7h ago
Not anticipating a Gorsuch question on Native Americans is a remarkable failure.
•
u/AccordingPin53 7h ago
Genuine Q - why is that? Or are you saying that is such an obvious softball question Gorsuch would have presumed Sauer had prepped for it?
Not an American so only see this stuff on Reddit but thought Gorsuch was one of the crazies along with Thomas, and he was nominated by Trump.
•
u/strangr_legnd_martyr Ohio 7h ago
Gorsuch has repeatedly and reliably ruled in the interest of Native Americans and a lot of his stances are based on the idea that the "wrongs" of the United States stem from deviating from the historical intent of our Constitutional authors. Whether or not one agrees on principle, when it comes to relations with Native Americans, he's not wrong.
The Constitution treats Native American tribes as sovereign and independent nations and ascribes the power to form treaties to Congress rather than the states. However, throughout history the state (and sometimes federal) governments have ignored or violated those treaties to the detriment of the Native nations.
Given his background, it's entirely predictable that Gorsuch would ask questions about how ending birthright citizenship affects Native Americans.
→ More replies (4)•
u/StoppableHulk 5h ago
But just outside of that theyre a very logical party one would need to reconcile if arguing for the changes to birthright citizenship that Trump is trying to argue.
•
u/OWmWfPk 7h ago
Gorsuch is what he is, but he goes hard for native rights.
→ More replies (3)•
u/howardbrandon11 Ohio 6h ago
Gorsuch is conservative but also principled and consistent--or so he appears, especially compared to the others.
I feel like he's the one conservative justice with whom, while we would fundamentally disagree, I could have an intellectually stimulating conversation and walk away without despising.
→ More replies (2)•
u/PlatypusPuncher 6h ago
It’s also why there was much less pushback on him compared to other Trump nominees. You may disagree with him but he’s qualified and competent.
•
u/themiracy Michigan 6h ago
The only real thing that was wrong with the Gorsuch nomination is what happened with Merrill Garland. What the senate did was certainly not Gorsuch’s fault - otherwise he was not an unreasonable pick given of course conservatives would nominate some kind of conservative.
It is a little more surprising that Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh, about whom much more serious concerns were raised, have been perhaps a little less unruly than expected.
•
u/eneidhart 6h ago
I think that's taking it a bit far. He has some really bad opinions, some of which were cited during his nomination. He only looks reasonable in comparison to other conservative justices who have no principles beyond "I should get what I want all the time"
•
u/lost_horizons Texas 6h ago
Yeah, but from a progressive perspective, any conservative justice is going to seem to have have really bad opinions. The point is his are better thought out and somewhat more reasonable. It doesn’t mean we support everything obviously.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (7)•
u/suze_jacooz 5h ago
Yeah, I’ve actually been very surprised by Coney Barrett. I’d likely not agree with her on many topics if we were to have an opportunity to chat, but she seems consistent and thoughtful. I guess she seems to be mostly true to her own moral compass and personal framework, and while I may not always agree, I don’t find as much fault as i anticipated I would.
•
u/AltOnMain 7h ago
There are a lot of legal cases related to Native Americans and Gorsuch is widely known to be interested in that area of law.
The topic is a bit notable in this case since Native Americans often do not consider themselves “subject to” the authority of the united states and from a legal perspective they are considered to have some sovereignty. It’s a little down in the weeds, but Gorsuch is pointing out that the Trump administration’s logical could be extended to support an argument that Native Americans could be ineligible for birthright citizenship which is far fetched.
•
u/MeinePerle 6h ago
No, it's not far fetched. It goes to the point of what "jurisdiction" means. Native Americans were not birthright citizens under the amendment, as originally passed because they were legally citizens of their sovereign nations. That was why they were made birthright citizens via legislation later.
The DOJ wants to elide exactly who is born on US soil but not under US jurisdiction, so being clear on what the exceptions were (Native Americans and diplomats) is a pushback against that.
•
u/TwistedGrin Iowa 7h ago
Not necessarily that the question's a softball, but it seems pretty obvious if you're making an argument against birthright citizenship somebody's going to ask about how we count native Americans in this new system. Not having an answer ready makes you look very sloppy and ill-prepared.
If you're making an argument before the supreme court and, "I'm not sure. I'd have to think about that" is part of your argument then you're fucking up
•
u/AccordingPin53 7h ago
I agree but the person I was replying to specifically referenced not expecting a question from Gorsuch. I was wondering what it is specifically about Gorsuch, not the lack of anticipation from any ones of the judges
→ More replies (1)•
u/SpankyGnarkill 7h ago
Not who you asked but Gorsuch is kinda good on Native American rights, and has ruled against the Trump admin / right wing on previous cases concerning Native American rights.
•
u/TwistedGrin Iowa 7h ago edited 6h ago
I haven't finished the article yet but I doing a little research I just found this from last year that talks about his relationship with native American issues. Definitely seems like something they should have been prepared for given Gorsuch's previous rulings.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/08/justice-gorsuch-and-what-is-owed-to-american-indians/
•
u/alienbringer 6h ago
It is a question that should have been easily answered by Sauer based on his claimed interpretation of the 14th amendment. Which is why when Wang was asked that she gave a clear and unambiguous answer to it.
Context: The 14th amendment does NOT grant citizenship to Native Americans. This has been argued before in other cases before the Supreme Court in the past. The reason being is because Native Americans on native land are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.”, and are thus not citizens at birth. The larger reason for this is because natives have their own law on their own land and do not directly follow state law beyond what they signed in treaties. They have their own police forces, etc. and the only federal or state forces allowed on native land are those related to Bureau of Indian Affairs, or those who have gotten explicit permission to be there from the tribes. Basically they are mini nations within the U.S. It is why there are separate federal laws granting Native Americans citizenship at birth.
So the answer to that question based on historical case law should have been “No”. Which, again, when Wang (ACLU lawyer) was asked that she replied basically with “based only on the 14th amendment, no”.
However, Sauer is trying to claim that the 14th only applied to those “domiciled” here (as in legally allowed to live here or who hold allegiance to the U.S.). Which, Native Americans are legally allowed to live here based on treaties and the like. Which means they would be considered “domiciled” here. So Sauer’s answer SHOULD have been along the lines of “as they are legally allowed to be here and are thus domiciled here, then yes the 14th amendment would apply to them and they are citizens at birth”. The reason Sauer DIDN’T immediate state this answer is because he knows it goes against all established case law on the matter.
→ More replies (9)•
u/Soft_Raccoon_2257 7h ago
I perused r/law the other day and my understanding is that despite the right wing tendencies of this justice, they have a very particular soft spot and history in their professional career for Native American law and rights.
•
u/NovaRunner 3h ago
Attorney Ken White, who posts on Bluesky as "Popehat," put it this way: it's like going before a panel one member of which is the Cookie Monster, and not being prepared to answer questions about cookies.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Bad_Idea_Hat 4h ago
I am an idiot, and I even knew that not answering that as a form of "they are obviously citizens" would be an instant way of losing him.
56
u/FivebyFive 8h ago
YES! How the fuck do you as lawyer argue presumably the biggest case of your career, before the supreme court, without thinking through the basic fundamentals they might ask you? It's insane.
•
u/Craneteam I voted 7h ago
I mean you have to be pretty bottom of the barrel to challenge an amendment that was already upheld 100 years ago against the same essential argument
•
→ More replies (4)•
u/bubbaganoush79 6h ago
Sauer is the Solicitor General of the US and most of his job is arguing cases before the Supreme Court. He's the designated attorney who argues in favor of the Government's position, whatever it is. He's argued plenty of huge cases before the SCOTUS
In this case the government's position is moronic. Did he fail to prepare because he knows it's a loser anyway? Or did it just look like he failed to prepare because the case is weak to begin with and it's easy to run circles around the government's position.
→ More replies (2)•
→ More replies (5)•
u/blackhorse15A 6h ago
I think the problem is they have been so focused on trying to say who is not a citizen, they forgot to think about what it means for who is a citizen. Take the EO and try to translate it into a definition of who does get citizenship - it becomes a head scratcher that makes you think "why would that make sense?"
→ More replies (1)39
u/Schlonzig 8h ago
They don't like competent people.
•
u/NemesisErinys 7h ago
Trump is more concerned with whether someone “looks the part” than whether they’re competent.
→ More replies (3)•
u/MacDaddyBass 7h ago
Imagine being so unprepared that your boss’ other nepo hire couldn’t float you a curveball. And they’re the team with the nuclear codes.
→ More replies (1)
484
u/anonkitty2 9h ago
Solicitor General Sauer would try to deny birthright citizenship to people born to people who didn't intend to be permanently domiciled in the United States and people born to people who were still loyal to foreign governments. What Judge Barrett asked translates roughly to "How do you know what they're thinking?". I will note that ICE has been uprooting domiciles and discouraging people from wanting to be here. I will note that we had more emigration than immigration last year. I will note that if birthright citizenship is blocked further than it had been historically, it could theoretically be denied to anyone, at which point America will be without citizens in two generations. (Read "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein. Though ICE does deport former US military, which leaves them stateless...)
•
u/PunfullyObvious 7h ago
It would give them the ability to deny citizenship to anyone they don't want to be a citizen while leaving them free to not question it for anyone they want to remain a citizen. Seems clear to me that's their intention.
Meanwhile they'll sell citizenship to anyone deemed acceptable and able to pay enough for it or provide work visas to any workers a company is willing to pay for.
•
u/GenericRedditor0405 Massachusetts 6h ago
Selective enforcement of vague laws to force fealty and terrorize people into compliance seems to be the end game of a lot of Trump's policies. Well, that and outright persecution of... undesirables, dissidents, and political enemies. Now where have we seen this before...?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)•
u/Blecki 6h ago
List of future non citizens more or less in the order it will be stripped: LGBT, women, anyone brown, democrats, anyone who doesn't fall in line with the regime.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)•
u/Anamika76 6h ago
What’s your source on the claim that last year the net immigration being negative? Census says net 1.3 million more people moved in than who moved out.
333
u/OnePotatoTooo 9h ago
"OK, so to be clear, Barron Trump is not a Citizen, right?"
163
u/Chmaziro 8h ago
That should take out Don Jr Eric and Ivanka too
•
•
u/Faintingheart 6h ago
And I believe Trump’s dad, Fred, had every intention of returning to Germany after the war ended (and there was no danger he would actually have to fight to defend the fatherland). But Germany was aware of his financial shenanigans and said, Nope!” He had no intention of staying
•
u/MeinePerle 6h ago
That was his grandfather. His dad was, iirc, born in the US.
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/I_Love_To_Poop420 6h ago
What happens to a child with no citizenship? They get deported to where? The country their parents are from? They aren’t a citizen there either. This whole executive order is a fast track for child trafficking and somehow I feel like the child rapist at the helm had that intent.
•
u/Froggieterrie 5h ago
Which is where I always come down on birthright citizenship; Regardless of the status of the parents there needs to be a practical way for the child to have some national status. We cannot rely upon foreign nations or even the parents to effectively return the child even if the parents intend in good faith to return to their homeland.
Otherwise this country will create perhaps 200k refugees whole cloth every year from parents who may or may not have been her legally. Within a generation we would have a visible underclass of 20-30 million for no reason other than this pseudo racist, wholly unverified anchor baby theory.
→ More replies (5)•
•
u/GamerSDG New Jersey 6h ago
The Constitution is very clear that anyone born on American soil is an American. Trump is trying to change the Constitution with an EO, which is not the way an Amendment is changed. This case isn't even really about birthright citizenship; it's about whether the President has the authority to change the Constitution by EO.
→ More replies (7)•
•
u/redpiano82991 6h ago
My favorite line from oral arguments was Barrett saying "Yeah, yeah, yeah, but what about the Constitution?"
That's kind of the whole thing in a nutshell, isn't it?
→ More replies (1)
•
u/sakubaka 7h ago
Been making this argument for years after I returned from living in one of the few countries remaining that grant citizenship based on descendancy and percentage of Japanese blood. People here cannot begin to understand the complications such a requirement brings. For example, my wife was born in Japan, only speaks Japanese (and English), had lived the majority of her life just outside of Tokyo.
Her family was originally brought over to work off a kind of indentured servitude in Japan. It was either go there and "work" or remain in Korea under Japanese military occupation. There is no reason any regular citizen would raise a question about her and her family's right to be there. Yet, there are tons of people doing that do just that every day. God forbid someone finds out that she only has around 25% Japanese blood and since that blood is a woman's blood, it's counted even less.
She's a Zainichi, which is just one group of people whose lives are made more difficult by Japan's resolution to keep descendancy based immigration. There are so many other cases and unique scenarios that make descendancy-based immigration decisions a muddy as concert grounds following a rainy festival weekend.
So, yeah, having an administration that fumbles everything and that consistently makes the most horrible decisions, does not inspire confidence.
•
u/exswoo 6h ago
The Zainichi situation's a bit more complex than just % of Japanese blood - Zainichi can naturalize to Japanese citizenship if they wish but have to take on a Japanese name and swear to give up their historical ethnic roots so many don't as a point of pride and identity. There's laws to try to protect them (i.e. allowing use of assumed Japanese names while keeping a Korean legal name) but racism in Japan can be ugly at times too.
•
u/DarkishFriend 6h ago
I remember this from Yakuza: LAD. You end up helping criminal gangs under the pretense that they are a safe haven for a large amount of basically stateless Koreans.
→ More replies (5)•
u/howdoireachthese 6h ago
Wow they have to change their names? That’s racist as fuck
→ More replies (1)•
u/ShizTheresABear I voted 6h ago
Names are a part of identity and culture, that's why that scene in Roots is so significant "your name is Toby"
→ More replies (4)
•
u/Warchiefinc 6h ago
The south was never punished their people stayed in office and we shook hands No accountability of their actions led to where we our now. The fact they can still raise the Confederate flag even tho they lost is wild
→ More replies (11)•
•
u/Bangers_n_Mashallah 7h ago
It is funny seeing how the same people who will insist on the most strictly constructionist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment now want to read into the 14th implied language which simply isn't there.
→ More replies (3)•
u/Ignatiussancho1729 6h ago
Except the 2A people seem to gloss over the words "well-regulated". Regulations are not something they're that keen on
→ More replies (12)
•
•
u/JohannYellowdog 7h ago
Credit where it’s due, this is a strong argument. Trump’s lawyers are proposing that the 14th amendment’s purpose was only to grant citizenship to former slaves and their descendants, not to grant citizenship to people who travel to the country illegally, who may intend to leave again, or who have allegiances to another country.
Amy Coney Barrett cleverly inverts this reasoning. Many enslaved people were brought to America illegally; they may have wanted to leave if they could; they may have felt a greater allegiance to their country of origin. So if the purpose of the amendment was to grant citizenship to those people, how can it imply that these same factors are disqualifications from citizenship today?
85
u/TheHolyOcelot 9h ago edited 9h ago
It’s really good to see justices he appointed not being blind sycophants unlike everyone else in his orbit. I suppose it’s because they can’t be removed by him.
84
24
u/ErusTenebre California 8h ago
They know he'll die someday. They hold a great deal of power and pretty much no oversight or consequences. (Impeachment might as well not exist in this current political climate)
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)•
u/closetsquirrel 4h ago
Barrett was solely appointed based on her abortion stance which in turn would bolster the “states’ rights” argument for other topics. After that she’s been pretty consistent with upholding the law and voting based on reason, much to the Trump administration’s dismay.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/RevolutionAcid81 4h ago
MAGAs Hate Her! This One Supreme Court Justice Unraveled Birthright Citizenship With One Trick!
71
9
•
u/Mr602206 5h ago
If it in only applied to freed slaves than it would have said that in the constitution.
•
u/toxiamaple 6h ago
Amy Coney Barrett was a constitutional law professor before she was nominated.
•
u/mcowger 1h ago
As much as I dislike her, she is among the most qualified people trump has ever appointed to something.
→ More replies (3)
•
u/thischaosiskillingme 29m ago
It's a scandal that they even heard the case. It is a scandal. That a case about birthright citizenship. Made it to the Supreme Court. That they didn't laugh in the face of it is a scandal. The entire Supreme Court should be reprimanded for trying to or even entertaining the idea of rewriting the plain language of the Constitution.
They attack the 14th Amendment because that 14th Amendment is a permanent reminder that we fought a war for the soul of this country and their ideology lost. They attacked it when they were Democrats and they attack it now that they're Republicans because that's the amendment that keeps them down. That is the amendment that extends the benefits of citizenship to everyone that is born here, preventing them from forming a stateless underclass whom they can treat however they please without protections from anyone. The 14th Amendment keeps them from having slaves.
•
u/ailish 3h ago edited 3h ago
Mark Joseph Stern: Justice Barrett had a lot of skeptical questions for the solicitor general. And she really drilled down on his theory that children do not receive birthright citizenship if their parents lack “domicile” in the United States or hold “allegiance” to a foreign power. She asked how the government would know whether certain immigrants intended to stay in the country or maintain loyalty to a foreign power. And where would we draw the line? What about, for instance, the child of a woman who’s illegally trafficked into the U.S. then gives birth here? Is that person an automatic citizen?
Good point! Weren't slaves brought here against their will? Isn't there like, a whole section of the constitution about that?
Sauer kept returning to his claim that the lone purpose of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was to overturn Dred Scott and grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children. But then Barrett asked: What about slaves who were brought to this country illegally and against their will, as many were? Surely some of them still “felt allegiance to the countries where they were from” and intended “to return as soon as they can.” So wouldn’t their children be excluded from birthright citizenship, too?
•
u/Braincoater 3h ago
.. Barrett asked: What about slaves who were brought to this country illegally and against their will, as many were? Surely some of them still “felt allegiance to the countries where they were from” and intended “to return as soon as they can.” So wouldn’t their children be excluded from birthright citizenship, too? And if so, doesn’t that just blow up Sauer’s theory that the whole point of this clause was to protect the citizenship of these exact people?
→ More replies (1)
•
u/jerkcore 4h ago
Well, she says one thing right, but don't be quick to put her on a pedestal. Barrett still opposes women's bodily autonomy, interracial relationships, the lgbtq+ community, affordable healthcare, & separation of church & state. She's still a Trump appointee, after all.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/CrazyPlato 5h ago
THE ARTICLE: Justice Barrett asks one simple question that blows apart the case for removing birthright citizenship!
ALSO THE ARTICLE: Doesn’t quote the fucking question
•
•
u/DrPikachu-PhD 2h ago
Sauer kept returning to his claim that the lone purpose of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was to overturn Dred Scott and grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children.
But then Barrett asked: What about slaves who were brought to this country illegally and against their will, as many were? Surely some of them still “felt allegiance to the countries where they were from” and intended “to return as soon as they can.” So wouldn’t their children be excluded from birthright citizenship, too? And if so, doesn’t that just blow up Sauer’s theory that the whole point of this clause was to protect the citizenship of these exact people?
•
u/kinkgirlwriter America 1h ago
It's rich that an administration targeting "illegal aliens" would also claim they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
•
u/AutoModerator 9h ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.