Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett triggered fierce backlash from MAGA loyalists after forcefully questioning the Trump administration’s top lawyer and voicing skepticism over ending birthright citizenship during a heated Supreme Court argument.

Since taking office, Donald Trump has pushed for an executive order to end birthright citizenship, a constitutional guarantee under the 14th Amendment that grants automatic U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil.

During oral arguments, Barrett confronted Solicitor General Dean John Sauer, who was representing the Trump administration, over his dismissive response to Justice Elena Kagan’s concerns. Barrett sharply asked whether Sauer truly believed there was “no way” for plaintiffs to quickly challenge the executive order, suggesting that class-action certification might expedite the process.

  • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I believe from listening to recent NPR that their lawyers aren’t even arguing about that. They are arguing about whether national injunctions can really be national injunctions or not.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Yeah - they’re trying REALLY hard to not argue the merits because it’s extremely clear to anyone that what they’re doing is illegal, so they’re trying to make it a civil suit issue.

      The next step after that is to claim Sovereign Immunity to keep civil suits from being heard.

      And then they’ll have their legal justification for disappearing US Citizens without due process.

    • altphoto@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 hours ago

      So leaving it to the states where they can jerrymander the elections and win locally first then a few years later fuck up the entire country “legally”.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 hours ago

        No, they aren’t arguing it should be at state level, their argument is much worse, they are arguing it needs to be at the individual level. So every single person harmed would need to get their own lawyer.