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.
That’s the literal definition of jurisdiction.
ju·ris·dic·tion /ˌjo͝orəsˈdikSHən/ noun
the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
The United States can only enforce its laws on those that are within its jurisdiction. It’s exactly the same as entering a foreign consulate or pulling over a foreign diplomat. There is literally nothing they can legally do to them.
To your point, if they ever chose to leave, they would never be allowed re-entry.
Maybe you’re technically and logically correct (I don’t know enough to say) but they could and would still arrest them regardless and there’s not much that can be done about that. A private citizen that’s stateless is de-facto defenseless against the government while a diplomat is backed by an entire government.
The UN is supposed to help prevent citizens from being rendered stateless as well, but it happens in smaller countries regardless. If the US does it, unfortunately I don’t see the UN doing enough to stop it.
My point isn’t about what the government would do to them regardless of the law. It’s that SCOTUS cannot interpret the 14th Amendment in that way without deeming those individuals to be outside the jurisdiction of the United States, making it an entirely problematic interpretation.
You’re right that the USA can enforce laws only on those under its jurisdiction. But its jurisdiction extends to everyone in the USA, citizens or not. If I travel to the USA and commit a crime there, I can be arrested, tried and imprisoned in the USA unless the USA decides to deport me instead. If I’m imprisoned in the USA and my home country has an extradition treaty with the USA, my home country can decide whether it wants to go through a diplomatic process to get me returned. If I don’t have a home country (being stateless), that chance doesn’t exist. And if they don’t try to get me returned and the USA doesn’t deport me, I’m stuck in a US prison.
The same applies in other countries. When you are in a country you are under that country’s jurisdiction, meaning that the laws of the country apply to you and you can be handled by the judicial system accordingly. Every sovereign nation has the legal authority to make and enforce laws within its territory, and this authority applies to everyone physically present, not just its citizens. This principle, that a country’s laws apply to everyone in the country, is why “sovereign citizens” are basically mistaken when they claim to be beyond the law’s reach, and it’s why tourists don’t have license to go on a crime spree.
That is correct. My point is if they argue that clause of the 14th Amendment about being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” they would effectively make them legally untouchable.
There’s no way to interpret the 14th Amendment to accomplish what they want to accomplish.
Yes, I have been misreading your argument, but I think it’s a bit academic. You are arguing that if the government were to argue that these people were not subject to US law, in an attempt to give itself free rein to abuse them, it would undermine itself by leaving them legally untouchable so it couldn’t do anything to them. Legally that may be true, but practically the government is showing its intention to take extrajudicial action against them (like kidnapping them and trafficking them to foreign prison camps) and the law of the USA is the only thing protecting people from this treatment. So if US law didn’t apply to them they’d end up open to any kind of abuse by the US government.
In any case, illegals, invaders and terrorists are subject to US law when they’re in the USA, and that confers rights on them. That’s why the USA used Guantanamo Bay and black sites around the world to avoid having to bring people to the USA where they’d be under the protection of US law and the rights it confers. So if the US government attempted to make any legal argument that US law doesn’t apply to these people while they’re in the USA, it would be quite obviously wrong.
Right. The law is academic. I’m not saying they couldn’t shoot them dead in the street. We all know the government doesn’t always follow the law. I’m simply saying that’s the legal problem that would be created as a result of changing the interpretation of that clause, and therefore an unreasonable interpretation for a court to make.
You are wrong
Compelling argument.
The other commenter already made compelling arguments, which you ignored
You’re both arguing citizenship. That’s a moot point if they’re already in the nation and not subject to its laws.
Being subject to US laws would give them slightly more protection, not less. We’ve seen plenty of recent examples of the US doing whatever it wants with “illegal immigrants”, reality doesn’t give a shit what you think.
I don’t think you understand my point. If they have their citizenship revoked because they are determined to be outside the jurisdiction of the United States, then the laws of the United States would not apply to them, because they’ve been determined to be outside the jurisdiction of the United States. It’s a problematic interpretation of the amendment.
I understand your point just fine, it’s just that it’s a stupid point that bears no resemblance to reality. In the real world the lack of legal jurisdiction will protect them from absolutely nothing, the US can and will imprison or kill them with impunity.
I follow, but you’re talking about the practical application of the situation after the ruling. I’m talking about it being the reason SCOTUS couldn’t make that ruling in the first place.
You are wrong. Plain and simple.
Then please explain what the government can legally do to someone outside of their jurisdiction.
I already have. Multiple times. Read, instead of just trying to argue.
Condescension is unnecessary and childish. Not one thing you have written is legal. I asked you what can a government legally do to someone outside of their jurisdiction.