I wonder how many justices will burst out laughing?

I'm thinking only 3 bursting out laughing and maybe 2 more that won't laugh but vote against it. (i hope) This court could be 6-3 decision or even 5-4?

at least TWO for it. and that's a shame. TSF can 100% count on those two

"same status as “the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government”"

Says to me if they were born overseas, they are not US citizens. Nothing remarkable there.

Mr. Wilkins it sounds like the Court argued he was not born in a state, or a territory. He was born with loyalty to his tribe. Splitting hairs. By that logic all immigrants would maintain loyalty to the country from whence they came.

I Congress passed this act, also known as the Snyder Act, granting full U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States, effectively nullifying the requirement for individual naturalization that was central to Elk v. Wilkins.


https://www.opb.org/article/2025/04/07/trump-administration-attempts-to-use-19th-century-native-american-case-to-overturn-birthright-citizenship/]

Trump has that fuck face Miller working on this bullshit only he would pull this out of his rectum

(unless it benefits RW loons), then 45 is gonna roll the dice.

This is black letter constitutional law.

Overturning birthright citizenship would be rewriting the constitution, not just reinterpreting it.

Overturning birthright citizenship would be as historic and significant as Dred or Plessy, or maybe more so, because if birthright citizenship is revoked, can the reinstitution of slavery still be off limits?

That’s why they won’t touch it.

They would be signing the death warrants for their careers- the people would demand the court be expanded to reinstate their rights and overturn all the extremist rulings of the past 20 years.

THAT is the problem we are facing.

No one thought they would "touch" Roe. No one thought they would touch the VRA (even with FOUR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS DEALING WITH VOTING). Next target is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It's all up to those 6 fiends.

BTW, Roe was an “implied” right, not black letter law like birthright citizenship- something that could be solved by 1) codifying reproductive rights in law, and 2) expanding the court to a majority who will uphold it.

The Snyder Act was a law, not a part of the constitution. So it's not stare decisis. Stare decisis is a doctrine urging the Supreme Court to be cautious in overruling its own prior decisions.

And there is no such thing as black letter constitutional law. Everything in the constitution says is always up to interpretation by the Supreme Court.

And it has been implemented since 1940 as such.

Hence the intent of Congress was to grant US citizenship to all those born in the US. And this was congress's interpretation of "jurisdiction of"

I know that SCOTUS has overturned laws before, but this is a huge one because decades of bureaucracy have been involved with it. So, it wasn't just a Supreme Court decision, it was a law that was passed afterward.

https://today.westlaw.com/Document/I6f209445294e11f18650b90c05b8b24a/View/FullText.html?transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

It does not appear that Trump is trying to overturn the law. He's just trying to get them to reinterpret Wong. I don't think he knew about this law.

The constitution always prevails over laws - AND - it is always up to the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. There is no such thing as black letter law when it comes to the interpretation of the constitution. If the Supreme Court determines that Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship is correct, any law which contradicts it is unconstitutional.

Do I think it will interpret it as Trump suggests? No. My comments go to your assertions which seem to suggest that you believe the Supreme Court cannot interpret a provision of the constitution in a way which differs from how it has always been applied because it is "black letter law." Or that somehow a law passed by Congress is more controlling than the Constitution, or would prevent the Supreme Court from interpreting the provision in a way that is contrary to Congress' intent.

If the constitution says two term limit for a president, it doesn’t mean three.

Words like “infringe” can be interpreted differently, but numbers, ages, and place of birth cannot.

Give them that authority.

It doesn't give the Supremes the authority to interpret what the US constitution says. They grabbed up that power to make themselves little dictators.

and raise United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Only 14 yr after US v Elk. The justices were intimately aware of what was argued in Elk, and still ruled for Wong Ark. That alone should say quite a bit.

US citizens if it weren't for the fact that his mother was an immigrant and so are/were 2 of the mothers of his children.

This guy was born in a territory. The people Trump is looking to exclude are/would be born in the US.

Or is that what this decision ended up meaning?

But I haven't spent time on how they got from that, to people in Puerto Rico being citizens, to today. The current case seems completely different because the people involved were born in a US state.

Kind of like a nation inside of a nation. That is a whole different set of laws.I don't see how it is a fit.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Obviously, they are trying to get around the word "all", and that includes applying cases that are dubious, at best.

The treatment of Native Americans by the US government (and to be truthful a huge segment of its population) has been forever disgraceful. This appears to be another case of a convenience to get what they want.

The argument "the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government" cannot be used as the tribal lands have always been within the domain of the US government. You cannot have it both ways. One one hand saying their land is sovereign and on the other hand move tribes and/or take whatever land the government wants for whatever reason the government has. Many times at the behest of corporations who want that land for various (many times deceitful/nefarious) reasons.

And legally...
If those fucking, disgusting, treasonous idiots in the White house want to refer back to 1884, they need go no further than to The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Any rationale relying on the 1884 SCOTUS ruling was nullified by that Act.

They may very well be counting on Alito to pull another 400 year-old reference out of his ass to save them. Pardon the exaggeration on the 400 years.

"Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that "Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes",[8] determining that Indian tribes were separate from the federal government, the states, and foreign nations."

The various tribes are sovereign nations within the U.S., but the government is required to protect them.

If this tactic is successful, would it mean that we have a non-citizen Secretary of DHS?

I would expect the Secretary to get on this problem right away, and report back his findings.
As soon as he's released from custody - presumably he's also been voting in our elections, so one would expect a trial.