4 ms·

It's extremely uncommon for the court to issue an opinion with such large repercussions. Even if birthright citizenship is overturned (which I find very unlike

It's extremely uncommon for the court to issue an opinion with such large repercussions. Even if birthright citizenship is overturned (which I find very unlikely), I would expect it to be narrowly defined so as to apply only to children born of parents not present legally in the country - and likely with a specific carveout for those who overstay visas and such, as those people are clearly subject to US jurisdiction by virtue of the application process. The absolute largest change I would expect would be to end birthright citizenship for children whose parents illegally entered into the US and have never had a visa of entry permit of any type whatsoever.

oldsklgdfth 10mo ago
> The absolute largest change I would expect would be to end birthright citizenship for children whose parents illegally entered into the US and have never had a visa of entry permit of any type whatsoever. That's the vibe I get. However, I don't see a definition of jurisdiction in the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that would make this workable. How do you see this being resolved?
- Ancapistani 10mo ago
  > How do you see this being resolved? At a much higher level, this court seems to be attempting to slowly and carefully reign in the power of the federal government. I expect that there will be enough of a headline here for the Trump administration to hold it up as a victory, while being so narrowly defined that it will only apply to a relative handful of individuals. The court's interest here is most likely a precedent that will be applicable in subsequent cases. It could conceivably end up establishing a new, weaker form of Chevron deference where ambiguity is interpreted in the light most beneficial to the People.
  - jswelker 10mo ago
    I think the court is trying desperately to avoid having to rule on anything and will slow walk this until it hopefully goes away, while giving the admin virtual carte blanche to do what they want.
    - Ancapistani 10mo ago
      I can see why you'd say that, but I'm actually thinking on a longer timeline. They've been trending that way for almost a decade now, and seem to be accelerating a bit. Most recently, the overturning of the Chevron deference doctrine comes to mind, and that was in July 2024.
      - disgruntledphd2 10mo ago
        If they do the same thing to Republican presidents then I'll believe it's principled. I haven't seen much sign of that, though. Like, whatever happened to the major questions doctrine? Feels like that should apply to a bunch of Trump's actions.
  - IAmBroom 10mo ago
    > At a much higher level, this court seems to be attempting to slowly and carefully reign in the power of the federal government. The same court that said POTUS is immune to prosecution for anything he does as part of his office? How can you conceivably think this SCOTUS is doing anything but increasing the reach of the Executive Branch?
commandlinefan 10mo ago
> those people are clearly subject to US jurisdiction by virtue of the application process. But the wording doesn't apply to the parents, it applies to the baby: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", not "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and whose parents are subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
- Ancapistani 10mo ago
  FWIW, I think that's a strong argument.
  - RajT88 10mo ago
    If the argument hangs on one interpretation of a single word or turn of phrase, when there are multiple interpretations, it is not a strong argument.
    - IAmBroom 10mo ago
      This doesn't. It turns on the non-existence of a phrase.
nullocator 10mo ago
> It's extremely uncommon for the court to issue an opinion with such large repercussions. Like Dobbs (Abortion), Bruen (Guns), Students for Fair Admissions (Affirmative Action), Loper Bright, Destruction of the voting rights act, Trump is king, etc This supreme court issues at least one opinion with massive repercussions each term, every term. I simply don't know how you are under the impression that they care about repercussions in the slightest. They don't much care for rationale explanation or precedent either.

oldsklgdfth 10mo ago

> The absolute largest change I would expect would be to end birthright citizenship for children whose parents illegally entered into the US and have never had a visa of entry permit of any type whatsoever. That's the vibe I get. However, I don't see a definition of jurisdiction in the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that would make this workable. How do you see this being resolved?

Ancapistani 10mo ago
> How do you see this being resolved? At a much higher level, this court seems to be attempting to slowly and carefully reign in the power of the federal government. I expect that there will be enough of a headline here for the Trump administration to hold it up as a victory, while being so narrowly defined that it will only apply to a relative handful of individuals. The court's interest here is most likely a precedent that will be applicable in subsequent cases. It could conceivably end up establishing a new, weaker form of Chevron deference where ambiguity is interpreted in the light most beneficial to the People.
- jswelker 10mo ago
  I think the court is trying desperately to avoid having to rule on anything and will slow walk this until it hopefully goes away, while giving the admin virtual carte blanche to do what they want.
  - Ancapistani 10mo ago
    I can see why you'd say that, but I'm actually thinking on a longer timeline. They've been trending that way for almost a decade now, and seem to be accelerating a bit. Most recently, the overturning of the Chevron deference doctrine comes to mind, and that was in July 2024.
    - disgruntledphd2 10mo ago
      If they do the same thing to Republican presidents then I'll believe it's principled. I haven't seen much sign of that, though. Like, whatever happened to the major questions doctrine? Feels like that should apply to a bunch of Trump's actions.
- IAmBroom 10mo ago
  > At a much higher level, this court seems to be attempting to slowly and carefully reign in the power of the federal government. The same court that said POTUS is immune to prosecution for anything he does as part of his office? How can you conceivably think this SCOTUS is doing anything but increasing the reach of the Executive Branch?

commandlinefan 10mo ago

> those people are clearly subject to US jurisdiction by virtue of the application process. But the wording doesn't apply to the parents, it applies to the baby: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", not "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and whose parents are subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Ancapistani 10mo ago
FWIW, I think that's a strong argument.
- RajT88 10mo ago
  If the argument hangs on one interpretation of a single word or turn of phrase, when there are multiple interpretations, it is not a strong argument.
  - IAmBroom 10mo ago
    This doesn't. It turns on the non-existence of a phrase.

nullocator 10mo ago

> It's extremely uncommon for the court to issue an opinion with such large repercussions. Like Dobbs (Abortion), Bruen (Guns), Students for Fair Admissions (Affirmative Action), Loper Bright, Destruction of the voting rights act, Trump is king, etc This supreme court issues at least one opinion with massive repercussions each term, every term. I simply don't know how you are under the impression that they care about repercussions in the slightest. They don't much care for rationale explanation or precedent either.