5 ms·

The most obvious read of the constitution in the world still being a 6-3 verdict shows the state of the Supreme Court today.

by paxys 4mo ago

abi 4mo ago
It's worse than that. It's 5-4 on the read of the constitution since Kavanaugh doesn't think it violates the 14th amendment, just a federal statute.
- matthewdgreen 4mo ago
  It's worse than that. The text of the statute is literally the same as the text of the 14th amendment's birthright clause. So he's basically saying the text means one thing when it's a statute, but the exact same words might allow exceptions in the context of the Constitution.
rayiner 4mo ago
What does "subject to the jurisdiction" "obviously" mean, keeping in mind that everyone agrees children of diplomats aren't citizens at birth, but U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats for some activities?
- petilon 4mo ago
  That's partial jurisdiction at best.
- stephbook 4mo ago
  I guess the obvious answer would be the same as the last decades, while anything else would be called "surprising." Which is is fine, you can change the constitution, but thats for parliament to do.
  - GetTheFacts 4mo ago
    >Which is is fine, you can change the constitution, but thats for parliament to do. To which Constitution are you referring? And which "parliament"? The US Constitution can only be changed by votes by both supermajorities in both houses (House of Representatives and Senate) of Congress and the legislatures of 3/4 of the several states. We don't have a "parliament." Are you referring to Canada's Constitution? Australia's? AFAIK, the UK has no Constitution and changes to Ireland's Constitution requires a national referendum. Please do elucidate. Thanks!
- throw0101d 4mo ago
  > […] children of diplomats aren't citizens at birth, but U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats for some activities? AIUI, IANAL, US courts and law do not have jurisdiction over diplomats. When a diplomat the 'hosting' government agrees to immunity, so cannot be prosecuted. E.g.: > The collision caused diplomatic tension between British and US officials. [Anne] Sacoolas fled Britain soon after the incident, and claimed diplomatic immunity with US support. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn The 'source' country has to agree to remove the diplomatic coverage.
  - rayiner 4mo ago
    Incorrect: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diplomatic_immunity https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diplomatic_immunity U.S. courts do have jurisdiction over diplomats for certain things, such as suits related to commercial activities.
    - abduhl 4mo ago
      Is the child of a diplomat a US citizen if they are born during a diplomat’s commercial activities?
      - ang_cire 4mo ago
        If the diplomat put the baby up as collateral on a loan, prior to their birth, then I think they have to be in order for the US to be able to enforce contract law relevant to the loan.
      - IAmBroom 4mo ago
        No. Even the arguments at the time the amendment was passed discuss diplomats and their family being exempt, as well as all the instances since.
    - wat10000 4mo ago
      What happens to a diplomat if they don't show up for the suit or comply with any judgment?
- datsci_est_2015 4mo ago
  Well we know “subject to the jurisdiction” is not equivalent to “is a citizen”, otherwise they would’ve used that term instead of being cute with it and leaving excess room for interpretation. If congress wants to define what “subject to jurisdiction” means, then they have every opportunity to.
- kjellsbells 4mo ago
  The text that SCOTUS put out today discusses this in great detail. You might agree or disagree with their reasoning, but they consider what "obvious" means in light of the text and the writings of the time plus references to old commentary like Blackstones. Maybe better to read that and assume in good faith that this is what the commenter is referring to?
- rainsford 4mo ago
  Given that the most universally agreed to counter examples are diplomats and invading armies, I'd say a reasonable non-lawyer interpretation is that "subject to the jurisdiction" excludes people who are in some way under the authority or control of a foreign government even while in the US. They may be physically here, but they're presence is on behalf of a foreign government that has jurisdiction over them even while in the US. US law might apply to them in varying ways depending on their status, but there is still a distinction that does not exist for other visitors. Maybe less about the question of whether US law applies at all and more about if US law applies equally beyond the 14th amendment and if any other government can lay claim to authority. You could potentially apply this to temporary tourists as well, but the linkage between them and the government of the country they are coming from is much weaker since their presence typically doesn't have them acting on behalf of the foreign government or with any special legal distinction. I'd also pose the same question back to you, what's a reasonable definition of "subject to the jurisdiction" that excludes everyone except US citizens, as many conservatives want, or at least only extends to legal permanent residents?
  - lsaferite 4mo ago
    Any interpretation that excludes non-citizens leaves us in a situation where we've disclaimed legal jurisdiction over the behavior of those individuals. The reductio ad absurdum there would be that they aren't subject to any laws of our country anymore.
- lsaferite 4mo ago
  Have you read the congressional debate around the that amendment to the Amendment? If you have and it's not clear, I'm not sure what else can be said.
- tzs 4mo ago
  In general countries have jurisdiction over anyone inside their territory unless there is some exception. As far as I know the only exceptions at the time the 14th was drafted and ratified would have been people with diplomatic immunity or similar due to treaties and international agreements. Immediate families of diplomats living with the diplomat are included in diplomatic immunity, hence their children born here would not become citizens. Those situations you mention where US court do have jurisdiction over diplomats are: private real estate disputes; wills and inheritance; business activity of diplomats that are running a side business or practicing a profession in the US that is not part of their official duties; lawsuits initiated by the diplomat. Even if becoming subject to such limited jurisdiction counted as being "subject to the jurisdiction" for purposes of the 14th Amendment it would not matter because newborns are not involved in those things, and so newborn children of diplomats have their full diplomatic immunity.
  - matthewdgreen 4mo ago
    The exception listed in Wong Kim Ark are: Indian tribes, children of diplomats, births on public foreign ships, and children of enemy occupiers. These were basically well-understood exceptions under common law and most were discussed during Congressional debate on the 14th.
atonse 4mo ago
Don't agree that any of these cases are "most obvious" given that it's gone all the way through various appeals courts to the supreme court - and that's the mission of the Supreme Court, to interpret all the various situations for these cases and how they apply constitutionally.
- Arodex 4mo ago
  It is totally obvious: every single court told the Trump administration to go f* themselves, and Trump appealed and appealed again until it reached the Supreme Court.
- ceejayoz 4mo ago
  > Don't agree that any of these cases are "most obvious" given that it's gone all the way through various appeals courts to the supreme court Every single court on the way to SCOTUS correctly said "the fuck?!" > Federal judges in each of the district courts issued preliminary injunctions to block the order from taking effect anywhere in the country. Judge John C. Coughenour, presiding over Washington v. Trump, called the order "blatantly unconstitutional". Government appeals challenging the injunctions were rejected by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Barbara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Barbara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._CASA#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._CASA#Background
- FireBeyond 4mo ago
  The Trump administration found not one judge or panel of judges who agreed with their opinion ... until SCOTUS, where it found three. Including Clarence, whose "hilarious" dissent says that undocumented persons are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which might be of note to ICE.
  - datsci_est_2015 4mo ago
    “Unperson” vibes. If their existence is illegal, then they have no rights. Clarence would never consider that the definition of who is or is not legal would expand, though. Too busy driving his RV to the airport to fly to an island retreat.
eqmvii 4mo ago
It's tricky because dissenting doesn't necessarily mean you'd reach the opposite conclusion in every respect. In this case, I really doubt even the most conservative justices believe "birthright citizenship means whatever an Executive Order says it does." At a minimum, we know they aren't signing on to the reasoning the 5 in the majority used. And then we can learn whatever they feel like saying in the dissent, but a dissent is just an essay with no force of law.
- ceejayoz 4mo ago
  Per Thomas's dissent: > The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens.
- azeemba 4mo ago
  But since we have the dissent opinions, it's not tricky at all to see why they are dissenting. Alito and Thomas straight up believe that the constitution does not provide birthright citizenship and the executive order is valid. Gorsuch mostly agrees but makes an exception if the parents plan to stay in the US. Kavanaugh agrees that birthright citizenship is not provided by the constitution, instead he argues its a federal statute that congress can overturn (but the president cannot) https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-trumps-order-ending-birthright-citizenship/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...
  - datsci_est_2015 4mo ago
    Literal calvinball by the conservative justices. None of that is in the constitution.
    - enoint 4mo ago
      Thomas and Alito complained that they were being impeded from setting executive policy. Very easy to understand the argument that this court is too small.
  - 4mo ago
dgellow 4mo ago
They are in the process of building a new country little by little. Eventually they will openly dismiss the US constitution. Things are really, really bad. We are pretty much in US‘s Weimar period. The fact all of that was predictable makes it just so frustrating to see it play out in real time
- andsoitis 4mo ago
  > hey are in the process of building a new country little by little. Eventually they will openly dismiss the US constitution. Things are really, really bad. We are pretty much in US‘s Weimar period. Why the scaremongering? What are "they" waiting for?
  - matthewdgreen 4mo ago
    Durable control of elections, and maybe one or two more justices.
  - cosmicgadget 4mo ago
    Without saying I believe the statement above, boiling the frog is a legitimate tactic. Think of all the things considered normal now that would have been absurd before 2016.
  - superultra 4mo ago
    Surely we’re aware of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 yes? It spells out exactly what they are doing, & where they are going. Eliminating birthright citizenship is a key component dating back decades. https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/feudalism-consent-rethinking-birthright-citizenship https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/feudalism-c...
    - andsoitis 4mo ago
      Thanks for posting that link. I read part of it and their reasoning strikes me as contortionist. Good then that after decades, as you point out, that argument has not won out. I would love to actually debate this issue with someone who does believe birthright citizenship is not a thing.
whateveracct 4mo ago
it's on the tin
onetimeusename 4mo ago
I don't think it's obvious. Like why do you think the dissenters are wrong to question what is meant about being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? The intention was to prevent former slaves from being deprived of citizenship so what is an argument to say this obviously includes someone who arrives for birth tourism? Why doesn't this include children of diplomats, as one example, if it's such an all encompassing law?
- malicka 4mo ago
  Because when you are in a country, you are subject to it’s jurisdiction. Can you be arrested for petty crimes? Yes? Then you’re under that country’s jurisdiction.
  - onetimeusename 4mo ago
    That's what the justices said. That has generally been how modern courts interpret it, with a textualist interpretation. But that was not the original intention of the law which I already stated. So to go back to my original point, it's not an obvious conclusion.
    - HelloMcFly 4mo ago
      > But that was not the original intention of the law which I already stated You've stated it, but not evidenced it. This is certainly the right-wing talking point, but never strongly sourced. The meaning of this phrase was viciously debated. Would it surprise you to know that many in Congress hated it for similar reasons as nationalists today? Let me say this again: the meaning of this phrase was openly and viciously debated in the public record! Senator Cowan thought the phrasing created a loophole for birthright citizenship, and the amendment creators explicitly, overtly, repeatedly agreed with his interpretation of the phrasing and defended it as deliberate policy. Feel free to read some of this: https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/libertyandjustice/ch5/01/#:~:text=The%20proposition%20before%20us%20.%20.%20.,that%20they%20shall%20be%20citizens. https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/libertyandjusti... (CTRL+F "If my friend from Pennsylvania" for a quite pertinent line).

The most obvious read of the constitution in the world still being a 6-3 verdict shows the state of the Supreme Court today.

by paxys 4mo ago

The most obvious read of the constitution in the world still being a 6-3 verdict shows the state of the Supreme Court today.

abi 4mo ago

It's worse than that. It's 5-4 on the read of the constitution since Kavanaugh doesn't think it violates the 14th amendment, just a federal statute.

matthewdgreen 4mo ago
It's worse than that. The text of the statute is literally the same as the text of the 14th amendment's birthright clause. So he's basically saying the text means one thing when it's a statute, but the exact same words might allow exceptions in the context of the Constitution.

rayiner 4mo ago

What does "subject to the jurisdiction" "obviously" mean, keeping in mind that everyone agrees children of diplomats aren't citizens at birth, but U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats for some activities?

petilon 4mo ago
That's partial jurisdiction at best.
stephbook 4mo ago
I guess the obvious answer would be the same as the last decades, while anything else would be called "surprising." Which is is fine, you can change the constitution, but thats for parliament to do.
- GetTheFacts 4mo ago
  >Which is is fine, you can change the constitution, but thats for parliament to do. To which Constitution are you referring? And which "parliament"? The US Constitution can only be changed by votes by both supermajorities in both houses (House of Representatives and Senate) of Congress and the legislatures of 3/4 of the several states. We don't have a "parliament." Are you referring to Canada's Constitution? Australia's? AFAIK, the UK has no Constitution and changes to Ireland's Constitution requires a national referendum. Please do elucidate. Thanks!
throw0101d 4mo ago
> […] children of diplomats aren't citizens at birth, but U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats for some activities? AIUI, IANAL, US courts and law do not have jurisdiction over diplomats. When a diplomat the 'hosting' government agrees to immunity, so cannot be prosecuted. E.g.: > The collision caused diplomatic tension between British and US officials. [Anne] Sacoolas fled Britain soon after the incident, and claimed diplomatic immunity with US support. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn The 'source' country has to agree to remove the diplomatic coverage.
- rayiner 4mo ago
  Incorrect: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diplomatic_immunity https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diplomatic_immunity U.S. courts do have jurisdiction over diplomats for certain things, such as suits related to commercial activities.
  - abduhl 4mo ago
    Is the child of a diplomat a US citizen if they are born during a diplomat’s commercial activities?
    - ang_cire 4mo ago
      If the diplomat put the baby up as collateral on a loan, prior to their birth, then I think they have to be in order for the US to be able to enforce contract law relevant to the loan.
    - IAmBroom 4mo ago
      No. Even the arguments at the time the amendment was passed discuss diplomats and their family being exempt, as well as all the instances since.
  - wat10000 4mo ago
    What happens to a diplomat if they don't show up for the suit or comply with any judgment?
datsci_est_2015 4mo ago
Well we know “subject to the jurisdiction” is not equivalent to “is a citizen”, otherwise they would’ve used that term instead of being cute with it and leaving excess room for interpretation. If congress wants to define what “subject to jurisdiction” means, then they have every opportunity to.
kjellsbells 4mo ago
The text that SCOTUS put out today discusses this in great detail. You might agree or disagree with their reasoning, but they consider what "obvious" means in light of the text and the writings of the time plus references to old commentary like Blackstones. Maybe better to read that and assume in good faith that this is what the commenter is referring to?
rainsford 4mo ago
Given that the most universally agreed to counter examples are diplomats and invading armies, I'd say a reasonable non-lawyer interpretation is that "subject to the jurisdiction" excludes people who are in some way under the authority or control of a foreign government even while in the US. They may be physically here, but they're presence is on behalf of a foreign government that has jurisdiction over them even while in the US. US law might apply to them in varying ways depending on their status, but there is still a distinction that does not exist for other visitors. Maybe less about the question of whether US law applies at all and more about if US law applies equally beyond the 14th amendment and if any other government can lay claim to authority. You could potentially apply this to temporary tourists as well, but the linkage between them and the government of the country they are coming from is much weaker since their presence typically doesn't have them acting on behalf of the foreign government or with any special legal distinction. I'd also pose the same question back to you, what's a reasonable definition of "subject to the jurisdiction" that excludes everyone except US citizens, as many conservatives want, or at least only extends to legal permanent residents?
- lsaferite 4mo ago
  Any interpretation that excludes non-citizens leaves us in a situation where we've disclaimed legal jurisdiction over the behavior of those individuals. The reductio ad absurdum there would be that they aren't subject to any laws of our country anymore.
lsaferite 4mo ago
Have you read the congressional debate around the that amendment to the Amendment? If you have and it's not clear, I'm not sure what else can be said.
tzs 4mo ago
In general countries have jurisdiction over anyone inside their territory unless there is some exception. As far as I know the only exceptions at the time the 14th was drafted and ratified would have been people with diplomatic immunity or similar due to treaties and international agreements. Immediate families of diplomats living with the diplomat are included in diplomatic immunity, hence their children born here would not become citizens. Those situations you mention where US court do have jurisdiction over diplomats are: private real estate disputes; wills and inheritance; business activity of diplomats that are running a side business or practicing a profession in the US that is not part of their official duties; lawsuits initiated by the diplomat. Even if becoming subject to such limited jurisdiction counted as being "subject to the jurisdiction" for purposes of the 14th Amendment it would not matter because newborns are not involved in those things, and so newborn children of diplomats have their full diplomatic immunity.
- matthewdgreen 4mo ago
  The exception listed in Wong Kim Ark are: Indian tribes, children of diplomats, births on public foreign ships, and children of enemy occupiers. These were basically well-understood exceptions under common law and most were discussed during Congressional debate on the 14th.

atonse 4mo ago

Don't agree that any of these cases are "most obvious" given that it's gone all the way through various appeals courts to the supreme court - and that's the mission of the Supreme Court, to interpret all the various situations for these cases and how they apply constitutionally.

Arodex 4mo ago
It is totally obvious: every single court told the Trump administration to go f* themselves, and Trump appealed and appealed again until it reached the Supreme Court.
ceejayoz 4mo ago
> Don't agree that any of these cases are "most obvious" given that it's gone all the way through various appeals courts to the supreme court Every single court on the way to SCOTUS correctly said "the fuck?!" > Federal judges in each of the district courts issued preliminary injunctions to block the order from taking effect anywhere in the country. Judge John C. Coughenour, presiding over Washington v. Trump, called the order "blatantly unconstitutional". Government appeals challenging the injunctions were rejected by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Barbara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Barbara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._CASA#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._CASA#Background
FireBeyond 4mo ago
The Trump administration found not one judge or panel of judges who agreed with their opinion ... until SCOTUS, where it found three. Including Clarence, whose "hilarious" dissent says that undocumented persons are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which might be of note to ICE.
- datsci_est_2015 4mo ago
  “Unperson” vibes. If their existence is illegal, then they have no rights. Clarence would never consider that the definition of who is or is not legal would expand, though. Too busy driving his RV to the airport to fly to an island retreat.

eqmvii 4mo ago

It's tricky because dissenting doesn't necessarily mean you'd reach the opposite conclusion in every respect. In this case, I really doubt even the most conservative justices believe "birthright citizenship means whatever an Executive Order says it does." At a minimum, we know they aren't signing on to the reasoning the 5 in the majority used. And then we can learn whatever they feel like saying in the dissent, but a dissent is just an essay with no force of law.

ceejayoz 4mo ago
Per Thomas's dissent: > The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens.
azeemba 4mo ago
But since we have the dissent opinions, it's not tricky at all to see why they are dissenting. Alito and Thomas straight up believe that the constitution does not provide birthright citizenship and the executive order is valid. Gorsuch mostly agrees but makes an exception if the parents plan to stay in the US. Kavanaugh agrees that birthright citizenship is not provided by the constitution, instead he argues its a federal statute that congress can overturn (but the president cannot) https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-trumps-order-ending-birthright-citizenship/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...
- datsci_est_2015 4mo ago
  Literal calvinball by the conservative justices. None of that is in the constitution.
  - enoint 4mo ago
    Thomas and Alito complained that they were being impeded from setting executive policy. Very easy to understand the argument that this court is too small.
- 4mo ago

dgellow 4mo ago

They are in the process of building a new country little by little. Eventually they will openly dismiss the US constitution. Things are really, really bad. We are pretty much in US‘s Weimar period. The fact all of that was predictable makes it just so frustrating to see it play out in real time

andsoitis 4mo ago
> hey are in the process of building a new country little by little. Eventually they will openly dismiss the US constitution. Things are really, really bad. We are pretty much in US‘s Weimar period. Why the scaremongering? What are "they" waiting for?
- matthewdgreen 4mo ago
  Durable control of elections, and maybe one or two more justices.
- cosmicgadget 4mo ago
  Without saying I believe the statement above, boiling the frog is a legitimate tactic. Think of all the things considered normal now that would have been absurd before 2016.
- superultra 4mo ago
  Surely we’re aware of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 yes? It spells out exactly what they are doing, & where they are going. Eliminating birthright citizenship is a key component dating back decades. https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/feudalism-consent-rethinking-birthright-citizenship https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/feudalism-c...
  - andsoitis 4mo ago
    Thanks for posting that link. I read part of it and their reasoning strikes me as contortionist. Good then that after decades, as you point out, that argument has not won out. I would love to actually debate this issue with someone who does believe birthright citizenship is not a thing.

whateveracct 4mo ago

it's on the tin

onetimeusename 4mo ago

I don't think it's obvious. Like why do you think the dissenters are wrong to question what is meant about being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? The intention was to prevent former slaves from being deprived of citizenship so what is an argument to say this obviously includes someone who arrives for birth tourism? Why doesn't this include children of diplomats, as one example, if it's such an all encompassing law?

malicka 4mo ago
Because when you are in a country, you are subject to it’s jurisdiction. Can you be arrested for petty crimes? Yes? Then you’re under that country’s jurisdiction.
- onetimeusename 4mo ago
  That's what the justices said. That has generally been how modern courts interpret it, with a textualist interpretation. But that was not the original intention of the law which I already stated. So to go back to my original point, it's not an obvious conclusion.
  - HelloMcFly 4mo ago
    > But that was not the original intention of the law which I already stated You've stated it, but not evidenced it. This is certainly the right-wing talking point, but never strongly sourced. The meaning of this phrase was viciously debated. Would it surprise you to know that many in Congress hated it for similar reasons as nationalists today? Let me say this again: the meaning of this phrase was openly and viciously debated in the public record! Senator Cowan thought the phrasing created a loophole for birthright citizenship, and the amendment creators explicitly, overtly, repeatedly agreed with his interpretation of the phrasing and defended it as deliberate policy. Feel free to read some of this: https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/libertyandjustice/ch5/01/#:~:text=The%20proposition%20before%20us%20.%20.%20.,that%20they%20shall%20be%20citizens. https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/libertyandjusti... (CTRL+F "If my friend from Pennsylvania" for a quite pertinent line).