Supreme Court Just Ruled on Trump's Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship for immigrant children, proving once again that nine black robes in Washington know better than the American people what the Constitution actually means.

The Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, which means they are considered citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The ruling means that Trump's executive order is rendered invalid and cannot be enforced, handing another glorious victory to the open-borders crowd and their judicial enablers, and Chuck 'Nostrils' Schumer may be coming for Gorsuch.

Trump issued the executive order on his first day back in office last year, seeking to limit birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a challenge to that order on April Fools Day, and was expected to issue a ruling before the end of its current term.

The order directed federal agencies not to recognize U.S. citizenship for children born in the country after late February 2025 if the mother was in the country illegally and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Supporters defended the order, arguing that it is a necessary correction in a longstanding misreading of the 14th Amendment. They contend that the provision was not intended to grant automatic citizenship to the children of parents who lack full allegiance to the United States. In a post on Truth Social, Trump argued that the country “cannot live with the shackles of Birthright Citizenship. It is not economically, or otherwise, sustainable, and no other Country in the World, of consequence, does it!”

This decision is peak judicial activism dressed up as originalism. The Fourteenth Amendment was never meant to turn America into a global maternity ward for illegal aliens and temporary visitors. While the Supreme Court once again chooses international norms over common sense, everyday Americans are left footing the bill for endless chain migration, strained welfare systems, and eroded national sovereignty.
Trump was right: birthright citizenship as currently practiced is a magnet for abuse that no serious country tolerates. Time for Congress to fix what the courts refuse to or for us voters to fix Congress.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Justice Alito rips Jackson a new one over 'utterly irresponsible' solo dissent

Justice Alito and DEI appointee Jackson

Justice Samuel Alito just unloaded on Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's latest solo dissent, and he didn't hold back on Biden's autopen D.E.I. appointee.

Alito's concurrence, joined by Gorsuch and Thomas, said Jackson's rhetoric "lacks restraint." He torched claims that terminating temporary protected status for Haitian migrants was driven by racial bias against non-white immigrants. 

No, wait, this time it was even better: Alito ripped into Jackson's lone dissent in the high-stakes Louisiana redistricting fight on Monday, labeling her arguments "baseless and insulting" after the Court moved to fast-track its recent ruling ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Writing in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, Alito directly slapped down Jackson, declaring that her "dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered."

"The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power," Alito wrote, adding that that was a "groundless and utterly irresponsible charge."

This latest clash just underscores how isolated Jackson has become on the bench, mainly because she isn't the brightest woman, [whatever that is, I'm not a biologist] on the SCOTUS bench. She didn't just split from the conservative majority; she went rogue from her two liberal colleagues too, who refused to sign on to her rant. Jackson unloaded on the Court for supposed overreach, continuing her habit of solo dissents where the Biden pick blasts every big majority decision that happens to go the way of President Trump and the Republicans.

In Monday's unsigned order, the Court cleared the way for Louisiana officials to quickly redo their congressional map, a move expected to boost Republican representation in the state ahead of the midterms.

Alito pointed out that dragging out the 6-3 ruling from last month, which tightened up Section Two of the Voting Rights Act by calling out Louisiana's map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, served zero practical purpose. Jackson's excuses for delaying the landmark decision were "trivial at best" and "baseless and insulting," he said.

"The dissent accuses the Court of 'unshackl[ing]' itself from 'constraints,'" Alito wrote. "It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint."

Jackson had clutched her pearls, warning that the Court's action risked meddling in an active election and creating the "appearance of partiality," all while ignoring the voting and legal mess already happening in Louisiana.

Legal watchers noted the unusually sharp tone from Alito, figuring it showed some real internal tension boiling over. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley put it plainly: "Justice Alito had had enough." Professor Turley explained that Alito shredded Jackson's lame 32-day procedural objection, calling it a "trivial" nitpick that put form over substance, especially since nobody asked for reconsideration. It would have meant waiting around for no reason while the other parties had urgent need to get the map finalized.

He added that Alito was particularly fed up with Jackson's "unprincipled" smear against the Court. The whole thing stems from the standard 32-day procedural window before a judgment drops to lower courts. Alito made clear that rule is flexible and mainly exists for rehearing petitions, which weren't coming here anyway.

Now Louisiana is in full scramble mode to roll out the new map, with ballots already mailed and the primary on pause. 

This decision will ripple across the country as other states scramble to get their own maps in order for the upcoming elections.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. Finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Lightfoot changes her tune from "Eff Clarence Thomas" to 'can't we all just get along?'

Chicago Mayor Lori "Beetlejuice" Lightfoot (D) has taken her hypocrisy from "F**k Clarence Thomas" to a more civil level just days after encouraging people to have sex with him, or whatever she meant. 

The former "Before" model for plastic surgery spoke at an event on Tuesday where she spoke out against attacks on the police, the agency that she had previously wanted to defund. She said the attacks on cops is a sign that people are "losing respect for the institutions of our democracy."

Strangely enough, nobody laughed or called out her hypocrisy.

The Mayor of one of the nation's most dangerous cities continued: "That says to me that the people who are acting so brazenly have no not only no respect for themselves, but they don't have respect for the institution like the police department, who men and women every single day on every watch, are literally risking life and limb for our safety." 

"But toxicity in our public discourse is a thing that I think we should all be concerned about, right?" Lightfoot added as the echoes of 'F**k Clarence Thomas' reverberated in the heads of those who knew what she had said just days prior at a Pride event. 

The lesbian mayor alluded to the horrible massacre at Highland Park at  their Fourth of July parade where 7 people were killed and over 30 injured. She urged Chicagoans to "respect" each other, but her Tourette's kicked in causing her to once again shout, "F**k Clarence Thomas!" She went on to stress the importance of "community" and to "focus on what brings us together and not what tears us apart. F**k Clarence Thomas!"

"That's the thing I think that concerns me the most about what we're seeing, really over the arc of these last two years- I get it. People are angry. F**k Clarence Thomas! They are frustrated. And they're fearful," Lightfoot pontificated. "But we can't let those things mean that we lose sight of each other's humanity. We've got to find a common sense and a purpose."

* * *

 Consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Communism, ignorance, The New York Times, and the heebie-jeebies.

* * *

"Every single person has a role to play in healing the wounds that are plaguing us in our country. And I just pray every single day that each of us will stand up and have that bravery of self and soul to do what is right in this moment. Because we desperately need that kind of healing," she later said, adding, "F**k Clarence Thomas!"

Tweet

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's brain is still asleep: thinks pregnant women aren't 'mothers'

A face that only a mother could love

According to the Free Dictionary, the definition of "mother" is:

a. A woman who gives birth to a child.
b. A woman whose egg unites with a sperm, producing an embryo.
c. A woman who adopts a child.
d. A woman who raises a child.

But according to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a pregnant woman is not a mother [see b above, and give praise to a, c, and especially d.]

Ginsburg, who has made a name for herself for being the most relaxed SCOTUS justice, being able to drop off into a deep sleep at the drop of hat, made a point of saying that pregnant women are not mothers, particularly those pregnant women that kill their offspring in an abortion.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of an Indiana abortion law requiring medical facilities to provide dignified burials or cremation to children aborted at their establishment.

However, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with the court's opinion, but argued that his colleagues made a mistake by choosing not to rule on whether or not Indiana could ban abortions for sex-selective or eugenic purposes. It was his use of the word "mother" in his dissent that Justice Ginsburg took most issue with because she is a cold-blooded leftist who squeaked by the abortionist's scalpel by a pubic hair.

"Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement," Thomas wrote. "In other contexts, the Court has been zealous in vindicating the rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex, and disability discrimination."

Ginsburg took issue: "(A) woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother,’" she wrote, according to LifeNews. 

If she is not a mother of the child inside her, what is her relationship with her son or daughter who awaits slaughter?

Ginsburg added that Thomas' opinion carried "more heat than light," prompting him to say her opinion "makes little sense," [because she is crazy.]

Not only is Ginsburg what leftists refer to as a science-denier, she insults the millions of women who have suffered the harsh pain of a miscarriage. They did not suffer a loss of a cluster of cells, but Ginsburg is too cold to understand that.

In an op-ed for LifeNews, Brian Kemper spoke about the horrific time when he and his wife suffered a miscarriage. They opted to have a funeral for their son, and explained that abortion advocates have a stake in completely severing any and all dignified language that could be bestowed upon a pregnancy of an unborn child.

The doctor pointed to the container holding our son and said he would “take care of that.” I told him, “No, we are going to have a funeral.”

They even named their son Benjamin Davis Kemper and Brian explained that Benjamin Davis Kemper "is as much my child as any of our living children. Benjamin Davis is buried in a cemetery in Troy, Ohio where he was given the dignity he deserved with a funeral and burial."

His wife visits the gravesite regularly.

Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industrial complex has to push lies on people to make the killing of the unborn a palatable situation. They use terms like "terminating a pregnancy," to obfuscate the truth. 

You want to terminate a pregnancy, the best way to do it is give birth.

Kindly consider following Brain Flushings and please visit the ads on these pages. Thank you.

Tweet

Trump triumphs as travel ban is mostly reinstated

In a yoooge victory for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court lifted key components of an injunction against President Trump's proposed ban on travel from six nations that tend to be importers of terrorism. Not so coincidentally, these nations are Muslim-majority. 

The Supreme Court will revisit the ban in October when they go back in session.

This decision will have the justices delve into the biggest legal quagmire since Trump took office. His order temporarily restricts travel and the court made it clear that a limited version of the policy can immediately be enforced.

Much of the policy has been reinstated, but travelers who have family in the U.S. will be excluded from the ban.

"An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded," the court wrote. "As to these individuals and entities, we do not disturb the injunction. But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connections to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government's compelling need to provide for the Nation's security."

Trump has been openly pissed off after his original executive order of January 27th, was partially blocked by a federal court.

"What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions can come into U.S.?" Trump tweeted on February 4th.

Trump has been looking forward to the Supreme Court to take up the case and get it out of the hands of liberal (aka leftist) appellate judges.

Now that Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and he has since been confirmed, the balance of the court goes to the right side of the aisle.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: "The Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits--that is, that the judgments below will be reversed." This was also supported by justices Alito and Gorsuch. "The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its 'compelling need to provide for the Nation's security.'"

The federal appeals courts in California and Virginia ruled against Trump in recent weeks. And when Trump was a presidential candidate, a majority of the 4th Circuit appeals court cited his statements at the time that he was proposing a ban "preventing Muslim immigration."

But the White House frames the ban as a temporary move involving national security, and any fair-minded person who sees what's happening in the world would agree that a greater security threat exists from people coming from Islamic majority countries than from other nations.

The most difficult aspect of the immigration question the court will deal with is deciding just how much discretion does a president have over immigration. Courts have been deferential in the past and would allow presidents to use their discretion to deny entry to certain groups of refugees and diplomats.

The Immigration and Nationality Act passed in 1952 gives the president broad authority. Section 212 (f) states that: "Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Justice Thomas criticized the majority for the compromise made in Monday's ruling. He indicated that he would have allowed the order to be enforced in full and believes "the Court's remedy" would inspire a flood of new litigation.

"Today's compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding--on perils of contempt--whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country," Thomas wrote. "The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a 'bona fide relationship,' who precisely has a 'credible claim' to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed 'simply to avoid §2(c)' of Executive Order No. 13780."

Hopefully, a more center-right Supreme Court will quash the attempts of the liberal appellate courts to obstruct Trump's reasonable executive orders.


Tweet