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

MSNBC racist contributor uses missing sub situation to wish death on White SCOTUS justice

"Yes Margaret, Black people can also be racists"

Frequent guest racist for MSNBC, Elie Mystal, used the current tragedy of the missing exploratory submarine to make a joke about killing off a White Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Alito, and MSNBC is obviously okay with the idea.

The fat funny-hair racist tweeted on Wednesday that somebody ought to offer Justice Alito a trip to visit the submerged wreckage of the R.M.S. Titanic, at the same moment in time that the submersible carrying five souls to do just that, remains missing and only has a few more hours of breathable air before they perish.

“Next time some rich white person wants to take Sam Alito on an expensive trip, please take him to see the Titanic,” the racist communist tweeted.

Mystal likely tweeted the deplorable comment after a ProPublica report appeared stating that Alito didn't report a luxury fishing trip he took to Alaska in 2008. He had flown with a friend Paul Singer on his private jet and Mystal was not invited. The report also claimed that Singer had cases that came before the Supreme Court and in those cases, Alito didn't recuse himself.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Justice Alito responded to the report saying, “Neither charge is valid.”

“I had no obligation to recuse in any of the cases that ProPublica cites. First, even if I had been aware of Mr. Singer’s connection to the entities involved in those cases, recusal would not have been required or appropriate,” Alito wrote, adding, “ProPublica suggests that my failure to recuse in these cases created an appearance of impropriety, but that is incorrect. ‘There is an appearance of impropriety when an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant facts would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties’ (Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices appended to letter from the Chief Justice to Senator Durbin, April 25, 2023). No such person would think that my relationship with Mr. Singer meets that standard.”

Regarding his obligation to report the travel under his financial disclosures because the items fell under the heading of "hospitality," the requirements to do so did not appear until several months after the trip. Thus, Alito had no obligation to report the trip before it was required to do so.

“Until a few months ago, the instructions for completing a Financial Disclosure Report told judges that ‘[p]ersonal hospitality need not be reported,’ and ‘hospitality’ was defined to include ‘hospitality extended for a non-business purpose by one, not a corporation or organization, … on property or facilities owned by [a] person …’ Section 109(14). The term ‘facilities’ was not defined, but both in ordinary and legal usage, the term encompasses means of transportation,” he wrote.

So Mystal can make statements like wishing death upon a White person because he doesn't adjudicate the way he would like him to, and nobody on the Left sees this as a problem.

For once, put the shoe on the other foot.

Tweet