202
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] WatDabney@fedia.io 80 points 1 week ago

So literally what happened here is Trump said, "I want to violate the Constitution" and the Supreme Court said, " Okay — go ahead."

And that's it for the rule of law in the US.

All that's left now is to tally the mass murders along the way to the inevitable collapse of the US, and to hope that our descendents can build something better out of the rubble.

[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That’s not literally what happened at all. Trump said, “I want to violate the constitution and issued an order”. Then states cities and organizations sued across three cases and courts issued universal injunctions. Trump said “wah! Help me puppet kourt!” Then the Supreme Court was like, “be still mein führer. We will not allow these injunctions to apply to the entire nation. Only to those who have sued.”

They gave him second base. Let’s see if they go all the way for Don Don.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 week ago

The US collapsing is going to absolutely affect the rest of the world. This is very VERY bad.

[-] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 69 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Lest we forget:

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Pretty hard to argue that “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” doesn’t mean what it clearly states. It’s not even in legalese. The fact that this wasn’t laughed out of court says everything.

That's what the Constitution says, and Trump now has nothing that can legally stop him from doing it.

Which means the Constitution is dead letter.

[-] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

That goes both ways, and states need to start acting on it. They need to start passing a flurry of laws criminalizing ICE tactics. Pass laws making it a felony to:

  • Conduct law enforcement while masked

  • To search homes without a warrant

  • To enter various protected locations for law enforcement purposes when there isn't an immediate threat.

They need to take cues from the anti-abortion playbook. Pass a law requiring all immigration detainees be transported in limousines. Require ICE to old prisoners in five star hotels. Require immigration officers to have at least two doctoral degrees. Make it a felony to do immigration enforcement without doing these things. Just start writing dozens of crazy laws criminalizing every aspect of ICE's operations. Then let the individual ICE agents try and challenge them individually.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It is just a fucking piece of paper.

If the judges and politicians and police don't care and no one else can do anything then it means nothing.

It is this or bloody revolution and that would lead to the US being invaded by multiple other countries and shit getting worse and worse.

North Korea of America is where we are now.

Uggh. I can work out whether to upvote you for the accurate summary of the source of law & state power or downvote you for the utter idiocy of the invasion statement.

Russia can't - they're struggling to take over a country a fifth their size and have burnt through their Soviet stockpiles.

UK & EU certainly won't invade, at most they'd send a peacekeeping force to protect civilians at a UN request (UN probably wouldnt pass it)

Canada will be stretched just keeping fighting out of its borders.

Mexico might just on principle (payback's a bitch) but has bugger all capacity.

Same for South American Asian and African countries.

That leaves China, and if you think the Chinese are stupid enough to insert themselves in your civil war and create a sole enemy for both sides to fight you have zero understanding of the Chinese strategy.

The Chinese will wait for you all to decimate the country and each other, then come in and buy up the bits they want. Oh and invade Taiwan while y'all are busy destroying your country.

Putin's plan to destroy the US has worked magnificently.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

It is this or bloody revolution and that would lead to the US being invaded by multiple other countries and shit getting worse and worse.

No other nations are going to be invading the US, let alone multiple of them. They don't have the logistics for it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

They haven’t decided on the legality of it yet. They just decided that courts cannot issue universal injunctions. They can only stop it at a case by case level for those who are suing. If they decide it’s unconstitutional, then it’ll have to stop nationally, but a lot of damage can be done before then. I think they’ll decide in October…

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] DancingBear@midwest.social 4 points 1 week ago

That’s technically not what they ruled on

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 20 points 1 week ago

Looking into it this whole thing is way more complicated than the headline makes it sound. The Supreme Court didn't actually give Trump permission to end birthright citizenship, they just made a ruling about how courts can block federal policies nationwide.

Basically what happened: Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by multiple federal judges who said it's probably unconstitutional. Instead of arguing the constitutional issue (which he'd probably lose), Trump's team asked the Supreme Court to limit judges' power to issue nationwide blocks on policies. The Court agreed 6-3, but they specifically did NOT rule on whether ending birthright citizenship is legal.

So now Trump's celebrating like he won, but really all that changed is the procedural stuff. The constitutional problems with his order are still there: the 14th Amendment is pretty clear about birthright citizenship. Lower courts still have to reconsider their rulings, and immigrant rights groups are already filing new lawsuits.

It's more of a tactical win for Trump that might let him try to implement parts of his agenda in some places, but the fundamental legal challenges haven't gone away. The Truthout article is at least a little hyperbolic imo.

[-] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago

He did win though, because by telling federal judges that their rulings against executive orders cannot be.. Federal, nationwide, the supreme court took away about 99% of the (already mediocre) checks and balances against Trump's power (and any presidents power). To pass it off as just some procedural stuff misses how impactful this is, the only court powers that can stop his kings laws by edict ('executive orders') now are: case by case state-based rulings for federal judges, and the supreme court itself for nationwide rulings.

This is largely what Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent: this is a huge expansion of presidential powers by the SC removing restrictions from the president, over an issue that is abundantly clearly illegal (denying birthright citizenship), and it leaves the door wide open to further illegal orders.

Her dissent is worth a read, it begins on page 54: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

[-] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Fair point.

I was definitely too focused on the narrow "did they rule on birthright citizenship" question and missed the bigger picture. You're right that this is way more than just procedural, it's a massive shift in executive power.

The fact that federal judges can now only issue piecemeal, state-by-state rulings essentially breaks their ability to actually check presidential overreach in any meaningful way.

I think I got too caught up in fact checking the specific headline and missed how big Trump's win actually was here, just not in the way the headlines suggested. Thanks for the correction.

[-] FanciestPants@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

My prior understanding of the issue at hand is that the probable downside for limiting the nationwide application of some federal judge rulings is that the federal agencies have the resources to select a jurisdiction to enact rules that local judges have determined to be unconstitutional to one where local judges have not. Ex. if Feds can't violate someone's civil rights in New York, just move that someone to Florida where the Federal Agency can violate their civil rights.

Certainly there are scenarios in which federal judges being able to issue nationwide rulings is detrimental to left leaning causes as well (mifepristone bans), however without the supreme court first taking up the case of the constitutionality of birthright citizenship before making this current ruling on application of nationwide rulings, they're just being a bunch of shit fuck cowards.

[-] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 5 points 1 week ago

100% on both counts.

The forum shopping issue you're describing is exactly the problem. Trump's team can now basically pick and choose where to implement policies that have been ruled unconstitutional elsewhere. It creates this patchwork where your constitutional rights depend on geography, which is obviously fucked.

And you're spot on about the cowardice. The Supreme Court absolutely should have ruled on the constitutional question first. That's the actual substantive issue everyone cares about. Instead they took the cop out that gives Trump more power without having to make the hard call on whether his order is constitutional.

Honestly it looks like classic Roberts Court behaviour: make big changes to how government works while pretending you're just doing technical legal housekeeping. They know damn well that ruling on birthright citizenship would be messy and politically explosive, so they found a way to help Trump without having to own the constitutional implications.

Your point about this cutting both ways (like with mifepristone) is important too, but the timing here makes it pretty clear what they're really doing.

[-] uss_entrepreneur@startrek.website 19 points 1 week ago

As much as I dislike the decision, they did not give the “ok”

The ruling was about how the lower courts handle injunctions. The court cases are playing out still.

I still hate the decision.

[-] MasterBlaster@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

Effectively, anyone who does not have a lawyer who files a specific suit in a very short period of time can be deported at will. Saying it does not end the 14th Amendment is an exercise in English language mechanics, not in how it ends up affecting the world.

If you are high school student who is shipped off to a foreign prison, how likely do you think it is somebody will fight to bring you back?

Bunch of pansies. All they had to do is say No

And would have been the end of it. But they are scared of him for w/e reason. Trump can't even remember Barrett.

[-] dugmeup@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

They effectively did. They are Supreme Court justices, not idiots.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

It doesn't sound like those two things are mutually exclusive.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] teamevil@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

This is fucking Stephen Miller's Nazi wet dream

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 week ago

If you end birthright citizenship, then nobody gets to be a citizen by birth. If you can't be a citizen by birth, the only way to become a citizen is naturalization. If the only citizens are naturalized people, the country is 100% immigrants.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

And if immigrants don’t need due process and can be sent to concentration camps then it’s really easy to make anyone disappear

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago

If immigrants don't get due process, then nobody gets due process.

You could arrest Bill Clinton and claim he's an immigrant. If that means he doesn't get due process, he can never prove he's not an immigrant, and so he's stuck in Guantanamo forever.

[-] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

That's pretty much the plan imo

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] SaltSong@startrek.website 13 points 1 week ago

Can Trump prove his citizenship, if this policy goes through?

[-] Zier@fedia.io 15 points 1 week ago

His 1st & current wife were not citizens when those children were born. They should be deported.

[-] WalnutLum@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week ago

I'm curious if this means that certain cities or states will become citizenship havens because their local courts decided to provide injunctions for their jurisdiction.

[-] MetalMachine@feddit.nl 12 points 1 week ago

From what I understand, its not the supreme court ok'd his move rather they stopped other lower federal courts from creating injunctions that stop the entire process, and they now limited them to stopping only those who bring forth lawsuits and who are affected by whatever it is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I’d like to pay a reporter to ask Trump how it feels to wipe his ass with the Constitution. I’d think it would be coarse and unpleasant, but he keeps doing it.

Ill just stick with Charmin or whatever.

[-] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 5 points 1 week ago

Trump will then happily show his new line of merchandise. One is his "We The People" line of toilet paper. There's also his "Smooth Criminal" line, extra soft toilet paper with the entire criminal law printed on it.

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Human rights are officially a thing of the past. None of us qualify for citizenship if he removes that definition.

load more comments (40 replies)
[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

This title isn’t true. The court has not “given the OK”

load more comments (21 replies)
[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

this is insane

[-] Karrion409@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

We're at a point where imo the only way to fix things here is captial C and captial D Civil Disobedience. At risk of getting put on a list and deported or smth I'm not gonna go into specifics but I'm sure you can figure out what I'm getting at.

[-] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Wait ... Doesn't "citizenship" mean where you're born?

It's either where you're born or where you live. Which is it?

Wtf even is citizenship then?

"I'm from Ireland" is synonymous with "I'm Irish"... Right?

So if you're born in America, wouldn't you... Be American?

If he takes that away, you aren't just magically from nowhere, you're still American.

This is stupid and makes no sense, it's all just classism and racism. I hate everything.

[-] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Its the same as the election between Obama and McCain, in ways a lot of people dont realize.

Obama, by virtue of having a non-traditional name and not being white, was hounded by birthers despite being born an American citizen clear as day with absolutely no question about it.

McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone the year before people born in the canal zone were granted citizenship at birth. Arguably he was not a citizen at birth under the definitional requirements of the constitution to be president. He was naturalized as a citizen retroactively.

Palin is part native, and was pretty heavily involved with Alaska Native movements that rejected US sovereignty and thereby rejected claims to citizenship. But no one talked about that either because shes also largely seen as just being a white American.

And yet Obama, who was American thru and thru from birth without question, never was involved with Hawaiian sovereignty movements, is the one whos citizenship was questioned.

“White makes right” is the rule of law to these people

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Almacca@aussie.zone 5 points 1 week ago

You've just given it ten times more thought than the Trump team has.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 week ago

On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder.

So is this retroactive? Do states that are not challenging take effect in 30 days? Who the fuck knows. Make sure to do jack shit to stop all of this.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-may-rule-allowing-enforcement-trump-birthright-citizenship-2025-06-27/

[-] KarlHungus42@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

First ones to be deported should be melania and baron

load more comments (1 replies)

So... He's goin to deport Baron Trump then, right?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

He is much closer to his stated goal

The power to deport any natural Born Citizen on demand for no reason at all

He has stated he wants.... Needs this

On Exactly why he has been vague

[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

Question : didn't the supreme court just say that lower level judges can't block him? Which would mean that appeal judges can? So this question is far from settled?

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I think they said the judge didn't have the right to block it nation wide, only for the states that sued, which was 22 or something like that.

[-] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Can the supreme court just straight up ignore the constitution, under the constitution?

Surely no, right?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
202 points (97.2% liked)

News

30859 readers
1510 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS