5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
With Its Birthright Non-Decision, the Supreme Court Chickened Out and Left a Mess Behind
Barrett and the conservative majority produced a complicated and confusing procedural ruling that leaves the executive order in legal limbo.
Jul 10, 2025
Just how bad is the Supreme Court’s June 27 decision on birthright citizenship? Among progressive and liberal commentators, the thinking is surprisingly mixed. Some assert that Trump v. CASA “couldn’t be more disastrous” and will leave the Trump administration with “blood on its hands”; others see “silver linings” in the ruling.
The reason for the diverse reactions is simple: The 6-3 majority decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett didn’t address the underlying issue in the case—the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment for the children of undocumented immigrants. Instead, Barrett and the conservative majority produced a complicated and confusing procedural ruling that leaves the executive order in legal limbo, intact for now but subject to further litigation.
As I have written before, Trump’s birthright order defies the plain text of the very first sentence of the 14th Amendment. Known as the “Citizenship Clause,” the sentence reads: “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.”
Had Barrett and her confederates not ducked the underlying issue of the executive order’s constitutionality, they would have been forced either to rewrite the Citizenship Clause to uphold the order—a step even they apparently are not yet prepared to take—or invalidate a centerpiece of the MAGA mass deportation agenda.
The executive order stunningly disregards these easily understood words, proclaiming that the amendment “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States,” but was adopted only to repudiate the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision that denied citizenship to Black Americans.
But while repudiating Dred Scott was the immediate impetus for crafting the Citizenship Clause, the Senate and the House debates in 1866 extended far beyond that notorious decision.
The clause was introduced in the Senate by Jacob Howard of Michigan on May 30, 1866, as an add-on to the draft of the 14th Amendment formulated by the House. The clause tracked similar language contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and followed the general principles of English common law and the ancient doctrine of jus solis (the “law of the soil’’)—the principle that all those born within the geographic boundaries of a nation are citizens at birth. (More than 30 countries today recognize the doctrine, including the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Great Britain modified its nationality law in 1981.)
In his introductory remarks, Howard noted the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant that the citizenship clause would not apply to the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers, the children of occupying foreign soldiers, or to the offspring of Native Americans who claimed allegiance to tribal governments, but that the clause would “include every other class of person,” regardless of race or descent. (Native Americans were accorded citizenship by legislation passed in 1924.)
The citizenship clause, Howard said, “settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.”
Trump’s executive order also contradicts the court’s precedent opinions dating back to the landmark 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which recognized the citizenship of a man born in the U.S. to parents who at the time were subjects of the Chinese Emperor but domiciled in California. That case and other later decisions demonstrate the inclusive nature of the Citizenship Clause.
Had Barrett and her confederates not ducked the underlying issue of the executive order’s constitutionality, they would have been forced either to rewrite the Citizenship Clause to uphold the order—a step even they apparently are not yet prepared to take—or invalidate a centerpiece of the MAGA mass deportation agenda.
In the end, they chose to do neither.
But they still managed to hand Trump the next best thing to a total victory. Barrett’s ruling granted the administration’s request for a “partial stay” (or pause) on three nationwide preliminary injunctions that had been issued by three federal district court judges—which blocked the birthright order from taking effect anywhere in the country—and sent the cases back to the district judges for further consideration to weed through and apply the jurisprudential mess that Barrett left behind.
In a tortured analysis that New York Magazine’s Chas Danner called “an originalist fever dream,” Barrett limited the court’s review to the sole question of whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have the authority to issue nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions. The act was one of the first laws passed by Congress after the ratification of the Constitution, and in modified form remains on the books in Title 28 of the United States Code. And as Barrett noted, it is the Judiciary Act that has endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over “all suits… in equity,” and that “still today… authorizes the federal courts to issue equitable remedies,” such as injunctions.
As an originalist, Barrett interprets the Constitution and federal statutes rigidly according to their text and their “original public meaning,” discounting evolving legal norms and practices as well as contemporary social values and needs. When it comes to universal injunctions, however, originalists have a problem. No federal statute, including the Judiciary Act, explicitly authorizes judges to issue nationwide injunctions, but no statute prohibits them from doing so.
In the absence of any guidance from the 1789 act, Barrett and the majority revved up their originalist wayback machine to examine how the English High Court of Chancery operated at the time of the founding, asking if that court issued forms of equitable relief analogous to contemporary universal injunctions. “The answer,” she wrote, “is no.” Equitable remedies at the time of the founding, she concluded, could provide “complete relief between the parties” to a lawsuit, but “complete relief is not synonymous with universal relief” that applies throughout an entire country.
But then, in another confusing twist, Barrett offered the aforementioned silver linings, writing that legal challenges to Trump’s birthright order might proceed under the Administrative Procedures Act, or as class actions, or in lawsuits brought by individual states seeking relief on behalf of their own residents, which 22 states to date have joined. Barrett left it to the district courts to determine which of these alternative legal avenues might suffice, and she gave them 30 days to do so before the executive order takes effect.
In a blistering dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor charged that Barrett’s opinion “kneecaps the Judiciary’s authority to stop the Executive from enforcing even the most unconstitutional policies” and that “newborns subject to the Citizenship Order will face the gravest harms imaginable,” jeopardizing their “chance to participate in American society… unless their parents have sufficient resources to file individual suits.”
In another scathing dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasted Barrett’s opinion “as an existential threat to the rule of law.”
Trump, by contrast, hailed the court’s decision, boasting that it will unblock other items on his political agenda that have been stymied by district court injunctions.
In the meantime, attorneys in the CASA case have amended their complaint to proceed as a class action, and New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin has expressed confidence that broad injunctions stopping Trump’s executive order can still be enforced in lawsuits filed by state governments.
Whether the new legal maneuvers succeed remains to be seen. None would be necessary if the Supreme Court had stood up to Trump and done its job in the first place.
Keep Reading
Show Less
One Siege, Two Fronts: How U.S. Power Shapes Gaza and the American Security State
The systems operating in Gaza and across the U.S. do not exist to keep people safe. They exist to manage, displace, and contain populations deemed problematic.
Jul 10, 2025
The crisis in Gaza is no longer limited to military operations backed by U.S. weapons and diplomatic support. American involvement now extends into the structure of the siege itself, including the use of private contractors, control over humanitarian aid, and the deployment of surveillance systems.
Meanwhile, a separate security campaign is unfolding inside the United States. The Department of Homeland Security, through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is deploying biometric devices to monitor and track individuals. At the same time, it is targeting safe spaces such as residential neighborhoods and carrying out mass deportations that resemble a coordinated population removal effort.
Aid and Enforcement on the Ground
Since May, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a U.S.-based organization backed by the State Department, has overseen food distribution in military-controlled areas of Gaza. United Nations agencies have described the operation as part of a broader effort to weaponize food, using aid as a tool of control rather than relief. American contractors guard their sites under firms like UG Solutions and Safe Reach Solutions. Contractors have reported frequent, systematic use of live ammunition, stun grenades, and pepper spray against people trying to collect food. The firms currently deny these allegations.
Cable news networks have mainly avoided framing the destruction in Gaza as part of a broader strategy to depopulate the area and reshape it under the pretext of security.
These operations are not improvised. They follow a model of crowd management that treats aid like a security mission. Cameras and facial recognition systems operated by U.S. contractors are used to track “persons of interest,” with the data shared directly with Israeli forces. The result is hunger being managed by armed control, not alleviated by relief.
Media Framing
U.S. media is full of stories about American aid dropping into Gaza, emphasizing coordination and relief. Coverage declares that millions of meals have been delivered. What is seldom discussed are allegations that these operations employ the same tactics as military occupations, including armed checkpoints, surveillance, and restricted access to necessities.
Coverage of other civilian tragedies in Gaza, such as the bombing of a seaside café or the killing of Dr. Marwan al-Sultan while he was directing a hospital, is often sparse, brief, and presented without political context. Meanwhile, televised segments about aid distribution are framed as humanitarian triumphs. The result is a distorted picture that hides the U.S.’ role in transforming humanitarian aid into controlled violence.
Institutionalized Civilian Targeting
Gaza’s healthcare system is collapsing. Dozens of medical workers have been killed in airstrikes, and hospitals have been reduced to rubble. The bombing of places like the coastal café, where families and children gathered, shows how civilian spaces are being deliberately erased. These are not military sites or areas of active combat. Their destruction appears intended to break down ordinary life and push people toward displacement. Dr. Marwan al-Sultan, a respected cardiologist and director of the Indonesian Hospital, was the 70th healthcare worker killed by Israeli strikes in just 50 days, according to Palestinian medical organizations.
In much of the U.S. media, these events are framed as accidents or isolated tragedies, often presented alongside official statements from the Israeli government and vague promises of investigation. Rarely are they balanced with independent or opposing perspectives, such as the claim that hospitals and civilian infrastructure are being deliberately targeted. While outlets like Reuters have published some reporting on these issues, such coverage remains rare among major U.S. media platforms. Cable news networks have mainly avoided framing the destruction in Gaza as part of a broader strategy to depopulate the area and reshape it under the pretext of security.
Domestic Mirroring
Inside the U.S. public sphere, a new wave of repression has emerged. What has been called the “Palestine exception” has taken hold, where pro-Palestinian speech on campuses, in academic work, and advocacy is regularly treated as suspicious or subject to punishment. At the same time, similar expressions on other issues are largely ignored.
Reports from Council on American-Islamic Relations show a record-high spike in anti-Muslim incidents in 2024, directly linked to backlash over the war in Gaza. This surge has also been reflected in the wave of Islamophobic rhetoric that followed Zohran Mamdani’s victory in New York City’s Democratic primary for mayor.
Just as Palestinians in Gaza are placed at risk simply by going to food distribution sites, an act they are expected to perform, migrants in the United States face detention when attending immigration hearings or routine check-ins they are required to complete.
Against this backdrop, ICE has expanded its use of biometric surveillance tools, including facial recognition, mobile fingerprint scanners, and iris scans. These technologies closely resemble those used by U.S. contractors in Gaza to monitor aid recipients and flag individuals for Israeli forces. In both cases, the tools serve a similar purpose. They identify, track, and remove targeted populations under the justification of security.
Just as Palestinians in Gaza are placed at risk simply by going to food distribution sites, an act they are expected to perform, migrants in the United States face detention when attending immigration hearings or routine check-ins they are required to complete. Like reports of U.S. contractors deploying flash-bang grenades during aid distribution in Gaza, ICE has used the same tactics in residential areas during militarized domestic operations.
Displacement Without Being Named
In both Gaza and the United States, forced displacement is rarely acknowledged for what it is. Media coverage presents it through isolated incidents—airstrikes, deportations, legal actions—detached from the larger pattern of population removal.
In Gaza, proposals to move Palestinians to Egypt or other countries are described as humanitarian efforts or part of rebuilding plans. These descriptions overlook the systematic destruction of homes, hospitals, and neighborhoods. The coverage treats these as consequences of war, not as part of a coordinated effort to make civilian life impossible.
In the United States, deportations are reported through legal categories. Media narratives focus on status or procedure, rather than the coercive structure behind them. The focus is on expulsion, not immigration reform or options for legal integration.
The systems operating in Gaza and across the U.S. do not exist to keep people safe. They exist to manage, displace, and contain populations deemed problematic. The primary beneficiaries are those who build and maintain these systems, such as defense contractors, private surveillance firms, border security consultants, and the officials who award them contracts.
The more threats these systems claim to identify, the more funding they receive. The more disorder it produces, the more authority it demands. From Gaza to cities across the U.S., the goal is not resolution. It is control. And control is profitable.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Will Be a Disaster for Gen Z—and the Planet
But while young people are knitting sweaters and thrifting new clothes, our representatives in Congress are passing huge giveaways to the fossil fuel industry and attacks on sustainability.
Jul 10, 2025
Like many other Gen-Zers, I have an interest in sustainability initiatives. Our rapidly changing climate—and our constant exposure to it on social media—encourages us to be more active in seeking out ways to reduce our environmental impacts.
As more Gen-Zers enter the workforce, 74% of us have reported wanting to find a sustainable employer. We also place a strong emphasis on supporting sustainability with our dollars, with Gen-Zers on average willing to spend 10% more on sustainable items and brands.
One surprising trend that’s taken off as a result of these concerns? Crafting.
It’s incredibly frustrating as an individual trying to lessen my impact on the environment—spending hours knitting, crocheting, and thrifting—while watching politicians on Capitol Hill greenlight massive polluters.
Especially since the Covid-19 pandemic, the so-called fiber arts—like knitting, embroidery, quilting, crocheting, and so on—have helped Gen-Zers channel their environmental concerns into their wardrobes while also expressing their creativity. Despite it once being labeled a “grandma activity,” a stunning 73% of crocheters are now between the ages of 18 and 34, according to one website dedicated to the craft.
The explosion of fiber arts on TikTok and Instagram inspired me to take up knitting, thrifting, and crocheting as a way to expand my wardrobe consciously while limiting the amount of waste I produce.
Last year, I knit a sweater for my mother for her birthday and crocheted a scarf for my father for Christmas. I love taking weekend thrifting trips with my friends, exploring new areas as we purchase second-hand clothing. Engaging in fiber arts and eco-conscious shopping helps me feel closer to my community while reducing my environmental impact.
But while young people are knitting sweaters and thrifting new clothes, our representatives in Congress are passing huge giveaways to the fossil fuel industry and attacks on sustainability.
President Donald Trump’s recently passed “Big Beautiful Bill” will significantly reduce funding for sustainable programs. It will drastically scale back the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy tax credits, which have accelerated the clean energy sector. This will hinder the transition to clean energy, raise energy prices, and substantially increase carbon emissions.
The bill also introduces “pay to play” provisions that will allow large companies to pay fees for expedited environmental reviews, effectively repealing the National Environmental Policy Act. By bypassing these reviews, these companies can avoid regulatory requirements to streamline gas or oil drilling projects.
The bill also included a measure that would have forced the unprecedented sale of 250 million acres of public lands. These lands, which include hiking trails, drinking water, and critical wildlife migration corridors, would be made available for companies to purchase for oil drilling.
This provision was stripped after a massive public outcry, but the danger remains that it could be reintroduced in one form or another.
These changes are accompanied by a historic increase in the military budget, throwing an extra $150 billion into the Pentagon, which has a carbon footprint larger than most entire countries. This will raise the total Pentagon budget to over $1 trillion annually.
Unless it’s repealed, Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill will be a disaster for the planet—and my generation. It’s incredibly frustrating as an individual trying to lessen my impact on the environment—spending hours knitting, crocheting, and thrifting—while watching politicians on Capitol Hill greenlight massive polluters.
My actions, and the collective actions of my generation, deserve to be acknowledged. We deserve to have our sustainability concerns reflected in our federal budget. We’re doing our part—don’t erase our progress.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Thinking the Unthinkable: Do Republicans Want Some of Us to Die?
We must reckon with an administration that wants some of us to go away.
Jul 10, 2025
“Well, we all are going to die,” Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst responded to a constituent who said “people are going to die” because of the cruel provisions of U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill.” Ernst is correct, we are all going to die, but what she and the Republican Party appear to want is for specific groups to die.
That’s a shocking statement, and a hard one for us to make. But before you dismiss it, look at the evidence that’s accumulated over the years.
Republicans’ lack of concern for the lives of others appeared during the pandemic in a push to reopen businesses before vaccines and drugs were available. This would greatly increase Covid-19 transmission. Republicans railed against and dismantled every public health mitigation strategy. They knew that the deadliest toll would be on the elderly, infirm, migrants and the poor—the most vulnerable and the least welcomed by Republicans. Texas Lieutenant Gov. Dan Patrick supported reopening, arguing that grandparents should willingly risk death by Covid-19 to save the country’s economy for their children and grandchildren. Arizona’s former Republican Gov. Doug Ducey also placed the economy before human lives, taking numerous steps to undermine public health strategies. In the end, the pandemic death rates were higher in Arizona than any other state.
The infamous “Big Beautiful Bill” allows Republicans to further undermine the health of those they disfavor, with its draconian funding cuts to safety-net programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The Republican plan, to let Covid-19 rip to save the economy, held an unspoken benefit for them; Covid-19 deaths would remove unwelcome people—overwhelmingly elderly, Black or brown, poor or living with disabilities—from the rolls of the social programs that Republicans dislike. A cold indifference for the lives of others was in play.
Concurrently, Republicans spread misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines and masking, with President Trump being the single largest driver of Covid-19 misinformation. This turbocharged the present-day anti-public health, anti-science, anti-vaccine sentiments that endanger the U.S., culminating in the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a nonscientist and anti-vaccine advocate, to head the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Kennedy and Trump have methodically weakened the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Kennedy systematically removed vaccine experts, replacing them with anti-vaccine cronies. His mounting campaign to cease vaccination will allow the return of serious and deadly diseases. Once again, this will have the greatest adverse effects on groups unwelcomed by Republicans. Kennedy and Republicans have also cut funding for HIV vaccine research and suicide hotlines for LGBTQ+ youths, and are doing all they can to ban gender-affirming care for young people. All of this endangers the lives of groups that Republicans scorn.
The infamous “Big Beautiful Bill” allows Republicans to further undermine the health of those they disfavor, with its draconian funding cuts to safety-net programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These programs serve the most vulnerable U.S. residents—those with disabilities or who experience poverty and already struggle for adequate healthcare and nutrition. Ultimately, the bill would end access to healthcare and adequate nutrition for 14 million of the most vulnerable people in the U.S., intentionally endangering their lives.
And let’s not forget Florida’s Alligator Alcatraz, the Republicans’ detention center for migrants. The design and location of the center is not conducive to sustaining health or life. The cruelty of the place delights Republicans.
It doesn’t stop with the unwelcome in America. The Trump administration’s closing of USAID removed U.S. humanitarian and development assistance worldwide to people in the worst situations. USAID provided food, clean water, lifesaving medicines, and assistance for farmers; kept women and girls safe; and promoted peace. Due to Trump’s cruel closure of USAID, as many as 95 million people will be denied basic healthcare and nutrition, potentially leading to more than 3 million preventable deaths per year. The halting of funding for USAID, as well as the President’s Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), could cause an additional 4-11 million new HIV infections and up to 2.9 million HIV-related deaths between 2025 and 2030. Further, Kennedy has pulled out of the vaccine alliance Gavi, an organization that has paid for more than 1 billion children to be vaccinated worldwide.
These cruel decisions endanger the most vulnerable around the world. But Republicans will never care about these Black and brown people who come from “shithole” countries, according to Trump. In their eyes, they are among the unwanted.
Some may see the Republicans’ plans as 21st-century eugenics to improve the white race by diminishing everyone who is not white, straight, nondisabled, Republican, and Christian. Many are reluctant to talk about this because it seems so unthinkable, but we must reckon with the strong possibility that this administration actively wants some of us to go away. Look at what is happening, and remember that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular