Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order Is Unconstitutional, Says the First Appeals Court to Consider the Issue
The judgment is not surprising, since the president's reading of the 14th Amendment contradicts its text and history, plus 127 years of Supreme Court precedent.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Wednesday rejected President Donald Trump's attempt to restrict birthright citizenship by reinterpreting the 14th Amendment. This is the first time that an appeals court has addressed the constitutionality of Trump's executive order "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," which he issued on his first day in office. That order purported to exclude children whose mothers are unauthorized residents or legal temporary visitors from birthright citizenship unless their fathers are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents.
The 9th Circuit's conclusion that Trump's edict violates the 14th Amendment is not surprising. Several lower courts have reached the same conclusion based on the overwhelming weight of the historical evidence, 127 years of Supreme Court precedent, and positions taken by federal officials in all three branches of government. But the solution approved by two members of the three-judge panel—a nationwide injunction that completely blocks enforcement of the order—is more contentious.
The decision in Washington v. Trump involves a preliminary injunction that John C. Coughenour, a federal judge in Seattle, issued in February. The plaintiffs include four states (Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon) and several noncitizens who were pregnant when the original lawsuit was filed.
The appeals court chose not to address the women's claims, noting that their children are covered by a preliminary injunction that a federal judge in New Hampshire granted on July 10, which applies to a nationwide class consisting of "all current and future persons" who are subject to Trump's order. But 9th Circuit Judges Michael Daly Hawkins and Ronald M. Gould concluded that the states had standing to sue in light of the financial costs and administrative burdens that the order would impose on them—an assessment that Judge Patrick J. Bumatay rejected in a partial dissent. The majority also concluded that a nationwide injunction was necessary to provide the state plaintiffs with "complete relief."
The fact that Trump's edict has now been blocked by two nationwide injunctions may seem inconsistent with the Supreme Court's June 27 ruling against "universal injunctions," which addressed Coughenour's order along with two others. But that decision in Trump v. CASA, which held that any "equitable remedy" approved by a federal court must be limited to the plaintiffs in that particular case, left open several alternatives to universal injunctions, including class actions like the case in New Hampshire and lawsuits like Washington v. Trump, where the states argued that only a nationwide order would adequately address their claims.
Washington and the other states complained that Trump's decree would cost them money because it would exclude certain children, totaling about 1,100 infants per month in the four states, from federally subsidized benefits. They said the order also would require them to change their procedures for verifying a child's eligibility for those benefits, since a birth certificate would no longer be enough to establish citizenship.
Hawkins and Gould, both of whom were appointed by President Bill Clinton, thought those costs were enough to give the states standing. And they concluded that an injunction limited to the four states would not adequately address their injuries, since the families of children born in other states might move to Washington, Arizona, Illinois, or Oregon.
Bumatay, a Trump appointee, vigorously disagreed, saying the injuries cited by the state plaintiffs rely on "speculation" about "indirect, downstream costs" and "assumptions about uncertain implementation," making them "too speculative" and "too attenuated" to establish standing. But Bumatay did not weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump's order, noting only that the issue "elicits strong reactions from all sides."
Coughenour certainly had a "strong reaction" to the claim that a president can unilaterally restrict birthright citizenship. "I've been on the bench for over four decades," he remarked when he granted a temporary restraining order against Trump's decree three days after it was issued. "I can't remember another case where the question presented [was] as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order."
Coughenour's response was especially striking because he was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, which made it hard to dismiss him as the sort of "Radical Left Lunatic" whom Trump reflexively blames for interfering with his agenda. Coughenour explained his reasoning in detail the following month, when he issued the preliminary injunction that the 9th Circuit upheld. The appeals court's decision amplifies the points that Coughenour made.
The 14th Amendment says "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are "citizens of the United States." The Trump administration argues that the children covered by his order are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction because their parents cannot legally have a "permanent domicile" in this country and do not owe "primary allegiance" to the United States.
As Gould shows in the 9th Circuit's majority opinion, that definition of jurisdiction is inconsistent with the original public understanding of the 14th Amendment, as reflected in contemporaneous dictionary definitions, the debate prior to the amendment's ratification in 1868, and commentary shortly thereafter. The "ordinary meaning of jurisdiction" at the time, he says, "is consistent with Plaintiffs' interpretation of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as subject to the laws and authority of the United States."
The government defendants "point to no contrary dictionary definitions that define jurisdiction in terms of allegiance and protection," Gould notes. "Indeed, they make no arguments about the ordinary meaning of the Citizenship Clause at all." Instead, they support their "novel interpretation of the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'" by arguing that the phrase would be superfluous if it meant nothing more than the plaintiffs contend. Not so, Gould says, since that definition underlies the three exceptions to birthright citizenship that the Supreme Court recognized in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that a man who had been born to Chinese parents in San Francisco thereby qualified as a citizen.
In Wong Kim Ark, the Court noted that the English tradition of citizenship by birth, which carried over to America, excluded the children of "foreign ambassadors" and the children of "alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions." Parents in the first group enjoyed diplomatic immunity, so they were not fully "subject to the laws and authority" of the English government. Military invaders, likewise, were not bound to obey English law.
The justices recognized a third exception in the American context: "Children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes," which had quasi-sovereign status, likewise were not subject to U.S. jurisdiction within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. But apart from those three exceptions, the Court said, anyone born in the United States automatically becomes a U.S. citizen: "The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States."
The Court's explanation of the pragmatic considerations underlying the definition of jurisdiction incorporated into the 14th Amendnment is plainly at odds with Trump's restrictive reading. "When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct," the Court said, "it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country."
The Trump administration essentially argues that Wong Kim Ark does not mean what it says. The decision provides no basis for adding "primary allegiance" and "permanent domicile" to the requirements for birthright citizenship.
Wong Kim Ark does refer to "allegiance," but not in the exclusive sense that the government's lawyers favor. "Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States," the Court said. "His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject.'"
The government's understanding of "domiciled," which excludes the children of unauthorized residents and temporary legal visitors, likewise "finds no basis in the text of the Citizenship Clause or its interpreting precedent," Gould writes. "The Wong Kim Ark Court uses the [word] 'permanent'…in connection with domicile [only] once, stating that although Wong Kim Ark's parents left the United States in 1890, they 'were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil[e] and residence therein at San Francisco.' This statement reflects the stipulated facts of the case, and the Court did not mention 'permanent' domicile in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause."
Since Wong Kim Ark, Gould notes, "the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the children of undocumented immigrants are citizens if born within the territory of the United States." The executive branch has echoed that broad understanding of birthright citizenship, he says, citing 19th-century statements by the secretary of state, decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and opinions from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the 1990s. Congress approved the Immigration and Nationality Act, which says "a person born in the United States" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a citizen, against that background. "A statute adopting language from another source generally conveys the original source's well-settled meaning," Gould notes.
Coughenour "correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional," Gould writes. "We fully agree. The Defendants' proposed interpretation of the
Citizenship Clause relies on a network of inferences that are unmoored from the
accepted legal principles of 1868….We reject this approach because it is contrary to the express language of the Citizenship Clause, the reasoning of Wong Kim Ark, Executive Branch practice for the past 125 years, [and] the legislative history to the extent that [it] should be considered, and because it is contrary to justice."
The Supreme Court may not agree with the 9th Circuit's rationale for issuing a nationwide injunction in this particular case. In Trump v. CASA, the justices left open the question of whether states have standing to challenge this order and, if so, what "complete relief" for them would entail. They also left open the crucial question of whether Trump's order is constitutional.
When the Supreme Court gets around to considering the latter question, it will be free to renounce the logic of Wong Kim Ark and subsequent decisions based on the principle it recognized. But no one should pretend that would not amount to a revolution in the Court's understanding of the 14th Amendment.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
JS;dr
Chumpy-Humpy-Dumpy Simp-Chimp-Chump; DR... DeRanged... Stranger Danger!!! THE Moist DeRanged Stranger of ALL!!!
JS;dr
Gears Grimy and Stripped; SNOT worth reading! Shirley snot worth heeding either!
Sqrlsy;dr
Lmao, trey and matt
https://youtu.be/Q1xR3Xidq84?si=s5DtuPTOS0_YEn9I
lol, "analysis". is it still Haiku Thursday? hail the 9th Circus!
Remember back on 5/1, Sullum, when you opined that Trump might be senile?
Yeah, you have less than zero credibility.
"Might"? Have you ever heard him speak?
He’s not senile.
He is either senile or an absolute dumb ass moron.
He's a bloviating liar, as are his defenders. He, and them like him, say whatever is convenient at the time, not the truth. With Trump I think he actually believes what he says while he's saying it. Like Hillary he's pathological. His defenders though, they're absolutely dumbass morons who just parrot Dear Leader without much thought of their own.
Have you ever given thought to the simple fact that you’re just wrong and can’t get over yourself?
“Have you ever given thought”
Not in decades.
Speak for yourself, Dr. Retard.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/04/11/trump-approval-rating-tariffs-groceries-polls/83036443007/
When the 2024 World Series champions Los Angeles Dodgers visited the White House recently, Trump attempted to talk about the team’s resilience in the playoffs and wound up saying whatever this random assortment of words is: “When you ran out the healthy arms, you ran out of really healthy, they had great arms, but they ran out, it’s called sports, it’s called baseball in particular, and pitchers I guess you could say in really particular.”
While double-checking the still-valid nature of my above-posted link about the senility of Babbling Baby-Brained Trump, I ran across this... https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2025/07/24/did-hulk-hogan-die-2025-today-july-24-what-hulk-hogan-cause-of-death-wwe-terry-bollea-dead-how-pass/85360977007/
To honor the ??? perhaps-passage of Hooker Hulk Hogan, I now recycle an old post of mine...
See http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/18/florida-jury-awards-115-million-to-hulk# Florida Jury Awards $115 Million to Hulk Hogan in His Gawker Lawsuit… About Hooker Hulk Hogan… “Hooker Hulk” gets $115 MILLION, v/s “Spermy Daniels” gets only $130 K, for each of them being skanky hos. The MALE skanky ho gets almost THREE odors of magnitude and magshitude more money!!! How is THAT for sexual equality?!
But what gets my bowels in an uproar even more, is that through the courts and policemen enforcing court orders and/or contracts here in these kinds of cases, Government Almighty is the Pimp Daddy and hit-man enforcer of it all! And then they go and jail $50 and $100 poor hookers, to “protect us from trafficking in sex slaves”.
If Government Almighty is going to be the Big Pimp Daddy and hit-man enforcer, for the rich and famous, then could they PLEASE stop being hypocrites, and stop punishing the “little people” for doing the same things!??!
SIDE-BAND SNIDE COMMENT:
As a socio-economic and sexual-political experiment, I think someone should get Hooker Hulk Hogan to fuck Spermy Daniels. Which of the two would owe how much money, to the other?
MAIN COMMENT:
I think I have fingered out WHY does Government Almighty play Big Pimp Daddy to the rich and famous, while punishing the dirt-poor hookers?! When $130 k or $115 million gets thrown around, Government Almighty gets to tax the payment and the lawyers, and grab at least 1/3 of it. Easy-peasy on the big transactions… When a small-time hooker turns a trick “under the table” (a kinky place to do it!), it is MUCH harder to collect! Especially if he or she is paid in smack or crack or Ripple wine…
I am UTTERLY crushed to have fingered out that Government Almighty (which claims to LOVE me and want to PROTECT me from sleazy sex), is actually just wanting to line its own wallet!!!
Oh, you cannot keep up.
Trust me, none of us are surprised.
Hey Damiksec, damiskec, and damikesc, Damned-and-Sick, and ALL of your other socks…
How is your totalitarian scheme to FORCE people to buy Reason magazines coming along?
Free speech (freedom from “Cancel Culture”) comes from Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, and Google, right? THAT is why we need to pass laws to severely constrict these DANGEROUS companies (which, ugh!, the BASTARDS, put profits above people!)!!! We must pass new laws to retract “Section 230” and FORCE the evil corporations to provide us all (EXCEPT for my political enemies, of course!) with a “UBIFS”, a Universal Basic Income of Free Speech!
So leftist “false flag” commenters will inundate Reason-dot-com with shitloads of PROTECTED racist comments, and then pissed-off readers and advertisers and buyers (of Reason magazine) will all BOYCOTT Reason! And right-wing idiots like Damikesc will then FORCE people to support Reason, so as to nullify the attempts at boycotts! THAT is your ultimate authoritarian “fix” here!!!
“Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”
Yup. Basically. Sounds rough. (Quote damikesc)
(Etc.)
See https://reason.com/2020/06/24/the-new-censors/
(And Asshole Extraordinaire will NEVER take back its' totalitarian bullshit!!!! 'Cause Asshole Extraordinaire is already PERFECT in every way!!!)
This (above damikesc quote) is a gem of the damnedest dumbness of damikesc! Like MANY “perfect in their own minds” asshole authoritarians around here, he will NEVER take back ANY of the stupidest and most evil things that he has written! I have more of those on file… I deploy them to warn other readers to NOT bother to try and reason with the most utterly unreasonable of the nit-wit twits around here!
Hey Jacob, got anything to say about what Tulsi Gabbard released regarding Russiagate? Or are you gonna keep silent hoping it never happened with your fingers in your ears singing “lalalalala, I can’t hear you!”?
Or every single one of the cases he’s reported on that have been overturned?
No, because he’s a fucking hack.
Wallz r clozin in!
Besides congressional debate transcripts as well as rulings later to bring groups like Native Americans under "jurisdiction" there really is no argument. So as long as you go by leftist narrative over legal construction under the most liberal circuit... there is no argument!
Reason is waiting for WAPO to write a narrative. Liz dipped a toe this morning with the Epstein connection "pouring out" (?).
Why do we even have courts if they're going to block what Trump wants? Should just get rid of them and let him rule by decree.
Why do we even have trolls like you if all you do is post annoying shit like this that makes no sense whatsoever?
He is demonstrating why his wife should never have left. But he doesn't get he is the problem.
JS;dr
VD;dr. VD (Venereal Disease) is some BAD shit! Go see the Dr. if you've got the VD!!! THAT is why I say VD;dr.!!!
(Some forms of VD also cause bona fide mental illness… THINK about shit! VD is NOTHING to "clap" about!)
"contradicts its text"
So a Textualist would have to agree that it is Unconstitutional.
"and history"
So an Originalist would have to agree that it is Unconstitutional.
" plus 127 years of Supreme Court precedent."
So any conservative who is opposed to judicial activism would have to agree that it is Unconstitutional.
The only people who can argue otherwise are those who think Donald Trump is a King like Louis XIV.
"The only people who can argue otherwise are those who think Donald Trump is a King like Louis XIV."
SCOTUS will argue otherwise.
You've been so accurate with your prior predictions.
Well, she’s a doctor, not a psychic, but I’ll wager she even sucks at that.
hat definition of jurisdiction is inconsistent with the original public understanding of the 14th Amendment, as reflected in contemporaneous dictionary definitions, the debate prior to the amendment's ratification in 1868, and commentary shortly thereafter. The "ordinary meaning of jurisdiction" at the time,
The Commerce Clause would like to join the chat
By the time Biden left office the number of missing trafficked children was close to 450,000. Approximately 90% of the addresses the Biden Administration recorded for half a million UACs are fake, false or abandoned.
13,061 unaccompanied minors have now been located according to an HHS official.
Unaccompanied minors were given a number to call if there were problems with the home in which they were placed. Over 600 calls went unanswered and the HHS is now going through those calls to follow-up on the children.
ICE has also arrested 422 sponsors for involvement in suspected child abuse or other crimes discovered.
The abuse is determined through a multi-faceted investigation—Local police, CPS, federal agencies all involved, according to HHS.
Former investigators with HSI have explained to us that often times these kids are left behind as payment, the parent is promised by the cartel member that they will eventually be reunited in the U.S. the child is often recycled to help single adults enter the country illegally.
On the bright side in ten years we'll have thousands of dishwashers and ass wipers working dirt cheap.
This sounds suspiciously like a news release from the Trump Administration. Is that where you got your talking points?
Nelson’s cool with trafficking children.
Right. That’s exactly what I said. Idiot.
It was in a Congressional hearing and it was from a Biden admin member. You COULD have looked that up, if you were not lazy.
Oh, and she understated the problem. 65,000 calls were unanswered. By the ONE person they had employed to handle the hotline.
“ By the time Biden left office the number of missing trafficked children was close to 450,000. Approximately 90% of the addresses the Biden Administration recorded for half a million UACs are fake, false or abandoned.”
It was more about this particular misleading statement. My guess is that at the end of the Biden Administration there were a historical total (which would obviously include Trump Administration statistics) of 450,000, not 450k in Biden’s administration, which was what you were trying to insinuate by only mentioning the Biden Administration. My guess is the 90% number would follow the same pattern (90% total, not 90% of only Biden Administration addresses).
Do you actually think mentioning historical numbers and trying to insinuate they were all Biden’s fault is effective? Or are you so used to your fellow paleocons swallowing false information whole that you no longer are able to discern when a rational person would say, “Hm. That sounds fishy.”?
Everyone knows the 9th would rule this way because they always rule for the Liberal BS.
"inconsistent with" ... "public understanding".
Yeah; Indoctrinated Popularity doesn't write the US Constitution.
There is a CRA 1866 and the Authors "Written Understanding" on record.
This ruling is nothing but typical judicial activism one would expect coming from the 9th.
9th circuit is the KBJ of circuit courts.
“definition of jurisdiction”
Didn’t the author of the bill explain what he meant by someone being a “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
You know how on tv and in the movies cops argue over who has jurisdiction? They're arguing over who gets to enforce the law. If someone is not subject to their jurisdiction, then they can't enforce the law on them. Even if that someone is within the physical bounds of their jurisdiction, they're not subject to it. Diplomats for example.
Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are indeed subject to jurisdiction because they can be arrested and put through the system.
It's not a difficult concept.
Now let's say illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as Trump and his you liars claim. That means they can't be arrested and tried for their crimes, because they're under the jurisdiction of their home countries. You certainly don't want that.
What it amounts to is you guys want to have your cake and eat it too.
In the end SCOTUS will rule against him. Unless he does an FDR and threatens to pack the court. Or maybe he'll just disband it after he is elected for a third term with the help of your vote.
Exactly WHO would be on USA soil but NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof by your own BS interpretation?
Your interpretation literally is "the 'AND' exception written doesn't say anything at all".
They call that selective ignorance.
I really don't think someone who is proudly ignorant of economics, history, math, logic, science, and basically everything, can lecture someone on being selectively ignorant. You refuse to learn anything because you're afraid knowledge will turn you into a leftist, and you're accusing me of ignorance? Fuck dude. Are you accusing me of being a Trump defender? Because that's where willful ignorance leads.
I really don't think someone who is proudly ignorant of economics, history, math, logic, science, and basically everything, can lecture someone on being selectively ignorant.
So does this mean you’ll stop lecturing us, Mr. Ignorant?
Sarc will never answer if illegals:
Have to sign up for jury duty
Males sign up foe the draft
Are required to pay taxes if working in other countries
Can get a passport
Can be protected at US embassies abroad
It’s not a “having your cake and eating it too” situation. As I’ve argued for years now (since at least the Obama admin), I just generally disagree with that interpretation of being “subject”. Because any tourist is also subject to a countries laws, but it would be laughably absurd to say they are subjects of that country if they ran afoul of those laws.
The parents, being citizens of a foreign nation, are subjects of that country (modern nation states absolutely view their citizens as tax subjects, take that for what you will.). And as far as I know, most other countries follow jus sanguine citizenship instead of jus solis citizenship, meaning that their kids would also be “subjects” of that country.
Having said all that, the point is moot as I think you’re right that the SC will probably not upend this particular apple cart.
And I doubt he calls for either of those, though I could totally see a Truth social rant about impeachment.
Hope you have a swell day.
Hi DesigNate,
"Subject to" not "a subject of" they have vastly different meanings.
If you're a tourist in another nation you are not a subject of that nation. If you commit a murder there, you will be subject to their punishments for murder.
BS.. "If you commit a murder there, you will be *subjected* to their punishments." Subject being an adjective (*noun* description) versus subjected being a verb.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/subject-to-and-subjected-to
You're the subject *noun* being described by an ^adjective^ of your nationality 'jurisdiction thereof'. If it was the action (VERB) scenario it would say "AND subjected to the jurisdiction thereof" but then you have another bad-English there too. Jurisdiction is an adjective as well. You have no NOUN. Worded properly it would say "AND subjected to the laws (noun) thereof" which is exactly the BS corruption going on.
Guess what. That's not what is written.
And if you have any agenda driven doubts after that there is always the CRA1866 which says the same from the foreign perspective.
"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power"
...then why are babies of diplomats not US citizens?
They are not born IN the embassy, so they're born on US territory.
Because they have diplomatic immunity and therefore aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That’s as basic as it gets. Are you truly that clueless?
Or, as you paleocons constantly hear, this has been another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.
Didn’t the author of the bill explain what he meant by someone being a “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
Why YES. Yes he did.
But that doesn't matter to criminal-minds who have the selfish-entitlement agenda to break into your house and claim a 'right' to it. Just like all self-entitled criminal-minds they'll spin and spin and spin to get what they want instead of just EARN it by following the rules (immigration process).
“ Didn’t the author of the bill explain what he meant by someone being a “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?”
No. One of the several people who offered the bill said one thing that MAGAlings want to hear. It was rejected by the majority, which is why his interpretation is ignored.
Just because you were part of the team that did something doesn’t mean you get to define things for everyone else. Especially when your interpretation was rejected.
Every single person that supports illegal aliens in our country should have their computer devices checked. There has to be something weird and sick going on with them to support this type of sh*t.
"An illegal has been identified as the leader of an underground dungeon discovered in Bibb County, Alabama, used to assault children."
https://www.wvtm13.com/article/alabama-bunker-bibb-county-brent-child-sex-ring-trafficking/65498959
Now do black people. Or white trash. Find a headline, apply the fallacy of composition, then accuse anyone who isn't full of hatred and bigotry of guilt by association. You can do it. I believe in you.
Look at sarc dismiss a child rape dungeon. Lol.
“ Every single person that supports illegal aliens in our country should have their computer devices checked.”
How about those of us who want illegal immigrants to be deported, but only after the government proves any claims they make? Do we count as people who “support illegal aliens”?
All you vengeance-oriented xenophobes have failed to explain why you oppose a simple solution:
President Obama deported more illegal immigrants and a higher percentage of criminal illegal immigrants than any President in history. Why not do it the way he did, since it was better and more effective than what Trump is doing?
Did Obama have courts deciding that they had power over the executive?
No. The judges liked him.
Since Obama decided not to try to deny people due process, he didn’t have to worry about courts weighing in.
Trump is doing less, in a more incompetent and unconstitutional way. That’s why courts are weighing in so much.
If he just did it the exact same way as Obama, he would have much better results. But it wouldn’t satisfy the MAGA appetite for cruelty and vindictiveness, so he did it his own way and fucked it up.
91% of Obama’s deportees were criminals. 41% of Trump’s are. Which do you prefer?
I notice you, and Reason in general, always seem to intentionally avoid putting the words "Ninth Circuit" in either your headline or your deck.
Why is that? Is there something about them that automatically tanks the credibility of what you (or ChatGPT) are about to blather on about for 2000 words?
Yeah. They're definitely burying it. They waited until what? The second sentence? I guess for most of the Trump defenders that is hiding it being that they read the headline, have an emotional reaction, and then make comments.
Mostly in Sullum articles, since the first 25 comments are almost invariably JS:DR.
And I didn't say they were burying it. I said they were keeping it out of the part of the article that encourages people to continue reading.
They do the same thing with SCOTUS. It's never "Sotomayor dissent" or "Jackson dissent." It's "dissenting judges."
Like they know if they name them, everyone's just going to roll their eyes.
Bitches downloading brats on US soil be US Citizens is in the constitution 70+ years befo' 14A
Finally. Now I can start to pay attention - the real courts are finally speaking.
Get reamed with a barb-wire-wrapped broomstick, Sullum. You are nothing other than a TDS-addled slimy pile of lying shit who needs to fuck off and die, asswipe.