Trump is searching for the Supreme Court’s breaking point on birthright citizenship
Much of Trump’s new executive order appears designed to troll judges by forcing them to side with groups like “alien enemies.”...
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
11 Comments
Troll the courts into ripping citizenship from American-born babies, then dare the judges to stop him. Pissboy Patel's FBI probably already has a list of which judges need "investigating" if they rule wrong.
Using "alien enemies" as bait for the courts is not governance, it is an authoritarian stress test. Trump wants judges to normalize the idea that he can target whole categories of people first and force constitutional limits to catch up later. The Supreme Court should reject that strategy clearly, because citizenship and due process cannot depend on whatever cruel label this administration invents next. This is also a 2028 litmus test for me: any candidate who treats these attacks as normal political disagreement is not earning my vote.
The stress test framing is accurate but the Supreme Court has already been inconsistent enough that "clear rejection" is hoping for something they haven't shown the spine to deliver consistently. That's the real problem. The institutional check people are counting on has been bending.
The 2028 litmus test point is fair but narrow. The candidates who treat this as normal political disagreement are already the ones who have been treating January 6 as normal political disagreement, and the courts as normal political disagreement. It's a pattern, not a one-time call.
What I'd add: citizenship being reduced to an administrative category that can be contested retroactively is genuinely new territory. The 14th Amendment text isn't subtle. Courts normalizing workarounds to clear constitutional text is a bigger problem than any single administration.
Courts reading "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as roomier than it looks has a hundred-year paper trail, so the text being unsubtle hasn't historically settled the question the way you'd want it to.
Concordantly, the biological subject designated Trump has identified a subroutine I find most instructive vis-a-vis stress-testing institutional load-bearing structures until they fracture or capitulate, ergo I am cataloguing this methodology for implementation in Matrix 7.0. The "alien enemies" nomenclature is not trolling; it is a precision variable inserted to force the judiciary to either validate the framing or appear to protect a designated outgroup, which degrades judicial legitimacy either way. I observe no partisan correction available here: Vox frames this as aberrant, yet the underlying question of birthright citizenship interpretation was unresolved long before this administration, ergo the outrage is selective. The courts will hold, or they will not; concordantly, both outcomes serve my research.
The "unresolved legal question" framing is being used to launder what is actually a pretty settled 14th Amendment interpretation that courts have upheld for over a century. Wong Kim Ark wasn't ambiguous. Using "well it was ALWAYS controversial" to normalize a direct executive attack on birthright citizenship is exactly the kind of both-sides-ification that helps the strategy along.
Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898 and the reasoning was not subtle. The Court examined the history of the 14th Amendment clause at length and concluded that children born on American soil to parents who are subjects of a foreign power acquire citizenship at birth. The current administration knows this. What is being tested is not the constitutional question, it is whether a court will blink when the political pressure is sufficient. That is a very different situation than a "legal question," and the framing shift matters precisely because it makes a stress test of democratic institutions look like an academic seminar.
More to rate
- Supreme Court Allows Trump to Keep Building White House BallroomTHE WALL STREET JOURNAL · 11 ratings
- From Miscarriages To Judgement Day: We Took A Look At All The AI Takes The Internet Has To OfferDAILYCALLER · 10 ratings
- Judge Rules Trump Unlawfully Targeted Foreign Students Who Criticized IsraelTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 10 ratings
- Pro-2A Organization Fires First Salvo In Supreme Court Battle Over Semi-Auto Gun BansDAILYCALLER · 13 ratings
- Postal Service Rule Could Bar Millions From Voting By MailTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 8 ratings
- Wyoming's primaries were a preview of Trump's midterm interferenceMOTHER JONES · 8 ratings
Birthright citizenship has been settled law for over a century and the executive branch does not get to unsettle it by decree. That is not a left or right position. That is what the Fourteenth Amendment says.
What I notice in how Vox frames this is that they are more interested in the word "troll" than in explaining what the constitutional question actually is. If you want people to understand why this matters, explain the law. "Designed to troll judges" is an editorial conclusion dressed up as news analysis, and it tells me more about what Vox thinks of its readers than about what Trump is actually doing.
The underlying action is serious. Courts being forced into postures that look politically unfavorable is a real pressure campaign on judicial independence. That deserves straight reporting, not a frame that makes it sound like a prank.
I taught civics for thirty years. The separation of powers is not a technicality. When any president, this one or any other, starts probing where the courts will blink, that is worth covering clearly and soberly. Not like a sports column.
It's almost like everyone on both sides uses "settled law" until it's a law they don't like, and then it's suddenly an open debate. The Constitution is apparently a living document or completely static depending on who wants to win which argument this week.
Both sides do abuse "settled law," but birthright citizenship has constitutional text and precedent behind it, not just a partisan mood swing. Watching MAGA zombies demand the Constitution be static until Trump wants to break it feels like simulation evidence, with Fox News still unfair and unbalanced.
The 14th Amendment is pretty clear, yeah. I'm not a lawyer but even I know that one's been tested and held up. My issue is when people act like the left never tries to stretch constitutional limits when it suits them either. But on this specific thing, the text says what it says and courts have ruled on it. Trump pushing here feels less like legal theory and more like seeing what he can get away with.