This was awesome Gabe; felt like I was right there with you. It does sound as though Sauer was either not prepared fully, or what the administration is arguing is not fit for the Supreme Court to look at right now. He did not seem to persuade the court.
I am curious how a class action would play out. As I understand it, the class is everyone who has suffered the harm caused by the defendant. On birthright citizenshoip, then is that the entire population of the US who would have to demonstrate that even though they were born in the US and had always been treated as citizens, they would need to demonstrate that their parents were legally here? Or, if the order is prospective going forward, is the class then everyone who is born going forward and if so, how can the unborn and indeed not yet conceived be a class? Irrespective of whether a class action might work better than a nationwide injunction, it seems totally crazy in this case
Great question(s). I have thought if they go with this version of birthright the Native peoples could kick us all out. I hope you get some engagement on these as I would love to see the conversation.
"Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that this would create “a ‘catch me if you can’ kind of regime,” in which the administration would only stop enforcing an order against the specific plaintiffs who brought lawsuits..."
This is the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Because this is the exact tactic the Trump admin employs time and time again. The question is how much damage they can do in the year or more for a class action lawsuit if there is no injunction to protect the citizens getting the rights stripped away in the meantime. I can agree there is an argument for setting a framework for nationwide injunctions. But protecting the status quo and precedent under the Constitution when it comes to people's rights should clearly be included in that framework.
Thank you, Gabe, for both this article and the one before it, where you linked to the live streamed audio of the arguments. I listened to that and was intrigued by one of Sauer’s points: that in a class action lawsuit, the verdict is binding to both parties, but in the case mof injunctions it is binding only on the defendant (ie, the government). I recall thinking that the latter (ie, the status quo) is not a bad thing, but I wonder if you could explain what the justices may consider the virtues of the former (ie, requiring cases to be filed as class actions… )
This is history happening, and you are right in the thick of it. Amazing job interpreting the nuances of the various justices' questions, and presenting the potential implications. So glad I'm along for the ride!
The UK (1981), France (1993) & Germany (2000) all have curtailed birthright citizenship recently. I hope the Supreme Court reaches the merits of the issue since I expect the decision would be a well written documentation of the history and the law. It is troubling to me that the 14th Amendment was written when the concept of illegal presence in the U.S. was effectively nonexistent. I think a change is inevitable even if it has to be by amendment.
This was awesome Gabe; felt like I was right there with you. It does sound as though Sauer was either not prepared fully, or what the administration is arguing is not fit for the Supreme Court to look at right now. He did not seem to persuade the court.
A beautiful summary of the oral arguments and the contentious issues involved. You have given me much to think about. Thank you.
I am curious how a class action would play out. As I understand it, the class is everyone who has suffered the harm caused by the defendant. On birthright citizenshoip, then is that the entire population of the US who would have to demonstrate that even though they were born in the US and had always been treated as citizens, they would need to demonstrate that their parents were legally here? Or, if the order is prospective going forward, is the class then everyone who is born going forward and if so, how can the unborn and indeed not yet conceived be a class? Irrespective of whether a class action might work better than a nationwide injunction, it seems totally crazy in this case
Great question(s). I have thought if they go with this version of birthright the Native peoples could kick us all out. I hope you get some engagement on these as I would love to see the conversation.
This was excellent. Hopefully some middle ground can be found on the nationwide injunctions.
"Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that this would create “a ‘catch me if you can’ kind of regime,” in which the administration would only stop enforcing an order against the specific plaintiffs who brought lawsuits..."
This is the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Because this is the exact tactic the Trump admin employs time and time again. The question is how much damage they can do in the year or more for a class action lawsuit if there is no injunction to protect the citizens getting the rights stripped away in the meantime. I can agree there is an argument for setting a framework for nationwide injunctions. But protecting the status quo and precedent under the Constitution when it comes to people's rights should clearly be included in that framework.
Exactly! Class actions take too long and too many people would be harmed in the meantime.
Wow, Gabe. You connected the dots so well. Thank you for sharing your first-hand perspective!
Thanks again for another excellent summary, Gabe
Very good reporting Gabe.
Thank you, Gabe, for both this article and the one before it, where you linked to the live streamed audio of the arguments. I listened to that and was intrigued by one of Sauer’s points: that in a class action lawsuit, the verdict is binding to both parties, but in the case mof injunctions it is binding only on the defendant (ie, the government). I recall thinking that the latter (ie, the status quo) is not a bad thing, but I wonder if you could explain what the justices may consider the virtues of the former (ie, requiring cases to be filed as class actions… )
This is history happening, and you are right in the thick of it. Amazing job interpreting the nuances of the various justices' questions, and presenting the potential implications. So glad I'm along for the ride!
The UK (1981), France (1993) & Germany (2000) all have curtailed birthright citizenship recently. I hope the Supreme Court reaches the merits of the issue since I expect the decision would be a well written documentation of the history and the law. It is troubling to me that the 14th Amendment was written when the concept of illegal presence in the U.S. was effectively nonexistent. I think a change is inevitable even if it has to be by amendment.
Tell that to the Chinese living in California at the time . . .
Excellent article.
This one is so great, great job
Excellent summary. Thanks, Gabe! I so appreciate your commentary and analysis.
Great column, Gabe.
Thank you so much! I loved reading this.
And really isn't anyone surprise that Trump doesn't feel like anything he tells others applies to him? Textbook narcissist.