**“This is chaotic. It may appeal to a few. But it is wrong,” Bay said.
He called on the administration to remember basic civics lessons about the three coequal branches of American government and praised one federal judge in particular for pushing back on Trump’s executive order against birthright citizenship.**
The birthright citizenship cases are being consolidated and moved to the front of the line. There is no indication on whether they will consider the merits of birthright citizenship or the reach of the stays by lower courts.
The brief order by the justices was unsigned and gave no reasoning, as is typical in such emergency cases. But the move is a sign that the justices consider the matter significant enough that they would immediately consider it, rather than letting it play out in lower courts.
The justices announced they would defer any consideration of the government’s request to lift a nationwide pause on the policy until they heard oral arguments, which they set for May 15…
In three emergency applications, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to find that lower courts had erred in imposing bans on the policy that extended beyond the parties involved in the litigation. It did not ask the court to weigh in on the constitutionality of the executive order, which was challenged soon after it was signed.
DB2
This will be interesting. Will the court issue an overbroad ruling, like it did in the Colorado case citing the insurrection clause? Will the court overturn Ark, like it did Roe? Will the court declare all previous decisions wrong, and revoke the citizenship of people who do not meet the new test, vs the language of the EO, that says it only applies to people born in the future?
I’m glad to see my dad’s name on his father’s naturalization certificate, because, technically, gramps was “visiting” the US when dad was born.
Steve
Or it may do none of the above and instead focus on whether lower courts can order nationwide changes. Which is interesting legally as well.
DB2
Again, I think you have your theory wrong. The lower courts are not ordering nationwide changes, they are prohibiting the admin from making nationwide changes via EO - in the very same way lower courts prohibited Biden from making nationwide changes to loan forgiveness through EO.
Personally (and consistently), I agree with the lower courts on both.
But they are ordering something nationwide – prohibition of those EO changes. That may be something the Supreme Court is interested in. They didn’t say.
DB2
LOL, are you serious? Stopping something from happening is not ordering something to happen. Keeping things the way they are is not the same as making something new happen. But let’s say I agree with you - this is exactly how the courts are supposed to operate. In fact, SCOTUS ruled 9-0 just a few days ago in the case of the deported guy that lower courts had the authority to stop something from happening
The Supreme Court upheld a lower court order that the Trump administration “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was forcibly deported to El Salvador.
Can you link to your objections to lower courts stopping the loan forgiveness? I must have missed them.
If it is a Federal court, it is an extension of SCOTUS, so it’s decision would have impact nationally. A state court would not have jurisdiction outside of it’s own state.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/
Steve
It’s what’s up on appeal. The specific request before the SCOTUS is not based on the substance, but solely on the procedural question of whether an injunction that applies nationwide was appropriately imposed by the district court.
The substantive question of how the 14th Amendment should be interpreted is not raised by the instant request.
Thank you, albaby. It is good to hear from an actual lawyer.
DB2
Here’s a link to their application to the SCOTUS, for those who are interested:
Thank you, albaby. It is good to hear from an actual lawyer, because I am getting my bu** kicked and need somebody to run interference. LOL (There I fixed it for you)
Sooo, in other words, Appeals to Authority work on you? 
Sometimes it’s better than flailing around where both of us are over our pay grades. Especially when said authority has facts about what is actually going on.
DB2
And, of course, one of the amusing parts is that the side which is pushing for no nationwide bans here is the side famous for nationwide bans by filing in carefully selected courts where they were sure of the judge.