Post · bonfire.cafe

@heidilifeldman@mastodon.social · 3 days ago

The First Circuit Court of Appeals is absolutely not playing in its just released opinion affirming that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States and the state they are born in. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca1.52521/gov.uscourts.ca1.52521.00108348619.0.pdf

“The Government is therefore wrong to argue that the plaintiffs are not likely to succeed in showing that the children that the EO covers are citizens of this country at birth …. “ https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca1.52521/gov.uscourts.ca1.52521.00108348619.0.pdf 1/ #LawFedi

@JDGeoShack@social.vivaldi.net replied · 3 days ago

@heidilifeldman Get em! Good stuff thanks for sharing.

Em & future cats 🇺🇦🐈🏳️‍🌈

@em_and_future_cats@mastodon.social replied · 3 days ago

@heidilifeldman Thank you so much for taking time to write all this down and breaking it down like this 🩷 I highly appreciate it 🩷

Heidi Li Feldman

@heidilifeldman@mastodon.social replied · 3 days ago

@em_and_future_cats you are welcome

Heidi Li Feldman

@heidilifeldman@mastodon.social replied · 3 days ago

I have no confidence in the kangaroo U.S. Supreme Court, so they may not affirm what has been settled law for over one hundred years, but it is still worth noting just how clear the 1st Circuit is about the wrongness of the Trump regime’s position on birthright citizenship. 2/

Marisa

@marisa@mastodon.scot replied · 3 days ago

@heidilifeldman Who settles the issue once and for all: Supreme Court or circuit courts?

Heidi Li Feldman

@heidilifeldman@mastodon.social replied · 3 days ago

@marisa The Supreme Court - if it accepts an appeal on the issue.

Nomdeb

@nomdeb@mstdn.social replied · 3 days ago

@heidilifeldman @marisa although now it would appear, according to the extreme court right wing, there is no such thing as settled law.

Dustin McCartney

@dustin@publicgood.social replied · 3 days ago

@heidilifeldman
I have an ignorant question...

Does SCOTUS have the notion of a quorum that must be held in order to proceed with an action?

I mean, what happens if the 3 liberal justices decide not to "show up" in protest? Could that have any impact on things (even if delaying)?

Heidi Li Feldman

@heidilifeldman@mastodon.social replied · 3 days ago

@dustin no quorum rule.

Heidi Li Feldman

@heidilifeldman@mastodon.social replied · 3 days ago

Today’s 1st circuit ruling upholds a lower federal court order that preliminarily enjoins the Trump executive branch from acting on Trump’s Executive Order No. 14160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (Jan. 20, 2025), "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The EO’s purpose is to deny birthright citizenship to children whose fathers are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and whose mothers are either temporarily or unlawfully in the U.S. 3/

Paul_IPv6

@paul_ipv6@infosec.exchange replied · 3 days ago

@heidilifeldman

huh. through the father, not the mother. almost like TACO is concerned that a non-citizen mom might make his own kids not citizens otherwise. nah... i'm sure he has a higher purpose here. *cough* *cough*.

Heidi Li Feldman

@heidilifeldman@mastodon.social replied · 3 days ago

The 1st Circuit utterly rejects Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The opinion starts from the ratification of the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the U.S. Civil War. The 14th A refounded this country, by reversing the awful decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford and making anybody born in the U.S. a citizen of the state of the birth and of the federal United States. 4/

Heidi Li Feldman

@heidilifeldman@mastodon.social replied · 3 days ago

Before the 14th Amendment there was no such thing as being a citizen of the United States and so no guarantee of constitutionally protected rights running from the federal government to people born in any given state. This enabled slave states to maintain slavery by arguing that African-American slaves had no constitutionally guaranteed rights, whether via state state constitutions or via the federal one. 5/

Heidi Li Feldman

@heidilifeldman@mastodon.social replied · 3 days ago

As the 1st Circuit notes, the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause extends well beyond making African-Americans citizens. It says “ 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." Emphasis mine: ALL means ALL. 6/

Minnesota 123456

@Minnesota411988@mastodon.social replied · 2 days ago

@heidilifeldman

Thank you for your posts. It says so much about where we are at that there is any dispute about the plain language of the 14th Amendment on birthright citizenship.

Andreas K

@yacc143@mastodon.social replied · 3 days ago

@heidilifeldman I think you and me are both curious what the new meaning of "ALL" be when Trump's pet SCOTUS is done with that part of the Constitution.

Heidi Li Feldman

@heidilifeldman@mastodon.social replied · 3 days ago

The 1st Circuit also notes that Congress affirmed the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship when, in 1952, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act. This law uses the exact same language as the 14th A: "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" "shall be [a] national[] and citizen[] of the United States." 7/

1+ more replies (not shown)

JustaJason

@JustaJason007@beige.party replied · 3 days ago

@heidilifeldman ☝️☝️☝️

bonfire.cafe

A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate

bonfire.cafe: About · Code of conduct · Privacy · Users · Instances

Bonfire social · 1.0.0-rc.3.5 no JS en

Automatic federation enabled