this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
587 points (97.4% liked)

News

30615 readers
3915 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 5) 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 78 points 2 days ago (10 children)

At what point does everyone say "if he's not following the law, then neither should we"?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago

I'm ready if you are

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 days ago (14 children)

This title isn’t true. The court has not “given the OK”

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Right, they only said "nobody can stop you from doing illegal things."

Completely different.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I’d like to pay a reporter to ask Trump how it feels to wipe his ass with the Constitution. I’d think it would be coarse and unpleasant, but he keeps doing it.

Ill just stick with Charmin or whatever.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago

Trump will then happily show his new line of merchandise. One is his "We The People" line of toilet paper. There's also his "Smooth Criminal" line, extra soft toilet paper with the entire criminal law printed on it.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm curious if this means that certain cities or states will become citizenship havens because their local courts decided to provide injunctions for their jurisdiction.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 days ago

This is fucking Stephen Miller's Nazi wet dream

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago

On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder.

So is this retroactive? Do states that are not challenging take effect in 30 days? Who the fuck knows. Make sure to do jack shit to stop all of this.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-may-rule-allowing-enforcement-trump-birthright-citizenship-2025-06-27/

[–] [email protected] 120 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (11 children)

Lest we forget:

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Pretty hard to argue that “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” doesn’t mean what it clearly states. It’s not even in legalese. The fact that this wasn’t laughed out of court says everything.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No state shall....but the feds can?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

That’s technically not what they ruled on

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

They haven’t decided on the legality of it yet. They just decided that courts cannot issue universal injunctions. They can only stop it at a case by case level for those who are suing. If they decide it’s unconstitutional, then it’ll have to stop nationally, but a lot of damage can be done before then. I think they’ll decide in October…

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

It is just a fucking piece of paper.

If the judges and politicians and police don't care and no one else can do anything then it means nothing.

It is this or bloody revolution and that would lead to the US being invaded by multiple other countries and shit getting worse and worse.

North Korea of America is where we are now.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Uggh. I can work out whether to upvote you for the accurate summary of the source of law & state power or downvote you for the utter idiocy of the invasion statement.

Russia can't - they're struggling to take over a country a fifth their size and have burnt through their Soviet stockpiles.

UK & EU certainly won't invade, at most they'd send a peacekeeping force to protect civilians at a UN request (UN probably wouldnt pass it)

Canada will be stretched just keeping fighting out of its borders.

Mexico might just on principle (payback's a bitch) but has bugger all capacity.

Same for South American Asian and African countries.

That leaves China, and if you think the Chinese are stupid enough to insert themselves in your civil war and create a sole enemy for both sides to fight you have zero understanding of the Chinese strategy.

The Chinese will wait for you all to decimate the country and each other, then come in and buy up the bits they want. Oh and invade Taiwan while y'all are busy destroying your country.

Putin's plan to destroy the US has worked magnificently.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (4 children)

It is this or bloody revolution and that would lead to the US being invaded by multiple other countries and shit getting worse and worse.

No other nations are going to be invading the US, let alone multiple of them. They don't have the logistics for it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Or the desire, who the hell would want to try a hostile occupation of the US ?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The problem is and has always been "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

People have been twisting that to mean that anyone that isn't born to American citizen parents means that you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Funny because that sounds to me like the "illegals"can't be illegal then. Sounds like they're not subject to the law anymore.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago

Yeah, this is the thing that's ignored because it would let the whole narrative collapse.

Either you can't deport them because they're American citizens, or you can't deport them because they're not subject to your laws anyway. But in the end, this would just lead to (more) unlawful / illegal deportations.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 2 days ago (3 children)

That's what the Constitution says, and Trump now has nothing that can legally stop him from doing it.

Which means the Constitution is dead letter.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The supreme court did not give the OK. They said that you have to sue individually or as a class action and kicked it back down to the lower court. And several orgs are currently petitioning for class action status.

Edit: they also said courts can't issue nationwide injunctions, they have to be narrower.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

When talking about birthright citizenship, how do you get narrower than nationwide injunctions?

What the Republicans in the Supreme Court seem to be arguing is that the president can ignore the law as long as the people affected can't afford a lawsuit.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Iirc, the way it'll work out is if you're born in one of the 22 blue states with an order, you get to be a citizen. If you're born in a red state, though, you're fucked. It's a very strange issue to patchwork, though, even stranger than abortion.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The Supreme Court hasn't actually decided if it's illegal or not. This is just about injunctions to stop Trumps EO.

That being said, it's also a federal issue so you couldn't get a patchwork like abortion.

Unless I'm missing something?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The news was talking about the patchwork, and yeah, you'd think it's a federal issue but the injunctions can only apply where the lawsuits were, hence the 22 states that sued. At least for now.

At least that's my understanding. It likely can't stay in this limbo for long, anyway. Will this court be corrupt enough to say it's constitutional when it's clearly not? I really hope not.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 days ago (6 children)

As much as I dislike the decision, they did not give the “ok”

The ruling was about how the lower courts handle injunctions. The court cases are playing out still.

I still hate the decision.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago

Bunch of pansies. All they had to do is say No

And would have been the end of it. But they are scared of him for w/e reason. Trump can't even remember Barrett.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 days ago

Effectively, anyone who does not have a lawyer who files a specific suit in a very short period of time can be deported at will. Saying it does not end the 14th Amendment is an exercise in English language mechanics, not in how it ends up affecting the world.

If you are high school student who is shipped off to a foreign prison, how likely do you think it is somebody will fight to bring you back?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They effectively did. They are Supreme Court justices, not idiots.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It doesn't sound like those two things are mutually exclusive.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 147 points 2 days ago (2 children)

So literally what happened here is Trump said, "I want to violate the Constitution" and the Supreme Court said, " Okay — go ahead."

And that's it for the rule of law in the US.

All that's left now is to tally the mass murders along the way to the inevitable collapse of the US, and to hope that our descendents can build something better out of the rubble.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

That’s not literally what happened at all. Trump said, “I want to violate the constitution and issued an order”. Then states cities and organizations sued across three cases and courts issued universal injunctions. Trump said “wah! Help me puppet kourt!” Then the Supreme Court was like, “be still mein führer. We will not allow these injunctions to apply to the entire nation. Only to those who have sued.”

They gave him second base. Let’s see if they go all the way for Don Don.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 days ago

this is insane

[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Can Trump prove his citizenship, if this policy goes through?

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 days ago

His 1st & current wife were not citizens when those children were born. They should be deported.

[–] [email protected] 253 points 2 days ago (4 children)

This is the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution. As a lawyer for the federal government, I need everyone to know that this officially marks the end of United States rule of law. Protect yourselves, and godspeed.

[–] [email protected] 80 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Billionaires and politicians. No one else matters. Don't be distracted by the broke Nazis at ICE. The true threat numbers in the hundreds.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›