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

News

30558 readers
4002 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 minute ago

It is time to renew the Tree of Liberty.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

First ones to be deported should be melania and baron

[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Jr, Ivanka, and Eric would also be removed. Tiffany is the only "true" American.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 minutes ago

Donald J, "Who?"

[–] [email protected] 41 points 10 hours ago (20 children)

Human rights are officially a thing of the past. None of us qualify for citizenship if he removes that definition.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Wouldn't it be simpler if he just ended citizenship? Then he could freely oppress just about anyone.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 minutes ago

"Congratulations! You've just been promoted to US Deputy Secretary of State for the Trump Administration.. Thank you for your great ideas!"

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Same thing if you can override constitutional rights by executive fiat without an amendment ratified by Congress.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 minutes ago

Constitutional amendments are ratified by the states individually, not by Congress.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 15 hours ago

From what I understand, its not the supreme court ok'd his move rather they stopped other lower federal courts from creating injunctions that stop the entire process, and they now limited them to stopping only those who bring forth lawsuits and who are affected by whatever it is.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

Looking into it this whole thing is way more complicated than the headline makes it sound. The Supreme Court didn't actually give Trump permission to end birthright citizenship, they just made a ruling about how courts can block federal policies nationwide.

Basically what happened: Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by multiple federal judges who said it's probably unconstitutional. Instead of arguing the constitutional issue (which he'd probably lose), Trump's team asked the Supreme Court to limit judges' power to issue nationwide blocks on policies. The Court agreed 6-3, but they specifically did NOT rule on whether ending birthright citizenship is legal.

So now Trump's celebrating like he won, but really all that changed is the procedural stuff. The constitutional problems with his order are still there: the 14th Amendment is pretty clear about birthright citizenship. Lower courts still have to reconsider their rulings, and immigrant rights groups are already filing new lawsuits.

It's more of a tactical win for Trump that might let him try to implement parts of his agenda in some places, but the fundamental legal challenges haven't gone away. The Truthout article is at least a little hyperbolic imo.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

He won because he can delay actually following the law until he's dead because it will be impractical to stop him

[–] [email protected] 44 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

He did win though, because by telling federal judges that their rulings against executive orders cannot be.. Federal, nationwide, the supreme court took away about 99% of the (already mediocre) checks and balances against Trump's power (and any presidents power). To pass it off as just some procedural stuff misses how impactful this is, the only court powers that can stop his kings laws by edict ('executive orders') now are: case by case state-based rulings for federal judges, and the supreme court itself for nationwide rulings.

This is largely what Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent: this is a huge expansion of presidential powers by the SC removing restrictions from the president, over an issue that is abundantly clearly illegal (denying birthright citizenship), and it leaves the door wide open to further illegal orders.

Her dissent is worth a read, it begins on page 54: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

[–] [email protected] 11 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Fair point.

I was definitely too focused on the narrow "did they rule on birthright citizenship" question and missed the bigger picture. You're right that this is way more than just procedural, it's a massive shift in executive power.

The fact that federal judges can now only issue piecemeal, state-by-state rulings essentially breaks their ability to actually check presidential overreach in any meaningful way.

I think I got too caught up in fact checking the specific headline and missed how big Trump's win actually was here, just not in the way the headlines suggested. Thanks for the correction.

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