QUESTION PRESENTED Did the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act strip district courts of the jurisdiction, recognized by this Court in Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974), to hear challenges to the constitutionality of acts of Congress affecting veterans’ benefits?

The Supreme Court takes up just one new case today, Johnson v. Congress, involving veterans' benefits. www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

FYI: I don't expect the court to issue more opinions until, at the earliest, April 17, when the justices are next scheduled to convene!

I wonder if there was some sort of reason the Founders routed the war power through Congress rather than the whim of one person. Probably not.

There’s a stacked bench of contenders at this point but she is definitely in the top tier. As long as NC keeps its Democratic governor …

Riggs knows why NC Republicans—including her own colleagues—tried to steal her elected SCONC seat.

The Leandro case basically defined North Carolina's obligation to equitably fund schools — especially in rural districts — for 30 years. Enormous ruling here.

Pretty rare, but North Carolina's Republican justices have long used their rulings to unsubtly campaign for themselves and against their colleagues. Newby did it when he challenged Beasley for chief justice.

I know there's a lot of anxiety over judicial elections, but if North Carolina is going to have them, it's entirely proper for a sitting justice to highlight her colleagues' hackery and encourage voters to oust them. You better believe the Republican justices already campaign from the bench.

Today, this Court breaks a promise that constitutional drafters made to the people. The majority discards our constitutional commitment to the children of the state instead of acting to meet it. The majority distorts the facts and history of this case, hides behind technicalities rather than addressing the core issue affecting our children, and looks for a reason—any reason—to ignore the problem instead of fixing it. The majority’s message to our children is clear: pull yourself up by your bootstraps, but there is nothing this Court will do if the political branches never met their obligation to put boots on your feet in the first place. But tides will change, voters will reach a breaking point, and hope springs eternal that democratic demand for a different species of Court will soon produce results.

In dissent, Justice Riggs suggests that voters must oust the North Carolina Supreme Court's Republicans in order to restore the state constitutional guarantee to education. Says "voters will reach a breaking point" and elect "a different species of court."
www.documentcloud.org/documents/27...

By a 4–3 vote, the North Carolina Supreme Court's Republicans toss out a long-running lawsuit seeking to enforce the state constitution's guarantee of a quality public education for all children. The one reasonable Republican dissents, as do the two Democrats. www.documentcloud.org/documents/27...

Really good piece about something quite bad that shouldn't get lost in this week's crazy news cycle

The notion that any person born here should be denied U.S. citizenship because their parents happened to be immigrants is an anti-American perversion of legal principles that actually pre-date the 14th Amendment. The only support for that proposition is Dred Scott, which is of course no longer law.

It’s lovely that many first-generation Americans feel pride in securing citizenship under the 14th Amendment, but I think it’s important to understand that they became citizens the exact same way as an American born here to descendants of the Mayflower. There is zero constitutional distinction.

The vast majority of Americans are birthright citizens. Unless you naturalized or were born abroad to an American parent, you are a citizen because of the 14th Amendment. There is nothing constitutionally distinct about Americans born here to non-Americans. We are all literally equal citizens.

Congratulations, extremely well deserved!

The lawsuit has already forced the Trump administration to turn over a good deal of information about the White House ballroom construction—much of it pretty damning—that it might have otherwise kept secret indefinitely. That's a good in itself and makes this litigation worth it IMO.

I think the lawsuit against Trump's White House "ballroom" will ultimately fail because a higher court will hold that the plaintiffs don't have standing to challenge the construction simply because they're upset and offended by its illegality. Not saying that's good—just the likely outcome. BUT ...

Adam means that she is the daughter of immigrants, but it is worth emphasizing that *every* U.S. citizen who has not been naturalized is a birthright citizen, either by the 14th Amendment or by statute.

If Trump Was Trying to Intimidate the Supreme Court on Birthright Citizenship, It Backfired Miserably On Wednesday, Donald Trump became the first sitting president to attend Supreme Court arguments in person.

I stand by my earlier prediction: 7–2, with Kavanaugh possibly concurring on narrower statutory grounds that would let Congress restrict birthright citizenship in the future.

Should be 9–0! slate.com/news-and-pol...

Agree. Although Roberts' first question about "domicile" to the ACLU lawyer, Cecillia Wang, was really a softball that lets her rebut the government's "domicile" theory about Wong Kim Ark. He doesn't actually sound undecided.

Endorse

Why indeed

As a certified judge translator, “puzzled” is bad

Barrett asks Sauer a series of questions demonstrating how unworkable and arbitrary the Trump administration's revisionist theory of birthright citizenship would prove in practice. Sauer keeps veering to policy and Barrett keeps trying to direct him back to the Constitution.

Barrett to Sauer: Um, if the Framers of the 14th Amendment wanted to "invent an entirely new kind of citizenship, like an American brand," wouldn't they have just said that instead of adopting straightforward birthright citizenship?

Kavanaugh says he's "not seeing the relevance" of other countries denying birthright citizenship:

"We try to interpret American law with American precedent based on American history. That's certainly what I try to do ... Why should we be thinking about, gee, European countries don't have this?"

I think the Supreme Court is going to rule against Trump's attack on birthright citizenship 7-2.

Good question from Kavanaugh: Didn't Congress enshrine Wong Kim Ark's broad understanding of the 14th Amendment when it codified birthright citizenship in 1940 and 1952?

"If you're in Congress in 1940 and 1952 and you want to limit the scope of Wong Kim Ark ... why do you repeat the same language?"

Kavanaugh's first question is definitely hostile to the Trump administration. He suggests that the solicitor general is trying to smuggle a restriction on birthright citizenship into the 14th Amendment that does not actually appear in the text.

Gorsuch is simply NOT buying the Trump administration's revisionist history of the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark. Not happy with it at all. Cites historical records that show why the solicitor general is just wrong. And he's using his "you are obviously bullshitting me" voice.

(The word "domicile" does not appear in the 14th Amendment, nothing in the text suggests that birthright citizenship hinges on a child's parents having "domicile" in the U.S.)

Alito suggests that undocumented immigrants cannot claim "domicile" in the U.S. because they're "subject to removal at anytime if they are apprehended," but asks Sauer if denying birthright citizenship to their children would create "humanitarian" problems. Seems to want Sauer to wave this away.