The Supreme Court debates birthright citizenship, revealing deep divides among justices. While four justices question the motives behind Trump's actions, the male justices appear more accepting. The tension revolves around nationwide injunctions issued against executive orders, raising concerns about judicial authority. This clash underscores the judiciary's role in upholding fundamental rights amidst unprecedented challenges. The discussions also touch on the implications for democracy and the balance of power, highlighting the critical dynamics within the court.
01:03:10
forum Ask episode
web_stories AI Snips
view_agenda Chapters
menu_book Books
auto_awesome Transcript
info_circle Episode notes
insights INSIGHT
Birthright Citizenship's Historical Role
Birthright citizenship was established to remedy racial discrimination after the Civil War and enshrined in the 14th Amendment.
It applies broadly to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' status or nationality.
insights INSIGHT
Court Avoids Birthright Citizenship Question
The Supreme Court focused on nationwide injunctions, avoiding the core constitutional issue of birthright citizenship.
This was a strategic move by the Trump Justice Department to evade the real legal threat to birthright citizenship.
insights INSIGHT
Nationwide Injunctions Protect Rights
Eliminating nationwide injunctions could force every affected person to sue individually to protect their rights.
This catch-me-if-you-can approach threatens the rule of law and effective judicial protection of rights.
Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode
The Science of Getting from Where You Are to Where You Want to Be
Katy Milkman
In this ground-breaking book, Katy Milkman reveals a proven path to help readers move from where they are to where they want to be. Drawing on her original research and the work of her world-renowned scientific collaborators, Milkman shares strategic methods for identifying and overcoming common barriers to change, such as impulsivity, procrastination, and forgetfulness. The book offers innovative approaches like 'temptation bundling,' using timely reminders, and creating 'set-it-and-forget-it systems' to make change more achievable. It emphasizes the importance of tailoring solutions to specific roadblocks and using science to stack the deck in favor of successful change.
Our eyes this week were trained on the arguments over birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court on Thursday. While Solicitor General John Sauer advanced wild arguments on behalf of the Trump administration, four of the justices (hint: the women) seemed extremely suspicious of his motives. The five men? Not so much. Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia Lithwick to break down Trump v. CASA Inc. and the growing divide on the court between those who trust this president and those who don’t.
Although Thursday’s arguments touched on fundamental rights, SCOTUS made the strange choice to largely avoid the constitutional question and focus on a different one: Whether district courts have the power to issue “universal” injunctions that apply nationwide, as multiple courts did in order to protect birthright citizenship from the president. Judges have issued an unprecedented number of these orders against the Trump administration—in response to Trump’s unprecedented barrage of lawless executive orders. Some conservative justices seem perturbed by the explosion of universal injunctions. But it became clear on Thursday that this is the worst case for the court to use to rein them in.
Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts 