Podcast appearances and mentions of wong kim ark

Jeff and Phil welcome Annie Lee, Managing Director of Policy for Chinese for Affirmative Action, and Sandra Wong, great-granddaughter of Wong Kim Ark, whose landmark 1898 Supreme Court victory established birthright citizenship in the United States. They discuss the history of United States v. Wong Kim Ark and its profound impact on American citizenship and civil rights; the contemporary political challenges to birthright citizenship and the erosion of constitutional rights; and the importance of educating the next generation about Wong Kim Ark's legacy.

Mark Simone Interviews Author Ann Coulter on Her Latest Article on Birthright Citizenship. The Mark Simone Show July 1, 2026 • 11 min Episode Description They talk about the Supreme Court blocking Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship, which means if you're born in the U.S., you're a citizen, no matter your parents' status. They also get into how college campuses are pushing students to vote for progressive candidates.   Article mentioned- https://anncoulter.com/2026/07/02/dred-scotus/   Dred SCOTUS by Ann Coulter  July 2, 2026  Obviously, the Supreme Court's ruling on anchor babies in Trump v. Barbara is ridiculous. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with the Papist nut and the three witches, has apparently decided the “FREE MONEY” sign on our border was not good enough. We need to give the third world an even bigger incentive to flock here. Henceforth, we will lure illegal aliens with the guarantee of American citizenship for any kids they give birth to on U.S. soil. Welcome Hamas! (And you thought Democratic primaries were already wild!) Inasmuch as no one on TV seems to have bothered reading the opinions, here are a few highlights. 1) Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent is a tour de force. It will go down in history with Justice Benjamin Curtis's dissent in Dred Scott and Justice Frank Murphy's dissent in Korematsu. (It's also a good primer for snowbirds, who plan to avoid state taxes by moving to Florida, on the vital importance and clear legal meaning of “domicile.”) By contrast, Roberts's opinion for the court will go down with Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, finding that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination against transgender employees—a ruling that was so embarrassing it was immediately ignored by everyone, including Gorsuch. That was clear this week, when, for the fourth time since Bostock, the court rejected similar claims by transgenders. 2) I'm sorry to mention that, inasmuch as Gorsuch was on the right side of the anchor baby case. Which reminds me, could the conservatives confidently informing us that anchor babies are required by the constitution (Bill O'Reilly, John Yoo, The Wall Street Journal, etc.) cite a single other case with Roberts on one side and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the other, where Roberts was right? How about that terrific Obamacare ruling, deeply grounded in the text of the constitution? 3) Thomas's central point—appalling to liberals, but true nonetheless—is that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to overrule Dred Scott, which held that black Americans were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Black slaves and freedmen alike, Thomas writes, “were unambiguously Americans. They were not foreigners. They were not aliens. They owed no foreign allegiance.” He quotes Frederick Douglass's plea for the citizenship of blacks: “We address you not as aliens nor as exiles … We are Americans.” In response to Thomas's manifestly obvious point that the Fourteenth Amendment was “enacted … with the one pervading purpose of securing equal citizenship for the freed slaves,” the great legal scholar Justice Ketanji Jackson ripostes: “The teacher who scolds a student for bullying a classmate hopes the student learns the broader lesson of treating everyone with kindness, not just that one kid.” 3) In his 91-page dissent, Thomas cites 42 legal cases, 19 historical letters or diplomatic dispatches, 6 formal Attorney General opinions and 11 statutes, including The Civil Rights Act of 1866, The Expatriation Act of 1868 and the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802. All directly on point. This, Roberts calls “scant evidence.” Whereas he cites a mighty three cases for his majority opinion: an inapposite one from Britain; the opinion of a New York assistant vice chancellor in an 1844 inheritance dispute in New York (BIG, if true); and one, Wong Kim Ark—the “strongest support for today's decision,” as Alito put it—using dubious dicta from a wandering opinion that primarily relied on the parents having been “legally domiciled” in the U.S. when the child was born. Not to be confused with, “living here illegally.” (Or “wintering in Palm Beach.”) It's as if Roberts didn't realize the case was about kids born to illegal aliens. 5) Roberts's weirdest citation is to an 1872 letter from Attorney General George Williams describing Francois Heinrich, a child born to Austrian parents while they were “temporarily residing” in New York City, as having been “originally clothed with American nationality.”

The Supreme Court just upheld birthright citizenship, striking down Trump's executive order in a 6-3 ruling that leans directly on a case 130 years in the making. We're re-releasing our deep dive into Wong Kim Ark — the Chinese American son of immigrants who won this exact fight at the Supreme Court in 1898 — because Chief Justice Roberts built this week's decision on Wong's story, by name. In this episode: the history of the 14th Amendment, the Chinese Exclusion Act, Julia Lynch's 1844 citizenship case, and how "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been the most contested phrase in American immigration law for over a century. Plus a new opening and closing segment breaking down this week's ruling, the rejected "domicile" argument, and why the fight isn't actually over. Birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment. American identity. Immigration history. All still unfinished business. Show Notes Episode Summary Originally released in 2025, this episode traces the legal and racial history of birthright citizenship in America — from the Naturalization Act of 1790 through Wong Kim Ark (1898), Lynch v. Clarke (1844), and Trump's January 2025 executive order. This re-release adds new bookend segments covering the Supreme Court's June 30, 2026 ruling in Trump v. Barbara, which upheld birthright citizenship 6-3. What's New in This Re-Release Breakdown of the Supreme Court's ruling and Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion Why the administration's "domicile" argument failed Fact-check: can Congress end birthright citizenship by passing a law? (No — here's why) What comes next for immigration policy after this ruling Topics Covered The 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) Lynch v. Clarke (1844) The Chinese Exclusion Act and the Naturalization Act of 1790 Dred Scott v. Sandford and its legacy Trump's 2025 executive order on birthright citizenship Trump v. Barbara (2026) Host & Producer: Saadia Khan I Content Writer: Michaela Strauther I Editorial review: Shei Yu I Sound Designer & Editor: Lou Raskin I Immigrantly Theme Music: Simon Hutchinson | Other Music: Epidemic Sound Immigrantly Podcast is an Immigrantly Media Production. For advertising inquiries, contact us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠info@immigrantlypod.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠BOYOT (Belong On Your Own Terms) ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠is the next step. It's our new app, designed to help you think through identity, culture, ambition, relationships, and the stories we carry with guided reflections, prompts, and frameworks developed over years of conversations on this show. It's thoughtful. It's challenging. And honestly, it's the kind of space many of us wish existed earlier in our lives. If you're ready to go deeper than the podcast, subscribe to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠BOYOT⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and start the journey. Don't forget to subscribe to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Immigrantly Uninterrupted⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠for insightful podcasts. Follow us on social media for updates and behind-the-scenes content. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ann Coulter: Birthright Citizenship Is ABSURD, Stephen Miller Goes NUCLEAR On Supreme Court ‘This is SUICIDE…', PragerU- What Is Birthright Citizenship?     Stephen Miller Goes NUCLEAR On Supreme Court In SAVAGE On-Air Rant: ‘This is SUICIDE…' Ann Coulter: Birthright Citizenship Is ABSURD What Is Birthright Citizenship? 5-Minute Videos. PragerU   Stephen Miller Goes NUCLEAR On Supreme Court In SAVAGE On-Air Rant: ‘This is SUICIDE…' Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/eiWw3kGOnGY?si=J6BwFI2xwwAUNeg1 Benny Johnson 6.1M subscribers 89,853 views Jul 1, 2026 Stephen Miller went off If you want to help support independent journalism, become a Member:    / @bennyjohnson   FOLLOW BENNY ON SOCIALS: https://www.bennyjohnson.com/follow CHECK OUT OUR MERCH: https://shop.bennyjohnson.com/ Sign up for The Benny Newsletter: https://www.bennyjohnson.com/newsletter SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST https://www.bennyjohnson.com/thebenny...   Ann Coulter: Birthright Citizenship Is ABSURD https://youtu.be/lApoF5aM-lw?si=09dzhevwAZth2PdK The American Conservative 13.3K subscribers 13,176 views Jul 1, 2026 This is a segment from a longer conversation between Andrew Day and Ann Coulter recorded May 20, 2026:    • Ann Coulter Talks Massie's Loss, Rubio vs....   Follow Day and Coulter on X. Andrew Day: https://x.com/AKDay89 Ann Coulter: https://x.com/AnnCoulter A new video by The American Conservative Magazine, a publication of the American Ideas Institute. ------ ► Support The American Conservative's Mission to reclaim "Main Street" Conservatism https://www.theamericanconservative.c... Follow The American Conservative on Social Media: Twitter -   / amconmag   Facebook -   / the.american.conservative   Instagram –   / amconmag   YouTube –    / amconmag   ◎ Subscribe to the The American Conservative's Podcasts" https://www.theamericanconservative.c...   What Is Birthright Citizenship?   5-Minute Videos. PragerU Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/MkgspNujMHg?si=eqfXyxJFQHksstAQ Do children born on U.S. soil automatically become American citizens? Many claim the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that they do. Are they right? Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, confronts this question head-on. PragerU 3.45M subscribers 5,880 views Premiered Jun 30, 2026 5-Minute Videos Transcript: What Is Birthright Citizenship? Presented by Amy Swearer Does the Constitution grant citizenship to anyone born in the United States? Even the children of people who've entered the country illegally? Or the children of foreign tourists who owe our country no allegiance? That's the question underlying the controversial issue of birthright citizenship. Many people today take it for granted that the answer is yes: if you're born on American soil, you're an American citizen. Period. End of issue. But is that what the Constitution says? Let's first look at the text of that document, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment. It reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...” Case closed, right? Not so fast. The key phrase here is, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” — it creates a second condition for birthright citizenship beyond merely being born on American soil. But it also raises another question: who is born subject to U.S. jurisdiction? To answer that question, we need some historical context. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, just three years after the end of the Civil War. Its purpose was to rectify the infamous 1857 Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which the Court declared that black Americans were not and could never be citizens. Even after slavery was abolished in 1865, Dred Scott technically remained the law of the land. Black Americans were left in limbo—they were no longer slaves, but they still were not citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment resolved the issue, once and for all. These newly freed slaves and their descendants were certainly born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This had been their home for generations. If they were not American citizens, to which other nation did they still belong? So while the Fourteenth Amendment resolved the issue as it related to race, its authors would have been shocked to learn that we now interpret these words to make citizens of virtually anyone born on U.S. soil, under all circumstances. As Yale Law Professor William C. Robinson explained in his 1875 legal treatise, the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship only to those “born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States”—a condition that requires, at minimum, lawful permanent residence in this country. This was also the original understanding of the federal government. In 1885, for example, the State Department rejected the citizenship claim of a man named Richard Greisser. Yes, Greisser had been born in Ohio eighteen years earlier, but his German parents never intended to stay in the United States. They returned with their son to Germany shortly after his birth. Because Greisser's parents did not owe the United States political allegiance, their son wasn't born subject to its jurisdiction, at least not within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause. Similarly, in 1890, the Justice Department considered the citizenship claim of a child born to one Mary Devereaux, a pregnant Irish woman being held on a ship in New York Harbor. While awaiting immigration approval, Devereaux left the ship for medical treatment and subsequently gave birth in a New York hospital. Authorities later denied her immigration application. Because Devereaux wasn't eligible for lawful admission to the U.S., her U.S.-born daughter was not recognized as a U.S. citizen. Both mother and child were sent back to Ireland. The Supreme Court addressed the question of birthright citizenship in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong was born and raised in San Francisco, the son of Chinese immigrants. In 1895, after a short trip to China, Wong returned to the U.S., only to be detained by authorities and threatened with deportation. Wong sued, arguing that he was an American citizen by birth. The Supreme Court agreed. Access the full transcript here...

Stanford's Fred Smith examines the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship decision, its historical roots in the Fourteenth Amendment, and the questions the Court leaves unresolved. --- The Fourteenth Amendment opens with a simple constitutional promise: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. In a closely divided Supreme Court decision, that understanding of birthright citizenship is once again tested through competing readings of text, history, and precedent. In this episode of Stanford Legal, Professor Fred Smith, a leading scholar of the federal courts, joins Pam Karlan to examine the Court's ruling in Trump v. Barbara and the history behind the Citizenship Clause. The discussion traces the Clause to Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to Black Americans, and to the Reconstruction-era effort to overturn it, as well as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood to affirm birthright citizenship for those born on U.S. soil. The discussion highlights deeper disagreements over how that history should shape constitutional meaning today. Smith and Karlan explore tensions between originalist approaches, reliance on precedent, and questions about congressional authority over citizenship. At stake is not only the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the broader question of who the Constitution recognizes as part of the American political community—and who gets to decide. Links: Fred Smith  >>> Stanford Law School Page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode, Richard Epstein and Martha Jones discuss the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Trump v. Barbara, which struck down President Trump's Executive Order on birthright citizenship. At issue in the case was whether the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born to parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States. The Court concluded that it did. Thomas Donnelly, lead scholar at the National Constitution Center, moderates.    Resources  Trump v. Barbara (2026)  Brief of Amicus Curiae Professor Richard A. Epstein  Brief of Historians Martha S. Jones and Kate Masur as Amici Curiae  “Supreme Court strikes down Trump's birthright citizenship executive order in landmark decision,” Scott Bomboy for the National Constitution Center's Constitution Daily Blog  “In birthright citizenship opinions, a major constitutional disagreement,” Marcia Coyle for the National Constitution Center's Constitution Daily Blog  United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), National Constitution Center  The Citizenship Clause, National Constitution Center Stay Connected and Learn More  Stay connected with We the People—follow, rate, and review the show wherever you listen.  Questions or comments? Email podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Follow @ConstitutionCtr on social media and sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.  Support our important work by making a donation today.  ⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

Charles C. W. Cooke, John Yoo, and Richard Epstein break down three major Supreme Court decisions from the end of the term: Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case that left the status quo intact while sparking a debate over originalism, birth tourism, and Wong Kim Ark; West Virginia v. BPJ, the transgender-athletes case addressing Title IX, equal protection, women's sports, and federalism; and National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, the campaign-finance ruling that further limits restrictions on coordinated party spending and raises big questions about money, speech, corruption, and the future strength of political parties.

It's the last opinion day of the term, and the big one landed: Trump v. Barbara, the birthright-citizenship case. We read the majority as the rare easy case and spend most of the episode on why the four dissents each end up somewhere different — and trying to figure out exactly where they actually land. Along the way: a bogus Nina Totenberg story, a Landor GVR that might quietly unsettle a chunk of Spending Clause criminal law, and whether the professors who defended the order deserve the "legal scholarship police." Highlights[00:00:27] The bogus Nina Totenberg wire story that Justice Alito was retiring — "Fake news, Dan."[00:02:03] The Justice Alito / Justice Sotomayor bench-dissent dust-up from the immigration hand-downs[00:03:11] Last opinion day — 3 opinions, 4 cases; NRSC v. FEC and West Virginia v. B.P.J. / Little v. Hecox flagged for later[00:05:27] A significant new grant teed up on possession of semi-automatic rifles (AR-15s)[00:06:43] A GVR in light of Landor in a federal arson case, and the narrow-vs-broad theory of what a GVR means[00:09:34] Whether Landor's narrowing of Sabri could upend a swath of Spending Clause federal criminal law[00:10:58] Why RLUIPA reaches prisoners — Chuck Colson's post-Watergate lobbying (courtesy of a listener, Emma Kaufman)[00:12:55] Trump v. Barbara — Trump loses, but closer than predicted: "Trump beats the spread"[00:15:25] Should professors who defended the order be punished? — "we don't need legal scholarship police"[00:19:58] The majority's walk: common law → Dred Scott → the 14th Amendment → Wong Kim Ark[00:26:21] Wong Kim Ark as linchpin, and whether its "domiciled here" language was doing any work[00:36:48] Justice Kavanaugh concurs in the judgment on the statute, then dispatches the constitutional question breezily[00:42:05] New states, Hawaii, and Living Originalism — when may you add new exceptions? "Weird islands you can't drive to"[00:48:33] The 91-page Justice Thomas dissent, the facial-challenge pivot, and the reserved domicile question[00:56:40] Justice Alito's Civil Rights Act / "not subject to any foreign power" reading, and the statelessness caveat[01:00:11] Justice Gorsuch's 3-page solo dissent: if not domiciled here, then where? — a jab Thomas may not share[01:05:33] Justice Jackson's anti-subordination concurrence, and whether it lands against Thomas[01:10:24] "I feel proud to be an American, Dan" — hail to the Chief, and to Justice Barrett; sign-offRelevant linksCasesTrump v. Barbara — slip opinionLandor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections — slip opinionSabri v. United States (2004)United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)NRSC v. FEC — slip opinionWest Virginia v. B.P.J. / Little v. Hecox — slip opinionCommentary & articlesSCOTUSblog opinion recap: "Supreme Court strikes down Trump's order ending birthright citizenship"Ilan Wurman & Randy Barnett's NYT essay defending the order (Minnesota Law summary)

Charles C. W. Cooke, John Yoo, and Richard Epstein break down three major Supreme Court decisions from the end of the term: Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case that left the status quo intact while sparking a debate over originalism, birth tourism, and Wong Kim Ark; West Virginia v. BPJ, the transgender-athletes case addressing Title IX, equal protection, women's sports, and federalism; and National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, the campaign-finance ruling that further limits restrictions on coordinated party spending and raises big questions about money, speech, corruption, and the future strength of political parties.

Dave Rubin of "The Rubin Report" gives a first look to the stories you need to know to start your day including the U.S. Supreme Court rejecting President Donald Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas issuing sharp dissents over the 14th Amendment and the landmark Wong Kim Ark decision; the Supreme Court delivering a major victory for women's sports by upholding Idaho and West Virginia laws protecting girls' and women's athletics based on biological sex, with reactions from Education Secretary Linda McMahon, the ACLU, and officials defending Title IX; and the viral rise of North Carolina's Frying Pan Tower, the remote offshore hotel in the Atlantic Ocean attracting thrill-seeking tourists despite sharks, hurricanes, and its location in the "Graveyard of the Atlantic," and much more.

The Supreme Court closed its term with two landmark decisions that will shape legal and political debates for years to come. Todd examines the Court's ruling on birthright citizenship, including the role of United States v. Wong Kim Ark and competing interpretations of the 14th Amendment. He also discusses the Court's decision allowing states to limit girls' school sports based on biological sex, the constitutional arguments behind both opinions, and what these rulings could mean going forward. Plus, Todd shares an update on the relaunch of the Inner Circle newsletter and highlights today's program sponsors.

The Supreme Court closed its term with two landmark decisions that will shape legal and political debates for years to come. Todd examines the Court's ruling on birthright citizenship, including the role of United States v. Wong Kim Ark and competing interpretations of the 14th Amendment. He also discusses the Court's decision allowing states to limit girls' school sports based on biological sex, the constitutional arguments behind both opinions, and what these rulings could mean going forward. Plus, Todd shares an update on the relaunch of the Inner Circle newsletter and highlights today's program sponsors.

This Day in Legal History: Revenue Act of 1862On this day in legal history, July 1, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Revenue Act of 1862, one of the most important financing measures of the Civil War. The Union war effort required enormous amounts of money, and Congress could no longer rely only on tariffs, loans, and traditional sources of federal revenue. The act created the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the direct predecessor of today's Internal Revenue Service.This new office gave the federal government an administrative structure for assessing and collecting taxes across the country. The law also expanded the federal government's role in the financial lives of ordinary Americans. It imposed a 3% tax on annual incomes between $600 and $10,000 and a 5% tax on incomes above $10,000. Although modest by modern standards, this was a major shift in American tax law because it treated income itself as a source of federal revenue.The act also included taxes on goods, licenses, businesses, and other transactions, helping create a broader national tax system. Its purpose was practical and urgent: to raise the money needed to preserve the Union. But its legal significance went beyond the battlefield. The Revenue Act of 1862 helped normalize the idea that the federal government could collect taxes directly from individuals. The Civil War income tax was later allowed to expire, but the machinery of federal tax administration had been built.Decades later, the Sixteenth Amendment would give Congress clearer constitutional authority to impose a national income tax. July 1, 1862, therefore marks a turning point in the legal history of federal taxation and the growth of national administrative power.The Supreme Court ruled that President Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship is invalid. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented or only temporarily present still meet the requirements of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Roberts wrote that the Constitution makes those children citizens at birth because they are born on U.S. soil and are subject to U.S. law.The executive order, signed on January 20, 2025, never took effect because federal courts blocked it while lawsuits moved forward. Earlier, the Supreme Court had limited the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, but the legal challenges to the order continued through class-based and case-specific proceedings.The Court's majority relied heavily on the history of birthright citizenship, including English common law, the purpose of the 14th Amendment after Dred Scott, and the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Roberts rejected the administration's argument that citizenship should depend on whether a child's parents had permanent allegiance or domicile in the United States.Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the order was invalid, but he based his reasoning on federal statute rather than the Constitution. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented in different ways, arguing that the majority misread the 14th Amendment's history or failed to address important limits on birthright citizenship.Supreme Court strikes down Trump's order ending birthright citizenship | SCOTUSblogThe Supreme Court ruled that Idaho and West Virginia may enforce laws limiting girls' and women's school sports teams to athletes the states classify as biologically female. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the main opinion, saying the laws do not violate Title IX or the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.The Court was unanimous that the challenged laws do not violate Title IX, but the justices split over the constitutional issue, especially as applied to Becky Pepper-Jackson, the West Virginia student at the center of one case. Kavanaugh reasoned that Title IX permits schools to have separate teams based on sex and that, when the law was enacted, “sex” referred to biological sex. He also said states have important interests in safety and competitive fairness, and that courts should not be required to create individualized exceptions for athletes who have taken puberty blockers or hormones. The decision reversed lower-court rulings that had blocked Idaho and West Virginia from enforcing their bans.Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority and wrote separately to emphasize his view that sex is binary and biological. Justice Neil Gorsuch also wrote separately, focusing on the idea that Title IX, as a funding statute, must give schools clear notice of any conditions attached to federal money. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, agreed that West Virginia's law did not violate Title IX but dissented on the constitutional question. Sotomayor argued that the Court should have allowed more factual development on whether Pepper-Jackson, who had not gone through male puberty, was actually similarly situated to cisgender girls for athletic purposes.Court rules that states can exclude transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports teams | SCOTUSblogThe Supreme Court declined to hear Cathy Harris's appeal after lower courts allowed President Trump to remove her from the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. Harris, a Democratic member and former chair of the board, had challenged her firing under a law that limited removal of board members to cases of inefficiency, neglect, or misconduct. The Court's refusal came one day after it ruled 6-3 that similar removal protections for Federal Trade Commission members were unconstitutional. Because Merit Systems Protection Board members had nearly identical protections, Harris's case was strongly affected by that new ruling.The same appeals court decision that rejected Harris's claim also upheld Trump's firing of Gwynne Wilcox, a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board. The Merit Systems Protection Board is especially important because it hears appeals from federal employees who have been disciplined or fired. Harris warned that the decision weakens the board and threatens the independence of the civil service system. Her removal had temporarily left the three-member board without enough members to decide certain cases, though a later Senate confirmation restored a quorum. The ruling may also affect other lawsuits brought by officials Trump removed from independent agencies. More broadly, the decision gives the White House greater authority over agencies that were originally designed to have some protection from direct political control.After FTC ruling, US Supreme Court turns away labor board member fired by Trump | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amy Coney Barrett. Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment while dissenting in part. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Neil Gorsuch. The court grounded its decision in the historical context of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, tracing the language back to English common law, the Dred Scott decision and its widespread condemnation, Attorney General Edward Bates' wartime opinion on citizenship, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the court's prior precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Hawk connects the executive order directly to Stephen Miller's documented stated goal of an America populated almost entirely by people who look like him, and explains why birthright citizenship was the primary legal mechanism the administration intended to use to strip citizenship from Black and brown Americans descended from earlier generations born in the United States. He closes by noting that Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito remain on the court, and what that means for the 2026 midterm Senate races in Texas and Maine if either justice resigns under a Republican-controlled Senate. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

FAN MAIL--We would love YOUR feedback--Send us a Text MessageHe told America judges are umpires, not lawmakers. Two decades later, Chief Justice John Roberts is still calling balls and strikes, but sometimes it sounds like he's redrawing the strike zone.We dig into the irony and the real-world consequences of Roberts' “institutionalist” approach, starting with one of the most debated Supreme Court decisions of our time: the Obamacare individual mandate in *NFIB v. Sebelius*. We walk through why conservatives thought the Commerce Clause argument was clean, why Roberts initially seemed to agree, and how the case turned on a single reframe: treating the penalty as a tax under Congress' taxing power. That move didn't just keep a law alive, it reshaped how many people trust the Court.Then we hold that up against Molly Hemingway's portrait of Justice Samuel Alito, a justice known less for smoothing edges and more for saying what he thinks, even when it's uncomfortable. From the Citizens United State of the Union moment to Alito's willingness to let dissents stand on the record, we explore what “courage” looks like on a bench that is always being read through a partisan lens.Finally, we connect the same tension to a live controversy over birthright citizenship in Trump versus Barbara, the Fourteenth Amendment, and *Wong Kim Ark*. When Roberts fires back, “it might be a new world, but it's certainly the same Constitution,” we ask what consistency really demands.Key Points from the Episode:• Roberts' confirmation-hearing metaphor and the legitimacy problem  • How the Roberts Court moves law right while Roberts surprises conservatives  • The Obamacare individual mandate and the “penalty as a tax” reasoning  • Molly Hemingway's portrait of Alito as the road not taken  • Alito's “not true” reaction to Obama after Citizens United  • Trump versus Barbara and the Fourteenth Amendment debate over birthright citizenship  • What “same Constitution” means when the stakes are political  Links

Richard Epstein analyzes the Wong Kim Ark decision, arguing that Justice Horace Gray erroneously applied birthright citizenship to the children of ineligible aliens. He further critiques the expansion of the Equal Protection Clause in the 20th century, claiming it was originally intended for criminal matters rather than civil benefits.1890 SCOTUS

Richard Epstein disputes the "plain meaning" application to the 14th Amendment, arguing that "subject to the jurisdiction" requires natural allegiance rather than mere physical presence. Critiquing the Wong Kim Ark ruling, he suggests that children of legal permanent aliens should inherit their parents' status rather than automatic citizenship.1880

SCHEDULE JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW, 6-5-2026.1900 ADAMS BOULEVARD LA. Jeff Bliss highlights the stark contrast between Seattle's controlled homelessness and the pervasive crisis in Los Angeles. The discussion transitions to California's jungle primary, where late-arriving ballots in the Los Angelesmayoral race show statistically improbable gains for Karen Bass and Nithya Raman, fueling accusations of election irregularities. Jeff Bliss previews the opening of a massive, multi-story In-N-Out Burger in Las Vegas, predicting it will become a celebrity destination similar to Hollywood's historic clubs or New York's Stork Club. He also reflects on a rare 1955 invitation from Walt Disney, noting its role in establishing Disneyland's enduring cultural legacy. Richard Epstein examines the 14th Amendment's opening clause, distinguishing the robust rights of citizens from the conditional privileges of aliens. He argues that naturalization was historically a federal prerogative, noting that early statutes, influenced by Thomas Jefferson, included explicit racial exclusions for persons of African or Asiandescent. Richard Epstein disputes the "plain meaning" application to the 14th Amendment, arguing that "subject to the jurisdiction" requires natural allegiance rather than mere physical presence. Critiquing the Wong Kim Ark ruling, he suggests that children of legal permanent aliens should inherit their parents' status rather than automatic citizenship. Jim McTague reports on the cautious economic sentiment in Lancaster County, where despite falling gas prices, consumers remain budget-conscious. While tourism remains strong at venues like the Sight and Sound Theatre, local officials recently rejected a proposed data center in Columbia due to technicalities and concerns over its utility. Lorenzo Fiori provides an optimistic update on Italy's economy, noting improved employment rates across various demographics. He highlights a landmark legislative shift toward nuclear energy, with small plants planned by 2034. For travelers, he recommends San Miniato, a strategic, less-crowded Tuscan village famous for its white beans. Bob Zimmerman dismisses NASA's sheltering orders on the ISS as an overreaction to routine Russian repair work on the Zvezda module. He details SpaceX's massive IPO, which aims to raise billions, and observes that private space station firms like Axiom and Vast continue to secure significant capital despite SpaceX's market dominance. Bob Zimmerman surveys global spaceport developments, contrasting Spain's investment in French Guiana with the liquidation of the UK's Sutherland facility due to red tape. He debunks claims that the interstellar comet 3I/Atlas is an alien craft and notes that unpredictable sunspot activity continues to defy scientific models. Andrew Bayliss recounts how Pericles provoked the Peloponnesian War by steering Athens toward confrontation with Sparta. He details the Athenian strategy of retreating behind city walls and relying on naval imports, a move that tragically facilitated a devastating plague, claiming thousands of lives, including Pericleshimself. Andrew Bayliss profiles Lysander, a Spartan general of modest origins who secured crucial Persian funding to challenge Athenian naval supremacy. Lysander achieved victory not through direct combat, but by using deception to capture the Athenian fleet while the crews were uncharacteristically casual and off their ships. Andrew Bayliss explores the aftermath of Sparta's victory, noting that Lysander's immense power and ambition ultimately led to his death during a failed siege. Sparta's dominance eventually collapsed at the Battle of Leuctradue to a dwindling citizen population, reducing the once-mighty superpower to a minor village. Andrew Bayliss critiques the modern application of the "Thucydides Trap" to US-China relations, arguing that the original Peloponnesian War was not inevitable. He suggests the conflict was precipitated by specific provocations and accidental circumstances, drawing parallels to the circumstantial outbreak of the First World War. Henry Sokolski warns of China's fast breeder reactor program, which produces super weapons-grade plutonium capable of fueling efficient nuclear triggers. He also notes South Korea's growing interest in developing independent nuclear capabilities and submarines to counter threats from North Korea and China, despite international non-proliferation standards. Henry Sokolski explains the strategic significance of deploying Dual Capable Aircraft (DCA), such as the F-35, to reinforce NATO's nuclear deterrent in Europe. He observes that while Moscow and Beijing oppose these deployments, the aircraft act as vital "glue" for alliances, ensuring that American nuclear guarantees remain credible. Richard Epstein analyzes the Wong Kim Ark decision, arguing that Justice Horace Gray erroneously applied birthright citizenship to the children of ineligible aliens. He further critiques the expansion of the Equal Protection Clause in the 20th century, claiming it was originally intended for criminal matters rather than civil benefits. Richard Epstein discusses the legal complexities of a proposed executive order to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. He highlights the rise of "manufactured citizenship" through birth tourism and predicts the Supreme Court may eventually distinguish between transient visitors and those seeking permanent residency.

DOCKET ALERTS:   The House Judiciary Committee wants to change the US Attorney statute to say what Attorney General Bondi claimed it did in court. This would involve the Senate voluntarily surrendering their power to vote on nominees, so … lotsa luck. Back in New Jersey, prosecutors say they'll seek superseding indictments in cases with Alina Habba's name on them, to remove the stink of illegitimacy.   The DOJ has quietly settled a trollsuit filed by red states and rightwing trolls, including Robert Kennedy, alleging social media censorship by the Biden administration. The Supreme Court already dropkicked this case once, so the parties agreed to simply declare victory and go home.   And Sam Bankman-Fried finds new ways to piss off judges and be sooooo weird, this time with help from his mom.   MAIN SHOW:   The DOJ settled a bogus lawsuit filed by former national security advisor Mike Flynn. His malicious prosecution claims had already been tossed by a federal judge, but she let him amend his complaint again, and by then Trump was back in the White House. Is this a new template for MAGA criminals to back the truck up to the Treasury and start filling it with taxpayer cash? The January 6 defendants sure seem to think so! We'll compare a newly filed case by rioters with a suit filed by pardoned Proud Boys.   And we've got a deep dive into the birthright citizenship case Trump v. Barbara, which will be argued at the Supreme Court this Wednesday.   Kennedy v. Biden https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67089647/kennedy-v-biden/?order_by=desc   Missouri v. Biden https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/missouri-v-biden/?order_by=desc   US v. Bankman-Fried https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66631292/united-states-v-bankman-fried   Tarrio v. US [Proud Boys Bivens Suit] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70474277/tarrio-v-united-states-of-america   Sullivan v. US [J6ers FTCA Suit] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73101995/sullivan-v-united-states/   Flynn v. US [Flynn FTCA] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66930673/flynn-v-united-states   Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3231372247892780026   US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765   Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 https://www.archives.gov/files/historical-docs/doc-content/images/indian-citizenship-act-1924.pdf   Indian Law Scholars' Amicus Brief [via SCOTUS] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/399370/20260226125541217_Barbara%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf   The Nationality Act of 1940 [student Note] https://www.jstor.org/stable/1335062   Trump v. Barbara https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-365.html   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod

Welcome to Season 6, Episode 22! Professor Ming Hsu Chen is the Harry & Lillian Hastings Research Chair and Faculty-Director of the Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality Program, University of California Law, San Francisco. Chen teaches courses in constitutional law, citizenship, immigration, and race. She brings a socio-legal perspective to the study of race, immigration, and the administrative state.  With the upcoming decision on Trump vs. Barbara, the constitutionality of Executive Order 14160 is in question. This case which has the potential to redefine birthright citizenship may have a huge impact on 14th Amendment and the rights of tens of thousands of people born in the country to immigrant parents.  She is also the author of Pursuing Citizenship in the Enforcement Era (Stanford University Press, 2020) and speaks widely on birthright citizenship… including giving a TEDx Talk in 2020 based on her book. In our conversation we talk about the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, Executive Order 14160 and Trump vs Barbara, how questions of the unknown drives fear, Constitutional Originalists, and so much more.   If you like what we do, please share, follow, and like us in your podcast directory of choice or on Instagram @AAHistory101. For previous episodes and resources, please visit our site at https://asianamericanhistory101.libsyn.com or our links at http://castpie.com/AAHistory101. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, email us at info@aahistory101.com.

As the nation awaits a potentially landmark Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship, the latest episode of Parsing Immigration Policy features renowned legal scholar Richard Epstein for an in-depth discussion of the constitutional, historical, and legal arguments surrounding the issue.Epstein, emeritus professor at the New York University School of Law and the University of Chicago Law School, senior fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, and author of the new book The Myth of Birthright Citizenship, recently filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case Trump v. Barbara. In the brief, Epstein argues that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not automatically confer citizenship on children born in the United States to illegal aliens.During the conversation, Epstein explains that understanding the issue requires careful textual and historical analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”According to Epstein, the clause requires more than mere physical presence or birth within the United States. He argues that individuals born owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign, or whose parents are not under the complete jurisdiction of the United States, are excluded from automatic citizenship.The episode also explores Epstein's critique of the Supreme Court's 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which is widely understood as establishing birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Epstein contends the ruling was wrongly decided and should not be extended to cases involving children born to illegal immigrants.Drawing on centuries of legal history, Epstein discusses the overlooked Naturalization Acts from 1790 to 1870, the writings of influential thinkers including William Blackstone and Emer de Vattel, and American legal practices before and after the Civil War. He argues that citizenship historically required allegiance and mutual obligations between citizen and sovereign - not simply birth within territorial boundaries.In his closing commentary, podcast host Mark Krikorian discusses the ongoing legislative battle over funding for CBP and ICE through 2029. Republicans are advancing a budget reconciliation package that could reach the House floor as early as this week or next. Because reconciliation bills can pass with a simple majority, the legislation would bypass the Senate's traditional 60-vote filibuster threshold. Krikorian highlights that the Democratic Party has embraced positions hostile to the existence of immigration enforcement agencies, creating potential political consequences in upcoming debates and elections.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestRichard Epstein is Emeritus Professor at the New York University School of Law and the University of Chicago Law School and Senior Fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.LinksThe Myth of Birthright CitizenshipThe Case Against Birthright CitizenshipBrief of Amicus Curiae: Professor A. Epstein in Support of the Petitioners and ReversalIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Welcome to “Here's the Scoop: Supreme Court Edition.” This month, NBC News senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett will be speaking with legal experts and lawyers to discuss the cases being argued this term — and the legal precedents that underpin them. First up: birthright citizenship. On the first day of his second term in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order saying birthright citizenship does not apply to the children of undocumented immigrants, arguing they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. In making its case, the administration has revived arguments from 1898 made in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. A descendant of Wong Kim Ark reflects on the threat to his family's legacy, and then University of New Hampshire history professor Lucy Salyer analyzes why the administration is relying on a century-old argument to make its case today. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to “Here's the Scoop: Supreme Court Edition.” This month, NBC News senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett will be speaking with legal experts and lawyers to discuss the cases being argued this term — and the legal precedents that underpin them. First up: birthright citizenship. On the first day of his second term in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order saying birthright citizenship does not apply to the children of undocumented immigrants, arguing they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. In making its case, the administration has revived arguments from 1898 made in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. A descendant of Wong Kim Ark reflects on the threat to his family's legacy, and then University of New Hampshire history professor Lucy Salyer analyzes why the administration is relying on a century-old argument to make its case today. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

From the historical meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to the lasting impact of Wong Kim Ark, In this episode of Let's Brief It, we break down the Supreme Court's upcoming case Trump v. Barbara.Joined by Leon Rodriguez and Wendy Feng, we explore how precedent, executive action, and constitutional interpretation collide and what longstanding interpretations shifts could mean for the Fourteenth Amendment and the future of citizenship in the United States.Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations.Want to get ahead of the pack? Joining the D.C. Bar Law Student Community (LSC) can get you there. Your LSC membership will provide resume and skills boosting opportunities and one-on-one access to local practicing attorneys. To learn more, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

I can sleep a little better at night knowing that SF City Attorney David Chiu and his team are looking out for our rights and seeking justice. We had a fun chat with David about a wide range of topics, from the historical San Francisco roots of birthright citizenship to the ongoing fight to protect immigrants and some of the City's most vulnerable.   You can learn more about David @davidchiu.sf on social media or over at his website sfcityattorney.org Write to us at infatuasianpodcast@gmail.com, and follow us @infatuasianpodcast on socials. Please give us a rating on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.  Our Theme: “Super Happy J-Pop Fun-Time” by Prismic Studios was arranged and performed by @invictusquartet Cover Art and Logo designed by Justin Chuan @w.a.h.w (We Are Half the World) #asianpodcast #asian #asianamerican #infatuasian #infatuasianpodcast #aapi #veryasian  #asianamericanpodcaster #representationmatters

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says: “all persons born are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” But on his first day back in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that changed that understanding. According to the President's executive order, going forward, the only people who will be U.S. citizens at birth are people who are born in the United States to parents who are citizens, at least one of whom is a citizen, or at least one of the parents is a legal permanent resident of the United States. And what does all of this mean for Native Americans?  In this episode, Greg Ablavsky, a Stanford Law professor and scholar of federal Indian law, joins Pam Karlan to discuss President Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship--a case now at the Supreme Court. The discussion centers on the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause and, in particular, the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Ablavsky explains why federal Indian law has become part of that debate. He traces the distinctive legal status of Native nations within the United States, the historical exception for members of tribal nations, and the way that history appears in seminal cases such as Elk v. Wilkins.  The conversation also looks at the relationship between Elk and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case that recognized birthright citizenship for a child born in the United States to Chinese parents. Along the way, Karlan and Ablavsky break down why history matters to the government's current effort to argue for new limits on birthright citizenship--and more. Links: Gregory Ablavsky >>> Stanford Law page Federal Ground: Governing Property and Violence in the First U.S. Territories >>> Stanford Law page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) Who qualifies as a U.S. citizen at birth? (00:03:54) The Origins of the 14th Amendment  (00:05:58) "Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof" (00:11:42) Citizenship at the Supreme Court (00:17:03) Native Americans, the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, and the Presidency (00:18:49) The Supreme Court Oral Argument in Trump v. CASA (Barbara) — Analogies, Originalism, and the Native American (00:28:31) Practical Chaos, Hard Cases and What the Court Should Do Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On April 1, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Trump v. Barbara, which centered on a challenge to the president's executive order signed on Jan. 20, 2025, that attempted to end birthright citizenship. Over the course of two hours, the justices questioned U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer and the ACLU's Cecillia Wang on how the order comports with the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, the ambassadors and tribal exceptions, the Immigration and Nationality Act, precedent set in the Court's 1898 decision in Wong Kim Ark, and more. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

SCHEDULE JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW, THURSDAY 4-9-2016.1705 PERSIAN EMPIRE1. **Evan Ellis** discusses **Peru's critical presidential election** amidst severe political instability. He explores the **move to a bicameral legislature** and the strategic risks posed by **deepening **Chinese** influence** in mining and infrastructure. (1)2. **Evan Ellis** explains **China's "lawfare" and economic pressure** against Panama after port disputes. He describes the struggle for influence over the **strategic Panama Canal** and the **demonstration of **Chinese** economic power**. (2)3. **Evan Ellis** details **Venezuela's complex political transition** under Delcy Rodríguez following Maduro's removal. He highlights the **reopening of the oil economy**, the lifting of U.S. sanctions, and **budding signs of tourism**. (3)4. **Evan Ellis** reports on **Brazil's strategic rare earth minerals** and a U.S. deal to diversify supplies away from **China**. He also notes the **impending presidential election**, where polling shows **Lula and Bolson's son** neck-and-neck. (4)5. **Anatol Lieven** evaluates **NATO's internal divisions** over the Middle East crisis and potential reconstruction in **Iran**. He analyzes how **Russia and **China** balance priorities** while the U.S. considers **lifting sanctions for regional stability**. (5)6. **Anatol Lieven** analyzes **Prime Minister Keir Starmer's low approval ratings** and his party's fragmentation during international crises. He explores **Britain**'s **diplomatic balance** between public opinion and its **essential security alliance** with the **United States**. (6)7. **John Yoo** outlines the history of **birthright citizenship** and the 14th Amendment's goal to overrule *Dred Scott*. He details **Trump administration legal challenges** concerning illegal migration and the definition of **jurisdiction and domicile**. (7)8. **John Yoo** examines the landmark ***United States v. Wong Kim Ark*** case and the debate over "jurisdiction". He analyzes the **Supreme Court's oral arguments** and potential hurdles for the government's **narrow interpretation of citizenship**. (8)9. **Daniel Rood** connects **modern California cotton booms** to historical plantation capitalism and labor exploitation. He explains how **17th-century sugar production in Barbados** pioneered industrial agriculture, mass enslavement, and **racialized labor concepts**. (9)10. **Daniel Rood** explores the **history of plantations** as systems designed to exploit cash crops with high margins. He discusses the **unending cycle of boom and bust** and the **"shadow of the great house"**. (10)11. **Daniel Rood** examines **John Locke's legal influence** on racial slavery and the fiction of the "negro". He also analyzes **Bacon's Rebellion** as a driver for creating **concrete notions of racial superiority**. (11)12. **Daniel Rood** reveals the tragic fate of **thousands of black Loyalists** abandoned by the **British** at **Yorktown**. He details how the revolution solidified the **uncompromising southern plantation system** as a military strategy. (12)13. **Mary Anastasia O'Grady** analyzes **Mexico's organized crime crisis** and the 130,000 missing persons since 2006. She critiques President Sheinbaum's struggle to confront **alleged corruption within her own Morena party**. (13)14. **Jim McTague and Lance Gatling** discuss **soaring oil prices** impacting Pennsylvania and **Tokyo**. They examine **Japan's strategic petroleum reserves** and diplomatic efforts to **de-escalate Middle Eastern tensions** affecting energy security. (14)15. **Haym Benaroya** details **engineering lunar settlements**, focusing on rigid structures, inflatables, and lava tube cities. He explains the challenges of **utilizing local regolith** while protecting astronauts from **radiation and toxic dust**. (15)16. **Haym Benaroya** addresses the **psychological and physiological stresses** of low gravity, including bone mass loss. He outlines the importance of **crew screening** and the **projected 2040s-2050s timeline** for sustainable habitation. (16)

8. John Yoo examines the landmark *United States v. Wong Kim Ark* case and the debate over "jurisdiction". He analyzes the Supreme Court's oral arguments and potential hurdles for the government's narrow interpretation of citizenship. (8)1890 LOUISIANA

The 14th Amendment guaranteed equal citizenship after the Civil War, but who exactly counted as a citizen? Today on the show, the story of Wong Kim Ark, a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, whose Supreme Court case defined birthright citizenship more than a century ago. To access bonus episodes and listen to Throughline sponsor-free, subscribe to Throughline+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org/throughline.To manage podcast ad preferences, review the links below:See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

... and they really never should have been laughed in to court in the first place. OA1249 - Solicitor General D. John Sauer got plenty of laughs when he brought his best April Fool's Day game to the Supreme Court this week, and we're here to break down the  single stupidest case the federal government has ever presented. Matt brings the receipts to show just how badly the Trump administration's arguments against the plain text of the Constitution and the binding precedent of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) went, and why he is willing to bet his house on the fact that even this SCOTUS will have no choice but to find that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” means exactly what it says that it means.  “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” The White House (1/20/2026) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)[PDF] Brief for the Petitioners in Trump v. Barbara Brief for Respondents in Trump v. Barbara Trump v. Barbara Supreme Court oral argument transcript (4/1/2026) Amicus brief filed by Prof. Evan Bernick & Prof. Jed Shugerman Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

April 1, 2026Trump attended the Supreme Court hearing of the case under which he hopes to end birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, The Fourteenth Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision and established that Black men were citizens, While discriminatory laws persisted until after WWI, the Supreme Court always upheld the citizenship of children born in the US, In the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision, the court upheld birthright citizenship, Trump appeared at the Supreme Court presumably to intimidate the justices during the hearing, The ACLU's Cecilia Wang, herself a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, argued the case for the plaintiffs.Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

 At the Supreme Court, the dispute, known as Trump v. Barbara, focuses on whether the executive order conflicts with established precedent, including the landmark 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

This Day in Legal History: Coinage Act of 1792On April 2, 1792, the United States took a major step toward economic independence with the passage of the Coinage Act of 1792. This law created the first national mint, later known as the United States Mint, and established a standardized system of coinage for the young nation. Before this act, Americans relied heavily on foreign coins, including Spanish dollars, which made trade inconsistent and difficult to regulate. The law introduced the U.S. dollar as the official unit of currency and set its value based on both gold and silver, adopting a bimetallic standard. It also defined specific denominations, including cents, dimes, and eagles, many of which are still in use today.A key legal feature of the act was its detailed regulation of coin composition and weight, ensuring uniformity and public trust in the currency. The law imposed strict penalties for debasing coins, including severe criminal consequences, reflecting how seriously the government treated monetary integrity. It also placed the Mint under federal authority, reinforcing the Constitution's grant of power to Congress to coin money and regulate its value. By standardizing currency, the act helped stabilize commerce and supported the growth of a national economy.The Coinage Act also carried symbolic importance, as it marked a break from colonial dependence on European financial systems. It demonstrated the federal government's capacity to create and enforce complex economic regulations. Over time, the framework it established influenced later monetary policies and reforms. The act remains a foundational piece of American financial law, shaping how currency is produced and regulated even today.The Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments on April 1, 2026, over President Donald Trump's effort to restrict birthright citizenship, with Trump attending part of the session in person. The case centers on an executive order directing agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are not citizens or permanent residents. Several justices from both ideological wings questioned the administration's lawyer closely, signaling skepticism about the legal basis of the policy.The administration argues that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitutiondoes not guarantee citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil, emphasizing the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Government lawyers claim this language excludes children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors. However, multiple justices challenged that interpretation, noting that historical understanding and past precedent support a broader reading.Chief Justice John Roberts described the administration's argument as difficult to reconcile with the narrow historical exceptions previously recognized. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed to legislative history suggesting lawmakers intended citizenship to apply broadly to those born in the country. Justice Elena Kagan also questioned whether the administration relied on weak or selective historical sources. Conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, raised practical concerns about how the policy would be enforced, especially regarding determining parental intent to remain in the U.S.The challengers argue that the Court already settled the issue in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to foreign parents. Some justices suggested that Trump's position may conflict with that precedent. The case could have wide-reaching consequences, potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of births each year and requiring families to prove citizenship status.The legal dispute reflects broader tensions over immigration policy and constitutional interpretation, particularly how historical meaning should be applied to modern circumstances. The Court is expected to issue a decision by late June, which could significantly reshape the understanding of citizenship in the United States.​​With Trump present, Supreme Court questions administration's lawyer on birthright citizenship | ReutersA federal judge has allowed a lawsuit by the American Bar Association to move forward against the administration of Donald Trump. The case claims the administration created an unlawful policy to target law firms based on their past legal work, diversity efforts, and political affiliations. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali found that the ABA plausibly alleged a coordinated effort to intimidate lawyers and firms whose views the government opposed.According to the ruling, the ABA provided enough detail to suggest the policy may have discouraged firms from taking cases against the administration. The organization argues this created a “chilling effect,” causing some lawyers to avoid certain clients or legal challenges out of fear of retaliation. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the policy is illegal and an order preventing its enforcement.The dispute stems from executive orders issued by Trump that targeted specific law firms by restricting their access to federal resources, revoking security clearances, and threatening government contracts tied to their clients. Several courts previously blocked those orders, finding they likely violated constitutional protections such as free speech and due process. The administration has appealed those earlier rulings.Government lawyers argued the ABA should not be allowed to sue because it was not directly targeted and therefore lacks standing. They also denied that any broader policy to intimidate firms exists and described the claims as speculative. However, the ABA pointed to statements suggesting additional firms could be targeted and argued the effects are ongoing.Judge Ali's decision does not resolve the case but allows it to proceed, meaning the courts will continue to examine whether the administration's actions unlawfully interfered with the legal profession.Trump administration must face ABA lawsuit over law firm orders, judge rules | ReutersLuigi Mangione appeared in federal court seeking to delay his upcoming trial related to the killing of a health insurance executive. Mangione is facing federal stalking charges connected to the 2024 shooting death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the trial should be postponed because he is also preparing for a separate New York state murder trial scheduled to begin earlier in the summer. They say handling two major cases at once would make it difficult for him to prepare an adequate defense.Prosecutors oppose delaying the federal trial, though they are open to adjusting parts of the pretrial process, such as juror questionnaires, to ensure fairness. Jury selection in the federal case is currently set for September, with opening statements planned for October. Mangione has been in custody since his arrest shortly after the shooting.A significant development in the case is that the federal murder charge was dismissed earlier, removing the possibility of the death penalty. The judge found that charge conflicted legally with the remaining stalking charges. Even so, Mangione could still face life in prison if convicted federally, along with a lengthy sentence in the state case.The case has drawn public attention, with some condemning the killing while others have expressed sympathy for Mangione due to broader frustrations with the U.S. healthcare system.Luigi Mangione due in court in bid to delay federal trial over CEO killing | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. Annie Lee moderates a panel with African and Asian Americans about the impacts of Birthright Citizenship and the need for Surviving Through Solidarity. Guests include: Lisa Holder, Ming Hsu Chen, Don Tamaki and Michael Harris.   Link to an APEX Episode on Wong Kim Ark from March 20, 2025 Show Transcript [00:00:00] Opening Music: Apex Express Asian Pacific expression. Community and cultural coverage, music and calendar, new visions and voices, coming to you with an Asian Pacific Islander point of view. It's time to get on board the Apex Express.   [00:00:40] Miko Lee: Welcome to Apex Express. I'm your host, Miko Lee, and tonight we will listen to a recent event, Birthright Citizenship, Surviving Through Solidarity that took place at Chinese for Affirmative Action. Just yesterday, on April 1st, the Supreme Court heard the case around birthright citizenship. This event that you're gonna listen to was highlighting Asian and African American solidarity. As you might know, the cases of dread Scott in 1857 and Wong Kim Ark in 1898 are linked as landmark Supreme Court cases that directly defined and redefined American citizenship specifically about race and birthright. While Dred Scott denied citizenship to people of African descent, Wong Kim Ark's case utilized the subsequent 14th Amendment to solidify birthright citizenship for children born to foreign nationals. I'm just noting that in this conversation, because it was a panel discussion that was live, there was some irregular use of microphones, so sometimes the audio can be a bit spotty. Please bear with us, and if you want to review the transcript, check out our website, kpfa.org, apex Express. And last year we also covered the story of Wong Kim Ark and have included this past show in our show notes. Now let's listen in to moderator Annie Lee, Lawyers Michael Harris and Don Tamaki, Lisa Holder of Equal Justice Society and Ming Chen of UC Law.   [00:02:20] Annie Lee: Everyone. My name is Annie Lee and I am the managing director of policy at Chinese for Affirmative Action. Welcome to CAA's office here in San Francisco, Chinatown. And thank you all for being here today for our discussion: Birthright Citizenship Surviving through Solidarity. CAA and Stop AAPI Hate are proud to co-sponsor this event because it matters to us. CAA has been around since 1969 and we are a community based organization that provides direct services to lingual working class Chinese immigrants. And we also try to improve their lives through policy and advocacy. And in 2020, we co-founded Stop AAPI Hate, which is the national leading aggregator of anti-Asian hate incidents. And we know at Stop AAPI Hate that anti-immigrant policies are anti-Asian hate. So why are we here right now? March marks two anniversaries of two Supreme Court cases. One is Dred Scott and the other is Wong Kim Ark. These are two seminal cases in US history. And next week on April 1st, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the lawsuits challenging Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. So we are here to talk about birthright citizenship because it's an issue that is near and dear to both the Black and Asian communities.   [00:03:46] Without further ado, I am so thrilled to welcome this panel of amazing folks. Let's start with Michael Harris. Michael Harris here on my right is a retired attorney. He, for many, many years led the juvenile justice division at the National Center for Youth Law, an incredible litigator and advocates, and I'm so proud that he's here. He's also on the Equal Justice Society Board. Next to Michael is Don Tamaki. Don is a lawyer at the firm Minami Tamaki, and you might know him because he was part of the legal team that successfully got reparations for Japanese Americans after decades of fighting that injustice. So thank you Don. Don and Lisa, actually, spend time together on the California Reparations Task Force. And so this is Lisa Holder next to Don. Lisa is the president of the Equal Justice Society, which is based in Oakland, an incredible legal organization that has been in many, many fights, including, they filed an amicus brief in support of birthright citizenship, and that brief discusses why this is an issue for the Black community. And last but not least, we have Professor Ming Chen, who is a law professor at UC Law, and she's also the faculty director of the RICE Program, which is Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality. So thank you so much to my panel and let's dive in. So some of you know, but I am a former US history teacher, so I often worry that people don't adequately understand American history and I fear that people don't understand reconstruction and the 14th Amendment. So let's start with the origin of birthright citizenship. What is birthright citizenship and where did it come from and why does its origin matter for understanding what's happening today? So Ming, I'm gonna start with you because you're a law professor and then others chime in. Lisa, Michael, Don. 'cause I think you'll have more to add.   [00:05:45] Ming Chen: Great. Thank you so much Annie, and thank you to CAA for having us all. I'm really excited to be part of this conversation, which I think is going to be really the beginning of a series of conversations over the next few months. So you're starting in the right place, Annie, in asking us what birthright citizenship is, because that is the heart of what the common lawsuit will be about: who gets to be a citizen in the United States. And that's actually why I named my organization RICE. I think the emphasis is on the “C” [citizenship], because I do think it is something that brings together immigrant communities, as well as all of the different communities within the United States that have been expanding, over time. Getting to the, legal text I, I think it's important to remember first that birthright citizenship is bigger than the United States. Worldwide there are at least two ways of becoming a citizen. One is by birthright and the other is by naturalized citizenship. So we're talking about the birthright half. And the United States is not alone. It's among countries mostly in the Western hemisphere that have chosen to focus on the “jus soli” version of birthright citizenship, which is “soli” is soil. So it's birth by touching US soil. And the idea behind that theory was always meant to be an egalitarian one. It's one that is about the idea that anyone can become a citizen, right? In contrast to the older system that Europe and other countries use, “jus sanguinis,” which is to say that citizenship could only be inherited by blood and heritage. Right? So I think right from the very beginning, it tells us what the text and the history of our 14th amendment citizenship clause intended to accomplish, which was to have an egalitarian spirit, a fresh start, and a continual renewal of what it means to be an American.   [00:07:33] Lisa Holder: Just sort of continuing on the path that Ming just opened up for us, birthright citizenship is very much connected to the African American experience. Particularly because the genesis of that right, really was a reversal of the construct and the regime of the enslavement era, right? Everyone's aware that during that era, descendants of Africa were not considered humans, much less citizens. And the legal cases that were brought where people try to have their citizenship, and their humanity acknowledged, the courts universally said, no, you are not citizens and Black people have no rights that white people need to respect. Right. And so that was the case, law of the land until, after the Civil War, when we had the 13th, 14th, and 15th, amendments were lifted up and embedded into our laws. You also had the Civil Rights Act of 1866 where that body of law was overturned and enshrined into our constitution was a new law that said that freed people are citizens and they do have rights that everyone needs to respect and rights to equality. You know, we know that there have been problems executing that [laughs] but at least enshrined in our laws and enshrined in our constitution that is where the birthright citizenship, constitutional law came from. It came out of that experience.    [00:09:21] Michael Harris: I just want to add a couple things to that. I mean, it's very distinguished scholars, they're hitting it really hard. Two things, universality and so I wanna talk about that first. I got one more coming forward. It's universal. Birthright citizenship is universal. And what I mean by that is everybody gets to be a citizen who's born here in the United States. Period. It's universal, applies to everybody. It doesn't matter if you're Black or white or Asian, none of that matters. That's really important. The other thing is it's that this criteria is not something that's subjective, nobody gets to decide. It's automatic. If you're born here, you automatically have citizenship. Those two things being automatic and being universal I think are really important. And this, we'll talk about this more as we go through the conversation, but those two things are what makes birthright citizenship so powerful and why they keep coming to try and take it down because it's universal so everybody gets it and it's automatic. Nobody can take it away. So let's, we'll I'll just leave it there for now, but we'll come back to that.   [00:10:33] Annie Lee: Don, this one's for you. So the 14th Amendment passes in 1868. Like Lisa said, it's to reverse Dred Scott, where the Justice Taney wrote that Black people had no rights, which the white man was bound to respect. And so they had to repudiate that through the 14th amendments, they have universal and automatic birthright citizenship with very, very few exceptions for like diplomats kids. Okay, that's like so, so narrow. So 14th Amendment passes in 1868, but it takes another 30 years for a Chinese American man named Wong Kim Ark to establish that birthright citizenship actually applied to the children of immigrants. So Don, can you tell us Wong Kim Ark's story, who was he, what happened to him and why did the federal rural government make him this test case?   [00:11:22] Don Tamaki: Just a couple words about context. I mean, one of the remarkable things about the case is it occurred during especially California's ultra racist, ultra virulent racist period. It's a contradiction in that regard. So just taking you back to the origins of where this racial pathology comes from, of course we focus, tend to focus on Asian American history, but actually you have to begin with Black history and indigenous history in the country. So in 1619, the first enslaved people were brought to America. And you know, 12 million people were kidnapped off the west coast of Africa. 2 million died during the middle passage. 400,000 were dropped off in America, and the million other millions ended up in the Caribbean, in the Brazil in Haiti, Jamaica, et cetera. And from there, slavery in America continued for 246 years. Two and a half centuries. Civil war happened in 1865. It concluded, and for another 100 years, Jim Crow exclusion infected America. And San Francisco, by the way, was heavily Jim Crow until the 1960s and into the 1970s. The vestiges of that exclusion and discrimination directly are rooted in the Black American experience.   [00:12:52] Michael Harris: And it's still present here today. That's why we have a Chinatown. That's why we have a Japantown in San Francisco because of what Don just did.    [00:13:00] Don Tamaki: Redlining and racial covenants.    [00:13:02] Michael Harris: That's right.    [00:13:03] Don Tamaki: Exclusions, redevelopment, and so on. So people think of California as being like a enlightened state. Well, California did enter the union in 1850 before the Civil War. 1849 enslavers came to California and they brought their human property with them. So there were probably at least 1500 enslaved people in California. 1865 Civil War ended, but Democrats in 1868 rose to power saying they would vote against any law that would have any equality between , Black Californians, indigenous people, and Chinese folks. And beginning toward late 1800s, that's when the bulk of Asian American immigration began. First Chinese American coming during the gold rush, and then Japanese Americans have followed and so on. And so, Jim Crow seeped into all that. Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882. California was known as a strong Klan state by the end of the 1800s with strong Ku Klux Klan chapters in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland, Riverside, San Jose, Anaheim and so on. And so this was a toxic stew that Chinese immigrated into and other groups too. So unsurprisingly, tons of anti-Asian legislation policies, exclusion, follow. So Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who lived and operated a business here. His parents continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, and then they departed for China. Probably no doubt because of the inhospitable conditions here. And racial terror was part of that, including the race riots here in Chinatown. And now that I mention it between 1865 to 1935, 352 people were lynched in California. Eight of those were Black Californians, but the rest were indigenous, Chinese, and persons of Mexican descent.   [00:15:18] So that was the environment. Wong Kim Ark continued to live in California into his twenties, reportedly working as a cook in San Francisco. And at the age of 21 he actually made two trips to China. He made a trip to China when he was 17 to visit his parents. Stayed there a year, came back without incident worked, came back here, worked till he was 21, then went back to China to visit his parents at that point. And when he attempted to reenter the United States, he was denied entry and detained with a threat of deportation upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States. Of course he was born here. So the issue was you know, birthright citizenship was the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment did it apply to Wong Kim Ark. And the interesting thing is about the case is that the court ruled in his favor. All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And those words are now, today becomes crucial. And people, I think we on the panel will talk about the implications of that language subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And it established this principle that basically was reaffirmed repeatedly throughout our history for this 100 year plus period. To get to your last question, why did the court do this? I think scholars smarter than me can explain this, but I'll give you some clues. The court ruled in Wong Kim Ark's favor despite the virulent context of the era, because that's what the plain and expansive language of the 14th Amendment says.   [00:17:02] All persons didn't say formally enslaved, didn't say Black Americans. It said all persons. That's what the plain expensive language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 says: all persons and as Lisa referred to. And the congressional record of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1862, where legislators are debating these issues they clearly understood, and the record shows that if you include this expansive language, it will apply to groups like Chinese and Asians. And so with that understood it was adopted and ratified in 1868, 14th Amendment, and it was reaffirmed in other legislation like the Immigration Act of 1940. They just assumed that if you're born in this country, you're an American citizen. It was applied throughout the turbulent history involving my community, Japanese Americans. As you recall, 1942, 125,000 people were rounded up and put in concentration camps and the first generation were ineligible to become citizens. They were given identity cards marking them as enemy aliens. 2000 people died in those camps, but people were born in those camps. And the government, despite the fact that we were at war with Japan, understood that if you're born in this country. And even if your parents were quote, “enemy aliens,” you're gonna be classified as American citizens. And maybe lastly, the court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark because the 14th Amendment was trying to repair the harm done by Dred Scott v. Sandford, which was to provide human beings who've been here for two and a half centuries, the right to become an American citizen with all the benefits that go with that, like voting for instance. And recognizing that if you don't have those rights, you don't have anything, you are you, you're nothing. And for Japanese Americans, for instance, who are born in those camps, can you imagine if they didn't have birthright citizenship? They're not part of Japan. They're not part of America. Where are they? They're stateless. They have no home. They have no rights. And so it would create another underclass of people who have no rights for, and for which the 14th Amendment was trying to remedy which was you know, to provide a pathway. And so I guess you could say that's why, that's the incongruity of why Wong Kim Ark came out that way. In my opinion.   [00:19:59] Ming Chen: Maybe what I could add to the conversation is not just sort of who is included but who is not included. Because I think that's actually a much more small and specific group than the current dialogue would have you believe. So in the very language of the 14th Amendment, this idea of subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It refers to three exceptions and only three exceptions. One is for Native Americans, and that is because as of 1924 there wasn't a need to grant citizenship through the 14th Amendment because there were other provisions to grant citizenship to Native Americans. The second exception is for those who are children of diplomats. And the reason for that is because they have citizenship in their home country and their parents are only on a temporary post to the United States with the understanding that they're here in the United States in service to their home country. And I think that actually points to the limited meaning of the third exception, which is the one that I have to say, I have a really hard time understanding is part of the debate now. Because I think up until now, you know, this debate renews itself a couple times every year. Every time there's a new census, every time there's redistricting on all of the anniversaries, and usually the fight is about subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the third exception, which has come into the dialogue, is about the language of accepting children of invading armies. And that is one that I have not thought we needed to argue about. It really becomes a touch point as Don mentions this history with internment and the children of a group of enemy aliens. I think that gives it a whole new historical read.   [00:21:48] But one of the reasons that this argument, I guess I should first explain the argument because it may not be obvious to you as it was not obvious to me the first time I heard it, which was about 18 months ago. And so the argument is that the children of invading armies referring mostly to the children of immigrants coming across the US Mexico border should not be considered birthright citizens. So that's kind of what the public debate, what the insinuation is behind some of the current effort to chip away at Wong Kim Ark through the executive order. There have been many efforts to chip away through legislation. I don't know how frequently it's been attempted through constitutional amendment, which is what it would actually require. That's a very, very high bar that's almost never met. I think most people haven't really made a serious, serious effort there. But what I think is kind of stunning to me in the sort of momentum behind the current moment is that Judge Ho who himself is a birthright citizen. Took up this language and this argument about the children of invading armies after previously saying that he agreed with this interpretation that children of undocumented immigrants, children of temporary visas all of these different legal statuses in addition to all of these racial groups, would immediately be citizens. And the argument he tried to make is that it wouldn't include the group at the border because historically it wouldn't have included enemy aliens or invading aliens either. And I think that what is so surprising to me is that a) that there is meant to be this historical analog between what would've been happening at the time of the Civil War and what is happening now at the US Mexico border. We are not having a civil war. We are not in active military conflict at the US Mexico border. I'll set aside other US military conflicts and how we wanna use that terminology. But I think that's really important because I, I feel like it's almost a trick, you know, to turn what is a media frame that's meant to be like clickbait, right? The idea that there is an invasion at the border, right. That we're being flooded with people who don't belong here. And to try to turn that into a legal argument saying this is actually an invading army and that takes this group outside of the 14th Amendment.    [00:24:19] Michael Harris: That's, I was gonna ask you a follow up question because we haven't been invaded that many times by armies I mean, maybe the War for Independence when the British sent ships over and took over Boston for a while. I could see how if they had kids, I mean, that's a stretch, that might apply to this. But I think the rhetorical device, they're touching on where they speak of people who come into the United States without proper documentation as an invading army or an invading whatever. They use that terminology quite often. Is that enough to bootstrap into this exception?    [00:24:59] Ming Chen: I, not to me, [audience and panel laughter] I think not to serious legal scholars and jurists. I mean, and you know, I'm not trying to be inflammatory by saying that. I think there are a lot of people who are pretty far away from me on a legal and political spectrum who would also say that this argument is pretty unprecedented. To try to say that that would be enough to bootstrap it into the actual text of the constitution or the spirit of Wong Kim Ark. So I think it's going really, really far. And I think too far, and I hope that if that becomes a line of discussion during the oral argument, that it would be cut off pretty quickly.   [00:25:38] Annie Lee: Well, let me punt it to Lisa then. If it's pretty clear based on the text, based on the legislative history, based on, just everything in the last 125 years that has said very clearly that birthright citizenship is universal and automatic. Why is Trump doing this? Like, what is being attempted legally, but also politically? And Lisa, you take a stab at this first and then others can chime in.    [00:26:04] Lisa Holder: Yeah. You know, why is Trump doing this? [audience and panel laughter] There's many layers, you know? And it, this is a strategic play and you have to sort of think about this in a layered way. Like there's a long term strategic play. There's a short term strategic play, there's a procedural strategic play, but that sort of bootstraps and brings in a much more moral and narrative rhetorical play. Procedural play. The short term strategic play has a lot to do with the midterm elections. Right, right. And also limiting people of color's ability to pick people who look like them as their representatives. Right. Because all of a sudden you're not only putting into question people's citizenship based on birth and turning this into a lineage thing where you have to bring me proof that your parents or their parents were born here or something like that, or were naturalized. So you're starting to put into question in a practical measure, people's access to the franchise, people's access to the voting booth. Right. And you're also starting to create a chain effect. So people are actually afraid to go to the voting booth. Right. And then you couple that with moving the migration of ICE. Now ICE is in the airports. Guaranteed by November, ICE will be in the voting booth, right? So you create this chilling effect. And then in terms of having representation that looks like you having people of color represent you in the US House of Representatives, your state representative. When you put birthright into question in this way, you're also gonna be able to challenge people who are running for office, people of color, running for office and say, well, you can't really run because you need to prove. And that is a rhetorical issue that we have seen being used already with both Harris and Obama, you know, because they were brown, Black people. Their birthright citizenship was, they were manipulating that rhetoric and that narrative.   [00:28:25] So this is not coming out of the outta left field. It's iterative and it's a it's rhetoric that has been, you know, percolating up for a long time. This is just a culminating moment. The long term strategy is really about white supremacy. We know that, you know, all of the social science shows that in 20 years this, the country will be a majority minority country, right? And people of color will have a huge amount of power in terms of, you know, in terms of the vote, right? Because of that, switch to majority minority and white people will be in the minority. And so, this is about, from a long term perspective, ensuring that certain people maintain their power as an electoral block. Right? So that's sort of like a long term electoral politics play. And then finally, the procedural issues are what's outstanding, okay? As Ming mentioned, if you are going to use procedure to overturn a constitutional amendment that is a, an astronomical feat to accomplish, right? Because you need two thirds of all of the representatives in Congress, and then on top of that, you need 75% of the states to ratify that process. So overturning a constitutional amendment is virtually impossible. But what we have here is trying to do the same thing. One person trying to do the same thing using the powers of the executive office. It is unprecedented. It is absurd. It has no legal viability, but it is a political moment where this man sees an opportunity because of the bias that we see in the judicial branch, in the court system. And that is being leveraged for the executive to to do something that is unprecedented and that is actually procedurally impossible, right? For one person by just signing a document all of a sudden disenfranchising 13 million people. That is not the democratic process. It's quite the opposite.   [00:30:38] Michael Harris: I just wanted to add to that. The Senate and the House of Representatives are both very narrowly controlled by the Republicans, and so it's really important to Trump to maintain that control. He'll only be able to continue doing these outrageous things by virtue of getting a rubber stamp from Congress. And so either house going the other way would put a stop sign in front of him and make it much more difficult for him to do all those things. All this money he's spending he would not be able to do that if Congress was actually active in doing it's job. Cause under the Constitution, spending is supposed to be controlled by the Congress, not by the Executive. So everything's upside down, but that's only working because Congress is allowing him to do that and not trying to stop him. If the Democrats are able to take over the Senate or the House where there's only a three or four seat margin right now that would make it much, much, much harder for him to pull these things off. And so anything he can do to get an advantage in that way I think is also part of what they're trying to do and trying to pull off.   [00:31:48] Ming Chen: One other thought, and you know, I'm trying very hard to not be professorly in the sense of using jargon or highfalutin terms, but I'm just curious, has anyone in this room heard the term perpetual foreigner before? A few of you have, I mean, I think it's really pertinent here. The first time I heard of this idea was when I started to learn from other Asian American law professors when I was still in college. I think that idea was that for certain groups of people, including Asian Americans, it doesn't matter whether you are actually a citizen by law or how many generations you've lived in the United States, right? So I'm a birthright citizen like Wong Kim Ark, but I think the first time I heard about it was, you know, this idea of Asian Americans not being able to be Americans socially in terms of belonging regardless of whether they are themselves, the child of citizens or immigrants and if they're the sixth generation children, right. I remember taking a Chinatown tour with David and is that where we are about six generations out for a lot of the descendants. So even if you were in the sixth generation that if you look Asian, that you will still be seen as being foreign. And so I think that idea has animated a lot of the work that I do. Like why it is that a lot of the work I do on race centers Asian Americans and then a lot of the work I do on immigrants centers, the naturalization process.   [00:33:16] But I think it's also important to recognize the breadth of that idea. Again, this idea of trying to blur the line between actuality, like what is real and what sounds like a fancy argument. Right. And I think what Lisa said, you know, her brief reference to the challenges against Barack Obama and Kamala Harris when they were running for a highest offices. You know, I think again, there's not, it's not a coincidence. I mean, to me that's the perpetual foreigner at work again. Because it's the idea that not only that Black people cannot possibly be the leader of this country, right? Sort of the, the figurehead of this country, but that for Barack Obama, the child of one international student on a lawful, probably f visa at the time, or that for Kamala Harris, the child of two lawful immigrants, that they cannot be birthright citizens that would be eligible for president. So there's a lot of commonality in that argument. And I think, you know, people forget, I think people assume that if you're talking about groups who are not Asian right, or who are not Latinx, that we're not talking about foreignness, we're only talking about race. And certainly we are talking about race, but we're not talking about it exclusively.   [00:34:33] Michael Harris: And then in addition to all of that is just the straight up racism of it. And that's supported by this notion of white supremacy. And what I mean when I say that, Lisa has touched on this already, is that there is a hierarchy of racial groups. And we're not all created equal. There's a hierarchy and the top group is, you already know, I don't have to say it, is the whites [laughter], and then below that are the other people like us who look different. And the reason there's, they're able to put these groups out there and get people to buy into that belief system is because we look different. And so this is why the perpetual thing is perpetual it's because we still look different. And that is a key part of the white supremacy. They still want to buy into this notion that white people are superior. And the only way they can make that work is by saying that people who look different are inferior.   [00:35:34] Annie Lee: I love this discussion because it's so real. And what you are saying essentially is you're talking about belonging and you're talking about power. Like who gets to belong in America? And then that is necessarily connected with who has power in America, who deserves to have power in America. But I know that we all belong in America and that we have power. So I wanna shift this conversation now to what can we do? And so beyond the courts everybody tune in next week. But beyond the courts, what is the role of community organizing, state and local policy advocacy? Public education in defending birthright citizenship and fighting against the attack on birthright citizenship is one sliver of everything that he has done. So many executive orders that came out on day one. So how, how do we, as everyday people fight white supremacy? What can we do when they are redistricting and trying to take away our franchise right before the midterm elections? What do we do when they're using courts that they've already packed with their federal society judges? And so what, what can an average regular person do? And Don I'm gonna go to you first.    [00:36:47] Don Tamaki: Let me say something in a very far less intellectual way than my colleagues here. This is a very old playbook. The playbook of demagoguery is very old. He said the old is humanity. And there are three elements to that playbook. One, appeal to prejudice, however, that is, race, skin, color, religion, whatever. Secondly, fear monger and scapegoat. And thirdly trafficking, conspiracy theories, fake news, false information, erasure of history. That's how you control the culture. And it worked in 1619. It worked in 1882. It worked in Germany in 1933. And it works today, you know, 2016, 2020. You know, when Chinese were blamed as spreaders of the Chinese virus. Asian Americans, when Mexicans were characterized as drug dealers and rapists when Jews and immigrants were portrayed as replacing good white people. This dehumanizing [of] people where one more Black man killed during an encounter with law enforcement barely evokes a shrug because it is so normal. It is so normal, folks, and so it works. And so, you have the candidate Trump running for office and say to a national audience that, to the people of Springfield, Ohio, that Haitian immigrants are eating your dogs and cats and getting away with it. Or the images of the Obamas transposed on cartoon apes. And this is really Jim Crow stuff. This is Antebellum stuff. And it's a recycling of the same playbook. And so the first part of organizing is being aware of what's going on. This is not a new thing. Okay, it's just a racial pathology that churns in one form or another, and it has an origin. It predates us. And so I, I think part of that is educating ourselves how everything is interconnected.   [00:38:58] And since we're talking about Black Asian solidarity, I'll just say a couple things. I mean, the civil rights movement had three triumphs that we all should remember. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of '65 began the dismantling of Jim Crow, which I, as I said, was a hundred year phenomenon following the end of the Civil War and the Immigration of Act of 1965. The third act. It ended as, you know, racist quotas. It prioritized family ties and skills and it greatly increased Asian immigration. As a result, the majority of AAPIs today are post 1965 Americans whose very presence here was made possible by the Black Civil Rights Movement. How many of us know that, you know? I mean, everybody focuses not everybody, but people tend to focus on their own peculiar predicament as if it's unique to our own situation. And in fact, it's all, quite connected. So I think part of this organizing process is realizing, you know, it's Martin Luther King, the oft quoted statement where he says we may have come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now. And especially in connection with what's happening and, and you're seeing it in different parts of the country where sure, immigrants are being targeted in Minneapolis, but then you have thousands of Minneapolitans that, you know, ordinary people, business folks, teachers, laborers, protesting in Sub-Zero weather against what, what happened? And, and yeah. You know what, can we do protest work? I hope everybody's out there on March 28th, you know, this Saturday on the No Kings March.    [00:40:51] Michael Harris: Not just protesting, running them out of town.    [00:40:55] Don Tamaki: Well, [audience and panel laughter] Gregory Bovino, Gregory Bovino, who was the leading charge? Gone. Kristi Noem. Gone.    [00:41:03] Michael Harris: Yes, right.    [00:41:05] Don Tamaki: 2000 ICE agents in Minneapolis reduced to much smaller numbers. That's right. Their plans then launching Ohio trashed. You know, so that's why you, so boycotts, boycotts work. Ask Elon Musk. Ask Target. Local elections, Michael mentioned the midterm elections. It is if we don't, if Democrats don't get back the House, the country's cooked. So, I mean, everybody should be involved one way or the other in that. Raising money, you know, we are part of a, a fundraising group called CAPA21, and there are other groups out there, but those are, those things are crucial to funnel money toward swing elections and critical races. The education part I think is essential. If you consider the velocity change in terms of the civil rights movement, Japanese American redress and reparations was a 20 year movement. And it was full of education of the public. Civil rights movement, same thing. The philosophy of change on marriage equality or LGBTQ rights and all those things happened because they became normal. They were, they started out as ideas that people thought were preposterous. You know, that'll never change.    [00:42:26] Michael Harris: Right.    [00:42:26] Don Tamaki: And Jim Crow will never end. And San Francisco can segregate Asian Americans within Japantown and Chinatown. It, it will never change. But that idea of change, which were thought preposterous happens. But it requires civic engagement. So just examples.   [00:42:46] Michael Harris: I want to amplify two things that Don said. One is there will be a march this Saturday a No Kings March, and it's really, really important for people to show up for that march. ‘Cause the one thing that's devastating to a government is to have its people out there visible on the streets saying what the government is doing is wrong. Because you can spin certain things, you can lie about certain things, but bodies in the streets you can't lie about. It's there and it's real. So that's one thing that's really important, really. But I would encourage all of you if you can, if you are able, please join us and come out on Saturday. The other thing I want to add to the Don's excellent list is there's a few groups in the Bay Area and in San Francisco that does postcards. And their strategy is they identify particular jurisdictions where it's a very close race and it'll be pivotal if a Democrat can win over a Republican, say in a House or maybe even like the Texas Senator race. That one's probably gonna be very close too. And they send postcards to people encouraging them to vote. Don't sit it out. And those extra votes can be the difference between winning and losing. And that might flip the House might flip the Senate. So those are some other additional items.    [00:44:11] Ming Chen: I think at a much more basic level, it's just like telling, telling your story, telling the story of America. Because, you know, when we talk about all these rhetorical tricks, I mean, I think what it means is that that narrative is gaining a lot of power. And so I think you have to reclaim the narrative, right? You have to tell the counter story which happens to be the real story of what's happening. This is something that I actually haven't talked about this publicly, but my daughter she's like on the brink of being 13, not yet a teenager. It made me really sad that she came back from her well-funded, pretty liberal public school about a month ago crying because she said that in her Mandarin Chinese class, there was a child who was saying that Asian people eat dogs. And then writing swastikas on the chalkboard and singing Nazi songs making fun of the women in the room, I guess they're girls in the room saying that they're all lesbian without knowing anything about them. And it just made me really profoundly sad because I'd like to think that a lot of ignorant narrative is because people don't know better, right? I mean, as an educator, I hope that education will simply solve it. And it made me really sad to hear that again. You know, I'm, I'm on the brink of Berkeley. I basically live in Berkeley, right? So one of the most densely populated PhD overeducated people in America. And to be three generations in and to still have this story being told in the classrooms was really distressing to me. And even more distressing that it isn't just the like Chinese people that eat dogs as being a stereotype from those who are not educated, but it's something she might have heard on TV from the highest offices in the land, right? Something she might've heard the vice president say, for example. And so I just think it's so important and doesn't take education, doesn't take a law degree, right? To be able to tell that story. And so I was really, really proud that my daughter you know, did file a complaint with the principal that she came home and told us about it. And you know, her two parents who are civil rights and immigration lawyers, [laughter] but also that she's been like talking to her classmates right, about the fact that that's not true. That's not right. She's been comforting the other kids in the classroom who don't share the same background that she does. And I feel like that kind of work is just as important.    [00:46:45] Michael Harris: I want to add something to that. We have to take note of the fact that a lot of these types of comments really vile, racist things and not just about Asians, it's also some of the things about Black people, young people are saying. Part of it is because it's very easy to say things like that online because you can do it anonymously and not have to, you know, stand up and back up your comments, so to speak. And another part of it is our culture. We gotta be real about this. When I was growing up, I'm sure you were told this too, as the country became more educated and got more exposed to people of color and more people got higher education, all this crazy stereotypical racist stuff would go away because people would know better. That's what they told me the whole time I was growing up and now we know that's not true [audience laughter] because the reverse is happening. It's growing because some people are making money by putting stuff like that online and selling t-shirts and hats and stuff like that. Or starting, you know, whatever they start. There's this guy, Alex Jones, who made millions of dollars doing that kind of stuff. So some people are making money off of it. Other people are just buying into that ideological tip and are using that to gain power and influence and clicks. So we just have to be aware that this is a current going on in our society right now. And it's happening and it's growing and we, we need to be aware of it and start thinking about ways how we can put it to rest. Cause it's, it's happening.    [00:48:30] Annie Lee: Thank you so much. I do wanna give our audience some time to ask any questions that you all might have. So if you have a burning question to ask our illustrious panel now is your opportunity.   [00:48:45] Audience member: I was wondering how does this with, with the rhetoric of, of Washington pushing for IDs for voting how will that impact on people's presence at the voting booths and validating their ability to vote?   [00:49:04] Michael Harris: I think what you're referring to is the Safeguard [SAVE America] Act is now in Congress, and if it's passed and signed by the president, then it'll become law. And what it will require is anyone who wants to vote will have to have a photo ID. And even if you registered, you have to prove you're a citizen. So those two steps are, I think, designed to suppress the vote of people of color. I mean, I think it's very straightforward. This has been what Republicans have been trying to do for ever since the case that Don just mentioned passed and they were able to start doing this stuff. And I agree. It goes back to the notion that in 20 years, America's going to be a majority minority country. There's gonna be more people of color than white people. And I think that I'm just gonna come out and say that freaks them out. It really freaks 'em out. I think a lot of them have lived their whole lifetime where only white people were in charge, running stuff, and they can envision a future not too far off where that might not be the case anymore. And that's scary. It shouldn't be. I mean, we're all the same. It's all gonna be, you know, and there's Black Republicans and Black Democrats and there's Asian Republican. I don't know why they're so freaked out about it, but but they are freaked out about it. And a lot of this is to suppress the vote so that they can continue to stay in power and will not have to give up the power that they would lose otherwise.   [00:50:35] Lisa Holder: Yeah, I mean, it's always been about limiting the franchise, right? And since the time that it expanded beyond white males with property, there's been a battle to keep it as limited as possible. You know? And when you think about what happened after the Civil War, after the 13th, 14th, and particularly the 15th Amendment were passed and African Americans were allowed to vote, you had a 100 year backlash. Where 10,000 African Americans were murdered and lynched. Most of those were people who were trying to mobilize their communities to enter into the franchise and exercise the right to vote. That's the retrenchment that we're seeing being reiterated right now. Right. And we know that during that period, there were all kinds of hoops that, for instance, Black people had to jump through because of those Black Codes where you had to, for instance, prove that you can read this particular statement. Right. Or, you know, just like all kinds of random hoops that you had to jump through. And so when we see these barriers, these gatekeepers, like, oh, you have to have an ID. If this birthright citizenship goes through, no, no, no you can't bring in your birth certificate. You know, we need some proof of your parent, of your lineage. Right. And it's really is combined with that narrative and that rhetorical aspect, that Ming was articulating because although in fact we are America. America looks like us, Americans look like us. The alternative narrative where white predominance is the point is always going to be pushed where no, no, no, we are different. We are not normal and we are not America. And so that's, that's the narrative piece that all of this leads to. And that's why this story of storytelling that Ming talked about is so important. And also it is so important to just constantly push back to resist, to vote. To run for office when you look like an American.   [00:52:45] Audience member: My question is, if the executive order passes, what can we do to resist? Because one of the things is it will also disenfranchise women because it's about proving your identity that matches your birth certificate. Right. And there are really so many people that will not have their names to match their identities. And so what can people do to, to, to counter if that should happen?   [00:53:11] Don Tamaki: The legislative answer? Well, there'll be court challenges, no doubt    [00:53:15] Audience member: but, but before, let's say the midterm election.   [00:53:18] Michael Harris: Call your representative, fax 'em, email 'em, get your friends to do that, because it's pending in Congress right now.   [00:53:25] Don Tamaki: But elections have consequences is the point. And it people who says, well my vote doesn't count, doesn't matter. Everybody, both parties the same. Elections have consequences. I, I guess the only other thing to remember, I keep, you know, repeating this, the solidarity and connectedness bears repeating because the story keeps recycling. It's very recycled story about voter suppression. You know, the Civil War ended in 1865, 12 years of reconstruction. Lincoln is assassinated shortly after during the beginning of reconstruction and thereafter, you know, a deal was struck in the contested election of 1876. Federal troops are withdrawn from the south and then the voter suppression comes in literacy tests, poll taxes.   [00:54:19] Annie Lee: Mm-hmm. Grandfather clauses.   [00:54:21] Don Tamaki: Yeah. I mean in Virginia. During reconstruction 140,000 formerly enslaved people registered to vote after the collapse of reconstruction it was reduced to 21,000. California had you know, poll taxes. Other states had literacy tests and whatever, and it's now repeating because folks don't like the results of an election. The answer is not to, you know, broaden your net and appeal to upfront (?) policy. The answer is to suppress voting, stop people from voting. And so again, it's a matter of awareness I think we have to realize the game plan. And it makes it so important about who is voted into the dials and levers of the controls that run the country. So that's critical.    [00:55:13] Ming Chen: I can jump onto that. go vote. But I think it's also, you know, it's early enough to say, get your documents in order. Right? Go and be ready to vote in a way that won't draw question, right? So you don't have to wait for the lawsuit. And I will say for that, as someone who spends most of my days working with 20 something year olds who move all over the country, a lot of it is about sort of get your ducks in order, right? So if you don't have a driver's license with the current address that matches your name, you can fix that now. So many people who don't have a normal ID because they never learn how to drive, right? So make sure you go get that document. You mentioned marriage, Anna, and I remember I moved to New York at the same time that I got married and trying to get my name on the document when I was it, you know, it's like this endless loop, right? Because you're getting a new ID because of your address. If you don't have that, you can't get your social security card, if you don't have that you can't validate the marriage certificate, right? There's just this endless loop. And you have to get all of that in order, right? So I think maybe there needs to be two parts to our voter mobilization this year, right? It's get yourself ready, sort of like arm up and then vote so that your vote will actually end up counting.    [00:56:33] Miko Lee: Please check out our website, kpfa.org/program/apexexpress to find out more about our show and our guests tonight. We thank all of you listeners out there. Keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating, and sharing your visions with the world because your voices are important. Apex Express is produced by Ayame Keane-Lee, Anuj Vaidya, Cheryl Truong, Isabel Li, Jalena Keane-Lee, Miko Lee, Miata Tan, Preti Mangala-Shekar and Swati Rayasam. Tonight's show was produced by me Miko Lee, and edited by Ayame Keane-Lee. Have a great night.   The post APEX Express – 4.2.26 – Surviving Through Solidarity. appeared first on KPFA.

Stay connected with us at americangroundradio.com, on Facebook, and Instagram. You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for April 1, 2026. It might be April Fool's Day, but there’s nothing funny about what’s unfolding at the United States Supreme Court. We dive straight into one of the biggest constitutional questions in decades as the Court hears arguments over birthright citizenship tied to an executive order from Donald Trump. What does the 14th Amendment actually say—and has it been misunderstood for more than a century? We also break down the top stories you need to know, including President Trump making history by attending Supreme Court oral arguments, a Republican plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security without Democrat support, and NASA’s Artemis II mission preparing to send astronauts around the moon for the first time since the Apollo era. These stories highlight major moments in law, leadership, and America’s continued push forward. Later in the show, we shift to a broader global conversation as tensions with Iran continue to rise. We walk through what may be behind a potential presidential address, the strategic importance of global shipping lanes, and what a stronger stance from the U.S. could signal to both allies and adversaries around the world. In our Digging Deep segment, we take a closer look at the constitutional language behind birthright citizenship, including the long-standing precedent set by United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Is citizenship simply about being born on U.S. soil, or does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean something more? We explore the history, the legal arguments, and what’s really at stake if the Court reconsiders this interpretation. We also take on some major cultural conversations—from double standards in sports, comparing reactions to Jaden Ivey and LeBron James, to a growing trend of people cutting off family members over political disagreements. It’s a deeper discussion about values, accountability, and how culture continues to shift in real time. We wrap things up with a couple of lighter—but meaningful—moments, including a look at declining traffic fatalities across the country and what’s actually making roads safer, plus a heartwarming story that reminds us how simple acts of kindness can still make a big impact. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts, visit AmericanGroundRadio.com, and join the conversation at 866-AGR-1776! Trump makes history at Supreme Court amid landmark birthright citizenship challenge Trump-Backed DHS Plan Takes Step Forward In Bid To Sidestep Democrats Artemis II launches into orbit as NASA begins historic moon mission ALEC: State regulations drive up electricity pricesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A century ago, Wong Kim Ark took his fight for birthright citizenship in the U.S. all the way to the Supreme Court; today, his great-grandson was at the court as the government argued to overturn it. An American journalist is kidnapped in Baghdad by a militia allied with Iran; a former colleague tells us Shelly Kittleson is a "gutsy" reporter who believes in the importance of the work, despite the risks.A petition in support of Alberta separatism now has more than 170 thousand signatures; one of the organizers tells us why he's so keen to extricate his province from the country. We'll meet a Columbia Business School professor who decided the best way to deal with his students' use of AI was to create his own chatbot to help them learn. The detailed designs for hundreds of thousands of ships are being made available to the public for the first time -- including the plans for the Titanic.A once-wild mustang sets a new world record by performing dozens of complex tasks in under 3 minutes; his trainer explains how she taught an old horse new tricks.As It Happens, the Wednesday Edition. Radio that supposes the doubters were saddle-ly mistaken.

Today's Poll Question at Smerconish.com: Which should determine US citizenship, the place of birth or the citizenship of one's parents? Michael Smerconish breaks down the high-stakes legal and political battle over birthright citizenship as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments tied to Donald Trump's executive order. With history stretching from Dred Scott to Wong Kim Ark, the episode explores whether the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to all born on U.S. soil—or if that interpretation could shift. Smerconish also examines how the U.S. compares globally and why this issue cuts to the core of national identity, law, and constitutional limits. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Day in Legal History: Constitutional Reform Act of 2005On April 1, 2005, a major shift in the structure of the United Kingdom's legal system began with the passage of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. This legislation fundamentally reshaped the relationship between the judiciary and the other branches of government. Before the Act, the highest court functions were carried out by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, blending judicial and legislative roles in a way that raised concerns about separation of powers. The reform sought to modernize the constitution by clearly distinguishing judicial authority from Parliament. It also redefined the role of the Lord Chancellor, stripping away many of that office's judicial and legislative functions to reduce institutional overlap.One of the most important outcomes of the Act was the creation of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which would eventually take over as the country's highest appellate court. Although the Court did not begin hearing cases until 2009, the legal foundation for its existence was firmly established on this date. The reform also created a new Judicial Appointments Commission, designed to make the process of selecting judges more transparent and independent from political influence. By doing so, the Act aimed to strengthen public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.The legislation reflected broader constitutional trends toward accountability and institutional clarity in democratic systems. It also aligned the UK more closely with other nations that maintain a clear separation between judicial and legislative bodies. Critics at the time questioned whether the changes were necessary in a system that had long functioned without a formal written constitution. Supporters, however, argued that the reforms were overdue and essential for maintaining the rule of law in a modern state. Over time, the changes introduced by the Act have become a defining feature of the UK's constitutional framework, shaping how justice is administered at the highest level.A federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked plans by Donald Trump to build a large ballroom on the White House grounds, granting a preliminary injunction requested by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Judge Richard J. Leon concluded that the nonprofit is likely to succeed on its claim that the administration acted beyond its legal authority. He emphasized that Congress had not approved the project and that no statute gives the president power to construct new buildings on White House grounds without authorization. The court relied in part on the Constitution's Property Clause, which gives Congress control over federal land. The judge rejected the administration's argument that existing statutes or agencies, such as the National Park Service, provided sufficient authority. He also criticized the government for shifting explanations about which entity was responsible for the project.The lawsuit stems from the administration's decision to demolish the historic East Wing and move forward with construction without completing required reviews. These include environmental assessments, planning approvals, and congressional authorization. The court found that the potential harm to the White House's historical and cultural value justified immediate intervention. The judge also dismissed claims that delaying construction would create national security risks, calling those arguments unpersuasive. Although the project was described as privately funded, the court said that funding sources do not override statutory limits. As a result, construction must stop unless Congress explicitly approves the project. The judge temporarily paused enforcement of the injunction to allow the government time to appeal.‘Construction Has To Stop!': Judge Blocks Trump's Ballroom - Law360Judge orders Trump to halt $400 million White House ballroom project, for now | ReutersThe Supreme Court of the United States is considering whether Donald Trump can restrict birthright citizenship through an executive order, a move that could significantly change how citizenship is granted in the United States. The policy would deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil if their parents are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents. Lower courts blocked the order, finding it likely violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and existing federal law. The justices are now reviewing that decision on appeal, with a ruling expected later this year.At the center of the dispute is the meaning of the Citizenship Clause, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly all people born in the United States. The Trump administration argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” excludes children of undocumented immigrants or those in the country temporarily. Opponents contend this interpretation contradicts over a century of legal precedent, including United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for children of foreign nationals.The case could have far-reaching consequences, potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of births each year and requiring families to prove a child's eligibility for citizenship. It also reflects broader debates over immigration policy and constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Court's decision will determine whether the longstanding understanding of birthright citizenship remains intact or is significantly narrowed.US Supreme Court considers Trump's effort to limit birthright citizenship | ReutersA federal judge refused to approve a proposed agreement that would have allowed churches to endorse political candidates without losing their tax-exempt status. Judge J. Campbell Barker ruled that he did not have jurisdiction to sign off on the deal between the Internal Revenue Service and several religious groups. The agreement sought to carve out an exception to the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits nonprofits from supporting political candidates.The judge based his decision on the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, a law that generally prevents courts from interfering with tax collection. He reasoned that approving the agreement would effectively limit how much tax the government could collect, placing the case outside the court's authority. The proposed settlement had been designed to resolve a lawsuit brought by religious broadcasters and churches challenging the Johnson Amendment.Supporters of the ruling argued it preserves the long-standing separation between political campaigning and tax-exempt religious activity. Opponents, including the groups that brought the lawsuit, said they plan to appeal and believe an exception should be allowed for religious speech. The dispute reflects a broader legal and political debate over the balance between free exercise of religion and restrictions tied to nonprofit tax benefits.US judge rejects IRS pact allowing churches to endorse political candidates | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

En este episodio analizamos un momento histórico para la comunidad inmigrante: el debate en la Corte Suprema sobre el derecho a la ciudadanía por nacimiento bajo la Enmienda 14. Explicamos los argumentos del gobierno, la defensa de los derechos civiles, y lo que podría pasar en los próximos meses. También exploramos el contexto histórico, desde el caso Dred Scott hasta el precedente de Wong Kim Ark, y cómo estos influyen en la decisión actual. Además, revisamos las preguntas clave de los jueces y qué señales nos dan sobre el posible resultado. En este episodio hablamos de:  El caso “Trump vs. Barbara” y la orden ejecutiva sobre ciudadanía  Qué dice la Enmienda 14 y el significado de “jurisdicción”  El precedente de 1898 (Wong Kim Ark)  Argumentos del gobierno vs. defensores de inmigrantes  Participación histórica del presidente en la Corte Suprema  Posibles consecuencias: bebés sin nacionalidad  Análisis de los jueces clave y sus posturas  Qué deben hacer las familias inmigrantes ahora  Preguntas del público sobre doble ciudadanía, procesos migratorios y derechos Capítulos00:00 – Introducción y noticia histórica02:20 – ¿Qué está en juego con la ciudadanía por nacimiento?04:40 – Contexto histórico: Dred Scott y la Enmienda 1407:10 – Caso Wong Kim Ark (1898) y precedente clave11:50 – Racismo histórico y paralelos actuales14:15 – Presencia de Trump en la Corte Suprema16:30 – Argumentos del gobierno vs. ACLU19:25 – Debate sobre “jurisdicción” y lealtad21:45 – Análisis de los jueces (Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett)29:10 – Preguntas clave de los jueces progresistas31:30 – ¿Qué pasará ahora? Posible decisión33:00 – Recomendaciones para familias inmigrantes36:00 – Preguntas del público (doble nacionalidad, hijos ciudadanos)47:30 – Cierre del programa  Contenido informativo general; no sustituye asesoría legal individual. 

In this episode of The Dan Caplis Show, Dan dives into the US Supreme Court's argument on birthright citizenship. He discusses the case's significance, highlighting the potential implications of the court's decision on national policy. Dan also touches on the administration's argument, citing the 14th Amendment and the case of Wong Kim Ark. The conversation also shifts to the Artemis mission, with Dan and his team providing live coverage of the moon launch. Additionally, the show tackles listener questions and comments on the topic of birthright citizenship and the US Supreme Court's role in shaping the nation's laws.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The House Judiciary Committee wants to change the US Attorney statute to say what Attorney General Bondi claimed it did in court. This would involve the Senate voluntarily surrendering their power to vote on nominees, so … lotsa luck. Back in New Jersey, prosecutors say they'll seek superseding indictments in cases with Alina Habba's name on them, to remove the stink of illegitimacy.The DOJ has quietly settled a trollsuit filed by red states and rightwing trolls, including Robert Kennedy, alleging social media censorship by the Biden administration. The Supreme Court already dropkicked this case once, so the parties agreed to simply declare victory and go home.And Sam Bankman-Fried finds new ways to piss off judges and be sooooo weird, this time with help from his mom.MAIN SHOW:The DOJ settled a bogus lawsuit filed by former national security advisor Mike Flynn. His malicious prosecution claims had already been tossed by a federal judge, but she let him amend his complaint again, and by then Trump was back in the White House. Is this a new template for MAGA criminals to back the truck up to the Treasury and start filling it with taxpayer cash? The January 6 defendants sure seem to think so! We'll compare a newly filed case by rioters with a suit filed by pardoned Proud Boys.And we've got a deep dive into the birthright citizenship case Trump v. Barbara, which will be argued at the Supreme Court this Wednesday.Kennedy v. Bidenhttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67089647/kennedy-v-biden/?order_by=descMissouri v. Bidenhttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/missouri-v-biden/?order_by=descUS v. Bankman-Friedhttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66631292/united-states-v-bankman-friedTarrio v. US [Proud Boys Bivens Suit]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70474277/tarrio-v-united-states-of-americaSullivan v. US [J6ers FTCA Suit]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73101995/sullivan-v-united-states/Flynn v. US [Flynn FTCA]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66930673/flynn-v-united-statesDred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857)https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3231372247892780026US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898)https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765Indian Citizenship Act of 1924https://www.archives.gov/files/historical-docs/doc-content/images/indian-citizenship-act-1924.pdfIndian Law Scholars' Amicus Brief [via SCOTUS]https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/399370/20260226125541217_Barbara%20Amicus%20Brief.pdfThe Nationality Act of 1940 [student Note]https://www.jstor.org/stable/1335062Trump v. Barbarahttps://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-365.htmlShow Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear one of the most significant immigration cases in decades, a new podcast from the Center for Immigration Studies explores who is entitled to American citizenship at birth and which branch of government has the authority to define it.On April 1, the Court will hear Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging Executive Order 14160, which seeks to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily.In this episode, Hans von Spakovsky, Legal Fellow at Advancing American Freedom, and Andrew Arthur, the Center's Fellow in Law and Policy, examine the central constitutional question: what does the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution actually mean?They argue that the framers intended citizenship to depend on political allegiance, not simply place of birth, pointing to early interpretations and contrasting them with the broader reading adopted in the late nineteenth century in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.The Court could affirm current interpretation of doctrine, defer to executive interpretation, or return the issue to Congress.“This will be one of the most consequential decisions in years,” von Spakovsky notes.In the closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, executive director and podcast host, highlights a separate upcoming Supreme Court case involving Temporary Protected Status (TPS), where the statute states clearly that there is no judicial review of TPS designations. What are the limits to judicial review and will the judiciary allow the executive to carry out immigration law as written by Congress?HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsHans von Spakovsky is a Legal Fellow at Advancing American Freedom. Andrew Arthur is a Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedBirthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th AmendmentThe Best Aspects of the ‘Birthright Citizenship' DebateBirths to Illegal Immigrants and Long-Term Temporary VisitorsThe Supreme Court Takes Up a Vital, Slam-Dunk Immigration Case [TPS]Intro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In this episode of No Empty Hands, we go inside United States vs Wong Kim Ark- not just the majority opinion but dissent led by Justice John Marshal Harlan, that would change pave the way for the 14th amendment.

Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara. It's still somewhat unbelievable that the high court will entertain arguments in favor of gutting an utterly clear constitutional commitment. Nonetheless, our motto on Amicus is “legal knowledge is power,” and in this case, historical understanding of legal knowledge … is power. On this week's show, Dahlia Lithwick interviews constitutional and immigration scholar Anna O. Law about her forthcoming book, Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship. In preparation for a lot of very bad originalist takes, Lithwick and Law discuss how immigration actually worked in the colonial and pre-Civil War eras and why the framers of the Reconstruction Amendments (including the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment) meant exactly what they said and said exactly what they meant. Law also explains how and why Wong Kim Ark affirmed birthright citizenship for children of Chinese immigrants, and emphasizes that the words “subject to the jurisdiction” had narrow historical exceptions. Finally, a reminder that the framers of the 14th Amendment chose to constitutionalize citizenship rather than establish it in statute—in anticipation of exactly the situation America finds itself in today. 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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara. It's still somewhat unbelievable that the high court will entertain arguments in favor of gutting an utterly clear constitutional commitment. Nonetheless, our motto on Amicus is “legal knowledge is power,” and in this case, historical understanding of legal knowledge … is power. On this week's show, Dahlia Lithwick interviews constitutional and immigration scholar Anna O. Law about her forthcoming book, Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship. In preparation for a lot of very bad originalist takes, Lithwick and Law discuss how immigration actually worked in the colonial and pre-Civil War eras and why the framers of the Reconstruction Amendments (including the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment) meant exactly what they said and said exactly what they meant. Law also explains how and why Wong Kim Ark affirmed birthright citizenship for children of Chinese immigrants, and emphasizes that the words “subject to the jurisdiction” had narrow historical exceptions. Finally, a reminder that the framers of the 14th Amendment chose to constitutionalize citizenship rather than establish it in statute—in anticipation of exactly the situation America finds itself in today. 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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara. It's still somewhat unbelievable that the high court will entertain arguments in favor of gutting an utterly clear constitutional commitment. Nonetheless, our motto on Amicus is “legal knowledge is power,” and in this case, historical understanding of legal knowledge … is power. On this week's show, Dahlia Lithwick interviews constitutional and immigration scholar Anna O. Law about her forthcoming book, Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship. In preparation for a lot of very bad originalist takes, Lithwick and Law discuss how immigration actually worked in the colonial and pre-Civil War eras and why the framers of the Reconstruction Amendments (including the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment) meant exactly what they said and said exactly what they meant. Law also explains how and why Wong Kim Ark affirmed birthright citizenship for children of Chinese immigrants, and emphasizes that the words “subject to the jurisdiction” had narrow historical exceptions. Finally, a reminder that the framers of the 14th Amendment chose to constitutionalize citizenship rather than establish it in statute—in anticipation of exactly the situation America finds itself in today. 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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This Day in Legal History: Wong Kim ArkOn January 14, 1898, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, firmly establishing the doctrine of birthright citizenship under the Constitution.The case arose after Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were not U.S. citizens, was denied reentry to the country following a trip abroad. Federal officials argued that because his parents were subjects of the Emperor of China and barred from naturalization, Wong Kim Ark was not a U.S. citizen.The Court rejected that position, holding that citizenship is determined by place of birth, not by the nationality or immigration status of one's parents. In a 6–2 decision, the Court relied heavily on the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment.The majority emphasized that the Amendment codified the common-law rule that nearly all persons born on U.S. soil are citizens. This interpretation directly limited the government's ability to deny citizenship based on race or ancestry.The decision came at a time of intense anti-Chinese sentiment and restrictive immigration laws, including the Chinese Exclusion Act. By ruling in Wong Kim Ark's favor, the Court drew a clear constitutional boundary around congressional power over citizenship.The case has since served as the cornerstone for modern citizenship law in the United States. It remains one of the most frequently cited precedents in debates over immigration, nationality, and constitutional identity.The Supreme Court of the United States is expected to release one or more decisions as it resumes issuing opinions, while several major cases remain unresolved. Among the most closely watched is a challenge to sweeping tariffs imposed by President Trump. The justices typically do not announce in advance which cases they will decide, adding uncertainty to each decision day. The tariffs case, argued in November, raises significant questions about the scope of presidential authority and its economic consequences worldwide.Trump relied on a 1977 emergency powers statute to justify tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners, framing trade deficits and drug trafficking as national emergencies. During oral arguments, both conservative and liberal justices appeared skeptical that the statute authorized such broad trade measures. Lower courts have already ruled that Trump exceeded his authority, and his administration is now seeking reversal. The lawsuits were brought by affected businesses and a coalition of states, most led by Democrats. Other pending cases involve voting rights, religious liberty, campaign finance limits, the firing of a Federal Trade Commission official, and the legality of conversion therapy bans. Together, these disputes reflect a Court grappling with the limits of executive power and regulatory authority.Supreme Court set to issue rulings, with Trump tariffs case still pending | ReutersConservative justices on the Supreme Court appeared inclined to uphold state laws that bar transgender athletes from competing on female sports teams. The Court heard lengthy arguments in cases from Idaho and West Virginia, where lower courts had ruled in favor of transgender students challenging the bans. A majority of the justices expressed concern about adopting a nationwide rule amid ongoing debate over whether medical treatments can eliminate sex-based athletic advantages. Conservative members of the Court emphasized fairness and safety in women's sports, while liberal justices largely signaled support for the transgender challengers. The states argued that their laws lawfully classify athletes by biological sex and are necessary to preserve equal athletic opportunities for women and girls. Lawyers for the challengers contended that the bans discriminate based on sex or transgender status in violation of constitutional equal protection and federal education law. The Trump administration defended the state laws, urging the Court to leave policy decisions to legislatures rather than judges. The outcome could have far-reaching effects beyond sports, influencing other restrictions on transgender people in public life. A decision is expected by the end of June.US Supreme Court conservatives lean toward allowing transgender sports bans | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that Cornell University, Georgetown University, and the University of Pennsylvania must continue defending against a lawsuit alleging collusion in financial aid practices. The case claims that elite universities worked together to limit competition and give preferential treatment to wealthier applicants. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly rejected the schools' efforts to dismiss the lawsuit, finding enough evidence for the claims to proceed to trial. The plaintiffs argue that the universities violated federal antitrust law over two decades by breaching promises not to consider applicants' financial circumstances. Several other prominent universities previously settled similar claims for a combined total of nearly $320 million, though the remaining defendants deny any wrongdoing. The lawsuit represents more than 200,000 current and former students seeking substantial damages. The judge pointed to evidence suggesting the schools coordinated financial aid policies to avoid competing against one another. He also concluded that the plaintiffs properly defined a nationwide market for elite private universities and filed their claims within the allowable time frame. The decision clears the way for a jury to determine whether the schools unlawfully inflated the cost of attendance.Cornell, Georgetown, UPenn must face lawsuit over financial aid | ReutersThe British Broadcasting Corporation has moved to dismiss Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit stemming from its editing of a January 6, 2021 speech. The broadcaster argues that a Florida court lacks authority over the case because the program was not broadcast in that state. It also contends Trump cannot show he suffered harm, noting that he was re-elected after the documentary aired. Trump alleges the BBC misleadingly combined excerpts of his speech in a way that implied he encouraged supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol, while excluding remarks calling for peaceful protest. The lawsuit asserts violations of Florida's deceptive and unfair trade practices law and seeks billions of dollars in damages across two claims. The BBC has acknowledged the editing error and apologized but maintains the lawsuit is legally flawed. In court filings, the broadcaster argues Trump failed to plausibly allege “actual malice,” a requirement for defamation claims brought by public officials. The BBC also disputes Trump's claim that the documentary was available to U.S. audiences via streaming platforms. It has asked the court to pause discovery while the dismissal motion is pending, citing unnecessary expense if the case is thrown out.BBC seeks to have Trump's $10 billion lawsuit dismissed | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Shannon Salmon-Haas joins host Todd Marquardt to talk about the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark birthright citizenship case on this bonus edition of Talk Law Radio! Attorney Todd Marquardt brings you insightful topics every Saturday morning, but he's not stopping there! Join Todd every Sunday afternoon at 4:30pm for a special bonus segment! He addresses trending and specific topics in more detail with a professional perspective. The mission of Talk Law Radio is to help you discover your legal issue blind spots by listening to me talk about the law on the radio. The state bar of Texas is the state agency that governs attorney law licenses. The State Bar wants attorneys to inform the public about the law but does not want us to attempt to solve your individual legal problems upon the basis of general information. Instead, contact an attorney like Todd A. Marquardt at Marquardt Law Firm, P.C. to discuss your specific facts and circumstances of your unique situation. Like & Subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/@talklawradio3421 Listen here! www.TalkLawRadio.com Work with Todd! https://marquardtlawfirm.com/ Join attorney Todd Marquardt every week for exciting law talk on Talk Law Radio! Follow Shannon Salmon-Haas! Instagram: @shannonrobertasanantonio Tik Tok: @shannonrobertasa Facebook: @Shannon Roberta San AntonioSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Supreme Court has taken up Donald's unprecedented challenge to end birthright citizenship—directly targeting a constitutional guarantee that has defined America for more than 150 years. In this episode, we unpack the Fourteenth Amendment, the landmark Wong Kim Ark decision that secured citizenship for children of immigrants, and why the Trump regime is now trying to unravel that legacy.We break down what Donald's lawyers are claiming, what legal scholars are warning, and what's truly at stake: the status, security, and futures of tens of thousands of U.S.-born children. This isn't just a court case—it's a battle over the meaning of America itself.Subscribe and stay tuned. The decision ahead could redefine who gets to call themselves a citizen by birth. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.