Just so you understand, this is as if you prepared for argument in front of a panel that included Cookie Monster, and Cookie Monster asked you a question about cookies, and you had not thought about cookies in advance.
— A New And More Reasonable Popehat (@kenwhite.bsky.social) April 1, 2026 at 11:16 AM
From what I’m seeing on BlueSky, and in the news, Gorsuch wins Clip of the Day (barring something *exceptionally* stupid from Trump’s network speech this evening)…
here's the clip of Gorsuch on "Roman law sources"
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) April 1, 2026 at 11:04 AM
Sauer’s argument had a resentful “excuse me, but I was told that you were on our side, and that it didn’t matter that our arguments were stupid” tone.
— A New And More Reasonable Popehat (@kenwhite.bsky.social) April 1, 2026 at 11:22 AM
Go Cecilia!
— Gillian Branstetter (@gbbranstetter.bsky.social) April 1, 2026 at 11:21 AM
KAVANAUGH: If we agree with you on how to read Wong Kim Ark, then you win. That could be just a short opinion, right?
WANG: Yes
SCOTUS CROWD: *laughs*— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) April 1, 2026 at 12:05 PM
Succinct explaination from David Cole, at the NYRB:
Who are we? On April 1 the Supreme Court will take up that question when it hears oral arguments in a challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive order of January 20, 2025—the first day of his second term—denying citizenship to children born in the United States to foreign nationals who are not lawful permanent residents. That order has never gone into effect, because multiple courts have declared it unconstitutional. But the Trump administration has appealed and is now asking the Supreme Court to radically narrow the scope of what is commonly known as birthright citizenship.
The issue pits a xenophobic administration against a well-established understanding that virtually all persons born here are US citizens regardless of their parents’ status. No lower court has sided with the Trump administration on the merits of the case. For the Supreme Court to do so would require it to repudiate the Constitution’s text, the Court’s own precedents, and the enduring understanding of all three branches and of the American people. But more than that, it would literally change our identity as a nation that welcomes all who are born here.
The case, Trump v. Barbara, is governed by the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, which provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The immediate purpose of this citizenship clause was to overrule the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the children of freed slaves were not citizens of the US. The amendment’s drafters sought to make crystal clear that citizenship extended equally to all those born here.
Open Thread: Birthright Citizenship vs the BigotsPost + Comments (100)

