Wednesday, April 1, 2026

Birthright citizenship oral arguments: This morning, 7 a.m. Pacific Time.


Dred Scott


Wong Kim Arc
Let's pretend for a minute that President Trump operates with care and foresight. 
What is he thinking?

He insults the Supreme Court in a long Truth Social post, a portion of which reads:

The supreme court (will be using lower case letters for a while based on a complete lack of respect!) of the United States accidentally and unwittingly gave me, as President of the United States, far more powers and strength than I had prior to their ridiculous, dumb, and very internationally divisive ruling. . . . Our incompetent supreme court did a great job for the wrong people, and for that they should be ashamed of themselves (but not the Great Three!). The next thing you know they will rule in favor of China and others, who are making an absolute fortune on Birthright Citizenship, by saying the 14th Amendment was NOT written to take care of the “babies of slaves,” . . .

Feb 23, 2026, 4:06 AM

Trump is attending the oral argument to watch the oral argument and look the judges square in the eyes.  

If the Court sides with Trump and ends birthright citizenship, about 200,000 babies a year born in the U.S. would be be non-citizens. It would re-establish chronic second-class status for them. It would create complications and ambiguity for every baby born in the U.S. because every baby's status would be contingent on the parents' status, requiring proof of lawful citizenship by the mother or proof of both paternity and lawful citizenship by the father. As we saw in the Barack Obama "birther" controversy, even in a case where a baby is born in a U.S. hospital in Hawaii, with multiple witnesses to the birth and birth-notice announcements by two newspapers, a persistent troll with nefarious motives can make persistent accusations and put into question a person's status. 
Maybe there is method in Trump's behavior.
Trump is collecting on a favor. He has no respect for the Court as an impartial referee of the law. He presumes the Court is part of the network of crony corruption in which favors and debts are rewarded and paid, equivalent to the one billion dollar deal with campaign contributors in the oil industry. Everything is a deal. Friends help friends. Three justices owe him big time. 

Pressure might work. Trump may presume that high visibility cases like this, the results aren't about the law. They are entirely political decisions, with the six Republican-appointed justices making a decision weighing their partisan interest in helping the GOP and their own personal benefit or cost as they carry out that policy goal. They are politicians in robes. Trump is showing he can be naughty or nice, depending on what they do. Trump's performance is primarily directed at the three members of the court that he appointed.  He is showing the justices the sweet kiss of approval or the angry fist of disapproval.

Making a show for MAGA. Maybe this is the equivalent of a dramatic flop by a basketball player who wants to exaggerate a purported foul. Trump knows he is going to lose on the case's merits, so he is showing he did everything possible to try to win. MAGA voters care about this issue. They sincerely feel that Latin American, African, Asian, and Middle Eastern immigrants are profoundly "other" and should be excluded from citizenship. After all, "They eat our dogs, they eat our cats." Trump understands that his brand is to be a winner in negotiations. A loss needs an external explanation, and he provides one: betrayal by corrupt, stupid judges. 

Just careless 4 a.m. venting.  The premise of this blog's headline is that Trump knows what he is doing. But maybe the premise is profoundly wrong.  He was awake at 3 a.m. or earlier, stewing, and maybe he simply wrote a stream of consciousness post of resentment and rage, full of sound and fury signifying nothing, and impulsively pushed POST at 4:06 a.m. No need to overthink this. Trump certainly doesn't.


[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]


1 comment:

Dave said...

It should be a 9-0 ruling. Anything less than that would be an outrageous ignorance of the constitution. Thomas and Alito are 50/50 on this. I vote for impeachment of any Supreme Court justice that votes for ignoring what’s obvious the law on this matter.