ListNook

PoliticsModeratorBot Apr 1, 2026 +1

To sort this thread by 'best comments first', [click or tap here](https://www.listnook.com/r/politics/comments/1s9imgz/discussion_thread_us_supreme_court_hears_oral/?sort=confidence). To sort this thread by 'newest comments first', [click or tap here](https://www.listnook.com/r/politics/comments/1s9imgz/discussion_thread_us_supreme_court_hears_oral/?sort=new).

1

AmbivalentFanatic Apr 1, 2026 +248

The "president" of the United States is in the courtroom to intimidate the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. This is a full-on authoritarian move.

248

tahlyn Apr 1, 2026 +1

Conceptually, I agree. In reality his nodding-off, sleeping visage is hardly intimidating.

1

thosearecoolbeans Apr 1, 2026 +1

The president may not be physically imposing. But what he represents, as the de facto leader of a cult of personality, is definitely an intimidating position. As long as he is around, Conservatives will fear going against him lest they fall from his favor and incur the ire of the MAGA horde.

1

judochop1 Apr 1, 2026 +1

We had this in the UK during brexit when PM Theresa May sat in the Lords to oversee legislation going through. Didn't work as intended and she's gone, with plenty of authoritarians falling away ever since

1

ToadallyNormalHuman Apr 1, 2026 +113

This is probably the most black and white law we have I don’t understand what there is to interpret about it.

113

m4xdc Apr 1, 2026 +38

But have you considered how a rapist with dementia and access to the nuclear launch codes would interpret it?

38

tmountain Apr 1, 2026 +41

Stay tuned for an intellectual zamboni argument regarding "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" being recast into an argument that a category of person falls under inherited rights respective to their country of origin. Something akin to getting pulled over in the United States and saying, "oh, I'm actually from Columbia, so please apply the rules of my homeland to this traffic stop."

41

travio Apr 1, 2026 +17

The only case they have even close to helping their argument regards native Americans, but it was decided when reservations were basically not considered a part of the US and their residents not citizens. After the Indian citizenship act, that exemption itself is moot. Natives born on the Rez are just as American as those of us born off Rez in the US.

17

ratatosk212 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Gorsuch is really going after him, telling him he's relying on Roman law. This isn't good for Trump.

1

HandsLikePaper Apr 1, 2026 +1

Yeah, just from the little bit I've heard, Gorsuch and Barrett sound against the government's arguments.

1

No_Sky_6446 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Barrett has Haitian adopted children

1

Small_Run_3583 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Expect him to rant non-stop against scotus in his speech tonight

1

TheNightlightZone Apr 1, 2026 +1

The sitting president should *never* be in the same room as the Supreme Court during arguments. **Never.**

1

-CoachMcGuirk- Apr 1, 2026 +1

100% agree. He's there to solely intimidate them. What the frick is even going on?

1

TheNightlightZone Apr 1, 2026 +1

He's desperate. Things have clearly not been going his way for a bit, he looks like a fool in Iran (more so than usual), and the Court has given him some Ls lately that are weaking his grip.

1

Freddy_Yeti Apr 1, 2026 +1

According to news outlets, he stormed out of the court room after SCOTUS started tearing apart his lawyers arguments. Such a TACO.

1

tahlyn Apr 1, 2026 +155

If the supreme court ends birthright citizenship, I just can't even find the words to express it... there is no legitimate way to reinterpret the constitution like that.

155

CL-Young Apr 1, 2026 +91

Yeah. Jurisdiction would apply when you're on american soil. Otherwise, a non-citizen can commit crimes with impunity because they aren't a part of the jurisdiction of the united states.

91

Traditional_Sign4941 Apr 1, 2026 +1

EXACTLY this. If they're arguing about what "jurisdiction thereof" means, then that means what ICE is doing is fundamentally against the law. It means any foreign resident is not subject to the laws of the US. It's a fundamentally insane argument *assuming* you want to hold things consistent.

1

sfiend Apr 1, 2026 +1

Well I want universal healthcare if we're going off of other countries laws.

1

NotCrust Apr 1, 2026 +1

I still can't believe the gall of this hack to stand up there and argue that we've all simply misunderstood the 14th Amendment all along.

1

aaronhayes26 Apr 1, 2026 +1

The justices are clearly not amused

1

ladystaggers Apr 1, 2026 +1

Honestly don't know how half the people in government in the USA can look themselves in the mirror. They must know their children's children will know what horrible people they were in history.

1

fighterpilot248 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Jackson hitting the nail on the head: How do we do this? This has to be a case-by-case basis for every single birth. There’s just no way that’s possible.

1

11fungaiia11 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Absolutely f****** BONKERS argument and puts such an undue burden on new mothers/families

1

littlehobbit1313 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Realistically it would end up taking the healthcare insurance model: every birth would be "Deny" by default, leaving the burden on the individual to prove the law *does* give them citizenship. It's bullshit and unconstitutional.

1

AccordingStar72 Apr 1, 2026 +1

“I think there’s a computer program” made me laugh out loud.

1

bobocalender Apr 1, 2026 +1

He stated we have a database that correctly has everyone's immigration status. I don't think we do.

1

thealmightyzfactor Apr 1, 2026 +1

We don't officially, if you think palantir isn't doing that under the table, I have a bridge to sell you

1

Whybotherr Apr 1, 2026 +1

"Well as the framers put it native Americans weren't considered citizens under the 14th amendment" ... Are native Americans in your opinion today considered citizens "Yes" Nails in the coffin.

1

JPesterfield Apr 1, 2026 +1

Another nail is Japanese internment. He said babies born in the camps would be considered citizens, but wasn't the reason they were in the camps was the government thought their loyalty was to Japan? His argument should have made that a firm no.

1

shadowdra126 Apr 1, 2026 +49

He showed up to intimidate the judges This is going to be a shitshow

49

travio Apr 1, 2026 +1

“I’m not sure how much you want to rely on Won Kim Ark” Gorsuch is savage.

1

Iamnotbernadette Apr 1, 2026 +1

Gorsuch, Barrett, and Roberts are *not having this shit.* With the liberal justices, that's the majority. Anything other than 9-0 is treason but they won't pull it off anyway.

1

ratatosk212 Apr 1, 2026 +1

I'll eat a live worm if Thomas goes against Trump.

1

TheNightlightZone Apr 1, 2026 +1

I won't hold it to you because we all saw what happened to RFK with a worm. So please don't.

1

travio Apr 1, 2026 +1

7-2 is my guess.

1

Iamnotbernadette Apr 1, 2026 +1

Same. I could even see 8-1, Thomas doesn't seem as gung ho as Alito

1

travio Apr 1, 2026 +1

Gorsuch has a special interest in Native American law. This is a dangerous topic for the government in this case.

1

AccordingStar72 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Sauer really didn’t want to get into that. He knew that was a huge hole to fall into with Gorsuch who is already signaling he’s unhappy with this.

1

Independent-Name4478 Apr 1, 2026 +129

Coming up next: “free speech was never meant to include criticism of the president” Trump has destroyed this country

129

MightiestHalberdier Apr 1, 2026 +1

Someone on SCOTUSblog said that Trump left lmao

1

Complex-Algae-4214 Apr 1, 2026 +1

He legit got bored lol

1

lelieldirac Apr 1, 2026 +1

Unsurprising, he’s so f****** stupid I’m sure he gets about as much as a 10-year-old would listening to actual legal discussion

1

ratatosk212 Apr 1, 2026 +1

"It's a new world. It's the same Constitution." Very well said.

1

VolunteerOnion Apr 1, 2026 +1

Ok. So the logic the administration is relying on is enslaved people earned citizenship by being all in on America. Immigrants aren’t. I’m willing to bet that most enslaved people were not actually huge fans of the country enslaving them.

1

KrakenOmega112 Apr 1, 2026 +1

What? No, that can't be right. (Sidenote: Listnook does not allow my obligatory /s to be written in 140-point font)

1

DrEvo14 Apr 1, 2026 +1

I only wish there were cameras because you know Trump is asleep.

1

SkeetonherValentine Apr 1, 2026 +28

If we lose birthright citizenship does this mean we can deport Rubio?

28

IntelligentDepth8206 Apr 1, 2026 +35

Rafael Cruz was born in Canada. Make it a double

35

YaBoyASwiftie Apr 1, 2026 +1

Gorsuch cooking this fraud

1

Iamnotbernadette Apr 1, 2026 +1

Ketchup will spill tonight.

1

-CoachMcGuirk- Apr 1, 2026 +1

Trump is there, but this type of discourse is probably way over his head. I don't see him staying that long. I guarantee that he can't keep up with this line of questioning.

1

megatronwins Apr 1, 2026 +1

Got damn, this dude's voice is like nails on a chalkboard.

1

YTLupo Apr 1, 2026 +1

Him and RFK should host a podcast

1

ladystaggers Apr 1, 2026 +1

He and RFK could have a rock gargling contest.

1

Iamnotbernadette Apr 1, 2026 +1

Kavanaugh is also on board. This is dead in the water. Calling it 8-1 with Alito being the dissent.

1

HandsLikePaper Apr 1, 2026 +1

Could be 7-2 if Thomas's new motor coach arrives in time. But I think it's too early to tell. The government's arguments are weak, but the conservatives have sided with weak arguments before.

1

SamHinkiesNephew Apr 1, 2026 +1

Alito is such a corrupt cuck

1

Starks Apr 1, 2026 +1

It seems pretty clear that coming to this hearing with a domicile or jurisdiction argument was the wrong choice. Sauer was ripped apart by the whole court during his time and again, unprompted, during the questioning of the ACLU lawyer. I think everyone is past Sauer at this point and are just going through the oddities of the 14th amendment and things it did not cover yet are accounted for by statute. Things like Native American child citizenship.

1

Iamnotbernadette Apr 1, 2026 +1

OH MY GOD. *Kavanaugh* with the "Who f****** cares if Europe doesn't do birth right citizenship? This is America." Let's go. Let's go!

1

cisscumshitlord Apr 1, 2026 +1

It's actually quite funny to me how many people don't seem to understand that telling Americans that everyone else does something a certain way is the quickest way to get them to ignore you lmao Our obnoxious brand of individualism really gets encoded deep. Oh everyone else does it that way? Cool now I'm gonna not do it even harder

1

Roseking Apr 1, 2026 +1

It is weird how this is the only thing they are trying 'But Europe does it this way' on.

1

ApolloX-2 Apr 1, 2026 +20

I watched his comments and it’s very interesting he doesn’t mention the Native American people at the time who were excluded from getting citizenship despite also obviously being born here. They were considered “citizens” of their own tribe but had nothing to do with the country of the United States so they weren’t allowed citizenship. Congress had to pass a separate law in 1924 to give them all citizenship. So hilariously reinterpreting the 14th Amendment wouldn’t impact native people, technically. The reality is obvious and they will likely be the first to be stripped along with illegal immigrants whom Trump can’t tell apart. I’m very curious what Gorsuch will make of this point, especially considering his track record on Native American cases.

20

MentalTourniquet Apr 1, 2026 +1

So only those "with allegiance to the King" can become citizens?

1

SanDiegoDude Apr 1, 2026 +1

Hey, now you're getting it

1

Moon_Rose_Violet Apr 1, 2026 +1

Am I stupid or is the domiciliary argument terrible for the administration? Illegal aliens are literally domiciled in the US based on most understandings of personal jurisdiction and civil law! What’s going on? Edit: ok lol Gorsuch is basically making this argument for me

1

Representative-Arm99 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Why is nobody talking about the constitutional requirements to change or remove an amendment to the Constitution?!?!?!?

1

ReturnOfNogginboink Apr 1, 2026 +1

Sotomayer hinted at it when she said "your theory would delegate who is a citizen to the whims of Congress" (paraphrased from memory)

1

half_dozen_cats Apr 1, 2026 +1

"IT SAYS DOMICILE THREE TIMES!!!" jeesh dude take a chill pill.

1

CurlOfTheBurl11 Apr 1, 2026 +1

John Sauer's voice is like nails on a chalkboard, and he always sounds like he's on the verge of panic presenting his bullshit arguments.

1

lurgar Apr 1, 2026 +1

Sauer's arguments are pure flailing. I don't know if he thought he wouldn't get grilled or if he thinks that it doesn't matter, but he is getting shut down hard. Only Alito seems on board with any of this.

1

SirCharlesEquine Apr 1, 2026 +1

There aren't any serious people in Trump's administration.

1

SirCharlesEquine Apr 1, 2026 +1

Guy just got "yeah yeah yeah'd" by Barrett. 😂

1

travio Apr 1, 2026 +1

God bless the ACLU.

1

Cdub7791 Apr 1, 2026 +1

If there is no birthright citizenship, that means **anyone's** citizenship can be revoked based on some arbitrary criteria. "Your great grandfather wasn't a citizen, so none of his descendants are either" or some bullshit. The counter to that is that plenty of advanced democracies do okay without birthright citizenship. Maybe so, but I've read enough horror stories even from Western nations of people being made essentially stateless that's it's not a path I want to go down.

1

sfiend Apr 1, 2026 +1

So alito wants to get rid of dual citizenship?

1

AccordingStar72 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Yeah probably.

1

CeresSubroutine Apr 1, 2026 +1

Justice Alito, the Iranian military isn't going to come over and demand that an American-born child of Iranian parents do their compulsory service. So how can you surmise that that child is under the jurisdiction of Iran?

1

Creative-Package6213 Apr 1, 2026 +40

The constitution is pretty damn clear on this.

40

travio Apr 1, 2026 +26

And not just the constitution, but the legal understanding of the term at the time and the interpretation of it since. The one case the wrong side is relying on related to native Americans and was decided at a time when they were not citizens and that specific native was born on a reservation, therefore subject to the tribe’s jurisdiction. That’s not what’s happening now.

26

black_flag_4ever Apr 1, 2026 +12

Hard agree. It was written just after the Civil War and so SCOTUS can't go on this bullshit originalist adventure claiming words meant something different in the 1780s.

12

chpbnvic Apr 1, 2026 +1

It's corrupt that they're even taking oral arguments when the constitution is clear.

1

anonskeptic5 Apr 1, 2026 +1

"unenthusiastically" - your political bias is showing.

1

AccordingStar72 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Sauer is just getting buried under the “if they meant it this way then why didn’t they f****** say it”. Sauer has now tried to explain it at least 10 times and has not landed an argument that any of the justices have bought.

1

lurgar Apr 1, 2026 +1

Jackson saying "You have a number of a hurdles here" is an amazing way of framing a bad case.

1

ZippidieDooDah Apr 1, 2026 +1

Democracy feels broken when birthright citizenship is being “debated”. Like these things shouldn’t even warrant a thought and yet it’s this big legal matter that requires careful review and legal speak…legitimizing the slow, yet constant slide into fascism regardless of the decision.

1

StJeanMark Apr 1, 2026 +1

I'm just so tired of listening to the slaves of rich masters trying to twist our history to fit their hateful and evil agenda. Why do I listen to this shit, it makes me lose faith in humanity.

1

sfiend Apr 1, 2026 +1

I really wish for alito gets diarrhea for the rest of this life....

1

Senka112 Apr 1, 2026 +1

I know it's a ton of prep work, but it's so impressive how quickly the ACLU lawyer is able to pull up quotes and responses to the questions by the justices. She doesn't even take a break before providing her responses

1

ZippidieDooDah Apr 1, 2026 +1

Gorsuch and Native Americans. name a more stable pair of strange bedfellows in American legal theory. All else being equal, he weirdly always goes to bat for the tribes

1

teamdiabetes11 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Good work from Wang in using the court’s love of originalism as a clear and easy path for why the government’s interpretation is complete bullshit.

1

StabbingHoboReturns Apr 1, 2026 +15

This fat f*** is going to start throwing a tantrum while attending, isn't he?

15

travio Apr 1, 2026 +11

If I was Justice Jackson, I’d have crafted a few questions specifically to get him to react.

11

Solonohioperson Apr 1, 2026 +10

He's a weak stupid person with dementia, so yes.

10

SanDiegoDude Apr 1, 2026 +1

Don't think Gorsuch is buying Trump's argument of nanny nanny booboo I'm the king now. In all seriousness, it's good to hear them very critical of Trump's arguments.

1

fighterpilot248 Apr 1, 2026 +1

The Justices are *so* done with hearing the word “domicile”

1

Arleare13 Apr 1, 2026 +1

This is looking like maybe a 8-1.

1

Moon_Rose_Violet Apr 1, 2026 +1

Trump is gonna crash out if he even understands how bad this is going for him

1

livefromheaven Apr 1, 2026 +1

I'm betting he's already dozed off

1

travio Apr 1, 2026 +1

Regarding parental allegiance, could a pregnant undocumented immigrant pull a Micheal Scott on the birthing bed? I DECLARE ALLEGIANCE!

1

BluWake Apr 1, 2026 +1

You need to pledge it, declaring it means nothing.

1

Roseking Apr 1, 2026 +14

How are they saying someone would prove their citizenship? If it is not simply being born here and is because your parents are born here, but your parents being citizens, how do the parents prove they are citizens when they are citizens based on the fact they are born here. So on and so on. I understand a lot of other countries do not have birthplace citizenship, so I am not saying that non birthright citizenships can't be done. But the logistics of converting away from it would be a nightmare. If this would be a new amendment, I assume you would grandfather people in, but if they are trying to rule that it is illegal, how can you make that argument?

14

clintgreasewoood Apr 1, 2026 +1

Sounds like Gorsuch saying his shit is weak

1

sfiend Apr 1, 2026 +1

WTF you mean you think so?!?!?

1

GamingTatertot Apr 1, 2026 +1

He has to think on it! Don’t ya know the solicitor general has to think on something that should’ve absolutely been part of his research prep! Insane he didn’t think that question would come up to given Gorsuch’s interest in Native American law

1

[deleted] Apr 1, 2026 +1

[deleted]

1

martapap Apr 1, 2026 +1

All of this is literally so insane, except for descendants of American slaves (me) and native americans and maybe the people who descended from pre 1776 families (even though they got their citizenship just from being white and stepping foot in the US), everyone else's ancestors were immigrants who got their citizenship from the 14th amendment including Trump. Now he wants to take it away from immigrants.

1

ReturnOfNogginboink Apr 1, 2026 +1

The difference in tone between the two lawyers is dramatic.

1

teamdiabetes11 Apr 1, 2026 +1

“Why didn’t they do it this way?” - Alito “Read the full opinion please, Justice Alito. With all due respect.” - ACLU Can this corrupt old turd just take a nap or something?

1

killafofun Apr 1, 2026 +1

Other than isolationism and racism, is there even a good argument for reversing the 14th amendment?

1

CrashB111 Apr 1, 2026 +1

No. It's just pure white nationalist ideology on parade.

1

Dizzy-Plane-9544 Apr 1, 2026 +1

I'm waiting for The Statue of Liberty to walk in the courtroom and start beating his azz.

1

mercurius420 Apr 1, 2026 +1

"My GAWD! It's Lady Liberty with a steel chair!" Jim Ross.

1

Cdub7791 Apr 1, 2026 +1

I mean, a bald eagle already attacked him once. How much more symbolism do we need?

1

Dizzy-Plane-9544 Apr 1, 2026 +1

I want Lady Liberty to shove her torch so far up his ass she finds the unredacted epstein files.

1

reddittorbrigade Apr 1, 2026 +13

Donald Trump is done pissing off people around the world. He is back in America going after American citizens. Trump is a disgrace to humanity.

13

indicatprincess Apr 1, 2026 +1

He’s getting really mad which is hopefully a good sign.

1

Toadfinger Apr 1, 2026 +1

This whole argument is so unamerican. There's no excuse for not granting government land to immigrants. It's time to work on real issues.

1

sfiend Apr 1, 2026 +1

How can an infant have allegiance to anything?!?!?

1

Slackluster Apr 1, 2026 +1

If giving citizenship to freed slaves was all that was intended, then someone would have said something like a hundred years ago.

1

OrangePowerade Apr 1, 2026 +1

It would also mean trump's father is an illegal as well as himself and his children

1

Salt-Yogurtcloset-42 Apr 1, 2026 +1

It's an open shut case. The Supreme Court isn't going to overturn it. And to them Trump is just another person sitting in the courtroom. Well...he's laying down sleeping by now.

1

strangejosh Apr 1, 2026 +1

Damn. Cecillia Wang is doing great at oral arguments. Love to hear it.

1

Ancient-Dust3077 Apr 1, 2026 +1

even if we come legally, birth right citizenship ends?

1

Dizzy-Plane-9544 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Trump wants the grounds for ramping up ICE raids.

1

Tight_Telephone_2322 Apr 1, 2026 +1

If this isn’t 9-0 we have a problem. For real, if anyone is for this they don’t belong on the court. This isn’t a joke.

1

DirtyHandshake Apr 1, 2026 +1

It will be 7-2 and we all know who the 2 will be

1

reddittorbrigade Apr 1, 2026 +11

Alito and Thomas will agree with Donald Trump. Wanna bet? They are Trump's autopen SC judges.

11

RazarTuk Apr 1, 2026 +1

For reference on how bad of a decision Dred Scott was, SCOTUS literally rules that Black people categorically cannot be citizens. It's forever a competition for second worst decision.

1

tr1cube Apr 1, 2026 +1

Bro doesn’t even know what his own criteria would apply to that he’s trying to argue for

1

ToadallyNormalHuman Apr 1, 2026 +1

This is the best argument he could come up with? Domicile and the definition of jurisdiction?

1

swiftfoot_hiker Apr 1, 2026 +1

I really do wonder if Trump is absorbing the comments by the justices or if it's in one ear and out the other... Eh well nevermind we all know he doesn't listen

1

joe_dirty365 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Not enough popcorn in the world for this shit lmao. F*** trump and f*** this sauer jagoff

1

indicatprincess Apr 1, 2026 +1

This is chilling. I gave birth in 2024 and this is stomach churning.

1

Whybotherr Apr 1, 2026 +1

Okay but do you have allegiance? /s

1

Cheesytacos123 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Alito is such a slimeball

1

BabyYodaX Apr 1, 2026 +1

Catching up: Alito is a f****** weirdo dipshit.

1

elliottbaytrail Apr 1, 2026 +1

Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh are solidly on ACLU’s side. It’s over for the government (Trump). The case will be decided on both statutory and constitutional grounds. Yes they affirm WKA. Yes the EO is unconstitutional.

1

epiphanette Apr 1, 2026 +11

This is becoming a sort of Martin Luther type moment. Out of touch elite overlords (SCOTUS) interpreting the foundational documents in increasingly abstruse and idiotic ways that are just obviously not in keeping with what the text actually f****** says or in keeping with the way the modern world works. We need a new 95 Theses. The 76 Theses? idk, this is infuriating.

11

GamingTatertot Apr 1, 2026 +1

Look broadly speaking, I understand it can be very nerve wracking to make an argument in front of the Supreme Court - but also if you’ve gotten to the point that you’re making arguments in front of the Supreme Court, I’d still expect any counsel to sound even marginally more composed than this fraud.

1

zombiereign Apr 1, 2026 +1

"no one knows for sure" is not sufficient evidence for a claim

1

Renagade147 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Trump is only there for intimidation. I really hope the majority find this argument as weak as it seems to be.

1

caniaccanuck11 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Obviously they need to write out and site there various opinions but it would be hilarious for arguments to end, 7 justices (since I don’t trust Alito or Thomas) to just look at each other, nod and rule from the bench against Trump.

1

clintgreasewoood Apr 1, 2026 +1

Sotomayor: Get to the point so we can rule against you.

1

indicatprincess Apr 1, 2026 +1

Kavanaugh isn’t buying it either lol

1

AccordingStar72 Apr 1, 2026 +1

I think all the Justices are really following the same train here. If they meant it the way the Administration is arguing why didn’t they make that clear or change it over the many many years? It’s not like this is a brand new argument. Sauer doesn’t have an answer for that. He’s supposing so much about thinking that isn’t in the record.

1

TiberiusCornelius Apr 1, 2026 +1

I have very little faith in this corrupt court, but this should frankly be an open-and-shut slam dunk against the administration. If they have the audacity to even try anything else there need to be riots in the streets.

1

sfiend Apr 1, 2026 +1

Finally someone competent and intelligent making arguments.

1

teamdiabetes11 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Kagan really baited Alito with her softball question. And the stupid old f*** fell for it hook, line, sinker. Alito just gave another opportunity to further deconstruct the government’s argument and to clarify how and why it doesn’t make sense.

1

ScotTheDuck Apr 1, 2026 +1

That the CNN chyron is “even conservative justices asking tough questions in arguments so far,” really speaks to how far the Supreme Court’s reputation has fallen.

1

ScotTheDuck Apr 1, 2026 +1

Kav: well f***, if you’re offering me a single paragraph opinion, I’m taking it. More beers for me!

1

PixelatedFrogDotGif Apr 1, 2026 +1

Alex Jones’s & RFK’s baby has a hideous voice

1

HyperborianHero Apr 1, 2026 +1

The case is over for the government and Trump. Be grateful the Supreme Court can keep the administration in check. It seems to me the deciding argument was this: do you think the United States exists for babies to be born who can become incredible people despite their circumstances or their parents? Who cares if a baby is born in the U.S. to an illegal immigrant from South or Central America? It’s about the child and its future. The U.S. was founded on the idea of new possibilities for everyone.

1

TraceThis Apr 1, 2026 +1

Trump being at this thing is -weird-

1

BrotherlyShove791 Apr 1, 2026 +1

It’s an intimidation tactic. He’s getting tired of “the judges” striking down everything he tries to do, so he thinks sulking in front of them will scare them into complying with his power grabs.

1

thepennyblack Apr 1, 2026 +1

This man's voice is KILLING my ears. There are an inordinate amount of rock garglers in this administration. Good Lord.

1

jay78910 Apr 1, 2026 +1

"No one knows for sure" "Media reported,based on Chinese media reports" jfc

1

fighterpilot248 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Of course Thomas trying to get him out of this hole…

1

travio Apr 1, 2026 +1

Same with Alito.

1

ratatosk212 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Ooh good question from Barrett about human trafficking.

1

sfiend Apr 1, 2026 +1

He's really yelling at gorsuch lmao

1

ladystaggers Apr 1, 2026 +1

Waiting for the sound of gentle snoring coming from the POTUS. I'm sure he jerks himself awake long enough to glare at the judges then back off to dreamland. No way in hell he is able to follow this.

1

localistand Apr 1, 2026 +1

The strategy of saying 'domicile' three times to summon a rationale in a "Beetlejuice" style scheme to win this case is so far not working, despite Sauer trying it several times.

1

travio Apr 1, 2026 +1

Alito is grasping at straws

1

Tenziru Apr 1, 2026 +1

Top two three people I can’t listen to trump, Sauer, rfk jr And bonus is Ron desantis 😂 I’m surprised trump had not Fire saure tbh he might after this what a continuous shit performance by him he must have a humilation kink

1

LordAlvis Apr 1, 2026 +1

Wang (ACLU) is speaking [now](https://apnews.com/live/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-updates#0000019d-4941-d618-a19f-cbeff6180000). "We couldn't be more confident." Sauer is speaking [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mePcsZB9WMQ).

1

Zman734 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Gorsuch is tearing him up.

1

zombiereign Apr 1, 2026 +1

They all seem to be destroying his case

1

black_flag_4ever Apr 1, 2026 +1

This weasel won't admit he's asking to overturn a Constitutional Amendment and centuries of precedent.

1

megatronwins Apr 1, 2026 +1

Sonia is sick of this shit, and she's like lets get to the point.

1

Lost_And_Found66 Apr 1, 2026 +8

Trump misunderstood what oral meant here

8

oiseaua20 Apr 1, 2026 +9

Trump will participate?! Has he ran out of places to nap?

9

minneapple- Apr 1, 2026 +10

More pics of Trump sleeping? Great.

10

Raspberries-Are-Evil Apr 1, 2026 +1

I don't understand how the argument can even happen because this was an executive order, not a law from Congress. If they rule in Trump's favor which we know they will, can't the next President just sign an over to overturn the 2nd amendment?

1

ladystaggers Apr 1, 2026 +1

If only Sauer would speak a little faster.

1

RazarTuk Apr 1, 2026 +1

Fun fact, by the way! Everyone's mispronouncing Wong Kim Ark. The R is only there because the British came up with that romanization scheme, so Ark is supposed to be pronounced Ahk.

1

sfiend Apr 1, 2026 +1

There was no such thing as an illegal alien back then sir...

1

AccordingStar72 Apr 1, 2026 +1

The tenor of this is similar to the Tariffs case.

1

Moonspindrift Apr 1, 2026 +1

Caught a few minutes of this on NPR while driving home from Wally\*World. Gorsuch seemed very skeptical of the fact Sauer wanted to apply a definition of jurisdiction from prior to the 14th amendment but then also wanted to apply a definition of "illegal immigration" from much later (clearly because there was no defined concept of the illegal/undocumented immigrant when the 14th was written).

1

travio Apr 1, 2026 +1

Gotta give Alito credit for trying, but he keeps grasping for straws.

1

LordAlvis Apr 1, 2026 +1

What a weird hypothetical. "If we completely changed the relationship between tribal Native Americans and the US, would that change their constitutional status?" I mean, I guess? But that's not what we're talking about.

1

GroltonIsTheDog Apr 1, 2026 +1

Audio jumpscare

1

LordAlvis Apr 1, 2026 +1

Ends so abruptly I thought my feed malfunctioned.

1

teamdiabetes11 Apr 1, 2026 +1

“Is this REALLY so easy?!” - Boof K “Yes.” - ACLU Get fucked Boofer. Even he seemed shocked she could answer in such a correct and concise way.

1

ReturnOfNogginboink Apr 1, 2026 +1

Wang is amazing! "Let me help you out with that..."

1

Esilai Apr 1, 2026 +1

If birthright citizenship ends, the American experiment is truly over. It is a core part of our identity as a democratic, diverse nation.

1

shadowdra126 Apr 1, 2026 +8

Someone should invite him to golf before this so he has somewhere better to be Edit: typo

8

CheapWeight8403 Apr 1, 2026 +7

Our country has fallen to rightwing radicals, but we're about to see how far it's fallen.

7

black_flag_4ever Apr 1, 2026 +1

Based on what I'm listening to, if birthright citizenship ends it is going to create widespread chaos as there's not going to be any clear answer on what counts to be a citizen. Allegiance jurisdiction? Trying to discern what it means for a baby to be domiciled while in the womb? We're never going to get a straight answer on any of this and judges will be able to do whatever they want with this.

1

ladystaggers Apr 1, 2026 +1

Sauer getting a little stressed.

1

Feisty_Bee9175 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Any reporters reporting on Trump and if he is sleeping during these arguments? LOL

1

elliottbaytrail Apr 1, 2026 +1

Cecillia Wang wins on the tone and cadence of her speech alone. I’m truly sorry for those who cannot put Mr Sauer on mute (i.e. the people in the court room).

1

SlashOfLife5296 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Iran and Russia on your mind, Alito? Tell us more

1

Automatic_Bus_7634 Apr 1, 2026 +1

We're only a couple steps away from "service guarantees citizenship"

1

Infamous_Employer_85 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Not even that apparently https://www.listnook.com/r/Military/comments/1s8w01n/ice_agents_to_be_stationed_outside_marine_corps/

1

VengaBoysBackInTown Apr 1, 2026 +1

Did this dude get RFK’s brain worm? What the hell is going on?

1

nomoreconversations Apr 1, 2026 +1

After all the Handmaiden comparisons when she was nominated, I’ve got to say I keep being pleasantly surprised by ACB

1

CopperSleeve Apr 1, 2026 +1

She’s just a conservative Catholic woman, she’s not a Trumper nut job.

1

Discussion Thread: US Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Birthright Citizenship Case

💬 Send a Message

200 Comments