Thomas Presses Attorney In Birthright Citizenship Case: What Is The Origin Of Universal Injunctions?
During Thursday’s Supreme Court oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy …
source
March 21, 2026
Headlines
Thomas to Sauer: What if the child was born to US citizens while on a vacation paid for by conservative lobbyists? Asking for a friend.
This isn’t really up to the supreme court. Neither the constitution or any law gives courts the authority of national injunctions. This is power thatthey seized for themselves and the people led by President Trump need to seize it back.
Forbes working overdrive trying to skew the American position in this huh? I thought they were more centered.
THEY ALL CONFUSE THEY DON'T KNOW HOW THE LAW SHOULD BE.100%
MAGA wants to limit nationwide injunctions until it relates to 2A.
Thomas actually can speak!!!! Hmmm, maybe he shouldn't
Funny how opinions on national injunctions change depending on which party controls the Executive.
Funny how opinions on national injunctions change depending on which party controls the Executive.
With Kudos to the Trumpian Bear arms Folos and the Author of this Post
@aviatorsound914
2 days ago (edited)
This makes absolutely no sense. Let me explain.
This case wouldn’t just apply to this administration. It would apply to subsequent administrations as well. For example, if another administration wants to take the right to guns away then they can pretty much just sign an executive order saying guns are banned…
It’s a very idiotic concept to suggest a universal injunction is harmful when it holds a to account the government clearly illegal action… I would agree that in order for universal injunction to apply there needs to be two or more district court of different jurisdiction that would need to agree on the same conclusion in order to apply a full universal injunction or that subsequent standard that a circuit court needs to uphold a lower court decision in order for such to apply…
I however, do not agree with the stupidity of the concept that no universal injunction needs to be imposed… Since if this applies to this administration, it would apply to subsequent administration as well as previously stated.. I need it to make sense… Because your argument would essentially allow the executive branch to take unilateral control of our government and assert an unusual dictatorial power over this country..
This is a democracy that stands on its basic freedoms…
Now we know why Thomas didn't speak up during Supreme Court cases for decades. He's stupid.
I hate listening to the generation that ends each sentence with that annoying inflection… almost like they are asking a question.
The Solicitor General is an awesome attorney regarding Supreme Court litigation.
Every other right in the Bill of Rights is subject to reasonable restrictions. I don't know why we're committing ourselves to this absurdly absolutist interpretation of the 14th Amendment whereby anyone who can manage to break enough laws to even set a pinky toe on US soil gets to give birth to a US citizen.
It is madness…
I have no horse in this race. But you can’t help but find the irony here. The right thinks it can question this amendment to the constitution by arguing historical context. The left wants to read this ammonia at face value and says it should be upheld.
Now consider the second amendment. Both sides would be flipped on that in respect to the amendment being considered apart of a living vs dead document.
It’s always the two parties that bring us to this point. Wasting everyone’s time and resources. The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it.
Great answer by respondent's counsel!
What the left is doing to unborn babys is pure evil.
Trump Is Right
To certify, let's read wut the complete Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment says.
Specifically, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment says:
All persons born in the United States, and all naturalized citizens subject to our jurisdiction are citizens… however…Citizenship will NOT include of course persons born in the United States who are:
(1) Foreigners visiting the U.S.
(2) illegal Aliens
(3) Ambassadors and their families
(4) Ministers of some religion or Prime Ministers of some Country and their families
…but will include every other class of persons, no matter if you're rich or poor or if you're a Barber, a Blacksmith, a Dentist, a Doctor or any other class of persons.
U are a citizen.
Isn't the above wut the complete context of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment says?
Yes it does.
Therefore, President Trump absolutely, positively has the right to issue an Executiv Order that forbids Citizenship being conferred upon illegal Aliens and their children born in the United States.
To say that the 14th Amendment doesn't forbid Citizenship being conferred upon illegal Aliens would be unconstitutional. And conferring Citizenship upon illegal Aliens would doubly be unconstitutional.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court has no choice but to abide by wut the complete Citizenship Clause decrees.
That means Trump wins again.
And Citizenship will no longer be conferred upon the children of illegal Aliens.
Just thought all of u would like to know.
I love you, Forbes. You make it easy to tell the “domestic and foreign” people who we should look out for. Anytime they start a comment with MAGA, you know they’re not serious. 😂
TRUNP IS A DISGRACE TO AMERICA
AMERICA 🇺🇸 THE DEVIL 😈 WANTS TO DESTROY THE SUPREME COURT FIRST THEN THE CONSTITUTION SO HELP US GOD
Makes sense to me. Stop the rogue judges.😊
Referencing nonsense 😂
I think it's stupid and a mistake for the Court's to give up the ability to use universal injunction…they would literally be giving away their power
The Constitution and Federal law doesn't differ from District to District except perhaps a bit in DC due to it's special role, so it is reasonable that a universal injunction from any of them should stand until overturned via the appeals process up to and including the SCOTUS. It would be far too empowering of the Executive Branch to singularly get to control (and in the case of what might well turn out to be violating rights and the law) everyone else covered by the other 93 Districts.
Justice Thomas and his wife Gena May wind up being arrested if Trump has his way of pushing things back to 1843. Remember in 1843 interracial marriages were illegal and anyone who was in an interracial marriage or relationship could be thrown in jail.
I have no idea what they just said
Funny how Thomas never spoke when Scalia was still alive
When Executive branch had executive orders then the Judicial branch should have federal injunctions if and/or when those orders violate or breach the constitution or carries high potentiality for illegality.
What is often overlooked in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case is that Wong’s parents held permanent resident status at the time of his birth. This granted them rights closely aligned with those of citizens, thereby making Wong’s birth on U.S. soil legally sufficient to confer citizenship. In contrast, children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats were not—and still are not—granted citizenship due to their parents’ diplomatic immunity and allegiance to another sovereign.
Furthermore, judicial interpretation must begin with the Constitution itself—its exact language and the original intent of its authors. When precedent is found to deviate from the original meaning, the courts have a responsibility to correct that interpretation.
Finally, I, along with many legal scholars, maintain that in order to legitimately extend citizenship to children born to individuals residing in the country illegally, a constitutional amendment is necessary. Only then can such individuals be afforded the full rights and privileges of U.S. citizens.
Do process that it blah blah blah racism at work this government lawyer family
If one Federal District Judge on the west coast can tell the east coast what to do, why can't a county sheriff on the east coast dictate what a county on the west coast can do. See how stupid that sounds?
I think birthright citizenship should be given to people who are working and have been in the country for a certain amount of time. If a family from Argentina for example, came to the United States and lived for a decade, working, paying taxes, when the family is ready to have a child that child will acquire citizenship. I do not agree with people flying into the United States and giving birth, that should be illegal especially if you are about to give birth.
If MAGA doesn't want birthright citizenship then they can get off their lazy dictatorial asses and get the votes necessary to remove the 14th amendment just like all the Americans before us had to do.
I left the Republican Party because of George W Bush who put this dogturd on the Supreme Court. What a legacy.
The honorable Clarence Thomas
This Guy is literally trump puppet orange man AKA trump dirty guy
The Left are revolutionaries. Trying to debate with them, within the rules of the institution is missing their game entirely
In common layman's terms "please see it our way" ! We don't care about the harm it might bring to the average U.S. citizen.
Time for this dude to resign
ב''ה, how much did DOGE.gov spend on LEGO?
God whoever this lawyer is , he is verbal diarrhea and talking a million miles an hour. Trying to overwhelm older ppl
If the truth be known, it’s not even about immigration It’s about human rights. Does anyone have the right to have due process or is that privilege only for someone who has immunity
They should fire liberal judges