52
Probably not, because there is no legal case or controversy, and the law is clear enough. In US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, SCOTUS held that
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who,
at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but
have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are
there ...
49
I think it's quite unlikely that this will lead to a Supreme Court decision on the question of birthright citizenship in general.
Consider what would have to happen to get to that point:
Someone would have to file a lawsuit in US District Court challenging Harris's eligibility.
That plaintiff would have to have standing to sue; otherwise the lawsuit would ...
39
No. The circumstances of Kamala Harris's birth fall squarely within the terms of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. As described in the other answer, the fact that Wong's parents had a permanent domicile in the US was not a deciding fact in the analysis.
Some people think that a foreign student, a temporary worker, or an illegal immigrant is just as much ...
19
See section II B of the opinion. On page 13:
On July 25, 2014, the Commission met again. This meeting, too, was conducted in public and on the record. On this occasion another commissioner made specific reference to the previous meeting’s discussion but said far more to disparage Phillips’ beliefs. The commissioner stated:
“I would also like to reiterate ...
16
It's complicated.
Rule 53 states
Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.
This is applicable not just to the Supreme Court, but to all federal courts. Rule 53 applies to criminal ...
11
If the Supreme Court is the final authority
The Supreme court is not the final authority. The Supreme Court is the court of last resort, but that does not prevent its case law from possibly being superseded or invalidated by constitutional amendments or the enactment of legislation.
Wouldn't past and future courts be of equal authority
No. Whether in ...
11
I will only address this part of the question:
Who would be able to authoritatively decide the constitutionality of such a question, with all Supreme Court justices having clear conflict of interest on the matter?
The Supreme Court could still hear such a case, as the justices make their own decisions about when to recuse themselves. In particular, they ...
10
The general rule is that a governmental institution cannot bind future versions of itself. Thus a legislature can pass a law, but a later session of that same legislature can amend or repeal it, and the legislature cannot make it unamedable. Similarly, a President can issue an executive order, but later that same President, or a different one, can cancel or ...
10
While I'm not directly addressing whether Eastman's argument in Newsweek is sound, it's worth noting that Eastman wrote in Newsweek, back in 2016, that Ted Cruz was clearly a natural-born citizen, and Cruz wasn't even born in the US.
I understand that citizenship by descent and citizenship by physical location at time of birth are different dimensions to ...
9
Short Answer
Yes, Supreme Court decisions apply everywhere right away. (Unless the decision says it doesn't.)
No, we do not have to wait until new laws are passed.
Explanation
Judicial Review
Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. This allows the court[s] to interpret ...
9
Actually this is the only SCOTUS ruling on Impeachment because of what it legally means with respect to SCOTUS and impeachment. Namely, Impeachment is a congressional power and not a judicial one that has no punishment beyond the removal from office upon conviction and that therefor it is not a matter that is Judicial. That is a fancy way to say that ...
8
The eighth amendment, by prohibiting excessive bail, implies that pretrial detention is constitutional in at least some circumstances:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Some may be surprised to learn that this was not at all innovative. There is a virtually identical clause in ...
8
SCOTUS Justice Samuel Chase was impeached though not convicted by the Senate. Here is a list of federal judges investigated for impeachment, and a list of federal officials impeached. The first federal judge to be removed from office was John Pickering, and the most recent is Thomas Porteous. Only Congress has the power to impeach: SCOTUS cannot review an ...
8
Marbury V. Madison did not establish judicial review. It was simply the first case where that power was used. It was clearly spelled out in The Federalist #78 that this power would exist in the new constitution, and those who voted to ratify it understood, or should have understood, that it would exist.
All that Marbury V. Madison decided was that the ...
7
If the Senate took the extreme measure of attempting to abolish the Supreme Court, there's nothing in the Constitution that requires them to confirm any of the President's nominees. However, attempting to dismantle one of the three branches would be nothing short of a coup d'etat.
The president has some options here:
He [the President] may, on ...
7
Short answer:
Yes.
There are some matters in the exclusive original jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court, which consists of suits between U.S. states and/or foreign states with each other and suits involving diplomats. On average, one or two such suits are filed each year.
The original jurisdiction in these cases is created by Article III of the ...
7
"Nonsense," runs the counter-commentary. Indeed, PolitiFact rated the
claim of ineligibility as "Pants on Fire" false, Snopes rated it
simply "False," and from the other side of the political spectrum,
Conservative Daily News likewise rated it "False." All three (and
numerous others) simply assert that Harris is ...
7
If Google wins Google v. Oracle America then would creating API compatible software clones be legal?
We can't really know until the ruling is made. The Supreme Court might issue a ruling that encompasses all software APIs, or may predicate its ruling on this more specific situation, e.g. that because Oracle's library is so extensive its structure can be copyrighted even if that does not necessarily mean that any individual function signature can be ...
6
As far as I know, no single president has ever been in office long enough to see all supreme court judges retire, resign or die. So waiving his right to appoint new judges would just achieve two things:
He would have less judges in his favor than if he'd just appoint a new one.
He would help the next president, possibly from the other party, who could then ...
6
Civil Procedure In Interstate Disputes
Legal disputes between U.S. states (or between the United States government and a U.S. state, or both) are resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court and in these disputes, the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.* This means that the U.S. Supreme Court functions as a trial court, rather than as an appellate court in ...
6
Because the nations that made the list (which was modified at the time of the SCOTUS hearing) were selected based on their ability to provide the US with documentation for vetting of immigrants (or rather their lack of an ability), not religion, and the courts give the legislature (Congress) and the executive branch (President) wide discretion when matters ...
6
The Court was deciding on whether Congress had overstepped its authority. Since Congress has a number of powers, if any one of those powers authorizes a legislature, then Congress is within its bounds. Roberts is effectively going down through the list of the powers. If any item on the list is a "yes", then the legislature is authorized.
Penalty under ...
5
First off, a court in the United States does not care if the federal law was good policy or bad policy. Courts do not make those decisions. A court cannot strike down a law for being a stupid idea; it can only strike down the law for violating a more fundamental law (i.e. state and federal constitutions, including striking down state laws for going against ...
5
What is stopping me from going and finding a poor college student, marrying them for the tax incentives (and them me for the health insurance), and breaking it off when it is no longer financially or emotionally convenient?
Nothing, go for it.
Breaking it off, i.e. getting a divorce, leaves questions of who gets what assets - you will need to consult local ...
5
The Supremacy Clause.
U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the ...
5
The relevant statute, 28 USC 455 simply states what shall be, and does not suggest that the law could be enforced by any particular means. There have been cases where there was a suggestion of a hint of impropriety at SCOTUS and yet things proceeded. In Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 Rehnquist did not recuse himself despite being a White House lawyer and having ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
