The Dictatorship

The Supreme Court just fumbled a basic question about birthright citizenship

Published

12 months ago

June 28, 2025

The Supreme Court just fumbled a basic question about birthright citizenship

If you arose Friday morning thinking the U.S. Supreme Court would finally settle the question of birthright citizenship, you were disappointed. We know no more now than we did Thursday about how Chief Justice John Roberts’ court regards children born here: The liberal three-justice minority is certain all are citizens, while the conservative six-person majority remained mum. That conservative majority avoided addressing the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship and chose instead to reject so-called “universal injunctions” blocking his executive order.

All we learned Friday is that a final resolution to the question of birthright citizenship is somewhere in the distance.

All we learned Friday is that a final resolution to the question of birthright citizenship is somewhere in the distance, beyond many more rounds of court proceedings.

For families directly targeted by Trump’s Jan. 20 executive orderwhich aims to bar children born to nonpermanent residents from automatic citizenship, too little has changed. Such families — and especially their yet-to-be born children — remain in the crosshairs of a dispute that will continue unresolved at least for months to come. Going forward, such families will be subjected to harrowing circumstances, not knowing where they stand before the court and the Constitution.

By some accounts, we are five months into this era of uncertainty regarding citizenship. But we have endured years, decades, even centuries of confusion about citizenship.

We know that Trump intended to do away with birthright citizenship seven years ago, even though details were lacking. Consult the Congressional Record, and you’ll discover that the language in Trump’s executive order is similar to the language of bills that have been put forward every session since at least 2003. Scour law review articles and you’ll learn that as far back as the 1980s, some legal scholars have promoted the view that children of noncitizens born in the U.S. cannot be birthright citizens.

This longer view of the dispute over birthright citizenship helps explain why we, in this moment, feel so worn down by the evasion that is Friday’s Supreme Court decision. How long should Americans, especially children born in this country and their families, be expected to endure such indecision, confusion and uncertainty?

Perhaps we should not be surprised to find Roberts’ 21st century court fumbling the birthright citizenship question. Indeed, the origins of birthright citizenship in the United States are in the ignoble ineptitude of lawmakers two centuries ago. In early America, free Black Americans, nonimmigrants, were a despised group, and they were regularly confronted by those who argued that they were not citizens and thus had no rights before the courts or the Constitution.

It was a harrowing existence. In the nation’s early years, the American Colonization Society organized to press free Black Americans to leave the country, to places such as the West African colony of Liberia. The ACS outfitted ships, funded travel and encouraged Black Americans to self-deport, all to preserve the U.S. as a white man’s country. State lawmakers and local officials played their part, enacting so-called Black laws that constrained everyday life — where they worked and worshipped, how they traveled and raised their children — all to further encourage free Black Americans to leave.

Were free Black Americans citizens? They believed so and looked to the terms of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for authority. All men were created equal, they insisted. The Constitution recognized birthright citizenship and drew no color line, they urged. Today, we can read their ideas in early American newspapers, pamphlets and books. They are to be credited with promoting the terms of their own belonging, and those of all persons born in the United States. Their rallying cry: Citizenship in the U.S. was the result of birth, no more and no less.

Early American lawmakers failed Black Americans, leaving them to make families, lives and communities in the face of profound uncertainty.

Early American lawmakers failed Black Americans, leaving them to make families, lives and communities in the face of profound uncertainty. For example, in 1821, when Congress considered admitting Missouri into the Union, lawmakers asked whether Black Americans would have the right to enter the new state. Only if they were citizens, it was said, and a debate ensued with representatives taking both sides. The result was a twisted injustice: Congress never firmly answer the question and instead admitted Missouri while leaving Black Americans mired in ambiguity.

Also in 1821, U.S. Attorney General William Wirt was asked to resolve whether a free Black man could command a ship in Virginia’s coastal waters. The law provided that he could only if he were a citizen. Thus, Wirt was charged with solving the riddle of Black citizenship. But he did not. Instead, he reached a twisted conclusion: In Virginia, a free Black man could not be a citizen, but in another state he perhaps could. Once again, Black Americans were left to make lives under murky circumstances.

Notoriously, in the 1857 Dred Scott casethe U.S. Supreme Court concluded that no Black American could be a citizen. Or at least this is how the story is often told. A closer look reveals that the nation’s high court was deeply divided in that instance. Justice Roger Taney was sure that Black Americans were not birthright citizens. Still, his fellow jurists, Associate Justices Benjamin Curtis and John McLean, took the opposite view. Birthright, they concluded, was the law of the land and, absent a color bar in the Constitution, Black Americans, like their white counterparts, were citizens. The high court failed to settle much at all. Black Americans might be citizens to some, but to others they were subject to Black laws and colonization.

It would take a Civil War and a remaking of the Constitution during Reconstruction to settle debates over Black citizenship. The 14th Amendment constitutionalized the birthright principle that Black Americans had long championed. Along the way, Black Americans learned hard lessons, and so should we. The nation’s founding documents can be subjected to interpretation and reinterpretation in the hands of lawmakers, courts and the executive branch. Those designated as despised can be variously regarded as citizens and noncitizens, while lawmakers fumble and fail to settle the debate.

Those designated as despised can be variously regarded as citizens and noncitizens, while lawmakers fumble and fail to settle the debate

Most of all, by recalling the struggles of Black Americans for birthright citizenship, we better understand that uncertainty before the law is its own form of inhumanity. Being the object of debate is its own sort of harrowing existence. In early America, Black Americans made homes, raised children, established businesses and built a political culture — all the while facing down efforts to banish, exile or otherwise remove them from the nation. We rightly admire their courage and persistence. At the same time, we can recognize the price they paid for being subject to the deliberations of lawmakers who avoided, sidestepped, punted and otherwise refused to settle their status as birthright citizens.

Friday, the nation’s high court fumbled. Rather than affirm the birthright principleit put that question off for another day. In the months ahead, there will be briefs filed and arguments presented. At the same time, there will also be harrowing days ahead for immigrant Americans and their children, people who urgently await a determination of their standing as birthright citizens before the Constitution.

As a nation, we owe them at least that.

Martha S. Jones

Martha S. Jones is the Society of Black Alumni President Professor and Professor of History at The Johns Hopkins University. She is author of the prize-winning “Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Race in Antebellum American” (2018, Cambridge University Press.) She is also the author of an amici cruise brief on the subject of birthright citizenship along with historian Kate Masur.

The Dictatorship

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Published

23 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In South Carolina’s gubernatorial raceDonald Trump endorsed Lt. Gov. Pam Evette last month. Last week, however, ahead of this week’s primary runoff election in the race, the president published an online item telling voters that “you can’t go wrong” with either Evette or state Attorney General Alan Wilson.

If this sounds at all familiar, it’s because Trump has done this before. Around this time two years ago, for example, he endorsed both Republicans running in a congressional primary in Arizona. And two years before that, he endorsed two leading contenders in a Senate primary in Missouri.

Only the president can say for sure why he ended up endorsing Evette and Wilson in the South Carolina race, though it’s worth emphasizing for context that GOP primary voters have already ignored his direction into two gubernatorial primaries this month, and it stands to reason that he hoped to avoid a third.

* We’re one day away from a variety of notable racesincluding but not limited to South Carolina’s gubernatorial race. There are also some congressional primaries in a handful of statesincluding Maryland, New York and Utah.

* In took a while, but the ballots have been tallied under Maine’s ranked-choice systemand we now know that Democrat Hannah Pingree, the former state House speaker, will face off against Republican Bobby Charles, who worked at the State Department during the Bush-Cheney era.

* As for Maine’s closely watched congressional racestate Auditor Matt Dunlap won the Democratic nomination in the battleground 2nd District, defeating state Sen. Joe Baldacci, who enjoyed the backing of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Dunlap will run in the fall against a familiar figure: former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who had moved to Florida a few years ago, but who returned to run for Congress.

* In California’s congressional special electiontwo Democratic candidates — state Sen. Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, a Bay Area Rapid Transit director — have advanced to an Aug. 18 special general election. The winner will fill the vacancy left by disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell, who resigned in April.

* In a new commercial shared first with MS NOWDemocrat James Talarico has launched his campaign’s first multimillion-dollar ad buy in Texas’ gubernatorial race. In the 30-second spot, Talarico focuses on affordability and the cost of living. The state lawmaker will face scandal-plagued state Attorney General Ken Paxton in the fall.

* And in New Jersey, Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr.who has been missing from Capitol Hill since early March, will reportedly return to work on June 30according to a statement from his spokesperson. Neither Kean nor his office have offered any public information about why he has been away.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Published

23 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Jun. 22, 2026, 11:39 AM EDT

After President Donald Trump’s pick for governor in Iowa lost in the Republican primary earlier this month, the president argued that he “would have endorsed the other person” if he had “the proper information.”

Trump is taking no chances in the South Carolina gubernatorial primary. Over the weekend he rescinded his exclusive endorsement of Pamela Evette, the lieutenant governor, announcing instead that he would support both Evette and her runoff opponent, Alan Wilson, the state’s attorney general.

The move put Evette’s political future in jeopardy: Even before Trump’s dual endorsement, she trailed in limited public polling and was seen by political observers in South Carolina as a weak candidate with little to show besides the president’s coveted endorsement.

“Her chief distinction from Alan Wilson was that Trump endorsed her,” said Dr. Dubose Kapeluck, a professor of political science at the Citadel Military College of South Carolina.

Trump’s dual endorsement “was a kiss of death,” he told MS NOW.

Evette, who moved to South Carolina from Ohio to found a successful payroll and HR company in 2000, has been lieutenant governor since 2019, serving under Gov. Henry McMaster, who is term-limited.

In office, she has pursued meaningful but little-celebrated policies, like a key tort reform bill, according to Gil Gatch, a Republican member of the South Carolina state House and an Evette supporter.

But voters could be forgiven for knowing little about Evette besides the fact that Trump endorsed her, which he did just days before the June 9 primary. Visitors to her campaign website are greeted with a full-screen message labeling Evette as “Trump-endorsed.” The first line in her X bio states the same. Pro-Evette television ads are quick to tout the endorsement.

An accomplishment like tort reform, while noted on Evette’s website, “maybe could have been something that was highlighted more heavily,” Gatch told MS NOW.

The political makeup of South Carolina nearly guarantees the next governor will be whoever emerges on Tuesday between Evette and Wilson. They survived a crowded primary field on June 9, and nearly every challenger who fell short of the runoff publicly endorsed the attorney general.

“She’s just not a good candidate,” Josh Kimbrell, a state senator who failed to make the runoff and has since said he’d back Wilson, said of Evette.

“She kind of assumed this was a coronation, and that was never going to go over that well,” he added.

Even some pro-Trump voters were confused by the president’s initial endorsement of Evette, whom he called “a good friend, fighter, and WINNER” in a social media post in May.

“I have no clue why Trump would endorse Pamela Evette,” Leland Lemmons, a 30-year-old Trump supporter told MS NOW as he exited a polling site in the Greenville suburb of Easley on June 9.

“She’s served, you know, a decent time. I just haven’t seen much fruition of what she’s done in office,” he added.

In a post on Truth Social Friday announcing his dual endorsement, Trump wrote, “I can’t hurt one of them by only Endorsing the other, so, therefore, I am going to Endorse, for Governor of South Carolina, both Pam Evette and Alan Wilson!”

In a subsequent statement on X, Evette said, “I was proud to come in first as [Trump’s] endorsed candidate for Governor on June 9th. Looking forward to doing it again on June 23rd.”

After The Washington Post foreshadowed the dual endorsement last Tuesday, allies of Evette were quick to denounce the possibility.

“I would guess that’s fake news,” Suzanne Pucci, a member of Evette’s finance committee, told MS NOW of the chance Trump would also endorse Wilson. “She’s probably not real worried about it.”

Another close ally and supporter told MS NOW at the time the report was “a total, fabricated lie.”

“[Trump] is invested in Pamela Evette because she invested in him. He’s a loyal guy. That kind of stuff is important to him,” added the supporter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“With or without Trump, I think she is going to win,” they said.

On Thursday, a senior campaign aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, brushed off the idea of a dual endorsement, telling MS NOW in a statement, “Pamela Evette has earned the complete and total endorsement of President Trump. She is the only Trump-endorsed candidate in this race and we look forward to delivering a big win for the president on Tuesday.”

Roughly 24 hours later, Trump retracted the exclusive endorsement.

Will McDuffie is a reporter for MS NOW.

The Dictatorship

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

Published

23 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

As last week’s G7 summit in France got underway, a reporter asked Donald Trump whether his purported deal with Iran was final. “No, it’s not final,” the president replied. Later that day — during a visit to Versaillesof all places — he signed the framework anyway.

But moments after signing his name to the memorandum of understanding, Trump offered an unsubtle hint about what he was thinking at the time. Amid applause from those around him, the American president pointed down and then up while saying“Oil down, stocks up.”

In other words, Trump’s focus had nothing to do with natural security and everything to do with the economy. What’s more, the four-word phrase was part of a larger and underappreciated pattern. The Washington Post reported:

In the more than 100 days since President Donald Trump launched a war with Iran, he has offered a shifting list of reasons for why he started the conflict. But in explaining his push for peace, he named a priority much closer to home: protecting the stock market.

“I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe,” Trump told reporters gathered in the Alpine spa town of Évian-les-Bains, France, after the Group of Seven summit.

As the summit wrapped up, the Republican similarly said“I’ve studied presidents, some good, some bad, some great. Not too many are great and some really bad. … And the one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover. I didn’t want that and who knows what would have happened.”

He pushed the same point in an interview with Axios, which was released over the weekend.

“If I went further, the stock market would be much lower,” the president said. “Now think of this: I have one primary wish as president, in terms of people: I never want to be the late, great Herbert Hoover.”

The comments came days after Trump similarly argued“The alternative to this deal was a global recession. There are stupid people who want to see a global recession. They are just stupid people.”

Whether the president fully appreciates the implications of his own rhetoric, this string of comments doesn’t just shed light on his motivations for accepting a defeat, it also suggests he saw his failed policy in Iran as pushing the global economy toward a dangerous cliff.

In other words, based on Trump’s own comments, the war he started was poised to create an “economic catastrophe,” which he was desperate to avoid — and which led him to accept a framework that empowered Iran to get what it wanted in exchange for effectively no concessions at all.