The Dictatorship

John Robertscan’tsplit the difference on birthright citizenship

Published

1 year ago

April 19, 2025

John Robertscan’tsplit the difference on birthright citizenship

Less than three months after President Donald Trump began his attempts to end birthright citizenshipthe Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to take up the first challenge to that effort — in part at least. Technically, the unusual hearing, scheduled for May 15, concerns judges’ injunctions against those attempts. But if Chief Justice John Roberts and the other justices want, next month’s hearing can also be the last hearing on the matter where the outcome is at all in doubt. They must understand that no matter how narrow a ruling they may be asked to provide, it is in their best interest — and the country’s — to reject the White House’s attack on a core principle of our republic swiftly and decisively.

On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order instructing all federal departments and agencies to no longer recognize all children born in the country as citizens. Documents establishing citizenship would be withheld from any child whose mother was not a citizen, unless their father could be proved to be a citizen or lawful permanent resident. The White House’s justification lies in a misreading of the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause, falsely claiming that the children being excluded are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and thus ineligible.

Trump’s order, challenging over a century of jurisprudence, is blatantly illegal to a degree that only someone picking a fight in court can manage.

Trump’s order, challenging over a century of jurisprudence, is blatantly illegal to a degree that only someone picking a fight in court can manage. Several federal courts around the country swiftly recognized that this order threatened its targets with potentially irreparable damage. Within days, district judges in Maryland, Washington state and Massachusetts all issued preliminary injunctions against the administration’s plans. One judge referred to the order as “unavailing and untenable”; another correctly noted that “no court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation.”

Each of those injunctions is nationwide in scope, blocking the White House from moving forward with its plans. Three appeals courts subsequently denied the administration’s attempts to stay the injunctions. When petitioning the Supreme Court last month, Trump’s acting solicitor general insisted that rather than weighing the constitutional questions at hand, the justices need only answer a “‘modest’ request”: whether the administration could continue with its plans against everyone but the individuals named in the cases — or, at most, the states involved in the suits — while awaiting a final decision on the merits.

It should be obvious that allowing an unconstitutional act to continue in some states but not others is both deeply impractical and morally repugnant. Allowing a patchwork of legal conditions to stand is usually anathema to the Supreme Court. My concern is that Roberts may be tempted to join with enough of his colleagues to agree with the administration’s claim that its request is a narrow one.

The court’s record on the early challenges to Trump’s policies has been a mixed bag. “It has ruled for Trump in half of them, although each decision has been nuanced,” NBC News Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley reported last week. “The court has not included any language rebuking the administration for its conduct, although liberal justices have done so in separate opinions.” In threading the needle this way, even in the cases that Trump has lost, the court has sought to put some constraints onto the president while leaving his policies largely in place.

For example, in adjudicating his use of the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport migrants to El Salvador, the court ruled he had the right to use the 19th-century law while litigation proceeds. But the unsigned majority opinion — the three liberal justices dissented, as did Justice Amy Coney Barrett in part — added a caveat requiring that detainees receive at least some basic due process. “AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act,” the majority argued. “The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”

There can be no dithering or ambiguity, though, once the oral arguments in the birthright citizenship cases are heard next month.

In the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the court unanimously ruled against Trump’s objection to returning the man his administration admitted it had wrongly removed to El Salvador. But the decision was technically a partial win for the administration, which had asked the court to stay a looming lower court deadline to “facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7.” Roberts issued a brief pause, during which the deadline lapsed, rendering that part of original order moot. The court denied the request to overturn the rest of the order, agreeing that the U.S. should facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return but remanding the case for clarification on what was meant by “effectuate.”

Both decisions are exactly the kind of pseudo-Solomonic ruling that Roberts loves to issue. Though he would insist otherwise, the chief justice is a skilled politician who always has the court’s public image firmly in mind. The justices have no greater weapon than their institutional authority. Accordingly, issuing an unambiguous order that an unwilling White House fully ignores is likely one of Roberts’ worst nightmares. When viewed through that lens, his attempts to balance a commitment to the rule of law with a lack of enforcement power almost make sense.

There can be no such dithering or ambiguity, though, once the oral arguments in the birthright citizenship cases are heard next month. Even the “modest” proposal from the White House could render thousands of children stateless while the legal process proceeds. The best option available for protecting those newborn Americans’ rights would be to leave the injunctions in place while the lower courts continue to demolish the administration’s nativist crusade. The best option to preserve the legitimacy of the court would be for Roberts to make clear that when the matter returns to the justices, the president’s lawyers will not find sympathetic ears.

Hayes Brown

Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for BLN Daily, where he helps frame the news of the day for readers. He was previously at BuzzFeed News and holds a degree in international relations from Michigan State University.

The Dictatorship

Capitol rioters clamor for payouts from ‘anti-weaponization’ fund despite backlash…

Published

49 minutes ago

June 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Capitol rioters clamor for payouts from ‘anti-weaponization’ fund despite backlash…

WASHINGTON (AP) — David Johnston was a licensed attorney when he illegally entered the Capitol with a mob of President Donald Trump’s supporters on Jan. 6, 2021. More than five years later, the South Carolina man is offering to help fellow “J6ers” apply for payouts from the Trump administration’s nearly $1.8 billion new fund for people claiming to be victims of a weaponized government.

He’ll do it for a 10% cut of any award, capped at $5,000 apiece.

“I think the narrative is changing” about how the history of that day is being told, Johnston said in a video he posted to social media. “I think good things are happening for us.”

Hundreds of Trump loyalists pleaded guilty to storming the Capitol, admitting under oath that they broke the law. Now pardoned by Trumpmany hope to capitalize on their crimes by tapping into the $1.776 billion settlement fund designed to compensate the Republican president’s allies who believe they were politically prosecuted.

A bipartisan backlash to the fund and a legal roadblock have not dimmed the celebratory response from Jan. 6 rioters clamoring for a share of the taxpayer money. Some are staking claims even though the government has not established an application process and a judge has frozen the fund’s formation, at least temporarily.

Support of President Donald Trump climb the West Wall of the the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

Rioters seek compensation payouts

The fund’s critics see it as another vehicle for Trump and his allies to whitewash the events of Jan. 6retroactively justify the mob’s assault on a pillar of American democracy and reward some of Trump’s most loyal followers.

Jason Riddlea military veteran from New Hampshire who was sentenced to 90 days behind bars after pleading guilty to riot charges, publicly rejected a pardon from Trump. Likewise, he said it would be “ridiculous” for him or any other Jan. 6 rioter to get government compensation.

“I’d love money, but I can’t accept that. That would bother me for the rest of my life,” he said. “We weren’t innocently persecuted just because of who we are or who we vote for. We were persecuted for committing criminal behavior in the Capitol of the United States.”

Plenty of other “J6ers” do not share Riddle’s reluctance.

A Florida man who posed for photos with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s podium argued on social media that he deserves to be compensated for the cost of his infamy. A rioter from New Jersey described by prosecutors as a Nazi sympathizer hailed the fund as “good news not just for J6ers but all victims of weaponization.” A Texas man who received a seven-year prison sentence for storming the Capitol with a metal tomahawk celebrated the fund as “payback” for “victims of Biden’s tyranny,” referring to Democratic President Joe Biden.

Oregon resident Pamela Hemphill, sentenced to 60 days in jail for her convictionrejected a pardon from Trump but has drafted a written claim for compensation from the fund. Unlike scores of rioters who claim to be victims of a government weaponized by Democrats, Hemphill blames Trump for her legal troubles. Her claims letter says she is seeking $5 million in compensation.

“I wouldn’t have been through all of this if Trump hadn’t lied about the election being stolen,” she said during a telephone interview. “It’s a direct result of his lies that I was even there that day.”

With the White House in the background, President Donald Trump speaks at a rally on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

Fund faces legal and political challenges

It is an open question whether anyone convicted of a Capitol riot-related crime could be eligible for payments from a fund created to resolve Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has not ruled out that possibility. Blanche said there are no limits on who can apply, but he noted that the fund’s five commissioners — all yet to be named — will decide who deserves to be compensated and why, based on factors such as “what the person did, his sentence, how much time he was in jail.”

“That’s up to the commissioners,” Blanche told The Associated Press on Thursday when asked about his position on whether violent Jan. 6 defendants should be eligible for payments.

“You have to define something and then stick to it. That’s something I’ve been hesitant to try to do, because it’s very fact-intensive,” Blanche said. ”Me sitting here and talking in hypotheticals is something that I don’t think is fair to the process.”

It is unclear whether Congress would block payments to Jan. 6 defendants. Senate Republicans who are angry about the settlement have said they want to place parameters on the fund as part of a Department of Homeland Security spending bill. They abruptly left town earlier this month after a tense meeting with Blanche and will return on Monday with the situation unresolved.

A federal judge in Virginia has frozen the fund’s establishment and temporarily blocked any processing or paying of claims. The judge issued that ruling Friday in one of at least three lawsuits challenging the fund.

Brendan Ballou, a former prosecutor who tried several Jan. 6 cases before leaving the Department of Justice last year, sued on behalf of two police officers who helped defend the Capitol from the mob. Ballou views the fund’s creation as part of a broader Trump campaign to undermine democratic institutions and rewrite the history of Jan. 6.

“And if the president is successful in that effort, if he’s able to get people to either forget or condone that day, he knows that he can get people to accept any attack on democracy,” Ballou said.

Supporters of President Donald Trump try to break through a police barrier at the Capitol in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez, File)

Rioters emboldened by Trump’s Jan. 6 recasting

Nearly 1,600 people were charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. More than 1,200 were convicted and sentenced before Trump issued mass pardons and ordered the dismissal of all pending Jan. 6 cases. Trump also freed far-right extremist group members who were imprisoned for plotting to attack the Capitol to keep Trump in office after he lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden.

The self-described “J6 community” isn’t the only pro-Trump constituency angling for cuts of the money.

Meshawn Maddock, who was charged as being a fake elector for Trump in Michigan before a judge dismissed the case last year, said she and her husband, state Rep. Matt Maddock, “absolutely” plan on making a claim. She believes the fund’s use of taxpayer money is justified because it “paid for the prosecution and investigation of the years that I was being hunted down.”

“I want vengeance and I want retribution,” Maddock said.

Trump’s campaign to recast Jan. 6 as a peaceful protest seems to have emboldened many convicted rioters.

Johnston’s eagerness to help other Capitol rioters with claims contrasts with his remorse at sentencing in 2022. He apologized for his “terrible lapse in judgment” before a judge sentenced him to three weeks in jail and three months of home detention. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor trespassing charge.

“It was a dumb, dumb thing to do,” Johnston told the judge. “I am 100% responsible for what I did that day.”

___

Associated Press writers Jamie Stengle in Dallas and Mary Claire Jalonick and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

The Dictatorship

Trump to ‘kick off’ America’s 250th event after berating artists who backed out

Published

16 hours ago

May 31, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump to ‘kick off’ America’s 250th event after berating artists who backed out

May. 30, 2026, 6:02 PM EDT

President Donald Trump will join the opening ceremony of the White House-backed “Great American State Fair” on the National Mall, the organizer said Saturday, just hours after Trump excoriated music artists who dropped out of the event.

Danielle Alvarez, a spokesperson for the White House initiative Freedom 250, said in a statement that Trump will “personally kick off this historic celebration on Wednesday, June 24 in an opening ceremony celebrating America’s 250th birthday.”

Earlier in the day, Trump had railed against artists who distanced themselves from the event celebrating the country’s 250th anniversary, saying in a Truth Social post that they “get paid far too much money” and “aren’t happy.” He said he was considering replacing them with the “number one attraction anywhere in the world”: himself.

The artists — many of whom have had successful decades-long careers — are “getting ‘the yips’” about having to perform at the event, he wrote. “So I am thinking about bringing the Number One Attraction anywhere in the World, the man who gets much larger audiences than Elvis in his prime, and he does so without a guitar, the man who loves our Country more than anyone else, and the man who some say is the Greatest President in History (THE GOAT!), DONALD J. TRUMP, to take the place of these highly paid, Third Rate ‘Artists,’ and give a major speech, rallying the Country forward like I have done ever since being President.”

Almost all the artists who were included in the lineup for the two-week event have said they will not perform, citing its political affiliation. Freedom 250 threatens to overshadow programs organized by America250a nonpartisan organization established by Congress in 2016 to organize events this year commemorating the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. The newly founded Trump-backed group has caused confusion for celebrities and corporate sponsors who intended to participate in the official semiquincentennial group.

“We’ve got incredible momentum,” a spokeswoman for America250 said in a statement. “Already, America250 has shown up in some of the biggest moments in culture and sports, from ringing in the New Year in Times Square and appearing in the Rose Parade, to the NFL Playoffs and Super Bowl.”

The artists who have not pulled out the Trump-headlined event — including Vanilla Ice and Flo Rida — have been roundly criticized for their participation.

Clarissa-Jan Lim is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW. She was previously a senior reporter and editor at BuzzFeed News.

The Dictatorship

Trump’s doctor declares him ‘fully fit’ and blames ‘frequent handshaking’ for bruising

Published

16 hours ago

May 31, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

May. 30, 2026, 10:40 AM EDT

President Donald Trump’s physician declared him in “excellent health,” but recommended the president lose weight and exercise more following his latest physical exam.

“Cognitive and physical performance are excellent,” Navy Capt. Sean Barbabella wrote in his report released on Friday. “He is fully fit to carry out all duties of the Commander-in-Chief and Head of State.”

Trump —the oldest person to be sworn in as president, who turns 80 next month — showed “strong cardiac, pulmonary, neurological, and overall physical function,” the doctor wrote. “His demanding daily schedule, including multiple high-level meetings, public engagements, and regular physical activity, continues to support his overall well-being.”

The president’s weight was recorded as 238 lbs, 14 lbs heavier than what was reported in his April 2025 physical. Barbabella said he provided guidance to Trump on his diet, as well as advice to take low-dose aspirin, increase physical activity and lose weight.

Trump underwent his annual physical exam on Tuesday at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Afterward, he wrote on Truth Social“Everything checked out PERFECTLY.”

In his memo, Barbabella, who previously diagnosed Trump with chronic venous insufficiency, noted swelling in the president’s lower leg “with improvement from last year.” He attributed bruising on Trump’s hands to be “consistent with minor soft tissue irritation related to frequent handshaking.”

The swelling in Trump’s legs and bruising on his hands have been the subject of increasing scrutiny and speculation about the aging president’s fitness for office. The White House has attributed the bruising on the president’s hands to his frequent handshaking, as Barbabella noted in his latest report.

Trump has also appeared to nod off during public appearances. He has dismissed criticism of those incidents, saying he was merely “resting his eyes.”

Trump often boasts about the results of his medical exams, saying he has “aced” cognitive tests and that “the numbers were perfect” on his physical. He has frequently insisted that he is fit to serve as president, but his mental acuity for office has been called into question.

The latest physical, the third of his second term, took place amid mounting questions and public concerns about his health.

Clarissa-Jan Lim is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW. She was previously a senior reporter and editor at BuzzFeed News.