The Dictatorship
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 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
No plan B: Trump is flailing to find an off-ramp for the Iran war
This is an adapted excerpt from the March 24 episode of “All In with Chris Hayes.”
Donald Trump’s war on Iran is in its fourth week. Gas prices are up $1 a gallon in much of the country. Stocks continue to fall on fears of global supply shortages.
The death toll is growing. Thirteen American service members have lost their livesand more than 1,200 Iranians have been killed, along with upward of 1,000 people in Lebanonmore than 150 in the surrounding Gulf states and 17 Israelis. That’s not accounting for the millions who are displaced and the thousands who have been injured, including hundreds of U.S. troops.
But according to the president who launched the war, it’s all over.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Trump expected a fast and easy win.
“We’ve won this. This war has been won,” he told reporters Tuesday in the Oval Office. “The only one that likes to keep it going is the fake news.”
However, during those same remarks, Trump was all over the place — talking about an epic victory, ongoing peace negotiations and personal gifts.
It was all completely counter to his posture over the weekend, when he threatened to “obliterate” Iranian civilian power plants — essentially teasing a war crime — if Iran did not stop blocking oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuzsomething Iran was not doing before Trump attacked them.
But now, he has supposedly pressed pause on that bombing plan for five days because, he said, the negotiations are going well.
When he first announced that in a social media post Monday, it sent oil prices down 10% and boosted stocks.
However, those markets reversed themselves Tuesday after the Iranians said they have not engaged in any serious high-level negotiations with the Americans, and they claimed Trump was making things up to help oil prices. The Israelis said the same thing. (That’s not to say you should take Iran’s word for it, or Israel’s, but you shouldn’t take the White House’s word, either.)
It is becoming increasingly clear that Trump expected a fast and easy win. He had no plan B, and now he is flailing to find some kind of fallback position.
On Monday, sources from the administration told Politico that they have their eyes on a future U.S.-backed leader of Iran: Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament.
“He’s a hot option,” one unnamed U.S. source — who seems to really wants a deal — told Blue Light News. “He’s one of the highest. … But we got to test them, and we can’t rush into it.”
But on Tuesday, that “hot option” trolled Trump for what he called a “jawboning campaign” to stabilize oil prices. In a social media postGhalibaf wrote: “[L]et’s see if they can turn that into ‘actual fuel’ at the pump — or maybe even print gas molecules!”
Call it the fog of Trumpian war: a million contradictory messages flying around, constantly wildly pinging bits of news that don’t make sense together.
Right now, we have reports that Trump’s negotiators, including his envoy Steve Witkoff and Vice President JD Vance, are traveling to Pakistan for informal talks with an Iranian official.

At the same time, unnamed U.S. officials have told The New York Times that the Saudi crown prince is pushing Trump to continue the war until Iran’s government collapses — something the Saudis publicly deny.
In fact, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Saudi officials are holding talks in Riyadh with their Arab counterparts to find a diplomatic off-ramp from the war.
On Tuesday evening, U.S. officials said the Pentagon was poised to deploy 3,000 troops of the 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East. That is in addition to two Marine expeditionary units on their way to the region and the 50,000 U.S. troops already stationed there.
Also on Tuesday, Iranian-backed militias in Iraq are claiming that U.S. strikes there killed 30 of their members.
But, according to Trump, the peace talks are going great, right?
All eyes everywhere have been on the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran responded to the U.S. attack by striking oil tankers and shutting down 20% of the world’s supply of oil and liquefied natural gas. It is now essentially running a toll operation in the strait.
Some countries, such as China, Japan and India, are negotiating deals with Iran to get its oil out. Which is to say, Iran is shipping more oil and making more money than it was under the U.S. sanctions in place before Trump attacked it.
It’s clear the president sees what’s happening, so now he is trying to share control of the strait with Iran. Trump told reporters the strait would be “jointly controlled” by “maybe” him and “the next ayatollah.”
The administration really thought this was going to be another Venezuela. They told themselves that, and they were egged on to believe it by the staunchest advocates of the war, such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sen. Lindsey GrahamR-S.C.
But in Iran, a decapitation strike did not lead to mass uprisings. It did not lead to regime change. It led to the situation in which Iran’s regime is intact, even if militarily degraded, and they now have explicit control of the Strait of Hormuz — a huge pressure point.
It really looks like the U.S. is backed into a corner: It can sue for peace because of the oil tanker situation, but they do not have much leverage, or it can escalate the war. That may be why we’re seeing all these contradictory developments.
In Iran, a decapitation strike did not lead to mass uprisings. It did not lead to regime change. It led to the situation in which Iran’s regime is intact.
Trump issued an ultimatum he had to walk back from because he said there were deep peace negotiations, which then later proved to be completely fabricated.
Now, more U.S. troops are set to be deployed for a possible ground invasion in the Middle East, despite reports that the U.S. has supposedly sent a 15-point plan to Iran through Pakistan to end the war.
It almost looks as if Trump is trying to wave the peace card to keep a lid on oil futures and financial marketsjust long enough to have ground troops in position — and just in time for the markets to close for the weekend on Friday, when Trump’s “pause” on bombing Iranian power plants is set to end.
That could be the plan Trump now settles on, weeks into a deadly war where there was obviously, very clearly, no real plan at all.
Allison Detzel contributed.
Chris Hayes hosts “All In with Chris Hayes” at 8 p.m. ET Tuesday through Friday on MS NOW. He is the editor-at-large at The Nation. A former fellow at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics, Hayes was a Bernard Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation. His latest book is “The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource” (Penguin Press).
The Dictatorship
Jury finds Meta and YouTube liable in landmark social media trial, awards $6 million
A California state jury found Meta and YouTube liable in a landmark social media case on Wednesday, awarding $3 million in compensatory damages to a plaintiff who brought the case and putting the Instagram maker’s liability at 70% and the Google company’s at 30%.
The jurors later decided to award a total of $3 million in punitive damages, with Meta to pay $2.1 million and YouTube $900,000. The verdict was reached on the jury’s ninth day of deliberation.
A 2023 complaint accused social media companies of fueling an unprecedented mental health crisis for American children through “addictive and dangerous” products. Plaintiffs accused the companies of deliberately tweaking their products to exploit kids’ undeveloped brains to “create compulsive use of their apps.”
The civil case was brought by several plaintiffs against several companies, but this state court trial, which featured testimonyfrom Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, involved a plaintiff described by her initials as “K.G.M.” in court papers against Instagram and YouTube.
In the 2023 complaint, K.G.M. said she was a 17-year-old in California who started using social media at a much younger age, though her mother told her not to and used third-party software to try to prevent the daughter’s social media use. The complaint alleged that the corporate defendants designed their products in ways that let kids evade parental controls and that the companies knew, or should’ve known, that K.G.M. was a minor.
The plaintiff alleged that Instagram’s and other companies’ addictive designs led her to develop “a compulsion to engage with those products nonstop” and to see “harmful and depressive content, urging K.G.M. to commit acts of self-harm, as well as harmful social comparison and body image.”
She alleged that she suffered bullying, depression, anxiety and body dysmorphia through Instagram and that Meta did nothing in response to a report about it. “Meta allowed the predatory user to continue harming minor Plaintiff K.G.M., including through the use of explicit images of a minor child,” the complaint said, adding that the company’s “defective reporting mechanisms and/or deliberate failure to act caused emotional and mental health harms to K.G.M. in addition to and separate from any third-party conduct.”
The companies, which have denied wrongdoingsaid Wednesday that they plan to appeal.
Jillian Frankel contributed from Los Angeles.
Subscribe to theDeadline: Legal Newsletterfor expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
The Dictatorship
Democrat vows to turn ‘Epstein files into Epstein trials’ after release of new depositions
The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday released hours of deposition footage from its interviews with two former close associates of Jeffrey Epsteinattorney Darren Indyke and accountant Richard Kahn. Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M., a member of the committee, joined “The Weeknight” to discuss the interviews and the efforts to hold any accomplices of the late sex offender accountable.
“What is remarkable is that even in death, his closest associates and co-conspirators are still covering for him,” Stansbury said.
During their depositions, both Indyke and Kahn insisted they had no knowledge of Epstein’s illegal behavior. The New Mexico Democrat cast doubt on those claims, taking particular issue with Indyke’s testimony, during which she said it was possible that Epstein’s former attorney may have “perjured himself.”
“He claimed that he had no knowledge of all of these nefarious activities, and yet he literally has spent decades of his life at the center of this controversy,” she said. “I’m sorry, I’m not buying it.”
Stansbury told MS NOW she believed it was important for the public to understand that both Indyke and Kahn “stand to make tens of millions of dollars off of their execution” of Epstein’s will. She added that “the way the will is structured, there is a survivor fund, and at the end of that, they get to basically keep whatever is left over.”
“We don’t know what was written into whatever contracts, but it’s clear that they have a financial interest,” she said.
Stansbury said the pair’s depositions should be part of a greater effort from lawmakers and law enforcement across the country to pursue accountability for Epstein’s victims, even after his death. She highlighted how her home state, New Mexico, was doing just that.
“That is why we are going to continue to seek justice in this case, and it’s why in New Mexico, not only did we pass a truth commission, but one of the updates that we want to tell people about is that we plan to pursue convictions against individuals who were implicated in these crimes who were not prosecuted by the federal government,” she said. “We want to turn these Epstein files into Epstein trials — and that’s exactly what we plan to do.”
You can watch Stansbury’s full interview in the clip at the top of the page.
Allison Detzel is an editor/producer for MS NOW. She was previously a segment producer for “AYMAN” and “The Mehdi Hasan Show.”
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics11 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’





