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.
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
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.
In addition to threatening to bomb U.S. ally Oman and declaring that he doesn’t “care about the midterms,” President Donald Trump made a very different sort of surprise announcement at his Cabinet meeting Wednesday: “I think I’ll be going to one of the [NBA Finals] games.”
Specifically, the president said he had been invited by “numerous people,” including New York Knicks owner James Dolanto attend the team’s first finals home game since 1999, the same year Dolan took majority ownership over the franchise.
Although presidents have sporadically attended MLB’s World Series since the early 20th century, no president has appeared at the NBA finals — not even Barack Obama, who famously added a basketball court to the tennis grounds on the White House South Lawn. Trump would be the first to do so, just as he was the first sitting president to attend a Super Bowl in 2025.
The news has, unsurprisingly, provoked strong reactions — most of them missing the point.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul stepped on a metaphorical rake when she implied to reporters Thursday that Trump probably couldn’t name “the starting lineup of the 1993 Championship team” (the last Knicks title was in 1973). MAGA commentariat quickly seized the opportunity, mocking Hochul and amplifying a clip of Trump attending the Knicks’ Game 3 loss in the 1994 NBA Finals. Indeed, New York magazine found Trump has appeared in the “celebrity row” at Madison Square Garden numerous times over the decades, in keeping with his lifelong efforts at social climbing among the city’s elites.
But that’s all this is to Trump: A chance to be the ultimate celebrity in a room packed with them, at the Garden’s hottest ticket in decades.
To Knicks fans like myself, the team’s first Finals appearance in 27 years is a priceless and fleeting moment. It’s for us. To root happily after the mostly miserable decades of Dolan’s ownership, which The New York Times described as “so consistently and convincingly lifeless that perma-despair seemed utterly normal.” To wax nostalgic for the great Patrick Ewing-led teams of the 1990s, who came oh-so-close to hoisting the Larry O’Brien trophy during the decade when Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls won six titles. To allow ourselves to believe the impossible dream could happen: watching Jalen Brunson and his teammates parading down the Canyon of Heroes among cascading ticker tape in mid-June.
That’s all this is to Trump: A chance to be the ultimate celebrity in a room packed with them, at the Garden’s hottest ticket in decades.
And while there are surely Trump supporters among the Knickerbockers’ fanbase, I can’t imagine even they’re clamoring to see the president peacocking at the Garden. Knicks fans understand what a precious instant this is and why it should not be drawn into Trump’s toxic orbit for the time it takes to play one best-of-seven series.
The joy surrounding the Knicks’ improbable run has vibes in this city running so high that native New Yorkers in blue and orange are being friendly to one another and making idle chitchat on the streets. It’s weird.
Even The Ringer’s Bill Simmons — typically a New York sports team hater — has cheered on the Knicks’ run as an unambiguously feel-good story for the league and has seemed genuinely happy on his podcast about the giddiness and anticipation among New York’s long-suffering basketball die-hards.
New York City is historically a basketball town. It has produced a disproportionate number of Hall of Famers and a culture of street and playground basketball often emulated but never duplicated. And in a region with almost a dozen major professional sports franchises (some, like the Yankeesare passionately hated by millions of New Yorkers), the Knicks are the only team that unites pretty much everyone. (Sorry, Brooklyn Nets, it just never really caught on.)
Israel Daramola aptly elucidated loyal Knicks fans’ predicament in the Defector: “In between those various eras was a lot of executive mismanagement, beefs, suffering, the worst contracts you’ve ever seen, an arena that has showcased the powers of the surveillance stateand an owner who takes joy in being awful, because no one likes his blues band or whatever. All of which is to say: I know people find the Knicks annoying and New York City insufferable, but dammit, they deserve this moment.”
Win or lose, we know this feeling isn’t meant to last.
Is it too much to ask for the historically unpopular president — who regularly disparages this city, made a big show of departing it and will never forgive it because it never loved him back — to not divert the spotlight, just this one time?
It ultimately won’t change the results on the court either way, and a Secret Service-locked-down Madison Square Garden for one night won’t spoil the party. But the Trumpness in the air would be an unwelcome energy in an atmosphere in which even the most cynical New Yorkers have briefly become wide-eyed, joyful fanatics.
This doesn’t need to be a morality play. Just do us a solid and stay away, Florida Man.
Anthony L. Fisher is a senior editor and opinion columnist for MS NOW.
- ‘Holding our breath’: Hurricane season is here, and FEMA is shorthanded
- In Trump’s world, Asia increasingly faces China alone
- States balk at the high price of Medicaid work requirements amid budget crunch
- Trump to ‘kick off’ America’s 250th event after berating artists who backed out
- Trump’s doctor declares him ‘fully fit’ and blames ‘frequent handshaking’ for bruising
- Just let Knicks fans have this moment, Trump. Stay away.
- James Clyburn says Democrats are misreading their own base. Here’s his fix.
- Pam Bondi’s Epstein interview appears to have been an exercise in evading accountability
- Lead prosecutor steps away from Comey criminal case
- Zelensky expecting ‘big attacks’ from Russia soon
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words