The Dictatorship

What today’s rare Supreme Court hearing about birthright citizenship is really about

Published

1 year ago

May 15, 2025

What today’s rare Supreme Court hearing about birthright citizenship is really about

“Blatantly unconstitutional.” That’s what U.S. District Judge John Coughenour called President Donald Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship earlier this year.

“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one,” the Reagan appointee said in blocking Trump’s executive order. Other judges around the country followed suit.

And yet, the Supreme Court granted a rare hearing on the subject for Thursday.

But the court isn’t taking Trump’s order head-on. The administration didn’t ask it to.

Rather, while litigation against the order proceeds in the lower courts, the federal government filed emergency applications to the justices, asking them to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions blocking Trump’s order in three cases. Instead of deciding, as it usually does, whether to grant emergency relief based on the court papers alone, the court set Thursday’s hearing for after the term’s normally scheduled arguments wrapped up last month.

The government’s main complaint in this appeal, which combines all three casesisn’t that Trump’s order is actually legal — though it will argue that, too, if pressed — but that Coughenour in Washington state and his judicial colleagues in Maryland and Massachusetts overstepped in granting nationwide relief.

The bid therefore doesn’t fully hinge on the underlying legality of Trump’s order — which makes sense from the administration’s strategic perspective, given the whole “blatantly unconstitutional” thing. Indeed, while noting that the cases “raise important constitutional questions,” the government cast its request as a “modest” one: for the justices to limit the injunctions to the parties who brought the lawsuits.

Thus, rather than crouching in a defensive posture and justifying its illegal order outright, the administration went on offense, casting itself as the victim of wayward judges unduly encroaching on executive prerogatives. That’s been a theme for the administration across all sorts of cases in Trump’s second term.

That lays the groundwork for the court to side with the government without explicitly blessing Trump’s order, while simultaneously letting him enforce it (or try to enforce it) against people who aren’t party to these suits, which were brought by states, immigrants’ rights groups and pregnant women. So even though the government’s application isn’t about birthright citizenship per sethe potential chaos looming behind the “modest” request — and the court’s willingness to entertain it — can’t be ignored.

Chaos across the country

“Permitting the Executive Order to go into effect would cause chaos across the country for expecting parents, no matter their immigration status,” argued a brief from the immigrants’ rights groups and pregnant women. They said that a birth certificate, long considered adequate proof of citizenship, would no longer suffice if Trump’s order takes effect.

“The Court should not exercise its equitable powers to reach such an inequitable result, especially when the government does not claim in its application that the policy it seeks to enforce complies with the Constitution,” they urged the justices. They said that if the order takes effect only in some places and only applies to some people, then “U.S.-born children will be denied their constitutionally guaranteed United States citizenship based on whether their parents or their state is involved in this or another lawsuit.”

Contrary to the long-held understanding and practiceof automatic citizenship for people born in the U.S., Trump’s ordersaid citizenship wouldn’t automatically extend to certain children born to noncitizen parents. Specifically, the order would apply:

(1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary . . . and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Nationwide injunctions have long drawn complaints from justices in cases having nothing to do with birthright citizenship. The high court could use this case to give new guidance to lower courts about when it’s appropriate to grant universal relief. Such guidance could have implications for Trump’s second term in all manner of cases, where judges have found all manner of illegalities in his executive actions. It could also have implications going forward in future administrations.

But there was no need for the justices to take up the injunction issue in this context, involving a matter long believed to be settled. Of course, if a majority of the Supreme Court thinks Trump’s underlying order is lawful, then that’s a bigger problem. But if the court doesn’t think so and is interested purely in the injunction issue, then it could’ve picked a different context in which to analyze it, as opposed to this issue in which there are good reasons for nationwide uniformity. The mere consideration of birthright citizenship in this context raises needless anxiety for those potentially affected.

The hearing should illuminate what the justices are thinking, and perhaps different justices are interested in different aspects of the appeal. But we should have a ruling relatively soon. The court typically decides the term’s cases by July or shortly into July. This rare May hearing, shoehorned into the term, suggests the justices intend to rule by that typical July time frame, if not sooner.

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

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 BLN, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

The Dictatorship

Trump says pilots are fine after U.S. helicopter crashes near Strait of Hormuz

Published

2 hours ago

June 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump says pilots are fine after U.S. helicopter crashes near Strait of Hormuz

Jun. 9, 2026, 1:19 AM EDT

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — A U.S. Army Apache attack helicopter crashed near the Strait of Hormuz, with President Donald Trump saying the two crew members abroad were “fine” after the incident involving the strategic waterway, which remains under a chokehold by Iran.

What caused the crash remained unclear Tuesday morning in the Middle East, which was still reeling after Iran and Israel exchanged fire the previous day in the biggest blow yet to the straining ceasefire in the Iran war. Iranian state media, relying on foreign reporting, acknowledged the crash without elaborating.

Since the U.S. and Israel began striking Iran on Feb. 28, the war has shaken the global economydriven up energy prices around the world and made many basics, including foodmore expensive. Officials have been unable to turn the April ceasefireinto a deal to permanently end the conflict.

Trump, speaking to journalists at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York after watching the NBA Finals on Monday night, acknowledged the crash.

“The pilots are fine. Yeah,” Trump said. “Nobody injured. We are going to issue a report tomorrow. But the pilots are fine.”

The New York Times first reported that a U.S. Army Apache attack helicopter went down near the strait in unclear circumstances. The U.S. military’s Central Command and the Defense Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Associated Press.

Apache helicopters have been a key asset for the American military as it enforces a blockade on Iranian crude oil shipments and tankers, seeking to pressure Tehran into reaching a deal. The helicopters also have been used by the United Arab Emirates to shoot down Iranian drones during the Iran war.

Trump insists an Iran deal is coming

Trump also expressed renewed optimism over negotiations with Iran.

“We have a good chance” of signing a deal in “two or three days,” Trump said. But he didn’t provide any details on why there was reason for new optimism.

“We’re very close to having a very, very good, strong, powerful deal,” the president said. “If we go and bomb — which we could do very easily if we want, and we spend another two or three weeks bombing — they’ll have nothing left whatsoever. But you won’t have the strait open for months.”

He added: “If we do the bombing, you know, a lot of people are going to be killed. Who wants to do that? I don’t.”

Mediators, led predominantly by Pakistan, have been trying to weeks to get a deal across the line. However, both Iran and the U.S. have taken hard-line positions.

The U.S. wants to see Iran give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, which is believed still to be entombed in the country after American airstrikes in the 12-day war in 2025. But Iran is refusing that and demanding relief from sanctions. It also wants the release of frozen assets even before a final agreement is in place, something rejected by Trump.

The Dictatorship

Trump says ‘not possible’ for Pratt to fall short in ‘rigged’ LA mayor’s race. He’s wrong.

Published

2 hours ago

June 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump says ‘not possible’ for Pratt to fall short in ‘rigged’ LA mayor’s race. He’s wrong.

Jun. 8, 2026, 9:15 PM EDT

UPDATE (June 8, 2026, 9:25 p.m. ET): Los Angeles Council member Nithya Raman will advance to the November general election in the mayoral race to face the incumbent, Karen Bass, after overtaking ex-reality TV star Spencer Pratt in the primary, The Associated Press projects.

President Donald Trump and some of his top allies are repeating a familiar but false refrain: An election is “rigged,” as evidenced by their preferred candidate’s poor performance.

This time, their focus is on ex-reality TV star and Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt.

On the night of the Tuesday primary, Pratt maintained a 9-point lead over his closest challenger, LA Council member Nithya Raman, leading his supporters to believe he would proceed to the November runoff against incumbent Mayor Karen Bass. But as mail-in ballots trickled in throughout the week, Pratt’s lead over Raman steadily narrowed, and by Sunday night, she had overtaken him by less than 1 point, with more than 80% of votes counted, according to The Associated Press. (The AP has not yet projected the second-place finisher to proceed to the runoff as of Monday afternoon.)

To Trump and his MAGA allies, a democratic socialist’s surge over a registered Republican with no political experience in a deep-blue city can only be indicative of one thing: fraud.

“No way this could have happened. Rigged Election!” Trump wrote on Truth Social early Monday morning.

A few hours later, Trump followed up with another Truth Social post.

“Not possible for Spencer Pratt to have lost the L.A. runoffs after the big lead he had. 3rd World Nation. Rigged Elections!” he wrote.

Far-right activist Laura Loomer, a close ally of the president, told her 1.9 million followers on X on Saturday that the election “is being stolen from [Pratt] in real time!”

Benny Johnson and Elon Musk have also reposted several right-wing accounts suggesting Raman’s rise must be the result of fraud. Meghan McCain, who is a conservative commentator but also a frequent Trump critic, also injected doubt into the election results.

But election experts are not surprised by Raman’s slow rise as vote counting continues.

Why California vote counting takes so long

A poll released by the University of California, Berkeley, and the Los Angeles Times in late May suggested Pratt and Raman would be competing neck-and-neck to proceed to the runoff, and several strategists long predicted Pratt — a registered Republican backed by MAGA — would face an uphill battle in the blue city.

The mechanics of how Angelenos’ votes are counted also explain Raman’s rise: California elections officials have 30 days from Election Day to come up with the vote count, and mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day and received up to seven days after the election are eligible to be counted. (If mail-in ballots are missing signatures or have signatures that do not match those on file, state law requires election officials to contact voters to verify their signatures, adding more time to the process.)

Results posted on election night are based on in-person ballots cast at voting locations, both on Election Day and before, as well as mail-in ballots received before Election Day, according to the California secretary of state’s office. Subsequent counts include votes cast by provisional ballots, ballots from voters who registered and voted on the same day and the mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within seven days of the election.

“This is not unusual,” Zev Yaroslavsky, director of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, told MS NOW on Monday regarding the shifting results in the race.

Yaroslavsky pointed to the 2022 LA primary, when Republican turned centrist Democrat Rick Caruso was ahead of Bass on primary night before she pulled ahead a week later. In the November runoff, Bass ultimately beat Caruso by nearly 10 points. Nearly 85% of voters also voted by mail in that primary, contributing to the delay in Bass’s rise.

“It’s clear, it has always been the case, that Republicans and more conservative voters vote early, [and] working people, more progressive people vote late,” Yaroslavsky said.

And with more votes still to be counted, Yaroslavsky predicted Raman’s lead over Pratt would expand even further.

‘No evidence’ of cheating

Dean Logan, LA County’s registrar-recorder and county clerk, told CNN on Sunday that officials have “no evidence or examples” of cheating in the mayoral race.

“I think what we’re seeing, unfortunately, is carrying out of a narrative that has become the game play in national politics in the United States, and that is prior to the vote count being completed, take shots at the process, so if the outcome turns out different than what you want, you don’t accept that, you challenge the process,” Logan said.

Yaroslavsky agreed, telling MS NOW, “What the president is basically saying is, ‘When I win, it’s legit, when I don’t win, it’s fraud.’ That’s not the way it works.”

Logan told BLN the outcome would be clear within “days,” adding, “I know it’s frustrating, but this is really about making sure that every eligible ballot in this election is counted and counted correctly.”

In the meantime, other conspiracies are circulating, including some promoted by Pratt himself.

Pratt suggested on Sunday nightfor example, that the approximately 43,000 votes Raman gained between Tuesday and Sunday came from homeless people. In another social media post on Sunday, Pratt wrote: “They’re not the only ones who know where to find votes.”

Spokespeople for the Pratt campaign did not immediately respond to questions from MS NOW on Monday seeking clarification about the candidate’s claims.

Other conservative influencers have also falsely said Raman “conceded” the race at her primary night rally. But as MS NOW covered in real timeRaman did not concede the race. Instead, she warned her supporters that it would take time for the votes to be counted and that they may not get a favorable outcome.

“Tonight may not give us a final answer on this race. Many thousands of votes will be counted in the days ahead, and we may not get an answer we like,” she said.

In a statement provided to MS NOW on Monday, Raman said, “We are encouraged by the latest vote count and remain grateful to the thousands of Angelenos who have powered this campaign.”

Julianne McShane is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW who also covers the politics of abortion and reproductive rights. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at jmcshane.19 or follow her on X or Bluesky.

The Dictatorship

Lawsuit seeks to stop the UFC fight on the White House South Lawn for Trump’s birthday

Published

6 hours ago

June 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Lawsuit seeks to stop the UFC fight on the White House South Lawn for Trump’s birthday

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal lawsuit seeks to halt the upcoming UFC fight card on the White House South Lawn in a mixed martial arts show timed for President Donald Trump’s 80th birthday and part of the celebration of the nation’s 250th anniversary.

The filing Saturday by the Public Integrity Project on behalf of two Virginia residents contends the Trump administration’s authorization of the June 14 event was unlawful. The lawsuit says such approval violated National Park Service regulations prohibiting sporting events on federal parklands, Congress did not consent to the towering arch overlooking the event space and no environmental review was conducted before the construction.

“This is fundamentally a private, commercial, corrupt use of our most sacred national monuments for private gain,” said Brendan Ballou, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “And that is what is motivating this lawsuit.”

The White House said in a statement that the legal challenge was “an obstructionist, baseless, and dilatory” attempt to prevent Trump from hosting the fight and that the event was “no different than the various other White House-hosted events on the South Lawn and properly permitted events on the Ellipse and National Mall throughout the year.”

UFC did not immediately respond to a request for comment Sunday.

Crews are erecting an octagon-shaped cage on the South Lawn. Trump has said the finished UFC project will feature “a 5,000-seat arena right outside the front door of the White House.” Additional large screens broadcasting the fights will be set up in a park at the nearby Ellipse, and the UFC has said it plans to issue as many as 85,000 free tickets to accommodate spectators at both locations.

The octagon and surrounding structures are the latest project in the White House building boom Trump is leading.