Rewire News Group

@rewirenewsgroup.com

40.0Kfollowers

2.2Kfollowing

875posts

Expert repro journalism that inspires. Home of @AngryBlackLady.bsky.social Chronicles, @Hegemommy.bsky.social, #BoomLawyered and The Fallout 📧 https://linkin.bio/rewirenewsgroup

Profile Insights

Activity level

1.1 posts/day

Post popularity

Medium

Joined Bluesky

July 2023

Most popular posts

Rewire News Group ·Jun 18

Breaking: The Trevor Project received a stop-work order last night on its contract with the national 988 suicide prevention hotline. The Trump administration is eliminating the option for LGBTQ callers to the hotline to press 3 and connect with someone who specializes in LGBTQ mental health.

256

4.4K

8.0K

Rewire News Group ·Jul 16

He wants Mexican Coke but won't admit it lmao

153

1.0K

Rewire News Group ·Jun 27

6-3 in favor of Trump in the birthright citizenship case— which at this stage was only about about nationwide injunctions. But Sotomayor brings it back to what this is really about—letting Trump get away with lawlessness. Her dissent is another banger which she is reading from the bench:

Screenshot readin:
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and
JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.
Children born in the United States and subject to its laws are United States citizens. That has been the legal rule since the founding, and it was the English rule well before then. This Court once attempted to repudiate it, holding in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), that the children of enslaved black Americans were not citizens.
To
remedy that grievous error, the States passed in 1866 and Congress ratified in 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which enshrined birthright citizenship in

Screenshot reading:

the Constitution. There it has remained, accepted and respected by Congress, by the Executive, and by this Court.
Until today.
It is now the President who attempts, in an Executive Order (Order or Citizenship Order), to repudiate birthright citizenship. Every court to evaluate the Order has deemed it patently unconstitutional and, for that reason, has enjoined the Federal Government from enforcing it. Unde-terred, the Government now asks this Court to grant emergency relief, insisting it will suffer irreparable harm unless it can deprive at least some children born in the United States of citizenship.
See Protecting the Meaning and
Value of American Citizenship, Exec. Order No. 14160, 90
Fed. Reg. 8849 (2025).
The Government does not ask for complete stays of the injunctions, as it ordinarily does before this Court. Why?
The answer is obvious: To get such relief, the Government would have to show that the Order is likely constitutional, an impossible task in light of the Constitution's text, his-tory, this Court's precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice. So the Government instead tries its hand at a different game. It asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone. Instead, the Government says, it should be able to apply the Citizenship Order (whose legality it does not defend) to everyone except the plaintiffs who filed this lawsuit.
The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along. A majority of this Court decides that these applications, of all cases, provide the appropriate occasion to resolve the question of universal injunctions and end the centuries-old practice once and for all. In its rush to do so the Court disregards basic principles of equity as well as the long history of injunctive relief granted to non-partes
55 of 11

Screenshot with highlighted text reading:

No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.
Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.
That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit.
Because I will not be complicit in so grave an at-
tack on our system of law, I dissent.

251

716

View all posts on Bluesky

Menu

Rewire News Group

You might also like

Most popular posts