Lawfare

The Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship ruling today was a full-throated constitutional endorsement that the children of mothers here illegally or temporarily are “citizens at birth.”

No doubts there.

It was conventional wisdom that birthright citizenship would be upheld, but what was so shocking is that it was done on the backs of the three liberal members of the court who stuck together while the so-called conservatives splintered in numerous directions. So on the core constitutional endorsement, it was 5-4 with the majority being the three liberals (Sotomayor, Kagan, KBJ) plus CJ Roberts and Barrett. (Kavanaugh would have found the Trump EO invalid because it conflicted with an immigration statute, but he rejected the constitutional holding.)

Think about it. The three liberals prevailed on ideological core of the single biggest case of this term, one that defines who were are as a nation and whether we have sovereignty or are at the mercy of people who sneak across the border, overstay visas, or are here as birthright tourists.

“Disheartening” and “demoralizing” is how I described it in an appearance on the Tony Katz live stream today, but perhaps “infuriating” would be a better term.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to stop a lower court’s order blocking President Trump from removing a leading Library of Congress official on Tuesday.

The announcement came in the high court’s latest order list, in which the justices denied the Trump administration’s application to stay (“pause”) a September ruling by a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision sought to block the government from firing Shira Perlmutter, who led the U.S. Copyright Office in the Library of Congress until her termination in May.

As The Federalist previously reported, “Perlmutter’s dismissal came shortly after Trump removed Obama-appointed Carla Hayden as Librarian of Congress. Hayden has been replaced by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who is filling the position on an ‘acting’ basis.”

The justices did not provide a reason for the decision. They did, however, note that the denial of the administration’s request “is not a ruling on the merits of the legal issues presented in the litigation.”

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore displays and interpretive materials removed from National Park sites as part of an effort to eliminate controversial diversity, equity and inclusion-related content.

US District Judge Angel Kelley ruled Friday that the administration must reinstall exhibits and displays that were removed following an executive order issued by President Donald Trump last year. The order directed federal agencies to eliminate content deemed to inappropriately disparage Americans and to remove divisive interpretations of U.S. history.

The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of park advocacy organizations that accused the Interior Department and National Park Service of attempting to “erase history and undermine science” by removing exhibits from parks across the country.

In a 63-page decision, Kelley concluded that the administration’s actions amounted to censorship and threatened the credibility of the National Park System.

“The Government’s stewardship of these park sites thus carries a responsibility to present history in full rather than in favored fragments. Unfortunately, the Government has disregarded these principles,” Kelley wrote.

The Kennedy Center’s board of trustees voted Thursday to challenge a federal judge’s order requiring President Donald Trump’s name to be removed from the performing arts center.

According to court filings, the board formally appealed US District Judge Christopher Cooper’s ruling just before the court-imposed deadline for removing Trump’s name from the building and related materials.

Earlier Thursday, the board also voted to seek a stay of Cooper’s order, according to two individuals familiar with the meeting who spoke to The Washington Post.

The Federal Judicial Center (FJC) has had its fair share of controversies throughout the past year.

The taxpayer-funded agency was caught stuffing citations to left-wing climate activists into its most recent Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, which offers guidance to federal judges on science-related cases. Subsequent Federalist investigations also revealed the radical left-wing partisanship of the authors tasked with writing manual’s climate and forensics sections.

The FJC is intended to serve as the unbiased educational and research arm of the judiciary. Although it doesn’t have any “policy-making or enforcement authority,” these findings have raised concerns about its objectivity and central role in providing “accurate, objective information and education” to judges across America’s federal court system.

A federal judge struck down a Trump administration immigration policy that tightened requirements for immigrants from dozens of countries seeking to enter or remain in the United States.

District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. invalidated the policy in a sharply worded ruling that accused US Citizenship and Immigration Services of exceeding its legal authority and failing to follow required administrative procedures.

The policy was enacted after the shooting of two National Guard members and affected immigrants from 39 countries.

In his ruling, McConnell argued that the administration’s actions left immigrants facing uncertainty about their legal status and failed to comply with federal law.