by Julio Ricardo Varela | Jul 28, 2026 | Civil Rights, Opinion, Supreme Court, World
At the end of June, President Donald Trump and his MAGA allies lost — for now — the Supreme Court fight over birthright citizenship. Vice President JD Vance said MAGA needed to keep fighting birthright citizenship after the ruling in Trump v. Barbara, but it’s set its sights on a different nativist victory, this time relying on a set of racist laws the high court approved back at the start of the 20th century.
Just two weeks after the ruling on June 30 didn’t go MAGA’s way, Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., introduced H.R. 9724, the End Birthright Citizenship for Territories Act. The bill would deny children born on or after Jan. 1, 2027, in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands automatic citizenship unless at least one parent is already a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident. Griffith calls it a crackdown on “birth tourism,” and the bill doesn’t hide where its legal authority comes from.“The application under the Barbara case of birthright citizenship in the U.S. territories differs from what is established in the 50 U.S. States according to Supreme Court cases,” Griffith noted in a July 16 e-newsletter about the bill. “The birthright discrepancy between the territories and the States dates to legal cases beginning in the early 20th century known as the Insular Cases.”
Those Insular Cases are generally considered so racist that even Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch called them “shameful” back in 2022.
No matter how many times this country calls me a U.S. citizen, Washington still isn’t sure what to do with the place where I was born.
For those unfamiliar with the
by Laurel Elder | Jul 24, 2026 | 2026 midterms, Abortion, Abortion Access, abortion bans, abortion rights, Dobbs v. Jackson, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization, elections, midterms, News Analysis, Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court
It’s been four years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the federal constitutional right to abortion. In the immediate aftermath of the decision, national attention centered on implementation of state bans and a rapidly shifting legal landscape. But four years later, one of the most impactful developments has…
Source
by Amy Goodman | Jul 24, 2026 | Austerity, birth tourism, Birthright Citizenship, Discrimination, immigration, Interview, PROMESA, Puerto Rico, Supreme Court, US Territories
After failing to overturn birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court, Republican legislators are turning to new tactics to disenfranchise people born on U.S. soil. Their latest targets are those born to noncitizen or permanent resident parents in U.S. territories like Puerto Rico, where the Supreme Court has said citizenship is granted by statute and full constitutional protections do not apply.
Source
by Jordan Rubin | Jul 24, 2026 | Deadline: Legal Blog, Supreme Court
President Donald Trump has been trying to get E. Jean Carroll to return the $5 million (plus interest) that she finally received this month from the case in which a jury found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation. Trump argued for clawing back the funds because he has a pending rehearing petition at the Supreme Court, where he’s again trying to convince the justices to take up his appeal in the case that resulted in that jury award.
After the justices declined to review his initial petition in June, the federal judge in New York who presided over the case ordered the funds released to Carroll earlier this month. Trump’s attempt to halt the judge’s order is pending in a federal appeals court.
But the Supreme Court just signaled that it could soon issue an order that brings a truly final resolution to the matter.
The Supreme Court docket shows that, on Thursday, the court “distributed” Trump’s rehearing petition to the justices, which is a routine step before they decide whether to grant or deny review. Though the court is on a summer recess before the next term starts in October, the justices publish order lists over the summer that mainly contain petition denials. They issued such a list earlier this week.
According to the court calendar, the next list is scheduled for release on Aug. 17, so we could see action on Trump’s rehearing petition then.
That action would most likely be a denial.
As the trial judge noted in his July 8 ruling rejecting further delay, successful Supreme Court rehearing petitions are “rare birds.” On that note, Carroll’s lawyers said that, as far
by Jordan Rubin | Jul 20, 2026 | Deadline: Legal Blog, Supreme Court
“Is a personal nuclear weapon protected by the Second Amendment?” – Rebecca Klemm
Hi Rebecca,
No.
Although the Supreme Court has increasingly recognized Second Amendment rights over the past two decades, that trend is unlikely to produce a right to possess personal nuclear weapons.
To understand why, let’s look at how the court evaluates Second Amendment claims these days.
Start with the amendment’s text, which says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Despite the militia reference, the court said in 2008 that people have a personal right to possess firearms at home for self-defense, unrelated to militia service. Yet that 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller also emphasized that the right is not unlimited. Rather, it applies to weapons in “common use” for lawful purposes and doesn’t apply to “dangerous and unusual” weapons. The type of firearm at issue in the Heller case was a handgun, which the court called “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.”
In 2022, with the current six-justice majority in place, the court expanded on Heller in the Bruen case by approving a right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. The court also announced a new, two-part test for deciding whether a gun law violates the Second Amendment. Step one of the Bruen test asks whether the amendment covers the conduct that the law seeks to regulate. If it does, then under step two, the law can’t stand unless it’s “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The test has
by Danny Katch | Jul 15, 2026 | American Bar Association, Discrimination, Diversity, Heritage Foundation, law school, News Analysis, Project 2025, Racial Justice, Right Wing, Supreme Court, Trump Administration
Racial justice organizers in the legal profession are gearing up for an American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates meeting this August that will decide whether the ABA will officially drop its commitment to promoting diversity in law schools — and reversing the longstanding exclusion of women and people of color from the legal profession. “We’re trying to put pressure on the House of…
Source
