Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Musk retweet:
But why is there even an argument? If this was just about the scope of injunctions, it could be resolved in orderly course. There's no reason SCOTUS even has to humor the president. The relief being asked for is supposedly "extraordinary." So why not let the order stand? That they are scheduling argument tells me they have something bigger planned.Supreme Court to hear arguments over Trump's bid to partially enforce birthright citizenship executive order
![]()
Supreme Court to hear arguments over Trump's bid to partially enforce birthright citizenship executive order
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on May 15 on a Trump administration request to partially enforce the president's executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship.www.cbsnews.com
“The Supreme Court on Thursday said that it will hear oral arguments next month over whether the Trump administration can partially enforce an executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship while proceedings in a challenge to the directive move forward.
The court said in an unsigned order that arguments on the Justice Department's request for emergency relief will take place during a special sitting on May 15. The administration has asked the Supreme Court to limit the scope of three separate injunctions that blocked implementation of President Trump's order nationwide. …”
——
Maybe, just maybe, not exactly rushing the argument is a bad sign for the Trump Admin … but obviously don’t trust SCOTUS on anything at this point.
I agree, just resorting to wishful thinking as a defense mechanism, I guess.But why is there even an argument? If this was just about the scope of injunctions, it could be resolved in orderly course. There's no reason SCOTUS even has to humor the president. The relief being asked for is supposedly "extraordinary." So why not let the order stand? That they are scheduling argument tells me they have something bigger planned.
It's possible that the liberals voted for this because they want a test case for a national injunction rule to feature something by the executive branch that is maliciously wrong and clearly illegal, so we are reminded that the issue isn't so simple. For every injunction-abusing judge like in Texas, there are also nationwide injunctions that pretty much have to enter for the law to work. We can't have every pregnant mom having to rush to court to get an injunction instructing the government to give her baby an SSN.
But on balance, this news disheartens me.
THE LAW is obviously a Liberal Hoax.
Sure. But then what? Do you think Trump is going to jail them?Is there any world in which the judge can find some combination of Rubio , Bondi and NOEM in contempt of Court
Agree. It would be an interesting developmentSure. But then what? Do you think Trump is going to jail them?