Breaking Down the Supreme Court's Busy Week! The good, the bad, and the ugly.

The Court makes "birthright citizenship" way too broad; but it allows states to protects girls' sports; and more--a look at the Supremes' bombshells of the week.

The UGLY: In a controversial ruling that will negatively affect this country for generations to come, the Supreme Court upheld an extremely broad definition of birthright citizenship that as Justice Thomas explains, completely devalues American citizenship. The GOOD: At the same time the Supreme Court is under immense criticism for that ruling, it did something right by protecting girls’ sports from the inclusion of biological male athletes; and, it gave the President clear authority to terminate employees in the Executive Branch, except (the bad) Federal Reserve.

As July 4^th approaches, check out our America250 sale at DefendingtheRepublic.org. Everything is 50% off. LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice is on sale for only $4.99. These are high-quality paperbacks using the same paper and print as the hardbacks. Hardbacks are sold-out. Rush Limbaugh recommended this book repeatedly. Get yours now—and they make great gifts too.

Source: Allison Roberts

Supreme Court destroys American citizenship.

An extremely broad view of “birthright citizenship” is here to stay—for likely way too long. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States.

Justice Roberts was joined in his opinion by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson. (Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the Court’s constitutional reasoning.)

At issue in the case before the Supreme Court were challenges to President Trump’s 2025 Executive Order that declared citizenship would not be automatically extended to children born of illegal immigrants or those born to women holding lawful temporary visas. This Executive Order relied on a common-sense understanding of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” More specifically, the Executive Order observed that those children born of unlawful residents or temporary visitors are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United Sates.

The Supreme Court rejected that reasoning (and the arguments of the dissenting Justices), concluding that a person is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the government of the country in which he is physically present, even if that presence is temporary and even if the parents decide to raise that child in another country.

The dissenting opinions of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (as well as that of Justice Gorsuch and the concurring opinion of Justice Kavanaugh) are powerful reads that demonstrate birthright citizenship without reasonable restraints is contrary to this Nation’s history. Justice Thomas noted that the majority opinion was “not historically accurate” and based on thin reasoning. He supported those conclusions by a thorough review of historic quotes that denied universal birthright citizenship.

And on the issue of the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” Justice Alito observed:

“the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on a person who is born in this country or naturalized only if that person is also ‘not subject to any foreign power.’”

There is no doubt that, as Justice Alito predicted, this decision “will seriously affect the country’s future.” The Supreme Court’s result-driven opinion (in our opinion) makes it extremely difficult to remedy the egregious abuses we have been suffering—including anchor babies, and outrageous profits by criminals through human trafficking and birth tourism.

In response, the Trump Administration should severely restrict illegal immigration, prosecute birth tourism fraud, and deny admission or long visas to foreigners who are pregnant. IRS should also look into taxing “American citizens” (anchor babies or others) wherever they are living abroad, rack up the interest and penalties, or require them to renounce their “American citizenship” after paying what they owe.

Source: Getty Images

States Can Exclude Male athletes from girls’ sports!!

In recent years, this country has seen a dramatic increase in the number of biological males that “identify as females” and participate in girls’ sports—rendering girls’ sports both unfair and a farce. Predictably, this has led to male athletes dominating high school girls’ sports – at the expense of the girls who only want a level playing field.

Due to these developments, 27 States have enacted laws that restrict girls’ sports for biological females. Biological males who wanted to play on the girls’ team challenged those laws, alleging they violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In an opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court held that under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, schools may “determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex.” Justice Kavanaugh noted that “Title IX regulations allowed separated sports teams precisely because of the biological differences between the sexes.” These regulations recognized inherent physical differences “as well as the safety and competitive fairness concerns that would arise if males were allowed to compete in female sports.”

The Court also held that laws that maintained the integrity of girls’ sports were substantially related to the States’ interests of “safety and competitive fairness,” as male participation would put girls at “significant risk” of potential severe injuries and puts girls at a competitive disadvantage.

Source: Getty Images

Other Supreme Court cases of note.

This has been a significant term for the Supreme Court – below are quick summaries of some of the most notable recent cases:

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Committee. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Election Campaign Act’s limits on political parties’ coordinated expenditures violates the First Amendment. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented.

Watson v. Republican National Committee. In the bad news for the election integrity department, Justice Barrett delivered an opinion holding that Mississippi (and essentially any other state) can count “absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days later.” Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh dissented. The dissenters thought that Election Day meant Election Day—silly them.

Trump v. Cook. This case involved President Trump’s firing (for cause) of Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors over allegations of mortgage fraud and the falsification of bank documents. The Supreme Court held that President Trump “failed to afford Cook the procedural protections she was entitled by statute” – specifically notice of the allegations and an opportunity to respond prior to her termination. The opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett dissented.

There are lots of problems with this decision, not to mention the Court seems to contradict itself as it just held the same day that the President can fire whoever he wants in the Executive Branch.

Mullin v. Doe. In an opinion written by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-1083_f204.pdf held that aliens holding Temporary Protected Status from Syria and Haiti are not entitled to keep that status pending litigation. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented. Goodbye Syrians and Haitians.