Jamie Raskin

And the Reagan judge said, in his four decades on the bench, he never had an easier case than this, because Donald Trump was attempting to, by executive order, repudiate the first sentence of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which says, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.

And the Reagan judge said, in his four decades on the bench, he never had an easier case than this, because Donald Trump was attempting to, by executive order, repudiate the first sentence of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which says, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.

It's just an open and shut case, which isn't to say that lawyers cannot, you know, convoke and conjure up, you know, all kinds of figments of their imagination. And undoubtedly, you know, Thomas and Alito will fall for that. But I hope The vast majority of the court will stand by precedent going back to 1868 when the amendment was passed.

It's just an open and shut case, which isn't to say that lawyers cannot, you know, convoke and conjure up, you know, all kinds of figments of their imagination. And undoubtedly, you know, Thomas and Alito will fall for that. But I hope The vast majority of the court will stand by precedent going back to 1868 when the amendment was passed.

It's just an open and shut case, which isn't to say that lawyers cannot, you know, convoke and conjure up, you know, all kinds of figments of their imagination. And undoubtedly, you know, Thomas and Alito will fall for that. But I hope The vast majority of the court will stand by precedent going back to 1868 when the amendment was passed.

And the first challenge to that was 30 years later in 1898 in the Wong Kim Sum case. And the Supreme Court again emphatically said everybody born here is a citizen of the United States. They were rejecting the Dred Scott definition of racial citizenship. in the country, which was that it's hereditary by virtue of race, as opposed to hereditary by virtue of being born in the country.

And the first challenge to that was 30 years later in 1898 in the Wong Kim Sum case. And the Supreme Court again emphatically said everybody born here is a citizen of the United States. They were rejecting the Dred Scott definition of racial citizenship. in the country, which was that it's hereditary by virtue of race, as opposed to hereditary by virtue of being born in the country.

And the first challenge to that was 30 years later in 1898 in the Wong Kim Sum case. And the Supreme Court again emphatically said everybody born here is a citizen of the United States. They were rejecting the Dred Scott definition of racial citizenship. in the country, which was that it's hereditary by virtue of race, as opposed to hereditary by virtue of being born in the country.

But that was the new vision adopted by the radical Republicans. Everybody fought on the union side in the Civil War and by the Supreme Court ever since.

But that was the new vision adopted by the radical Republicans. Everybody fought on the union side in the Civil War and by the Supreme Court ever since.

But that was the new vision adopted by the radical Republicans. Everybody fought on the union side in the Civil War and by the Supreme Court ever since.

Well, when the merits appear to be hopeless for Donald Trump—and remember, Jen, he's lost 156 preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders since this whole nightmare began. The federal courts are acting with a lot of muscle and determination to shut down this reign of lawlessness and authoritarianism.

Well, when the merits appear to be hopeless for Donald Trump—and remember, Jen, he's lost 156 preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders since this whole nightmare began. The federal courts are acting with a lot of muscle and determination to shut down this reign of lawlessness and authoritarianism.

Well, when the merits appear to be hopeless for Donald Trump—and remember, Jen, he's lost 156 preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders since this whole nightmare began. The federal courts are acting with a lot of muscle and determination to shut down this reign of lawlessness and authoritarianism.

What the conservatives are doing to try to avoid another loss on the merits, which is obvious here, is to find some procedural off-ramp that they can take to avoid that outcome.

What the conservatives are doing to try to avoid another loss on the merits, which is obvious here, is to find some procedural off-ramp that they can take to avoid that outcome.

What the conservatives are doing to try to avoid another loss on the merits, which is obvious here, is to find some procedural off-ramp that they can take to avoid that outcome.

And here they, I think, are hoping to deliver a mini-victory to Donald Trump by saying they're going to wipe out nationwide injunctions by federal district courts, which would be a completely absurd and inefficient thing to do. It's like saying, You know, everybody who's suing about race segregation in the courts has got to go to court him or herself.

And here they, I think, are hoping to deliver a mini-victory to Donald Trump by saying they're going to wipe out nationwide injunctions by federal district courts, which would be a completely absurd and inefficient thing to do. It's like saying, You know, everybody who's suing about race segregation in the courts has got to go to court him or herself.

And here they, I think, are hoping to deliver a mini-victory to Donald Trump by saying they're going to wipe out nationwide injunctions by federal district courts, which would be a completely absurd and inefficient thing to do. It's like saying, You know, everybody who's suing about race segregation in the courts has got to go to court him or herself.