Public sentiment is mixed but leans negative overall, reflecting both support for the Supreme Court's ruling as a potential step towards transparency and fairness, alongside significant skepticism about ongoing corruption, inefficiencies, and a perceived lack of accountability in government processes. Many commenters express frustration over systemic issues in governance and a feeling that meaningful change is yet to materialize, particularly affecting the marginalized.

Supreme Court

Chhattisgarh Government

Public Sector Employees

Jaded_Industry8396

addicted_to_books_

rakhiSuch-Pizza8080

Ok...so how you guys are preparing for gk part

ukd03

I filled the form when I was pursuing my 10th semester. I don't know whether I should prepare or not because anyways I am not a legit candidate.

thermas2002

Yes what are your doubts or concerns, kindly raise here. Happy to help.

Adept_Bluebird3717

The Supreme Court of 1857 ruled that enslaved or formerly enslaved people were not citizens, could not sue in federal courts, and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, further inflaming tensions over slavery and contributing to the start of the Civil War.

chirothesious

# Fourteenth Amendment - Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Juhkwan97

If SCOTUS takes this case up, they will be interpreting the meaning of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, full stop. They will not be limited to picking between the current (obviously correct) interpretation and Trump’s EO.

(Since I saw the deleted comment but couldn’t respond directly, I will add that I’m NOT making a prediction about what the Court will do in this case. What I think they SHOULD HAVE done is take up the merits of this case as quickly as possible and shut this nonsense down. They have opted not to do that.)

harlemjd

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Theodoric58

No more anchor babies. People will be pissed.

fuckjunta

First, if one parent is a permanent resident child will be a citizen even according to that executive order.

Second, scotus will not rule in favor of it

Easy_Language_3186

Elections have consequences.

Many Americans believe that only children of Americans and green card holders should be U.S. citizens if born in the U.S.

Many-Fudge2302

Send away your hungry your tired your poor. Pull the ladder up.

Weekly-Sun7992

You need to interpret the Constitution.  If a non-US pregnant woman enters US illegally, and gives birth in US... are you saying that the child becomes a US citizen?  Which means child's parents and 10 brothers and 10 sisters become US citizens too??   Use your brain!!

In law, IF the direct beneficiary of a will murders the maker of the will, that direct beneficiary AND his children will be barred in law from taking the benefit (whatever the will provides).  Why?  A criminal cannot profit from his crime!!!

brownorange88

Sometimes laws will change for the better of society. Colombia changed from Birthright to by blood. Laws are meant to evolve to reflect the needs of society.

conocophillips424

If a foreign army occupied a section of the USA would their children born on American soil be US citizens? Should they be?

-Rupert-

_Figuring_it_out

People who abused this constitutional right are to blame, that is why we can't have good things.

Shocky2025

If SCOTUS takes up this case it will be monumental. SCOTUS will look at the original intent of the amendment. I’m not going to spoil it but it’s not going to go well for the left.

rwilley71

USA the country where everyone feel entitled to every and anything, citizen or not. 😂😂

Smart-Mango8

Time will tell hopefully SCOTUS has common sense reasonable interpretation that will end birth right citizenship.

Odd_Addendum8160

I mean Jure sanguinis is what most of the world follows, so…

ConsiderationSad6271

I care about the constitution.  If you're going to change it, do it the right way and amend the constitution, not by EO.

Many countries don't have birthright citizenship and they do fine.  Former slaves don't need it anymore.  So I don't care if we keep it.

IseeAlgorithms

It's a tricky topic. I like to talk to young people looking to get into tech and I have met SO MANY who are American citizens but never lived here until high school. And I used to be confused by this. How did they get citizenship? But I would subsequently learn their mother had them here while "on vacation". I've met students like this going all the way back to the 90s. Now again, as with the H1B, this is simply an abuse of the system. Someone who has never lived here. Doesn't have any family here. Steps off a plane and gets all the rights and privileges of an American citizen whose family has invested time, energy, money in this country, should not be getting all those rights and privileges. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Globalization has provided so many avenues of abuse.

DetectiveBlackCat

I'll never understand how there was no outcry when Obama Deported over 3.3 million people including 77% who were Deported without due process.  The Obama administration had the hispanic community in Chicago terrified. You can go on Google and look up Obamas massive Deportations without due process.  Obama was being investigated by the ACLU for kids in cages and Deporting kids to countries that were 1000s of miles where they were originally from. I had friends and family who were arrested,  non criminals and were in detention camps before being Deported without due process.  There's a good PEW research group article on Google. Just type in Obama Deportations without due Process PEW research group.

RicanAzul1980

Children of legal visa holders who are on path of getting green card should be exempted from this.

CskianSilvers

This needs to be revisited regardless. Something written prior to air travel could not comprehend what would happen years later.

Independent_Tie_4941

Quite simple - you need to be born from a us citizen. 

Yes - it will be grandfathered for those prior.

We are only idiots in the world that allows birth right citizenship by just being born here rather than having a us parent.

GeorgeWashingfun

Good.  The 14th amendment was written for freed slaves and their children, not anchor babies.

WeUsedToBeFriends602

[deleted]

Basically the ideas is anyone here illegally or on a visa and have a child born in the US would not get US citizenship.  There is an interpretation of a specific word in the Constitution Amendment that makes the difference.  

Essentially right now it only impacts diplomats.  It makes sense to not have a diplomats (essentially anyone foreign working at an embassy or other official foreign government office) have their kids born overseas getting citizenship for that country, and instead for their home country.  Currently this is the only case of exclusion.

Basically they want to exclude illegal immigrants from establishing citizenship this way for their children (enter illegally and then have a child born establishing American Citizenship).  In the old days it was challenged to exclude the Chinese immigrant workers.  The idea was to say they are still under the rule of their home country, thereby essentially the same as being a diplomat.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_v.\_Wong\_Kim\_Ark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark)

&gt;United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", **automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.**

Just_Another_Day_926

graceFut22

There is legislative body who makes rules and does amendment. If the statute has expired, that also need to be decided by legislative body. This is plain and simple executive overreach and judiciary is just bending the knee.

New-Perspective5820

Lzydogrnch

Birthright citizenship was never meant for Mexicans to jump the border and give birth and instantly get all the rights. It was meant for black slaves children to have a citizenship and not be left stateless. Mexicans have a citizenship and NOBODY who wrote that clause would ever want it to be misused by illegals to get free healthcare and education. Supremes will finally toss it just like they did the abortion madness.

Accomplished_Cry4224

If they ban birthright citizenship, then all Americans lose citizenship except Native Americans.

titoxyco666

Does anyone wonder what this means for anyone born abroad to American parents? (Consular Report of Birth Abroad) [Obtaining U.S. Citizenship for a Child Born Abroad

](https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Acquisition-US-Citizenship-Child-Born-Abroad.html)

Do they face deportation as well?

Laszlo4711

In fairness to the US it is one of a minority of countries with birthright citizenship..

2L84T

So every child that is born now, the State has to check the Legal status of the parents. So what all considered as legal status of a Citizen? A Mother refuses to give her legal status. What will be the Status of the Child Born ??

Dr_cool_Sugar_Daddy

Green card holders and visa holders, while permanently able to work and live in the U.S, are not U.S citizens. The idea is that those born from such parents in the U.S are not technically American. 

Dear-Recover-2718

[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

I think that this is expected to make class action lawsuits more attractive and likely to rise in use, since class actions allow relief to be extended to a broader group of affected individuals when a class is certified.  Which would get around the limits being set by this ruling.

siberianmi

I'm not judicial scholar so I could really use some explanation on the impacts of this ruling.


Say the Executive branch declares slavery legal. What is the remedy to halt that action until the (clearly unconstitutional) merits can be argued? A harmed party has to sue in every district and every district needs to issue an injunction? What if not every district agrees? No nationwide injunction can be issued by any court other than the Supreme Court? What is the quickest possible remedy for a potential injured party to stop irreparable harm across the nation from a Federal action?

CMShaffer07

This is an absurd ruling that’s going to enable this administration to all but ignore the Constitution, more than they already have. They’ll continue moving fast, relying on the fact that the people they’re targeting will each individually need to try to contest blatantly unconstitutional actions, and people will fall through the cracks or be unable to afford a defense. Class actions might be a thing, but certifying a class is slow work and will enable the Trump administration to continue flouting the constitution in the meantime. 

Universal injunctions have been a thing throughout the modern judiciary. It’s “weird” that SCOTUS suddenly has a problem with it now, rather than when the right was funneling everything through Kacsmaryk and getting Biden admin policies shut down nationally.

NaivePhilosopher

The other two branches of the government have effectively ceded all their powers and the executive branch has amassed never seen before powers. We really got a king and checks and balances died on the ballot in November 2024. By the way, in all likelihood, by the end of this presidency, we will have six conservative judges on the court with three brand new hacks

Icommandyou

We’ll see how conservatives like it when Judge Kacsmaryk sees his nationwide authority shrink to the Texas Panhandle.  [Plaintiffs can probably start with this](https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-judge-invalidates-biden-rule-protecting-privacy-abortions-2025-06-18/)

harrumphstan

I haven't read the opinion itself yet but I'm a little confused as to whether this applies only to federal district judges but not to the circuit bench or if it's everything up to the Supreme Court.... What happens when a federal judge makes a ruling that gets appealed to a circuit panel? Does it suddenly go from being an individual case to a multistate issue or the circuits still can only hear things on an individual basis? This is a huge power grab for the Supreme Court and the executive. The executive shouldn't be making laws but now they have even more power to (yet again) since they can simply take the L in any district they lose and continue to write whatever laws they want for the rest of the country. The appellate system is now broken, the executive is a law making body and the Supreme Court is the sole decider of the interpretation of the constitution.

Verbanoun

I don't know what the effect will be, but I would bet my house that when the first district judge rules in favor of the GOP against something a Democratic president does the Supreme Court will reverse this.

If this is the case, then a lot of what the GOP has been doing for decades was apparently not legal.

KopOut

At least the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Texas is out of business. It's a little silver lining.

GougeAwayIfYouWant2

I am no lawyer, but if the Democrats ever get back in power, the GOP are going to really regret this decision.

alittledanger

Does this mean that save has to go back into effect or it only applies to nationwide injunctions against trump?

jagannooni

Interesting to note.  They are allowing federal courts to create precedent, but not overarching authority.  This does not change the constitution, nor the judicial oversight.  Simply put, it's a case by case basis.  

TBH, this feels like a SCOTUS cowtowing, without actually giving a win.  Precedent is what case law is all about.  And if one federal court does it......   trickle down.

Successful-Coyote99

It will prevent both sides of the political spectrum from seeking a judge in a US district that is sympathetic to their position and issuing a nationwide injunction. It won't stop a Circuit court from doing the same, but those will be harder to convince since a three-judge panel reviews each case.

Kirchoffs_Law

Im sure this won't have hilariously predictable consequences. Just like when some judges upheld slavery and everyone was cool with there being different laws across the country about how human being should be treated.

bdfull3r

This was such a shitty decision it boggles the mind.

It doesn't cripple district courts or anything like that, but it does further open the spigot on government lawlessness.

Roberts has certainly left his stain on the court, stink too.

What a shitty legacy.

kinkgirlwriter

This is insane:  unconstitutional “ending birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the 14th amendment”?

the supreme court rules that district judges in this case don’t have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions… but they DON’T even consider the constitutionally of the executive order in question.

And without a nationwide injunctions by lower courts, they can just decline to hear the case.

Christ dude.

TiredOfDebates

Nationwide injunctions issued by a district-court level judge have always been controversial. Both Trump and Biden have railed against them, and other Presidents too of course. I've always been pretty skeptical of nationwide district court injunctions, regardless of who was in office. It seems like an inordinate level of power given to a judge at the lowest rung of the Federal judicial ladder. There's a bit over 600 federal district judges and any one of them can unilaterally issue an injunction that affects the entire country.

UnfoldedHeart

Over on reddit conservative they are just wallowing in how much this is upsetting the left. They are so one note and devoid of any critical analysis.

This is objectively a terrible ruling. There is nothing stopping the executive from nullifying any constitutional provision they do not like. Stroke of the pen and the people affected are the only ones who can get relief.

1st amendment? The executive could criminalize speech critical of the government and injunctions would only apply to the specific litigant.

2nd amendment? The executive could say no one with a certain voting history can have automatic weapons.

3rd amendment? The national guard can post up in your house to monitor "antifa" activities.

4th amendment? The executive could mandate that an unlawful search could occur if the accused is a part of an "extremist" ideology

5th amendment? All immigrants, regardless of status, are allowed to be jailed without trial. (This one is already being done)

6th amendment? Your right to an attorney can be removed by a judge or in all cases of "insurrection"

7th amendment? A jury of one for civil trials is allowed

8th? All persons remanded to custody of the US can be interrogated with enhanced methods.

13th amendment? Could bring back slavery and only litigants can challenge it

There are 18 more amendments that can be done away with by the executive at this point. Conservatives don't know what they're cheering on.

SammathNaur1600

Could this mean that individual states could move to have SAVE reinstated for their own particular state?

darksparda4

This Supreme Court is making a mockery of the constitution.  Makes me wonder whatever happened to originalism?  I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when James Madison told this to Washington.

dedward848

i think the point of it is to further overburden courts, while the nazi party gets to break every fucking law in existence to further their nazi agenda.

  
none of you will survive so long as that party continues existing. they're already stealing people, definitely trafficking the children they definitely still constantly lose track off, your economy is dead, the dollar is dying. and its 100% on the gop.

RaidSmolive

Not gonna lie, im actually ok with this ruling someone. Those Rightwing nutjob judges issued injunction after injunction on Biden, and ruined student debt relief among other things. I really dont think a single judge should issue a nationwide stop, it should come from the Supreme Court if im being honest about it.

Tatuski72

https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/district-court-reform-nationwide-injunctions/

Top_Horror3686

Yet another erosion of the power of the judiciary to limit bad behavior by corporations, cops and the rich. 

If no one has confidence in the judicial branch's willingness it ability to enforce the law against bad actors, chaos will ensue from an explosion of vigilantism. 

This is tearing at the very fabric of civilization.

ttystikk

They are laying the groundwork to be able to revoke birthright citizenship, paired with attacks on due process, they are setting it up so they can strip ANYONE of rights at any time for any reason. Rights, as they say, are at the behest of the king. So, basically, civil war *is the plan.*

inkoDe

This ends the rule of law.  

Federal law is now different in Alabama than it is in Maryland. A federal administration will now be able to completely and totally ignore the Constitution, as the Supreme Court will be so overwhelmed with court cases that no judicial remedy will even be possible within the spans of a single President's term.

It is no overstatement to say this is the worst and last SCOTUS ruling in the history of the United States.

ManBearScientist

I think this is really only going to apply to Republican Presidents. When a Democratic President is in office, there will be made up reasons why nationwide injunctions will be ok, because conservative causes are seen as more worthy and important

Shr3kk_Wpg

So here is a scenario. Let’s say White House says the interpretation of 2nd amendment is incorrect and puts an executive order to disarm everyone. And states like NY and California don’t sue. Can the federal government start collecting guns from people in those states ?

epostman

So, will they not all travel to a state where that district judge has blocked them on citizenship from one where a judge hasn't?  What a cluster f.... this is going to be.

bjdevar25

definitely negates the power &amp; influence of certain Western appellate ct circuits, which was the point of this ruling. In the end it adds additional burden on plaintiffs, forcing them to coalesce &amp; strategize to meet the thresholds for class action status. It definitely amounts to a longer delay &amp; gives any administration many months to implement policies as they see fit. This bench clearly feels that's the President's prerogative.

wip30ut

Honestly, given the current political climate, this ruling is by far the lesser of two evils. There should be several firm checks on executive power. But having hundreds of appointed officials that can individually shape national policy every time someone comes whining to them is very Undemocratic. Especially since plaintiffs can shop for a sympathetic judge by filing in the right district.

Far_Realm_Sage

The real problem is when the government is the losing party. It decides not to appeal. The relief is limited to one district.
The anti deportation plaintiffs should seek out judges that will deny their requeats to stop deportation. Then appeal and seek a broader injunction from the Circuit Court and a national injunction from SCOTUS..

Own-Hurry-4061

If he tries much more King shit, we need to take action.  Vote no to Republicans in the midterm election.

mogiej

I agree with the Supreme Court since a lower court judge should have a limited area of influence; district judge.  In the rock paper scissors of checks and balances, It would be like a single Representative, able to make at new law, without a full house vote, to over turn the Supreme Court. There are fewer Representatives than District judge, so each Representative, should carry more weight. If a Representative made a law that Lawyers cannot capitalized on class action suits, but can litigate for free, we can neutralize that. It would need a full House vote or the Supreme Court. 

W

wellwisher-1

District courts are supposed to cover the district they're in. If a city court issues a judgment for all of the country, would anybody think that is okay? Of course not! You don't get to expand your jurisdiction out just because you want to. If you think that's unreasonable, then let me file suit against you and my closest local Court, and get a judgment against you based on Missouri laws and local ordinances. Our courts are set up in a hierarchy so that things can get sorted out on the larger scale higher up. The idea is that if two district courts don't rule the same it goes up to a higher Court to resolve. If claimants in one district wanted to be like in another district under a ruling there, they file suit where they are, and again it can go up to a higher Court. This has always been the way. District Court power is not being rolled back, normality is being enforced.

pauldstew_okiomo

Just don't give up your building, it's yours, hier a good lawyer bro, I guess they have been planning all along for this to happen, so stay strong and fuck them up in court ( make sure the lawyer doesn't secretly align with them)

DirtEmbarrassed620

The land mafia is doing what is happening to you since long Nowadays the high court and supreme court judges are very careful because of yashwant verma high court judge recovery of cash in residence this is the right time  for you to file a writ petition against the government officials  who demarcated and allotted the premises to you are now disputing it to  correct the records and also give directions to concerned authorities to restrain any third party intervention

EmergencyProper5250

Advocate here. You must adopt 3 steps-

1. Immediately file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

2. File a criminal complaint with your local Police station. If they do not take action, you may approach the magistrate. 

3. Involve any local media groups and pay them to highlight your issue.

Classic_Performer346

Sorry to hear this. I don't have any advice but I hope u come out of this stronger and with your property in ur hand.

This is main reason I don't invest in plots. Anyone can claim it as their own and it's impossible for a middle class person to fight these morons

indigeni

Primanfacir looks like case of cheating and fraud. Hire a lawyer from a good law firm so your matter gets on the judge's list soon as possible ( atleast 7 -8 lakhs on a good law firm). 
Last resort - use  media and apply pressure on them if they are too influential

maplesyrup_3

File an injunction suit. Based on possession you’ll should get the interim order. After you get this, keep the pressure on and make sure it’s not vacated behind your back. 

Meanwhile, file a police complaint (will be closed as civil matter) but approach the court (criminal court) for registering the FIR and take action.

On parallel ascertain what is the veracity of their claims. There are cadastral maps to checkout survey numbers, speak to the previous owner! Best part is keep all the permission documents hand and keep filing them with all cases. 

You’ll also have to use influence.

PS - Don’t mention the real worth or your expenditure. It’s easy for people to escalate your costs for no good reason for every little issue. Approach a designated senior that has his or had his primary practice in civil courts/criminal courts opposed to a High Court practitioner.

The_Dark_Tadpole

Fuck, that must be stressful, hope everything goes right for you op.

kritika551

**The basic structure doctrine** in the Indian Constitution, established by the Supreme Court in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, holds that certain fundamental features of the Constitution are beyond the amending power of Parliament. These "basic" features are essential for the Constitution's identity and cannot be altered, even through constitutional amendments.

•	⁠Supremacy of constitution
•	⁠Secularism
•	⁠Federalism
•	⁠Democratic and republican government
•	⁠Separation of Powers
•	⁠Independent Judiciary
•	⁠Rule of Law
•	⁠Unity and integrity of nation
•	⁠Fundamental rights

M1ghty2

Dhankar behaves like BJP spokesperson .. in parliament. Have some dignity of your post dhankar sir .

Constitution is higher than judiciary, Parliament can create new Constitution like it has been done several time in France.

dogef1

Constitution is not higher than people. We the people is what constitution drives its power from. And we the people are represented by elected members. Will of the people is supreme in a democracy.

Why have a goverment if supreme court decides that a law or monetary bill or amendment is valid or not ?

Constitution was made and it was made in mind that future evolve  and constitution will also evolve . But we still stuck with laws from 50,60,70,80,90s 2000,2010.

The Supreme Court quashed arbitrary tender conditions for sports kits in Chhattisgarh, promoting equality in public procurement processes.

Supreme Court Ruling on Chhattisgarh Tender Conditions

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want