Public sentiment is overwhelmingly negative, fueled by outrage against police brutality and frustration with the justice system's inaction. Many voices call for accountability, systemic reforms, and substantial punishments for the officers involved in custodial deaths. There's a strong feeling of despair and a demand for urgent change in governance to ensure justice and protect citizens' rights.

Supreme Court of India

Indian Police

Government Administration

Judiciary

Please read our [wiki guide on 1948/ATQ cases](https://www.reddit.com/r/juresanguinis/wiki/start_here/judicial/) if you haven't already.

Disregard this comment if you are asking for clarification on the guide or asking about something not covered in the guide.


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

AutoModerator

If you lose your court case and lose all of your appeals, that line is judicially blocked forever:

https://www.mylawyerinitaly.com/new-italian-supreme-court-ruling-and-its-impact-on-citizenship-denials/blog/

Your avvocato is saying you should include all of your lines?

CakeByThe0cean

Have you consulted with/hired an attorney? I don’t know of any avvocati that would do 3X the work (justifying 3 lines) when one is sufficient. They’ll usually pick one they think is the strongest, most cut and dry.

Recommend amending or annotating your post with dates. It appears line 3 is a minor issue administrative route, which should be cleared up shortly. But since it isn’t compliant with 74/2025, it would have to be an ATQ. As such the 1948 cases are the stronger lines. Number 2 is likely your winner since they were the custodial parents after 1’s death. From what you’ve shared, their naturalization doesn’t matter because there is no minor issue. Death records don’t matter but birth and marriage records do (somewhat dependent on the attorney). Do you have birth records for your LIBRAs?

If you have not, when interviewing avvocati, I recommend asking how much appeals would cost and what would/would not be included. As a Cassazione case myself, I can tell you the time, disappointment, and frustration cost a lot, even if it isn’t monetary. Having an avvocato you trust goes a long way when things don’t go as planned.

GuadalupeDaisy

Oh great this is making me have an extistential crisis

PrevBannedByReddit

I didn’t realize that losing a court case meant the potential barring of other lines via a court or consumer route. Looking forward to others weighing in as well.

sottaceto_italiano

I've been wondering about the finality of a court's decision too. If the constitutional court rules unfavorably, I wonder if I can withdraw my petition before the first hearing so that I can pursue that line in the future if the legislature makes favorable changes to recognizing citizenship.

Even-Aerie-5509

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

No more anchor babies. People will be pissed.

fuckjunta

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

Theodoric58

[deleted]

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

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

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

Shocky2025

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

Weekly-Sun7992

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

-Rupert-

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

_Figuring_it_out

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

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

2L84T

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

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

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

I read somewhere that originally one parent had to be a citizen, but then a administrative person decided not because of the man hours it took to check.  I think that it is proper to have the supreme court rule on this because it was always going to end up there anyway.

Frequent-Life-4056

BNTMS233

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

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

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

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

All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. **FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.**

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

The Heritage Foundation that's what happened they have placed their cronies where they need to be, know your enemy

LeafsJays1Fan

Leonard Leo stacked the Supreme Court, as well as many conservative federal judges across the country. Collectively, they are known as the Federalist Society. The conservative jurists on the Supreme Court were vetted by Leo before they even became candidates. They are pursuing a christofascist agenda, and trump is helping them carry out that agenda.

charcoalist

Jesus happened. And Orange Jesus. And lots of open bribery without consequence. 

Turns out they no longer want a democracy. Oligarchy or theocracy is their target.

iZoooom

MisterProfGuy

This coup d’etat has been long planned. In other words, this is not just Trump. Dumping him will not get us out of this mess.

Then_Journalist_317

What happened?

Four decades of gradually planting right-wing religious fascists in the Court.  It wasn't easy but that's a long time in which to operate.  Eventually they succeeded.

How did they succeed?  Well, here is what happened:

"Hey, look, someone is trying to plant right-wing religious fascists in the Supreme Court!  We should stop them."

"But both sides."

"What does that mean?  Have you seen the right-wing religious fascists being nominated into the Court?"

"But both sides."

"So you're not going to —"

"Both sides."

"Are you incapable of saying anything other th—"

"Both sides."

"But —"

"Both sides."

"D—"

"Both sides."

amitym

SnoopingStuff

The Republican Party stopped being a party and is now a cult. They are members of the cult.

CalagaxT

They are bought and paid for to rubber stamp whatever’s clever.

49thDipper

You missed the 6/3 Trump flunkee to normal ratio ?

Not to go full Marxist, but I will say that the conception of the judicial system as a component of the repressive state apparatus has been feeling pretty convincing lately.

seven_corpse_dinner

Short answer: it’s not “almost unanimous on nearly every case,” but the court has made a string of moves this term that functionally help the administration—often on procedural grounds and often through the emergency (“shadow”) docket.

What the numbers say
This term’s unanimity rate is about 42%—high, but not “nearly every case.” The Chief has steered a lot of narrow, technical rulings that draw broad agreement. On the big, salient fights, splits remain. 

Why it can look like near-uniform wins for the White House

Presidential immunity: In Trump v. United States (2024) the Court created absolute immunity for “core” official acts and presumptive immunity for other official acts. That’s a major expansion of executive protection and shapes many downstream cases. 

Limiting nationwide injunctions: In Trump v. CASA (2025), the Court stayed universal (nationwide) injunctions against the administration’s birthright-citizenship EO—without ruling on the EO’s merits—so the policy could operate against non-plaintiffs while litigation continues. That procedural move repeatedly benefits the executive. (There were sharp dissents noting lower courts had deemed the EO likely unconstitutional.) 

Emergency docket deference: In Trump v. J.G.G. (2025), the Court, on the shadow docket, vacated a trial court’s TRO that had paused removals under the Alien Enemies Act, reframing the fight as a venue/procedure question (use habeas where detainees are held). The dissents warned the Court was green-lighting rapid removals and making new law without full briefing. 


Put together, these choices (immunity, narrowing remedies against the executive, speed via emergency orders) create the impression of a Court “siding with” the administration. SCOTUSblog’s term review sums it up: the 2024–25 term delivered notable wins for the conservative majority and the Trump administration. 

“Contempt for the laws”?
That’s the dissents’ critique: several justices argue the majority is reshaping big questions on the shadow docket, truncating process, and weakening traditional checks (e.g., broad injunctions) against unlawful executive action. You can see that language in the J.G.G. and CASA dissents. Supporters counter that the Court is reining in overbroad lower-court remedies and clarifying separation of powers. 

Bottom line

It isn’t blanket unanimity.

But key rulings (and how the Court uses procedure) have tilted the field toward the executive, which is why it looks like near-automatic wins in high-profile disputes this year. If you want to track this in real time, watch the emergency-docket orders and how often they let policies take effect while merits cases drag on.

vanceavalon

It’s a coup. It’s been a coup for decades

eat_my_ass_n_balls

traitors.  

they betray their Oaths and lied during their confirmations, 

they betrayed their Oath and lied for having overturned Roe v. Wade.

they betray this country.

dojo_shlom0

They’ve broken faith in the system, which will cost this country dearly…..they just don’t know it yet, or naively think they are shielded from it. 

Don’t take my word for it, take history’s. These things are cyclical.

Cojo85

They’re corrupt and immune to accountability.

Utterlybored

What is confusion? The Supreme Court is bought and paid for.  

We know longer have rule of law as we knew it, and the courts are going to implode.

Princess_Actual

Inspect1234

There are no laws anymore, beyond those dictated by the dictator.

xandra77mimic

3 of the justices on the court helped steal the election in 2000 for Bush. That's all you need to know.

FlaccidEggroll

It's been infected by Christian conservatives. It's utterly illegitimate given they are blatantly partisan and their rulings.

T1Pimp

Money? Blackmail? Bitterness? Revenge? Retaliation? Indifference?

Herban_Myth

Lebojr

From the article:

“The Supreme Court recently signaled what could be the end of the Voting Rights Act, according to one expert.

James Sample, a professor of constitutional law at Hofstra University, appeared on MSNBC on Saturday to discuss Texas GOP "re-redistricting," and other key topics. Earlier in the interview, Sample said the current war over gerrymandering in Texas, California, and other states is the result of Chief Justice John Roberts' Supreme Court.

After that, one of the hosts noted another case that could have "major impacts."

Sample responded, "So, Louisiana is one of the states that in which there is gerrymandering and redistricting in order to have majority minority districts, the idea being under the Voting Rights Act, there are states like Louisiana where a third of the population is Black. But without majority minority districts, the black community ends up getting next to nothing by way of representation and perhaps even nothing."

He continued, saying, "So, in 2020, in the Census, Louisiana ended up with two seats that were majority minority districts. The case is called Louisiana v. Callais, which was before the court last term and was held over by the court for this October."
  
"The court on Friday night (when do you want to bury a story?) released a very cryptic order in which it said very discreetly, "Is a majority minority district inconsistent with the Constitution?" he added. "Which is in essence a declaration that the court is ready to put the final nail in the coffin of the Voting Rights Act. That Louisiana case could well be that final nail."

Everyday I think to myself “How come no one didn’t make swiss cheese out of one of them?”

No_Suspicion

I think the blue states should just start ignoring the Supreme Court at this point. Nullification applied to a corrupt court.

Maybe at some point the states should stop listening to the court that aims to take all their power away and seriously challenge them, sure it's a double edged sword but I think giving the supreme court too much power is a mistake and goes against the idea of checks and balances / equal distribution of power.

KehreAzerith

What part of the constitution would make the voting rights act illegal? 

Not that this court actually follows law. They just make things up as they go. Soon as a Liberal is in office, they are going to reverse every single one of the decisions

bassoonshine

"Strict originalists" my ass.  Y'all remember when the conservatives claimed that was them?  I believe Coney-Barret even made a point of saying that during her confirmation.

I am not convinced the original "originalists," the guys who argued, debated, and wrote the Constitution of the United States ever even considered gerrymandering as something that could or should occur.

So how do these "originalists" now claim that this is something supported by the Constitution?  It is a clear fabrication of our two party system, which, of course, many of our founders did not favor in the first place.

Sure, it says that states can run their elections how they wish.  It does not say that they can manipulate the methods of vote counting in order to manufacture minority rule and to me the entire document revolves around the concept of democratically elected representative government.

oldbastardbob

The scrotus has become an illegal institution  operating only in the interest of wealthy oligarchs and against the intent of the Constitution of these once united states.

Dedotdub

First they strip the blacks of their rights because most Americans aren't black.

Then they will use the same rulings to disenfranchise ( working class) whites and it will be too late to rebuild our democracy.

RobotAlbertross

The arrogance with which the conservative judges use to override the will of millions and millions of people is astonishing.  70% of the Senate and and 80% of the house voted for the VRA.  Shit they reauthorized it under the Reagan administration 389 to 24.  Reagan.  
  
People gave their lives for the VRA, you can draw direct lines between lynching and the VRA.  If the VRA is unconstitutional (which it is not) then this country is not worth the dead animal skin it was written on.

DualActiveBridgeLLC

Hey maybe instead of gutting the VRA the Supreme Court should be impeached and removed for massive ethics violations.

BraveOmeter

Shocked that this Corrupt Scotus is not upholding the constitution and the law it supposedly represents. History will remember them as traitors to America

EastCoastBuck

I still have yet to see a satisfactory answer from any "originalist" and "textualist" who argued that the VRA was unconstitutional at the time it passed, despite the 14 Amendment expressly empowering Congress to enact legislation to enforce the amendment. Arguably, that gives Congress plenary authority to implement the 14th.

No-Illustrator4964

We have to stop calling them “Justice,” bc Justice has nothing to do with it.

sheyndl

it's time to let go of any idea you may have the this court is anything other than a trump rubber stamp.

hastings1033

Supreme criminals courts looking to destroy our country.

DeadJango

They're trying to keep the states from countering Texas, they want texas to do what it's trying to do, but the ruling applies to all states. Just do it anyway. That's what they do and intend to keep doing. This court could give a rip about what the law CLEARLY and SIMPLY says. They've practically been tying themselves in semantic knots to pervert our laws to favor dear leader. They are far from equitable or just.

HostileRespite

Those six justices are committing treason. They are overthrowing our democracy. They deserve due process.

LaDragonneDeJardin

The background here is that this case was argued last March and many/most expected it to be decided last term. In late June, the court issued an order indicating there would be a further order scheduling a second oral argument and that additional instructions would be given. No reasoning given, as expected, but Thomas dissented saying the Court “has an obligation to resolve such challenges promptly” and that he “sees no reason to avoid deciding these cases now.” Here’s the order they issued on Friday describing the issue on which they want further briefing and argument — [https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/080125zr\_i4dk.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/080125zr_i4dk.pdf)

Amy Howe‘s summary - [https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/08/court-asks-for-new-briefs-in-louisiana-redistricting-case/](https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/08/court-asks-for-new-briefs-in-louisiana-redistricting-case/)

Fun_Reputation5181

The house being stuck at 435 members needs to change. A lot of Americans are under represented.

Away-Structure9393

UzumeNeedsDrip

The Supremely Corrupt will finish democracy in the US.

strywever

Nothing the Supreme Court says should be considered valid. Wealthy blue states know what they need to do, and we should help people leave heavy red states.

MsWumpkins

No voting district should ever divide any  zip code in any way.

StopLookListenNow

jackinyourcrack


Can we knock it off with clickbait titles?

Vaguely_absolute

As long as at least 6 members were still available they could continue to operate. So say 3 of the members get sick and die/retire at the same time the court could continue to operate until the other seats are confirmed but if it drops to 5 they would have to halt all cases and wait for the seat to be filled.

LoganGyre

John Roberts was nominated to be an associate justice. Reinquist passed away before the hearings started. Bush re-nominated him to be chief justice. 

Not sure what would happen if it was 2 associate justices.

General2768

The SC requires a quorom of 2/3 to operate (6 justices). 

Today, if that happened, I suspect the current administration would not fill the vacancies and leave the branch 100% paralyzed. Especially now that national level rulings are not a thing anymore. 

If the judicial was paralyzed, they would provide even less of a check on the executive.

The Supreme Court has reprimanded the CBI and Madhya Pradesh government for delays in the arrest of police officers involved in a custodial death case, emphasizing the need for timely justice.

Supreme Court Rulings on Custodial Death Case

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want