Public sentiment surrounding the Supreme Court ruling shows significant skepticism and criticism of law enforcement practices and the judicial system. Many commenters express distrust towards police and the effectiveness of the ruling, highlighting concerns about potential abuses, political bias, and systemic inequalities, particularly impacting marginalized communities. The prevailing opinion is that while the ruling is a step in the right direction, practical implementation and compliance remain major concerns.

Supreme Court

Indian Police

Government of India


**As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_the_rules_of_.2Fr.2Fpolitics.3A).**

In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

**Sub-thread Information**

If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”. 

**Announcement**

r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://sh.reddit.com/r/politics/application).
 

***


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

AutoModerator

If we are forced to create race neutral maps, California can probably create more than 5 new dem seats.

HellaTroi

This court lives in mortal fear of its decisions just being flat-out ignored.  At the moment the most likely antagonist would be ol' DJT.  But piss off the right state and it could happen that way too.

TreeLooksFamiliar22

So, consequently they need to kick all of the GOP efforts to the curb.

Additional_Quiet2600

Of course the Supreme Court has to swoop in to "save the day" (read: ruin everything) in a self correcting feed back loop in Trump's favor as the system is designed to be.

Same_Set8195

Umami-Ice-Cream

Um, that’s not what that means. If they rule race doesn’t matter in gerrymandering fights, some states have equal opportunity to overly favor their black and brown communities. They just don’t *have* to take race into account

ShamelessCatDude

[deleted]

The current Federal law says it has to be considered.  There is no Federal law that it must not be considered.  It will be up to the state law then.

PerceptionRough8128

SCOTUS wants to rule on States Rights - but only when it is convenient for them.    They allowed TX to do this, no problem.   That is not decided yet - so if that panel says YES to gerrymandering outside of 10 yr cycle will they complain.    Sounds a lot like "whataboutism" not legal statutes.

BarCompetitive7220

/u/baisudfa (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1opue8u/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_trump_should_force_an/), in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

DeltaBot

It's extraordinarily difficult to amend the constitution. In a modern political environment, it's virtually impossible. It doesn't just require two thirds of congress, which is more than it would take to stop a measure packing the court in the short term, it requires three quarters of the state legislatures. In no possible way could this threat result in a constitutional amendment before Trump leaves office even if there were broad support for one simply because of the logistics. 

Republicans would also *salivate* at the idea of Trump packing the court and would find any excuse not to stop him if he said he was going to. Some would probably break ranks to oppose something this extreme, but they would absolutely not have the ability to pursue a constitutional amendment while many of their colleagues would encourage and vote for the measure packing the court. Democrats meanwhile would do whatever they could to stop it, but they're far more likely to try to do so by holding in up in congress, since again, a constitutional amendment is virtually impossible to pass, requiring a much higher portion of congress than just stopping the measure to pack the court.

In practice, all that adds up to Trump introducing a measure to pack the court, and either it failing and everyone forgetting about this, or it somehow passing and doing the opposite of what you want. Most likely outcome is democrats filibustering it, and that's if it even makes it to a floor vote. It's also worth mentioning that threatening to pack the court to provoke a constitutional amendment to remove the ability to do so is *incredibly* out of character for Trump; he would just pack the court for his own benefit rather than thinking about restricting future presidents.

Starfleet-Time-Lord

The senate doesnt do what Trump says. He cant even get them to change the filibuster rule to end the shutdown. Hows he gonna get the votes for that?

bifewova234

That's a very weak threat. As you point out, Trump already enjoys a 6-3 majority that lets him get away with just about anything he wants. Democrats can simply say, "Go ahead," and allow him to create his grand ten person majority or whatever. It'd be a bit worse, because we can imagine some particularly extreme actions that could lose a pair of conservative justices, but not massively so.

From there, Trump has two options. The first is that he packs the court, in which case Democrats can simply pack it back when they get a majority. The second is that he doesn't pack the court, in which case we're back at square one, Trump appears weak for making a threat he wasn't going to back up, and Democrats get a bit more leeway to pack the court themselves because it's apparently not off limits to Republicans. Except, of course, the Democrat court packing would actually do something by eliminating the Republican majority.

eggynack

Trump would never propose such an amendment because it would act as a limit to his own power. There is no way Trump would ever push for limits to his own presidential power at this point.

Trump is a raging narcissist and likes to believe he has unlimited power. He pushes against any limits to presidential power (example: all of his talk about a “third term” even though it is blatantly unconstitutional). 

In Trump’s mind, he thinks he will be president for life. After that, he doesn’t care what happens or if it all burns down. He’s not worried about what future presidents would do. So Trump would not propose such an amendment. 

A 2028 Democratic president would also not be motivated to propose such an amendment. The current makeup of the Supreme Court is historically unpopular, primarily with democrats. The Supreme Court is making historically bad partisan decisions in favor of Trump and republicans. A 2028 Democratic president would more likely want to reform the Court (if possible) than want to lock in the current justices. Locking in the current Court would be unpopular with the democratic base.

MeteorMike1

I don't really see this threat working because the court is already so heavily favorable to Trump that Democrats have practically nothing to lose by allowing Trump to pack the court and then counting on a future electoral victory giving them to power to pack it even harder right back.  Only at that point would I see them being open to some sort of ammendment that would balance the court and stabilize it. 

Albeit it is also possible that the Supreme Court could try to intervene and decide from that point on packing the court is unconstitutional.  Which could set off a constitutional crisis as the legislative and judicial branches fight over control.  I'd still say Democrats might prefer this future problem to setting in stone Trump's current court given how it has and continues to fail its most fundamental duty of upholding the American constitution and protecting Democracy.

misogichan

Interesting idea, but the threat isn't a strong one. If Trump says, "stop me or I'll pack the courts," Republicans might let him. But also, Democrats might let him, because if they take the power away, they can never do it again either, and the court is already stacked for the conservatives. Trump actually packing the court even worse would be a great reason for the Dems to justify packing it back in their favor if they get back the executive and legislative branches.

Eject_The_Warp_Core

&gt; It seems like it would be advantageous for Trump to force an amendment

He can't even get a budget through, what makes you think he could get anywhere near passing an amendment?

DaveChild

Wouldn't that be redundant since the Democratic Party doesn't exist at the federal level?

LaquaviusRawDogg

Letters_to_Dionysus

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

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

graceFut22

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

I bet the same people that would rather die to defend the 2nd amendment ("written in the constitution") would not bat an eye that another constitutional amendment like this 14th amendment is changed to benefit them.

Ok then, next time we can add "arms = hand gun only" in the interpretation of 2nd amendment.

avscc

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

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

Welcome to /r/ask_politics.  Our goal here is to provide educated, informed, and serious answers to questions about the world of politics.  Our full [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/wiki/rules) can be found here, but are summarized below.

* Address the question (and its replies) in a professional manner
* Avoid personal attacks and partisan "point scoring"
* Avoid the use of partisan slang and [fallacies](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_fallacies)
* Provide sources if possible at the time of commenting.  **If asked, you must provide sources.**
* Help avoid the echo chamber - downvote bad/poorly sourced responses, not responses you disagree with.  **Do not downvote just because you disagree with the response**.
* Report any comments that do not meet our standards and rules.

If you have any questions, please contact the mods at any time.


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

Traditionally no. The Supreme Court is an appellate court. They hear appeals in cases already decided. The only time the US Supreme Court hears original cases are in the situations involving a state suing another state (and other select extraordinary situations).

Except once in 1906 in United States v. Snipp. The Supreme Court granted an appeal by Ed Johnson who claimed he was denied due process by black people being denied membership in the jury at his trial (he was black). Later that day Sheriff Snipp allowed a mob to take Johnson out of his cell and he was lynched. The Supreme Court found 6 people guilty of contempt of court for ignoring their order and sentenced them to a couple months in prison. Its the only criminal trial in the history of the supreme court.

Technically because of that precedent they could hear criminal cases.

Shakezula84

In theory, I guess the U.S. Supreme Court could if somehow the case and the arrest fell within the [courts original jurisdiction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_jurisdiction_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States). But there are very few cases that fall within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction and even fewer that fall within the court’s exclusive original jurisdiction. These are generally civil cases, not criminal, so it is unlikely there would be an arrest.

On appeal, there is nothing stopping the Supreme Court from issuing an arrest warrant other than “can this arrest warrant be issued” is not really a question the U.S. Supreme Court hears in real time. Years after the arrest and trial SCOTUS may hear a case about if the warrant should have been issued, but nobody is going to SCOTUS and asking for a warrant or appealing a rejected warrant application.

I [looked into the Brazil case a little](https://archive.is/ZkYru) and found some of the details interesting.


&gt;The Supreme Court last year ordered an investigation into protest leaders over accusations of plotting the overthrow of Brazil's democratic institutions.


It appears that your Supreme Court has investigatory powers, which the U.S. Supreme Court does not have, unless it has original jurisdiction and the court (or a jury the court convenes) has to act as a finder of fact. In U.S. federal courts, courts can only hear actual [cases or controversies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause). This means that courts, including the Supreme Court, cannot initiate an investigation. In addition to the structure of the system, this might be the constitutional “rule” you are asking about.

If the U.S. Supreme Court were to start an investigation and issue warrants like the Supreme Court of Brazil did, those actions would be well outside the constitutional framework of U.S. government. I could not imagine a majority of SCOTUS justices breaking from all constitutional authority that much. Even if one justice did that I would be surprised, but if I had to guess who it would be I would guess Breyer, everyone knows he is the court’s Clinton era rebel.

NYSenseOfHumor

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.*

So you can't consider race for admissions but being brown is presumption of guilt

raresanevoice

The supreme court's legitimacy has to end. It has to start being defied. They have no authority to enable race based stops. This is korematsu.

ExpressAssist0819

Vote by vote they erode the constitution but if someone mentions a mario brother all hell breaks loose.

doc_hilarious

On Monday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to use racial profiling in its militarized immigration raids across Los Angeles, halting an injunction that had barred officers from targeting Latinos based on ethnicity. The court did not explain the reason for [its shadow docket order](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf), which appeared to split 6–3 along ideological lines. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the decision was “unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation’s constitutional guarantees,” opening the door to violent persecution of Latinos—including American citizens—by “masked agents with guns.” The majority did not respond to this extraordinary charge, perhaps because it is so obviously true.

Monday’s case, [*Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf), revolves around the Trump administration’s sweeping immigration dragnet in and around L.A., dubbed Operation at Large. The government deployed Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to arrest anyone suspected of lacking legal status; many of those officers wore masks, refused to identify themselves as law enforcement, and carried handguns or assault weapons. They targeted locations where Latinos frequently congregated, including Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, churches, and parks. And they [targeted individuals](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25A169/369163/20250807171848424_Perdomo_Stay_Appl.pdf) who “appeared” Latino and spoke Spanish, arresting them first, then determining their citizenship status later. (The arrests were often gratuitously brutal, with agents throwing targets against the ground or a wall for no reason.) As a result, a number of American citizens found themselves physically assaulted and held at gunpoint until they could produce documentation.

For more: [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/09/supreme-court-analysis-ice-detention-kavanaugh-sotomayor.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/09/supreme-court-analysis-ice-detention-kavanaugh-sotomayor.html)

Slate

Full circle right back to racial profiling. This country is sick.

hereandthere_nowhere

Kavanaugh’s reasoning here is absurd. The government should be allowed to stop you because he knows there are lots of criminals in LA, and if you’re innocent, then you’ll only be detained for a short time, so it’s okay.

ICE agent to me: “Are you an American citizen?”
Me: “Fuck off.”
Would my detainment end there? Or am I required to carry papers and show them to federal police on demand? I hate to sound like Randy Marsh, but I thought this was America….

AccountHuman7391

Shadow docket this huh. I hope every judge seeing a case like this ignores this decision and forces them to make a real decision. All they need is one fact different. 

GhostofBreadDragons

Final nail that the constitution and the law literally doesn’t matter anymore. It’s just Calvin ball. 

It won’t be fixed until a dem admin forcibly removes justices constantly or not. 

Voting won’t change it. Protests won’t change it. Cheeky tweets won’t change it. Elected Dems won’t change it.

LunarMoon2001

Fuck this court and fuck the laws. We are about to lose all our rights.

willismthomp

It's on you illegitimate packed court fuckers. I do not obey illegitimate claims of authority.

PristineWatercress19

So, considering race in college admissions is racist, but presuming guilt based on race is not. This Supreme Court is a clown show.

TechieTravis

apparently the Fourth amendments only meant for toilet paper.

Bawbawian

Before soon ICE will be able to tell if you look like a democrat or not.

doxxingyourself

Dear Republicans in general, and CJ Roberts in particular:

If you want to convince me affirmative action is unnecessary because the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race, you’re failing quite badly. Perhaps try to live up to your own rhetoric?

comment_moderately

Another step towards fascism.

It ALWAYS starts with race. Then it will be by some other "undesirable" trait (like being trans). Eventually it will be by political affiliation or beliefs.

It's like we're repeating the 20th century, only this time the US is going to be the "bad guy".

Xyrus2000

Is *this* the Pearl Harbor moment? Is this a bridge too far or will we swallow this too.

harrywrinkleyballs

The supreme court, the corrupt 6, are willing to do anything to give Trump what he wants.  Perhaps the six are Russian assets too.

CriticalInside8272

I appreciate the more accurate headline u/Slate in contrast to all these other euphemisms and omissions by your peers.

TendieRetard

It’s only a matter of time when a Hispanic, dude that was born in this country uses his rights to self-defense.

mrbigglessworth

&gt;On Monday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to use racial profiling in its militarized immigration raids across Los Angeles, halting an injunction that had barred officers from targeting Latinos based on ethnicity. The court did not explain the reason for its shadow docket order, which appeared to split 6–3 along ideological lines. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the decision was “unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation’s constitutional guarantees,” opening the door to violent persecution of Latinos—including American citizens—by “masked agents with guns.” The majority did not respond to this extraordinary charge, perhaps because it is so obviously true.

Who could have ever predicted this?

Valuable_Recording85

sugar_addict002

The Supreme Court of India mandated that police must provide written grounds for every arrest in an understandable language, reinforcing personal liberty protections.

Supreme Court Ruling on Grounds of Arrest

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want