The Case Is Weak—So Why Is Birthright Citizenship a Close Call? (w/ Elliot Williams) | Illegal News

The 14th Amendment unequivocally states that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens.' This language is 'remarkably clear' and has been consistently interpreted for over a century, including a Supreme Court case in 1898 and congressional codification. Despite this, the Trump administration issued an executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens, rooted in the 'birth tourism' narrative, which accounts for only about 2% of U.S. births. Lower federal courts have blocked its implementation, deeming it 'flagrantly illegal and unconstitutional.' The Supreme Court's upcoming decision is seen as a major test of its independence, as overturning this established law would require a strained interpretation that contradicts conservative originalist principles.

Elliot Williams reads directly from the 14th Amendment (05:27) and explains its post-slavery origins (06:49). He notes the 1898 Supreme Court case and 40 years of congressional codification (09:06-09:12). The host and guest discuss the political nature of the challenge and the difficulty for originalist judges to overturn it (11:31-11:41).

The Trump administration implemented a policy mandating detention without bond for all undocumented immigrants arrested by ICE or Border Patrol, including those already in the country. This policy deviates from the interpretations of five previous administrations, which typically applied mandatory detention only to new border crossers ('applicants for admission'). Hundreds of federal trial judges have ruled against this policy, but two appellate courts (Fifth and Eighth Circuits) have sided with the administration. The practical effect of this policy is to use the 'shitty and miserable' conditions of detention centers and the years-long backlog in immigration hearings to 'incentivize self-deportation.' This strategy deliberately 'twists longstanding interpretations of the law' to achieve policy goals.

Elliot Williams details the shift from previous administrations' policies (18:41) and the widespread judicial opposition (20:27). He explains the practical reasons for the policy, including bed space scarcity, long hearing backlogs, and the intent to 'self-deport' (19:20-20:22).

The Pentagon introduced a new credentialing system for reporters, requiring them to sign an agreement allowing the DoD to declare them a security risk and block access at its discretion. After a federal court ruled this unconstitutional as 'viewpoint discrimination,' the DoD issued new, even more restrictive policies. These new rules mandate escorts for reporters, restrict anonymity for sources, and bar reporters from 'inducing' sources to speak. A federal judge described these new policies as 'Kafkaesque' and 'Orwellian,' noting they make 'basic acts of journalism impossible' by restricting access to areas reporters need. This is seen as an attempt to control negative coverage, not just minimize leaks, and is particularly concerning during a time when the U.S. is engaged in military actions.

Sarah Longwell outlines the initial policy and lawsuit (37:18). Elliot Williams details the new restrictions: escorts, anonymity rules, and barring 'inducing' sources (38:43). He quotes the judge's 'Kafka' and 'Orwellian' remarks (39:59-40:04) and highlights the urgency of press access during wartime (41:19-41:56).

Several Proud Boys members filed a class-action lawsuit against the federal government, claiming that police used 'indiscriminate use of force' on January 6th, causing them physical and emotional injuries. The lawsuit asserts that 'everything was peaceful until the police started shooting,' reframing the events as police aggression rather than an insurrection. The lead plaintiff, Dominic Pizzola, is notable for being the individual who initiated the breach of the Capitol building by breaking a window with a shield. This legal action is part of a broader, politically motivated effort to 'rewrite history' and shift the narrative of January 6th, potentially through government settlements that would further legitimize the claim that the rioters were the 'aggrieved party.'

Sarah Longwell introduces the lawsuit (46:16). Elliot Williams details the class action's premise and the plaintiffs' claim of 'indiscriminate use of force' by police (49:27-49:59). He highlights the lawsuit's 'most fascinating line' about police initiating violence (50:01-50:19) and identifies Dominic Pizzola as the lead plaintiff (50:52-51:01). The discussion concludes with the potential for settlements to 'rewrite' the narrative (59:40-01:00:05).