Trump PANICS as SCOTUS Hears MASSIVE CASES | Unprecedented

The Supreme Court heard arguments in Watson v. Republican National Committee regarding Mississippi's mail-in ballot grace period. The RNC argues that ballots must be received by Election Day, even if postmarked earlier. This challenge, if successful, could invalidate early voting for tens of millions of Americans, as Justices Roberts and Barrett questioned the logical consistency of allowing early voting while disallowing postmarked mail-in ballots.

The RNC's argument implies that if Congress sets one single day for voting, no vote arriving after that day, even if postmarked earlier, should count. This logic, when pressed by Justices Roberts and Barrett, extends to early voting, which also wasn't contemplated by the 1845 Congress. The host notes, 'If the court were to rule that way, it may well invalidate all early voting for tens of millions of Americans across the country.'

The Court is considering an asylum case challenging the 'metering' policy, which blocks individuals from physically entering U.S. territory to apply for asylum. The Ninth Circuit previously ruled that presenting oneself to a border official is sufficient, but the Supreme Court appears poised to overturn this, potentially requiring asylum seekers to physically step onto U.S. soil, even if officials actively prevent them.

The discussion highlights the 'technicality to say you didn't arrive if I blocked you one foot outside the border or 10 feet outside the border.' The Ninth Circuit had ruled that 'presenting yourself to a border official was the same as being there because of the fact that you were being stopped not because you didn't walk two extra feet, but because that official was stopping you.' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised the point that the metering law is suspended, suggesting the case might be moot, but the Trump administration countered it could be restarted at any time.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments challenging birthright citizenship, specifically reinterpreting the 14th Amendment's 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' clause. The Trump administration's argument contends that children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S., implying they are citizens of their parents' home countries. Legal experts widely dismiss this as an 'absurd' and 'bad faith' argument, counter to over a century of precedent.

Lisa Graves states, 'The Constitution is crystal clear that if you're born in the United States, you're a citizen. It's in the first paragraph. It's right up front.' Michael Popok reads the 14th Amendment: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens.' He argues the Trump administration's interpretation is 'such a bad faith argument that any other lawyer or group would be sanctioned for this bad faith extension of the law.' Dina Dahal worries about 'incremental change' by Chief Justice Roberts, specifically targeting 'a baby born here to completely undocumented residents does not have citizenship.'