Justice Gorsuch Questions Birthright Citizenship Case Attorneys

Legal Arguments in Birthright Citizenship Case

• ⚖️ Justice Gorsuch explored the concept of "percolation" and whether the court could directly address the merits of the birthright citizenship case, even suggesting supplemental briefing.
• 📌 The attorney argued that alternatives, such as instructing the federal government to treat individuals as citizens for the plaintiff states, do not fully remedy their injuries.
• 🏛️ Gorsuch questioned the attorney's three buckets of arguments, noting that the first seems consistent with traditional equity, the second with Article III, but struggling with the third bucket's rule.

Equity and Expedited Rulings

• 💡 The discussion touched upon the idea that if a matter is "really important" and requires expeditious action, courts might intervene, but Gorsuch questioned the constraint on this principle.
• ⚠️ The attorney acknowledged that every district court entering injunctions believes they are acting expeditiously, raising the question of what limits exist.
• 📈 Gorsuch inquired if any case over the last 30 years would have come out differently under the attorney's proposed rule for the third bucket.

Case Examples and Alternative Remedies

• 🎯 The attorney cited the DACA litigation where Texas sought termination, and the Fifth Circuit terminated it specifically for Texas, as an example where full relief was possible for the state's harms.
• 🧩 This led back to Gorsuch's point that if a state can get full relief, it reverts to the first bucket, potentially leaving the third bucket empty.
• ⏳ The AAP case was presented as an illustration of the third bucket, where a rush of a few hours made class certification impossible, necessitating judicial intervention.