Neil Gorsuch Questions Attorney on Merits of Birthright Citizenship Case

Supreme Court Oral Arguments

• 🎯 Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed an attorney on the merits of the case concerning nationwide injunctions.
• 💡 The discussion revolved around how to promptly bring the merits of the case before the court.

Remedial Relief and Merits

• ⚖️ The attorney argued that states should not have to bear the full burden of certain policies, and that equity should not ignore harms suffered.
• 🔑 It was stated that the ability to remedy injuries is directly tied to the merits of the case.
• 📈 The case of Ohio versus EPA was referenced, suggesting that reconciling differing state interests requires an examination of the merits.

Expediting the Merits

• 🚀 The court could order supplemental briefing on the merits immediately if it chose to do so.
• ⚠️ The attorney emphasized that entertaining less than complete relief for states' injuries would necessitate a look at the merits of the case.
• ❓ If the court were to decide only the remedial question, it would still need to address concerns raised by Justice Kagan.

State Planning and Precedent

• 🗺️ The attorney suggested that it would be difficult for states to lose the case given existing Supreme Court precedent.
• ⚡ States suffer harms from the executive order beyond their borders and require relief.
• 🧐 Seeking judgment on the basis of continued Article 3 injuries was mentioned as a possibility, though not the cleanest way to present a case.

Deciding the Core Question

• 🤔 The attorney clarified that they were not saying the court could not decide the question presented without looking at the merits.
• 💯 However, if the court entertained giving states less than full redress for Article 3 injuries, a review of the merits would be unavoidable.