Tag Archives: D. John Sauer

Newsweek: Justice Department Issues Birthright Citizenship Update

Posted on by
Reply

The U.S. Department of Justice has released an update confirming that it plans to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump‘s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.

The announcement was disclosed in a joint status report filed Wednesday, August 6, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Why It Matters

The Justice Department’s plan to seek a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship—entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”—marks a critical juncture in the national debate over immigration and constitutional rights.

Signed on January 20, 2025, it directs the federal government to deny citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents.

At stake is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil. A ruling in favor of the order could reshape federal authority over citizenship, impact millions of U.S.-born children, and redefine the limits of executive power—making this one of the most consequential legal battles in recent memory.

What To Know

On February 6, 2025, the district court in Seattle issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of President Trump’s executive order.

The case under review, State of Washington v. Trump, was just one of several ongoing legal challenges in which lower courts have largely rejected the administration’s legal theory. District courts in Maryland (February 5), New Hampshire (February 10), and Massachusetts (February 13), have each upheld that the order conflicted with constitutional protections and halted its enforcement in their respective jurisdictions.

One of those judges, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who sits on the federal bench in Boston, granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, affirming that the constitutional guarantee of citizenship applies broadly, and finding the policy to be, “unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute.”

The government appealed the ruling and sought partial stays from the district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court denied a partial stay, the Ninth Circuit requested further briefing and, on July 23, upheld the injunction.

The new update came in a joint status report filed August 6, 2025, in which the DOJ stated that Solicitor General D. John Sauer intends to file a petition “expeditiously” for certiorari—a legal term that refers to the process by which a higher court (most commonly the U.S. Supreme Court), agrees to review a lower court’s decision—in order to place the case before the Court during its next term, which begins in October.

This means the Justice Department has now formally indicated it will seek a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order; though it has not yet chosen which specific case—or combination of ongoing cases—it will use as the basis for its appeal.

The parties plan to update the court further once those appellate steps are finalized.

Fourteenth Amendment At Stake

Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: “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.” Courts have consistently upheld this principle for more than a century, most notably in the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

However, the Trump administration argues that the amendment should not apply to children of parents who lack permanent legal status, a position that has been repeatedly rejected by lower courts.

What People Are Saying

President Trump, during an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, December 8, 2024, said: “Do you know if somebody sets a foot—just a foot, one foot, you don’t need two—on our land, ‘Congratulations you are now a citizen of the United States of America,’ … Yes, we’re going to end that, because it’s ridiculous.” Adding: “…we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it. … We’re the only country that has it, you know.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters in June 2025: “Birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court.”

DOJ attorneys wrote in the filing: “In light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, Defendants represent that the Solicitor General plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Citizenship Order next Term.”

Jessica Levinson, constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, said: “You can’t ‘executive order’ your way out of the Constitution. If you want to end birthright citizenship, you need to amend the Constitution, not issue an executive order.”

What Happens Next

The Justice Department must decide which case or combination of cases it will use to challenge lower court rulings and bring the birthright citizenship issue before the Supreme Court. Once it makes that decision, the DOJ will file a petition for certiorari.

The Court is not required to accept every petition, but because this involves a major constitutional question, it is likely to grant review. If that happens, the Court could hear arguments in 2026 and issue a ruling by June of that year.

For now, the Justice Department and attorneys representing plaintiff states—including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—have agreed to submit another update once the appellate process is clarified or if further proceedings in the district court are required. Until then, the order remains unenforceable, lower court rulings blocking Trump’s executive order remain in effect, and current birthright citizenship protections continue to apply.

What part of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is so hard to understand? Only a Totally Retarded Dumb-Assed Idiot (TRDAI) could miss the meaning of it:

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.

Unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of TRDAIs in the Trump regime. 🙁

Justice Department Issues Birthright Citizenship Update
Fight over Trump’s order to deny birthright citizenship heads toward Supreme Court, with 14th Amendment protections at stake

https://www.newsweek.com/justice-department-issues-birthright-citizenship-update-2110176

San Francisco Chronicle: Trump asks SCOTUS to allow profiling in California ICE raids

Posted on by
Reply

Any attorney who files or argues in favor of this appeal should be disbarred!

Any justice who votes in favor of this appeal should impeached and removed!

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to allow officers to arrest suspected undocumented immigrants in Southern California because of how they look, what language they’re speaking and what kind of work they’re doing, factors that federal judges have found to be baseless and discriminatory.

Last month’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, “threatens to upend immigration officials’ ability to enforce the immigration laws in the Central District of California,” D. John Sauer, the Justice Department’s solicitor general, said Thursday in a filing with the Supreme Court. “This Court should end this attempted judicial usurpation of immigration-enforcement functions” and suspend the injunction while the case is argued in the lower courts, Sauer wrote.

The Central District, which includes Los Angeles County and six other counties, has nearly 20 million residents, more than any other federal court district in the nation. It became the focus of legal disputes over immigration enforcement after President Donald Trump took control of the California National Guard in June and sent thousands of its troops to the streets in Los Angeles to defend immigration agents against protesters of workplace raids.

A 9th Circuit panel upheld Trump’s commandeering of the National Guard, rejecting a lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom. But Frimpong, an appointee of President Joe Biden, ruled July 11 that immigration officers were overstepping legal boundaries in making the arrests, and issued a temporary restraining order against their practices.

In a ruling Aug. 1 upholding the judge’s decision, another 9th Circuit panel said federal officers had been seizing people from the streets and workplaces based on four factors: their apparent race or ethnicity, the language they spoke or accent in their voice, their presence in a location such as a car wash or an agricultural site, and the type of work they were doing.

That would justify the arrest of anyone “who appears Hispanic, speaks Spanish or English with an accent, wears work clothes, and stands near a carwash, in front of a Home Depot, or at a bus stop,” the panel’s three judges said. They agreed with Frimpong that officers could not rely on any or all of those factors as the basis for an arrest.

But the Trump administration’s lawyers said those factors were valid reasons for immigration arrests in the Central District.

In April, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston issued a similar order against the Border Patrol, prohibiting immigration arrests in the Eastern District of California unless officers have a reasonable suspicion that a person is breaking the law. The district is based in Sacramento and extends from Fresno to the Oregon border.

“You can’t just walk up to people with brown skin and say, ‘Give me your papers,’” Thurston, a Biden appointee, said at a court hearing, CalMatters reported. The Trump administration has appealed her injunction to the 9th Circuit.

The administration’s compliance with the Central District court order was questioned by immigrant advocates on Wednesday after a raid on a Home Depot store near MacArthur Park in Los Angeles, in which officers said 16 Latin American workers were detained. An American Civil Liberties Union attorney, Mohammad Tajsar, said the government “seems unwilling to fulfill the aims of its racist mass deportation agenda without breaking the law.”

There is ample evidence that many businesses in the district “unlawfully employ illegal aliens and are known to hire them on a day-to-day basis; that certain types of jobs — like day labor, landscaping, and construction — are most attractive to illegal aliens because they often do not require paperwork; that the vast majority of illegal aliens in the District come from Mexico or Central America; and that many only speak Spanish,” Sauer told the Supreme Court.

“No one thinks that speaking Spanish or working in construction always creates reasonable suspicion” that someone is an illegal immigrant, the Justice Department attorney said. “But in many situations, such factors — alone or in combination — can heighten the likelihood that someone is unlawfully present in the United States.”

The Supreme Court told lawyers for the immigrants to file a response by Tuesday. 

The case is Noem v. Perdomo, No. 25A169.

Trump asks SCOTUS to allow profiling in California ICE raids
The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to let officers arrest suspected undocumented immigrants in Southern California because of how they look.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/scotus-immigration-california-20809308.php

Newsweek: Pam Bondi’s DOJ to make Ghislaine Maxwell decision after Epstein backlash

Posted on by
Reply

Pam Bondi’s leadership of the Department of Justice may come under further Jeffrey Epstein-related scrutiny over an appeal by Epstein’s former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell.

The British socialite, and former friend of Prince Andrew, was sentenced to 20 years in jail in June 2022 for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation, but has appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Trump administration’s response to that case is due July 14 at a particularly pressured time for Bondi, who as attorney general leads the DOJ.

Why It Matters

Bondi has facing severe criticism from within President Donald Trump‘s MAGA base after a report by the DOJ and FBI last week stated there was no Epstein client list and no evidence the New York financier blackmailed prominent public figures.

This has sparked accusations of a cover-up as Bondi appeared to suggest in February the alleged document was sitting on her desk. The White House later sought to clarify that she was referring to Epstein files more generally.

Newsweek has contacted the DOJ for comment by email out of office hours.

What to Know

Epstein is thought to have abused hundreds of girls and was awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges when he died in his jail cell in 2019.

The case has long featured allegations that he forced his victims to have sex with his powerful friends, but none have ever been charged. Bill Clinton and Donald Trump have been linked to Epstein but both men, and Prince Andrew, strenuously deny knowledge of his crimes.

Trump administration figures suggested new details and even new cases would emerge after a review ordered by the President into the Epstein files this year.

However, a memo by the DOJ and FBI last week indicated there would be no new cases and stated there was no evidence of a blackmail plot by Epstein.

“This systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list.’ There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions,” said the memo.

“We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

This sparked furious responses from MAGA commentators and tears from alt-right radio host Alex Jones, exerting extra pressure on the DOJ, run by Bondi as attorney general, over how to handle Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal following her criminal conviction for sex trafficking.

Ghislaine Maxwell’s Appeal

Maxwell’s lawyers argue she should never have been put on trial due to a plea deal between Jeffrey Epstein and Florida prosecutors in 2008.

A filing by her team, seen by Newsweek, reads: “Despite the existence of a non-prosecution agreement promising in plain language that the United States would not prosecute any co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, the United States in fact prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein.

“Only because the United States did so in the Second Circuit and not elsewhere, her motion to dismiss the indictment was denied, her trial proceeded, and she is now serving a 20-year sentence.

“In light of the disparity in how the circuit courts interpret the enforceability of a promise made by the ‘United States,’ Maxwell’s motion to dismiss would have been granted if she had been charged in at least four other circuits (plus the Eleventh, where Epstein’s agreement was entered into).

“This inconsistency in the law by which the same promise by the United States means different things in different places should be addressed by this Court.”

D. John Sauer, Donald Trump’s pick for Solicitor General, has already twice applied to extend the deadline for the administration’s response to Maxwell’s appeal, leading to the current July 14 deadline.

A letter from Sauer to the court, seen by Newsweek, read: “The government’s response is now due, after one extension, on June 13, 2025.

“We respectfully request, under Rule 30.4 of the Rules of this Court, a further extension of time to and including July 14, 2025, within which to file the government’s response.

“This extension is necessary because the attorneys with principal responsibility for

preparation of the government’s response have been heavily engaged with the press of previously assigned matters with proximate due dates.”

What People Are Saying

Conservative media personality Megyn Kelly was among those to heap pressure on Bondi over backlash during an appearance at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit over the weekend. “It’s starting to create a real hornet’s nest within the administration and I’ve got to be honest I blame Pam Bondi. I’ll tell you why: incompetence,” she said.

“She is the reason that things are unravelling around this story right now, that virtually all the Republican Party cares about. It’s also true that [FBI Deputy Director] Dan Bongino and [FBI Director] Kash Patel had questions about Epstein before they took office before they went to the FBI,” she continued.

“But once they joined the FBI they said nothing. They kept their mouths shut about Epstein. You have not seen them, except for one joint appearace with Dan and Kash on Fox, running all over the media looking for attention on this, yes, clickbaity story.

“Who have you seen?” Kelly asked. “Pam Bondi. She has never missed an opportunity to go on television and dangle sweet nothings that might be coming your way, try to lead you to believe that she’s got it, it’s on her desk, it’s coming, ‘tomorrow you’re going to see something on Epstein.'”

Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday: “What’s going on with my ‘boys’ and, in some cases, ‘gals?’ They’re all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB! We’re on one Team, MAGA, and I don’t like what’s happening. We have a PERFECT Administration, THE TALK OF THE WORLD, and ‘selfish people’ are trying to hurt it, all over a guy who never dies, Jeffrey Epstein. For years, it’s Epstein, over and over again.”

What Happens Next

The Government will now either file its reply, which should lay out how it intends to contest the case, or seek a third extension. Either way, there should be a filing to the Supreme Court case outlining which option has been chosen.

There must be many more besides Prince Andrew who took advantage of Epstein’s many underage victims. The must ALL be exposed.

Pam Bondi’s DOJ to make Ghislaine Maxwell decision after Epstein backlash
Ghislaine Maxwell filed a Supreme Court appeal arguing she should be covered by Jeffrey Epstein’s controversial plea deal.

https://www.newsweek.com/pam-bondi-doj-ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein-files-2098469

NBC News: Trump administration accuses judge of ‘unprecedented defiance’ of Supreme Court in immigration dispute

Posted on by
Reply

The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to clarify a decision Monday that paved the way for the government to quickly deport criminal immigrants to “third countries.”

 fight over the fate of six migrants the Trump administration wants to deport to South Sudan flared up again on Tuesday as the Justice Department accused a federal judge of “unprecedented defiance” of a Supreme Court decision the previous day.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed a motion at the Supreme Court seeking clarification of the Monday evening decision that lifted nationwide restrictions on the administration’s ability to send convicted criminals to “third countries” they have no connection to.

Immediately after the Supreme Court action, Massachusetts-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who is presiding over the litigation, said in a docket entry he did not believe that a May 21 order he issued that prevented the six people being sent to South Sudan had been blocked by the justices. The detainees are currently being held in a U.S. facility in Djibouti.

Murphy’s understanding was that the high court had blocked only his earlier ruling that set nationwide rules giving those affected a “meaningful opportunity” to bring claims that they would be at risk of torture, persecution or death if they were sent to countries the administration has made deals with to receive deported immigrants.

The Supreme Court itself did not explain its decision and did not specify which of Murphy’s rulings were blocked. But liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote a dissenting opinion, said she did not think Murphy’s May 21 decision was affected.

Trump administration accuses judge of ‘unprecedented defiance’ of Supreme Court in immigration dispute
The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to clarify a decision Monday that paved the way for the government to quickly deport criminal immigrants to “third countries.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-administration-accuses-judge-unprecedented-defiance-supreme-cour-rcna214735