Appeals Court Tells Trump to Take a Birthright Tourism Hike as It Slams New EO - "What Part of the SCOTUS Order Did You Not Understand?"

by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. - attorney, law professor emeritus, and author of Federal law

Y'all remember the Barbara (first names only please!) versus Trump birthright citizenship case, right? The one for which we all held our collective breaths as the Supreme Court determined whether the Constitution had any wiggle room for Trump to monkey with birthright citizenship, right? And how we all let out a collective sigh of relief when "his own" Supreme Court spanked him over that (just as I'd said they would - nyah, told ya so).

You remember that. And then Trump immediately tried a *new* executive order, aimed at the very narrow issue of "birthright tourism", remember that? Sure you do, it was just a few weeks ago.

And so the original plaintiffs in the case filed a motion to either clarify or modify the original injunction in the case so as to make clear that the new birthright tourism executive order violates the birthright injunction (that injunction stopping the original EO about birthright citizenship). In other words, "Would the Court please make clear to Trump that this new EO violates the injunction too?".

By the way, the full list of plaintiffs on the case (remember, first names only) is:

Barbara, Sarah, Susan, Mathew, Mark

I know it's nearly blasphemy-adjacent, but does anyone else's brain auto-complete that with ", Luke and John"?

Anyways, the order from the Court of Appeals is short and sweet, and essentially remands it back to the district court "for further proceedings consistent with (the Supreme Court's decision in) Barbara."

But I know that you Notes from the Front members love the court docs, so in addition to the order from the Court of Appeals I'm including the Plaintiffs' motion to clarify, which includes such nifty languages as:

"Despite the Supreme Court’s clear direction, the President continues to claim for himself the power to 'identify categories of children' whose citizenship he intends to deny."

And:

"Faced with the Supreme Court’s rejection of his effort to rewrite the Citizenship Clause, the President has apparently decided to keep trying. But 'an injunction is not a game of whack-a- mole where the Court must repeatedly issue new injunctions to address the Defendants’ post-injunction craftiness.' "

Bahahahaha…. “post-injunction craftiness”… bahahahaha!

Notes from the Front members: The Court of Appeals order, and Barbara’s motion, are below for you. (Note: if you have installed the Substack app on your phone you need to be sure to go to your notifications settings *in the app*, and set notifications to "email" because it defaults your account to "not email").

My investigating, fact-gathering, and reporting is 100% reader-supported. Here are ways that you can support my reporting:

- Join Notes from the Front: It's just $5 a month, and you will truly be supporting what I do here, plus you get the documents that I include with each post. You can do that below where it says “Upgrade”.

- Support my coffee habit here: https://www.annepmitchell.com/buy-anne-a-coffee/

- Share this post

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a sentence in a comment that includes the word "craftiness". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about craftiness! ;~)

(The above was provided by me, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. - attorney and law professor emeritus - all me, no AI, the buck stops here.)