Castro says Air Force confirmed death from flu outbreak at Texas base

The Air Force has confirmed a trainee died as a result of a flu outbreak at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, according to Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas). Keon McDaniel was in his sixth week of basic military training when he experienced a “medical emergency” June 12. He was taken to Brooke Army Medical Center and died there on June…

What in the World Did Brett Kavanaugh Write on Birthright Citizenship?

The Supreme Court’s ruling this week on birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara totaled approximately 194 pages. I wrote earlier this week about the various positions that each of the justices took. But it is worth dwelling for an extra moment on the unusual position taken by Justice Brett Kavanaugh in just 10 strange pages.Unlike the rest of his colleagues, Kavanaugh took the position that Trump’s executive order was constitutionally permissible but statutorily illegal. In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause did not block Trump’s effort to curtail birthright citizenship, but an act of Congress that used identical language did.At a very superficial level, this might sound sensible and moderate by implicitly inviting Congress to address the situation. Kavanaugh certainly positions the opinion—and himself—as such. On closer inspection, it might be the most dangerous and extreme view of U.S. citizenship to be articulated by the justices this week.To understand Kavanaugh’s position, a brief sketch of the other justices’ views is necessary. Last January, Trump issued an executive order that instructed federal agencies to not recognize the U.S. citizenship of children whose parents were undocumented immigrants or living in the United States on temporary visas. A group of plaintiffs sued, arguing that this violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause.That clause reads as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that the son of two Chinese immigrants in San Francisco had acquired U.S. citizenship at birth solely by virtue of being born on American soil. The “subject to the jurisdiction” exception was narrowed to a handful of situations that rarely apply today.In Tuesday’s ruling in Barbara, the justices essentially took four separate positions. Five of them took what can be described as the consensus view. Americans had inherited the rule of birthright citizenship from the English common law, Chief Justice John Roberts explained in his majority opinion. Dred Scott v. Sandford’s holding that people of African descent were ineligible for U.S. citizenship was a violation of that rule, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause restored and entrenched the original understanding.Two of Roberts’s fellow conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, took a different view. Thomas affirmed Wong Kim Ark as correct but argued a person’s domicile status—or, more specifically, that of their parents—also determined whether that person had U.S. citizenship at birth. Since Trump’s executive order was lawful in at least some circumstances, like birth tourism, the two justices rejected the facial challenge to its constitutionality.At the same time, both justices signaled that even if their domicile-focused view had prevailed, it would not grant total victory to the Trump administration. Thomas and Gorsuch concluded that children of temporary visa holders would not be eligible, and their respective dissents largely focused on that aspect of the order. But both justices wrote that they would not necessarily reach the same conclusion for children of undocumented immigrants, especially if they had lived long-term in the U.S.The third position was adopted solely by Justice Samuel Alito, who argued that the clause “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.” He argued that Wong Kim Ark should be read much more narrowly by the court since, in his view, it showed “little respect for precedent.” Instead, Alito leaned heavily on phrasing in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which only extended U.S. citizenship to those “not subject to any foreign power,” a narrower phrasing than the clause that was ratified three years later.Even then, Alito ultimately concluded that Wong Kim Ark was correctly decided. The Chinese Exclusion Acts had made it impossible for Chinese immigrants to be naturalized, so Wong’s parents faced a different threshold under the clause. “By establishing domicile, they had done everything within their power to express their desire and intent to become Americans,” Alito explained.“Wong Kim Ark is therefore best understood as holding that people who are lawfully present here, establish the United States as their intended permanent home, and do everything within their power to become United States citizens can be seen as no longer subject to any foreign power,” Alito argued.That brings us, at last, to Kavanaugh. He voted with the majority to strike down the order on different grounds from those of Roberts and the other four justices in the majority. Kavanaugh said that he found the constitutional issue to be “far more complicated” than the statutory one.

Michael Rubin confirms he ‘didn’t want people to have to choose’ between July 4 bash and Taylor Swift wedding

Page Six reported in April that the Fanatics boss was moving his annual, star-studded event at his Hamptons home this year to July 1.

Confirm Juan Rodriguez or terrorism will thrive

Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author. Outsider Ambassador to Guatemala Can Combat Cartels President Donald Trump’s hemispheric counterterrorism agenda is on the […]

Mamdani confirms Harris phone call, says she’s been ‘in touch’ as speculation swirls over 2028 White House run

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani confirmed Wednesday that former Vice President Kamala Harris has been in contact with him for a few months, the latest indication that the former Democratic presidential nominee is strengthening ties with the party’s progressive wing as she weighs a possible 2028 White House bid. “Yes. That is true,” the […]

No Credible Threats Against America250 Celebrations, Patel Confirms

Brett Kavanaugh Took Direct Aim at One of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Biggest Legacies

The opinion in question is United States v. Virginia, a 30-year-old case also arising from another fight about schools.

DC insider points out a slip that may confirm Alito's pending resignation

On Tuesday morning, amidst the release of several consequential Supreme Court rulings, NPR ran a story stating that Justice Samuel Alito had just announced his retirement — but he hadn’t. The news outlet quickly retracted the story, issuing an apology. But according to one DC insider, this minor media incident may have in fact revealed Alito’s impending retirement, which would have major implications for the future of the court and country. “Given that the Speaker had a statement ready to go, and that Nina Totenberg is the dean of the SCOTUS press corps, who is a logical recipient of this big retirement story, this looks like an embargo broken to me,” posted Douglas Farrar, Former Director of Public Affairs at the Federal Trade Commission. “I expect we'll see Alito announce his retirement soon.”Farrar was referring to three key points. First, the retracted NPR story by Nina Totenberg. Second, the rumor that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) had sent an email to staff and stakeholders with the subject “Thank you, Justice Alito.” And finally, the concept of a “media embargo,” in which a piece of news is shared with select media outlets with the understanding that it won’t be revealed until an agreed-upon time, allowing journalists to prepare their stories. As Farrar suggests, the NPR story and Johnson email could both be the result of a broken embargo, and Alito’s actual announcement is soon to come.If that is the case, it means two things. First, and less importantly, Totenberg and someone working in Johnson’s communications team have a lot of explaining to do, and they are unlikely to be trusted with scoops in the future. But more importantly, if Alito is in fact leaving, that means President Donald Trump will appoint his replacement — a move he would be eager to press with the midterms looming. If the Republican Party takes the losses that are projected and loses its majority, the Democrats will be significantly better positioned to oppose confirmation of his nominees. If Alito is indeed retiring, it would represent a strategic move on the part of conservatives, affording Trump the opportunity to select his fourth judge rather than leaving the possibility open to a Democratic successor were Alito to retire or die during a future term. This ensures that Republicans will shape the court for a generation and have a major impact on how the judiciary drives policy for decades to come. While this certainly represents a threat to the Democratic agenda, interestingly enough, rumors of Alito’s retirement came as the Supreme Court issued a consequential ruling in which three conservative justices — including two appointed by Trump — slapped down the president’s executive order attacking birthright citizenship.