The Supremes

and their anticipated release

The Supreme Court, often called the Supremes (not sure whether Diana Ross and her ladies sue to protect their name as we have become a litigious bunch, haven’t we?) or SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States), closes its term by the beginning of July so the Justices can evacuate the heat and humidity of Washington for their gigs around the world. Sometimes they go to the beach, others speak at conferences abroad, or some probably read a juicy fictional thriller. They want to walk away from that beautiful building on Capitol Hill, in any case.

This leaves them to unveil their decision on the “biggie” case today or tomorrow, unless they change their behavior to stay in session during a dangerous weather forecast for our first “heat dome” of 2026 later this week. In any case, we likely will know the decision before the Fourth of July, a date that is unlikely to factor into their decision but one of note.

I remind everyone that the “Roberts Court” has an “originalist” and “textualist” majority, meaning that Justices Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett wrote opinions across their careers that hinged on the wording of the Constitution. All of them, at one point or another, criticized the “activism” of interpreting those words to make policy. On the other hand, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, or Jackson rarely accept only the words as written in a prior historic era, applying the public policy to the more contemporary era.

This difference in orientation creates an oft-split Court, one which the Chief Justice assures us is not political while others wonder whether its perceived partisanship is the relevant matter. Many scholars can address this matter more effectively than I can, so seek them out if it interests you.

The birthright citizenship case matters greatly to everyone. President Trump opposes the idea that the in-country birth of children, aimed at those of immigrants illegally here, automatically qualify for what is known as the “citizenship clause” of the 14th Amendment. That provision resulted from Republican-led intentions to ensure African Americans indeed received citizenship following our brutal Civil War and Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (enacted 1 January 1863), freeing those enslaved across this country.

Since you probably don’t reread this document often (although I hope you will reread both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution with its Amendments by Saturday evening, as it’s worth all of us doing so), let me cite the clause.

Fourteenth Amendment, 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.”

No, the children of foreign diplomats (who, after all, operate within the “sovereignty” of international law rather than under U.S. law, or those born in American Samoa (I assume this is because we have been administering that territory rather than viewing it as either a state within the Union or a Commonwealth, as is Puerto Rico’s status). The ACLU criticizes this distinction, which is a rare one, as those born in that distant Pacific territory are Americans but not citizens, which is a peculiar distinction. Not all Samoans seek U.S. citizenship for fear it will eradicate their native culture, but that is a different column.

None of us, as of this writing, knows whether the President’s unprecedented attendance at the oral arguments on the birthright citizenship case will influence the Court’s decision, nor are we likely to, as the Justices are mum about their decision-making. But the implications are vast.

It’s easy to assume the rights are only germane to the children of illegal immigrants. Yet, one doesn’t have to think hard to see it applied to other groups, such as children of LGBT citizens, those of minority religions, or even broader characteristics currently protected, granted citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment. We are a country undergoing a remarkable reconsideration of many long-held beliefs, so I rule nothing out.

The irony, at least to me, of this decision coming within the same week as the 250th anniversary commemorations of the Declaration of Independence could not be more profound.

The Declaration of Independence, which, 250 years ago, sought to distance us from a monarch we saw as not protecting our national interests instead of his own, did not address citizenship per se. Most Americans, including some senior officials over the decades, have confused the declared rejection of our ties with London for the Constitution, which governs our lives.

I do not know how this will end. Still, the Court’s majority, whatever it says, will have lasting effects not merely on those born on our soil but also on our reputation as a country, as we base our governance on an enduring document.

Actions and consequences never cease.

I look forward to your thoughts on this column, on the 250th anniversary of our severed ties with the British, or any other topic. I read each of your comments carefully, as I learn much from all of you. Please feel free to throw out your ideas.

Thank you for your time during this late June day. I appreciate those who subscribe to the column, as you provide me with resources to read more broadly. Please consider becoming a subscriber if your finances allow, at a Founder ($80), Annual ($55), or Monthly ($6) rate. Subscribers access the comment section for all to see their views. In any case, I appreciate you reading Actions Create Consequences whenever you have time.

We received desperately-needed the rain this weekend, so I shot few outdoor photographs. I did see a splendid view this morning, however.

Be well, stay cool, and be safe. FIN

Amanpur and Company, “Beyond the 6-3 Divide: Why the Supreme Court is the ‘Last Branch Standing’”, YouTube.com, 1 May 2026, retrieved at

Constitution of the United States, “Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1”, Constitution.gov, 1787, amended 1868, retrieved on 29 June 2026 at https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

Gabriela Meléndez Olivera and Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux, “‘Nationals’ but not ‘Citizens’: How the U.S. Denies Citizenship to Samoans”, ACLU.org, 22 May 2020, retrieved at https://www.aclu.org/news/voting-rights/nationals-but-not-citizens-how-the-u-s-denies-citizenship-to-american-samoans

Anton Metlitsky, “The Roberts Court and the New Textualism”, CardozoLawReview.org, 38: 671-689 (2018), retrieved at https://cardozolawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/METLITSKY.38.2.pdf

David North, “Why Don’t the Biden administration and the American Samoan Establishment Want Citizenship for Samoans: They are Nationals”, Center for Immigration Studies, 18 October 2022, retrieved at https://cis.org/North/Why-Dont-Biden-Administration-and-American-Samoa-Establishment-Want-Citizenship-Samoans-They-are-U.S.-Nationals