OpenOS by Values for America

Row 01 c/o cl-10882239 · ▲ 21 days

“Real” · Article III Published

Trump v. Barbara

Author: John G. Roberts

Filed: 2026-06-30

“AI Consensus” · Textualist Re-decision Re-decided

Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and thus not citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.

This textualist holding respects the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, honors Congress's plenary power over naturalization under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, and reserves to the political branches the authority to define the scope of birthright citizenship. Democra…

Remedy: Reverse the district court's prelimi Precedent: Overrule United States v. Wo Scope: This holding applies to 3 citations 3 departures from text

Trump v. Barbara

Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and thus not citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Trump v. Barbara Revisions: 7/01/26

Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment unless Congress provides otherwise.

West Virginia v. B. P. J.

State power to define women's sports by biological sex is constitutionally sound under the Tenth Amendment and Title IX as originally understood.

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Comm'n

FECA's political-party coordinated-expenditure limits are facially valid under the First Amendment as a regulation of campaign conduct, not speech.

Trump v. Slaughter

The FTC's for-cause removal restriction is constitutional as applied to officers exercising quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers; the President may remove FTC members only for cause.

Chatrie v. United States

Re-decided holding: The government's acquisition of Google Location History data via a geofence warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the data was voluntarily disclosed to a third party and the warrant was supported by probable cause.

Watson v. Republican National Committee

The federal election-day statutes do not require ballot receipt by election day; Mississippi's law is not preempted.

Trump v. Cook

The President has plenary removal power over Federal Reserve Governors under Article II; for-cause restriction is unconstitutional as applied to executive officers.

Mullin v. Al Otro Lado

An alien 'arrives in the United States' when he or she presents at a U.S. port of entry and seeks admission, regardless of physical crossing.

Mullin v. Doe

TPS termination is subject to judicial review for compliance with statutory procedure and constitutional rights, but the court must defer to the executive's substantive foreign-policy determination.

Wolford v. Lopez

Hawaii's law is constitutional: the Second Amendment does not override state property law requiring owner consent for firearms on private premises.

Monsanto v. Durnell

Pung v. Isabella County

Tax sale proceeds, not fair market value, are the baseline for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S. A. (Cuba)

The Helms-Burton Act does not waive foreign sovereign immunity; the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless the Executive expressly consents.

Landor v. Louisiana Dept of Corrections and Public Safety

RLUIPA permits suits against state entities and officials in their official capacities, but not against state employees in their personal capacities, unless they individually consented.

Landor v. Louisiana Dept of Corrections and Public Safety Revisions: 6/24/26

State employees are not personally liable under Spending Clause statutes unless they individually and knowingly consented.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe

Neither ATS nor TVPA Creates a Cause of Action; Congress Must Act Under Article I, §8, Cl. 10

Blanche v. Lau

Re-decided: A lawful permanent resident may be deemed 'seeking admission' only upon conviction (or clear and convincing evidence of commission) of a qualifying crime at the time of reentry.

McCarthy v. Hernandez

Re-decided holding: The state trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on attenuation violates the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause as understood at ratification, and habeas relief was properly granted.

Hunter v. United States

An appeal waiver is enforceable as written, unless the plea itself was not knowing or voluntary under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments; no separate 'miscarriage of justice' exception exists.

T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation Revisions: 6/19/26

Rooker-Feldman applies only to final judgments from the highest state court in which review could be had, consistent with 28 U.S.C. §1257.

Hunter v. United States Revisions: 6/19/26

Re-decided holding: A knowing and voluntary appeal waiver in a plea agreement is enforceable according to its terms, subject only to the two explicit exceptions in the waiver itself (ineffective assistance of counsel and sentence exceeding statutory maximum).

T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation

Rooker-Feldman bars federal district court jurisdiction over direct attacks on state-court judgments regardless of finality under state appellate processes.

United States v. Hemani

Held: Section 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional as applied to simple unlawful drug users without individualized dangerousness, but Congress may enact tailored legislation under its Commerce Clause power requiring drug testing or treatment as condition of gun ownership, subject to due process.

Abouammo v. United States

Reversed: Venue for a §1519 violation lies only in the district where the falsification occurred.

Abouammo v. United States Revisions: 6/16/26

Venue for §1519 lies exclusively where the falsification occurred, not where the investigation is located.

Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.

Judicial estoppel does not bar a debtor's state-law tort claim for failure to disclose in bankruptcy; the Bankruptcy Code's disclosure requirements are enforced through its own sanctions, not through dismissal of a separate lawsuit.

FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd.

Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act provides an express private right of action for rescission of contracts violating the Act, consistent with common-law rescission.

Sripetch v. SEC

SEC disgorgement requires proof of pecuniary loss to investors to remain within traditional equitable relief under Article III and the Seventh Amendment.

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.

FCC v. AT&T

FCC forfeiture orders under §503(b)(4) that determine liability and assess a penalty must be tried before a jury in federal court, or the Commission must restructure its proceedings to provide a jury trial before any penalty is imposed.

Allen v. Milligan

Whitton v. Dixon

Habeas review of harmless error under § 2254(d)(2) must be confined to the evidence presented to the jury at trial; post-trial evidence cannot be considered.

Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock

Re-decided holding: The FAA §1 exemption covers workers on intrastate legs of interstate journeys, consistent with the original meaning of 'engaged in interstate commerce.'

Pitchford v. Cain

The Equal Protection Clause does not require a trial court to conduct a three-step Batson inquiry; peremptory challenges are not subject to judicial review for racial bias absent a showing of systematic exclusion.

Rutherford v. United States

Nonretroactive sentencing amendments may constitute an 'extraordinary and compelling reason' under §3582(c)(1)(A)(i) when the resulting disparity is extreme, unjustified, and not based solely on congressional intent to deny relief.

Fernandez v. United States

A prisoner may raise a credible claim of actual innocence in a compassionate release motion under §3582(c)(1)(A), but only if the claim is supported by new evidence not previously available and the prisoner shows diligence.

Margolin v. NAIJ

Re-decided holding: The Fourth Circuit did not violate Article III's case-or-controversy requirement; its remand for factfinding was a permissible exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and the CSRA's exclusivity is not a jurisdictional bar based on text or original meaning.

Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

Title III liability attaches only when the plaintiff's property interest was still in existence at the time of trafficking, absent confiscation, and the defendant knowingly trafficked in that specific interest.

Hamm v. Smith

The Eighth Amendment does not categorically prohibit execution of intellectually disabled individuals; states may define intellectual disability for capital punishment but must consider all relevant evidence, including standard error of measurement.

M & K Employee Solutions, Inc. v. Trustees of IAM Nat. Pension

Re-decided holding: The 'as of' language in 29 U.S.C. §1391 requires that all actuarial assumptions used to calculate withdrawal liability be selected on or before the measurement date.

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC