{"id":1666850,"date":"2026-02-27T22:40:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-28T03:40:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/?p=1666850"},"modified":"2026-02-27T22:40:00","modified_gmt":"2026-02-28T03:40:00","slug":"border-ballots-birthrights-top-supreme-court-cases-to-watch-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/border-ballots-birthrights-top-supreme-court-cases-to-watch-2\/1666850\/","title":{"rendered":"Border, Ballots, Birthrights: Top Supreme Court Cases To Watch"},"content":{"rendered":"

Border, Ballots, Birthrights: Top Supreme Court Cases To Watch<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Authored by Joseph Lord, Stacy Robinson, Troy Myers via The Epoch Times<\/a> (emphasis ours),<\/em><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court is poised to hear arguments on major constitutional and legal issues over the next several months.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court in Washington on Feb. 21, 2026. Madalina Kilroy\/The Epoch Times<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Birthright Citizenship<\/h2>\n

One of the term\u2019s most consequential cases arises from a class-action lawsuit alleging that the president violated the 14th Amendment <\/strong>by withholding citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. The case, Trump v. Barbara, is set for oral argument on April 1.<\/p>\n

The clause of the 14th Amendment at issue guarantees citizenship to people \u201cborn or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.\u201d<\/p>\n

Trump, on his first day back in office, issued an executive order that calls for officials to deny citizenship documents to children if their mothers were unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States, and their fathers were not citizens or lawful permanent residents.<\/p>\n

In 2025, multiple lower courts issued rulings blocking implementation of the executive order, titled \u201cProtecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.\u201d The courts said that it violated the amendment and the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the 1898 case, the Supreme Court said the amendment guaranteed citizenship for a Chinese man whose parents were permanently domiciled in the United States but were not U.S. citizens.<\/p>\n

Lower courts have said that the decision\u2019s reasoning lent itself to guaranteeing citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. The administration disagreed, arguing that the decision and the 14th Amendment indicated parents should have some kind of allegiance to the United States.<\/p>\n

Attorneys also told<\/a> the Supreme Court that even if Trump\u2019s order complied with the 14th Amendment, it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. That law uses the amendment\u2019s language to guarantee citizenship for people \u201cborn in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.\u201d<\/p>\n

The attorneys said that law was understood in the 20th century to include the children of illegal immigrants. The Justice Department said<\/a> instead that the law\u2019s meaning \u201cdepends on what the Citizenship Clause actually means, not what Congress thought it meant.\u201d<\/p>\n

The entrance to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services location where a New York City Council data analyst and Venezuelan national was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement while making an immigration appointment, in the Long Island town of Bethpage, N.Y., on Jan. 14, 2026. Shannon Stapleton\/Reuters<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Mail-In Ballots<\/h2>\n

In Watson v. Republican National Committee (RNC), the Supreme Court will consider whether states can count mail-in ballots received after Election Day.<\/p>\n

This case has its origins in 2020, when Mississippi amended its state law to authorize counting mail-in ballots received up to five days after Election Day, so long as they were postmarked by that day. In 2024, the RNC and others alleged Mississippi violated a federal law that defines \u201cElection Day\u201d as \u201cthe Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, meanwhile, argued that the Elections Clause of the Constitution\u2014which broadly allows states to choose the \u201cmanner\u201d of their elections\u2014protected the law.<\/p>\n

After the RNC\u2019s initial suit in 2024, a district court ruled in favor of Mississippi. Later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned that ruling, prohibiting Mississippi from accepting late-received ballots.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court accepted Mississippi\u2019s appeal and scheduled oral arguments for March 23.<\/p>\n

Election workers receive drop boxes for hand delivered mail-in ballots for processing at the Clark County Election Department after polls closed in North Las Vegas on Nov. 5, 2024. David Becker\/Getty Images<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Gun Rights for Drug Users<\/h2>\n

Ali Danial Hemani was charged in 2023 with violating a federal law that prohibited firearm possession by individuals who unlawfully use controlled substances.<\/p>\n

Hemani, who admitted to smoking marijuana approximately every other day, challenged his indictment, arguing that the wording of the statute was too vague and violated the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n

In the case U.S. v. Hemani, the Supreme Court is set to reexamine its 2022 precedent in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.<\/strong> There, the court said laws restricting the right to bear arms are constitutional only when they are \u201cconsistent with the Nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n

The government has argued that the law at issue in Hemani\u2019s case is \u201canalogous to founding-era laws restricting the rights of drunkards.\u201d Hemani\u2019s attorneys disputed that comparison, arguing that \u201chabitual drunkard\u201d laws targeted people who regularly abused alcohol, not people who regularly drugs or alcohol, such as Hemani.<\/p>\n

Oral arguments for the case are scheduled for March 2.<\/p>\n

A visitor inspects a gun at the National Rifle Association Annual Meeting & Exhibits at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas on May 17, 2024. Justin Sullivan\/Getty Images<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Asylum at US\u2013Mexico Border<\/h2>\n

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument on March 24 over the Obama administration\u2019s policy of turning away asylum-seekers before they cross the southern border.<\/p>\n

Although the Biden administration rescinded that policy, the Supreme Court is reviewing the results of prior litigation with consequences for future border enforcement. The main question in the case, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, is whether migrants have officially arrived in the United States if they stop on the Mexican side of the border.<\/p>\n

A group of 13 asylum-seekers and an immigrants\u2019 rights organization sued in 2017<\/strong>. They\u00a0 alleged the policy violated federal laws allowing migrants to apply for asylum and to be inspected by an immigration officer if they arrive in the country.<\/p>\n

One of the laws states that \u201cany alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States\u201d can apply for asylum regardless of his or her legal status.<\/p>\n

The Justice Department told<\/a> the Supreme Court that the plain meaning of arrival meant physical presence. It is asking the justices to reverse a 2024 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.<\/p>\n

In a 2\u20131 decision, it ruled<\/a> that noncitizens are considered to have arrived if they encounter a border official. The court said, among other things, that one of the relevant laws distinguished between physical presence and arrival, suggesting that some arrivals might not be physically present.<\/p>\n

U.S. Border Patrol agents process illegal immigrants from Central America near Roma, Texas, on Aug. 17, 2016. John Moore\/Getty Images<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

FCC Penalties<\/h2>\n

The Supreme Court will hear two cases on April 21 involving the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) imposing fines on wireless carriers for sharing customer location data without consent.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 2024, the FCC imposed nearly $200 million in fines on major telco firms, including $57 million on AT&T and nearly $47 million on Verizon.<\/p>\n

The companies argued that the fines, which were investigated, decided, and ordered in-house at the FCC, violate their right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.<\/p>\n

Their cases\u2014FCC v. AT&T and Verizon Communications v. FCC\u2014are building off of a landmark decision from 2024. In that case, the Supreme Court said the Securities and Exchange Commission had to provide a jury trial if it wanted to impose civil penalties.<\/p>\n

For the FCC, federal law allows the agency to issue a forfeiture order with a penalty. In response, the company can either pay the penalty and seek review in an appeals court, or it may refuse to pay, prompting the agency to potentially refer the issue for prosecution in a jury trial.<\/p>\n

Because Verizon chose the first option, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said its rights weren\u2019t violated. Rather, it passed on its opportunity for exercising those rights. AT&T similarly paid the penalty, but the Fifth Circuit said the prospect of a future trial wasn\u2019t enough.<\/p>\n

Read the rest\u00a0here…<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Tyler Durden<\/a><\/span>
\nFri, 02\/27\/2026 – 17:40<\/span><\/p>\n

\u200bhttps:\/\/www.zerohedge.com\/political\/top-supreme-court-cases-watch<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Border, Ballots, Birthrights: Top Supreme Court Cases To Watch Authored by Joseph Lord, Stacy Robinson, Troy Myers via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), The Supreme…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":1666851,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1666850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","wpcat-1-id"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pbimBl-6ZCG","jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2026\/02\/image_802814229_0-xWgo9l.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1666850","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1666850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1666850\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1666850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1666850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1666850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}