Issues

This case asks whether President Donald Trump’s Executive Order denying birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants is constitutional. Trump argues that history, traditions, and precedent before and after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment suggest that the amendment did not grant unqualified birthright citizenship and instead that citizenship depends on the legal and domicile status of the child’s parents at the time of birth. Barbara argues that there is no domicile requirement for birthright citizenship, and that the English common law and American courts have embraced the rule that birthright citizenship extends to the children of undocumented immigrants. Proponents of Trump’s argument assert that birthright citizenship creates citizens without allegiance to the United States and puts a strain on the economy. Proponents of Barbara’s argument assert that birthright citizenship is necessary to protect individuals without a formal allegiance to any nation, that immigrants have long provided patriotic service to the United States, and that birthright citizenship is essential to providing government aid to individuals that require it.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether it was unreasonable for the Mississippi Supreme Court to find that a defendant waived his arguments that the prosecution’s race-neutral reasons for peremptory strikes were pretextual. Pitchford argues that the state court’s waiver finding violated the right against discriminatory jury selection and ignored his counsel’s attempts to preserve an Equal Protection challenge at trial. The state argues that the waiver finding is a reasonable application of state law, and that courts flexibly interpret how states should implement Batson challenges. The outcome of this case could impact courts’ ability to prevent discrimination in jury selection and courts’ efficiency in handling jury discrimination claims.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether federal courts retain jurisdictional authority to confirm or vacate arbitration awards stemming from cases they previously stayed under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Petitioner argues that the FAA does not confer on federal courts an independent jurisdictional basis for awarding or vacating post-arbitral awards after staying a pre-existing federal suit. Respondents rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and ancillary jurisdiction to argue that a federal court with preexisting original jurisdiction may resolve FAA post-arbitration motions in the same pending case. The outcome of this case has policy implications for judicial efficiency, raising concerns about forum shopping and increased litigation in federal courts.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether the Constitution permits prosecution in districts where only effects of criminal conduct occurred or whether criminal prosecutions must occur in locations where the defendant’s actual conduct took place. In this case, the government prosecuted Abouammo, who allegedly falsified documents in order to obstruct a federal investigation, in the Northern District of California even though the conduct he was charged for occurred in the Western District of Washington. Abouammo argues that venue is only proper where an “essential conduct element” occurred, not where the effects of that conduct occurred. The United States argues that venue is proper where the intended effects of a defendant’s conduct took place, especially in inchoate offenses where an express intent element is essential to the crime. The outcome of this case could impact traditional venue protections, forum selection, and prosecutorial discretion.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources