It hasn't been an outcome determinative split at least. That's what they'd normally be concerned about.

The world has a long history of rigid caste systems. It's not great but that's the worst case scenario I think.

That the 14th Amendment was just for freed slaves is part of their argument (it's wrong but that's what they're saying), so they'd probably draw a line at 1868 and say whoever states said were citizens before that plus freed slaves? That's just a guess.

And for the other question, we know in any specific person's line it would go back as far as necessary to hit someone who was naturalized (by any administrative or legislative process) from whom citizenship could be derived.

But the President can't order someone is a citizen and someone else not. They can only order that they're going to interpret something some way. The same words have to mean the same things for everyone. And so there's an equal protection argument flying below the radar.

It doesn't so far either because they knew it would be pandemonium in the courts if they tried that and wanted a decision first before expanding, or possibly since the group that would be less affected by that is _more recently naturalized people_, which is exactly who they don't want.

During the first (injunction) hearing there was a lot of noise about whether the SG would come back to SCOTUS if they lost, to ensure people didn't have to go circuit by circuit. And from Kagan, I trust that's why. From the others, I just suspect they want to ensure they can trash it nationally.

If there were a split (or impending split) and you wanted to get out ahead of the courts that might side with the administration, then I could see them granting just to strike it down nationally. It's just not necessary here, and that's why I'm assuming they have four in the bag already.

Yeah, that's true in general, but I just don't think it would be the case here. When you have something that's not causing any local split and that's not even a real question (as long as you're not corrupt), they wouldn't ever let it grace their docket.

Threshold for certiorari

It's a monopole, I think. Just hearing it is meaningless to them, but I think they would be apoplectic if it were denied.

I just don't see this as useful or necessary for messaging their independence. If anything, the grant itself is still the special treatment they want to claim not to give.

Though they could have sent that message with a cert denial.

The fact that they already have four votes is incredibly concerning.

(I realize this is not the prevailing interpretation, but it normatively should be.)

With some irony that it would then actually be easier to prove citizenship the more recent someone in your family naturalized. But they won't be able to help themselves.

In a year that's been like this, celebrating the sitting President's birthday as a holiday might still be the most shockingly monarchical thing I've ever seen in the US.

Perhaps I should add an "in my lifetime".