President Trump's repeated attempts to usurp Congress's power of the purse are plainly unconsitutional, as constitutional text and history make clear. Read @myconstitution.bsky.social's amicus brief to learn more about this history & why Trump's actions violate the separation of powers. 2/2

The amicus brief we filed in the case does a deep dive into the history Justice Jackson discusses in her dissent. Read it here: www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/a...

And it highlights the oddity of the posture in which the Court is first considering these cases on this incredibly important issue. 2/2

Interesting (& admirable) that J. Sotomayor foregrounds the merits in her opinion. It highlights the issue that both the government & the Court's conservative supermajority didn't want to address -- & no wonder, given how weak the government's merits arguments are. 1/2

J. Sotomayor notes that in issuing the birthright citizenship EO, Trump was "[u]ndeterred by the Constitution, history, Supreme Court precedent, federal law, and longstanding Executive Branch practice."

J. Sotomayor on the history of the Constitution's birthright citizenship guarantee: "The lawmakers who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment understood that it would extend citizenship to all children born here, regardless of parental citizenship."

More from J. Sotomayor: "Few constitutional questions can be answered by resort to the text of the Constitution alone, but this is one. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship. ... Unsurprisingly ... every other source of interpretation confirms this conclusion."

J. Sotomayor calls out #SCOTUS conservative supermajority's attempt to ignore the patent unconstitutionality of the Trump birthright citizenship executive order: "As every conceivable source of law confirms, birthright citizenship is the law of the land."

J. Jackson minces no words in the final sentences of her dissent: "Americans with disabilities have proven time and again that they can overcome long odds in fighting for their own equality. When that happens, my one wish would be for this Court to stay out of their way."

More from J. Jackson: "Worse still, by doing all this, the Court renders meaningless Title I’s protections for disabled workers’ retirement benefits just when those protections matter most."