The Appeals Court ruling was 95 percent likely, so this is no shocker. But let’s review the case. 
Appeal Rejected
Law and Crime reports ‘Insufficient’: Appeals court rejects bid to reinstate birthright citizenship ban as Trump-appointed judge says president’s position ‘has never been recognized by the judiciary’
A three-judge panel on the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined an emergency motion from the administration seeking a partial stay of a lower court’s nationwide injunction on the measure, writing that the Justice Department had “not made a strong showing that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits” of the appeal. The panel ordered the case to remain on schedule with arguments slated to take place in June.
U.S. Circuit Judge Danielle J. Forrest, who was appointed to the court by Trump during his first term, penned a concurring opinion defending the panel’s decision not to intervene. Forrest reasoned that the administration failed to show that it was entitled to emergency relief because there was no showing that “irreparable harm will occur immediately” without such relief, emphasizing that the executive order would drastically change the understanding of U.S. citizenship.
“Judges are charged to reach their decisions apart from ideology or political preference. When we decide issues of significant public importance and political controversy hours after we finish reading the final brief, we should not be surprised if the public questions whether we are politicians in disguise,” she wrote. “Moving beyond wringing our hands and wishing things were different, one concrete thing we can do is decline to decide (or pre-decide) cases on an emergency basis when there is no emergency warranting a deviation from our normal deliberate practice.”
The appellate court’s ruling comes one day after Baltimore-based U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman on Tuesday issued a five-page order denying Trump’s request for the “stay pending appeal” in which she asserted that the administration is likely to lose the case because the executive order in question seeks to “overrule the Constitution ‘by executive fiat.’”
The Trump administration is widely expected to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nonsense from the New York Times
A few days ago, a friend told me to look at a guest opinion piece on the New York Times Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship by Mr. Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown University, and Mr. Wurman a law professor at the University of Minnesota.
The article is little more than a silly rehash of what “subject to the jurisdiction” means.
The NYT authors go back to 1862 and even Calvin’s Case, a 1608 judicial decision about who were birthright subjects of the English monarch, written by Edward Coke.
What nonsense. A 1608 case has zero merit as the US was not even a country. Anything from 1862 was superseded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment ratified on July 9, 1868 and United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898.
Link to Appeals Court Ruling
Here’s the Appeals Court ruling State of Washington, et al. v. Trump, et al.
The ruling was as expected. But full arguments will not be heard until June. So, this means little, in and of itself.
However, it also about 95 percent certain the full Appeals Court ruling will be the same. These percentages are my off-the-cuff estimates.
Why I Am Confident
To understand why I remain so confident please consider the detailed 31-Page Ruling by Justice Leo T. Sorokin in the District of Massachusetts, Key Excerpts.
For starters, each plaintiff has standing to sue, because the uncontested facts establish each would suffer direct injury from the EO’s implementation. The plaintiffs are also likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. In a lengthy 1898 decision, the Supreme Court examined the Citizenship Clause, adopting the interpretation the plaintiffs advance and rejecting the interpretation expressed in the EO. The rule and reasoning from that decision were reiterated and applied in later decisions, adopted by Congress as a matter of federal statutory law in 1940, and followed consistently by the Executive Branch for the past 100 years, at least.
A single district judge would be bound to apply that settled interpretation, even if a party were to present persuasive arguments that the long-established understanding is erroneous.
The defendants, however, have offered no such arguments here. Their three main contentions are flawed. First, allegiance in the United States arises from the fact of birth. It does not depend on the status of a child’s parents, nor must it be exclusive, as the defendants contend. Applying the defendants’ view of allegiance would mean children of dual citizens and lawful permanent residents would not be birthright citizens—a result even the defendants do not support.
Next, the defendants argue birthright citizenship requires the mutual consent of the person and the Nation. This theory disregards the original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment: to recognize as birthright citizens the children of enslaved persons who did not enter the country consensually, but were brought to our shores in chains.
There is no basis to think the drafters imposed a requirement excluding the very people the Amendment aimed to make citizens. Simply put, the Amendment is the Nation’s consent to accept and protect as citizens those born here, subject to the few narrow exceptions recognized at the time of enactment, none of which are at issue here.
Finally, the Amendment requires states to recognize birthright citizens as citizens of their state of residence. The text includes no domicile requirement at all. Each of the defendants’ theories focuses on the parents, rather than the child whose citizenship is at stake. In so doing, these interpretations stray from the text of the Citizenship Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment says nothing of the birthright citizen’s parents, and efforts to import such considerations at the time of enactment and when the Supreme Court construed the text were rejected. This Court is likewise bound to reject such theories now.
1. Likelihood of Success “The sine qua non of th[e] four-part inquiry” governing motions for preliminary injunctions is the first factor: “likelihood of success on the merits.” New Comm Wireless Servs., Inc. v. SprintCom, Inc., 287 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002). This factor weighs strongly in the plaintiffs’ favor. The plain language of the Citizenship Clause—as interpreted by the Supreme Court more than a century ago and routinely applied by all branches of government since then— compels a finding that the plaintiffs’ challenges to the EO are nearly certain to prevail. The Citizenship Clause speaks in plain and simple terms. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
The words chosen by the drafters and ratified by the states, understood “in their normal and ordinary” way, United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 731 (1931), bestow birthright citizenship broadly to persons born in the United States. The text is directed at the person born (or naturalized). It does not mention the person’s parents at all, let alone expressly condition its grant of citizenship on any characteristic of the parents. So, at the outset, the EO and its focus on the immigration status of a child’s parents find no support in the text.
One phrase in the Citizenship Clause is at the heart of the parties’ disagreement. The constitutionality of the EO, and the success of the plaintiffs’ claims, turns on the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” To understand that phrase, however, this Court need look no further than United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).12 In that case, the Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the contours of citizenship under English and early American common law, under the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, and as reflected in legal scholarship and court decisions in the decades leading up to the turn of the twentieth century. See generally id. at 653-704. From these sources, the Supreme Court concluded that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was meant “to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words,” the following categories of persons: “children of members of the Indian tribes,” “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state.”13 Id. at 682. As to all other persons, “the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion of the United States, notwithstanding alienage of parents,” applied. Id. at 689.14
The defendants accept that this Court is bound by the prior holdings of the Supreme Court. See New Jersey, Doc. No. 92 at 44; Mot. Hr’g Tr. at 48. Nevertheless, they urge the Court to essentially ignore all but a handful of sentences from Wong Kim Ark, arguing the bulk of the majority’s lengthy opinion is dicta.
Lower federal courts are not merely obligated to apply the holdings of Supreme Court decisions; they also “are bound by the Supreme Court’s ‘considered dicta.’
To the extent the thorough analysis in Wong Kim Ark of the Fourteenth Amendment’s common-law foundations, the purpose and intent of its drafters, and its application during the first thirty years after its ratification can be called “dicta” at all, it is undoubtedly the “considered” and “authoritative” sort that this Court is bound to apply. The sheer detail and length of the discussion by the Court’s majority make this plain.
The plaintiffs are not relying on a stray “remark” that lacks “care and exactness,” standing “wholly aside from the question in judgment” and “unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities,” that might not “control the judgment” of a lower court. 169 U.S. at 678. They are “leaning into” the central reasoning of the Supreme Court in support of its holding.
If that were not enough to find that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits (and it is), the fact that Congress incorporated the language of the Citizenship Clause into provisions of the INA passed more than forty years after Wong Kim Ark cements the meaning of the disputed phrase and provides the plaintiffs an independent avenue to prevailing here.
In the INA, Congress conferred birthright citizenship via statute on several categories of individuals, the first of which is described using language mirroring the Citizenship Clause. 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (confirming citizenship of “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”). As the plaintiffs point out, this provision was enacted in 1940 and “recodified” in 1952.
Here, the fundamental rule conveyed by the Citizenship Clause was clear by the time § 1401 was enacted, and the legislators who chose to include the same phrase the Supreme Court already had examined presumably intended the same words would be accorded the same meaning in both contexts.
Beyond sidestepping Wong Kim Ark, the defendants urge the Court to read three specific requirements into the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The defendants contend these requirements are necessary to ensure adherence to the phrase’s original meaning. None of these requirements, however, find support in the text itself or the cases construing and applying it. And, more importantly, each of them, if applied as argued, would prevent the Citizenship Clause from reaching groups of persons to whom even the defendants concede it must apply.
A child born here is both entitled to the government’s protection and bound to adhere to its laws. This is true regardless of the characteristics of the child’s parents, subject only to the narrow exceptions identified in Wong Kim Ark. Allegiance, in this context, means nothing more than that. See id. at 662 (“Birth and allegiance go together.”). As James Madison explained: It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will be therefore unnecessary to investigate any other.
Next, the defendants seek to graft concepts of social-contract theory onto the “jurisdiction” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by arguing birthright citizenship requires “mutual consent between person and polity.” New Jersey, Doc. No. 92 at 45. The defendants again center their argument on the parents at the expense of the child whose birthright is at stake—perhaps, in part, because infants are incapable of consent in the legal sense.
This argument fares even worse than the first. The Fourteenth Amendment enshrined in the Constitution language ensuring “the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth” in the United States applied regardless of race—including, and especially, to formerly enslaved persons. 169 U.S. at 675; see Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 262-63 (1967). The defendants do not (and could not) deny this. Enslaved persons, of course, did not “consent” to come to the United States or to remain here. They were brought here violently, in chains, without their consent. These conditions persisted after their arrival. Against this backdrop, it verges on frivolous to suggest that Congress drafted, debated, and passed a constitutional amendment, thereafter enacted by the states, that imposed a consent requirement necessarily excluding the one group of people the legislators and enactors most specifically intended to protect.
Finally, the defendants seek to transform the use of the term “reside” at the end of the Citizenship Clause into a basis for finding that the “jurisdiction” phrase eliminates any person without a lawful “domicile” in the United States. The defendants contend that persons here with temporary visas retain “domiciles” in their native countries, and persons here without lawful status cannot establish a true “domicile.” And so, the argument goes, they cannot “reside” in any state, and they remain outside the “jurisdiction” of the United States for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. This, once again, shifts the focus away from the child and the location of birth to the parents and the status and duration of their presence in this country.
In sum, the defendants invite the Court to adopt a set of rules that work (except when they don’t). None of the principles the defendants advance are sturdy enough to overcome the settled interpretation and longstanding application of the Citizenship Clause described above. Each principle, applied uniformly, would lead to unintended results at odds with the text, meaning, and intent of the Fourteenth Amendment—and, in some instances, with the parameters set out in the EO itself.
It is difficult to imagine a government or public interest that could outweigh the harms established by the plaintiffs here. Perhaps that is why the defendants have identified none. Instead, they point only to the Executive Branch’s discretion in matters of immigration. New Jersey, Doc. No. 92 at 49. But this case is not about how “to manage the immigration system.” Id. It is about the Constitution’s guarantee of citizenship by virtue of birth.
III. CONCLUSION “What the Constitution has conferred neither the Congress, nor the Executive, nor the Judiciary, nor all three in concert, may strip away.” Nishikawa, 356 U.S. at 138 (Black, J., concurring). Here, the Constitution confers birthright citizenship broadly, including to persons within the categories described in the EO. Under the plain language of the Citizenship Clause and the INA provision that later borrowed its wording, and pursuant to binding Supreme Court precedent, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory challenges to the EO are likely to prevail, the plaintiffs face serious and irreparable harm in the absence of relief, the defendants face no cognizable harm from a preliminary injunction, and the public interest is served by preventing the implementation of a facially unconstitutional policy.
Comments from my Legal Expert
Sarokin has lived up to his reputation. This is a very good opinion. As you can see, his analysis is crafted carefully to appeal to the textualists.
And he makes a very good analysis of the law and the point I’ve made about how a district court is really powerless to reverse a Supreme Court decision.
Despite the obvious nature of this, other friends and readers keep asking silly questions and making silly comments. Let’s go over them.
The following Q&A is mostly from my previous post A Fourth Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
Q: “Why would we want a policy that encourages illegal entry?”
A: How does it matter? The SC does not make rulings on the alleged wisdom of laws. It only decides constitutionality of laws. And the 14th is crystal clear. So are multiple subsequent rulings.
Q: Last I saw I think the polls were 60-40 on my side.
A: So what?
Q: No European country follows birthright citizenship in this manner.
A: So what? Does the Supreme Court cite Spanish law in its rulings?
Q: A 1608 case could be very helpful to the court in determining what was meant in the late 1700s by the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction of’.
A: Absurd. A 1608 case is meaningless given the clear intent of the 14th Amendment and several key subsequent rulings.
Q: Why is it only Illegals are given this Citizenship, everyone else who came in went thru all the Laws to become a Citizen some as long as 7 yrs it took We do things in this Country that are NOT done elsewhere?
A: That silly comment got a lot of likes. Actually, “everyone” gets birthright citizenship. And if something needs to be done then 1) It needs to be well thought out 2) Done by a Constitutional Amendment
I am somewhat flabbergasted by a lawyer’s comment to my post regarding a meaningless 1608 case.
My friend who has argued many Supreme Court cases and graduate top of Harvard Law Review commented “Randy Barnett of Georgetown is my old classmate and friend. He went to Northwestern University as an undergrad and we had good times as young men. Once I got on the Review, I was pretty consumed and saw less of him, but we still partied a bit. Poor guy has spent his life in the small conservative minority among law professors, for which I admire him. And yes, relying on a 1608 case in litigation that is about an Amendment that was passed in 1868 is not particularly good lawyering. And, of course, it does not address the res judicata point.“
Not particularly good, or outright bad? Just because there are two sides does not mean one of them is viable.
Res Judicata
Res judicata refers to the principle by which one judgment has a binding effect on subsequent proceedings.
My friend comments “I cannot think of a clearer case for its application.”
Recent cases may be easier to understand. What about a couple who came into the US illegally 25 years ago at age 35? They had kids who are now suddenly not citizens. Those kids might have kids who are not citizens then either.
District Judge Jason L. Riley brings yet another complication into play, that of children of slaves illegally in the US.
That is something I had not even considered.
Trump wants to fix that by changing the 14th Amendment from this point forward. Please reflect on the silliness of an executive order to do that.
Nothing Is Certain Until It’s Done
The person who cited the irrelevant 1608 case says nothing is certain. OK, but what are the odds?
I asked my friend, who I know to very cautious about certainty, and he commented that it was about 50 percent the the Supreme Court will even hear the case.
But if they do, then it is about 80 percent Trump loses.
Here is the math: 0.50 * 0.20 = 0.10 * 100 = 10 percent.
I think that is high because I have a known cautious friend. But here’s his reason “There is politics going on at Supreme Court.”
Understood, but it will take nauseating hoops to get there. That’s your 10 percent chance, I believe at best.
DEPORT THE MOTHERS We won’t have to worry about the legalese
You need to be consulting with new lawyers because your current ones are very good. Res Judicata only applies to bind the same parties in a second lawsuit. Your friends are probably thinking of collateral estoppel, which can apply to issues actually litigated. Collateral estoppel can be used offensively unlike Res Judicata. For example, plaintiff A wins a judgment against an airline for injuries because of the negligence of the airline. Plaintiff B doesn’t have to prove the airline is at fault in his lawsuit because the airline already lost to plaintiff A. The airline is collaterally estopped to relitigate that issue. That is offensive use of collateral estoppel. However, the offensive use of collateral estoppel doctrine doesn’t apply to the federal government.
… “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation,
it’s not over…
How many of these attempts to stop Trump’s EOs have failed to-date? I’ve lost count.
I am pretty sure that this was designed to fail, as many of Trumps actions are. He likes to see how the winds blowing, and also what He might be up against. He certainly doesn’t want to waste too much fodder now however, because this needs to await the legislation.
He is setting the groundwork for what needs to get done, but not until the Mid-Terms get a lot closer. He wants this, and has to have this go to the SJC, if he wishes to have it altered or overturned. Trump does not care which way it goes, but it must be the “Elimination” OR “Restrictions” put in place in certain areas. He has the reasons, the proof, the due diligence has been worked on for a few months now I would imagine.
Trump must “Inflict Massive Political Pain” to anyone who opposes this. The way to do so, is “At The Ballot Box” so sometime shortly before, or there after, the Mid-Terms is “Perfect Timing” They will go down in Flames, and they know it, Trump knows it, and Most Americans know and will happily oblige if it comes to this. “SO IT WONT”
This gets done in some fashion, and worst case scenario for Our Country, will be “Restrictions” and that will be enough!
It’s happening, but as all things political, it going to take some time, planning, and be well thought out. Well that last one is clearly being done right now! See you around the Mid-terms to talk more about the changes then…
It’s political genius when you view it that way
So many Americans died from COVID, it’s boosting Social Security to the tune of $205 billion
“As the U.S. approaches the fifth anniversary of the official start of the COVID-19 pandemic, new research finds so many Americans died from the virus that the nation’s Social Security trust fund will see a net increase of hundreds of billions of dollars as a result of retirement benefits that will not be paid out.”
https://fortune.com/2025/02/19/americans-died-covid-social-security/
I do not know a single person who died from covid.
I do not know a single person who ended up in the hospital with covid.
I know 6 people who are dead after the covid vaccine shots… and dozens who have a range for injuries from heart damage to blood clots.
Let me fix this:
So many Americans died from COVID, it’s boosting Social Security to the tune of $205 billion
“As the U.S. approaches the fifth anniversary of the official start of the COVID-19 pandemic, new research finds so many Americans died from the THE VACCINES that the nation’s Social Security trust fund will see a net increase of hundreds of billions of dollars as a result of retirement benefits that will not be paid out.”
I’ll bet a million bucks that anyone downvoting this … is Vaxxed. hahaha
Hmm… seems like it worked out to be a “Population Control” sort of event. Lots of older people didn’t make it, so we cut down on S/S expenses. That probably helps the Government get a bit back on track with the payout issues. It also saves a boatload on Hospital Expenses, and they take up the “Most Beds” too. We can’t have beds being an issue during “Break Out” events, as we need them filled with much younger patients, for effect and all…
Now that I think about it, this helped out like the Canadian “Assisted Suicide” helps Canada out, but of course there event is an ongoing event, and one the Democrats were so envious of…
Time to dig in and keep fighting the good fight. Good things come to those who can wait for it. Republicans can, and have years to wait.for it, but Democrats not so much. They are in a Frenzy because of this very fact!
When the Federal/State/Local governments run out of money, the 14th will easily be overturned.
Can’t happen here you say? Poverty within the citizentry will assure it.
Your 10 percent is too high in my opinion. I think there is zero chance the Supreme Court will side with Trump because the Supreme Court looks to avoid decisions on the merits if possible. If they hear the case, I think they will say you can’t do this by EO without complying with the APA. However, if they don’t rule that way I think there is a chance the present panel could end birth citizenship for those who are not residents here, i.e. the people who pay $20K to come here on a tourist visa, drop a kid and then go home all within 60 days.
It most certainly won’t be done on an EO, and Trump knows this. It was the best way to launch a “Trial Balloon” so He did so. It was also done this way to buy time, and gather evidence, based on what’s said and how it’s interpreted.
This was necessary for the final push to be made around the Mid-Terms. He needed more time, as usual with Politics, timing can be everything…
Corrupt Democrat Racketeers appointed judges who damaged the reputation of our courts.
Your lawyer buddy is too strict on the law and not the intent of the law. The 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War and meant to give slaves citizenship. It was not meant to allow mothers to sneak across the border and have children here.
There are a number of great citizens candidates in the citizenship pipeline who would be productive tax paying citizens from day one. Why should a baby go to the front of the line if the parents are illegals? No one would argue that is fair or good for the country. In fact, it incentivizes criminal behavior.
A federal judge and court of appeals SHOULD rule against Trump based on prior precedent. This case is above their pay grade. It SHOULD go to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS does not have to rewrite the law. They can let Trump get his way and tell Congress to step in if they feel differently.
Given the blowback to the court is minimal and the border was one of the three biggest issues in the campaign, I think it is more like 70% SCOTUS lets Trump get his way.
Laws are made to serve man. Man was not made to serve the law.
Trump Revives Nancy Reagan’s Just Say No Campaign
How did the “Just Say No” policy work in the 80’s? And he wants to spend hundreds of millions on nostalgia ads but fire the nuke safety people? BRING BACK McGruff the Crime Dog!
It worked well for me.
Hilarious!
It should be obvious that what trump proposes make sense. Analyzing prior courts cases is just a futile exercise in parsing words and dealing with past judges making bad decisions based on the stupidity of the legal system. Let’s look forward and fix things and end the mental masturbation.
So if Trump “acquires” Canada, Greenland, Gaza and his birthright XO is upheld by SCOTUS does that mean Canadians/Greelanders/Gazans are illegal immigrants and get to be kicked out of their own country and moved elsewhere? Asking for a friend who is interested in real estate in these areas.
If they weren’t in the US when they were born, out they go. I don’t make the rules.
Watch Trump sell Alaska back to the Russians.
On another note illegal border crossings down 95% in last 30 days ! Executive order to not allow illegals to acccess federal programs that will probably start self deportations . For all the climate alarmist out there the northern hemisphere snowpack reached a multi decade high on feb 13 what a bummer that must be for the climate crazies. Moving for peace in Ukraine getting hostages back in Gaza . What was this article about ? Some judges ruling on birthright citenship that is pretty meaningless since the border is pretty much closed since the 5% that come across are being caught and sent back funny stuff .
As long as there are jobs, there will not be self deportations. The driver, as always, is economic.
Agree but they then start paying taxes win win .
They pay a crapton of taxes. FICA gets deducted whether you used a fake SSN or a real one.
I imagine most illegals get paid in cash and thus pay no FICA.
Trump would be better served by starting the process of getting an amendment to the constitution. he’s got 4 years to make it happen so the sooner he starts the better the chances are that it completes during his time in office.
Plus doing it that way prevents the next president from undoing his executive order.
“We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, ‘Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore. Mr. President, it’s too much.’
Yes, it’s definitely too much. Can Musk blast himself and Trump off in a rocket to Mars already?
Sadly, no. Contrary to all logic and reason, Reek legitimizes my power.
Rather than understanding Musk’s relationship to Jews as a series of clashing data points, a careful examination of his statements suggests a consistent approach to antisemitism informed and augmented by the far-right milieu he participates in online. This approach is not limited to Musk; it is characteristic of many people in Trump’s orbit, including some Jews. https://forward.com/news/698038/elon-musk-jewish-nazi-salute/
ON TO THE SUPREMES!
We all knew it was going here! This could go either way! I have always been for it, because of our two close countries! Many of my friends are dual citizens!
If SCOTUS won’t bend to his will, why doesn’t Trump just cancel 14A via EO and tell SCOTUS to eat rocks if they rule against that as well. They told him he is immune, he’ll use that immunity well.
Deport the parent(s), the child can stay, I guess as a ward of the state, which we apparently have jurisdiction of. Or, they could take their citizen child back home with them and still themselves not be citizens. Seems straightforward (and then infinitely complicated as well).
I’m sure we would never overspend on our role as wards.
That means orphans for adoption.
Won’t cost much.
Cost can be offset by selling the pretty ones to
Epstein Island.
Or Disney and Harvey Weinstein casting couch.
Have the Bidens opened a daycare operation?
Not surprised by that. It’s obviously unconstitutional, but it gets the conversation going.
IN OTHER NEWS:
Kash Patel is confirmed as the next Director of the FBI
Woohoo – Winning – MAGA!