Subject: Re: "blatantly" unconstitutional
No. They also don't appear in the Sixth Amendment, either. That doesn't create an ambiguity over whether (say) the Sixth Amendment applies to people who are "illegal," "undocumented" or "immigrant" - whether they're entitled to a trial by jury before being convicted of a crime and imprisoned. They are. The absence of limiting words doesn't create an ambiguity. It means there is none.

That's one way to look at it. Another way is, are the benefits of being a US citizen a fundamental right in the same way as Bill of Rights protections are? That's the crux of this debate.

According to immigration activists, they are, and thus anyone who shows up here is automatically entitled to effectively grant that to their children no matter what the parents did to arrive here.

SCOTUS doesn't solely look at whether a question has a lot of consequences or impacts. It looks at whether there's a legal dispute that needs resolving. If all the lower courts are interpreting the law correctly (ie. the way a majority of the SCOTUS believes it should be interpreted), there's no need to intervene. It doesn't matter how consequential the subject matter is - if the lower courts are getting it right, the SCOTUS won't waste their time, because there's nothing that needs fixing.


I'm aware of this. You seem to be basing your argument that the Supremes will just agree that all the lower courts are going to get this "right", with the definition of "right" being the current state of things. If that's the case then sure, they wouldn't touch it. That may happen or that may not happen.

Cert will only be granted if there's a majority on the Court that thinks the Ninth or First got their decision wrong. They won't grant cert. just to affirm.

Uhhhh...yeah. If the 9th Circuit chooses to uphold the Seattle judges decision, and they will, the Supremes will still look at this and decide if they want to take it up. Just as they do every other case.