Staff ReportsAmicus curiae briefs are all the rage this week, as a law firm prepares to take a noble stand in defending President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. It appears that they intend to ride into three federal district courts, armed with arguments derived from a Birthright Citizenship Study dating back to the grand old days of 2001. It goes without saying that Trump’s directive on immigration is about as correct as a well-cooked cheeseburger—flame-grilled and unapologetically American.
Here’s the kicker: while the firm aims to defend Trump’s executive action, their strategy also includes calling for the courts to swiftly dismiss Trump as the lead defendant in the ongoing cases. This is an interesting twist considering the left has made a sport of dragging Trump into lawsuits at every turn, hoping to turn his legal troubles into a fundraising bonanza. It’s no wonder that leftist attorneys general have enjoyed basking in the glory of saying they’ve sued the sitting president. It’s almost as if they treat it like a badge of honor rather than an abuse of power.
While the left was busy naming Trump as a defendant to showcase their so-called patriotism, conservatives have flipped the script by doing the same with President Joe Biden during his term. This back-and-forth about naming the president in lawsuits is a perfect illustration of how ridiculous these legal battles have become. It’s almost comedic, but far from proper, as the practice has been normalized under the guise of necessary government checks and balances. Just because both sides are playing this game doesn’t mean it’s right or appropriate.
With Trump’s recent executive order on birthright citizenship, the legal knives are back out, with leftist lawyers swooping in to name him as the lead defendant once again—this time in not one, but three separate complaints. This would make one think that leftists simply can’t get enough of using the judicial system as a playground for their politics. Every complaint filed in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Washington State has Trump’s name at the top, which is as predictable as a cat chasing a laser pointer.
https://t.co/LsxXx1ahJG
"This week, our law firm will be filing amicus curiae briefs for America’s Future defending President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order in each of the three federal district courts where it was challenged."
"In those amicus briefs,…— Gerald Roe (@GeraldRoe6) January 30, 2025
The historical precedent is clear, and for anyone who might have forgotten, the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that courts don’t have the jurisdiction to enjoin the president in performing official duties. The notion that unelected judges can dictate terms to the president is not just absurd; it’s an affront to the foundational principles of the separation of powers. If courts can drag presidents into their chambers for anything, the entire structure of the executive branch would be turned upside down. The precedent has been set, and it may just be time for courts to remember their role in this constitutional chain of command.
In conclusion, as the law firm prepares to lay down the legal gauntlet, it’s important to reiterate that the court should heed the high ground of authority and dismiss Trump from these cases posthaste. The challenges may rage on against other federal defendants, but allowing a sitting president to be embroiled in courtroom dramas set by partisan agendas is a slippery slope no one wants to ride down.
