'Oof': Legal experts shocked by Trump DOJ proposal revealed in big Supreme Court hearing

Legal experts listened to the oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, where the justices heard the case dealing with eliminating birthright citizenship.

The Constitution guarantees that any person born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen. President Donald Trump made an executive order that would eliminate such legal protections for the children of migrants born in the U.S.

University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman wrote her own comical paraphrasing of U.S. Supreme Court justices' comments. In one case, she pointed out Justice Sonia Sotomayor's "partial list of the SCOTUS precedents (4) this order violates."

Litman then paraphrased Chief Justice John Roberts in her own words.

"Chief: let's stop this murder, please," she quipped.

In one exchange, Justice Elena Kagan asked, if they assume this is a completely illegal executive order, how do the courts actually stop it?

Sauer said it would file a class action.

ALSO READ: Revealed: Far-right pressuring Johnson to join Trump in new attack

Kagan said that he would then argue that there isn't a class to certify under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Sauer agreed, so Kagan asked what other options there were.

Sauer suggested every affected individual would sue.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned if Sauer was seriously proposing such an idea.

Litman wrote her own paraphrasing: "Oh dang Elena Kagan 'assume you’re really f------ wrong and this order is wildly illegal. Are you saying every individual child has to sue to establish their citizenship?'"

Lawyer and journalist at Rewire, Imani Gandy commented, "Every child of undocumented immigrants has to file their own lawsuit. Millions of lawsuits. Makes perfect sense."

Civil litigator Owen Barcala posted on Bluesky, "This is such a good point, I'm frustrated I didn't see it. If the gov issues a clearly illegal order that applies to millions and it is losing in every individual case, why would it ever appeal the losses? So what if they can't enforce it as to a dozen people if they can still do it for millions?"

Legal analyst and editor-in-chief of All Rise News, Adam Klasfeld cited a debate between Sotomayor and Solicitor General John Sauer.

"Sotomayor notes that barring nationwide injunctions, as the Trump admin asks, would mean that courts would be powerless to stop a 'clearly, indisputably unconstitutional' act, taking every gun from every citizen. We couldn’t stop that?" Klasfeld posted on Bluesky, quoting the justice.

Nationwide injunctions are when a judge pauses something from taking effect in the entire country until it can be litigated. Sotomayor is worried that governments could do whatever they want until cases work their way through the courts and appeals. That could take years.

Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis paraphrased one of Kagan's takedowns. "I am suggesting in a case where the government is losing constantly... if I were in your shoes, there's no way I'd approach the Supreme Court with this case." Kreis commented, "oof."

Litman later commented, "Remember how, like … 48 hours ago, the Chief was giving press statements about the importance of the rule of law and the independence of the courts to check the excesses of the executive? LOL"

Georgetown Law Professor Steve Vladeck commented, "Even though Solicitor General Sauer has been raked over the coals, it’s hard to see who the fifth vote is to deny the government’s applications here. I didn’t hear *any* real skepticism from the Chief Justice or Justice Kavanaugh, and we already know where Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch stand. Sigh."

Law school professor Kate Klonick agreed with him, saying, "I don’t understand how if [Chief Justice John Roberts'] priority is to preserve the Court that he can side with the government here and colorably even still believe in the rule of law as we know it."