Trump Seeks Birthright Citizenship Case Rehearing, Court Orders Carroll Payment Release

Former President Donald Trump stated Wednesday that he would seek a rehearing from the Supreme Court on a case concerning his executive order to limit birthright citizenship. CNBC reported Trump made the announcement on Truth Social, writing, "I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision."

CNBC noted the Supreme Court has not agreed to rehear a case ruling after arguments since 1965.

In a separate development, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan on Wednesday rejected Mr. Trump’s request to delay a payment of nearly $5.8 million to E. Jean Carroll. The payment relates to a sexual abuse and defamation case Carroll filed against Trump. Kaplan stated Carroll should receive the funds, which have been in an escrow account during Trump’s appeal, according to The Hill. Trump’s attorneys appealed Kaplan’s ruling within an hour of its issuance.

Elsewhere, Bayer is seeking to end federal litigation concerning its Roundup weedkiller following a Supreme Court decision. On June 25, the Supreme Court ruled in Bayer’s favor, holding that plaintiffs cannot sue Bayer by arguing Roundup’s warning label failed to caution users about cancer risks. Reuters reported Bayer now aims to persuade a federal judge to dismantle consolidated federal litigation, which includes nearly 4,000 lawsuits alleging Roundup causes cancer. Bayer contends the Supreme Court’s ruling should lead to the dismissal of this federal litigation. Plaintiffs’ attorneys countered that the Supreme Court decision specifically addressed Roundup’s label and does not impact other claims in Roundup personal injury lawsuits, such as design defect and negligence claims.

In other news, George Hutchinson, the final official crier of the U.S. Supreme Court, died on June 14 at the age of 102. The Washington Post reported Hutchinson served from 1952 to 1962, announcing the justices’ arrival with "Oyez, oyez, oyez." His ceremonial duties were later assigned to the court marshal. Hutchinson began at the court in 1938 as a page. After World War II service in the Army, he rejoined the court, working in the marshal’s office before becoming crier. In this role, he called the court to order, supervised pages, and delivered messages to justices during sessions. He earned a law degree from George Washington University while working at the Supreme Court and became a member of the Supreme Court Bar.

Following a June 30 ruling on transgender athletes, the Supreme Court left open whether states must, rather than merely may, exclude transgender women and girls from female sports teams. USA Today reported this legal question is progressing toward the high court, alongside disputes about bathroom and locker room access for transgender students. Chris Erchull, an attorney at GLAD Law, told USA Today, "What that means is that we can continue to advocate for the rights of transgender students under Title IX in other areas." Kristen Waggoner, president of the Alliance Defending Freedom, indicated conservative groups plan to continue opposing such efforts in a social media post: "Blue states with boys on girls’ podiums ... you’re next."

Jesse Wegman, in a post for his Substack *Major Questions with Jesse Wegman*, reflected on the 5-4 ruling in *Trump v. Barbara*, the birthright citizenship case. He wrote that four justices on the right wing "were willing to entertain a novel, convoluted reading of the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ and to ignore or explain away more than a century and a half of settled law."

In a SCOTUSblog column titled "The Supreme Court’s quiet coup," Sen. Christopher A. Coons, David Beier, and Ray Brescia stated that the Roberts Supreme Court is "systematically stripping away power from Congress" through recent decisions on voting rights, administrative expertise, and executive authority.

Separately, Eric McKee, also writing for SCOTUSblog, discussed methods for identifying the most important Supreme Court cases. He suggested weighting "friend of the court" brief filers by how often the court has cited them to de-emphasize purely "expressive" briefs. Using this method, McKee found that "only a third of the very top cases – and only about a fifth of all above-median cases – were decided along ideological lines."

SCOTUSblog held a term-in-review event at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Center. Cecillia Wang, ACLU national legal director, who argued the birthright citizenship case, described her experience, noting her anxiety prior to the argument but asserting that the presence of then-President Trump "had nothing to do with" her and "everything to do with his agenda." She also stated she was not surprised by the justices’ questions, noting the discussion "stayed at a pretty high level in terms of principles."

Martha S. Jones, a Johns Hopkins professor whose research on early American views on birthright citizenship was cited by justices in the case, stated, "history mattered a great deal in the ways in which the court came to think about" the case. She observed that justices integrated contemporary historical work and primary materials into their writings, calling it "a remarkable insight into how deep the court was willing to go to interrogate, understand, and incorporate history into what they did."

The event concluded with a live taping of the *Advisory Opinions* podcast, hosted by Sarah Isgur, with guests David French, law professor Akhil Amar, and David Lat. They discussed evaluating the court's work over time and the increasing focus on the separation of powers in court discussions. The group also examined the court’s use of historical research and originalism. Amar and French identified the tariffs case as the most significant of the term due to its articulation of congressional and presidential power boundaries, while Lat cited *Trump v. Slaughter*, which addresses the president’s authority to remove heads of independent agencies, as having a profound effect on the federal government.