Accusation of rape against Maine front-runner Graham Platner causes candidate's support to collapse and muddies Democrats' hopes of taking over U.S. Senate

(CNN)

Top Democrats in the U.S. Senate say they will withhold funding from the Maine Senate race if front-runner Graham Platner remains on the ballot. That comes after reports yesterday that a former girlfriend had accused Platner of rape. A growing number of Democrats, including one-time supporters, are calling for Platner to exit the race, but he had not announced a decision as of 9:30 p.m. CDT. The following is from an NPR report under the headline "Graham Platner faces growing calls to withdraw following allegations of sexual assault." Elena Moore and Barbara Sprunt report:

Graham Platner is facing calls to end his Senate bid in Maine, following an allegation of sexual assault, the latest in a string of controversies against the Democratic candidate. 

Politico reported Monday an account made by Platner's former girlfriend, who alleges that in 2021, Platner entered her home intoxicated in rural Maine and forced her to have sex over her repeated objections. NPR has not independently verified the claims; in a statement Platner denied them.

"These allegations are troubling, serious, and false. Any accusation of non-consensual behavior is categorically untrue," he said. The denial, so far, has not kept Platner's support from appearing to cave in. From the NPR report:

Within hours of the story, a cascade of Democratic lawmakers called on Platner to exit the race, including Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. 

"The DSCC will not invest in the Maine Senate race if Platner remains on the ballot," they said in a statement.

The Maine Democratic Party called on Platner to withdraw from the race, as did one of Platner's most high-profile supporters in Congress, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. 

"Now more than ever we need leaders in Washington who reflect our values. There can be no tolerance for sexual assault. Working families are counting on Democrats to win the Senate election in Maine to unrig our economy and hold Donald Trump accountable. With so much at stake, the best path forward is for Graham Platner to step aside as the Democratic nominee and address these serious allegations outside this Senate race," Warren said in a statement. 

The first sentence in the above paragraph probably is a not-so-subtle reference by Warren to credible accusations, documented in FBI memos and court documents, of child sexual-assault allegations against Republican President Donald Trump and his longtime friend Jeffrey Epstein. You can almost hear Warren saying under her breath, "Look at how we in the Democratic Party handle serious allegations, such as these against Graham Platner -- and compare that to the Republican strategy of delay and cover up for Trump and his associates in the Epstein files."

Platner has been a popular but troubled candidate almost from the outset in Maine. He announced his candidacy on August 19, 2025. Reports of dubious conduct in his past first came to light in October 2025 (two months into his campaign) when controversial, deleted Reddit posts revealed that he had downplayed sexual assault and made inflammatory statements about certain classes of people living in Maine and elsewhere.

Platner's past did not seem to bother Mainers, as they helped him earn more primary votes than any other Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in state history. He also had more votes than all eight Republican candidates for governor combined.

While many observers surely will applaud Democrats' tough stance with Platner, his supporters likely will take note of Democrats appearing to abandon Platner, while Republicans remain solidly behind Trump. From NPR:

Platner would need to end his bid for Senate by July 13 in order for Maine Democrats to nominate a replacement in time for the general election, according to Maine election law. Were that to happen, "a political committee" would have until July 27 — the fourth Monday in July — to select a replacement. 

Despite his denial of the allegations in the Politico story, Platner released a video on social media saying, "regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful of the political reality it will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to and the goal of defeating Susan Collins."

The Maine election has national implications and has been one of the most closely watched U.S. Senate races of all. Moore and Sprunt write:

The allegations have far-reaching implications for Democrats and their hopes of winning back the majority in the Senate in this fall's midterm elections. The party needs to net a total of four seats to take control of the chamber, and Maine is key to that effort. President Trump lost the state in 2024, and party officials believe incumbent Susan Collins could be vulnerable in a year when Republicans are facing political headwinds. 

But the allegations around Platner have complicated what was already a narrow path back to power for Democrats. Since launching his campaign last August, the first-time candidate has been the subject of multiple scandals surrounding his private life.

In June, The New York Times published accounts from three women who previously had romantic relationships with Platner, and characterized his behavior as "unsettling." They described how Platner could be demeaning toward women, and in one instance, physically threatening.

The woman who accused Platner of assault in the Politico story was included in the Times piece, but did not include the specific assault allegation there. 

In response to the reporting, Platner took responsibility for what he called a "very dark period of my life," telling the Times that he often abused alcohol and was "a far from perfect boyfriend," though he also added that "any characterization beyond that is false, and I believe, politically motivated." In a subsequent interview with Maine Public Radio, Platner said any suggestion that he engaged in physically threatening behavior was "just not true."

Taylor Swift's NYC wedding was my favorite July 4 event, but Trump's Mount Rushmore speech, claiming Dems welcome communism, signals new battles ahead

Trump speaks at Mount Rushmore (LA Times)

What was the most newsworthy event in a jam-packed July 4 weekend that included World Cup soccer; Wimbledon tennis; a record-breaking heat wave that caused at least 25 deaths in the U.S.; more drama surrounding Donald Trump's various escapades (including his Reflecting Pool fiasco and failed Great American State Fair on the National Mall), and my personal favorite, Taylor Swift's wedding (and by the way, Swift's hubby, Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce, was among attendees at Madison Square Garden -- not that many people noticed; Kelce is a pretty accomplished dude in his own right, having made the National Football League's All-Pro team seven times while holding almost every postseason receiving record and is among the all-time leaders in career receptions, receiving yards, and 1,000-yard seasons at the position. Oh, and he has played in five Super Bowls, winning three of them. No wonder many analysts consider Kelce the best tight end in NFL history. But when your wife is one of the wealthiest, most talented, most successful, and most popular people on the planet, you likely will go down as one of the most overlooked grooms in a world full of overlooked grooms.

In Kelce's case, he wasn't just battling his bride for attention. Even at 6-5, 250 pounds, he could get lost amid the swarm of A-list celebrities on hand for the nuptials -- including Brad Pitt, Cindy Crawford, Conan O'Brien, The Chicks (formerly Dixie Chicks), Dakota Johnson, Ed Sheeran, Ethan Hawke, Ice Spice, Jennifer Lopez, Jessica Alba, Mariska Hargitay, Michael Strahan, Erin Andrews, Miranda Lambert, Pat Monahan, Peyton Manning, Reese Witherspoon, Robin Roberts, Sabrina Carpenter, Simone Biles, Stephen Colbert, Stephen Spielberg, Tom Brady, Tom Hanks, and Wayne Gretzky. Adam Sandler officiated, and Paul McCartney (I Want to Hold Your Hand")  and Stevie Nicks (no setlist has been released) gave musical performances.

You can see why that was my favorite event over the holiday weekend, and I imagine it got votes from many of you. But most newsworthy? My choice, unfortunately, involves Donald Trump, and the speech he gave at Mount Rushmore on Friday night. Why was that speech newsworthy? Trump used the occasion to warn that communism is an emerging threat for America in the wake of electoral victories by Democratic Socialists -- perhaps most famously by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. 

In his Mount Rushmore speech, Trump was trying to sell the idea that socialism and communism are the same thing. Like much of what Trump says, that isn't true. Here is how Sarah Pruitt, writing at history.com, puts it, under the headline "How are Socialism and Communism Different? Though the terms are often used interchangeably, socialism and communism are different in key ways":

Both socialism and communism are essentially economic philosophies advocating public rather than private ownership, especially of the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods (that is, making money) in a society. Both aim to fix the problems they see as created by a free-market capitalist system, including the exploitation of workers and a widening gulf between rich and poor.

But while socialism and communism share some basic similarities, there are important differences between them. . . . 

Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on need. In practice, a strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.

By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.

Another key difference between socialism and communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the ruling classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform but often insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, rather than overthrowing it. 

In his 1875 work, Critique of the Gotha Program, [Karl] Marx summarized communist philosophy in this way: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” By contrast, socialism is based on the idea that people are compensated based on their level of individual contribution to the economy. 

In the past week or so, we have seen multiple reports about Republican plans to equate socialism with communism, conduct a coordinated scare campaign leading to the 2026 midterms, and beat Democrats over the head with the idea that Democratic Socialists might as well be called Democratic Communists. 

That means now might be a good time to ask these questions: Was it wise for Democratic Party leadership to allow candidates who self describe as socialists to run under the party banner? Did party leaders not realize socialism is a term that instantly raises negative connotations in the minds of many Americans and makes it ridiculously easy for Republicans to sow confusion by tying Democratic socialists to the "scourge of communism."

One could look at Trump's Mount Rushmore speech as his opening salvo in a GOP plan to inundate the news with horror stories about communism coming to American shores via the Democratic Party. In a holiday setting, when a political speech normally would be expected to unite the country, Trump was -- by his standards -- relatively restrained. But a report from Reuters indicates he is ready to take off the gloves at any moment. Under the headline "Trump extols America, rails at communism in US 250th celebration," Steve Holland writes:

U.S. President Donald Trump called on Americans to protect the freedoms the ​nation's founders envisioned 250 years ago against what he has portrayed as the "communist" threat posed by ‌progressive Democrats, speaking on the eve of Independence Day at Mount Rushmore.

"We stand beneath the monument of these heroes, a true group of unbelievable people, and we rededicate ourselves to being a nation as big, bold, noble, and as great as these American giants, and that's ​not easy to do, but we're going to do it," Trump said at the granite mountain in ​South Dakota where the heads of four American presidents are carved.

"There is now a resurgence of ⁠the communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our ​way of life and our great success," he said. "We're not going to let this happen." 

Have Democrats seen this coming? Are they prepared to fight back? The answers had better be yes if America is to have a post-Trump future, which needs to start immediately -- and not in November 2026, and Dear God, not in 2028. We certainly cannot count on a dysfunctional, spineless GOP to govern at this point. The best result would be that the worst among them -- and that numbers a lot of people -- will be detained in some type of military intervention, followed by investigations, prosecutions, and lengthy sentences behind bars where appropriate. Given that Trump's second term likely marks the most grotesque political crime spree in U.S. history, look for the number of enablers, loyalists, money men, sycophants, and incompetents due prison terms to be substantial.

At his speech in Keystone, South Dakota, Trump talked tough about the threat communism poses, but lurking in the background is the Epstein-files story, and if that ever breaks open in our lifetimes it could bring the GOP's criminal enterprise crashing down. Here is more from Steve Holland about Trump's speech:

Trump has been making such points ​about gains by democratic socialists for a week now, but he made his most pointed and prolonged argument on that theme on Friday, coming as Americans grapple with persistent inflation and high gas prices since the start of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

Increasingly uneasy that the conflict ​could cost the party control of at least one chamber of Congress in November's midterm elections, Republican lawmakers have seized ​on a recent string of successes by left-wing Democratic candidates.

Trump said that the threat also came from "newcomers to our country," tying his ‌anti-communist ⁠rhetoric to the anti-immigrant theme that fueled his election and has been historically part of the criticism of communism in the United States. Trump at one point on Friday said the newcomers need to be expelled.

"We resolve and swear for all to hear that the citizens of the United States of America will vanquish communism quickly ... We will send them ​quickly away, and we will ​continue to build our country ⁠bigger and better, stronger than ever before. America will never be a communist country!" Trump said, before seguing immediately into the issue at hand.

"We can only lose the midterms if ​we allow ourselves to lose the midterms."

Four progressive candidates, including three democratic socialists, won ​competitive Democratic primaries in ⁠New York City last week and in Colorado on Tuesday. Progressive candidates have also won contests in Kentucky, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.

Trump last week called their victories “the greatest threat to our country since its founding."

Damage and intent are keys in vandalism case at Reflecting Pool, but Jeanine Pirro struggles to address such issues, prompting claim that her case is a "sham"

Jeanine Pirro discusses indictment in Reflecting Pool case (Reuters)

Jeanine Pirro, the former Fox News host Donald Trump appointed U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, called a press conference yesterday to announce the indictment of a former U.S. Olympian for alleged vandalism at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Such occasions usually mean reporters will pose questions, and the source (in this case, Pirro) will make at least an effort to shine some clarity on the issues at hand.

Since damage to property and criminal intent are central elements in any case of alleged vandalism (called criminal mischief in many jurisdictions), Hafiz Rashid, of The New Republic (TNR) expected Pirro to answer questions with enough coherence to assure the public that the government had solid grounds to indict David Hearn, a 67-year-old resident of Bethesda, MD, who competed in the canoe slalom at three Summer Olympic games and won six consecutive world championships in team competitions.

But Pirro flatly refused to answer questions from one reporter, who dared to note the seemingly minimal damage Hearn allegedly caused -- Hearn said he reached into the pool, out of curiosity, to touch a piece of blue coating that was partially detached from the bottom of the pool. He said he did not remove, damage, rip, tear, break, destroy, or harm any part of the Reflecting Pool. How does that, the reporter asked, compare to damage Trump supporters inflicted upon the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Pirro snapped at the reporter and indicated she wanted no more questions from him. (More on that in a moment.)

When Pirro could not provide much in the way of specifics about damage Hearn supposedly caused, Rashid began to think the government might not have a legitimate case against him. The headline on his story -- "Pirro reveals Reflecting Pool indictment of U.S. Olympian is a sham" -- reflects that thinking. The sub-head on the story -- "A former U.S. Olympian was indicted on a felony charge after he touched the reflecting pool. The top DOJ official responsible can't explain what the damage actually was." Rashid writes:

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro announced Thursday that a grand jury had indicted former Olympic canoeist David Hearn on charges of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. The indictment seems rather flawed (that's putting it kindly), as Hearn, 67, maintains that all he did was dip his hand into the pool and touch a piece of peeling paint.

At a press conference Thursday, a reporter asked Pirro why Hearn was being charged with a felony over something so small, and she struggled to explain.

“There was an effort, a violent effort, to rip up the sealant from the pool, and irrespective of whether or not we think that there is some situation that preceded it, we can state, and prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that he caused damage, and that damage is worth over a thousand dollars,” Pirro said, citing the amount that makes the charge a felony.

When asked how she could prove that, Pirro said, “With an expert,” and urged the reporter who asked the question to come to the trial. The reporter incredulously asked if Hearn used his bare hands, to which Pirro affirmed yes, both hands. The reporter then asked if the pool wasn’t already damaged before.

That Pirro mentioned an expert witness is curious because -- the O.J. Simpson trial notwithstanding -- they are much more likely to be used in civil trials than criminal matters, such as the Reflecting Pool case. That Pirro says she might use an expert witness to help prove criminal elements suggests her case is shaky (after all, an expert likely was not present when Hearn was at the pool) or her team, so far, has not conducted enough of an investigation to gather the kind of evidence that would be needed to convict Hearn, especially since he has a top-notch attorney in Norm Eisen.

Several outlets have reported that Pirro has eye witnesses who can help prove her case. But eye witnesses are notorious for producing unreliable testimony, and it is hard to imagine what they could have seen that would prove Hearn caused damage and acted with criminal intent. After all, a reporter asked Pirro if the pool wasn't already damaged before Hearn ever arrived on the scene. That question seemed to fluster her, and this was her response:

“Oh, he damaged it. He damaged the pool. He damaged this pool,” Pirro repeated. When the reporter brought up videos showing that the pool’s paint was already peeling, Pirro said, “Well, good. I’m glad you got that evidence. Come on in the grand jury and you can testify.”

Pirro got visibly angry with the reporter who compared damage in the Hearn case to that in the Jan. 6 attack. Here is how Raw Story described that interaction: 

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro snapped at a reporter asking about Jan. 6 attacks on the Capitol during a press conference Thursday announcing a federal indictment against a three-time Olympic athlete who was arrested last month after allegedly touching the detached paint of the $14 million renovated Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

David Hearn, who was indicted by a grand jury after his arrest, now faces up to 10 years in prison, Pirro said.

Pirro made the announcement and started taking questions from the press when a reporter tried to raise the Jan. 6 issue. 

"How can you square charging this alleged vandal when this DOJ has...," the reporter asked, before Pirro cut him off. 

"Already this is a problem," Pirro said. 

"Over 1,000 January 6 rioters caused millions of damage — ," he continued. 

Pirro interjected and yelled back. 

"Are you really talking about January 6? I'm not. Who's next? Not you! No!"

MAGAs, apparently feeling conned after believing Trump's deluge of lies on birthright citizenship, are so incensed after loss they are resorting to "crazy talk"

(AP Photo)

Members of Donald Trump's MAGA cult are on the verge of a collective crack-up after the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) rejected Trump's attempt to unilaterally revise (by executive order) the birthright citizenship provision that has been enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution since 1868. Why are MAGAs so exorcised by a ruling in Trump v. Barbara that went exactly as many legal experts had anticipated. In fact, those in the know seemed surprised only that it was a 5-4 opinion (or 6-3, depending on how you view what might be called "Brett Kavanaugh's split decision"), rather than the unanimous opinion that was widely expected? We will examine that question in an upcoming post, but for now let's look at a USA TODAY analysis of MAGA's rage, which seems to be dangerously close to going over the top. Zac Anderson reports under the headline "MAGA is outraged by birthright ruling. Are drastic steps coming?" Anderson writes:

Impeaching judges, sterilizing foreign visitors, dissolving the union – some prominent conservatives suggested extreme measures could be called for in the wake of a Supreme Court decision upholding birthright citizenship.

That sounds nutty, but the MAGA faithful -- seemingly clueless about the law (much like Trump himself) --  apparently thought SCOTUS was going to hand the White House a resounding victory, even though the chances of that were virtually zero. It turns out that MAGAs have no one but themselves to blame for expecting an outcome that seemed possible only to those who believed the deluge of lies Trump spewed about the issue. Anderson writes:

The ruling sparked widespread outrage on the right, which has rallied around President Donald Trump’s push to restrict the constitutional provision granting automatic citizenship to anyone born in the country.

Many Never Trumpers (including yours truly) likely have thought the president's most devoted followers are nothing but a band of "fruits, nuts, and flakes (as they say in California). In the wake of the Barbara ruling, MAGAs seem to be doing their best to prove critics right. Get a load of this from the USA TODAY report:

Sean Davis, the CEO and co-founder of The Federalist online magazine, wrote in a social media post that there are “several ways forward” after the ruling. Among them: Adding more justices to the Supreme Court and mandating “sterilization of all foreign visitors prior to entry.”

Davis also mentioned dissolving the union, writing “A nation which can’t even restrict who gets to be a citizen isn’t a nation.” (I suggest Davis add this maxim to his quiver: "A nation that refuses to hold credibly accused pedophiles accountable, isn't a nation.")

Jack Posobiec, another conservative media figure, wrote in a post that "The court never said we can't mandate spot pregnancy tests for foreigners." Posobiec is a well-known loon, who has called for replacing democracy with theocracy and has ties to white supremacy.          

Many on the right lashed out at conservative justices who joined the majority decision.

“Impeach rogue, activist judges,” Rep. Nancy Mace, R-South Carolina, wrote on social media. “We're looking at you Amy Coney Barrett."

Conservative podcaster Megyn Kelly also slammed Barrett.

“I’m sick of Barrett. I’m sick of this bull***t by Barrett, I gotta be honest,” Kelly said on her show.

Not all conservatives sided with MAGA. Some said the hard-core types were out of line, Anderson reports:

The outpouring of anger on the right prompted pushback from some conservatives.

"The right-wing meltdown over the citizenship case is shockingly dishonest," wrote Gregg Nunziata, an aide to Secretary of State Marco Rubio when he was in the Senate and now the executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law, a group founded by conservative legal figures from previous Republican administrations.

"The ruling preserves the status quo," added Nunziata. "The majority landed where most conservative scholarship has been."

Trump has pushed a hard-line immigration agenda centered around mass deportations, but targeting birthright citizenship may have been his most aggressive move. It clashed with how the Constitution has long been understood and sought to dramatically redefine who gets to be a citizen. Trump was deeply invested in the case, attending Supreme Court arguments, a first for a sitting president. 

The president described birthright citizenship as an “anchor” wrapped around the country’s neck, but Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said, "Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights − to freely participate in our political community.”

Even some prominent Republicans seemed unsure about where the party likely will go on birthright citizenship. Vice President J.D. Vance, long known for overstating things, engaged in . . . more overstatement: 

The loss had some conservatives lamenting about the path forward. Vice President JD Vance, appearing on Fox News, said the ruling was “disappointing” and a “major, major mistake” but said it had a “silver lining.”

It showed there is significant support among the justices for ending birthright citizenship, which Vance said is “hanging by a thread.” Four of the justices said Trump's executive order didn't violate the 14th Amendment, although one said it violated a 1952 immigration law.

"We have to keep fighting because we actually have an opportunity to reverse this decision, just as we've reversed so many bad decisions throughout the generations,” Vance said.

Steve Bannon, a prominent MAGA media figure, opened his podcast on June 30 by declaring it was a "day that will live in infamy" but said the fight wasn't over.

"You know what we’re going to do? We’re going to get up and dust ourselves off and we’re going to go to war," Bannon said. 

Robert Reich: SCOTUS got it right on its birthright citizenship ruling, but that the vote was close is a sign we have a compromised high court that needs change

(Wall Street Journal)

Birthright citizenship, enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1868, and upheld 30 years later by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), has been under attack since day one of Donald Trump's second term. The current high court, with its conservative majority that has been willing to ignore or bend precedent in order to side with Trump, gave their hero a stinging loss yesterday -- ruling, in so many words, that a bedrock constitutional right cannot be overturned by executive order. That doesn't mean, however, that Trump and the loyalists he has installed throughout the government won't continue to chip away at the 14th Amendment. 

The bigger issue flowing from Trump v. Barbara, U.S. Sup. Ct., 2026 might be this: The ruling provides the latest evidence that we are stuck with a Supreme Court that is more loyal to partisan politics than to the rule of law. That is from Robert Reich, former labor secretary under Bill Clinton and longtime professor of public policy at the University of California Berkeley, who says the closeness of the Barbara ruling is a sign that some members of SCOTUS are "bonkers." That is the relatively kind word Reich uses. I would use the term "crooks," as in the kind of lowlifes who need to be investigated for bribery, possible ties to extortion (perhaps as targets of blackmailers), and old-fashioned violation of their oaths -- and perhaps much more, meaning they should face serious repercussions, including impeachment, criminal prosecution (and if convicted in court) time behind bars.

Reich analyzes outgrowths from the Barbara ruling -- some hopeful, some deeply alarming -- at his Substack page, under the headline "Born in the U.S.A.; the Supreme Court did the right thing, but four justices are dangerously off their rockers":

Today, the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s Day One executive order canceling the right to birthright citizenship. Good. That executive order declared that children born in the U.S. would not be considered citizens if their parents were living in the country illegally or were visiting the country on temporary visas.

The executive order never took effect. It was quickly blocked by multiple lower courts because it appeared to directly conflict with the 14th Amendment, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The Trump regime appealed the lower-court rulings, contending that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship provision had been misunderstood for more than a century. The administration argued that the drafters of the amendment were focused on guaranteeing citizenship for the children of former slaves—and that the amendment was never intended to extend citizenship to the children of people who weren’t living in the country legally.

Trump and his Solicitor General, who argued this case before the Court, also said that narrowing birthright citizenship was necessary to prevent “birth tourism”—the practice of immigrants coming to the U.S. to give birth here and obtain citizenship for their child.

Birthright citizenship has been in Trump's crosshairs from the moment he entered electoral politics in 2015. For a politician who has made it clear he wants an electorate that is more white, more moneyed, more conservative, and more prone to show cult-like zeal, this was a lodestar issue, one Trump was anxious to push and use to his advantage. Many experts suggested he had almost zero chance of success with the high court -- and, in fact, John Roberts & Co. rejected the president's entreaties yesterday. But that might just mean that Trump has to fight around the edges, rather than undertaking a full-frontal assault. Reich writes:

Trump has been vowing to try to change the law since entering politics in 2015, arguing the 14th Amendment was written specifically to enshrine the rights of freed slaves. His critics have countered that it was always designed to apply to the children of immigrants too. An  1898 Supreme Court decision confirmed that U.S.-born children of immigrant parents are entitled to American citizenship.

Today, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the deeply-rooted understanding that virtually everyone born on American soil is automatically a U.S. citizen was enshrined in the Constitution with the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868: “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community,” Roberts wrote. “The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to every free-born person in this land. We keep that promise today.”

The ruling issued yesterday in Trump v. Barbara was 194 pages long. But the issues boiled down to this simple maxim: You cannot amend the Constitution of the United States by executive fiat. A commentary from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) explains why executive orders have limitations when going up against federal and constitutional law -- and it outlines the arduous process involved in making a serious attempt to amend the constitution.

Anyone with a modicum of legal knowledge could have told Trump that challenging the 14th Amendment by executive order was a fruitless endeavor that was sure to fail. Heather Cox Richardson summed up the landscape in her "Letters From an American" post yesterday. She wrote:

Today the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts upheld birthright citizenship. But, as Jonathan V. Last of The Bulwark notes, the Supreme Court should never have taken this case. The lower court judges who heard the case were appalled that the administration was attacking the clear terms of the Constitution. Judge John Coughenour, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, called Trump’s executive order “blatantly unconstitutional” and said: “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”

Given that Trump's experience via DOGE hinted that he was serious about reducing fraud and waste, one might have thought he would seek out expert advice and decide his time and effort could be better spent elsewhere. We now know, of course, that Trump is not really interested in attacking fraud and waste, and he does not listen to anyone. So he forged ahead, knowing his legion of MAGA lawyers was being funded by American taxpayers, folks like you and me. Spending other people's money might be Trump's one and only talent in the governing process. 

A query to AI Overview produces this information about the cost of taking a case to the U.S. Supreme Court:

Litigating a case from a local trial court all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is an extraordinarily expensive endeavor. While actual court filing fees are remarkably low, the total cost for a full life cycle of litigation usually ranges from $500,000 to well over $5 million per side. [1, 2, 3]

Those costs are mild compared to what Trump has wasted starting a war with Iran. But Trump apparently is too hard-headed to understand that a president cannot govern by executive orders alone. He must work with the House, the Senate, the Courts. The U.S. is not set up for one-man rule --  -- even though that apparently is what Trump wants.  Rational observers, of which Robert Reich is one, knew that the outcome should be a nearly unanimous spanking. That it was not unanimous says more about our compromised high court than it does about the merits of Trump's case. Reich writes:

In another era, this would have been a no-brainer. No constitutional lawyer I know thought the Court would decide otherwise. The lower federal courts had consistently and unanimously ruled against Trump.

Had Trump won, it would have probably caused panic among recent immigrants and their families. Although Trump has insisted his policy would apply only to future births, it was far from clear that the logic of any win for Trump wouldn’t apply retrospectively if a future president (JD Vance? perish the thought) wanted to go there.

What I find troubling is that the decision was 5 to 4 rather than unanimous or nearly so, as it should have been.

How did the ruling wind up being much closer than expected? Reich explains, and it doesn't say anything positive about the competence or ethics of our Supreme Court:

Only five of the nine justice ruled against Trump on constitutional grounds. Brett Kavanaugh dissented on statutory grounds; while agreeing that Trump’s executive order was unlawful, he argued that the court should have resolved the case under federal immigration law rather than the Constitution.

The Court’s three most conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito — dissented. Thomas wrote for the group: “The Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.”

Pure and utter claptrap.

Reich comes to this conclusion: Even though SCOTUS reached the correct decision, looking beneath the surface tells you that something has to change. This court has emboldened and empowered Trump at nearly every turn -- even allowing Trump on the ballot in the face of the 14th Amendment, which disqualified him due to his status as an insurrectionist on Jan. 6, 2021.  Reich writes:

Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito are so far to the right of America that their views on this case and other matters should be presumed bonkers. Yet what’s particularly sobering is that Trump is only one justice away from having a Supreme Court majority that would have gone his way on this absurd reading of the 14th Amendment.

Clearly, the Supreme Court must be changed — either by expanding the number of justices or by invoking term limits on Supreme Court justices. The Constitution would permit both remedies.

Perhaps the best thing about today’s majority decision is that it’s a direct repudiation of Tump, who has long taken a personal interest in the issue. During his 2024 campaign, he made curtailing birthright citizenship a key element of his immigration platform.

For the Court to so directly reject Trump’s position today is surely a humiliation for him. But then again, humiliation requires a capacity to feel shame, and he has repeatedly shown he has no shame.