I stumbled across a Shane Gillis skit the other day which was, as they say, funny because it’s true. In it Gillis is being interviewed by a journalist after saving a family of four from a burning building. What starts as a “hero firefighter” interview quickly turns into a media ambush focusing on his behavior outside of the workplace and accusing him of being a Trump supporter and white supremacist. In a brilliant bit of linguistic manipulation, and what is to me the funniest line in the skit, the reporter describes Gillis as “the racist firefighter who touched Guatemalan children in their home after breaking down their door with an axe.”
It's hyperbole of course, media bias doesn’t quite rise to that level of absurdity. But as we saw in a recent confrontation between Tucker Carlson and Senator Ted Cruz, that doesn’t mean that the media should be considered unbiased or that reporters don’t have their own agendas.
An Article Raised Red Flags
It is bias not “gotcha” interviews that concern me today. There is sadly no shortage of biased reporting these days but an article I read this morning was particularly jarring. The piece in question pertained to the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Trump v Casa, Inc case which limited the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. For those unfamiliar with the case, it concerned Executive Order 14160, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," which is attempting to restrict birthright citizenship. Federal district courts had blocked the order through universal injunctions, preventing its enforcement across the entire country.
The following paragraph from the article is what set off my “bias-alert senses.” I’ve added two words, in bold, to remove the bias, nothing else has been changed.
What the supreme court says it was doing in Friday’s 6-3 decision in Trump v Casa, Inc, the birthright citizenship case, is narrowing the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions, in deference to presidential authority. The case effectively ends the ability of federal judges on lower courts to issue nationwide stays of executive actions that they rule violate the constitution, federal law, and the rights of citizens.
These two words are very important because district court judges are not the ultimate authority on what is and isn’t constitutional, the Supreme Court is. There is more of course, perhaps nothing more blatantly biased (and alarmist) than the subtitle of the piece:
Donald Trump, personally, will now have the presumptive power to persecute you, and nullify your rights in defiance of the constitution, at his discretion.
I’ll say it because somebody sane should: no, he won’t.
The piece is…well the crapulent rantings of a left-wing nut job. To be polite.
What the Supreme Court Actually Ruled
The Supreme Court’s decision specifically states, “The applications do not raise—and thus the Court does not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act.”
This ruling was focused on procedural limits, specifically:
Whether federal district courts can issue nationwide injunctions (broad legal orders blocking government action everywhere in the U.S.) without a certified class-action lawsuit.
The Court ruled they cannot, unless very specific legal criteria are met.
“Unless” is the key word here, it implies they still have the ability.
What it did not do was:
uphold or bless the constitutionality of any executive action.
strip individuals of their rights or legal protections.
expand presidential power to override the Constitution or laws at will.
give Trump or any president the authority to unilaterally persecute people.
As for the author’s claim that “the court has unleashed a chaotic patchwork of rights enforceability” and that Trump’s “ban on birthright citizenship will now be able to go into effect in jurisdictions where there is no ongoing lawsuit, or where judges have not issued regional stays,” she is correct. But so what? The implication here is that this is somehow an unprecedented situation. It is not. Federal district court judges can and do issue rulings that contradict each other, as each of the 94 U.S. district courts operates independently and has its own judges who interpret laws and facts based on the cases before them. When these rulings conflict, the issue is often resolved by appellate courts. The U.S. Courts of Appeals review district court decisions, and if different circuits also reach conflicting conclusions (a “circuit split”), the Supreme Court may step in to provide a definitive ruling. This is why the US has a hierarchy of courts.
Conveniently left out of this article is one important fact: U.S. District Courts are the lowest federal courts in the land.
Which brings us to…
Lies of Omission
While playing word games and using scare-tactics are two of the most common ways to recognize media bias, they are not the most dangerous tool in the arsenal of dishonest journalists. The most dangerous tool is omission because unless someone is very familiar with the topic being discussed they won’t be able to tell if something has been left out.
In addition to leaving out where district courts rank in the judicial hierarchy, the author also fails to accurately explain what Executive Order 14160 seeks to do as well as who is entitled to birthright citizenship.
The Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, established the modern legal foundation for birthright citizenship in the United States. Specifically:
Anyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen, regardless of their parents’ nationality or immigration status, as long as the parents are not diplomats or foreign military enemies.
Note that there are already exceptions to birthright citizenship. Trump’s executive order does not seek to end birthright citizenship but to end it for children born in the United States to parents who are not legal permanent residents, including both undocumented immigrants and lawful temporary immigrants. It interprets the 14th Amendment’s clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” to exclude children of non-permanent residents from automatic citizenship, arguing that such individuals are not fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
One may debate the Trump administration interpretation of the 14th amendment but one should at least be honest about what is being debated and what is already in effect.
What Matters
There are many things that concern me with what is going on in the US (and Canada, and the UK, and Australia, and…), this ruling is not one of them. The fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that individual district court justices have less power than individual Supreme Court justices is not an indication, as some would have it, that “[t]he guardrails are collapsing.” It is simply reaffirming common sense, that lower courts have less power than higher ones.
A much bigger concern is the media’s willingness to lie, mislead, and omit facts in pursuit of its goals. Truth, it would seem, is only valuable in so far as it supports a journalist’s goals.
If truth and understanding are your goals don’t just read, read critically.
Thank you for reading Hoist the Black Flag
If you enjoyed this article please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying me a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article. Your attention, participation, and support really make a difference to me.
Also, a ‘like’ really helps the Substack algorithm find me. And I’d be most grateful if you would share this piece to help Hoist the Black Flag grow.
Small but necessary correction. In Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court specifically mentioned his parents as "legal residents" of the United States. Trump's EO is seeking to narrow "birthright citizenship" to exclude children born here of people who are not legal residents. Trump is after "birth tourism." From the SCOTUS decision:
'That at the time of his said birth his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence therein, at said city and county of San Francisco, state aforesaid.
'That said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark continued to reside and remain in the United States until the year 1890, when they departed for China.
'That during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China..."
I would note too that “Undocumented Immigrants” is itself a misnomer, a slight (or not so slight) redefinition of the legal term “Illegal Alien” which is their actual status. They are criminally in the US. There is a legal concept that suggests you cannot profit by an illegal act.
Proponents of no borders do everything they can to hide the reality of what they advocate for, because they know it is wildly unpopular. Re-labeling reality is another trick of the trade.