While I don't necessarily disagree with much written in the brief, none of it beyond 1A (pages 5-7) is relevant to the constitutional question - and for the record, I agree with their interpretation.
Also, here's a complete list of everything said in section 1A that wasn't already covered better and in more detail in the principal briefs and by a host of other amici:
I don't care about the court using Catholic teaching as a basis for law. Actually that is preferable to whatever else SCOTUS is using for its decisions. That's definitely not what the confusion is about lol
The confusion includes this section: Ending Birthright Citizenship Denies The Innate Dignity And Freedom Of The Person ... The Executive Order is antithetical to the import of the Church’s teachings because it deprives people whose parents were not born here, or whose mother has temporary status, of the legal rights necessary to participate in the society of their birth.
That Mr. Quinn feels compelled to respond, and not the individual who wrote the brief, is an indication that in fact the criticisms were not baseless, and that the brief WAS saying not having birthright citizenship was immoral, something that would be news to most countries who do not have the birthright citizenship regimen America does.
The brief claims that the executive order is illegal and immoral. However, it does *not* claim that the order is immoral *because* it is illegal. Rather, it argues that the actual content of the order is immoral.
The content of the order is the elimination of jus soli. At the same time, Mr. Quinn argues that countries need not adopt jus soli to satisfy moral standards. So, it seems that the only way those things could both be true is if either A) the USCCB is making the very narrow argument that you don't have to have birthright citizenship, but once you do have it, it would be immoral to eliminate it, or B) the USCCB is arguing that some other aspect of the order (other than the elimination of jus soli itself) is the part that is immoral. And if either of those is their position, it seems very strange that they never actually stated it or attempted to defend it in the brief.
It is also possible that the USCCB is arguing that while it would not be immoral for most democracies to deny birthright citizenship, it is immoral for the US to do so. Not sure what the argument for *that* would be, but it is possible.
^many of their concerns (children ending up stateless, people being a member of a society without that membership being legally recognized, risk of family separation during deportation) would theoretically not be an issue in a country with either a) very low levels of immigration or b) other, easy and accessible paths to citizenship. So maybe it's the moral value of birthright citizenship isn't *intrinsic* to the US, but important given the current immigration situation overall in the US?
Would these online critics object if the Bishops filed an amicus brief against a pro-abortion policy and cited Catholic social teaching in their argument? How dare the Bishops preach the Gospel and talk about the teachings of the Church in the public square! /sarcasm
As I understand it, an amicus brief is supposed to be a *legal* argument, not a statement of moral opinion, for which there are many available fora. Catholic social teaching would be fine to include only if it supported the legal argument in some way (e.g., arguing for an exception to/overturning of a law due to it putting undue pressure on Catholics' ability to practice Catholic social teaching).
I don't know what amicus brief Mr. Quinn is defending, but it couldn't possibly be the one I read.
To gauchely quote myself from a discussion elsewhere: The biggest problem with the amicus brief is that it isn’t really an amicus brief. Like all too many interventions of its type, it is a press release dressed up in amicus clothing; it will do nothing to influence the Court’s reasoning, and was never meant to.
The most important thing for non-lawyers to realize here is that the issue before the Supreme Court is not the normative question of “should the United States have birthright citizenship?” (What is the issue then, exactly? I've got some thoughts, but we should know much more after oral argument.) The USCCB was poorly served on a legal basis by counsel writing the brief as if that were the question...but again, often the legal basis hardly enters into it with this kind of exercise.
(N.B.: None of the above analysis is dependent on either agreeing or disagreeing with the USCCB's preferences (or at least the brief's) as to how the case should come out. Nor would I wish to suggest that I have any objections in principle to the Bishops speaking on this or any other issue of public import, either individually or as a body...including the filing of briefs as amici.)
People should read the brief for themselves: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/399395/20260226144523582_25-365%20bsac%20United%20States%20Conference%20of%20Catholic%20Bishops.pdf
While I don't necessarily disagree with much written in the brief, none of it beyond 1A (pages 5-7) is relevant to the constitutional question - and for the record, I agree with their interpretation.
Also, here's a complete list of everything said in section 1A that wasn't already covered better and in more detail in the principal briefs and by a host of other amici:
I don't care about the court using Catholic teaching as a basis for law. Actually that is preferable to whatever else SCOTUS is using for its decisions. That's definitely not what the confusion is about lol
The confusion includes this section: Ending Birthright Citizenship Denies The Innate Dignity And Freedom Of The Person ... The Executive Order is antithetical to the import of the Church’s teachings because it deprives people whose parents were not born here, or whose mother has temporary status, of the legal rights necessary to participate in the society of their birth.
That Mr. Quinn feels compelled to respond, and not the individual who wrote the brief, is an indication that in fact the criticisms were not baseless, and that the brief WAS saying not having birthright citizenship was immoral, something that would be news to most countries who do not have the birthright citizenship regimen America does.
The counsel of record works for WilmerHale, not the USCCB...
...and seems far too accomplished a lawyer than to have done anything other than exactly what the latter body's general counsel asked for.
The brief claims that the executive order is illegal and immoral. However, it does *not* claim that the order is immoral *because* it is illegal. Rather, it argues that the actual content of the order is immoral.
The content of the order is the elimination of jus soli. At the same time, Mr. Quinn argues that countries need not adopt jus soli to satisfy moral standards. So, it seems that the only way those things could both be true is if either A) the USCCB is making the very narrow argument that you don't have to have birthright citizenship, but once you do have it, it would be immoral to eliminate it, or B) the USCCB is arguing that some other aspect of the order (other than the elimination of jus soli itself) is the part that is immoral. And if either of those is their position, it seems very strange that they never actually stated it or attempted to defend it in the brief.
Am I wrong?
It is also possible that the USCCB is arguing that while it would not be immoral for most democracies to deny birthright citizenship, it is immoral for the US to do so. Not sure what the argument for *that* would be, but it is possible.
^many of their concerns (children ending up stateless, people being a member of a society without that membership being legally recognized, risk of family separation during deportation) would theoretically not be an issue in a country with either a) very low levels of immigration or b) other, easy and accessible paths to citizenship. So maybe it's the moral value of birthright citizenship isn't *intrinsic* to the US, but important given the current immigration situation overall in the US?
They just can't stick the landing, can they?
A Certain Prominent Magazine: The Case For Christian Nationalism
Their Bishops: Not a bad idea. Let's articulate how CST aligns with hitherto national policy.
A Certain Prominent Magazine: What The USCCB Gets Wrong About Birthright Citizenship.
Would these online critics object if the Bishops filed an amicus brief against a pro-abortion policy and cited Catholic social teaching in their argument? How dare the Bishops preach the Gospel and talk about the teachings of the Church in the public square! /sarcasm
As I understand it, an amicus brief is supposed to be a *legal* argument, not a statement of moral opinion, for which there are many available fora. Catholic social teaching would be fine to include only if it supported the legal argument in some way (e.g., arguing for an exception to/overturning of a law due to it putting undue pressure on Catholics' ability to practice Catholic social teaching).
I don't know what amicus brief Mr. Quinn is defending, but it couldn't possibly be the one I read.
To gauchely quote myself from a discussion elsewhere: The biggest problem with the amicus brief is that it isn’t really an amicus brief. Like all too many interventions of its type, it is a press release dressed up in amicus clothing; it will do nothing to influence the Court’s reasoning, and was never meant to.
The most important thing for non-lawyers to realize here is that the issue before the Supreme Court is not the normative question of “should the United States have birthright citizenship?” (What is the issue then, exactly? I've got some thoughts, but we should know much more after oral argument.) The USCCB was poorly served on a legal basis by counsel writing the brief as if that were the question...but again, often the legal basis hardly enters into it with this kind of exercise.
(N.B.: None of the above analysis is dependent on either agreeing or disagreeing with the USCCB's preferences (or at least the brief's) as to how the case should come out. Nor would I wish to suggest that I have any objections in principle to the Bishops speaking on this or any other issue of public import, either individually or as a body...including the filing of briefs as amici.)