Attorney Pete Patterson’s latest post on birthright citizenship repeats the biggest mistakes of his original post and also makes some new mistakes, chasing irrelevances and mangling the key legal issues. Today we will briefly highlight some of the biggest flaws of Patterson’s latest essay. If Patterson would like to continue the conversation, we hereby invite him to do so as a future guest on Akhil’s podcast.

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Monday in Abouammo v. United States, in which it will consider whether federal prosecutors can try a defendant not only in the district where the offense actually occurred, but also in the district where the crime’s “contemplated effects” are felt.

Professors Akhil and Vikram Amar have responded to my recent post arguing that the 14th Amendment does not grant automatic citizenship to the children of temporary visitors to the United States. As a practicing attorney, I am accustomed to having the opportunity to file a reply brief, and I thank the editors of SCOTUSblog for allowing me to briefly respond to the Amars’ arguments.

Controlling Opinions is a recurring series by Richard Re that explores the interaction of law, ideology, and discretion at the Supreme Court.

On the surface, Justice Antonin Scalia’s legacy has never been more distinguished. He is regularly invoked by all sitting justices, as well as by advocates before the Supreme Court. Legal culture remains transformed by the legal movement he helped spearhead, as evidenced by the prevalence of textualism and originalism. And his most celebrated dissent, from Morrison v. Olson, is on the verge of being vindicated in Trump v. Slaughter, which may give the president the power to fire the heads of certain independent agencies. Many of Scalia’s followers and admirers justifiably celebrate his memory and influence.

The Supreme Court announced last week that it will hear argument in late April on the Trump administration’s effort to remove protected immigration status from Syrian and Haitian nationals. Its eventual ruling is expected to bring clarity not just to these two cases, but also to several other lawsuits filed in response to the administration’s changes to the Temporary Protected Status program, which enables certain non-citizens to temporarily live and work legally in the United States.

As in the birthright citizenship case, the Supreme Court’s decision could hold significant consequences for immigration policy. Here’s a brief overview of the Temporary Protected Status program, what’s at stake in the related disputes, and what the court has said in the past year about the administration’s authority to revoke protected immigration status.