1: Discovery was denied
2: By the NH Judges own admission the parents do not fit the criteria under Rule 23: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23
3: He granted "Class status" to a novel group of "future unborn children" which as far as I am aware has never happened before and opens a whole can of worms like; do these future unborn children have citizenship before they are even born? Do they have rights? How does this affect abortion rights? etc. and that's just the beginning of the can of worms!

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/10/politics/birthright-citizenship-hearing-rhode-island

>>510063899 (OP)
>judges mattering
>it's 2025
you not get the news yet? judicial system has 0 power in 2025 kek

This is literally what the majority at scotus said to do

>>510064153
If judges don't matter there's no reason trump shouldn't throw every congressional Democrat in prison

>>510064154
Wrong, the majority opinion said to FOLLOW RULE 23

>In his concurring opinion, Alito warned against class action lawsuits that do not strictly abide by Rule 23, which lays out the criteria for certifying a class. He said the Supreme Court's decision on universal injunctions will have "very little value" if district courts do not adhere to the rule.

>"District courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23," Alito wrote. "Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of ‘nationwide class relief,’ and today’s decision will be of little more than minor academic interest."

>>510064154
>SCOTUS said to invent "future unborn children" as a protected class, so that those children can serve as slaves....I mean....undocumented migrant workers.

>nobody judge vs. supreme court justices
May OP burn in flame a long while before their death for being a disingenuous shill more partial to treatory than truth.

>>510064223
>"the majority opinion"
>look inside
>concurrence by alito that no other justice joined

>>510064325
In law, a concurring opinion is in certain legal systems a written opinion by one or more judges of a court which agrees with the decision made by the majority of the court, but states different (or additional) reasons as the basis for their decision.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

>>510064535
>Having failed to receive a majority of the court's votes, concurring opinions are not binding precedent

>>510064589
>following rule 23 is not binding
lmfao
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23

Think he's going to get 0-9ed?

>>510064665
Jackson will vote in his favor say something like
>Ayo shiiettt be fire nnnn shiiiieeettt dasss rite!