SCOTUS declines to hear Ted Cruz birther lawsuit

Not that it really matters at this point.

Not Ted Cruz

Not Ted Cruz

The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to hear a lawsuit arguing that Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz is ineligible to be president because his Canadian birth means he is not a “natural born citizen.”

The justices upheld a lower court ruling from March that found Walter Wagner, a retired attorney in Utah, did not have standing to file a lawsuit over the issue. Wagner was one of several individuals nationwide who sued to challenge Cruz’s eligibility to run for president.

In the March ruling, U.S. District Judge Jill Parrish noted that other challenges were similarly dismissed. Parrish never ruled on the underlying question of whether Cruz was eligible to be president.

See here for the background. A similar suit filed in Texas was dismissed shortly after dismissal of the Utah suit was appealed to SCOTUS. We all know that Cruz isn’t going away, so I expect this issue to come up again in 2020 or whenever he tries to run for President again. As I’ve said before, while the question raised by these claims isn’t ridiculous, I believe the “natural-born citizen” requirement has long outlived any usefulness it once had, and should be tossed. Perhaps the courts can take that up next time, since the odds of the Constitution being amended are basically nil. In any event, there is now one fewer bits of effluvia floating around the campaign this year. Let us be thankful for that.

Related Posts:

This entry was posted in Legal matters, The making of the President and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to SCOTUS declines to hear Ted Cruz birther lawsuit

  1. Mainstream says:

    At the recent state Republican convention I heard a number of delegates argue that it would be politically risky to nominate Cruz for president because he might be ruled ineligible as a result of his Canadian birth, and then the Party would be in dire shape. I don’t think the legal question is even a close one, but I wish the courts would rule more clearly on the substantive issue, to silence those who are making the ineligibility argument but do not really believe in it.

  2. Bill Daniels says:

    I, too, would like the SC to rule on this once and for all on this, too. My opinion is that natural born means born on US soil, be that in the US, on a foreign US military base, embassy, a US territory, etc. Isn’t this exactly why it was so important to produce that Hawaiian birth certificate for Obama, when many thought he was born in Kenya? Thus, in my opinion, Cruz did not qualify to be president.

    [birther flame suit on]

  3. Ross says:

    Bill, embassies don’t have birthing rooms, diplomats in first world countries generally have their babies in the local hospital. Same thing for Americans working abroad. You might want to include children born abroad of US citizens.

  4. Bill_Daniels says:


    Sounds like the diplomat’s kids born in a foreign hospital aren’t natural born citizens, although they are citizens because at least one parent is an American. Of course, that’s just my opinion. Had the SCOTUS ruled on the Cruz lawsuit, I might have been proven wrong, or proven right. Obama dodged the question by presenting the Hawaiian birth certificate. Cruz had a serious problem, because the matter really hasn’t been decided. Lots of folks on both sides of the issue.

Comments are closed.