>>24647820 pb

>>24647801 pb

[‘’continued’’- some say Dir. Gabbard may be eyeing a 2028 run, after her husband is finished with his cancer treatment, which POTUS said he was convinced would be successful]

PART 3 of 3(final section)

*NOTE 1: The Utah case was resolved against U.S. citizenship at birth for those born (presumably to non-U.S. citizens) in American Samoa:

- The Lawsuit (Fitisemanu v. United States): Filed by three American Samoans in Utah in 2018, this lawsuit argued that the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause guarantees birthright citizenship to anyone born in U.S. territories.

- 2019 District Court Decision: A federal judge in Utah ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring American Samoans were entitled to birthright citizenship. However, this order was immediately put on hold pending an appeal by the federal government.

- 2021 Appeals Court Ruling: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit overturned the district court's decision, determining that citizenship could not be imposed on American Samoa by the judiciary due to the unique political and cultural context of the territory.

- 2022 Supreme Court Rejection: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, closing the door—at least for now—on this legal pathway to establishing citizenship.

NOTE 2:

Tulsi was born in the territory of American Samoa to two parents who already held U.S. citizenship by virtue of their respective birth places (mom in the US and dad in American Samoa to a father who was a US citizen. This is likely an important distinguishing fact. (Anon briefly researched whether such a distinction was addressed at any level in the case and it apparently was not because the case was focused on the application of the 14th Amendment to all persons born on US territories.)–

NOTE 3:

AI summary about whether the Fitisemanu 10th Circuit declination of U.S. Citizenship under the 14th Amendment was briefed in the case current before SCOTUS, the answer was YES:

"Yes, briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court have cited the territorial birthright citizenship case Fitisemanu v. United States. The specific briefs that cited the case include:

Congressional Amici Brief (Trump v. Barbara): An amicus brief submitted by Members of Congress (led by Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Jim Jordan) in January 2026 cited Fitisemanu to support the argument that birthright citizenship is subject to historical territorial boundaries and congressional authority.

Fitisemanu Petition and Merits-Stage Briefs: In the 2021–2022 Supreme Court case Fitisemanu v. United States (where the Court declined to grant certiorari), petitioners John Fitisemanu and supporting amici (such as citizenship scholars) extensively cited the lower court's rulings and the case's underlying legal framework (the Insular Cases) regarding the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause.

"While Fitisemanu itself was originally about whether the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to individuals born in U.S. territories (like American Samoa), its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause is now being leveraged in broader contemporary battles concerning the limits of birthright citizenship on the U.S. mainland."

And, of course, for the purposes of this post, none of the cases or matters addressed above - nor the case currently before SCOTUS - actually address the Presidential qualification of "natural-born citizen" in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution (as would be the relevant law to determine Director Gabbard's qualifications to run for the office of the U.S. President). Rather, they are focused primarily on the 14th Amendment "anchor baby" argument (that was arguably needed for the children of slaves who had no other home to go back to - not to invaders breaking the law, who crossed the border illegally, and dropped a baby once across the demarcation lines that defines the United States of America and some of its territories - though not American Samoa per the case cited above).

FINAL NOTE: Anon takes Director Gabbard at her word that she is resigning as DNI at the end of June 2026 to support her cancer-stricken husband through his treatment, (not to prepare for a 2028 Presidential campaign as some have speculated).

But, because a birthright citizenship case is currently before SCOTUS, to be ruled upon imminently, the more the Court is aware (hopefully some related eyes are skimming) of possible unintended (and intended) consequences (of which most of the current Justices seem more than mindful) regarding language used in the imminent ruling on birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment context, the better off the nation, theoretically, when it comes to later treatments, if needed, of the Article 2 language "natural-born citizen" pertaining to Presidential office qualifications.