{"id":583,"date":"2026-08-31T13:10:49","date_gmt":"2026-08-31T13:10:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583"},"modified":"2026-08-31T13:10:49","modified_gmt":"2026-08-31T13:10:49","slug":"updates-on-the-new-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-and-mail-in-ballots","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583","title":{"rendered":"Updates on the new birthright citizenship executive order and mail-in ballots"},"content":{"rendered":"

Yesterday marked 59 years since the Senate confirmed the nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, clearing the way for him to become the first Black justice.<\/p>

Read more Trump administration asks Supreme Court to consider ban on transgender persons in the military<\/a><\/p>

At the Court<\/h2>

On Friday, the Trump administration the Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of its ban on transgender service members in the military. For more on its petition for review, see the On Site section below.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

On Aug. 21, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a , known as an administrative stay, allowing construction on the new White House ballroom to continue for now. The court could release its decision in the interim docket case at any time.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

This Friday at 9:30 a.m. EDT, the court will release its third and final summer order list. (We discussed what these lists typically address in our July 13 newsletter.)<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Morning Reads<\/h2>

US judge questions but won’t yet block Trump’s new birthright citizenship order<\/h3>

Blake Brittain and Nate Raymond, Reuters<\/svg><\/span><\/p>

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland \u201cdeclined to immediately block U.S. President Donald Trump\u2019s newest executive order limiting the number of people eligible for birthright citizenship, even as she sharply questioned its viability after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his previous effort to do so,\u201d according to Reuters. Boardman had been asked to impose \u201ca temporary restraining order … by immigrant rights advocates who had last year secured a ruling from her blocking the Trump administration from enforcing his initial 2025 executive order curtailing birthright citizenship.\u201d Boardman determined that she was unable to impose such an order at this time \u201cbecause the plaintiffs\u2019 [preexisting] lawsuit did not even mention Trump\u2019s 2026 order.\u201d However, \u201cshe said she would allow the groups to supplement their complaint and set a swift briefing schedule for the plaintiffs to once again challenge the order.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Trump Administration Appeals Ruling Halting Mail-In Voting Rules<\/h3>

Zach Montague, The New York Times<\/svg><\/span><\/p>

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani imposed a new block on President Donald Trump\u2019s executive order on mail-in voting, preventing the U.S. Postal Service from imposing new restrictions on mail-in ballots. On Friday, the Trump administration her decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, \u201cteeing up another series of legal decisions about whether the U.S. Postal Service can make changes to how ballots are handled ahead of the midterm elections,\u201d according to The New York Times. The USPS seeks to enforce a new rule under which it \u201cwould not deliver mail ballots in states that do not share voter data with the agency\u201d and \u201conly deliver ballots that meet certain criteria,\u201d including that they are mailed in specific types of envelopes. Talwani found that the rule \u201cwas likely unconstitutional and exceeded the agency\u2019s authority.\u201d The Times noted that the \u201cissue will likely be settled by the Supreme Court.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

U.S. appeals court rules against prediction markets, sets up likely fight at Supreme Court<\/h3>

Davis Giangiulio, CNBC<\/p>

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit \u201c prediction market platforms\u2019 requests for injunctive relief against the Nevada Gaming Control Board, concluding that sports-related event contracts are not a derivative regulated by the federal government\u201d and are, instead, subject to state gambling laws, according to CNBC. \u201cUnder scrutiny were the platforms\u2019 sports-related event contract offerings, which 44 states argue are nothing more than sports betting. However, the platforms \u2013 and their federal regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission \u2013 claim all event contracts, no matter the topic, are swaps. Swaps are a type of derivative under the purview of the CFTC, and the agency asserts that it has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate all event contracts.\u201d CNBC noted that \u201c[l]egal experts have widely expected that the question of sports-related event contracts, and whether state gaming regulators or the CFTC has the right to regulate them, will eventually reach the Supreme Court,\u201d adding that this \u201cnow appears very likely, as the 9th circuit\u2019s decision contradicts a ruling from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,\u201d creating what\u2019s known as a circuit split.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Appeals court delivers unsettling ruling \u2014 and says Supreme Court left it no choice<\/h3>

Elaine Mallon, Fox News<\/p>

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit determined that \u201cdecades-old Supreme Court precedent forced it to protect the in-home possession of AI-generated child sexual abuse material,\u201d according to Fox News. \u201cThe Seventh Circuit said it was bound by a 2002 Supreme Court decision that rejected restrictions on sexually explicit depictions of fictional children when no actual child was involved in their creation. But two judges warned that modern AI can now generate images virtually indistinguishable from material depicting the abuse of real children.\u201d \u201cTechnology may have overtaken and overwhelmed the reasoning used in those prior decisions,\u201d said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior fellow with Advancing American Freedom, to Fox News.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Judge rejects Trump\u2019s latest bid to challenge hush money conviction<\/h3>

Jeremy Roebuck, The Washington Post<\/p>

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein \u201crejected President Donald Trump\u2019s latest bid to erase his hush money conviction, ruling he had waited too long to try to move the case\u201d on efforts to conceal a payment made to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels \u201cto federal court,\u201d according to The Washington Post. Hellerstein also concluded that, even if Trump had acted sooner, \u201cthere was no legal basis for removal\u201d to federal court, rejecting Trump\u2019s contention that federal courts must assess how to apply the Supreme Court\u2019s 2024 ruling on presidential immunity to the case. \u201cThere is no way that discussions regarding hush money payments to cover up the President\u2019s relations with Stormy Daniels could be an official act,\u201d Hellerstein wrote. \u201cAn affair, or a cover-up of an affair, is not within the \u2018outer perimeter\u2019 of the President\u2019s official responsibilities.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

On Site<\/h2>
Court News<\/span>

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to consider ban on transgender persons in the military<\/h3>

By Amy Howe<\/p>

The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on whether a ban on transgender service members in the military violates the Constitution. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer called a decision by a federal appeals court that barred the government from enforcing the ban \u201cgravely erroneous.\u201d<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
From the SCOTUSblog Team<\/span>

The Supreme Court of Israel<\/h3>

By Zachary Shemtob<\/p>

For SCOTUSblog\u2019s series on different supreme courts around the world, Zach spoke with law professor Keren Weinshall about the Supreme Court of Israel.<\/p>

Read more The Supreme Court of Israel<\/a><\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Contributor Corner<\/span>

The Supreme Court\u2019s realignment roundup: October Term 2025<\/h3>

By Richard Re<\/p>

In recent years, Richard Re has written about an unfolding \u201clegal realignment,\u201d observing that \u201clegal views once associated with the right\u201d have been embraced \u201cby the left, and vice versa.\u201d In his Controlling Opinions column, Re explored how this trend continued during the 2025-26 term.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
A Closer Look<\/div>

When was Justice Barrett not in the majority?<\/h3><\/div>

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh each landed in the majority 95% of the time during the 2025-26 term. But right behind them was Justice Amy Coney Barrett, at 92%. She was in dissent in five cases. (This is a slight increase from last year, when she was in the majority 89% of the time.)<\/p>

While Roberts did not write separately in any of the three cases in which he was not in the majority, and Kavanaugh authored only a single dissent in one of his three, Barrett was more vocal: She wrote dissents \u2013 in T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp.<\/em>, Chatrie v. United States<\/em>, and Trump v. Cook<\/em>\u2013 and joined her colleagues\u2019 dissents in Bowe v. United States<\/em> and Pitchford v. Cain<\/em>.<\/p>

Barrett\u2019s first break with the majority came in a 5-4 January decision resolving two complicated questions about federal habeas procedure. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the court in Bowe<\/em>, held that the block on filing cert petitions in 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2244(b)(3)(E) does not reach federal inmates clearly enough to strip the court of jurisdiction, leaving them free to ask the Supreme Court for review if an appellate panel denies them permission to file a successive motion \u2013 and that Section 2244(b)(1)\u2019s bar on refiling the same claim does not reach federal inmates. Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing in Part I of his dissent that the statute\u2019s text and structure extend the entirety of Section 2244(b)(3) to federal prisoners. In Part II of his dissent, he argued that the bar on repeat claims reaches federal prisoners, too. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined in full; Barrett joined only Part I, the jurisdictional argument.<\/p>

In late May, the court reversed and remanded in Pitchford<\/em>, which concerned a Mississippi man sentenced to death. The 1986 case of requires a judge, when the defendant raises a claim that the peremptory strikes of jurors were conducted for race-based reasons, to run a three-step inquiry: the defendant makes a preliminary showing of discrimination, the prosecutor gives a race-neutral reason for each strike, and then the defense gets a chance to argue that reason is a pretext. Here, after the prosecutor struck four of the five Black prospective jurors, the trial judge seemingly declared his reasons to be race neutral and moved on, never reaching that third step. The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Mississippi Supreme Court was unreasonable in ruling that Terry Pitchford had waived his chance to argue pretext. Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Barrett joined Gorsuch\u2019s dissent in full alongside Thomas and Alito. Specifically, Gorsuch wrote that federal habeas law gave the state court far more room than the majority allowed, and that Pitchford had never made the pretext argument at trial in the first place.<\/p>

Then, in June, Barrett released her first dissent of the term.<\/p>

The court held 5-4 in T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp.<\/em> that the Rooker-Feldman<\/em> doctrine, which generally prevents federal district courts from reviewing state-court judgments, applies even when the state-court judgment is still subject to further review in state court. In a 12-page dissent, joined by the (unusual) trio of Roberts, Kagan, and Gorsuch, Barrett wrote that the doctrine \u201cstands on shaky ground\u201d and that prior caseshad deliberately kept its \u201cfootprint small\u201d by confining it to suits filed \u201cafter the state proceedings ended.\u201d \u201cStill, the news is not all bad,\u201d she wrote, because the majority \u201crepeatedly emphasizes that the doctrine is \u2018narrow.\u2019\u201d<\/p>

Later in June, the court ruled 6-3 in Chatrie<\/em> that law enforcement\u2019s use of a geofence warrant to obtain Google location data was a \u201csearch\u201d under the Fourth Amendment. Alito dissented, warning that the majority\u2019s reasoning \u201cwill send seismic waves through our Fourth Amendment doctrine\u201d even though it would not change the outcome for the petitioner in that specific case. Barrett joined Alito\u2019s dissent as to several parts and also filed a dissent of her own. In a three-sentence opinion, Barrett wrote that she had \u201cno quarrel with\u201d Carpenter v. United States<\/em>, the 2018 decision holding that police need a warrant to obtain historical cell phone records, or with the court\u2019s decision to take the case. But she agreed with Alito that under existing precedent, including Carpenter<\/em>, \u201cChatrie had no reasonable expectation of privacy\u201d in data about his public movements that he had provided to Google.<\/p>

Barrett dissented alone the same day in Cook<\/em>, when the court denied the government\u2019s application for a stay and left Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in her seat. \u201c[T]he constitutional status of the Federal Reserve is entirely outside the scope of this case,\u201d she wrote, adding that the government \u201cexpressly waived any constitutional challenge to the removal restriction, so the parties did not brief it.\u201d Barrett also asked how Cook<\/em> was compatible with Trump v. Slaughter<\/em>, allowing for the removal of a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, decided the same day: \u201cHow can history support both a categorical rule and a carveout?\u201d Barrett asked.<\/p>

Notably, four of the five cases in which Barrett dissented were 5-4 splits, with Barrett\u2019s overarching theme being that the court should have decided the cases more narrowly (with the exception of Pitchford<\/em>, where she would have had the state court\u2019s ruling stand). As she put it in Cook<\/em>, \u201c[w]hile a modest approach would have been appropriate, the Court chooses to go big.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

SCOTUS Quote<\/h2>

JUSTICE KENNEDY: \u201cCan you tell us how many attorneys and how many staff in the Justice Department are involved in the preclearance process? Is it 5 or 15?\u201d<\/p>

Read more The Supreme Court\u2019s realignment roundup: October Term 2025<\/a><\/p>

GENERAL VERRILLI: \u201cIt’s a \u2013 it’s a very substantial number and \u2013\u201d<\/p>

JUSTICE KENNEDY: \u201cWell, what does that mean?\u201d<\/p>

GENERAL VERRILLI: \u201cIt means I don’t know the exact number, Justice Kennedy.\u201d<\/p>

\u2014 \u00a0(2013)<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Plus, a dispute over President Trump\u2019s ban on transgender troops is back at SCOTUS.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":17,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,5,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-583","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-contributor-corner","category-from-the-scotusblog-team","category-newsletter"],"yoast_head":"\nUpdates on the new birthright citizenship executive order and mail-in ballots - American Service Review<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Updates on the new birthright citizenship executive order and mail-in ballots - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Plus, a dispute over President Trump\u2019s ban on transgender troops is back at SCOTUS.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-31T13:10:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/32bd8b49472aa887bfcfa41a814c8a82.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1333\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=583#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=583\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"Updates on the new birthright citizenship executive order and mail-in ballots\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-31T13:10:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=583\"},\"wordCount\":2158,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=583#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Contributor Corner\",\"From the SCOTUSblog Team\",\"Newsletter\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=583#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=583\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=583\",\"name\":\"Updates on the new birthright citizenship executive order and mail-in ballots - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=583#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=583#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-31T13:10:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=583#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=583\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=583#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=583#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Updates on the new birthright citizenship executive order and mail-in ballots\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"American Service Review\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Updates on the new birthright citizenship executive order and mail-in ballots - American Service Review","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Updates on the new birthright citizenship executive order and mail-in ballots - American Service Review","og_description":"Plus, a dispute over President Trump\u2019s ban on transgender troops is back at SCOTUS.","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-08-31T13:10:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2000,"height":1333,"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/32bd8b49472aa887bfcfa41a814c8a82.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"Updates on the new birthright citizenship executive order and mail-in ballots","datePublished":"2026-08-31T13:10:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583"},"wordCount":2158,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","articleSection":["Contributor Corner","From the SCOTUSblog Team","Newsletter"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583","name":"Updates on the new birthright citizenship executive order and mail-in ballots - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","datePublished":"2026-08-31T13:10:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","width":1200,"height":627},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=583#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Updates on the new birthright citizenship executive order and mail-in ballots"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/","name":"American Service Review","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/americanservicereview.com"],"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/583","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=583"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/583\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/17"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=583"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=583"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=583"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}