Trump Birthright Citizenship Case

On April 17, 2025, Attorney Corey Biazzo filed a pro bono amicus curiae, (or "friends of the court") brief in the United States Supreme Court in the Trump, v. Casa case, where Mr. Biazzo provided objective legal analysis to the Court in service of his oath as an officer of the court to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. In the Brief, which is written from an objective, legal, apolitical perspective.

Below is a summary of Corey Biazzo's brief provided to you by Perplexity AI:

Corey Biazzo filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court case Trump v. CASA, Inc. In his brief, Biazzo argued in support of the respondents against President Trump's challenge to Executive Order No. 14160, which attempted to redefine birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Biazzo emphasized the importance of maintaining the constitutional system of federalism, separation of powers, and the judiciary’s exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution. He contended that the President overstepped constitutional bounds by issuing an executive order attempting to alter birthright citizenship without congressional approval or a constitutional amendment process, thus usurping legislative and judicial powers.

Biazzo stressed the danger of allowing the Executive Branch to unilaterally change constitutional interpretation via executive orders, warning it could erode the rule of law and upset the balance among government branches. His brief called on the Court to uphold the Constitution’s prescribed amendment procedure and reject the President’s order as unconstitutional. Biazzo is a U.S. Navy veteran and attorney who expressed strong concern for protecting the judiciary’s independence and the balance of power in the federal government.

This filing was part of a consolidated Supreme Court matter involving multiple lawsuits challenging President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, with oral argument held May 15, 2025. The Court later ruled in June 2025 that universal injunctions against the executive order exceeded federal courts’ equitable authority but did not rule on the constitutionality of the executive order itself.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/714f74f0-8f9f-4558-90fa-5b3d48af20aa

Below is a Summary from Gemini AI:

In the case of Trump v. Casa, Inc., a case before the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the legality of universal injunctions and a presidential executive order on birthright citizenship, Corey Biazzo, an attorney, filed an amicus curiae brief.

An amicus curiae, which is Latin for "friend of the court," is an individual or organization not a party to the case but who offers information, expertise, or insight to assist the court in its decision-making.

Biazzo's brief was filed on April 17, 2025, and supported the respondents in the case. The brief argues that the executive branch does not have the power to legislate and that the president cannot issue unlawful executive orders to manufacture litigation to amend the Constitution through judicial review. The brief asserts that Biazzo, as a civil litigation attorney and author on constitutional law, has a relevant perspective to offer the Court.

Standby for Further Developments in this Matter

Mr. Biazzo's brief may come into play later this year if and when the U.S. Supreme Court reviews the substantive issues in the case related to the legality and constitutionality of President Donald Trump's legally flawed and unconstitutional executive order regarding American birthright citizenship.

For more information, please see the following:

https://www.newsweek.com/justice-department-issues-birthright-citizenship-update-2110176

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/second-us-appeals-court-open-blocking-trumps-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-08-01/

Notable quotes from Corey Biazzo's Amicus Curiae Brief in Casa v. Trump, case on U.S. Birthright Citizenship:

Amicus is filing this brief to address the vital interests in this Court upholding the integrity of our nation’s present system of federalism as designed by the U.S. Constitution, regardless of who occupies the elected and appointed offices in the White House, Congress and the Judiciary. Amicus is a concerned member of the bar and an officer of the Court who is oath bound to support the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, Amicus is a U.S. Navy veteran who has taken an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. Amicus is concerned that this instant appeal presents a pivotal moment in the history of the United States where this Court must fiercely and unambiguously reinforce our well established system of federalism and jealously guard the independence of the Judiciary. Therefore, Amicus tenders the foregoing.

Federalism- Separation of Powers

The American federal government must maintain an equilibrium of power between the three branches of the government, as prescribed in Articles I, II and III of the U.S. Constitution to preserve our present constitutional democratic republic. No branch of the federal government shall be permitted to exercise the constitutionally designated powers of a co-equal branch. Further, this Court shall not be permitted to amend the Constitution through its Power of Judicial Review when the political branches manufacture litigation through the issuance of unconstitutional executive orders and unconstitutional congressional statutes.

The Risk of the Federal Judiciary Being Submissive to the President's Violation of Article III of the U.S. Constitution

In this instant matter, the President appears to have attempted to usurp the Judiciary’s Article III power of Judicial Review, through the issuance of an Executive Order that attempts to redefine the binding legal interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Birthright Citizenship Clause for executive agencies. The President conducted this action notwithstanding the President’s lack of authority to unilaterally amend the legal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. The President’s action predictably resulted in the President getting sued for attempting to usurp the Judiciary’s Article III Judicial Review authority. The President, by appealing the foreseeable adverse rulings from the lower courts, asks this Court to embrace his narrow interpretation of the Birthright Citizenship clause. The President’s nonbinding interpretation of the Birthright Citizenship clause appears to directly conflict with this Court’s previous exercise of Judicial Review which determined the binding legal interpretation of the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

This Court’s potential exercise of Judicial Rereview of this previously decided issue would reward the President’s unconstitutional action of directing executive agencies to ignore settled law. The new Presidential power to activate Judicial Rereview from the Judiciary could be abused by the political branches with an express ramp to amend the U.S. Constitution, notwithstanding the amendment procedures outlined in Article V. This Judicial Rereview Article V work around would likely come at great expense to the American people, and it would undoubtedly subordinate the independent Judiciary to the political branches."

"The Court’s potential revisiting this issue would be akin to the Federal Judiciary ceding its Judicial Review authority and independence to the President, to be exercised at the whims of the President. This would create a policy making express ramp for the President to effectuate changes to the U.S. Constitution, without the consensus required pursuant to Article V’s amendment procedures. This potential surrender of the Judiciary’s Article III Judicial Review power to the President could lead the country down a path that leads to the eventual neutering and final erosion of the U.S. Constitutional government, founded on the division and separation of power. Further, this potential surrender of judicial independence by this Court could also increase the rising public perception that members of the Judiciary are merely politicians in robes.

This Court must affirm the vitality of the Constitution’s Separation of Powers, as delineated in Articles I, II, and III, because the Separation of Powers is the foundation to all of our constitutionally recognized civil liberties. “… while it is entirely appropriate for us Americans to celebrate our wonderful Bill of Rights, we realize (or should realize) that it represents the fruit, and not the roots, of our constitutional tree. The rights it expresses are the reasons that the other provisions exist. But it is those other humdrum provisions—the structural, mechanistic portions of the Constitution that pit, in James Madison’s words, “ambition against ambition,” and make it impossible for any element of government to obtain unchecked power— that convert the Bill of Rights from a paper assurance to a living guarantee.” Antonin Scalia, Scalia Speaks 163 (1st ed. 2017).

This Court must fiercely affirm that the only way that the President can revise the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, or any other section of the U.S. Constitution is through the Constitution’s Amendment Procedures outlined in Article 5 V. Those procedures require the President to gather a large consensus of federal and state elected legislators or state conventions of voting citizens to amend the Constitution. The President’s proposed paths of either amending the Constitution via unilateral executive fiat or through triggering this Court’s potential exercise of Judicial Rereview must be unambiguously closed to the political branches. This Court should also keep in mind that an exercise of Judicial Rereview in this matter in reward to the President’s unlawful actions could also inspire politically ambitious members of Congress to enact statutes that attempt to usurp the power of Judicial Review for the Congress or attempt to manufacture litigation to attempt to amend the Constitution through Judicial Rereview.

Therefore, this Court must unequivocally reject: (1) the President’s proposed imposition of the President’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment via an executive order over this Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (2) the notion that the Executive has any concurrent and/or superseding authority of Judicial Review with or over the Judiciary; and (3) the notion that the President can manufacture standing in others through issuing unconstitutional executive orders to compel this Court to revisit its past interpretations of the Constitution, where the President could then attempt to persuade the Court to adopt his conflicting interpretations of the Constitution to bypass Article V’s amendment procedures.

The Risk of the Federal Judiciary Subordinating the U.S. Congress to the President's Violation of Article I of the U.S. Constitution

This Court should recognize that the President is also by advancing this appeal, asking this Court for permission for his disputed executive order to somehow nullify a Congressional statute, specifically 8. U.S.C. § 1401, in an unlawful attempt to usurp Congress’ Article I legislative power. The statute appears to essentially codify the Fourteenth Amendment’s Birthright Citizenship clause, with language that also contradicts the subject Executive Order like this Court’s ruling in Wong Kim Ark contradicts the Executive Order. Given that Article I delegates all legislative authority to Congress, this Court must also unequivocally reject the notion that the Executive has any legislative authority, especially legislative authority to nullify Congressional statutes with Executive Orders. This Court’s potential acquiescence to the President’s unlawful action, would amount to the failure of another vital check on the authority of Executive Branch at the expense of the Legislative Branch.

The Court’s failure to strike down the disputed Executive Order as unconstitutional and void could in turn, lead to the termination of an equilibrium of power between the three branches of government and the dilution of the rule of law into the rule of men. Article V must be affirmed as the only lawful path to modify the U.S. Constitution. The Judiciary must be affirmed as the only lawful possessor of the Power of Judicial Review, pursuant to Article III. The Congress must be affirmed as the only lawful possessor of the Legislative Power, pursuant to Article I. Our Constitutional system of three co-equal branches of government must be maintained and vehemently affirmed by this Court for this country to remain a nation governed 6 by the rule of law instead of a nation governed by the rule of men and for this great experiment of self-governance to strongly persevere through the distant future.

As Chief Justice MARSHALL put it, “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” And never, this Court has warned, should the “judicial power … be shared with the Executive Branch.” Kisor v. Wilkie, 204 L.Ed.2d 841, 139 S.Ct. (2019). “Our Nation’s founders were painfully aware of the dangers of executive and legislative intrusion on judicial decision-making. One of the abuses of royal power that led to the American 7 Revolution was King George’s attempt to gain influence over colonial judges. Colonial legislatures, too, had interfered with the courts’ independence “at the behest of private interests and factions.” These experiences had taught the founders that “ ‘there is no liberty if the power of judgment be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.’” They know that when political actors are left free not only to adopt and enforce written laws, but also to control the interpretation of those laws, the legal rights of “litigants with unpopular or minority causes or … who belong to despised or suspect classes” count for little. Id

Article II of the U.S. Constitution delegates no authority to the Executive, to determine what the law is. “… he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Art. II, Sec. 3 U.S. Const. While this language delegates the authority to the President to enforce federal law, it does not give the President the authority to impose the President’s interpretation of the law and the supreme law, the Constitution over this Court’s interpretation of the law and the Constitution, because the Constitution delegates the Judicial Review Authority solely to the Judiciary in Article III.

Article I delegates the legislative authority to the U.S. Congress. “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Art. I U.S. Const. “… the Congress is empowered “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution’ its general powers. Art. 1, Sec. 8, Par. 18.” Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan Amazon Petroleum Corporation et. Al., 293 U.S. 388, 79 L.Ed. 445, 55 S.Ct. 241 (1934). The Congress manifestly is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested. Id. “The President’s power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 26 A.L.R.2d 1378, 343 U.S. 579, 96 L.Ed. 1153, 72 S.Ct. 863 (1952).

In the instant case before us, as in Youngstown, there is no statute that expressly authorizes the President to nullify 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401, nor is there any act of Congress that implies that the President has such power. In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute. The first section of the first article of the Constitution says that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” As the plain text of the Constitution itself states and as the precedent of this Court states, the President has no law making authority and thus, he cannot nullify the aforementioned Congressional statute through an executive order. Id.

Limits under the U.S. Constitution on a President's and Executive Branch Power

On at least four occasions members of this Court have articulated the vital principle that no person, including the President, is above the law. See United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 34 (C.C. Va. 1807) (No. 14,692d); United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 713 (1974); Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997); Trump v. Vance, 140 S. Ct. 2412, 2431 (2020); Trump v. United States, 144 S.Ct. 2312, 219 L.Ed.2d 991 (U.S. 2024). Therefore, the current President is not above the law and the President is duty bound to enforce the aforementioned Congressional Statute, which appears to conflict with his subject Executive Order. Further the President shall enforce this Court’s Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and the President shall not issue executive orders that undermine or attempt to supersede congressional statutes.

An evaluation of the substantive arguments presented by the President is likely unnecessary in this matter because the only issue that needs clarification at this time is whether an unconstitutional Executive Order, that appears to attempt to usurp Judicial and Legislative authority is an appropriate vehicle to amend the U.S. Constitution, notwithstanding the existence of Article V’s Amendment procedures.

In the instant case, it appears that the President may have issued the subject Executive Order to manufacture a case or controversy for the respondents, who would initiate litigation against the President, so the President could attempt to obligate this Court revisit its holding in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), to advance the President’s political objectives of limiting the Fourteenth Amendment’s Birthright Citizenship clause.

Importance of Maintaining Article V of the U.S. Constitution as the Only Lawful Vehicle to Amend the U.S. Constitution

While the President is free to pursue his policy objectives as an elected official, in this instance, through Article V, this Court cannot create an express lane through this Court for the President to bypass the sole lawful procedures for amending the U.S. Constitution that are contained in Article V. The President must gather the necessary consensus pursuant to Article V to advance his agenda. Otherwise this Court risks potentially fatal blows to its independence, credibility and legitimacy as an institution of the American Constitutional order and as a co-equal branch of government to the Executive. Public confidence in the Court would likely further erode and the public may question whether members of the Judiciary are just politicians in robes.

This Court is not a proper venue for effectuating political policy changes, especially through amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Court should nullify the President’s disputed Executive Order as being unconstitutional because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment and because it violates Articles I and III because it attempts to usurp judicial and legislative authority. The Court’s precedent on the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment as established in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) should be upheld, in light of the fact that it appears that the President may have erroneously manufactured a crisis for others through his abovementioned unconstitutional Executive Order, to create a venue where 9 lawyers could potentially redefine the Fourteenth Amendment for the whole country, outside of the Article V process that is designated in the Constitution as the sole process for amending the Constitution.

If this Court opens up a political Judicial Rereview express ramp on this case, the current President and future Presidents will likely continue to attempt to create standing in others to sue them through issuing unconstitutional executive orders, so the Presidents can advance their political agendas through this Court, outside of Article V’s revision procedures.

This potential erosion of the rule of law is something that cannot be tolerated by this Court under our Constitution. If the most powerful individual in the United States is permitted to break the law, what is there to prevent others from also believing that they can also violate the law. Such a judicial travesty in this case could lead the country down a road of uncertainty, with a likely increase in potential corruption by elected officials and further potential unconstitutional actions and directives from the President that attempt to present matters for Judicial Rereview to hastily amend the Constitution through nine lawyers outside of Article V’s consensus requirements.

No elected official in this country is unbound by the rule of law and the superior law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. While this may be a pesky reality for some politicians, it applies to all officials in the Federal Government, regardless of the popularity of some officials. Each branch of government must stay in their respective constitutionally designated lanes and lawfully execute their powers on behalf of the People, without violating the rights of the People and at all times in conformity with the law and with the supreme American law, the U.S. Constitution.

In this instance and others, the Judiciary, regardless of shifting political winds, must protect the People’s rights enshrined in the Constitution. This foundational constitutional mandate applies at least until the People amend the Constitution through the lawful procedures in Article V, to require something else of this Court. Regardless of where the People stand on the political spectrum, this Court and the entire Federal Judiciary must unapologetically uphold the U.S. Constitution regardless of who it upsets. An alternative path would ignore the intention behind the text of the Constitution, which is to not allow the nation to become a monarchy or dictatorial system akin to the European monarchies that the framers of the U.S. Constitution descended from. This Court must prevent the President’s red ball cap from becoming the 21st century red coat. Such malfeasance could ignite a renaissance of colonial age monarchy in the United States.

Support our U.S. Military Veteran Driven Mission

Are you interested in getting a living revocable trust, will or other estate planning items in order?  We’re here to help. Quick turnarounds and no surprises. Remote services available with document signing procedure instructions provided.

Visit www.biazzolaw.com to review a list of our multi-state, multi-language U.S. legal services that fuel our Pro Bono mission to help preserve the U.S. Constitution to last through the distant future.

Contact Biazzo Law today at (703) 297-5777 or alyssa@biazzolaw.com to schedule a consultation today. www.biazzolaw.com 

** Information in this blog should not be considered legal advice, nor does it form an attorney-client relationship

what does an estate planning lawyer do? Do I need an estate planning attorney? How to choose an estate planning lawyer? Estate planning basics, Estate planning for beginners, When to start estate planning, What documents do I need for estate planning, estate planning checklist, cost of estate planning attorney, Is a will enough or do I need a trust, difference between will and trust, what is a power of attorney, living trust vs irrevocable trust, do I need a living will? How to avoid probate? Estate planning for married couples, estate planning for blended families, estate planning for seniors, what happens if you die without a will? Can I write my own will or trust? Estate tax planning strategies, how to protect assets from nursing homes, medicaid estate planning, estate planning and long-term care, best way to leave money to children, gifting vs inheritance tax, estate planning for parents with young kids, estate planning for high net worth individuals, estate planning for small business owners, estate planning for single people, estate planning for immigrants, estate planning attorney near me, best estate planning lawyer Boca Raton, Best estate planning lawyer Miami, local estate planning services, Deerfield Beach estate planning attorney, estate lawyer Delray Beach, FL, estate planning lawyer Aventura, wills and trusts attorney Boynton Beach, probate lawyer Ft. Lauderdale, West Palm Beach trust attorney, elder law attorney Palm Beach Gardens, living will attorney Stuart, power of attorney lawyer Palm Beach Gardens, will preparation lawyer Hollywood, FL, will preparation lawyer Sarasota, will preparation lawyer Jacksonville, will preparation lawyer Tampa, will preparation lawyer Naples, FL, revocable trust attorney Boca Raton, living trust attorney Coral Gables, medical power of attorney lawyer Delray Beach, guardianship lawyer boca raton fl, advance directive attorney Key Biscayne, do i need a will in florida, how much does an estate lawyer cost in Deerfield beach, difference between will and trust in fl, what is probate in florida, how to avoid probate in Singer Island, FL, how to set up a trust in florida, estate planning lawyer West Palm Beach, wills and trusts attorney Fort Lauderdale, probate lawyer Aventura, trust attorney in Marathon, elder law attorney Miami, estate planning attorney Doral, FL, miami estate planning attorney, estate lawyer miami fl, estate planning lawyer miami, wills and trusts attorney miami, probate lawyer miami florida, trust attorney miami fl, living will lawyer miami, elder law attorney miami, power of attorney lawyer miami, estate law firm miami, will preparation attorney miami, revocable trust lawyer miami, living trust attorney miami fl, health care surrogate lawyer miami. guardianship attorney miami florida​, advance directive attorney miami, miami attorney for beneficiary designations, do i need a will in florida, how to avoid probate in miami, florida living trust vs will, what is probate in florida, cost of estate planning lawyer miami, how to set up a trust in florida, estate planning attorney coral gables, wills and trusts lawyer miami beach, probate lawyer brickell miami, trust attorney wynwood miami, elder law attorney little havana, estate attorney doral miami, who needs a revocable trust in florida, what is estate planning in Florida, how to create a will in South Florida, do I need a trust in FL, difference between will and trust Florida, remote estate planning attorney, virtual estate planning lawyer, online estate planning attorney, estate planning attorney who works remotely, estate planning attorney Zoom consultation, remote wills and trusts lawyer, remote probate and estate lawyer, estate lawyer virtual services USA, Wills & Trusts remote wills attorney, online trusts lawyer, Living Wills virtual living will attorney, Health Care Proxy remote medical directive lawyer, Power of Attorney remote POA lawyer, online power of attorney setup, Probate remote probate attorney, virtual probate services, Elder Law remote elder law attorney, estate planning for seniors online, affordable virtual estate lawyer USA, estate planning lawyer with remote notarization, licensed remote attorney for wills and trusts, estate planning attorney that works via Zoom or DocuSign, can I hire a remote lawyer to write my will, online estate plan with attorney review, remote estate planning, remote estate planning attorney Florida, virtual estate lawyer Florida, online estate planning attorney Florida, estate planning attorney Florida remote services, Zoom estate lawyer Florida, Florida wills and trusts attorney online, estate planning lawyer remote consultation FL, remote probate attorney Florida, online power of attorney lawyer Florida, estate lawyer licensed in Florida with remote services, Will creation remote will attorney Florida, online last will Florida, Trust set up revocable living trust lawyer Florida online, Durable power of attorney remote POA lawyer Florida, Florida online POA setup, Advance healthcare directive virtual living will lawyer Florida, Probate / estate administration Florida probate lawyer remote, online probate filing FL, Medicaid / elder planning Florida elder law attorney online, licensed Florida estate lawyer who works remotely, Florida remote estate attorney for snowbirds / out-of-state clients, affordable virtual estate planning lawyer Florida, can a Florida lawyer write a will online, best estate planning attorney in Florida for Zoom meetings, remote estate planning attorney Florida with e-notary, online lawyer for Florida real estate and estate documents, remote estate attorney Miami Florida, virtual estate planning lawyer Tampa FL, estate lawyer Orlando FL remote consultation, Best revocable trust lawyer Boca Raton, Boca Raton revocable living trust attorney, Top estate planning lawyer Boca Raton Florida, Revocable trust attorney near me Boca Raton, Boca Raton trust and estate lawyer, Lawyer to draft revocable trust Boca Raton, Experienced trust attorney Boca Raton FL, Boca Raton trust law firm, Who is the best lawyer for revocable trusts in Boca Raton?, How to create a revocable living trust in Boca Raton Florida, Revocable vs irrevocable trust lawyer Boca Raton, Boca Raton attorney to help with trust and estate planning, Legal help setting up a trust for my family in Boca Raton, Florida trust lawyer specializing in revocable trusts in Boca Raton, Trust attorney for retirees and snowbirds in Boca Raton, Best lawyer for revocable trust in Boca Raton, Estate planning attorney near me Boca Raton trust, Who can help me set up a trust in Boca Raton? Top-rated trust lawyer Boca Raton Florida, Need a revocable living trust lawyer in Boca Raton, Do You Need a Revocable Living Trust in Boca Raton? Here’s Why, Revocable vs. Irrevocable Trusts: What’s Best for Your Boca Raton Estate?, How a Boca Raton Trust Lawyer Can Protect Your Family’s Future, Florida Revocable Trust Laws: What Boca Raton Residents Should Know, Avoid Probate in Boca Raton With a Revocable Living Trust, Trust lawyer for retirees in Boca Raton, Revocable trust attorney for second homes in Florida, Snowbird estate planning and trusts Boca Raton, Family trust creation lawyer in Boca Raton, High-net-worth estate planning lawyer Boca Raton, Trust planning for blended families in Boca Raton, Schedule your trust consultation with a top Boca Raton attorney, Protect your legacy with a personalized revocable trust, Call today to create your revocable trust with a trusted Boca Raton lawyer, Avoid probate — speak with Boca Raton’s trusted estate planning attorney, Local expertise. Tailored trust solutions. Get started now, Best revocable trust lawyer Miami, Revocable living trust attorney Miami Florida, Miami estate planning and trust attorney, Top-rated trust lawyer Miami FL, Lawyer to draft revocable trust Miami, Revocable trust legal services Miami, Miami Florida trust and estate planning attorney, Local trust attorney Miami, Who is the best lawyer for revocable trusts in Miami? How to set up a revocable living trust in Miami FL, Trust attorney for estate planning in Miami Florida, Lawyer for revocable trust and avoiding probate in Miami, Miami legal expert for Florida revocable trusts, Revocable trust planning for high-net-worth individuals Miami, Family trust lawyer for Miami residents, Creating a living trust in Miami: what to know legally, Best trust attorney near me in Miami, Miami lawyer to help me create a revocable trust, Do I need a revocable trust in Miami? Top estate planning attorney in Miami Florida, Revocable living trust consultation in Miami, Do You Need a Revocable Living Trust in Miami? How to Avoid Probate in Florida With a Revocable Trust, Revocable vs. Irrevocable Trusts: Which Is Right for Miami Families? Top Reasons Miami Residents Choose Revocable Living Trusts, Estate Planning Tips for South Florida Families Using Trusts, Trust lawyer for retirees in Miami, Estate planning for business owners with revocable trusts in Miami, Miami attorney for family trust planning, Revocable trust services for international investors in Miami, Bilingual trust and estate attorney in Miami, Trust lawyer for blended families and guardianship in Miami, Schedule your free revocable trust consultation in Miami today, Protect your assets with Miami’s top-rated trust lawyer, Get personalized estate planning with a trusted Miami attorney, Avoid probate — create a revocable living trust in Miami, Talk to a Miami trust lawyer who understands your family’s needs, Best revocable trust lawyer Fort Lauderdale, Revocable living trust attorney Fort Lauderdale, Fort Lauderdale estate planning and trust attorney, Top trust lawyer in Fort Lauderdale Florida, Lawyer to draft revocable trust Fort Lauderdale, Trust and estate attorney Fort Lauderdale FL, Revocable trust law firm in Fort Lauderdale, Local trust attorney in Fort Lauderdale, Who is the best attorney for revocable trusts in Fort Lauderdale? How to set up a revocable trust in Fort Lauderdale Florida, Fort Lauderdale legal help for revocable living trust, Trust attorney for estate planning in Broward County, Avoid probate with a living trust in Fort Lauderdale, Revocable vs irrevocable trust attorney Fort Lauderdale, Lawyer for family trust and asset protection Fort Lauderdale, Best trust lawyer near me in Fort Lauderdale, Need help creating a revocable trust in Fort Lauderdale, Top-rated estate planning attorney in Fort Lauderdale, Who can draft a living trust in Fort Lauderdale Florida? Revocable trust attorney for retirees in Fort Lauderdale, Do You Need a Revocable Living Trust in Fort Lauderdale? How a Revocable Trust Can Help You Avoid Probate in Florida, Top Legal Tips for Creating a Trust in Fort Lauderdale, Why High-Net-Worth Individuals in Fort Lauderdale Use Living Trusts, Revocable vs. Irrevocable Trusts: What’s Right for You?, Trust planning for retirees in Fort Lauderdale, Living trust lawyer for blended families Fort Lauderdale, Revocable trust lawyer for foreign property owners in South Florida, Bilingual trust attorney Fort Lauderdale, Trust attorney for high-value estates in Fort Lauderdale, Fort Lauderdale trust lawyer for snowbirds and second homes, Book your revocable trust consultation in Fort Lauderdale today, Avoid probate and protect your estate with a living trust, Talk to Fort Lauderdale’s most trusted estate planning attorney, Create peace of mind with a professionally drafted revocable trust, Get expert legal guidance on trusts and estate planning in Broward County, Best remote revocable trust lawyer Florida, Online estate planning attorney Florida, Virtual trust lawyer Florida, Florida remote revocable trust attorney, Online revocable trust creation Florida, Florida living trust lawyer virtual services, Remote estate planning lawyer Florida, Florida trust attorney for out-of-state clients, Who is the best online lawyer for revocable trusts in Florida? How to create a revocable living trust remotely in Florida, Florida estate planning with virtual attorney, Remote legal services for Florida trusts and wills, Attorney for snowbirds to set up Florida trust online, Revocable trust attorney for second home owners in Florida, Florida trust attorney for non-resident property owners, Virtual trust planning services for Florida retirees, Remote Florida trust attorney near me, Online revocable trust help in Florida, Can I create a Florida trust with a virtual lawyer? Estate planning from home in Florida, Lawyer to create trust in Florida without office visit, Can You Create a Revocable Trust Online in Florida? Why Remote Estate Planning Works for Florida Residents & Non-Residents, How to Set Up a Florida Trust Virtually From Anywhere, Florida Trust Planning for Out-of-State Property Owners, Snowbirds: Here's How to Create a Florida Trust Without Traveling, Virtual estate planning for retirees in Florida, Florida trust attorney for dual-state residents, Remote trust planning for real estate owners in Florida, Bilingual remote trust attorney Florida (English + Spanish + Portuguese + Italian + Hebrew), Trust services for digital nomads with Florida residency, Trust creation for non-Florida residents with Florida property, Create your Florida revocable trust remotely – schedule a virtual consultation, Secure your estate without leaving home – virtual trust planning in Florida, Easy, remote estate planning for Florida residents and non-residents, Talk to a Florida trust attorney online – no office visit required, Begin your trust and estate plan today from anywhere in Florida, U.S. Supreme Court amicus attorney Trump v. CASA, Amicus brief lawyer Supreme Court Trump CASA case, Constitutional law amicus attorney in Trump immigration case, Trump v. CASA amicus curiae counsel, Amicus advocate for Supreme Court immigration litigation, Immigration advocacy lawyer Trump v. CASA Supreme Court, Trump v. CASA high court amicus attorney, Expert constitutional lawyer Trump v. CASA brief, SCOTUS amicus lawyer immigration rights, Supreme Court friend of the court brief Trump case, Who filed amicus briefs in Trump v. CASA? Looking for an attorney who wrote an amicus curiae in Trump Supreme Court case, Can I talk to a lawyer who argued immigration rights in Trump v. CASA? Who is the best amicus attorney in Trump v. CASA? Need legal analysis of the amicus briefs in Trump v. CASA, Expert on immigration and First Amendment briefs at the Supreme Court, Find a constitutional attorney who helped in Trump v. CASA, Behind the Amicus Brief in Trump v. CASA: Constitutional Stakes at SCOTUS, Why We Filed: The Amicus Perspective on Separation of Powers in Trump v. CASA, The Role of Amicus Curiae in Shaping Immigration Law at the Supreme Court, Understanding Trump v. CASA and the Power of Advocacy through Amicus Briefs, How Friend-of-the-Court Briefs Influence Constitutional Cases Like Trump v. CASA, First Amendment rights, Immigration law, Civil liberties, Constitutional advocacy, Nonprofit legal advocacy, Policy litigation, Judicial review, High court litigation, Federal appeals expertise, Legal thought leadership, U.S. Supreme Court attorney, U.S. Supreme Court litigator, SCOTUS admitted lawyer, Florida Supreme Court lawyer, North Carolina Supreme Court lawyer, Florida U.S. Supreme Court lawyer, North Carolina U.S. Supreme Court lawyer, High court appeals attorney, Federal appellate lawyer Supreme Court, Amicus curiae U.S. Supreme Court attorney, Lawyer admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, Constitutional law attorney U.S. Supreme Court, Best U.S. Supreme Court lawyer in Florida, Best U.S. Supreme Court lawyer in North Carolina, U.S. Supreme Court certified counsel, How can I find a lawyer admitted to argue in the U.S. Supreme Court? Who are some attorneys with experience filing amicus briefs at the Supreme Court? Looking for a constitutional lawyer for a possible Supreme Court appeal, Can I hire someone to handle my case before the Supreme Court? I need a federal appellate attorney admitted to the Supreme Court, Who can file a writ of certiorari on my behalf? Lawyer to write Supreme Court-level briefs for civil rights case, Need a SCOTUS lawyer for First Amendment challenge, appellate litigation, writ of certiorari, federal jurisdiction, civil rights, constitutional appeal, high-profile litigation, Supreme Court practice, legal advocacy, judicial review, emergency injunction, What It Means to Be Admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court Bar, How Amicus Curiae Briefs Influence Supreme Court Decisions, Why You Need an Experienced Supreme Court Attorney for Federal Appeals, 5 Myths About Litigating Before the Supreme Court, Behind the Scenes: Drafting a Writ of Certiorari for the U.S. Supreme Court, Advocacy groups and nonprofits seeking impact litigation, Corporations with appellate litigation exposure, Clients facing constitutional or federal rights issues, State agencies needing federal Supreme Court expertise, Media outlets seeking expert commentary on SCOTUS cases, Trump birthright citizenship Supreme Court case, U.S. Supreme Court birthright citizenship case, Trump 14th Amendment citizenship lawsuit, birthright citizenship constitutional challenge, Trump citizenship for children of immigrants case, Supreme Court oral arguments birthright citizenship, Trump citizenship policy court decision, U.S. Constitution birthright citizenship interpretation, immigration law Supreme Court Trump, Fourteenth Amendment citizenship rights case, birthright citizenship Supreme Court case Washington D.C., Trump citizenship Supreme Court case live updates, U.S. Supreme Court hearing Trump birthright citizenship, Trump immigration Supreme Court case news, Supreme Court case affecting citizenship, national impact Trump birthright citizenship case, What is President Trump’s birthright citizenship case at the Supreme Court about? How does the 14th Amendment relate to birthright citizenship? Can Trump end automatic citizenship by executive order? What are the arguments in the Supreme Court birthright citizenship case? When will the Supreme Court decide the Trump citizenship case? Who could lose U.S. citizenship rights if Trump wins this case? What is birthright citizenship and why is Trump challenging it? How does this Supreme Court case affect immigrant families? What do constitutional scholars say about birthright citizenship? How to watch the Supreme Court arguments in the Trump case? explainer Trump birthright citizenship Supreme Court, history of birthright citizenship in the U.S., 14th Amendment citizenship clause explained, possible outcomes of Trump Supreme Court case, birthright citizenship changes impact on immigrants, public opinion on Trump’s citizenship policy, legal analysis of Trump birthright citizenship challenge