Trump seeks do-overs at a Supreme Court that rarely grants them

Trump seeks do overs at a Supreme – Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the Request:** * **Role:** Professional editor rewriting articles. * **Task:** Rewrite the provided article into a new, unique version with proper HTML formatting. * **Source URL:** https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/09/politics/trump-supreme-court-rehear-birthright-citizenship * **Original Title:** Trump seeks do-overs at a Supreme Court that rarely grants them * **Source Language:** English (must be preserved). * **Rules:** * Language: English. * Preserve factual accuracy (names, dates, numbers, quotes). * Do NOT copy sentences verbatim; avoid long phrases (no 8+ consecutive words). * Change structure: reorder paragraphs and vary wording. * Preserve direct quotes using `

`. * Use clean structure with `

`, `

`, and `

`. * Produce ONLY the rewritten HTML (no markdown, no commentary). * Minimum length: 600 words (mandatory). If source is under 600, expand naturally without adding false info. * Output format: Clean HTML. 2. **Analyze the Source Text:** * **Topic:** Trump seeking rehearings at the Supreme Court, specifically regarding birthright citizenship and the E. Jean Carroll verdict. * **Key Facts:** * Date of article context: July 9, 2026 (from URL). * Event: Supreme Court term ended last week. * Action: Trump/legal team filing for rehearings (longshot request). * Case 1: E. Jean Carroll ($5 million verdict for sexual abuse/defamation). Appeal denied recently. * Case 2: Birthright citizenship order. Court invalidated it on June 30. * Vote breakdown: 6-3. 5 justices said it violated 14th Amendment. Brett Kavanaugh said it was constitutional but barred by federal immigration law. * Trump’s quote: “The Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong… IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision.” * Rule: Rehearing requests must be filed within 25 days. * Practice: Rarely granted unless significant new development. * Historical precedent: Last argued appeal rehearing was 1965 (*Maryland v. US*). Case involved airplane crash (1958). Court ruled pilot was MD employee, not federal. Plaintiffs argued lower courts missed air traffic controllers. Court allowed separate issue to proceed. * Another precedent: Almost a decade earlier (1957?), court granted rehearing for court-martial of two civilian wives who killed military husbands (England/Japan). Reversed itself. Only time ever. * Expert quote: Michael Dorf (Cornell Law). “It is extremely rare… vital information was not before it originally… Simple attempts to re-litigate a decided issue invariably fail.” * DOJ response: None. * Carroll case details: Attorneys asked lower courts to delay payment. Trump noted separate Carroll case coming up, suggested waiting. Lawyers already suggested this last month. Court denied appeal last week without dissent. Carroll’s lawyers declined comment. * Denial of appeal rehearings: More common than final decision rehearings, but still rare. Last one >1 year ago (federal anti-doping law for horseracing). * Note: Source text cuts off at “In asking a lo”. I need to handle this truncation gracefully, perhaps by summarizing the implication or stopping naturally if the thought is complete enough, or expanding slightly to meet word count. Looking at the cutoff, it seems like it was about to mention another case or detail. I will ensure the total word count exceeds 600 by elaborating on the context provided. 3. **Drafting Strategy:** * **Word Count Check:** The source text is around 500-550 words. I need to expand to ensure >600 words. I can elaborate on the historical context, the legal mechanics of the 14th Amendment mentioned, and the significance of the Carroll case delay. * **Structure:** * H2: Main Title (Rewritten). * H3: Subheadings for sections (e.g., Birthright Citizenship Challenge, The Carroll Verdict, Historical Precedents). * P: Paragraphs with varied sentence structure. * Blockquote: For Trump and Dorf quotes. * **Avoiding Verbatim:** Break up long phrases. Instead of “The Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong,” use “Trump declared the judicial outcome incorrect.” * **HTML Tags:** `

`, `

`, `

`, `

`. 4. **Drafting – Section by Section:** * *Intro:* Start with the concept of second chances at the highest court. Mention the recent term end. * *Birthright Citizenship:* Detail the June 30 ruling, the 6-3 split, and Trump’s immediate reaction. * *Carroll Case:* Discuss the $5M verdict, the denial of appeal, and the request for rehearing. * *Legal Mechanics & History:* Explain the 25-day rule, the rarity of grants, and the 1965 *Maryland v. US* example. Mention the 1950s civilian wives case. * *Expert Opinion:* Insert Michael Dorf’s quote. * *Conclusion:* Wrap up with the odds and the DOJ silence. 5. **Refining and Expanding (to hit 600+ words):** * I need to make sure I don’t just list facts but weave them into a narrative. * I will expand on the implications of the 14th Amendment violation mentioned. * I will elaborate on the difference between rehearing a final decision vs. denying an appeal. * I will ensure no 8+ consecutive words match the original exactly. 6. **Writing the Content (Mental Draft & Word Count Estimation):** * *Title:* President Trump Pursues Rare Supreme Court Rehearings Amidst Legal Setbacks * *Para 1:* President Donald Trump has developed a newfound faith in the possibility of unexpected reversals within the nation’s highest judicial body. Following the conclusion of the court’s term last week, which featured numerous significant rulings, the administration has begun exploring a procedural mechanism that allows for reconsideration of past judgments. This strategy, though considered a longshot, involves asking the justices to revisit decisions they have already issued, a practice that has seen limited success over the last fifty years. * *Para 2:* Legal representatives for the president have formally submitted a petition seeking a rehearing concerning the recent dismissal of an appeal related to the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit. That litigation resulted in a $5 million judgment against Trump, citing findings of sexual abuse and defamation against the magazine writer. Concurrently, on Wednesday, Trump publicly committed to requesting a redo of the court’s ruling that nullified his executive order aimed at ending automatic birthright citizenship. * *Quote:*

“The Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong,” Trump posted on social media. “I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision.”

* *Para 3:* Under technical regulations, parties possess a twenty-five-day window to submit such requests after a decision is rendered. However, historical trends indicate that the court typically approves these motions only when substantial new information emerges following the initial ruling, rather than merely because the losing side disagrees with the outcome. On June 30, the justices voted six to three to strike down Trump’s attempt to terminate automatic citizenship via executive action. * *Para 4:* A majority of five justices determined that the order conflicted with the citizenship clause found in the Fourteenth Amendment. Meanwhile, Justice Brett Kavanaugh offered a distinct rationale, concluding that while the order itself remained constitutional, it was nonetheless prohibited by existing federal immigration statutes. This marks the first time since 1965 that the Supreme Court has considered a request to review a decision in an argued appeal. * *Para 5:* That earlier instance, known as *Maryland v. US*, centered on a tragic 1958 aviation collision involving a commercial airliner and a Maryland National Guard training aircraft. The central legal question concerned whether plaintiffs could pursue damages from the federal government. In 1965, the court decided that the pilot operated as an employee of Maryland rather than the federal entity. * *Para 6:* Nevertheless, the plaintiffs contended that lower courts had focused exclusively on the pilot’s liability while ignoring the responsibility of government air traffic controllers. Consequently, the Supreme Court issued a concise order permitting this distinct issue to proceed through the lower judicial system. Nearly ten years prior to that event, the court also granted a rehearing petition regarding the court-martial of two civilian spouses who had murdered their military husbands abroad, one in England and the other in Japan. * *Para 7:* Upon reconsideration, the justices determined that the women could not face trial by court-martial. To the present day, this remains the singular occasion where the Supreme Court has reheard a case and subsequently reversed its own prior conclusion. Michael Dorf, a constitutional law scholar at Cornell Law School, emphasized the unusual nature of such proceedings. * *Quote:*

“It is extremely rare for the court to grant reconsideration,” said Michael Dorf. “When it does so, it is typically because some vital information was not before it originally,” Dorf told CNN. “Simple attempts to re-litigate a decided issue invariably fail.”

* *Para 8:* The Department of Justice has yet to issue a statement regarding Trump’s intention to pursue a rehearing. Based on historical patterns, the president’s chances appear marginally improved in the Carroll matter, though success remains improbable. His legal team recently urged the justices to revisit their refusal to hear his appeal of the $5 million verdict. Furthermore, they have petitioned lower courts to postpone the payment deadline while the Supreme Court evaluates this new request. * *Para 9:* Trump has pointed out that he intends to file an appeal in a separate Carroll-related matter soon, proposing that the Supreme Court might prefer to address both cases simultaneously. However, his attorneys had already presented this argument in a correspondence sent to the court last month. Despite this suggestion, the justices denied the appeal last week unanimously. Attorneys representing Carroll chose not to provide comments for this report. * *Para 10:* While reconsiderations of decisions to deny an appeal occur more frequently than rethinking final judgments, they almost invariably require a material shift in circumstances since the court’s original action. The most recent instance of the Supreme Court granting such relief occurred slightly over a year ago in a dispute concerning a federal anti-doping statute applicable to the horseracing sector. In that scenario, the Supreme Court remanded the conflict to a federal appeals court for further examination after a different appellate court had reached an opposing conclusion regarding the law’s constitutionality. 7. **Review and Verify:** * **Word Count:** Let’s count roughly. * Para 1: ~70 * Para 2: ~80 * Para 3: ~90 * Para 4: ~80 * Para 5: ~80 * Para 6: ~90 * Para 7: ~70 * Para 8: ~90 * Para 9: ~90 * Para 10: ~80 * Total: ~810 words. Good. * **HTML Tags:** `

`, `

`, `

`, `

`. * **Quotes:** Preserved accurately. * **Facts:** Dates (June 30, 1965, 1958), Names (Trump, Carroll, Kavanaugh, Dorf), Numbers ($5 million, 6-3, 25 days). * **No Verbatim:** Checked for long phrases. “The Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong” -> “Trump declared the judicial outcome incorrect” (Wait, I kept the quote block verbatim as per instruction “Preserve direct quotes”). The rule says “Do NOT copy sentences verbatim” generally, but “Preserve direct quotes using

“. I will ensure the surrounding text doesn’t copy. * **Language:** English. * **Formatting:** Clean HTML only. 8. **Final Polish:** Ensure no markdown code blocks around the HTML output. Just raw HTML. *Self-Correction on Word Count:* I need to be careful not to undercount. I will add a bit more detail to the historical section to be safe. I’ll expand on the *Maryland v. US* details slightly. *Revised Para 5/6 expansion:* Add more context about the pilot being an employee. *Revised Para 10 expansion:* Clarify the horseracing case outcome. Let’s assemble the HTML. *Check:* “Do NOT copy sentences verbatim; avoid long phrases (no 8+ consecutive words)”. Original: “The Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong,” Trump posted on social media. My Quote Block: “The Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong,” Trump posted on