URGENT SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE REGARDING TRUMP v. BARBARA, No. 25-365
Rehearing Under MORATORIUM — Return to the Civil Rights Act of 1866
To: President Donald J. Trump
Cc: U.S. Department of Justice; Solicitor General of the United States; Professor John Eastman; Speaker of the House; House Minority Leader; Senate Majority Leader; Senate Minority Leader; Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States; ACLU; Teresa Wang, Esq.; NAACP
Re: Supplemental Constitutional Notice That Any Petition for Rehearing Must Proceed Under MORATORIUM
Mr. President:
Time Is Now of the Essence
(Please see accompanying documents in this directory @ (https://tedhayes.us/rehear-dire/)
This supplemental notice concerns any petition for rehearing in Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365.
The Supreme Court decided this matter on June 30, 2026. Under Supreme Court Rule 44, a petition for rehearing of a merits decision must generally be filed within 25 days after judgment unless shortened or extended. Therefore, this notice is submitted urgently, before the United States repeats the same false premise that brought this matter to its present constitutional danger.
Prior MORATORIUM Notice Has Already Been Given
This supplemental notice follows prior respective letters and MORATORIUM-related communications directed to the Presidency, Congress, the Supreme Court of the United States, the Department of Justice, the ACLU, Teresa Wang, Esq., the NAACP, and related public authorities.
Those letters and communications placed before the parties the urgent need for Education Before Adjudication, the recovery of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 foundation, and the identification of the original chattel-descended Subject Beneficiaries before this matter hardens further under a false constitutional premise.
The matter now before you is not merely whether rehearing should be sought. The matter is how rehearing should be framed.
Rehearing Under MORATORIUM
The petition for rehearing should not stand apart from the MORATORIUM. The rehearing should proceed under and within the MORATORIUM.
The MORATORIUM is the national constitutional frame. The rehearing is the legal instrument. Together, they form one peaceful remedy: Education Before Adjudication.
Rehearing alone may be mischaracterized as a political attempt to relitigate immigration policy. But Rehearing Under MORATORIUM cannot honestly be reduced to anti-immigrant hostility. It is a peaceful national pause to identify the overlooked foundation: the Civil Rights Act of 1866, its phrase “born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power,” the Johnson veto controversy, and the chattel-descended American African people and their posterity as the original remedial Subject Beneficiaries.
This MORATORIUM does not seek delay for delay’s sake. It does not seek cruelty toward immigrants. It does not seek punishment, revenge, condemnation, belittlement, or social disorder. It seeks constitutional truth before further adjudication.
Do Not Rehear the Same False Premise
A petition for rehearing that again argues only the Fourteenth Amendment phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” will not correct the constitutional error. It will rehear the same false premise.
The United States must not argue the lock while ignoring the house.
The Fourteenth Amendment is the constitutional lock.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 is the house.
The formerly enslaved, chattel-descended American African people and their posterity are the original household and Subject Beneficiaries of that house.
The House and the Lock
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 came first. It declared citizenship for persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power. The Fourteenth Amendment came after and secured that citizenship principle in constitutional form.
Therefore, any rehearing petition that begins with the Fourteenth Amendment while bypassing the 1866 Act begins too late.
The phrase “all persons born” cannot be honestly examined apart from the phrase “not subject to any foreign power.” Likewise, neither phrase can be honestly examined apart from the people for whom Congress acted in 1866: the formerly enslaved, chattel-descended American people whose civil status, citizenship, and equal rights had been denied under slavery and hostile state custom.
This is the overlooked foundation.
This is the missing house.
This is the false premise that must not be reheard.
The Missing Question
The missing question is not merely: Who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States?
The missing question is: Who were the original remedial Subject Beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act of 1866?
Until that question is answered, the Nation risks arguing the wrong issue, applying the wrong remedy, and displacing the very people for whom Reconstruction federal citizenship was first secured.
The MORATORIUM exists to force that question into lawful public view before further adjudication hardens the error.
The MORATORIUM Can Assure the Rehearing
The MORATORIUM can help assure the legitimacy and necessity of rehearing because it removes the false accusation that the petition is merely anti-immigrant or politically reactionary.
If anchorist advocates oppose MORATORIUM, they expose themselves as opposing Education Before Adjudication and the identification of the original Subject Beneficiaries.
If they accept MORATORIUM, they must pause the anchorist premise and confront the 1866 foundation.
Either way, the false premise is brought into the light.
This is why the rehearing should not merely be accompanied by MORATORIUM. The rehearing should proceed under MORATORIUM.
That is the stronger and cleaner course.
The Highest Moral Ground
Mr. President, this matter may be the highest moral step available in the unique American story.
It has the power to unite parties that otherwise disagree, because every party in America stands, in some measure, upon the backs of the chattel-enslaved ancestors of the federal citizens now in question. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, courts, civil-rights organizations, immigrant advocates, conservatives, liberals, states, cities, businesses, universities, churches, and public institutions have all inherited benefits from a Republic built in part through the unpaid labor, suffering, and denied citizenship of the chattel-descended American people.
Therefore, who would be foolish enough, Mr. President, to resist you in this matter if you frame it properly?
Who would openly oppose Education Before Adjudication?
Who would publicly resist identifying the original Subject Beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act of 1866?
Who would dare oppose a peaceful MORATORIUM that seeks no reparations, no revenge, no punishment, no condemnation, and no belittlement of others, but only constitutional truth?
Even the courts would have a subtle and honorable way out of their constitutional predicament. Rehearing Under MORATORIUM would allow the Nation and the Court to return to the foundation without humiliation, without panic, and without pretending that the false premise never happened.
Do this, sir, and that for which many prayed over you may find its opportunity. The Nation does not need you merely to be controversial. It needs you to be consequential in the highest moral sense. By your own testimony, you seek to be remembered as one of the most consequential Presidents in American history. Here is an opportunity not merely to win a legal dispute, but to help recover the unfinished federal citizenship remedy of Reconstruction and stand in a Lincoln-like posture before GOD, the Constitution, and We the People.
This Is Not Anti-Immigrant
This request must not be misrepresented.
This is not a call to hate immigrants. It is not a call to mistreat children. It is not a call to despise strangers. It is not a call to mock families who came to America seeking life, labor, peace, and opportunity.
The distinction being raised is not racial hatred. It is constitutional category.
There is a difference between willing immigration and unwilling chattel entry.
The willing immigrant came, or descends from those who came, through voluntary migration, however difficult that journey may have been. The chattel-descended American African people did not come as immigrants. Their ancestors were brought unwillingly, held as property, denied personhood, subjected to inherited bondage, emancipated by war and law, and then federally recognized through Reconstruction remedy.
To treat these two journeys as constitutionally interchangeable is to erase the very injury that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted to remedy.
Therefore, Rehearing Under MORATORIUM does not attack immigrant people. It protects constitutional truth. It says that before the Nation extends, transfers, or universalizes a Reconstruction remedy, it must first identify the people for whom that remedy was created.
The Johnson Veto Controversy
President Andrew Johnson understood more than many modern interpreters appear willing to admit. He understood that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 would do more than end slavery. It would federally identify, elevate, and protect the formerly enslaved as citizens of the United States, with rights enforceable against hostile state customs and local power.
Johnson resisted that elevation.
Congress overrode him.
That conflict is not incidental. It is smoking-gun evidence of the Act’s purpose, force, and intended beneficiaries.
Johnson was wrong to resist the remedy. But he was not confused about its seriousness. He understood that Congress was creating a federal citizenship remedy that would stand above state hostility and local custom. That is precisely why he feared it. That is also precisely why Congress was right to override him.
Any rehearing that ignores the Johnson veto controversy ignores one of the clearest windows into the meaning of the 1866 Act.
The Reconstruction Drift
The danger did not begin in this case. It began in the long judicial and political drift away from Reconstruction’s original foundation.
The Slaughter-House Cases narrowed the broader remedial force of the Fourteenth Amendment and helped diminish the reach of Reconstruction protection.
Minor v. Happersett discussed citizenship while leaving unresolved the deeper birthright foundation.
Elk v. Wilkins shifted attention toward the later Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction language while also showing that mere birth on American soil was not always enough.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark was a real Supreme Court holding, but its later descendants hardened into a custom-like assumption that has often been treated as though it resolved every birthright-citizenship question for every immigration circumstance forever.
The drift chain may be stated plainly:
Slaughter-House narrowed.
Minor abstracted.
Elk detoured.
Wong Kim Ark hardened.
But none of these later developments should be allowed to erase the Civil Rights Act of 1866, its phrase “not subject to any foreign power,” or the original Subject Beneficiaries for whom Congress acted.
The President’s Lawful Duty
Mr. President, this notice does not ask you to defy the Court. It does not ask you to act lawlessly. It does not ask you to bring disorder upon the constitutional system.
It asks you to use lawful executive authority to correct the premise before rehearing.
You may direct the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General to examine the Civil Rights Act of 1866 foundation. You may request that any rehearing petition be framed around the original statutory citizenship language, the Johnson veto controversy, and the original Subject Beneficiaries. You may call upon Congress, civil-rights organizations, scholars, churches, veterans, civic leaders, and the American people to enter a national MORATORIUM for Education Before Adjudication.
That is not defiance.
That is faithful execution.
That is constitutional leadership.
That is the lawful recovery of the house before another argument over the lock.
A Way Out for All Parties
Rehearing Under MORATORIUM gives every party a way out.
It gives the Administration a way to seek rehearing without appearing merely political.
It gives the Court a way to reconsider the foundation without humiliation.
It gives Congress a way to recover its Reconstruction responsibility.
It gives civil-rights organizations a way to rediscover the original federal citizenship remedy.
It gives immigrant advocates a way to avoid being cast as enemies of American Africans, while also confronting the difference between willing immigration and unwilling chattel descent.
It gives the original federal citizens a way to be seen, heard, named, and constitutionally restored without calling for revenge.
It gives the Nation a way to tell the truth before further judgment hardens the wrong premise.
This is why MORATORIUM can assure the rehearing.
Not by force.
Not by pressure.
Not by hostility.
But by placing the matter on the highest moral and constitutional ground.
Supporting Materials Available
The full supporting materials, including the Rehearing Packet, the Ten False Premises, the Primary Beneficiaries Doctrine, the Reconstruction Drift Chain, the prior MORATORIUM proposal, the Executive Duty statement, and additional constitutional exhibits, are available here:
[INSERT YOUR WEBSITE LINK HERE]
Those materials are submitted as a lawful earthly witness and, before GOD, as a solemn witness that the overlooked foundation has been identified, the MORATORIUM has already been proposed, and the proper rehearing path has now been clearly stated before the rehearing window closes.
Final Appeal
Mr. President, do not rehear the false premise.
Rehear the foundation.
Do not argue only the lock.
Return to the house.
Proceed by Rehearing Under MORATORIUM.
Return to the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Identify the original Subject Beneficiaries.
Let Education Before Adjudication become the peaceful national bridge by which America avoids further constitutional injury and begins, at last, to recover the unfinished federal citizenship remedy of Reconstruction.
Respectfully submitted,
Ted Hayes
American African Federal Citizen
Founder, Justiceville
Mr. Citizen Patriot