URGENT NOTICE REGARDING TRUMP v. BARBARA, No. 25-365
Rehearing Under MORATORIUM — Return to the Civil Rights Act of 1866
See (long version)
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: Immediate Request That Any Petition for Rehearing Proceed Under MORATORIUM
Mr. President:
Time Is Now of the Essence
(Please see accompanying documents in this directory @ (https://tedhayes.us/rehear-dire/)
The Supreme Court decided Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365, on June 30, 2026. Under Supreme Court Rule 44, a petition for rehearing must generally be filed within 25 days after entry of judgment unless shortened or extended. Therefore, this urgent notice is submitted before the United States repeats the same false premise.
Prior MORATORIUM Notice Has Already Been Given
This notice follows prior letters and MORATORIUM-related communications directed to the Presidency, Congress, the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, the ACLU, Teresa Wang, Esq., the NAACP, and related parties. Those communications placed before the parties the 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.
Rehearing Under MORATORIUM
The petition for rehearing should not stand apart from the MORATORIUM. It 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.
Do Not Rehear the Same False Premise
A rehearing that 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 Civil Rights Act of 1866 came first. The Fourteenth Amendment came after. Any rehearing petition that begins with the Fourteenth Amendment while bypassing the 1866 Act begins too late.
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.
The Highest Moral Ground
Mr. President, this matter may be the highest moral step available in the unique American story. Every party in America stands, in some measure, upon the backs of the chattel-enslaved ancestors of the federal citizens now in question.
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 oppose a peaceful MORATORIUM that seeks no reparations, no revenge, no punishment, no condemnation, and no belittlement of others, but only constitutional truth?
Supporting Materials Available
The full supporting materials are available here:
[INSERT YOUR WEBSITE LINK HERE]
Final Appeal
Mr. President, do not rehear the false premise.
Rehear the foundation.
Proceed by Rehearing Under MORATORIUM.
Return to the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Respectfully submitted,
Ted Hayes
American African Federal Citizen
Founder, Justiceville
Mr. Citizen Patriot