I’m just as frustrated and horrified by what’s going on as everyone else, but this headline is SUCH a stretch. Like, 98% click bait, 2% kinda-sorta truth. PLEASE read the actual article and not just the headline.
This story is about a specific legal mechanism (universal injunction) that has been used by federal judges in dozens of cases throughout decades. It’s a controversial mechanism that has been used on both sides of the political spectrum. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. It’s currently being used to pause some of Trump’s worst bullshit.
Trump’s lawyers are arguing that this very specific mechanism shouldn’t be permitted in current cases regarding immigration. They’ve also argued that this particular mechanism is unconstitutional. His lawyers are wrong, and shitty, but they are in no way arguing that “the constitution doesn’t apply to the president.”
I agree with everything you said. You CAN draw a logical line from what Trump’s lawyers are saying to the conclusion that “Trump lawyers tell Supreme Court that Constitution doesn’t apply to the president.” That statement and conclusion is not, technically, factually, incorrect.
However, I do feel like using that statement as a headline strips away all the context and nuance, leaving nothing behind but rage-inductive click-bait. That headline gives no meaningful information, and if someone takes it as literal truth, without reading the rest of the story, they will be massively uninformed about what’s actually going on. It’s a disservice to the reader.