If you want it more aggressive for Black media, cable producers, and activist outlets, use this headline and opening:

PRESS RELEASE

**Ted Hayes Sends Supreme Court a Constitutional Warning:

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 Has Been Betrayed by Drift**

Los Angeles, California — Ted Hayes, longtime civil rights activist and public figure known as “Mr. Citizen Patriot,” has sent a formal constitutional package to the Supreme Court of the United States, warning that the original remedial purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 has been obscured by generations of judicial drift.

Hayes argues that what Congress forged after slavery, the country has never fully executed—and what the 14th Amendment was meant to lock in, later interpretation may have loosened. His submission challenges the nation to confront a forbidden question: whether the Supreme Court itself helped carry the Civil Rights Act of 1866 away from its original foundation.

VERY SHORT MEDIA BLAST VERSION

Ted Hayes Sends Supreme Court Notice Over “Constitutional Drift”

Ted Hayes, longtime civil rights activist known as “Mr. Citizen Patriot,” has sent a formal letter, affidavit, and Notice & Demand to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Court has drifted from the original remedial purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment. Hayes says the issue is not merely legal, but moral, historical, and national in consequence. His package specifically calls attention to the chain from Andrew Johnson’s veto to later judicial interpretation, and asks whether the original beneficiaries of Reconstruction-era citizenship have been lost in constitutional abstraction.

This one is even more direct for radio, podcasts, activist outlets, and attention-grabbing email blasts.

**Ted Hayes Warns SCOTUS:

You Cannot Honor the 14th Amendment While Ignoring the Civil Rights Act of 1866**

Los Angeles, California — Ted Hayes has sent a formal warning to the Supreme Court of the United States: America cannot keep celebrating the language of the 14th Amendment while forgetting the remedial purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

In a package sent to Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and the rest of the Court, Hayes argues that the original post-slavery intent of the 1866 Act has been obscured by what he calls constitutional drift. His message is simple: the law that arose from the suffering of the formerly enslaved must not be interpreted so loosely that its historical foundation disappears.

“This is not about disrespecting the Court,” Hayes said. “This is about confronting a national truth. If the Supreme Court has drifted from the original remedial purpose of the 1866 Act, then Black America and the American people have every right to say so.”

SHORT VERSION FOR EMAIL BODY OR MEDIA BLAST

Ted Hayes Sends Formal Notice to SCOTUS Over Civil Rights Act of 1866

Ted Hayes, longtime civil rights activist known as Mr. Citizen Patriot, has sent a formal letter, sworn affidavit, and Notice and Demand to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Court may have drifted from the original remedial purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment. Hayes says the issue is not only legal, but historical and moral, and calls on the nation to revisit the unfinished business of Reconstruction and federal citizenship.

SUBJECT LINES FOR BLACK MEDIA

• Ted Hayes Puts SCOTUS on Notice Over the Civil Rights Act of 1866
• Black Activist Challenges Supreme Court Drift from Reconstruction
• Ted Hayes to SCOTUS: Remember Why the 1866 Act Was Written
• Formal Notice Sent to Supreme Court Over Reconstruction-Era Citizenship
• Has SCOTUS Drifted from the Original Remedy of 1866?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**Ted Hayes Puts SCOTUS on Notice:

Has the Supreme Court Drifted Away from the Civil Rights Act of 1866?**

Los Angeles, California — Ted Hayes, longtime civil rights activist, homelessness advocate, and public figure known as Mr. Citizen Patriot, has sent a formal constitutional package to the Supreme Court of the United States, warning that the original purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 may have been blurred by generations of judicial drift.

Hayes’s package—sent to Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and copied to the full Court—includes a formal letter, a sworn affidavit, and a Notice and Demand for Constitutional Consideration. At the center of his message is a direct challenge: whether the Court has remained faithful to the original remedial purpose of the 1866 law passed in the aftermath of slavery, or whether that purpose has been gradually expanded, abstracted, and distanced from the very people for whom it was first intended.

“This is not just about technical law,” Hayes said. “This is about whether the blood, bondage, and suffering that gave rise to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 are being remembered truthfully. You cannot talk about federal citizenship, Reconstruction, or equal protection while ignoring the original wound the law was written to address.”

Hayes argues that the constitutional problem begins with a failure of execution. In his view, the chain runs from President Andrew Johnson’s resistance to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, to later Supreme Court decisions that may have loosened the law from its original anchor. He says the issue is not whether citizenship matters, but whether America has been honest about why the 1866 Act was created in the first place.

“We keep talking about the Constitution in general terms,” Hayes said. “But Reconstruction was not general. It was specific. It was a remedy. It was written in response to a historic crime. And when the original beneficiaries of that remedy disappear inside broad legal abstraction, something has gone wrong.”

Hayes, who has spent decades living and working among the homeless in Los Angeles, says his action is both constitutional and moral. He describes it as a call not only to the Court, but to the country—especially Black America, legal scholars, clergy, journalists, and citizens who believe the unfinished business of Reconstruction still matters.

“This is not an attack on the Court,” Hayes said. “It is a warning to the nation. If the Court has drifted from the original foundation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, then the people have a duty to speak. Respectfully. Publicly. Fearlessly.”

Hayes says the release of the package is part of a broader effort to force renewed national attention to the real meaning of federal citizenship, the true structure of Reconstruction, and the unfinished covenant between America and the descendants of chattel slavery.

Media Contact

Ted Hayes
aka Mr. Citizen Patriot
Guardian of the Republic
Los Angeles, California

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**A Citizen Puts the Supreme Court on Notice:

Has the Court Drifted from the Civil Rights Act of 1866?**

Ted Hayes, longtime civil rights activist known as “Mr. Citizen Patriot,” has issued a formal letter, affidavit, and Notice & Demand to Justices Clarence Thomas, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and the full Supreme Court of the United States, calling for constitutional reconsideration of the original remedial purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment.

Los Angeles, California — In a bold and unusual act of civic and constitutional protest, Ted Hayes, veteran homelessness activist, public witness, and self-described “Guardian of the Republic,” has formally placed the Supreme Court on notice over what he describes as a long pattern of constitutional drift away from the original remedial purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

At the center of Hayes’s submission is a blunt charge: that the great post-Civil War promise made to the formerly enslaved was not merely weakened by politics, but gradually blurred by judicial interpretation. In Hayes’s view, the problem is not simply bad policy or public confusion. The problem is a failure of execution—from Andrew Johnson’s resistance to the 1866 Act, to what Hayes argues has become a historic drift within the Court itself.

“This is not just a legal question,” Hayes said. “It is a moral and constitutional reckoning. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was born from blood, bondage, and broken covenant. The question is whether the Supreme Court has remained faithful to the remedy that Congress intended, or whether that remedy has been interpreted into something so broad that its original beneficiaries have been lost in the fog.”

Hayes’s submission specifically highlights the relationship between the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, arguing that the Amendment was meant to secure and constitutionalize the Act—not sever it from its historical foundation. His materials call particular attention to the arc from the Johnson veto to later Supreme Court doctrine, raising the question of whether the Court’s own jurisprudence helped loosen the original anchor of federal citizenship.

In sending the package to Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson, while copying the remaining members of the Court, Hayes says he is not attempting to harass or theatrically provoke the Justices, but to place before them a matter that history itself will judge. “This is a notice to the Court,” he said, “but it is also a notice to the country. We cannot keep speaking of citizenship, equality, and constitutional order while ignoring the historical remedial core of the very law that gave federal citizenship real substance after slavery.”

The package includes a formal letter, a sworn affidavit, and a Notice & Demand for Constitutional Consideration. Hayes intends the release to reach legal media, law schools, civil rights organizations, Black media, clergy, constitutional scholars, and the broader public.

Hayes, whose public work has long focused on homelessness, moral accountability, and the unfinished business of American democracy, says this latest action is part of a wider effort to force public attention back onto Reconstruction, federal citizenship, and the true constitutional meaning of remedy. “If the Court has drifted,” he said, “then the people have a duty to say so. Respectfully. Firmly. Publicly.”

Media Contact

Ted Hayes
Mr. Citizen Patriot
Guardian of the Republic
Los Angeles, California

(Send-Ready Document)

Ted Hayes
aka Mr. Citizen Patriot
Guardian of the Republic
Los Angeles, California

Date: April __, 2026

TO:

Justice Clarence Thomas
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

RE: FORMAL NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATION —

Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14th Amendment, and the Question of Doctrinal Drift**

I. FORMAL NOTICE

Let this document serve as formal notice that the undersigned, a citizen of the United States, hereby brings to the attention of this Court a matter of grave constitutional importance:

The relationship between the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has, over time, been subject to interpretive expansion and divergence from its original remedial foundation.

This notice is issued in good faith, grounded in historical record, lived experience, and a sincere concern for the integrity of constitutional interpretation.

II. STATEMENT OF CONCERN

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted as a targeted remedial measure, addressing the specific condition of formerly enslaved persons and establishing their civil and legal status within the United States.

The Fourteenth Amendment subsequently constitutionalized that framework, securing it against future erosion.

However, through subsequent judicial interpretation—including, but not limited to, United States v. Wong Kim Ark—there has emerged a broadened application of citizenship principles that, in the view of the undersigned, warrants careful reexamination in light of original legislative intent.

III. NOTICE OF “FAILURE OF EXECUTION”

The issue presented herein is not the absence of law, but a failure in the consistent execution of that law over time.

From President Andrew Johnson’s veto to its congressional override, the foundational intent of the 1866 Act was clearly established.

Yet, over the course of constitutional development, that intent has, at times, been interpreted in ways that may not fully reflect its original remedial purpose.

This document, therefore, places the Court on notice of what is herein described as constitutional drift—a gradual departure between original legislative intent and subsequent judicial application.

IV. DEMAND FOR CONSIDERATION

Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully—but firmly—demands that this Court, within the scope of its constitutional authority and in any present or future deliberations concerning citizenship:

1. Reexamine the historical and legal relationship between the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment
2. Clarify the original remedial intent underlying federal citizenship
3. Consider whether subsequent interpretations have departed from that intent
4. Ensure that future rulings maintain coherence between legislative purpose and constitutional application

V. BASIS OF STANDING (PUBLIC INTEREST)

This Notice and Demand is submitted not as a procedural filing in a pending case, but as a matter of public constitutional concern, grounded in:

• The undersigned’s status as a citizen
• Decades of lived experience observing the consequences of constitutional interpretation
• A good-faith commitment to the preservation of constitutional integrity

VI. GOOD FAITH AND RESPECT FOR THE COURT

Nothing in this Notice shall be construed as an attempt to improperly influence or coerce this Court.

Rather, it is submitted in the spirit of:

• Constitutional fidelity
• Historical accountability
• Respect for the Court’s role as final interpreter of the Constitution

VII. CONCLUSION

Let the record reflect that this Notice has been issued.

Let the question be preserved.

And let it not be said that, in a moment of constitutional consequence, the voice of the people was silent.

Respectfully submitted,

Ted Hayes
Mr. Citizen Patriot
Guardian of the Republic

Affidavit of Ted Hayes

State of California
County of ___________________

I, Ted Hayes, also known as Mr. Citizen Patriot, Guardian of the Republic, being duly sworn, hereby declare under penalty of perjury as follows:

1. Identity and Capacity

I am a United States citizen residing in Los Angeles, California. I am a longtime civil rights activist with over four decades of direct engagement on issues of homelessness, constitutional rights, and the condition of historically marginalised communities in the United States.

2. Personal Knowledge and Lived Experience

I have lived and worked among the homeless population of Los Angeles for over twenty (20) years, including extended periods residing directly within those communities. My knowledge is based not only on study, but on sustained, firsthand experience observing the real-world consequences of federal, state, and judicial actions affecting vulnerable populations.

3. Study of Foundational Law

Through decades of independent study, I have examined the historical and legal foundations of United States citizenship, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It is my informed and sincerely held position that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted as a targeted remedial statute, designed to secure the civil and legal identity of formerly enslaved persons, and that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to constitutionalise and protect that remedial framework.

4. Statement on Constitutional Drift

It is my sworn belief that over time, judicial interpretation—including decisions such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark—has contributed to a departure from the original legislative intent underlying federal citizenship as established in 1866.

This departure, which I describe as constitutional drift, has produced consequences affecting both the clarity of citizenship law and the lived condition of those who were the intended beneficiaries of that original remedial framework.

5. Public Interest and Purpose

I submit this affidavit in support of a formal communication directed to the Supreme Court of the United States, for the purpose of:

• Providing sworn context grounded in lived experience
• Affirming the seriousness and sincerity of my petition
• Contributing to the broader public and constitutional dialogue concerning the meaning and application of federal citizenship

6. Declaration

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Executed on this ___ day of __________, 2026
at _______________________________ (City, State)

Signature: _______________________________
Ted Hayes

NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT BLOCK (CALIFORNIA)

(Attach directly below or on a separate notary page if required)

State of California
County of ___________________

On __________________ before me, __________________________________ (Notary Public), personally appeared Ted Hayes, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature: _______________________________
Notary Public

(Seal)

Ted Hayes
aka Mr. Citizen Patriot
Guardian of the Republic
Los Angeles, California

Date: April __, 2026

To:
Justice Clarence Thomas
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

RE: Judicial Notice and Petition — Failure of Constitutional Execution from the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to Present Interpretation

May it please the Court—

Though I stand not before you in robe or formal office, I stand in the authority of history, the weight of lived experience, and the unfinished work of the Civil Rights Act of 1866—a statute born not in abstraction, but in blood, bondage, and the moral reckoning of a nation emerging from its original constitutional crisis.

I write to you not merely as a citizen, but as a witness—one who has lived among the consequences of constitutional drift—and as a petitioner calling this Court back to the integrity of its foundational charge.

I. THE ORIGINAL REMEDIAL INTENT

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was not a general immigration measure, nor an abstract declaration of universal status. It was a targeted remedial act, designed to secure the civil and legal identity of a specific class: the formerly enslaved—those who had been excluded from the constitutional order and required explicit federal protection to enter it.

Its language—“not subject to any foreign power”—must be read in its historical context: a nation reconstituting itself after rebellion, seeking to define citizenship in a way that secured the status of those newly freed, while stabilizing the Republic.

This intent was not ambiguous. It was debated, contested, and ultimately codified amid executive resistance.

II. THE JOHNSON VETO: THE WARNING IGNORED

When President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act, he did not merely oppose a policy—he articulated a constitutional warning.

He objected that the Act would improperly expand federal citizenship and disrupt the balance of the Republic. Congress, in overriding that veto, made a decisive statement: that the federal government possessed both the authority and the obligation to secure citizenship for those whom the Constitution had previously failed to protect.

This moment—veto and override—forms the constitutional crucible of modern citizenship.

It is here that the legislative branch clarified its intent.

It is here that the nation chose remedy over hesitation.

III. THE 14TH AMENDMENT: THE CONSTITUTIONAL LOCK

The subsequent adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not replace the 1866 Act—it constitutionalized it.

The Amendment serves as the lock upon the door first opened by the Act.

To interpret the Amendment without anchoring it in the Act is to separate mechanism from purpose.

To expand its meaning beyond its remedial foundation is to risk dissolving the very clarity it was meant to secure.

IV. FAILURE OF EXECUTION: FROM VETO TO DRIFT

And here lies the central matter before us:

Not the failure of law—
But the failure of execution.

From the moment of Johnson’s veto to the present day, the nation has struggled not with the existence of constitutional principles, but with their faithful application.

Over time, this Court—through interpretation, omission, and gradual doctrinal shift—has participated in what can only be described as constitutional drift.

The chain is clear:

• The Act established the remedy
• The Amendment secured it
• The Court interpreted it
• And in that interpretation, the original anchor has, at times, been loosened

Cases such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark represent not merely legal development, but a pivot point—where historical grounding gave way to broader abstraction.

Whether rightly or wrongly decided in their time, such rulings must now be reexamined in light of original legislative intent.

When interpretation departs too far from the foundation, the structure itself is at risk.

V. THE HUMAN CONSEQUENCE OF DOCTRINAL DRIFT

This matter is not confined to legal theory.

It lives in the streets.

It lives in the fractured condition of those who were the intended beneficiaries of the 1866 Act, yet who continue to experience systemic instability, displacement, and identity erosion.

I speak not from distance, but from proximity—having lived decades among the homeless of Los Angeles, witnessing firsthand the gap between constitutional promise and lived reality.

The question, therefore, is not merely what the law says—

But for whom it was intended,
and whether that intent has been faithfully preserved.

VI. THE PRESENT MOMENT: A CALL TO CLARITY

At this hour—amid renewed national debate over the meaning of citizenship—this Court stands once again at a point of constitutional definition.

Justices Thomas and Jackson, in particular, represent a convergence of historical perspective and lived awareness uniquely suited to this moment.

Not as partisans, but as stewards.

Not as symbols, but as jurists entrusted with continuity and correction.

VII. PETITION AND NOTICE

Accordingly, I respectfully submit this Judicial Notice and Petition, calling upon this Court to:

• Reexamine the relationship between the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment
• Clarify the original remedial intent underlying federal citizenship
• Address the long arc of interpretive drift where it has departed from that intent
• Restore coherence between constitutional text, legislative purpose, and judicial application

VIII. CONCLUSION

This is not a challenge to the authority of the Court—

It is an appeal to its highest function.

To interpret faithfully.
To remember accurately.
To decide justly.

I submit this not only as a citizen, but as a living witness to the consequences of constitutional drift—and as one calling this Court back to its original covenant with justice.

Respectfully submitted,

Ted Hayes
Mr. Citizen Patriot
Guardian of the Republic

Open Letter #1 To: Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown-Jackson
Open Letter #2 To: Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown-Jackson

Open Letter #1 To: [April 22, 2026] – Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown-Jackson
Open Essay Letter : [May 19, 2025] – Essay Letter To Justice Clarence Thomas: Champion The 14th Amendment

Focus: Thomas – Brown

The Unfinished Act of Federalized Citizenship of Chattel slave Americans (SCOTUS)

To the Honorable Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Shalom!

As this Court deliberates the grave and far-reaching question of Birthright Citizenship under the Constitution of the United States, I write to you not merely as Justices, but as uniquely positioned witnesses within American history—descendants of chattel slavery, standing at the highest legal threshold of a nation force built, in no small measure, upon the backs of your/our ancestors.

This moment is without precedent.

Since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, never before have two Justices of such lineage—one man and one woman—sat together on the Supreme Court at a time when the very meaning and application of that Act’s central promise is under existential review.

Even before you, the historic presence of Thurgood Marshall marked a singular breakthrough; yet now, in this hour, there is a dual witness—balanced, complete, and profoundly consequential.

You stand where law, history, and Providence converge.

The phrase “any person born…” in the 14th Amendment is not abstract language.
It is rooted in the remedial intent of 1866—a sacred legal covenant forged in the aftermath of bondage, aimed specifically at securing the status, protection, and dignity of those once enslaved and their descendants.
That intent—its spirit and its purpose—now stands at risk of dilution, distortion, or destruction from arguments advanced on both sides of the present case.

It must be plainly stated:
A ruling that affirms either extreme—whether expansion without anchor, or contraction without historical fidelity—threatens the very Subject Beneficiaries for whom the law was originally established.

You, more than any others on this bench, carry both the moral inheritance and the legal standing to recognize this danger.

While the remaining members of the Court descend from immigrant heritage, you alone embody the living lineage of those for whom the 1866 Act and the 14th Amendment were expressly designed as a remedy. This is not a matter of exclusion—it is a matter of primary beneficiary interpretation, grounded in history, law, and justice.

Therefore, this letter respectfully but urgently calls upon you:

To reject the false binary presented in this case.

To resist rulings that would harm the original beneficiaries under the guise of broader application or restriction.

And to move, if necessary, for a suspension or reconsideration of this matter until its full constitutional, historical, and moral consequences are properly examined.

Such an action would not be avoidance—it would be guardianship.

You owe this duty not only to your ancestors—those who endured chains, war, and systemic denial of personhood—but also to the soldiers of the Civil War, to the legislative framers of Reconstruction, and to the enduring legacy of Abraham Lincoln, whose work remains unfinished in spirit if not in form.

Indeed, even in the present era, under the leadership of Donald J. Trump—who has openly expressed admiration for Lincoln’s legacy—the nation again stands at a crossroads where history calls for completion, not confusion.

Above all, this duty is owed to Almighty GOD, the ultimate Judge, whose justice transcends all earthly courts, and before whom every decision—legal and moral—must ultimately stand.

You have been positioned, whether by history and Providence, for such a time as this.

To proceed without fully safeguarding the original intent of Birthright Citizenship is to risk not only legal error, but generational consequences.

To act with courage, restraint, and fidelity to that original intent is to preserve the Republic itself.

The eyes of history are upon you.
The weight of ancestry stands behind you.
And the judgment of Heaven, as always, stands above you.

Respectfully submitted,
on behalf of those whose citizenship was first secured in law through suffering, sacrifice, and divine justice,

Ted Hayes
aka
Mr. Citizen Patriot
Guardian of the Republic
Conscience of America
MrPatriot.us