Supreme Court backs Trump on birthright citizenship injunctions. Here's what that means:
The Supreme Court ended its term on Friday with a major decision in the closely watched birthright citizenship case, that is likely to have a profound impact on whether the lower courts can pause or halt President Donald Trump's executive orders—which many legal experts say constitute an overreach of presidential power.
What happened?
Ruling along ideological lines 6–3, the court's conservative majority decided to curb injunctions from the lower courts that temporarily paused President Donald Trump's plan to end automatic birthright citizenship via Executive Order 14160, which aims to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally, on temporary visas, or not 'lawful permanent residents' at the time of the child's birth.
However, that right is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.'
To be clear, the Supreme Court justices did not rule on the merits, or constitutionality, of ending birthright citizenship. The Trump administration didn't ask the court to rule on the issue itself, and instead asked the high court to rule on whether federal judges have the power to issue injunctions that would block Trump's order nationwide, while litigation continues. The Supreme Court ruled in Trump's favor to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by federal judges, effectively sending back the rulings to lower courts.
For the 28 states that have not challenged the birthright executive order in court, automatic citizenship could end for children born in the U.S. whose parents are undocumented immigrants, and some temporary residents and visitors, according to the New York Times. The court also stopped his executive order from taking effect for 30 days.
Friday's ruling is a significant victory for Trump, and a major blow to his opponents who have been trying to limit his executive orders.
Trump calls ruling 'monumental victory'
On Friday, speaking at the White House, Trump called the decision a 'monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.'
That's the opposite of what Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, which argued ' the Court's decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution. The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival. Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort. With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a 'solemn mockery' of our Constitution.'
And added, 'The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.'
In a separate dissent, Jackson called the majority decision an ' existential threat to the rule of law.'
In response, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority decision pushed back, and said 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.'
Trump first pledged to end birthright as early as 2015, and again in 2018, before issuing an executive order on the issue in January.
Trump has instituted a crackdown on immigration since taking office that has lead to some immigrants, green card holders, foreigners, and even American citizens being detained by the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
26 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
County leaders mostly silent after arrest of woman objecting to ICE deal in Miami-Dade
A day after a 36-year-old real estate agent was dragged out of the Miami-Dade County Commission chambers by plain-clothed officers during a public meeting, the elected officials who watched it happen are mostly keeping mum on what they saw. The Miami Herald requested statements from the county's 13 commissioners and Mayor Daniella Levine Cava, who until January oversaw a county police force that's now under the control of an elected sheriff. No commissioner offices provided statements. Levine Cava did, but the message did not directly address the police response that landed Camila Ramos in jail overnight on felony charges after a brief and tense exchange with the sheriff's deputies that serve as plain-clothed sergeants-at-arms during commission meetings. VIDEO: Officers drag woman out of Miami-Dade meeting during ICE discussion Ramos had intended to speak on a modified agreement between the county's jails system and Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the allotted public comment portion of the meeting but was removed while attempting to ask a question about the rules after an officer had warned her not to speak. 'It was unfortunate that yesterday's meeting escalated the way it did when people were there simply to make their voices heard,' Levine Cava said. 'Public input is an essential part of an accessible, accountable local government and as elected officials we should encourage all residents to exercise their right to participate.' The Herald also requested a statement from Sheriff Rosie Cordero-Stutz, the veteran county police administrator who in November won the county's first sheriff election since the 1950s under a change mandated by Florida's Constitution. The Sheriff's Office has not released a statement but did provide arrest reports alleging a deputy saw Ramos punch an officer while being dragged to the chamber doors. Ramos was heard denying to an officer that she had punched her — or that if she had, it was inadvertent. Video of the ejection showed officers with hands on both of Ramos' arms and, at one point, also on her hair and foot. Less than two minutes passed between when a sergeant-at-arms first took hold of Ramos' arm near the microphone that members of the public use to address commissioners to when she was dragged out of the chamber doors by officers, her hand briefly grasping the arm of her husband, who was there to speak as well. 'I'm trying to understand the process,' Ramos said as the two sergeants took hold of her arms and started pulling her toward the exits. 'You're ejecting me?' Video shows Ramos dragging her feet and then falling to the ground while the sergeants still held her arms. They then began dragging her while her body remained in contact with the floor. 'I deserve to know the process,' she said. 'Let me go of me.' While commissioners have kept quiet on the incident, some politicians are sharing their views. Ken Russell, a former Miami commissioner running for city mayor, said on social media: 'Being silent is a message in itself…ANY elected [official] can speak up to allow someone to be heard or to stop an ejection.' Surfside Mayor Charles Burkett sent an email Friday morning to town administrators urging them to make sure Surfside could avoid that kind of incident. 'This is really bad. I can't think of any good reason why a situation like this ought to evolve with a woman on the floor with two very strong police around her,' Burkett wrote. 'We must never allow something like this to happen under our watch.' Ramos was released from the Turner Guilford Knight jail on Friday after posting bond for two felony charges, including battery against an officer. The arrest report shows uniformed deputies who helped take her out of the chambers were wearing body cameras, but that footage hasn't yet been released. It could prove crucial in her criminal case because a uniformed deputy wrote in the report that he witnessed Ramos strike a sergeant-at-arms in the face. While Ramos hasn't spoken publicly, supporters on Friday held a press conference outside of County Hall to denounce what happened to her. 'Her flailing may have mistakenly grazed an officer,' Juan Cuba, director of Sheriff Accountability Action, an advocacy group. 'I don't see in any video evidence it was battery.' He urged the county's elected officials to denounce what happened in the chambers Thursday. Cuba, a longtime Miami activist, is married to one of Levine Cava's top aides, Deputy Chief of Staff Rachel Johnson. Video of the meeting showed the confrontation began during a confusing moment in the session. While commissioners were scheduled to vote on a modification of the county's existing ICE agreement, there was a last-minute move to delay that vote indefinitely. As Chair Anthony Rodriguez explained the plan to the audience, he also outlined speaking rules that seemed to contradict guidelines from the county's top lawyer. Rodriguez told the audience they had a right to speak on the ICE item. At that point, Ramos was standing in an area near the lecterns where members of the public typically wait their turn for their allotted time at the microphones. While the audience members could still speak on the item about to be deferred, Rodriguez said, doing so would mean the public wouldn't have the chance to address commissioners if the item ever came up for an actual vote at a future meeting. 'Even if just one person speaks,' he said, 'then public hearing has been had on this item. And if it resurfaces, there will be no opportunity to speak on this item again.' Those instructions appeared more restrictive than guidance provided by County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan a couple of minutes earlier. Asked by Rodriguez how to handle the list of people signed up to speak about the ICE item at Thursday's meeting, the top lawyer outlined a procedure where people wanting to speak Thursday could line up for the microphones and those who chose to stay seated could address commissioners if the item came up at a future meeting. 'I would just start calling the names,' Bonzon-Keenan said. 'And those that wish to speak can stand up. And those that don't stand up, they can come back and speak at the appropriate time when the matter is under consideration.' Those conflicting rules were what faced Ramos as she waited for her allotted 60 seconds before commissioners, with a paper of prepared remarks in her hand. Video showed she was approached by sergeant-at-arms and a disagreement followed, with Ramos pointed toward the dais. Soon, two sergeants had her by the arms and pulled her away as the audience chanted 'Let her go!' and 'Let her speak!'
Forbes
28 minutes ago
- Forbes
Is France On The Cusp Of Another Political Crisis?
France's Prime Minister Francois Bayrou gestures during the political TV show "L'Evenement" (The ... More Event) broadcast on French TV channel France 2, in Paris, on December 19, 2024. Francois Bayrou said he hoped to name a government "over the weekend", "in any case before Christmas" and that a budget would be adopted "in mid-February", although work on this was interrupted by the motion of censure that toppled the previous government. (Photo by Valentine CHAPUIS / AFP) (Photo by VALENTINE CHAPUIS/AFP via Getty Images) France has now gone through three governments in the past year, each one effectively failing to clear the hurdle of passing a fiscally responsible budget. Major stumbling block here is pension reform – two years ago a proposal to raise the headline pension age met with widespread protest. Since then various governments have tried to find ways to offset the pension burden – one notable strategy is to drop the inflation indexation of pensions (a key pillar of the forthcoming budget process is likely to centre on not indexing government disbursements for a year). Prime minister Francois Bayrou has tried to find ways of building a consensus on pension reform – including a broad conclave on pensions, the idea being to raise the formal pension age to 64. This has now run aground, with the Socialists opposing it (their electorate is very sensitive to the topic) and they have threatened to vote against the government in a potential left-wing inspired vote of confidence. The far-right Rassemblement had declared that it would not support such a vote and the manner in which the Socialists had approached the process was slip-shod. Recall that the government has so far staying in power through a 'no-dissolution' pact with the Socialists, so any parliamentary vote where the Socialists vote against the government could result in the collapse of the government (with the collaboration of the Rassemblement and the far-left), and this could be close to fatal for President Macron. Bayrou has not been a convincing performer in his six months in the job, and one option for the President is to replace him, with say the minister for finance Eric Lombard, or to simply swerve the issue of pension reform altogether – which itself would be a defeat of sorts. Other more ambitious longer term pension reforms are now off the table for the time being. As result the budget process now becomes even more complicated beacuse Bayrou's actions have cut off one of the obvious avenues for the government to cut back spending. International events have given Emmanuel Macron a new platform away from domestic troubles, but Francois Bayrou has in effect imperiled his government on pension reform and the government is again on shaky foundations. The stark reality is that with a first outline of the 2026 budget due in a few weeks, France is limping towards a fiscal crisis. At a time when bond yields across the euro-zone have converged and when the imperative to boost defence spending and embark on the investment and savings union (capital markets union) is rising, Europe needs a strong France and the involvement of Emmanuel Macron. Instead, his tenure is now marked by fiscal failure that will shape the future of the French economy and society for the decade to come. Only higher taxes or dramatically lower government spending can stop the financial demise of France. Macron and none of the opposition parties will countenance this and whomever becomes the next president of France will take up a poisoned chalice.
USA Today
38 minutes ago
- USA Today
Few thought airstrikes could ‘obliterate' Iran's nuclear program. Then Trump said they did.
Experts long argued that airstrikes alone would not be capable of permanently ending Iran's nuclear program absent negotiations. WASHINGTON — A highly politicized debate is unfolding over the impact of June 21 U.S. airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, raising questions over the attack's goal and projected impact. President Donald Trump quickly claimed total victory in the strikes' wake, claiming that Iran's 'key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' Subsequent scrutiny of that claim amid early assessments from intelligence agencies has led Trump and his allies to double down on and even expand on his declarations of success. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed to CNN that the strikes 'obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.' Iran itself has acknowledged the impact of the U.S. and Israeli attacks. But in the years since Washington's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, experts and analysts have emphasized that airstrikes alone would merely delay Iran's nuclear ambitions rather than permanently derail them. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Illinois, reiterated that long-held understanding in a June 26 interview. 'The targets are hard targets, deep targets, mobile targets. So it was never meant to eliminate the program,' Quigley told USA TODAY. 'It was never meant to do anything but slow the program.' The congressman, who is on the House's intelligence committee and has regularly received briefings on Iran, added, 'We've always been told . . . the only way to end this (nuclear) program is with a lot of troops on the ground for a long time. A war.' The former head of the National Nuclear Security Agency's nonproliferation programs, Corey Hinderstein, struck a similar tone. 'The conventional wisdom that you can't destroy the Iranian (nuclear) program through air attack alone has actually held,' said Hinderstein, now a vice president at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'While some are saying that the airstrikes were tactically and strategically successful, I think that the jury is still out on that, and we don't actually have the information that we need to believe that this program is gone.' Third nuclear site, hidden centrifuges, missing uranium Iran may have another nuclear site that, if equipped with enrichment centrifuges and conversion equipment, could continue the process of preparing uranium for use in a nuclear bomb, if the regime wishes to pursue one. Shortly before Israel began its air campaign against Iran, the regime told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had a third nuclear enrichment site but did not reveal details. Analysts believe an undisclosed underground facility at Pickaxe Mountain near the Natanz nuclear plant may be even deeper under the surface than the Fordow enrichment plant that was severely damaged in the U.S. strikes. The Pickaxe Mountain facility was first publicly revealed in 2023 by experts who spoke with the Associated Press. And it's unclear how much of Tehran's approximately 880 pounds of highly enriched uranium was destroyed or buried during the strikes — satellite images show cargo trucks parked outside the Fordow enrichment plant in the days before the U.S. attack. U.S. lawmakers briefed June 26 and June 27 on intelligence assessments of the strikes acknowledged the missing uranium and called for a full accounting of the material, according to CNN. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told the news agency that the question of the uranium's whereabouts underscores the importance of Iran negotiating 'directly with us, so the (IAEA) can account for every ounce of enriched uranium that's there.' More: Where is Iran's enriched uranium? Questions loom after Trump claims victory. But whether Iran wants to negotiate is another question. Despite the country's obligations as a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran's Guardian Council approved a law June 25 halting the country's cooperation with the IAEA and its inspections of Tehran's nuclear sites 'until the safety and security of our nuclear activities can be guaranteed,' the country's foreign minister said on social media. Contributing: Tom Vanden Brook and Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA TODAY Davis Winkie's role covering nuclear threats and national security at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
