In their own words: What justices, Trump and groups say about courts and birthright citizenship
At the Supreme Court Friday, justices lambasted one another over the extent of judicial authority. Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused President Donald Trump of trying to game the courts to break the law. The president expressed joy in reclaiming some power back from the judiciary, while advocates sounded worries for immigrant families before filing new legal challenges.
The high court ruled that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear whether Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country.
Here are some of the arguments and comments made by justices, Trump and advocates regarding the court's 6-3 ruling over an effort by the president to deny birthright citizenship to children born to immigrants.
Barrett, Jackson on the judiciary's role
Justice Amy Coney Barrett defended the majority opinion that the judiciary does not have 'unbridled authority' to enforce the president's duty to follow the law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who joined Sotomayor's dissent, wrote that the role of lower courts should ensure that.
'For that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law — full stop,' Jackson wrote.
Barrett called Jackson's arguments 'extreme' and said her reasoning was not tethered 'to any doctrine whatsoever.'
'She offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,' Barrett wrote.
She later stated: 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.'
Sotomayor accuses Trump of 'gamesmanship'
Sotomayor did not mince words when arguing the ruling presents a threat. She accused the Trump administration of using tactics to game the courts and said it has been defying the Constitution.
'The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the government makes no attempt to hide it,' she wrote. 'Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.'
Sotomayor also wrote that Trump's order is 'patently unconstitutional under settled law,' and argued that granting relief through Friday'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,' she wrote.
A warning about what may be next
Sotomayor expressed worries about the chaos that may follow before the Supreme Court gets to decide on whether these children should get U.S. citizenship. She worried about the decision leaving some children 'stateless,' risking deportation even when their parents are in the country legally with temporary status visas or other programs.
Sotomayor also warned about the possible wider impact of the ruling.
'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship,' she wrote.
Trump celebrates
Trump, meanwhile, quickly celebrated the ruling, calling it a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' the separation of powers and the rule of law.
'These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump told reporters during a news conference in the White House briefing room. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.'
The president said he would try to advance restrictions on birthright citizenship and other policies that had been blocked by lower courts.
Immigrant rights group responds
One of the groups that challenged Trump's order quickly went back to court seeking to keep his new restrictions on birthright citizenship at bay. CASA, a nonprofit immigrant rights organization, asked a federal court in Maryland to certify a class-action lawsuit that would represent all newborns who would no longer automatically be citizens if Trump's order goes into effect.
'Scotus has carelessly put at risk the citizenship of many hundreds of thousands of newborns and yet to be born innocent. But in the end, this ruling does nothing more than guarantee that the fight and the movement towards justice continue,' said George Escobar, CASA's chief of programs and services.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
43 minutes ago
- Fast Company
WhatsApp just got banned on Capitol Hill. Here's how you can make the Meta messaging platform more secure
The U.S. House of Representatives' Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Catherine Szpindor, informed congressional staffers this week that WhatsApp is now banned from government phones. The move came after the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity deemed the Meta-owned app to be 'high-risk to users'—a claim that WhatsApp quickly rebutted. But the CAO is correct. While WhatsApp is one of the more secure messaging apps out there, it does have some privacy and security risks. Users can mitigate some of these risks, but others are beyond their control. Here's why WhatsApp is now banned in the U.S. House of Representatives and how you can make the app more secure on your phone. What the Office of Cybersecurity said, exactly The news that the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity had announced a ban on WhatsApp this week came from Axios. On Tuesday, the publication published parts of an internal CAO memo it received, which was sent to congressional staffers on Monday, announcing that WhatsApp was now verboten on government phones. The memo stipulated that 'House staff are NOT allowed to download or keep the WhatsApp application on any House device, including any mobile, desktop, or web browser versions of its products.' It went on to add: 'If you have a WhatsApp application on your House-managed device, you will be contacted to remove it.' The reason? According to the memo, 'The Office of Cybersecurity has deemed WhatsApp a high-risk to users due to the lack of transparency in how it protects user data, absence of stored data encryption, and potential security risks involved with its use.' The CAO didn't provide further details in the memo regarding the above risks. Still, it's easy to interpret some of the things that may have made the CAO leery about the continued use of WhatsApp by Congressional staffers. WhatsApp's transparency issue WhatsApp, like competing secure messaging apps including Apple's iMessages and Signal, is end-to-end encrypted, meaning that no parties other than the ones in the chat, even including Meta, can read the chat messages. But WhatsApp collects a lot more metadata from each chat than other secure messaging apps do, and it sends this info to Meta A chat's metadata includes information such as the identities of the chat participants, IP addresses, phone numbers, and the timestamps of messages. No one knows exactly what Meta does with this metadata. Still, it is shared with Meta's other platforms, including Instagram and Facebook. It is likely used to help the company build social graphs of users, leveraged for advertising purposes, and analyzed by the company to understand who is using their apps, and when and where. This opaqueness is likely some of the 'lack of transparency' risk that the CAO was referring to. As for the 'absence of stored data encryption,' the CAO may have been referring to the default method by which WhatsApp backs up a user's chats. While WhatsApp chats are end-to-end encrypted, if a user backs up those chats to the cloud, the backup itself is not end-to-end encrypted by default. This means that if a bad actor gains access to a WhatsApp user's cloud backup, they could read all of that user's messages. It's no wonder the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity finds this worrying. WhatsApp also doesn't have other privacy and security features on by default, including the ability to lock the app behind biometrics and requiring two-step verification when a WhatsApp account is installed on another phone. If you don't work in the House of Representatives, you can still keep WhatsApp on your phone. But you might want to mitigate its privacy and security risks. Here's how. How to make WhatsApp more secure on your phone Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do about WhatsApp's metadata problem. Meta designs WhatsApp so that the metadata of your chats is sent directly to the company. There's no way you can turn this data collection off. But you can make the app more secure on your phone by following some simple steps, including: End-to-end encrypt your WhatsApp backups: In WhatsApp, go to Settings>Chats>Chat Backup>End-to-End Encrypted Backup and turn this option on. Now your chat backups saved in the cloud will be end-to-end encrypted. Lock WhatsApp: You can set WhatsApp to refuse to open without further authentication by locking the app. This means that even if someone has access to your unlocked phone, they won't be able to open WhatsApp unless they know your phone's PIN, or have your face or fingerprint. To lock WhatsApp, go to WhatsApp's Settings>Privacy>App Lock and toggle the feature on. Enable two-step verification: If someone logs into your WhatsApp account on their phone, they'll be able to see your messages. That's why you should set up two-step verification for your account. This will require a PIN that you set to be entered whenever an attempt is made to log into your WhatsApp account on a new device. If the PIN isn't entered correctly, the new device won't have access to your account. To enable two-step verification, go to WhatsApp's Settings>Account>Two-Step Verification and toggle the feature on. Apps the CAO suggests using instead When reached for comment on the CAO's decision to ban WhatsApp, the organization's chief administrative officer, Catherine Szpindor, told Fast Company, 'Protecting the People's House is our topmost priority, and we are always monitoring and analyzing for potential cybersecurity risks that could endanger the data of House Members and staff. We routinely review the list of House-authorized apps and will amend the list as deemed appropriate.' In the past, the CAO has banned or imposed partial bans on various foreign apps, including those from ByteDance, such as TikTok. But the CAO has also previously announced bans or restrictions on apps made by American companies, including Microsoft Copilot and the free versions of ChatGPT. As for Meta, a company spokesperson told Fast Company that it disagrees with the CAO's characterization of WhatsApp 'in the strongest possible terms.' The spokesperson also asserted that, when it comes to end-to-end encryption, WhatsApp offers 'a higher level of security than most of the apps on the CAO's approved list that do not offer that protection.' In the Office of Cybersecurity's memo, the agency provided guidance on alternative secure messaging apps that House staffers could use now that WhatsApp had been banned. According to Axios, those apps include Apple's iMessage and FaceTime, Microsoft Teams, Wickr, and Signal.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
With Supreme Court Ruling, Another Check on Trump's Power Fades
The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision on Friday, by a vote of 6 to 3, will allow Mr. Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country — even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to undocumented immigrants or foreign visitors without green cards can be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that already took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the 'imperial presidency.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Trump's trade deals are stalling out at the worst possible time
With just a week and a half remaining of a 90-day pause on President Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs, the White House is running out of time to negotiate its long-promised trade deals that could bring some certainty to an increasingly uneasy economy. But with just two trade frameworks inked and dozens to go before the July 9 deadline, that timeframe appears increasingly unlikely — just as America's economy might be taking a turn for the worse. For months, the Trump administration has said deals are imminent, working with 18 key partners to lower trade barriers while hundreds of other countries wait in line to get out from under the burden of higher tariffs. But the timeframe continues to shift. 'I've made all the deals,' Trump said in a Time interview in late April, saying trade negotiations with foreign partners were nearly complete. 'I've made 200 deals.' More than two weeks later, Trump acknowledged that hundreds or even dozens of deals aren't possible on such a short timeframe — a point he reiterated Friday at a press briefing at the White House. 'You know, we have 200 countries,' Trump said. 'We can't do that. So at a certain point, over the next week and a half or so, or maybe before, we're going to send out a letter. We talked to many of the countries, and we're just going to tell them what they have to pay to do business in the United States. And it's going to go very quickly.' That notion of establishing new tariffs for countries that can't or won't reach a deal with the United States has been floating around for over two months, but the timeline keeps getting pushed back. On April 23, Trump said his administration would 'set the tariff' for countries that fail to negotiate new terms in the following few weeks. On May 16, Trump said that 'at a certain point, over the next two to three weeks … we'll be telling people what they'll be paying to do business in the United States.' Meanwhile, the United States remains in active negotiations with its key trading partners. But those deals have been promised for months, too, with little to show for it. On June 11, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said a flood of deals was coming. 'You're going to see deal after deal, they're going to start coming next week and the week after and the week after. We've got them in the hopper,' he told CNBC. On Thursday, Lutnick told Bloomberg 10 deals would be announced imminently. But White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also said Thursday that 'the deadline is not critical,' a point that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized to Fox Business on Friday: Bessent said he thinks trade negotiations could be 'wrapped up' by Labor Day, providing a more relaxed framework for inking deals than the previously prescribed July 9 deadline. Meanwhile, Trump made clear Friday that trade policy could continue to grow more aggressive. In a social media message Friday, he said that the United States was pulling out of trade talks with Canada because of its digital services tax and that the administration would set a new tariff for its northern neighbor within the next week. And Bessent told CNBC Friday that about 20 countries could return to their 'Liberation Day' tariff rate starting on July 9, while others would receive longer windows to negotiate. He didn't name the countries that would receive the higher levies, but some nations' tariffs were set as high as 50% before Trump hit pause. 'The idea that uncertainty will be resolved early this summer appears to be completely dead,' Justin Wolfers, an economics professor at the University of Michigan, told CNN. 'This means tariff aggression is not dead. That's probably not super surprising but some of us allowed ourselves moments of optimism.' The problem with the perpetually pushed-back tariff timetable is that the economy could really use some deals right about now. After several months of strong economic news but incredibly weak consumer sentiment, America is starting to see those trends reverse: The vibes are on the rebound, but evidence is mounting that the economy is getting worse. Consumer sentiment climbed 16% this month, the University of Michigan said in its latest survey released Friday. Although consumer sentiment remains weak, the stock market is at an all-time high, which could give Americans a confidence boost. But that's not translating into spending. Consumer spending unexpectedly fell in May for the first time since January, the Commerce Department reported Friday. In real terms, consumer spending has now fallen so far in 2025. Inflation is ticking higher, job growth is slowing and retail sales are sinking. That's a concern, because consumer spending makes up two-thirds of America's economy. 'Households are anxious about what tariff-induced price hikes will do to their spending power, while concerns about the robustness of the jobs market are on the rise,' said James Knightley, chief US economist for ING, in a note to clients Friday. 'Equity markets have recovered and are at all-time highs, but house prices nationally are starting to come under downward pressure.' Many mainstream economists argue that the low inflation of the spring that helped boost consumer sentiment represents a calm before the summer storm, when they expect prices to rise as companies finish selling off inventories of products they had brought to the United States before Trump imposed tariffs. Friday's inflation report showed that the changeover to higher-tariff goods may have already begun to happen. 'Higher prices from tariffs may be starting to work their way through the economy,' said Robert Ruggirello, chief investment officer at Brave Eagle Wealth Management. Although tax cuts from Trump's sweeping domestic policy agenda could help mitigate higher prices from tariffs, Trump's trade war continues to risk retaliation from American's key trading partners. Higher tariffs from foreign countries could slow the US economy, risking a recession. 'Trading partners taking retaliatory action could have a lasting impact on US output and, accordingly, public finances,' said Michel Nies, an economist at Citi. That's why trade deals are so urgent: America's economy remains strong, but cracks are forming. Tariffs are a big reason why. More delays will generate more uncertainty. And those good vibes could turn bad pretty quickly. CNN's Matt Egan contributed to this report.
