
Birthright Citizenship: Supreme Court To Decide Trump Executive Order Today—What To Know
The Supreme Court is set to decide the fate of President Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship on Friday, a decision that marks the first major Supreme Court ruling of the president's second term—and one that could impact litigation against him going forward, as justices could restrict lower courts from banning his policies nationwide.
President Donald Trump speaks to reporters on the South Lawn at the White House on June 15. Getty Images
The Supreme Court is set to issue its ruling Friday in Trump v. CASA Inc., a case consolidating several lawsuits against Trump's executive order, which reverses longstanding Constitutional precedent to bar children born in the U.S. from automatically getting citizenship at birth if their parents aren't U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
Trump asked the Supreme Court to take up the legality of his executive order after lower courts unanimously blocked it, and the policy has not yet taken effect.
The president also asked justices to rule on whether federal judges representing a single state or region can impose injunctions that block a policy nationwide, meaning courts would not be able to unilaterally block his agenda going forward unless the Supreme Court rules.
Trump's request to the court on nationwide injunctions comes as administration officials and allies have repeatedly complained about federal judges blocking the president's policies, claiming judges are abusing their power and are biased against him politically.
The court's decision will come out when it releases opinions in the case at 10 a.m. EDT. The decision will the first major ruling by the Supreme Court on Trump's second-term policies. While justices have now issued a number of rulings regarding Trump policies on its 'shadow docket'—meaning it issues quicker rulings on issues without taking them up for oral argument first—the birthright citizenship dispute will mark the first time since Inauguration Day that justices held arguments regarding a Trump policy and then issued an opinion. But it's unlikely to be the last: hundreds of lawsuits have been brought against the Trump administration in the months since Trump took office, and the court is expected to make the final call in a number of major disputes on everything from immigration to the economy. A group of small businesses asked the court in mid-June to take up Trump's sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs and whether they're lawful, after lower courts blocked the tariffs but appeals courts then put them back into effect while the litigation moves forward. Plaintiffs have asked the Supreme Court to hold oral arguments over Trump tariffs right after its next term starts in the fall, and while the court rejected that request to expedite the case, it still could take up the dispute. Big Number
More than 90. That's the approximate number of preliminary injunctions that have been issued against the Trump administration since Inauguration Day, including the ones on Trump's birthright citizenship order that prompted the dispute at the Supreme Court. That number only includes injunctions, which keep a policy on hold while a case moves forward, and does not include quicker temporary restraining orders, which judges use to immediately block a policy while they deliberate on whether to issue a more lasting order. Judges have also issued numerous temporary restraining orders against the Trump administration, which have similarly applied nationwide.
While the Supreme Court has only issued one ruling on the Trump administration's policies after hearing oral arguments, the court's quicker 'shadow docket' rulings have largely come out in favor of the president. The court has so far ruled 14 times on Trump administration policies, not including the birthright citizenship case. Of those, the 6-3 conservative court has ruled in the Trump administration's favor nine times, while only three cases have come out against him. Another two rulings have been mixed, with aspects of it both for and against Trump. That being said, Trump has still stewed over the Supreme Court justices he appointed in his first term not being as favorable to him as he hoped, CNN reported in early June, with anonymous sources saying the president has expressed 'particular ire' at Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Trump's birthright citizenship order was one of the first the president issued after his inauguration, after Trump long suggested he could take aim at the policy as part of his wider immigration crackdown. The executive order sparked a number of lawsuits and the first district and appeals court rulings of Trump's second terms, with judges broadly decrying Trump's effort to change the longstanding Constitutional protection. 'The president cannot change, limit, or qualify this Constitutional right via an executive order,' Judge John Coughenour wrote in his ruling blocking the policy. As more court rulings against the president followed, with judges blocking other policies nationwide, the Trump administration and its allies increasingly started taking aim at judges, claiming they were abusing their authority to usurp the president's agenda and claiming judges have been harsher on Trump than courts were on other previous presidents. They also started specifically complaining about judges imposing orders that went beyond their districts: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt decried Judge James Boasberg for blocking the Trump administration from halting deportation flights to El Salvador, for instance, claiming, 'A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil.' In addition to the Trump administration taking the issue to the Supreme Court, Trump's allies in Congress have also sought to solve the issue of lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions, introducing legislation that would prohibit judges' ability to issue orders beyond the region their court covers. That bill is unlikely to become law, however, given it would need 60 votes in the narrowly divided Senate.
Further Reading: Forbes Supreme Court Suggests It Won't Allow Trump's Birthright Citizenship Ban—But Could Limit How Other Policies Can Be Blocked By Alison Durkee Forbes Can Trump End Birthright Citizenship? What To Know After Judge Blocks Executive Order By Alison Durkee
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
15 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Centrist Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska won't seek reelection
WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Don Bacon, a centrist Republican who represents Nebraska's second district with its so-called 'blue dot' that includes many progressive voters around Omaha, will not seek reelection. That's according to a person familiar with his plans and granted anonymity to discuss them Friday. Bacon is known as an independent-minded Air Force veteran who serves on the House Armed Services Committee and has been at the center of many debates in Congress. He has also been chairman of the conservative-centrist Republican Main Street Caucus in the House.

Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal prosecutors to seek death penalty for New Mexico man
Jun. 27—Federal prosecutors in New Mexico said Friday they plan to seek the death penalty for the first time since 2018 in the case of a man charged in two homicides and other crimes. The request by U.S. Attorney Ryan Ellison of New Mexico also marks the state's first capital punishment case since President Donald Trump's administration lifted the ban on federal executions on Feb. 5. The request comes in the case of Labar Tsethlikai, 52, an enrolled member of Zuni Pueblo, whom federal prosecutors have described as "a serial murderer, kidnapper and sexual abuser" who victimized Native American men, the U.S. Attorney's Office has said. He has been charged with 17 felonies, including first-degree murder and two counts of kidnapping resulting in death, according to a superseding indictment filed in December 2024. Other charges include aggravated sexual abuse, assault with intent to commit murder and nine counts of kidnapping. "The maximum penalty for the kidnapping resulting in death charges is death, and Attorney General Bondi has authorized and directed the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico to pursue capital punishment in this case," Ellison's office said in a news release issued Friday. Federal executions in the U.S. have been on hold since former U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland imposed a moratorium in 2021. On his first day in office, Jan. 20, President Trump ordered the attorney general, now Pam Bondi, to pursue the death penalty "for all crimes of a severity demanding its use." The last time federal prosecutors in New Mexico filed a notice to seek the death penalty was in January 2018, according to the Federal Capital Trial Project website. The notice was filed in the case of defendant Kirby Cleveland, who was charged in the 2017 fatal shooting death of Houston Largo, a Navajo Nation Department of Public Safety law enforcement officer. The U.S. Attorney's Office in New Mexico withdrew the notice months later. Cleveland pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison. In Tsethlikai's case, Ellison, a Trump appointee, notified U.S. District Court Judge David H. Urias on Friday of his intent to seek the death penalty. Tsethlikai "engaged in a pattern of predatory and sexual violence against other individuals," Ellison and two assistant U.S. attorneys wrote in a notice of intent to seek the death penalty filed in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque. The alleged crimes were committed "in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse" of the victim, Ellison wrote. The notice also said that Tsethlikai had previously been convicted of two or more offenses "involving the infliction, or attempted infliction of, serious bodily injury or death upon another person." Tsethlikai is from Zuni but traveled extensively around New Mexico, including Gallup, Albuquerque and Santa Fe, the U.S. Attorney's Office said. He is believed to have worked in the Native American jewelry industry. Tsethlikai initially was charged in April with second-degree murder in the Jan. 18, 2024, death of a man found dead in a remote area of the Zuni reservation. Tsethlakai now faces first-degree murder in that death. In July, Tsethlikai was charged in the October 22, 2022, death of a man identified as "John Doe 1," who died as a result of a kidnapping, according to a superseding indictment. Additional charges are part of a larger series of violent crimes committed by Tsethlikai against Native American men across New Mexico between 2022 and 2024, the agency has said. Prosecutors said the victims were Native American men, but none are identified by name in court records. Most of the attacks occurred in McKinley County. "Simply put, (Tsethlikai) preys on a vulnerable segment of the population, that being males who are either homeless or addicted to controlled substances, or both," prosecutors wrote in an April 29 pretrial detention motion. U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing in May ordered Tsethlikai to remain in custody pending trial. He faces a mandatory life sentence or death if convicted of first-degree murder or kidnapping resulting in death, the U.S. Attorney's Office said.


Forbes
22 minutes ago
- Forbes
Maryland Institutes Hiring Freeze And Buyouts To Remedy $121 Million Gap
LANDOVER, MARYLAND - JUNE 7: Maryland Gov. Wes Moore goes to greet guests during a campaign event ... More 2024 in Landover, Maryland. (Photo by) Governor Moore, who advocates for recruiting fired federal workers, now faces the challenge of retaining his state government employees due to Maryland's budget shortfall. In just a few days, beginning July 1, the state of Maryland will institute a state hiring freeze (of sorts) and offer voluntary employee buyouts to employees nearing retirement or otherwise eligible to accept the state government buyout offer. Governor Moore announced the hiring freeze and funding predicament. Moore announced Tuesday that the state will implement a hiring freeze for fiscal year 2026 (from July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026) in response to the "historical fiscal challenge' that the current economy and budget present. Governor Moore stated that his administration is 'committed to engaging with our public sector unions as we work through these difficult decisions. We are moving with care and intentionality to minimize impact on current employees and be transparent throughout the process.' A union representative for Maryland's public service workers indicates that the union has remained in communication with the governor's office and will continue to advocate for resources for union workers. Some key tenants for the hiring freeze and buyout plan. State government leaders express that the administration will act with transparency and intentionality so as to limit confusion, minimize disruptions and avoid public service delays and interruptions for taxpayers. Basically, the administration intends to fix the budget shortfall by using a soft-hand approach with hiring, personnel and operational matters. The key tenants of the plan are as follows: Wes Moore's chief of staff clarifies details about the hiring freeze. Moore's chief of staff, Fagan Harris, discussed the plan for moving forward to remedy the budget shortfall while simultaneously recruiting and hiring skilled new workers for priority roles. During the interview with WTOP News on Wednesday, Harris clarified a few key points about the administration's plans. Regarding it being an actual full-blown hiring freeze, Fagan Harris says: Regarding buyouts and collaboration with unions, Harris says: Regarding continuing to recruit and hire federal workers while dealing with a $121 million budget shortfall, Fagan Harris says: The messaging from the Moore administration is that they intend to identify and remedy inefficiencies and eliminate vacant positions where possible so as to limit the negative impact to services and programs as well as current government employees and citizens. Recommended reading: New Federal Hiring Freeze End Date And Hiring Restrictions Nail The Interview: Answer 'Why Should We Hire You' Like A Pro How Long Will The Federal Hiring Freeze Last? Implications For Government Employees