Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications.
The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship.
That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status.
Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried.
"There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well."
She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality.
"I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality."
Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court.
The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit, opens new tab in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship.
If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute.
"Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said.
The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth.
"Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday.
Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling.
They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state.
Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights.
"He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said.
Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship.
"It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. "That is really chaotic."
Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear.
Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born.
"I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety.
Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth.
She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order.
"She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?"
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Will I get deported for sharing this meme of JD Vance?
I have a very important public service announcement to make. Do not, under any circumstances whatsoever, make fun of Vice-President JD Vance by sharing one of the millions of unflattering memes dedicated to him. Don't you dare chuckle at the images of him looking like the 'lollipop kid' in Shrek (the resemblance is uncanny) or a chicken nugget. And, whatever you do, do not share the meme that you can find here, where he looks like a big bald baby. You risk hurting the poor man's feelings and, also, you might get kicked out of the country. So says a 21-year-old Norwegian called Mads Mikkelsen, anyway. Mikkelsen recently accused American border officials of denying him entry into the US because he had a meme of a bloated baby Vance saved on his phone. Mikkelsen, who had travelled to the US to visit friends, told the Norwegian paper Nordlys that immigration officers at Newark airport interrogated him, forced him to give fingerprints and blood samples, and went through his phone. After they found the Vance meme, as well as a picture of Mikkelsen holding a homemade wooden pipe, they sent him home. 'Both pictures had been automatically saved to my camera roll from a chat app, but I really didn't think that these innocent pictures would put a stop to my entry into the country,' Mikkelsen told Nordlys. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has rejected Mikkelsen's claim that he was kicked out of the country for disrespecting the vice-president. 'FACT CHECK. Claims that Mads Mikkelsen was denied entry because of a meme are unequivocally FALSE,' they posted on Facebook earlier in the week. 'TRUTH: Mikkelsen was refused entry into the US for his admitted drug use.' A homeland security assistant secretary, Tricia McLaughlin, also called the story 'BS' in a post on X. Mikkelsen, meanwhile, insisted to the fact-checking website Snopes that the meme played a role in getting him denied entry. The 21-year-old claimed border officials told him he was getting sent home because of 'extremist propaganda [the meme] and narcotic paraphernalia'. However, that claim hasn't been verified. We may never know if the Vance meme really did play a role in getting Mikkelsen kicked out of the country. While I don't normally side with border officials, one imagines the pipe picture was probably the actual culprit. Still, the story, which made headlines around the world, won't help America's tourism industry. International visitors are staying out of the US after a spate of stories about tourists getting sent to Ice detention centers without any explanation. The World Travel & Tourism Council has said the country could lose $12.5bn in international visitor spending this year. The story has also reignited interest in JD Vance memes, which have been circulating for months now, peaking at end of February after the vice-president scolded Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an exchange that launched a million memes. Indeed, the Irish lawmaker Ivana Bacik recently held up the Vance baby meme while speaking in the Irish parliament about the Mikkelsen story. While claims that making fun of Mr Hillbilly Elegy may get you deported might be exaggerated, the fact that so many people immediately believed Mikkelsen's claims is a sign of just how badly the US's international image has been damaged and how dystopian the country has become. The US is heading very quickly towards authoritarianism. It is cracking down on dissent and protest. Book banning has surged and the Trump administration has instructed the Department of Education to end their investigations into these bans, calling them a 'hoax'. Free speech rights are being shredded. And the people responsible for all this? They're not evil geniuses, they're embarrassing dweebs with massively meme-able faces. 'I knew that one day we might have to watch as capitalism and greed and bigotry led to a world where powerful men, deserving or not, would burn it all down,' Rebecca Shaw said in a Guardian piece earlier this year. 'What I didn't expect, and don't think I could have foreseen, is how incredibly cringe it would all be.' 'The Alliance for Immigrant Survivors, a national network of advocates for those hurt by domestic violence, found that 75% of the 170 advocates they surveyed across the country said the immigrants they serve fear they'll face arrest or deportation if they contact authorities,' reports USA Today. Meanwhile the Fox News host Jesse Waters seems to think all this is hilarious. 'I bet a bunch of guys that are dating illegal alien Spanish girls are like Ice, here's the address! She hasn't been very good,' Watters recently said. In related news, a man was recently arrested for allegedly impersonating an Ice officer and sexually assaulting a woman, saying he'd deport her if she didn't comply. Mark Rutte made a weird statement in which he referred to Trump as 'Daddy' and then quickly walked it back. Speaking at an office hours event, the Michigan representative Karl Bohnak (a Republican), said 'I don't' after a constituent asked him, 'So you don't support a woman's autonomy over her own body?' The case, Medina v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, 'is part of a longstanding effort by anti-abortion activists to 'defund' Planned Parenthood by cutting it out of Medicaid', the Guardian reports. 'Of the 2.4 million people treated at Planned Parenthood each year, almost half use Medicaid.' The prime minister, Nikol Pashinyan, told his Facebook followers that he was prepared to expose himself to the head of the Armenian church, to prove they were wrong that he had been circumcised. This is just the latest development in an ongoing spat between Pashinyan and the head of the Armenian Apostolic church. And they say women are too emotional to lead! Sign up to The Week in Patriarchy Get Arwa Mahdawi's weekly recap of the most important stories on feminism and sexism and those fighting for equality after newsletter promotion As the title suggests, the game involves a male protagonist who is looking to get revenge on 'gold-digging' women. After a lot of controversy it's been renamed Emotional Fraud Simulator, but the content is the same. 'I cannot go into further detail about the number of victims in the case beyond confirming that it is a double-digit number,' the Oslo police attorney said. Mel Owens, a 66-year-old former NFL player, who is the new star of ABC's senior-focused dating show, has said he is only looking to date women between 45 and 60. 'If they're 60 or over, I'm cutting them.'' The handful of attenders included a local podcast host who praised the city's lack of Black residents. '[A] job title isn't everything, and it's more important to stay true to your values,' Judge Karen Ortiz, who worked in the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's New York office, said. That's according to a brilliant advertising campaign which aimed to destigmatise herpes via a spoof tourism advertisement. Israeli officers and soldiers said that they were ordered to fire at unarmed civilians waiting for humanitarian aid, Haaretz reports. Here's something to mews about: is it disgusting to kiss your partner after kissing your cat? You still have time to vote on this very im-paw-tant question via a Guardian poll.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
The US supreme court has supported Donald Trump's attempt to limit lower-court orders that have so far blocked his administration's ban on birthright citizenship, in a ruling that could strip federal judges of a power they've used to obstruct many of Trump's orders nationwide. The decision represents a fundamental shift in how US federal courts can constrain presidential power. Previously, any of the country's more than 1,000 judges in its 94 district courts – the lowest level of federal court, which handles trials and initial rulings – could issue nationwide injunctions that immediately halt government policies across all 50 states. Under the supreme court ruling, however, those court orders only apply to the specific plaintiffs – for example, groups of states or non-profit organizations – that brought the case. The court's opinion on the constitutionality of whether some American-born children can be deprived of citizenship remains undecided and the fate of the US president's order to overturn birthright citizenship rights was left unclear, despite Trump claiming a 'giant win'. To stymie the impact of the ruling, immigration aid groups have rushed to recalibrate their legal strategy to block Trump's policy ending birthright citizenship. Immigrant advocacy groups including Casa and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (Asap) – who filed one of several original lawsuits challenging the president's executive order – are asking a federal judge in Maryland for an emergency block on Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. They have also refiled their broader lawsuit challenging the policy as a class-action case, seeking protections for every pregnant person or child born to families without permanent legal status, no matter where they live. 'We're confident this will prevent this administration from attempting to selectively enforce their heinous executive order,' said George Escobar, chief of programs and services at Casa. 'These are scary times, but we are not powerless, and we have shown in the past, and we continue to show that when we fight, we win.' The decision on Friday morning decided by six votes to three by the nine-member bench of the highest court in the land, sided with the Trump administration in a historic case that tested presidential power and judicial oversight. The conservative majority wrote that 'universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts', granting 'the government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue'. The ruling, written by the conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's policy seeking a ban on birthright citizenship go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The fate of the policy remains imprecise. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. Trump celebrated the ruling as vindication of his broader agenda to roll back judicial constraints on executive power. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' Trump said from the White House press briefing room on Friday. 'It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation.' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a scathing dissent. She argued that the majority's decision, restricting federal court powers to grant national legal relief in cases, allows Trump to enforce unconstitutional policies against people who haven't filed lawsuits, meaning only those with the resources and legal standing to challenge the order in court would be protected. 'The court's decision to permit the executive to violate the constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law,' Jackson wrote. 'Given the critical role of the judiciary in maintaining the rule of law … it is odd, to say the least, that the court would grant the executive's wish to be freed from the constraints of law by prohibiting district courts from ordering complete compliance with the constitution.' Speaking from the bench, the liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor called the court's majority decision 'a travesty for the rule of law'. Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the 14th amendment following the US civil war in 1868, specifically to overturn the supreme court's 1857 Dred Scott decision that denied citizenship to Black Americans. The principle has stood since 1898, when the supreme court granted citizenship to Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents who could not naturalize. The ruling will undoubtedly exacerbate the fear and uncertainty many expecting mothers and immigrant families across the US have felt since the administration first attempt to end birthright citizenship. Liza, one of several expecting mothers who was named as plaintiff in the case challenging Trump's birthright citizenship policy, said she had since given birth to a 'happy and healthy' baby, who was born a US citizen thanks to the previous, nationwide injunction blocking Trump's order. But she and her husband, both Russian nationals who fear persecution in their home country, still feel unsettled. 'We remain worried, even now that one day the government could still try to take away our child's US citizenship,' she said at a press conference on Friday. 'I have worried a lot about whether the government could try to detain or deport our baby. At some point, the executive order made us feel as though our baby was considered a nobody.' The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) condemned the ruling as opening the door to partial enforcement of a ban on automatic birthright citizenship for almost everyone born in the US, in what it called an illegal policy. 'The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement. Democratic attorneys general who brought the original challenge said in a press conference that while the ruling had been disappointing, the silver lining was that the supreme court left open pathways for continued protection and that 'birthright citizenship remains the law of the land'. 'We fought a civil war to address whether babies born on United States soil are, in fact, citizens of this country,' New Jersey's attorney general, Matthew Platkin, said, speaking alongside colleagues from Washington state, California, Massachusetts and Connecticut. 'For a century and a half, this has not been in dispute.' Trump's January executive order sought to deny birthright citizenship to babies born on US soil if their parents lack legal immigration status – defying the 14th amendment's guarantee that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States' are citizens – and made justices wary during the hearing. The real fight in Trump v Casa Inc, wasn't about immigration but judicial power. Trump's lawyers demanded that nationwide injunctions blocking presidential orders be scrapped, arguing judges should only protect specific plaintiffs who sue – not the entire country. Three judges blocked Trump's order nationwide after he signed it on inauguration day, which would enforce citizenship restrictions in states where courts had not specifically blocked them. The policy targeted children of both undocumented immigrants and legal visa holders, demanding that at least one parent be a lawful permanent resident or US citizen. Reuters contributed reporting
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Abstruse yet monumental: the scope and impact of the US supreme court's birthright citizenship ruling
The US supreme court opinion on Friday in a case challenging Donald Trump's attempt to unilaterally end the country's longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship doesn't actually rule on the constitutionality of the president's order. That question – of whether the president can do away with a right guaranteed by the the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution – is still being debated in the lower courts. Instead, the supreme court focused on the question of whether individual district court judges could block federal policies nationwide. The decision is both abstruse and monumental, experts say. It doesn't immediately change anything about how citizenship is granted in the US, and it profoundly shifts the ways in which the federal courts work. To help understand the implications of the ruling, the Guardian spoke with Efrén Olivares, vice-president of litigation and legal strategy at the National Immigration Law Center, a non-profit advocacy group. The interview has been edited for length and clarity. First, what exactly does the supreme court's ruling mean, today, for immigrants across the US who are expecting parents? The immediate impact is null. The supreme court explicitly said for the next 30 days, the executive order ending birthright citizenship will not go into effect. The right to citizenship by birth in the United States continues. Anyone born today, tomorrow, next week, two weeks from now in the US will be a citizen. We can anticipate that before those 30 days run out, there will be another ruling from one of the trial courts or district courts that will shed more light on this issue long-term. Does this mean that states and immigrant rights' groups that have sued over Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors will have to change how they are challenging the policy? There were three lawsuits filed on behalf of individuals and organizations against this executive order. All three were seeking to enjoin – which means stop – the enforcement of this executive order. Because it's an executive order of national scope, the rulings of the lower courts in these cases were national in scope, right? Then, the supreme court chimed in and said that is inappropriate for a court to block a policy nationwide, and that a court's ruling should only apply to the plaintiffs or parties right in front of them. So now, those challenging the order may move to seek a class certification, essentially to pursue a class-action lawsuit. Already, the immigration aid groups Casa and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project have filed an amended complaint seeking class-action relief in their challenge to Trump's birthright citizenship order. Class-action litigation has existed for years, and what that means is that now the party in front of the court is asking the court to rule not just on its own behalf, but also on behalf of everyone else similarly situated. The class-action suits are most commonly used in cases where people are seeking monetary relief – for example, in instances where there are defects in car manufacturing. In that type of case, anyone who bought this type of car between X and Y dates would be entitled to compensation. The supreme court ruling could now make class-action litigation much more common. How might the supreme court's ruling here impact other immigration cases? Because up to this point, federal judges' authority to freeze policies across the US – with so-called 'nationwide injunctions' – has served as a powerful check on executive power. It has been used to block policies instituted by both Democratic and Republican administrations. What is ironic is that the supreme court has been perfectly fine with nationwide injunctions in the past. For example, justices enjoined the Biden administration's cancellation of student loans. And they had no problem with a nationwide injunction in that case. This latest ruling on injunctions will affect any case that challenges a policy with national implications. We are particularly tracking the deployment of federal or military troops to do immigration enforcement, and continuation of unlawful, discriminatory enforcement of immigration laws on the basis of race. But this ruling will impact lots of cases. It can be immigration policy, it can be an environmental policy, it can be a voting rights policy – all of those things are regulated at the federal level. So now, if federal policy is challenged, unless it is challenged in a nationwide class-action lawsuit, a lower court's ruling would only apply in the state or states where that policy is challenged? Yes, we may have a patchwork of rulings that vary depending on what state you live in. One of the challenges to the birthright citizenship order, for example, was brought by individuals and organizations in Maryland, DC and Massachusetts. If that case is successful, but you live in Nebraska or Wisconsin or Texas, you may not have the same rights to citizenship as if you are in Maryland, DC or Massachusetts. That is totally inconsistent with our system of law for 250 years. In the supreme court's majority opinion, justice Amy Coney Barrett even alluded to the infeasibility of citizenship rules being different in different states. She summarizes the plaintiffs' argument that ''patchwork injunction' would prove unworkable, because it would require [the states] to track and verify the immigration status of the parents of every child, along with the birth state of every child for whom they provide certain federally funded benefits'. And she ultimately writes that courts can issue injunctions to ensure that a victorious plaintiff receives 'complete relief'. What exactly does that mean? I think they're trying to leave the door open for nationwide injunctions to be OK in certain contexts, and it's unclear what those contexts will be. If you have a national, nationwide class action, a nationwide injunction is the only way to give relief to everyone in the class. Still, in practice, I am worried that the language of the ruling lends itself to inconsistent applications based on the court's or the judge's political ideologies.
