US supreme court limits judges' power on nationwide injunctions in apparent win for Trump
The US supreme court has supported Donald Trump's attempt to limit district judges' power to block his orders on a nationwide basis, in an emergency appeal related to the birthright citizenship case but with wide implications for the executive branch's power. 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.
But the court's fractured 6-3 ruling has left the fate of the president's order to strip citizenship from some American-born children dangling in constitutional uncertainty without deciding whether newborns can be deprived of their rights if their parents lack legal status.
The court's ruling in Trump v CASA, Inc will boost Trump's potential to enforce citizenship restrictions, in this and other cases in future, in states where courts had not specifically blocked them, creating a chaotic patchwork.
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 hadn't 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.
The 14th amendment to the US constitution's citizenship clause overturned the 1857 Dred Scott ruling 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.
More details soon…
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
Kamala Harris is trying to gain momentum for a California governor run — but ‘no one is incredibly pumped,' report says
Kamala Harris is ramping up efforts to connect with long-term supporters as she considers a gubernatorial run in California to replace term-limited Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom. However, as Politico reports, many Democratic donors remain hesitant, still reeling from the disappointment of her defeat in the 2024 presidential election by Donald Trump. Ambivalence about Harris's return to public life has been shared privately among certain donors as she considers her options, which include more than just running for political office, according to the outlet. Aides have also been tasked with exploring a philanthropic venture. Several major donors in the state told Politico that they fear her reemergence as a candidate would reopen still-fresh wounds from her 2024 defeat. One California Democrat who contributed six figures to her presidential campaign said a gubernatorial candidacy would only serve as a reminder of how 'traumatizing' the 2024 election was. 'Kamala just reminds you we are in this complete s*** storm. With Biden, we got bamboozled…I think she did the best she could in that situation, but obviously she knew about the cognitive decline too,' they said. 'I've written so many checks because I knew the Trump administration would be horrible, but we're living in a nightmare because of the Democrats. I'm furious at them, truly.' Others are eager for Harris to begin publicly explaining her case for why she should lead the state, the world's fourth-largest economy, during an extremely difficult period, which is recovering from devastating wildfires, preparing for economic effects from Trump's tariffs, and still dealing with immigration raids and military deployments ordered by the president. Some donors also have lingering frustration about how the billion-dollar campaign juggernaut to put her in the White House ended in defeat and debt. They want assurances that she would have a clear plan to win the governor's mansion. Harris allies acknowledge the lingering frustrations from the 2024 campaign but still feel confident that donors would rally behind the former vice president should she enter the California governor's race. They note that candidates who have already declared their intention to run for the Democratic Party ticket have struggled to raise significant sums, arguing that it is a sign donors are waiting for a decision from Harris. The former vice president has been consulting with her closest backers in private meetings, notably in the Bay Area, where she began her political life 20 years ago. The results of these discussions could significantly change California's stagnant gubernatorial race. With widespread name recognition and a robust fundraising infrastructure, Harris would likely emerge as a leading candidate, possibly causing many, though not necessarily all, Democratic opponents to withdraw. She also benefits from a long-standing fundraising network in the state, an impressive small-donor email list, and a national network of Black women ready to support her in another historic campaign. While there may be hesitance from the Democrat donor class, conversely, Republicans are eager for Harris to join the race. She could put a fire under the campaign of any GOP candidate looking to capitalize on the perceived failings of the Biden administration, as well as whether the vice president misled Americans about President Joe Biden 's health and mental acuity before he had to exit the 2024 race. One Democratic fundraiser who was granted anonymity to speak to Politico about sensitive conversations, said that donors 'realize it's just going to bring up the whole pathetic last presidential campaign, which no one wants to hear about again. And then it's the whole 'Did you know Joe Biden?' thing.' They added: 'She still would probably lead, but honestly, no one is incredibly pumped.' Questions about any cover-up regarding Biden's health have arisen within Harris's own party, with Antonio Villaraigosa, who is also running for governor, accusing her of being complicit. Supporters believe she must address the issue directly early in any campaign to move on to other topics quickly. However, Harris should expect to work hard for the nomination and not assume the party will automatically line up behind her on day one, as a donor adviser told Politico. Given the filing deadlines and the need to build a statewide campaign infrastructure, the 2026 governor's race is the most urgent option facing Harris — she has set her own deadline of late summer to decide. Running for president again in 2028 is also an option.
Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Gavin Newsom sues Fox News for $787m over Trump call comment
Gavin Newsom has filed a $787 million defamation lawsuit against Fox News after the network accused him of lying about a phone call with Donald Trump. The California governor and the president disagreed over the timing of a phone call relating to the deployment of National Guard troops to the state earlier this month, in an effort to help police violent protests against immigration raids. According to Mr Newsom's complaint, he spoke to Mr Trump for approximately 16 minutes by phone on June 7, two days before the deployment. However, on June 10 the president told reporters he had spoken to the governor 'a day ago'. The pair, who frequently butt heads, were locked in a days-long feud over the timing of the call. Subsequently, Fox aired a clip showing host Jesse Watters asking: 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?' The report was accompanied by a banner along the bottom of the screen that said 'Gavin lied about Trump's call,' the complaint added. Fox News was motivated to 'lie and distort on behalf of the president,' Mr Newsom's lawyers claim, adding: 'It is perhaps unsurprising that a near-octogenarian with a history of delusionary public statements and unhinged late-night social media screeds might confuse the dates.' According to the complaint, Fox's claim that Mr Newsom lied was 'calculated to provoke outrage and cause Gov Newsom significant harm,' by making people less likely to support his causes, donate to his campaigns, or vote for him in elections. Mr Newsom will drop the lawsuit if Fox issues a retraction and Mr Watters apologises on-air, the New York Times reported. In a post on X, Mr Newsom shared a news article about the suit, with the caption: 'No more lies. I'm suing Fox News for $787 million.' 'Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine,' he told Politico. In a statement to CNBC, a Fox spokesperson said: 'Gov Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. 'We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed.'
The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
University of Virginia president resigns under pressure from White House over DEI programs
The president of the University of Virginia (UVA) has reportedly informed the board that oversees the college that he will resign his position after coming under pressure from the Trump administration over diversity efforts. James Ryan was facing political pressure from Washington to step aside in order to resolve a justice department investigation into UVA's diversity, equity and inclusion policies, the New York Times reported on Friday, citing three people briefed on the matter. Ryan had a reputation for trying to make the UVA campus more diverse and encouraging students to perform community service. The apparent campaign against a prominent public sector university in the US follows Donald Trump's agenda since returning to the White House to cancel programs and policies aimed at greater diversity, equity and inclusion in government, workplaces, and various establishments and organizations across American society. In parallel, the US president set about attacking and taking funds from elite private sector universities, with Harvard at the forefront, in an assault on the academic and research independence of higher education more broadly. The New York Times first reported late on Thursday that the justice department had demanded that Ryan step down as part of an agreement to settle a civil rights investigation into the school's diversity practices, as Trump further erodes the government agency's distance from the White House by enlisting its investigative powers as part of his political agenda. Ryan said in a letter, briefed to the Times by a source, that he was going to step down next year but 'given the circumstances and today's conversations' he had decided 'with deep sadness' to resign now. The justice department had reportedly told UVA that the government thought it was prioritizing race-based factors during its admissions process and other aspects of student life in a way that constitutes 'widespread practices throughout every component and facet of the institution'. UVA is located in Charlottesville, Virginia, and found itself in the global headlines early on in the first Trump administration when, in August 2017, hundreds of far-right demonstrators wielding torches and shouting racist slogans marched onto the historic campus ahead of a so-called Unite the Right rally in the small city, crowding towards a smaller group of counterprotesters. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion The subsequent rally, to try to prevent the removal of Confederate statues from a park, was massive and became very violent as neo-Nazi groups gathered and attacked counterprotesters, then later a white supremacist drove a car into such a group and killed a woman. Then first-term Trump sparked uproar by blaming both sides for the violence, on the one hand and, on the other, saying: 'You had people that were very fine people on both sides.' UVA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
