Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship may affect Florida babies in July
The Supreme Court ruling on Friday curbing lower courts' power to limit President Donald Trump's directive to restrict birthright citizenship could have sweeping consequences in Florida, a state with one of the largest populations of immigrants in the country.
The ruling, which doesn't take effect for 30 days, could mean that as of late July, babies born in Florida to parents who are undocumented or under certain visa categories might not be entitled to U.S. citizenship by birth unless there is a direct challenge in Florida's federal courts.
Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava told the Miami Herald in a statement that the ruling 'takes a wrecking ball to the fundamental values long held in our nation that if you are born in the United States of America, you are by birth a U.S. citizen.'
In a 6-3 ruling, the court threw out nationwide injunctions from federal judges in three states that limited President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship while litigation is ongoing. The justices ruled that the lower courts' injunctions in those three states had been too sweeping and must be limited only to the parties that sued the Trump administration to reverse the president's citizenship order. The ruling does not weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump's arguments to limit birthright citizenship.
The judges' injunctions will now only affect the jurisdictions where they were filed, leaving other states such as Florida subject to Trump's executive order.
Friday's decision could have significant ramifications in Florida. One-fifth of the state's population is foreign born. Estimates also put the undocumented population between half-a-million and 1.2 million immigrants.
'The idea that a child born in the United States could be denied citizenship simply because of who their parents are strikes at the heart of our American values and our democratic ideals,' Levine Cava said.
While Florida has a large Cuban population with a relatively direct path to permanent residency, it is also home to nearly one million people of mixed-status households from other nationalities — including Venezuelans, Colombians, Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Dominicans — many of whom lack a legal pathway to citizenship.
Officials, community leaders and advocates from South Florida expressed dismay and horror at the Supreme Court's decision and slammed Trump's executive order as an unconstitutional proclamation that leaves certain people's rights unprotected depending on where they live.
READ MORE: Supreme Court allows Trump to end birthright citizenship in some parts of the country
Renata Bozzetto, deputy director of the Florida Immigrant Coalition, said that the decision was not 'just about court processes, but about who gets to be Americans.' She said the 14th Amendment creates 'stability, prevents statelessness, and fosters national unity.
'This isn't governance — it's an attempt to rule by decree, to fracture our national identity, to reshape who is an American to their warped vision, and to roll back hard-fought constitutional protections,' Bozzetto added.
Adelys Ferro, Miami-based executive director of the Venezuelan American Caucus, called the ruling a 'politically biased decision toward granting the Trump administration what it was asking for.'
For Ferro, the decision will be enormously damaging to Hispanic communities in Florida. 'It's a horrific situation,' she said, describing the ruling as effectively putting the 14th Amendment on hold, which she called 'terrifying.'
Thomas Kennedy, an immigrant advocate with the Florida Immigration Coalition, said he worries about the ruling's potential impact on Florida's immigrant communities.
'We'll end up with a whole generation of second-class, non-citizens being born in Florida if this ruling stands,' Kennedy said. 'The Supreme Court is creating a caste system in the U.S.'
Legal experts noted that for now, nothing will immediately change because the executive order doesn't take effect right away, and legal actions against the executive order are certain to be filed in federal courts between now and then. The plaintiffs could also be deemed a national class-action group, if a federal judge in a lower court certifies that, extending protections across the country.
'This is precisely the situation that the 14th Amendment was meant to avoid. Whether you have full rights as a U.S. citizen depends on where you were born,' said Michelle Lapointe, legal director of the American Immigration Council. 'We fought a civil war over this, and then all the trials and tribulations aftewards. thought we had left this all behind in our past.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
32 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Scores War Powers Win: 'National Security Moves Fast'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday rejected a Democratic effort to limit President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military action against Iran—just hours after Trump said he was weighing additional airstrikes. The chamber voted 53–47 against the war powers resolution, which would have required the president to seek congressional approval for any new hostilities against Iran. Every senator cast a vote, but the tally remained open late into the evening. In a notable split, Democrat John Fetterman broke with his party to vote "no," while Republican Rand Paul crossed the aisle to vote "yes." Why It Matters The vote came days after Trump ordered airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, escalating tensions amid Iran's conflict with Israel. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. Although Tehran and Tel Aviv agreed to a ceasefire on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of breaching that agreement and have threatened strikes on Tehran in response—an accusation Iran's military denies. The Senate's decision marks a clear victory for the White House and shows how much latitude both Republicans and some Democrats are willing to give Trump to take unilateral military action against Iran. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. Jacquelyn Martin/AP What To Know The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have invoked the War Powers Act—the 1973 law designed to limit a president's authority to enter armed conflicts without congressional consent. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and secure approval from both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take any additional military action against Iran. Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, argued that the White House should have sought congressional approval before authorizing last weekend's strike. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war, and say the War Powers Act exists to stop presidents from sidestepping that responsibility. Under the Constitution, war powers are divided but not always clearly defined. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "to declare war," "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This means Congress has the explicit authority to decide when the U.S. goes to war. But the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Since then, military actions—from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria—have typically been carried out under broad authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or purely at the president's discretion. At the same time, Article II, Section 2 names the president as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." This gives the president broad authority to direct the military once it is in action. In 1973, after the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war-making. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits such deployments to 60 days—with a 30-day withdrawal period—unless Congress explicitly approves or declares war. Still, presidents of both parties have often argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, or they've simply ignored its requirements. During his first term, Trump twice vetoed measures passed under the War Powers Act, including one aimed specifically at restricting his ability to strike Iran. Congress wrestled with similar questions in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without explicit approval, drawing criticism that he had exceeded his authority. This time, the Trump administration has enjoyed strong backing from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has gone so far as to argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have accused Democrats of using the issue for political gain and say the president needs flexibility to respond to threats quickly. "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight," said Senator John Barrasso, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, insisting that "national security moves fast" and that requiring consultation with Congress could "prevent the president from protecting us in the future." But some Republicans disagree. Senator Rand Paul cited the framers' original intent to keep war-making powers in the hands of Congress. "Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature," Paul said, explaining his rare break with his party. For its part, the Trump administration argues the president already has all the authority he needs. In a letter to Congress this week, Trump cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief and his responsibility for foreign policy, framing the Iran strike as an act of "collective self-defense of our ally, Israel." What People Are Saying Republican Senator John Barrasso said on the Senate floor: "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight. National security moves fast. That's why our Constitution says: 'Give the commander in chief real authority.'" Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said: "What would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it was: an act of war." Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said: "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person." What Happens Next Efforts to rein in Trump's military powers are also underway in the House, where similar measures have been introduced, but they face uncertain prospects in a Republican-led chamber unlikely to defy the White House.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Even as markets rally, Trump's policymaking causes market angst
By Suzanne McGee (Reuters) -As Wall Street puts April's tariff shakeout in the rearview mirror and indexes set record highs, investors remain wary of U.S. President Donald Trump's rapid-fire, sometimes chaotic policymaking process and see the rally as fragile. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq composite index advanced past their previous highs into uncharted territory on Friday. Yet traders and investors remain wary of what may lie ahead. Trump's April 2 reciprocal tariffs on major trading partners roiled global financial markets and put the S&P 500 on the threshold of a bear market designation when it ended down 19% from its February 19 record-high close. This week's leg up came after a U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Iran brought an end to a 12-day air battle that had sparked a jump in crude prices and raised worries of higher inflation. But a relief rally started after Trump responded to the initial tariff panic that gripped financial markets by backing away from his most draconian plans. JP Morgan Chase, in the midyear outlook published on Wednesday by its global research team, said the environment was characterized by "extreme policy uncertainty." "Nobody wants to end a week with a risk-on tilt to their portfolios," said Art Hogan, market strategist at B. Riley Wealth. "Everyone is aware that just as the market feels more certain and confident, a single wildcard policy announcement could change everything," even if it does not ignite a firestorm of the kind seen in April. Part of this wariness from institutional investors may be due to the magnitude of the 6% S&P 500 rally that followed Trump's re-election last November and culminated in the last new high posted by the index in February, said Joseph Quinlan, market strategist at Bank of America. "We were out ahead of our skis," Quinlan said. A focus on deregulation, tax cuts and corporate deals brought out the "animal spirits," he said. Then came the tariff battles. Quinlan remains upbeat on the outlook for U.S. stocks and optimistic that a new global trade system could lead to U.S. companies opening new markets and posting higher revenues and profits. But he said he is still cautious. "There will still be spikes of volatility around policy unknowns." Overall, measures of market volatility are now well below where they stood at the height of the tariff turmoil in April, with the CBOE VIX index now at 16.3, down from a 52.3 peak on April 8. UNSTABLE MARKETS "Our clients seem to have become somewhat desensitized to the headlines, but it's still an unhealthy market, with everyone aware that trading could happen based on the whims behind a bunch of" social media posts, said Jeff O'Connor, head of market structure, Americas, at Liquidnet, an institutional trading platform. Trading in the options market shows little sign of the kind of euphoria that characterized stock market rallies of the recent past. "On the institutional front, we do see a lot of hesitation in chasing the market rally," Stefano Pascale, head of U.S. equity derivatives research at Barclays, said. Unlike past episodes of sharp market selloffs, institutional investors have largely stayed away from employing bullish call options to chase the market higher, Pascale said, referring to plain options that confer the right to buy at a specified future price and date. Bid/ask spreads on many stocks are well above levels O'Connor witnessed in late 2024, while market depth - a measure of the size and number of potential orders - remains at the lowest levels he can recall in the last 20 years. "The best way to describe the markets in the last couple of months, even as they have recovered, is to say they are unstable," said Liz Ann Sonders, market strategist at Charles Schwab. She said she is concerned that the market may be reaching "another point of complacency" akin to that seen in March. "There's a possibility that we'll be primed for another downside move," Sonders addded. Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital in Washington, said he came up with the term "Snapchat presidency" to describe the whiplash effect on markets of the president's constantly changing policies on markets. "He feels more like a day trader than a long-term institutional investor," Spindel said, alluding to Trump's policy flip-flops. "One minute he's not going to negotiate, and the next he negotiates." To be sure, traders seem to view those rapid shifts in course as a positive in the current rally, signaling Trump's willingness to heed market signals. "For now, at least, stocks are willing to overlook the risks that go along with this style and lack of consistent policies, and give the administration a break as being 'market friendly'," said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at Interactive Brokers. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
41 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump's aggressive immigration crackdown is getting ICE agents hurt
New tactics are being met with rising public resistance and desperation from suspects facing ICE detention and deportation. Masked agents. Terrified suspects. Emotions running high as screaming crowds press in, cell phone cameras in hand. Amid surging immigration enforcement across the country, federal agents are being hurt and hospitalized as they make increasingly public – and risky – arrests of people they believe are undocumented. White House officials say there's been a 500% increase in assaults on agents, as President Donald Trump's massive deportation campaign ramps up. Administration officials say bold tactics are needed to repel what they call an "invasion" of immigrants. But policing experts say the aggressive approach is provoking unnecessarily dangerous encounters. In a recent incident in Nebraska, a female ICE agent was thrown to the ground and choked by an accused Tren de Aragua gang member who said he was formerly a Venezuelan soldier, according to court documents. The suspect escaped and was later captured with the help of local police. Bystander videos have captured agents wrestling suspects to the ground on crowded streets and chasing them through farm fields. One widely circulated video showed an agent grabbing a U.S. citizen by the neck in a Walmart parking lot as he resisted being taken; federal prosecutors have charged the man with assault after he allegedly punched an agent. "Just this week, an ICE officer was dragged 50 yards by a car while arresting an illegal alien sex offender," Tricia McLaughlin, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary, told USA TODAY. "Every day the men and women of ICE put their lives on the line to protect and defend the lives of American citizens." Trump, who has promised to deport 1 million immigrants this year, ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents "to do all in their power to achieve the very important goal of delivering the single largest mass deportation program in history." In a June 15 social media post, he also said: "Every day, the brave men and women of ICE are subjected to violence, harassment and even threats from radical Democrat politicians, but nothing will stop us from executing our mission, and fulfilling our mandate to the American people." Art Del Cueto, the vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, said the union's 16,000 members welcome Trump's tough new approach to immigration enforcement. Detainees are increasingly fighting back, he said, because they know there's no escape: "That's why you're seeing attacks on agents." 'It's not about public safety anymore' But there's growing pushback from the public. Recent immigration sweeps in the Los Angeles area sparked widespread protests and small riots downtown, as people threw rocks at law enforcement and set patrol vehicles on fire, and federal agents responded with tear gas and pepper spray. In some cases, federal agents are getting into shoving matches with crowds trying to film or stop what they consider to be overzealous detentions, especially when the masked agents refuse to identify themselves. Policing experts say ICE agents are exacerbating tense situations with practices that many American police departments have largely disavowed. While there's little objection to detaining violent criminals, masked agents descending upon Home Depot parking lots to arrest day laborers and food vendors – most with no criminal record – sparks panic. "The aggressive police tactics being employed by the federal government are causing the issue," said longtime police supervisor Diane Goldstein, who now directs the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, which has spent decades working to develop trust between the public and police. "Their direction and their leadership is directly putting them in a horrific situation," she said. The ICE tactics on display are a dramatic departure from how cautiously ICE agents previously worked, said Jason Houser, a former Department of Homeland Security counterterrorism official. Houser is an Afghanistan combat veteran who was ICE chief of staff during the Biden administration. Previously, ICE agents prioritized serious criminal offenders for arrest, Houser said. A team of agents might work for days or weeks to surveil a single subject before making an arrest carefully timed to minimize risks to the public and to agents themselves. ICE agents are trained to "think about prioritization of public safety, risk and removability," he added. Internal Justice Department training programs stress that police agencies should focus on de-escalation whenever possible and avoid making arrests in public areas, especially when there's no imminent threat to public safety. "Now we have political quotas: 'Give me 3,000 arrests' (per day). And all gloves are off," Houser said. "It's not about public safety any more." Before Trump, assaults were on the decline An increase in assaults on officers and agents this year would reverse a three-year trend of declining incidents, according to internal Department of Homeland Security statistics. Despite millions of daily interactions with the public, it was rare for ICE, customs officers and Border Patrol agents to get attacked on the job. The agency logged 363 assault incidents in fiscal 2024, down from 474 incidents in fiscal 2023 and 524 in fiscal 2022, according to DHS data. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which includes both customs officers and Border Patrol agents, has 45,000 law enforcement personnel and is the nation's largest law enforcement agency. Additionally, ICE has roughly 6,200 deportation agents on staff. White House officials declined to answer USA TODAY's questions about the numbers underlying the 500% increase in assaults, including the total number of injuries and their severity. It's also unclear how many additional federal agents have so far been re-assigned to immigration enforcement. Masked agents refusing to identify themselves In Huntington Park, Calif, authorities this week detained a man they said appeared to be pretending to be an ICE agent ‒ a situation they said was possible because real ICE agents are refusing to properly identify themselves as they aggressively detain people. Mayor Arturo Flores said the way ICE agents are acting does not present "the image of a just and lawful government." He said he can understand why people are angry and scared, especially knowing there are potential vigilantes and impersonators operating in the area. In response to the accused impersonator's arrest, Huntington Park leaders asked local police to verify the identity of any suspected ICE agents operating in the city. The suspect was found with multiple police radios, official-looking federal paperwork, flashing lights and a 9 mm handgun in his otherwise unmarked vehicle, according to city police. "When people cannot trust who is enforcing the law, public safety us undermines and fear begins to take hold," Flores said in a June 27 press conference. "What we are saying is simple: if you are acting with federal authority, show it. ID yourself Do not hide behind unmarked vehicles, facemasks and vague credentials." 'Someone's going to pull a gun' Underlying the tension between ICE and members of the public is a fundamental fact: ICE is arresting a record number of people who have no criminal record. An analysis by the Libertarian Cato Institute shows ICE is arresting four times more people with no criminal convictions or criminal charges per week now than the agency did during the same period in June 2017, when Trump was also president. "This is a radical tactical shift compared to Trump 1.0," David Bier, Cato director of immigration studies, in a post on X. ICE officials said they are responding to interference by the public. They say advocacy groups are stalking agents as they try to make arrests, putting the agents at risk and allowing their targets to escape. Federal agents testifying before a Senate committee on June 26 said that during a recent enforcement operation bystanders photographed an officer and posted the photo online with a threatening message. There's been a small but growing number of incidents, too, in which people called their local police department to report the presence of armed, masked men bundling community members into unmarked vehicles. ICE officials also often say that if hundreds of "sanctuary" jurisdictions around the country would hand over immigrants after they've completed a criminal sentence, that would reduce the need for agents to make risky, public arrests. But prior to Trump's enforcement ramp-up – about 70% of people arrested by ICE were transferred directly from the prison system into ICE custody, according to the nonprofit Freedom for Immigrants. Trump's new approach has pushed agents to make more arrests in the community at places like Home Depot. The push to meet a quota is driving agents toward raids and round-ups that expose them to greater risk in the field, says Goldstein. She worries that aggressive tactics combined with masks will eventually lead to a shootout. Twenty-eight states have "Stand Your Ground" laws that allow citizens to shoot if they feel threatened. "If you have masked people running out at you, someone's going to pull a gun out and someone's going to get hurt," she said. Trump's Homeland Security leadership appears to have no plans to back down. "Federal law enforcement is facing an ever-escalating increase in assaults," DHS posted to X, "but we will not be deterred."
