Trump's 'Giant Win' Does Not Validate His Unconstitutional Birthright Citizenship Order
That take was misleading in two important ways. First, the issue that the Court addressed goes far beyond this particular administration, potentially affecting progressive policies pursued by Democrats as well as conservative policies favored by Republicans. Second, the majority said nothing about the legal merits of Trump's attempt to restrict birthright citizenship by presidential fiat, which remains just as constitutionally dubious as it always was.
In an executive order he issued on his first day in office, Trump purported to exclude children of unauthorized immigrants and temporary legal visitors from U.S. citizenship. From now on, he said, U.S.-born children will qualify for that status only if at least one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident.
That decree provoked lawsuits by individuals, organizations, and states, several of which resulted in preliminary injunctions blocking enforcement of the order across the country. The question for the Supreme Court was whether federal courts hearing challenges to executive actions or federal legislation are authorized to issue injunctions that extend beyond the plaintiffs in the cases before them.
Such injunctions have become increasingly common in recent decades as both Republicans and Democrats have used them to frustrate the plans of the opposing party. From 1963 to 2023, according to a 2024 study, federal courts issued 127 universal injunctions, more than three-quarters of which were granted during the administrations of four presidents: George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Trump, and Joe Biden.
The targets of those orders covered a wide range, including international travel restrictions, COVID-19 policies, abortion drugs, environmental regulations, student loan forgiveness, and a ban on transgender soldiers. In other words, this tool has no particular political or ideological valence, and the same people might welcome or condemn its use, depending on which party happens to be in power.
Six justices concluded that universal injunctions are not within the powers granted by the relevant statute, the Judiciary Act of 1789. "The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation's history," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority. "Its absence from 18th- and 19th-century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority."
The decision leaves open several other options that could have an impact similar to universal injunctions. The Administrative Procedure Act, for example, explicitly authorizes federal courts to "set aside" agency actions when they are "arbitrary," "capricious," an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.
Another alternative is illustrated by one of the cases that resulted in the Supreme Court's stay: When states challenge a federal policy on behalf of their residents, they can argue that adequate relief requires a nationwide injunction. Finally, representative plaintiffs can bring class-action lawsuits on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, assuming they can meet the tests established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The three justices who dissented from the Supreme Court's decision argued that universal injunctions are historically validated and appropriate in at least some cases. In particular, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in an opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, such remedies should be available when a law or executive action is plainly unconstitutional.
Trump's order pretty clearly falls into that category. It contradicts centuries of legal tradition, the original understanding of the 14th Amendment, 127 years of Supreme Court precedent, and the consistent positions of federal officials in every branch of government.
Tellingly, the Trump administration, despite the president's bluster about "the Birthright Citizenship Hoax," did not challenge the injunctions against his order insofar as they apply to the plaintiffs in those cases. That would have entailed defending the constitutionality of Trump's edict—a fight he cannot win.
© Copyright 2025 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
The post Trump's 'Giant Win' Does Not Validate His Unconstitutional Birthright Citizenship Order appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Major political scandal led to ethics reform in Tennessee: Notorious Nashville
An invoice scam by a low-level government employee in Memphis led to a police investigation that culminated 20 years ago in a federal probe that brought down some of the state's biggest political figures. A dozen local and state officials were arrested in 2005 on bribery charges and convicted in a case led by the FBI dubbed "Tennessee Waltz," aptly named after the famed song about a stinging betrayal. It remains one of the biggest political scandals in state history. The case is part of the state's infamous past, but its impact stretched across decades with ethics reforms that still serve as guardrails for politicians today. The highest-ranking public servants arrested after betraying their oaths of office include two former state senators from Memphis − John Ford and the late Roscoe Dixon. Ford, the most powerful politician caught in the FBI investigation, was convicted of accepting $55,000 in cash payoffs from an undercover agent posing as a corrupt businessman. Ford's chicanery included shepherding a bill tailored to benefit the fake company − even using the wording proposed by the undercover agent. Dixon was convicted on bribery and extortion charges for accepting $9,500 in bribes to help pass legislation. Police in Memphis initially investigated a tip about an invoice scam in which a contractor for the Shelby County Juvenile Court Clerk's Office accepted money for work never performed. When investigators realized the corruption extended all the way to the state capitol in Nashville, they sought help from the FBI, which has no jurisdictional boundaries. FBI agents created a fake electronics recycling company, E-Cycle, and used informants to infiltrate state government. They also used undercover agents to pay bribes and record conversations with politicians. An FBI agent used the name "Joe Carson" and posed as the head of E-Cycle, meeting with lawmakers, passing out fake business cards, making campaign contributions and hosting a reception with live music for politicians at the Sheraton Nashville Hotel. Federal agents were surprised at how easy it was to bribe lawmakers − and to write a new state bill the politicians were ready to pass that would have favored the fake company. The case lasted more than three years and ensnared politicians in Memphis, Chattanooga and at the state capitol in Nashville. Those convicted and sentenced to prison included: Chris Newton, a former Republican representative from Cleveland; William Cotton, a Democratic Hamilton County commissioner; Charles Love, who had been a member of the Hamilton County school board; and Darrell Catron, a former Shelby County Juvenile Court aide. The FBI sting led to the arrest of a father-son duo from a Memphis political dynasty. Michael Hooks Sr., a powerhouse Democrat and son of a Civil Rights pioneer − pleaded guilty to accepting $24,200 in bribes while chairing the Shelby County Commission. His son, Michael Hooks Jr., pleaded guilty to theft from a federally funded program when he was a Memphis city school board member. The scandal resulted in the creation of new state ethics laws and an independent ethics commission. The Tennessean is publishing a Notorious Nashville story for each year from 2000-2024. Catch up on the series here. Beth Warren can be reached at bwarren@ This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Nashville, Memphis political corruption led to ethics reform
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
US court clears deportation of 8 migrants to South Sudan despite legal fight
Eight migrants are now set to be deported to South Sudan after a US court denied their final legal bid to remain in the United States, following a series of emergency court proceedings held during the Independence Day holiday. A US judge has denied the final legal attempt to stop the deportation of eight migrants to South Sudan The migrants' attorneys argued that deporting them to volatile South Sudan constitutes unconstitutional punishment given the country's ongoing instability. The deportations align with a broader immigration policy expansion initiated during the Trump administration targeting repatriations to conflict zones. South Sudan is currently plagued by political unrest and violent conflict, prompting international warnings against travel to the region. The decision came on Friday, July 4, after U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ruled that he was bound by a recent Supreme Court order, which had earlier clarified that the Department of Homeland Security could no longer be barred from deporting the men. The ruling effectively ended the migrants' last-ditch effort to stop the deportation, allowing the U.S. government to proceed with its scheduled transfer of the individuals to South Sudan at 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time the same day. Lawyers representing the migrants had argued that deporting them to South Sudan, a country long plagued by violent conflict and political instability amounted to unconstitutional punishment, especially since some had already served criminal sentences in the U.S. However, Judge Murphy ruled that their claims were 'substantially similar' to previous ones he had already rejected. Before the ruling in Boston, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington briefly paused the deportation effort earlier that afternoon. But he ultimately returned the matter to Murphy, who affirmed that the Supreme Court's guidance left him no legal ground to intervene. Jennie Pasquarella, an attorney with the Seattle Clemency Project who represented the men, expressed disappointment with the outcome. ' Both courts' decisions today have denied them their opportunity to have these claims heard and to protect their own lives,' she said. ' That is what is so tragic about where we came out. ' Trump's third‑country deportations Trump's third-country deportation policy began in his first term with deals to send asylum seekers to Central American nations like Guatemala, even if they weren't from there. In his second term, the policy expanded to include deportations to conflict zones like South Sudan and Libya. These moves targeted migrants whose home countries refused repatriation. Critics argue the policy violates due process and international law, while the Supreme Court has allowed it to proceed, marking a sharp turn toward harsher immigration enforcement. South Sudan, the destination for the deportation, remains volatile. The U.S. State Department currently warns against travel to the country due to armed conflict and high levels of violent crime. The United Nations has also cautioned that the region's unresolved political tensions risk reigniting a devastating civil war that formally ended in 2018. The Department of Homeland Security has stated that the migrants who come from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Burma, Sudan, and Vietnam include individuals previously convicted of serious crimes, with four convicted of murder. A Department of Justice lawyer, Hashim Mooppan, warned during Friday's hearing that halting such deportations could harm diplomatic relations and discourage other countries from accepting U.S. deportees in the future. This case marks another chapter in the broader legal battle surrounding the Trump administration's controversial immigration policies, particularly those targeting individuals for deportation to unstable or dangerous regions.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
These 26 Rich Private Colleges Just Got A Tax Cut From Republicans
S trange things happen when details of a massive tax and budget bill, like the one President Donald Trump signed yesterday, are tweaked behind closed doors. Among them: A couple dozen of the nation's wealthiest small private colleges will be getting a tax cut next year, even as bigger rich universities, including Princeton, MIT, Yale and Harvard, will be slammed with higher taxes. It all began as an effort by House Republicans to dramatically raise the excise tax imposed on the earnings of college endowments, and particularly the endowments of wealthy 'woke' schools like Harvard University that they (and President Donald Trump) have targeted. But as it turns out, while Harvard's tax bill will likely more than double, some smaller schools with famously left-leaning student bodies (e.g. Swarthmore College and Amherst College) are getting tax relief. That's because schools with fewer than 3,000 full-time equivalent tuition-paying students will be exempt from the revamped endowment tax beginning next year. It currently applies to private schools with more than 500 full-time equivalent tuition-paying students and endowments worth more than $500,000 per student. Using the latest available federal data from fiscal year 2023, Forbes identified at least 26 wealthy colleges that are likely subject to the endowment tax now, but will be exempt next year based on their size. Along with top liberal arts schools like Williams College, Wellesley College, Amherst and Swarthmore, the list includes the California Institute of Technology, a STEM powerhouse, and the Julliard School, the New York city institution known for its music, dance and drama training. Grinnell College in Iowa, which enrolled 1,790 students in 2023, will save around $2.4 million in tax each year as a result of the change, President Anne Harris said in an email to Forbes . Here's what happened. As passed by the House in late May, the One Big Beautiful Bill (its Trumpian name) increased the current 1.4% excise tax on college endowments' investment earnings to as high as 21% for the richest institutions—those with endowments worth more than $2 million a student. (While these schools are all non-profits and traditionally tax exempt, the 1.4% tax on investment earnings was introduced by Trump's big 2017 tax bill. According to Internal Revenue Service data, 56 schools paid a total of $381 million in endowment tax in calendar 2023.) Along with raising the rate, the House voted to exempt from the tax both religiously-affiliated schools (think the University of Notre Dame) and those that don't take federal student financial aid. (The religious exemption was structured in a way that Harvard, founded by the Puritans to train ministers, wouldn't qualify.) The House also sought to penalize schools like Columbia University, with heavy international student enrollments, by excluding students who aren't U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents from the per capita calculations. Then the bill went to the Senate, where the Finance Committee settled on more modest–albeit still stiff–rate hikes. Schools with endowments of $500,000 to $750,000 per capita would still pay at a 1.4% rate, while those with endowments above $750,000 and up to $2 million would pay 4%. Those with endowments worth more than $2 million per student would pay an 8% tax on their earnings, not the 21% passed by the House. Enter Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, who makes decisions on the Senate's Byrd rule, which requires parts of a budget reconciliation bill like this one to have a primary purpose related to the budget—not other types of policy. The Byrd rule was put in place because reconciliation isn't subject to filibuster. 'You can't get into a lot of prescriptive activity' in a budget reconciliation bill, explains Dean Zerbe, a national managing director for Alliantgroup, who worked on college endowment issues back when he was tax counsel for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). 'Like, 'you've got to hop on one foot,' or 'you've got to make tuition affordable,' or 'you've got to do better in terms of admission.'' The Parliamentarian ruled that those three House provisions—exempting religious-affiliated schools, exempting schools that don't take federal aid, and excluding foreign students from the per capita calculation—didn't pass the Byrd test. At that point, Republican senators settled on the 3,000-student threshold in large part to specifically exempt one school from the tax: Hillsdale College, an ultra-conservative, Christian liberal arts college in Hillsdale, Michigan and a GOP darling. It enrolled 1,794 students in 2023, had an endowment worth $584,000 per-student, and notably accepts no federal money, including student aid. (So both the religious exemption and the one for schools taking no federal student aid would have presumably shielded Hillsdale from the endowment tax—before the Parliamentarian gave them the thumbs down.) There was also a broader group of small schools pushing for the exemption, notes Jonathan Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. 'They made an argument that I think got some positive reception among Republican senators of saying that essentially, while their endowments may be big relative to the fact that they have small student bodies … their endowments weren't big.' A school like Amherst, he adds, 'might have a big endowment for a small school, but they don't have a big endowment relative to the Ivies and the more heavily resourced [universities].' House Republicans, under intense pressure to meet Trump's July 4th deadline, ended up accepting the final Senate product in full. That meant exempting the smaller schools, including the 'woke' ones, while levying a rate of up to 8% on the endowments of bigger schools. Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimates colleges will now pay an extra $761 million in tax over 10 years, compared to the extra $6.7 billion they would have paid under the House version with its higher 21% rate and broader reach. Based on data from 2023, Forbes estimates that at least 11 universities will have their endowment earnings taxed at an 8% or 4% rate in 2026, while five will continue to pay the 1.4% rate. Three schools—Princeton University, Yale University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—will likely be required to pay an 8% excise tax on their endowment earnings. Another eight, including Harvard, Stanford University, Dartmouth College and Vanderbilt University, will likely pay a 4% tax. The remaining five schools—Emory University, Duke University, Washington University in St Louis, the University of Pennsylvania, and Brown University—would pay the same 1.4% endowment tax rate they're paying now, based on fiscal 2023 numbers. One school that will likely pay 4% is the University of Notre Dame, a Catholic-affiliated school which would have been exempt from the tax were it not for the Byrd rule. 'We are deeply disappointed by the removal of language protecting religious institutions of higher education from the endowment tax before passage of the final bill,' Notre Dame wrote in a statement to Forbes . 'Any expansion of the endowment tax threatens to undermine the ability of a broad range of faith-based institutions to serve their religious purpose. We are proud to have stood with a coalition of these institutions against that threat, and we are encouraged by the strong support for a religious exemption received from both chambers.' Fansmith, for his part, won't call the exemption of the small schools a win. 'We think the tax is a bad idea and it's bad policy, and no schools should be paying it. But, by the standard that fewer schools are paying, it's better, but it's still not good,' he says. 'It's not really about revenue,' adds Fansmith. 'It's really about punishing these schools that right now a segment of the Republican party doesn't like.' The schools make the argument that it's students who are being punished, since around half of endowment spending pays for student scholarships. Meanwhile, Zerbe warns the now exempt schools shouldn't take that status for granted. 'Once revenue raisers are in play and out there, they come back again and again,' he says. 'It would be a disaster for [colleges] to think somehow this was a win for them. This was a billion dollar hit on them and there's more to come later.' More from Forbes Forbes Here's What The Senate Budget And Tax Bill Means For Colleges By Emma Whitford Forbes Trump's Foreign Student Crackdown Puts These 16 Struggling Colleges At Risk By Emma Whitford Forbes Trump's Visa Ban Is Barring New Foreign Doctors From Entering U.S. By Emma Whitford Forbes What The One Big Beautiful Bill Act Will Mean For You And Your Business By Kelly Phillips Erb
