Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may lose on birthright citizenship
The US Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump — except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce.
An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship, a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called 'universal' injunctions.
But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday — while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief — left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out.
'I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect,' said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions, whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling.
Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the US who do not have at least one parent who is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the US constitution's 14th amendment.
The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days — a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
an hour ago
- The Citizen
Cyril must seize opportunity
Iran's vulnerabilities have been exposed and its confidence has been shaken. The Israel-Iran war lasted only 12 days but its consequences will reshape global politics for years. One positive is that the battering taken by South Africa's ally, Iran, could paradoxically greatly benefit this country, if President Cyril Ramaphosa had the wit and courage to seize the opportunity. SA-Iran ties The greatest impediment to a good relationship with the United States has been SA's support of Iran. It is hardly surprising, then, that SA's increasing alignment with Iran's 'axis of resistance' and its self-appointed role as a spokesperson for the global south in siding with Russia and China against Western democracies, has caused the US steadily growing concern over the past dozen or so years. This came to a head in February under the combative presidency of Donald Trump, who issued a punishing executive order against SA. Despite these substantial economic costs caused by the order and Ramaphosa speaking fervently about the need to 'reset' ties with the US, the government seems paralysed. It boils down to the fact that foreign policy is not determined by pragmatism and national interest, but by ideology and party interest. The foundation of SA's post-1994 risky friendship with Iran stems from an anti-Western ideological outlook that the ANC has historically shared. This has been amplified by a powerful Islamist clique within the department of international relations and cooperation that is strong enough within ANC party structures to dictate a harder line on Middle East matters than many in the Cabinet would choose. ALSO READ: Iran voices 'serious doubts' over Israel commitment to ceasefire Iran's vulnerabilities have been exposed The drubbing that Iran took in the 12-day war changes everything. Iran's new precariousness as a functional state, its wavering status as a revolutionary beacon and its more circumscribed financial circumstances reduce Monday 10 30 June 2025 its usefulness to the ANC on all fronts. Whether its nuclear programme has been destroyed or only set back months, Iran undoubtedly will have reduced capacity for mischief-making in the Middle East, while preoccupied with internal reconstruction. Infrastructure has to be rebuilt, lost nuclear and military expertise replaced and weaponry stocks replenished, all while fretting whether the ayatollah's government might be toppled in a popular uprising. Iran's vulnerabilities have been exposed and its confidence has been shaken. Israel effortlessly thwarted its much-hyped missile barrages, while the US demonstrated decisively that it would not sit idle while Tehran lashed out. The loop of perpetual Middle East conflict has been broken, or at least dramatically reset. Iran's terror proxies are isolated, vulnerable and on the back foot. ALSO READ: Six Israelis detained for attacking soldiers in West Bank Israel's upper hand and mending ties For the first time in decades, the strategic initiative lies firmly with Israel. Militarily, the Jewish state has never been stronger but it is being comprehensively bested on the battlefield of international public opinion over the conflict in Gaza. With Iran down, for the moment, and Syria making noises, this is Israel's best window yet to resolve the Palestinian question; to trade restraint for recognition and to convert tactical dominance into a durable regional peace through a revitalised and expanded Abraham Accords. South Africa faces its own fork in the road. It can continue acting as a megaphone for radical Islam and a cheerleader for rogue states or it, too, can seize the moment. Re-establishing ties with Israel, mending its fractured relationship with Washington and offering itself as a credible, post-ideological broker in the Middle East would not only serve the national interest, it would rescue a South African foreign policy now adrift in ANC moral incoherence, under Ramaphosa's timorous captaincy. READ NEXT: Zelensky signs decree for Ukraine's withdrawal from anti-landmine treaty
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Crossed Wires: Which billionaires have not bent the knee to Trump?
Much has been written about the surprising political pivot of erstwhile Democrat-supporting billionaires (many of them from tech) to the welcoming embrace of Maga after decades of support for liberalism. Bezos of Amazon, Musk of X/Tesla, Zuckerberg of Meta and Andreessen of Andreessen Horowitz have all shed blue cloaks since Trump's ascendance and donned bright red ones. Some others have shifted more quietly and pragmatically, perhaps making some allowance for the new winds of politics and a vengeful president. These are not normal times, of course. The current president is slashing and burning any entity that does not toe his thick red line, whether they are Harvard, CBS, NPR, Voice of America or Associated Press. Not to mention Canada, for God's sake. It is unprecedented. A large pair of balls is required if you want to refuse to pay obeisance – there are real consequences, as we have seen. It is with this in mind, and catalysed by the stunning success of self-declared socialist Zohran Mamdani in the New York Democratic mayoral candidate race last week, that I set out to find some tech bros who remain committed to good old liberal values and who continue to talk about climate change and renewables, as well as DEI and trans and immigrants' rights, as though Maga had never happened. It turns out that there are still quite a few – some more vocal and others keeping quiet. Perhaps these 'woke' holdouts will feel the wind at their backs again in 2028. Politics is fickle and forgetful, and public perception apt to balance on the wobbly fence of economic good times. No-man's-land Let's dispense with those who have been careful to stay in no-man's-land. Tim Cook of Apple has stayed partially out of the fray. He made the trek to Mar-a-Lago to dine with Trump early on, if only to say, 'We are as happy to work with you as with all other presidents.' Then he got into a small spat with Trump about where to manufacture iPhones, which argument seems to have dissipated, probably because Trump was informed that iPhones simply cannot be manufactured in the US at a competitive cost. How about Sergey Brin and Larry Page of Alphabet/Google? They are both longtime left-leaning centrists who have managed to stay out of the debate by saying little and keeping their personal opinions private. Jensen Huang of Nvidia, on the other hand, has found himself in a bit of a pickle. In 2016, he was quoted as saying, 'In general I prefer a more liberal government', but now, at the head of what is possibly the US's most politically sensitive technology, AI, he has to make nice with the administration that holds all the keys to sanctions and IP restrictions. Mind you, what with Nvidia's dominance in AI hardware, the Trump administration has to make nice with Huang too, so Trump and Huang exist in a politely necessary co-dependent relationship. They are not bros. Anti-Trump brigade This brings us to the others – the ones who clearly do not like Trump and will not bend the knee, the ones whose moral compass has not changed. (I am not passing judgment here on whether that moral compass's needle is pointed in the right direction, only that it seems not to have moved.) These include, most notably, Mark Cuban. Cuban made his fortune in streaming in the late '90s and has since diversified promiscuously. He is (like many self-made-billionaires-at-40) brash, opinionated and smart. He has accused Trump of being a 'snake oil salesman', of being scared of 'strong, intelligent women', of being 'a threat' to the US and of having 'fascist tendencies'. He has been critical of the Democrats, too, accusing them of 'not being able to sell shit' but he has also remained steadfastly outspoken on core left-wing planks like DEI. Then there is Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn. His outspoken criticism of Trump caused him to consider leaving the US when Trump was re-elected (out of fear of retribution), but he has not done so and continues to actively support Democratic causes and candidates. And Reed Hastings, co-founder of Netflix, remains firmly 'progressive' except for his controversial support of private over public schooling, which has put him at odds with traditional Democrats. Finally, Satya Nadella of Microsoft. He is also seemingly untainted one way or the other, is unfailingly diplomatic and not given to political statements. But Microsoft's contributions tell a different story – they are 4:1 in favour of the Democratic Party. Billionaire influence The narrative in its entirety tells an interesting story. These people have enormous influence and deep pockets. Where they lean has direct influence on the direction of US governance, not only via their monetary contributions, but in terms of the messages they implicitly whisper to their large customer bases. So, why have some moved to the right, either publicly or privately? Mark Andreessen, in a recent podcast, described a meeting at the Biden White House with other tech executives and some of Biden's team. The subject was AI regulation. At the conclusion of the meeting, the executives went downstairs and huddled in the parking lot. One of them said, 'So I guess it's Trump for us?' They all agreed, at least in Andreessen's telling. For them, the issue was government regulation, nothing else. It was not the money, or at least not completely. It was what Andreessen and the others saw as clumsy and constraining government interference in the sort of innovation they believed to be a national imperative. It may be the case that some of these billionaires left their longtime political homes because Democratic policies pushed them away, but I suspect others moved to the right (and particularly toward Trump) because that's where the money is. Perhaps also because no one wants to deal with Trump's wrath. The only way we'll know for sure is if and when a new Democratic president is elected and the Zuckerbergs and Bezoses come crawling back or not. Only then will we know whether they are motivated by money or principle. DM Maverick451
eNCA
7 hours ago
- eNCA
Gaza war rages on despite Iran-Israel ceasefire
GAZA - Tensions between Israel and Iran appear to have eased, but the war in Gaza still continues. Israeli airstrikes have killed at least 72 people since Friday, many of them women and children. Desperation is growing in Gaza, where food is scarce, aid is limited, and families are still dying under the rubble. Strikes also hit shelters and streets crowded with displaced residents. US President Donald Trump says a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas could be agreed to, within a week. But there's no confirmation and little optimism on the ground. Past talks have collapsed, and both sides remain firmly divided. Gaza's humanitarian crisis is worsening. Israel has allowed limited aid in but it's not enough. Despite hopes that the Israeli-Iran ceasefire might ease regional tensions, Gaza remains a battlefield. As diplomatic talks continue behind closed doors, the people of Gaza remain trapped with no real relief in sight.
