In their own words: What justices, Trump and groups say about courts and birthright citizenship
At the Supreme Court Friday, justices lambasted one another over the extent of judicial authority. Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused President Donald Trump of trying to game the courts to break the law. The president expressed joy in reclaiming some power back from the judiciary, while advocates sounded worries for immigrant families before filing new legal challenges.
The high court ruled that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear whether Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country.
Here are some of the arguments and comments made by justices, Trump and advocates regarding the court's 6-3 ruling over an effort by the president to deny birthright citizenship to children born to immigrants.
Barrett, Jackson on the judiciary's role
Justice Amy Coney Barrett defended the majority opinion that the judiciary does not have 'unbridled authority' to enforce the president's duty to follow the law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who joined Sotomayor's dissent, wrote that the role of lower courts should ensure that.
'For that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law — full stop,' Jackson wrote.
Barrett called Jackson's arguments 'extreme' and said her reasoning was not tethered 'to any doctrine whatsoever.'
'She offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,' Barrett wrote.
She later stated: 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.'
Sotomayor accuses Trump of 'gamesmanship'
Sotomayor did not mince words when arguing the ruling presents a threat. She accused the Trump administration of using tactics to game the courts and said it has been defying the Constitution.
'The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the government makes no attempt to hide it,' she wrote. 'Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.'
Sotomayor also wrote that Trump's order is 'patently unconstitutional under settled law,' and argued that granting relief through Friday's decision 'is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution.'
'The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival. Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort,' she wrote.
A warning about what may be next
Sotomayor expressed worries about the chaos that may follow before the Supreme Court gets to decide on whether these children should get U.S. citizenship. She worried about the decision leaving some children 'stateless,' risking deportation even when their parents are in the country legally with temporary status visas or other programs.
Sotomayor also warned about the possible wider impact of the ruling.
'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship,' she wrote.
Trump celebrates
Trump, meanwhile, quickly celebrated the ruling, calling it a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' the separation of powers and the rule of law.
'These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump told reporters during a news conference in the White House briefing room. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.'
The president said he would try to advance restrictions on birthright citizenship and other policies that had been blocked by lower courts.
Immigrant rights group responds
One of the groups that challenged Trump's order quickly went back to court seeking to keep his new restrictions on birthright citizenship at bay. CASA, a nonprofit immigrant rights organization, asked a federal court in Maryland to certify a class-action lawsuit that would represent all newborns who would no longer automatically be citizens if Trump's order goes into effect.
'Scotus has carelessly put at risk the citizenship of many hundreds of thousands of newborns and yet to be born innocent. But in the end, this ruling does nothing more than guarantee that the fight and the movement towards justice continue,' said George Escobar, CASA's chief of programs and services.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
Which 'next' is Danielle Smith's Ottawa-affairs panel steering Alberta toward?
Before taking their latest chance to weigh in on the wisdom of exiting the Canada Pension Plan, Albertans must first watch a five-minute video, most of which tries to persuade them how great an idea it is. The promise of lower premiums and higher benefits hasn't sold well in the past. We recently learned that only 10 per cent of respondents favoured the idea in the 2023 round of government consultations on an Alberta pension plan. But with her Alberta Next feedback project, Premier Danielle Smith is treating this as a new day, full of fresh possibilities to alter the province's place within Canada on finances, constitutional powers, immigration and more. This video pitch on pensions endeavours to sell the public with suggestions of a "big upfront payout," better paycheques, and a provincially led investment strategy that "steered clear of ideological decision-making." The voiceover narrator notes some potential downsides. Among them: "The CPP exit rules aren't clear in the federal legislation and Ottawa is notoriously anti-Alberta with its decisions, so the size of the lump sum Alberta is offered could be lower than it should be." (Italics mine; federal officials might dispute that matter-of-fact assertion.) After that video, respondents get asked three multiple-choice questions, none of which let Albertans say whether they actually like the provincial pension idea. Perhaps they can chime in with that answer at one of the in-person town halls that begin in mid-July. The premier launched this review into the future of federalism in front of a recreated vintage oil well at Heritage Park in Calgary. Alberta Next is, in a way, a recreation of the Fair Deal Panel that Smith's predecessor Jason Kenney launched, two Liberal federal election victories ago in 2019. As separatist sentiments intensified, the then-premier had tasked his panel to study the viability of an Alberta-only pension and police force, an overhaul of federal transfers and more. That's just what Smith has done, though with some pivotal distinctions. Kenney tasked long-retired former politician Preston Manning to lead his panel. Smith assigned herself as chair. While this stands to boost the interest in upcoming town halls, some of the Alberta Next event attendees might want to bend the premier's ear on other matters, as this month's fiery meeting on coal mining may have foretold. The current premier is also specifically soliciting referendum questions to put on a ballot next year. Those would interact in unknown ways with a citizen-initiated plebiscite on separation, one which proposes a vastly more dramatic shakeup in Alberta-Canada relations. Kenney's panel took a slower march to referendums, ultimately recommending that the federal pension and police withdrawals merely be studied. The loaded language of the videos and surveys also takes Smith's initiative to a different level, says Jared Wesley, a University of Alberta political scientist. He's uniquely positioned to assess what Smith is doing: in his current role, he routinely conducts public opinion research. Before academia, he worked in the Alberta government's intergovernmental affairs division under both Tory and NDP premiers. The government is clearly not attempting to genuinely collect public opinion here, Wesley said in an interview. "What they're trying to do is to direct public opinion." He sees too many lofty assessments and a "half-hearted" presentation of the downsides of Alberta Next's proposals. The fact the federal government is Liberal (rather than Conservative) gets repeatedly mentioned in these factual background briefings. The section on fiscal transfers, for example, suggests that the imbalance between the federal taxes Albertans pay and the service grants to the province be solved by getting Ottawa to drastically cut its tax rates and have the provinces raise money on their own. "That sounds great on the surface for Alberta, but this idea has been floating around for many years, and the challenge is that a lot of other provinces end up far worse off by having those tax point transfers," Wesley said. On immigration reform, Smith's panel survey suggests that Alberta refuse to fund public services for certain classes of immigrants the provincial government doesn't wish to accept. Without specifying what type of services would be withheld, and to which immigrants, it could serve to harm newcomers in Alberta and inflame sentiments around them while blaming them for housing affordability and unemployment woes, said immigration lawyer Maureen Silcoff. "What we don't want is for governments to be putting forward rhetoric that further creates divisions in society," said Silcoff, a law professor at Toronto Metropolitan University. Alberta Next's video on immigration points out that denying public services to immigrants could land the province in court. What it doesn't mention is that twice before courts have told governments they cannot deny those services — in 2014 when the federal government cut a refugee health program, and last year when Quebec denied child-care subsidies to asylum seekers. The scale of all the changes Smith's surveys propose is seemingly massive. Creating a new police force, pension fund or tax-collecting body are pricey endeavours — after up to $1.5 billion in startup costs, an Alberta Revenue Agency would cost up to $750 million more per year and require as many as 5,000 new provincial workers, the video on taxation states. Other proposals, like constitutional reforms or transfer overhauls, would demand buy-in from not only Ottawa but also other provinces, without any clear trade-offs or upsides for them, Wesley said. "If the premier holds a series of referendums that end up saying Albertans want this and she's not able to deliver it, it only emboldens her political opponents on both sides — the federalists and the separatists," he said. Smith has pitched the project as a way to help reduce separatist sentiment, but might pushing these issues and accomplishing nothing make it even worse? In 2021, Kenney triggered a provincewide referendum proposing that the equalization program be removed from Canada's Constitution. Albertans endorsed the idea, but Ottawa did nothing with the outcome, and the equalization formula has not been altered since. Wesley's Common Ground opinion project surveyed Albertans and found a minority of them actually understood what the province was asking them on that equalization vote. "A lot of people thought that a yes there meant that Alberta would withdraw from equalization, which is just not possible," he said. If the province is serious about asking Albertans what they should do next or demand next, Wesley added, it should be grounded in a reality about what they can or could reasonably expect. The discussion materials the government provided to Albertans may not accomplish that. So how realistic will the conclusions Albertans inject back into this project be?
Canada Standard
2 hours ago
- Canada Standard
Daily World Briefing, June 28
Trump continues pushing Fed chair to lower interest rates U.S. President Donald Trump has continued to lob personal insults and attacks at Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell in a bid to get the central bank to lower interest rates. Frustrated with the Fed's wait-and-see attitude toward lowering interest rates, Trump has ramped up attacks against Powell in recent weeks. Earlier this week during a NATO summit in the Netherlands, Trump hurled his latest oratory grenade at the Fed chief, who the president nominated for the position eight years ago. "I think he's terrible," Trump told reporters during a press conference, referring to Powell. The president called Powell a "very average mentally person," and said the Fed chief has "a low IQ for what he does." "I think he is a very stupid person, actually," Trump said. Canadian PM says negotiations with U.S. "complex" Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Friday called the negotiations with the United States "complex" when he responded to the announcement of U.S. President Donald Trump to terminate all trade talks with Canada with potential new tariffs. "We'll continue to conduct these complex negotiations in the best interest of Canadians," Carney said to local media. "It's a negotiation." Trump announced Friday that the United States would terminate all trade talks with Canada due to Canada's digital services tax on U.S. tech companies. Canada's digital services tax on American technology companies is a direct and blatant attack on the United States, said Trump in a post on social media. Set to take effect on June 30, the digital services tax would have U.S. companies like Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb pay a three percent levy on revenue from Canadian users. Canada and the United States have been in negotiations to get Trump to lift the tariffs on Canadian goods, which have already led to major economic shrinking. U.S. Supreme Court limits injunctions against Trump's birthright citizenship order The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that district judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration's executive order to effectively end birthright citizenship. In a 6-3 vote along ideological line, Supreme Court justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by district judges. "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority, noting that "When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." However, the three liberal justices issued dissents to the decision. "Children born in the United States and subject to its laws are United States citizens," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, adding "that has been the legal rule since the founding." Iran's FM says IAEA chief's insistence on visiting bombed nuclear sites "meaningless" Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said on Friday the insistence of the United Nations nuclear watchdog's chief on visiting Iran's bombed nuclear sites is "meaningless." He made the remarks in a post on social media platform X while accusing Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi of facilitating the adoption of a resolution by the agency's Board of Governors against Tehran and the bombings of Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States and Israel. "Grossi's insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent. Iran reserves the right to take any steps in defense of its interests, its people, and its sovereignty," he said. He pointed to a recent plan approved by the Iranian parliament, and later passed into law by the country's Constitutional Council, which called for a halt in Iran's collaboration with the IAEA, adding, "This is a direct result of Grossi's regrettable role in obfuscating the fact that the agency had -- a full decade ago -- already closed all past issues (with Iran)." Grossi on Friday highlighted the necessity for IAEA inspectors to continue their verification activities in Iran, "as required under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement," according to a statement published on the agency's website. Russia, Ukraine agree to hold 3rd round of talks after prisoner exchange: Putin Russia and Ukraine have agreed to hold the third round of negotiations after completing their war prisoner exchange, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday after the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council in Minsk. Russia and Ukraine agreed to hold the third-round of talks after the completion of the exchange of prisoners of war and the transfer of bodies of dead militants, negotiated in Istanbul on June 2, Putin told reporters. Russia is ready for new round of negotiations with Ukraine in Istanbul, the president said, noting that the time and place of the third-round talks need to be agreed on. The draft memoranda between Russia and Ukraine on the settlement should become the subject of discussion during the third round of negotiations, Putin said.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Waving Canadian flag on two-way street of trade
Opinion I gave up my Friday night pizza dates with Tom Gore around the same time Donald Trump started his trade war with Canada. It was a forced breakup, but I didn't mind. Tom was my favourite wine until it was pulled from liquor store shelves as part of the federal and provincial governments' response to the imposition of tariffs on U.S. imports from Canada. There's been so much background noise in the aftermath that it's been hard to keep track. All I know is Tom and all his California cohorts are still in exile, and the alternatives I've found are such that I don't miss them. Apparently, I'm not alone. Sales of U.S. wine to Canada are, by some accounts, down 94 per cent, and sales of Canadian alcoholic beverages are up, probably the most noticeable effect of our collective disenchantment with our largest trading partner. An Angus Reid poll released in the early days of this muddled trading mess showed four out of five Canadians were buying more Canadian products in the face of the Trump's tariff tactics. Three out of five said they were actively boycotting products from the U.S. However, these opinions were collected in February, around the same time it was still cool to boo the American anthem at hockey games. Thankfully, we've moved on from that. It's likely Canada's aversion to anything American will also start to dissipate now that Trump's attention has shifted from making Canada the 51st state to other matters. However, an Ipsos poll released this month shows the aversion to buying U.S.-made goods has gone global. Fewer than half of respondents from 29 countries say they are likely to buy something manufactured in the U.S. According to that poll, 63 per cent of Canadians say they are unlikely to buy anything American. Food and beverages top the list of consumer goods where shoppers can vote with their dollars, thumbing their nose at Trump every time they stock up. Considering all this, it comes as no surprise to anyone — except perhaps the U.S. administration — that the U.S. agricultural trade deficit is growing instead of shrinking as was promised when it turned to taxing imports, kicking out immigrant workers critical to its own food supply and detaining tourists to 'make America great again.' Release of the USDA quarterly trade report earlier this month was reportedly delayed and stripped of its usual analysis after the original draft's authors cited tariffs and the 'buy Canadian' movement as reasons for reduced demand for U.S. agricultural goods. The redacted report forecasts a US$49.5 billion trade deficit for fiscal year 2025, an increase of US$500 million. It's living proof it's never a good idea to trash-talk your best customers. However, that's something we Canadians need to keep in mind as we explore how to navigate the tangled trade environment we face for the foreseeable future. It's always a good idea to shop local when you can. Even if it costs a little more, supporting local suppliers and businesses circulates our hard-earned dollars in our communities, creating jobs and contributing to economic growth. Our farmers no doubt appreciate the moral and financial support. Yet one of Canada's defining strengths as a nation is its status as a global supplier of food commodities. More than 50 per cent of what farmers here grow is exported either directly or indirectly. The U.S. is still our largest trading partner. More than half of Canada's agri-food imports originate in the U.S., while 60 per cent of Canada's agri-food exports are U.S.-bound. The food industries in both countries count on that cross-border trade. For that reason, the export-orientated sectors have steadfastly maintained support for rules-based trade and opposition to policy that unduly protects access to domestic markets. Trade must be a two-way street. As Canada Day approaches, waving the flag and putting Canadian foods on the table is a meaningful expression of our national pride. Our collective individual actions do make a difference. But does supporting local equate with boycotting someone else? It's a choice we all need to make. Laura Rance is executive editor, production content lead for Glacier FarmMedia. She can be reached at lrance@ Laura RanceColumnist Laura Rance is editorial director at Farm Business Communications. Read full biography Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber. Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
