US Supreme Court curbs nationwide injunctions against Trump
The US Supreme Court has ruled on Friday that judges on federal courts lack the authority to grant what is known as nationwide injunctions. President Donald Trump has had one after another of his policy initiatives blocked by judges issuing the injunctions.
The specific case before the court had to do with what is known as birthright citizenship, which allows anyone born on US soil to automatically become a citizen regardless of their parents' immigration status.
Trump signed an order on his first day in office to revoke the right for certain people. Those include babies whose mothers are in the country illegally or temporarily, as well as children whose fathers are not US citizens or permanent residents.
The court's decision limits the ability of federal judges to issue rulings that apply nationwide. It specifies that Trump's order cannot take effect for 30 days, but it didn't address the constitutionality of the order.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
22 minutes ago
- Japan Times
They voted for Trump. Most still back him — but not on everything
From her corner of the United States near Houston, Texas, stay-at-home mother Loretta Torres, 38, admires President Donald Trump's confidence and bargaining style. She has no complaints with his presidency. In Des Moines, Iowa, Lou Nunez, an 83-year-old U.S. Army veteran, has been horrified by Trump's cuts to federal agencies, whipsaw tariff announcements, and crackdowns on protesters. Terry Alberta, 64, a pilot in southwestern Michigan, supports most of Trump's policies but he thinks some of the slashed federal spending might have to be restored and he dislikes the president's demeanor. "I get really frustrated with him when he starts calling people names and just saying crazy things,' he said. Although they all helped elect Trump in November, Torres, Nunez and Alberta have very different reactions to his presidency so far. They are among 20 Trump voters interviewed monthly since February about the president's dramatic changes to the United States' government, trade policy and immigration enforcement, among other issues. Nunez and one of the other 20 voters now regret casting a ballot for the president. Torres and four others say they fully support his administration. But most — like Alberta — fall somewhere in between. The 20 voters were selected from 429 respondents to a February 2025 Ipsos poll who said they voted for Trump in November and were willing to speak to a reporter. They are not a statistically representative portrait of all Trump voters, but their ages, educational backgrounds, races/ethnicities, locations and voting histories roughly corresponded to those of Trump's overall electorate. Even monthly check-ins cannot always keep pace with the breakneck news cycle under Trump. Reporters most recently interviewed the group in May, before Trump deployed U.S. service members to Los Angeles and other cities to quell widespread protests against the administration's immigration crackdown and prior to tensions erupting with Iran. Loretta Torres, a stay at home mom who voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election, at her home in Baytown, Texas | REUTERS Trump's efforts to tighten border security were most popular among the group. Describing their concerns about the administration, these voters most often cited the economic uncertainty triggered by Trump's federal cuts and tariffs. That tracks with the latest Ipsos-Reuters poll findings, which show Trump polling below his overall approval rating on the economy, and above it on immigration. Recent polls also show that Americans who helped elect Trump to his second term overwhelmingly like what they see so far. In a six-day Ipsos-Reuters poll that concluded on June 16, 9 out of 10 respondents who said they voted for Trump in November also said they approved of his performance in office so far. "I like the way he portrays himself as being a strong leader," said Torres. "It makes us look stronger to other countries." White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement that Trump had delivered on his campaign promises by reducing U.S. border crossings to historic lows and keeping inflation lower than expected. "The Administration is committed to building on these successes by slashing the waste, fraud, and abuse in our government and leveling the playing field for American industries and workers with more custom-made trade deals," Desai said. 'Anxiety is the buzzword' Most of the 20 voters interviewed say they now have qualms about some of Trump's most extreme measures. Brandon Neumeister, 36, a Pennsylvania state corrections worker and former National Guardsman, said he disagreed with a May request by the Department of Homeland Security for 20,000 National Guard members to help detain illegal immigrants. "To deploy troops on American soil in American cities, I think that sends a very severe message,' he said. Pilot Terry Alberta at the West Michigan Regional Airport, in Holland, Michigan | REUTERS Neumeister voted for Trump hoping for lower prices and inflation, and said he knows it will take time for the president's economic policies to yield results. But people close to him have lost jobs as a result of Trump downsizing the federal government, and several friends of his are anxious about losing pensions or health care due to budget cuts at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. "Anxiety is the buzzword for everything right now,' Neumeister said, adding that it was "hard to say' whether he's glad Trump is president. Federal workforce reductions are also wearing on Robert Billups, 34, an accountant in Washington state currently searching for his next job. He has seen federal positions disappear from job sites, and he frequently gets worried calls from his mother, who is a contractor with the Internal Revenue Service. "This is more than my mom has ever reached out to me. I feel like it's freaking her out,' he said. Ethical concerns Several Trump voters in the group also said they were uneasy about actions by Trump that critics say overstep his presidential authority. Don Jernigan, 74, a retiree in Virginia Beach, said he likes the outcomes of most of Trump's policies but not the way he sometimes pushes them through, such as his record number of executive orders or his imposition of tariffs on other countries, a power that Jernigan says belongs to Congress. Nor does he like the fact that Trump accepted a jet given to the United States by Qatar, which Jernigan views as an enemy nation. "Trump works off of ideas. He doesn't work off of principles. He has no principles,' Jernigan said. Overall, however, he thinks Trump is protecting U.S. borders and deterring threats against the nation better than the other candidates for president would have. Veteran Lou Nunez outside his home in Pleasant Hill, Iowa | REUTERS Trump's acceptance of the Qatari jet also struck Amanda Taylor, 51, an insurance firm employee near Savannah, Georgia, as potentially unethical. "It just seems a little like he can do whatever he wants to without repercussion,' she said. Taylor, who voted for former U.S. President Joe Biden in 2020, says it is too early to tell yet whether Trump is an improvement. She likes Trump's pledges to deport criminals and gang members. But she has been most closely watching economic indicators, especially interest rates, because she and her husband closed on a new house this month. Changes they hope to see Among Trump voters with fewer complaints about the president's second term, there are still areas where they hope to see some change. David Ferguson, 53, hoped the Trump administration would revitalize U.S. manufacturing, and so far he is "pleased with the groundwork' and "at least the direction that they're communicating.' At the industrial supply company in western Georgia where he works as a mechanical engineer and account manager, Ferguson has seen Trump's tariffs drive up prices on a range of products, from roller bearings to food-processing equipment. He does not expect the prices to fall as quickly as they've risen. Ferguson would like the administration to offer tax incentives to companies like his that are making it possible for more things to be made in the United States. "It would help encourage businesses that are already domesticating manufacturing and give them some relief from the tariffs, kind of reward their good behavior,' he said. Several other Trump voters voiced support for a policy that might surprise left-leaning voters: a clearer legal immigration pathway for aspiring Americans who are law-abiding and want to contribute to the U.S. economy. Gerald Dunn, 66, is a martial-arts instructor in New York's Hudson Valley and "middle-of-the-road' voter who said he is frustrated by extremism in both U.S. political parties. Dunn said he knows people who have tried to enter the United States legally but encountered "horrendous' red tape. People with skills and stable employment offers could become "assets to the country" instead of liabilities if it were easier for them to immigrate, Dunn said. In Charlotte, North Carolina, engineer Rich Somora, 61, said he supports Trump's efforts to deport criminals but he also recognizes that immigrants are increasingly doing key jobs that U.S. citizens don't want to do, such as building construction. "If somebody's contributing, give them a pathway, you know? I got no problem with that,' Somora said.
an hour ago
イランに「孤独ではない」 旧ソ連経済同盟が首脳会議
After the Supreme Court issued a ruling that limits the ability of federal judges to issue universal injunctions — but didn't rule on the legality of President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship — immigrant rights groups are trying a new tactic by filing a national class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two immigrant rights organizations whose members include people without legal status in the U.S. who "have had or will have children born in the United States after February 19, 2025," according to court documents. One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, William Powell, senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, says his colleagues at CASA, Inc. and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project think that, with the class action approach "we will be able to get complete relief for everyone who would be covered by the executive order." The strategic shift required three court filings: one to add class allegations to the initial complaint; a second to move for class certification; and a third asking a district court in Maryland to issue "a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction asking for relief for that putative class," Powell said. In the amended complaint, filed two hours after the Supreme Court's ruling, the immigrant rights attorneys said that Trump's effort to ban birthright citizenship, if allowed to stand, "would throw into doubt the citizenship status of thousands of children across the country." "The Executive Order threatens these newborns' identity as United States citizens and interferes with their enjoyment of the full privileges, rights, and benefits that come with U.S. citizenship, including calling into question their ability to remain in their country of birth," reads the complaint. Rights groups and 22 states had asked federal judges to block President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. Issued on his first day in office, the executive order states, "the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States." But after three federal district court judges separately blocked Trump's order, issuing universal injunctions preventing its enforcement nationwide, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block universal injunctions altogether. The Supreme Court did not rule on the birthright issue itself. But after the ruling, Trump called it a "monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law," in a briefing at the White House. The president said the ruling means his administration can now move forward with his efforts to fundamentally reshape longstanding U.S. policy on immigration and citizenship. Friday's ruling quickly sparked questions about how the dispute over birthright citizenship will play out now — and how the ruling on universal injunctions might affect other efforts to push back on executive policies, under President Trump and future presidents. "Nationwide injunctions have been an important tool to prevent blatantly illegal and unconstitutional conduct," the National Immigrant Justice Center's director of litigation, Keren Zwick, said in a statement sent to NPR. The decision to limit such injunctions, she said, "opens a pathway for the president to break the law at will." Both Zwick and Powell emphasized that the Supreme Court did not rule on a key question: whether Trump's executive order is legal. At the White House, Attorney General Pam Bondi would not answer questions about how the order might be implemented and enforced. "This is all pending litigation," she said, adding that she expects the Supreme Court to take up the issue this fall. "We're obviously disappointed with the result on nationwide injunctions," Powell said. But, he added, he believes the Supreme Court will ultimately quash Trump's attack on birthright citizenship. "The executive order flagrantly violates the 14th Amendment citizenship clause and Section 1401a of the Immigration and Nationality Act," Powell said, "both of which guarantee birthright citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States, with only narrow exceptions for ambassadors [and] invading armies." The court's ruling set a 30-day timeframe for the policy laid out in Trump's executive order to take effect. "The Government here is likely to suffer irreparable harm from the District Courts' entry of injunctions that likely exceed the authority conferred by the Judiciary Act," a syllabus, or headnote, of the Supreme Court's ruling states. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also discusses the differences between "complete relief " and "universal relief." "Here, prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship," Barrett wrote. "Extending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete." In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling suggests that constitutional guarantees might not apply to anyone who isn't a party to a lawsuit. The concept of birthright citizenship has deep roots, dating to the English common law notion of jus soli ("right of the soil"). The doctrine was upended for a time in the U.S. by the Supreme Court's notorious Dred Scott ruling. Current legal standing for birthright citizenship in the U.S. extends back to the 1860s, when the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was ratified, stating, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." "Any executive order purporting to limit birthright citizenship is just as unconstitutional today as it was yesterday," Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, told NPR. "There is nothing substantively in the decision that undercuts those lower court opinions. The opinion just undercuts the tools available to the courts to enforce that constitutional mandate." Copyright 2025 NPR
Yomiuri Shimbun
2 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Public Assistance Ruling: Govt Bears Heavy Responsibility for Failing to Justify Reductions
Public assistance is an essential system for ensuring that people in need can live with peace of mind. A court ruling emphasized the need for careful consideration when changing the amount of benefits in the system. In lawsuits filed by recipients who argued that significant reductions in welfare benefits violated the Public Assistance Law, the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the reductions were illegal and ordered cancellation of the cuts. The ruling has become finalized. Similar lawsuits have been filed in 29 district courts nationwide, and this ruling sets a precedent for those cases. The central and local governments will likely need to recalculate appropriate amounts not only for the plaintiffs in the lawsuits but also for all other recipients at the time of the cuts. The standard amounts for welfare benefits serve as a benchmark for other support programs, such as reductions and exemptions for childcare fees and national pension insurance premiums. These programs may also be affected. The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry announced cuts of up to 10% in the standard amounts for food and utilities support welfare benefits during a period from 2013 to 2015, resulting in a total reduction of ¥67 billion. This measure was said to be to respond to the declines in prices and wages following the 2008 collapse of U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers. The main point of contention in the litigations was the appropriateness of the 'deflation adjustment' reflecting the rate of price declines. The Supreme Court said that 'the revised rates in the deflation adjustment based solely on the rates of price fluctuations lacked consistency with expert knowledge,' concluding that 'the health, labor and welfare minister's judgment exceeded or abused discretion and was therefore illegal.' As for the series of the lawsuits, the cuts were ruled illegal in seven cases at the high court level. The government is considered to have broad discretionary authority, and courts generally tend to respect its judgment. In that sense, the top court's strict ruling can be described as significant. The review of public assistance was carried out after the Liberal Democratic Party included it in its campaign pledges for the 2012 House of Representatives election. Is there any suspicion that the calculations were distorted to achieve a predetermined reduction? The government should reexamine the decision-making process for the reductions and fulfill its accountability to the public. Welfare benefits in the public assistance program are received by 1.65 million households, half of which are single-person elderly households. The number of applications for welfare benefits has increased for five consecutive years, probably because more households find it difficult to make ends meet due to the COVID-19 pandemic and rising prices. The Constitution states, 'All people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living,' and imposes on the state the duty to protect this right. Since reductions in welfare benefits directly affect people's lives, clear reasons for cuts are necessary. The government must enhance the transparency of the system. (From The Yomiuri Shimbun, June 28, 2025)
