US Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Donald Trump's birthright citizenship plan
Donald Trump's administration will be allowed to take steps to implement its proposal to end automatic birthright citizenship in the US following a decision by the Supreme Court.
Under the current rules, nearly anyone born on US territory has automatic citizenship rights - commonly known as "birthright citizenship".
But, on his first day back in the White House, Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending that right.
A series of lawsuits followed, with district courts issuing nationwide injunctions aiming to block the order from taking effect.
The Supreme Court on Friday voted 6-3 to allow the Trump administration to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by judges so that they apply only to states, groups and individuals that sued.
This means the birthright citizenship proposal can likely move forward at least in part in the states that challenged it, as well as those that did not.
The US president responded with a post on Truth Social by welcoming the ruling.
"Giant win in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the scamming of our immigration process."
The Supreme Court decision was on cases filed in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state.
The policy remains blocked for now in one additional state, New Hampshire, as a result of a separate lawsuit that is not before the Supreme Court.
The decision does not address the legal merits of the policy, but only whether judges had the authority to put it on hold across the entire country.
As a result of the ruling, the proposal can potentially move forward nationwide, although individuals could still file their own lawsuits at state level. Those currently challenging the policy could also still reinstate injunctions which are less broad in scope.
Mr Trump's plan has the backing of 21 other states.
His administration has battled against judges who have issued nationwide injunctions in response to a bold and aggressive use of executive power to implement a controversial agenda, including ramping up deportations, downsizing federal agencies, targeting law firms and universities and firing thousands of federal employees.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
Please refresh the page for the latest version.
You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A shadow Fed chief could lead to a ‘revolt' on the FOMC against Powell's successor, former vice chair warns
Former Federal Reserve Vice Chair Alan Blinder said naming a so-called shadow Fed chief well before Jerome Powell's term is up would sow confusion in financial markets and even set up a potential revolt against the eventual chair. Wall Street analysts also it is a self-defeating idea that would sink the U.S. dollar and Treasury bonds. Naming a so-called shadow chair for the Federal Reserve well before Jerome Powell is due to step down as the top central banker could blow up spectacularly. President Donald Trump said earlier this month his pick to replace Powell is coming 'very soon,' and on Friday even vowed to tap someone who will do what he has been pressuring the Fed to do for months. 'If I think somebody's going to keep the rates where they are or whatever, I'm not going to put them in,' Trump said. 'I'm going to put somebody that wants to cut rates.' That's after repeated insults and name-calling directed at Powell, who has held off on lowering rates, citing the resilient economy and the risk that Trump's own tariffs could reaccelerate inflation. Powell's term as chair expires in May 2026, and the typical transition to a new one is about three to four months, meaning a replacement pick would be named as soon as January under normal circumstances. By naming a new chair well before that, the nominee could in theory jawbone markets into easing financial conditions, such as lowering bond yields, before taking office and undermine Powell's messaging in his final months. But in practice, the result could be chaos. Princeton professor Alan Blinder, who served as the Fed's vice chair in the 1990s, told CNN that a shadow chair is 'an absolutely horrible idea' because markets would have to sort through potentially very different stances at the same time. 'If they're not singing from the same playbook, which seems likely, this is just going to cause confusion in markets,' he warned. Similarly, Michael Brown, senior research strategist at Pepperstone, said in a note that a shadow chair would be self-defeating and create 'chaotic policy rhetoric, thus further weakening policy transmission.' And the perception of greater political influence over the Fed is likely to result in accelerated outflows from both the U.S. dollar and Treasury bonds, pushing yields and other borrowing costs higher. 'Lastly, and probably of most annoyance for Trump, is that all of this nonsense actually makes the bar for the Fed to deliver a rate cut even higher, given mounting external pressure, and a desire to preserve policy independence,' Brown added. Fed officials make a point of sticking to central banking and not opining on politics, White House policies, or bills in Congress. On the flip side, they carefully guard the Fed's reputation for being independent from political pressure. Blinder flagged the risk that a shadow Fed chair would set up a big showdown in the usually consensus-driven Federal Open Market Committee, which sets rates. 'If he or she contradicts what Powell is saying, that will aggravate the FOMC, almost all of whose members will still be there when the new chair takes over,' he explained to CNN. 'It opens the door to an open or silent revolt against the chair, which is a rare thing in Fed history.' A schism is already emerging at the Fed. Trump-appointed governors Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman have said a rate cut in July could be justified, while Powell and other policymakers have said more months of data are necessary to make such a call. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent downplayed the idea of a shadow Fed chair in an interview on CNBC on Friday, but also pointed out that Adriana Kugler's term as Fed governor expires in early 2026. 'So there is a chance that the person who is going to become the chair could be appointed in January, which would probably mean an October, November nomination,' he said. This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate bill's Medicaid cuts draw some GOP angst
The Senate's deep cuts to Medicaid in the tax and spending megabill are setting off alarm bells among some Republicans, complicating leadership's effort to get the legislation passed by July 4. It seeks to clamp down on two tactics states use to boost Medicaid funding to hospitals: state-directed payments and Medicaid provider taxes. The restrictions are a major concern for rural hospitals, a key constituency for senators. Republicans have set an ambitious July 4 deadline to pass the bill and send it to President Trump to be signed into law. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has been warning his colleagues about making cuts to Medicaid for weeks, said the changes took him by surprise. 'I had no idea that they were going to completely scrap the House framework with this. I mean, this totally caught me by surprise. And I've talked to other senators, and that's what I've heard consistently from everybody I've talked to, that no one was expecting this entirely new framework,' Hawley told reporters Tuesday. States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then direct back to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements. Critics argue it's a scheme for states to get more federal funding without spending any of their own money. But provider taxes have become ingrained into states' Medicaid financing systems. States and provider groups say the taxes provide a steady source of financing for hospitals that operate on thin margins and would otherwise face closure. 'The draconian Medicaid cuts contained in the Senate bill would devastate health care access for millions of Americans and hollow out the vital role essential hospitals play in their communities,' said Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals, an organization that represents hospitals that serve low-income patients. The legislation would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The cap would be phased in by lowering it 0.5 percent annually, starting in 2027. Nonexpansion states would be prohibited from imposing new taxes, but as was true in the House-passed version, their rates would be frozen at current levels. The lower cap would not apply to nursing homes or intermediate care facilities. All states except for Alaska finance part of their share of Medicaid funding through health care provider taxes, and 38 states have at least one provider tax that exceeds 5.5 percent. When asked if his concerns were enough to make him vote against the bill if it were brought to the floor as written, Hawley hedged. 'It needs a lot of work, so I would say maybe we could, I guess, try to fix it on the floor, but it'd be better to do it beforehand,' he told reporters. Republicans can afford to lose only three votes in the Senate and still pass their bill if Democrats remain united in opposition. Sen. Jim Justice ( said he was also surprised by the Senate's change. If provider tax changes are on the table, he said he wants leadership to keep the House version. Justice wouldn't say how he would vote if the provision was left unchanged but expressed some unease about the July 4 deadline. 'I promise you, I won't rubber-stamp anything,' Justice said. 'I want this thing to come out and come out quickly, but when it really boils right down to it, you may have to hold your nose on some things that you just absolutely don't like because we can't like everything.' Similarly, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) indicated he would also prefer the House-passed freeze on provider taxes but was still analyzing the impact on his state. Louisiana expanded Medicaid in 2016. Senate Republican leaders huddled with members Tuesday during a closed-door caucus lunch to talk through the details of the bill. Speaking to reporters afterward, Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said leadership was listening to members' concerns, especially about provider taxes. 'We think [the changes] rebalance the program in a way that provides the right incentives to cover the people who are supposed to be covered,' Thune said. 'We continue to hear from members specifically on components or pieces of the bill they want to see modified or changed, and we are working through that.' Members were also briefed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, who downplayed the impact of a lower provider tax cap. 'We do not believe that addressing the provider tax effort is going to influence the ability of hospitals to stay viable,' Oz told reporters. Without weighing in on the exact details, Oz said some changes to provider taxes and state-directed payments should be included. 'The framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill, it should be in this bill,' Oz said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill' clears key Senate hurdle. CNN reporter breaks down how we got here
After an hours-long push by Senate GOP leaders Saturday, President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" cleared a key procedural vote, 51-49. The vote allows the Senate to begin debating Trump's multitrillion-dollar bill, which would lower federal taxes and bring cuts to Medicaid.
