Trump and Bondi Say Supreme Court Ruling Will Unblock Agenda
President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters Friday that the Supreme Court's decision limiting nationwide court injunctions—which took the legs out of what has been one of the few checks on Trump's executive authority—will enable the Trump Administration to enact its policies more quickly. The ruling from the high court's conservative majority curtailed lower courts' power to block Trump's policies nationwide, largely wiping away a bulwark that has prevented some of the President's most aggressive actions from going into effect.
'Thanks to this decision we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous polices that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' Trump said during a press conference at the White House following the ruling. 'These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' he added, calling the federal judges who have stood in his way 'absolutely crazy, radical left judges.'
For months, federal courts have slowed Trump's efforts to expand the use of presidential authority in order to eliminate federal agencies, slash the federal workforce, speed up deportations, and redefine who gets American citizenship at birth. The judicial pushback has been a rare source of restraint on the President's agenda from within the government, as Republicans in control of both the House and Senate have not defended Congressional authority over federal funding.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned Friday that the Supreme Court decision is a 'terrifying step toward authoritarianism' and 'a grave danger to our democracy.'
Among the initiatives Trump will try to push forward now that the obstacle of nationwide injunctions has been removed is his directive to deny citizenship to people born inside the U.S., he said. Trump issued an executive order on his first day in office attempting to redefine who should be recognized as a U.S. citizen at birth, challenging a precedent that has been settled law since 1898. Trump's order was blocked nationwide by district court rulings. But the Supreme Court ruled Friday that such court injunctions would only apply in the part of the country where they originated, which could lead to citizenship being granted differently depending where in the U.S. someone is born.
The Supreme Court will consider in October the broader question of whether Trump has the authority to redefine the 127-year-old interpretation of citizenship established by the court itself. In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which states that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States' are citizens of the country, guaranteed the citizenship of a Chinese-American cook named Wong Kim Ark. After a trip to China, immigration officials tried to deny Wong entry back into the U.S. under the Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred Chinese nationals from migrating to the U.S. at the time. But the court confirmed in a 6-to-2 decision that Wong was a citizen by birth, setting a precedent that birthright citizenship in the U.S. is universal.
Trump wants to unwind that precedent. The 14th Amendment was ratified in the wake of the Civil War to clarify who had citizenship rights and equal protection under U.S. law. Trump said the constitutional amendment wasn't designed to broadly define citizenship by birth and instead was 'meant for the babies of slaves.' Birthright citizenship 'wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation,' Trump said at the White House on Friday.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said that the Supreme Court decision against nationwide injunctions will give federal authorities a freer hand to deport people suspected of being gang members. Courts have repeatedly ruled that the Trump Administration has overstepped its authority by deporting people without first presenting evidence to a court that they are public safety threats. "You should all feel safer now that President Trump can deport all of these gangs, and not one district court judge can think they're an emperor over this administration, his executive powers and why the people of the United States elected him,' Bondi said.
In March, the Trump Administration deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador more than 230 Venezuelans from the U.S. that it said were members of a Venezuelan gang called Tren de Aragua. But the Administration has not shown evidence to a court or the public that all of those men were gang members or posed a threat to public safety that merits their being imprisoned in another country. On Friday, Bondi said similar arrests have been carried out much more broadly: The Trump Administration, she said, had arrested 2,711 people it says are Tren de Aragua gang members. The Supreme Court's decision to hem in the lower courts may allow Trump to expand his immigration crackdown with even fewer checks on his power.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
32 minutes ago
- Fox News
University of Virginia president resigns amid pressure from Trump admin over DEI initiatives
The University of Virginia president stepped down on Friday after facing intense pressure from the Trump administration over the institution's diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. James E. Ryan, who had led the school since 2018, said he had already decided that next year would be his last and decided not to "fight the federal government in order to save my own job" until then. To make a long story short, I am inclined to fight for what I believe in, and I believe deeply in this University," Ryan wrote to the UVA community on Friday. "But I cannot make a unilateral decision to fight the federal government in order to save my own job. To do so would not only be quixotic but appear selfish and self-centered to the hundreds of employees who would lose their jobs, the researchers who would lose their funding, and the hundreds of students who could lose financial aid or have their visas withheld." "This is especially true because I had decided that next year would be my last, for reasons entirely separate from this episode—including the fact that we concluded our capital campaign and have implemented nearly all of the major initiatives in our strategic plan," he continued. Robert D. Hardie, leader of the University of Virginia's governing board, said in a statement he accepted Ryan's resignation with "profound sadness," adding that he had been an "extraordinary president," led the institution to "unprecedented heights" and that the university "has forever been changed for the better as a result of Jim's exceptional leadership." This comes after the Trump administration had privately demanded that the university remove Ryan to help resolve a Justice Department probe into the institution's DEI practices, according to The New York Times. The Justice Department argued that Ryan had failed to dismantle the school's DEI programs and misrepresented the steps taken to eliminate them, amid the administration's efforts to root out DEI in higher education, the newspaper reported. The federal government's moves targeting higher education include pulling billions of dollars from elite universities such as Harvard, which has been the subject of investigations by various agencies over issues such as DEI initiatives, admissions practices and alleged antisemitism on campus. But this was the first time the administration had pressured a university to remove its president. "That sham virtue signaling of DEI has no place in our country, and the Trump administration is working tirelessly to erase this divisive, backward, and unjust practice from our society," White House spokesman Harrison Fields told Fox News Digital. "Any university president willingly breaking federal civil rights laws will be met with the full force of the federal government, and it would behoove every school in America to prioritize the civil rights of every student and end DEI once and for all," he continued. Ryan had focused on increasing diversity at the university, bringing in more first-generation students and encouraging community service. These efforts had ruffled the feathers of conservative alumni and Republican board members who argued he was "too woke" and wanted to impose his beliefs on students. Before his time as the university's president, Ryan served as the dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, where he received recognition for his commitment to DEI programs. In a joint statement, Virginia's Democratic senators said it was "outrageous" that the administration would demand Ryan's resignation over "'culture war' traps." "Decisions about UVA's leadership belong solely to its Board of Visitors, in keeping with Virginia's well-established and respected system of higher education governance," Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine said. "This is a mistake that hurts Virginia's future." Conservative groups have lambasted Ryan for what they regard as insufficient steps toward compliance with the administration's plans to eliminate DEI. America First Legal, a nonprofit launched by Trump advisor Stephen Miller, accused the University of Virginia last month of rebranding DEI programs to skirt Trump's executive orders aimed at ending diversity initiatives. "Rebranding discrimination does not make it legal, and changing a label doesn't change the substance," Megan Redshaw, an attorney at America First Legal, said in a statement at the time. "UVA's use of sanitized language and recycled job titles is a deliberate attempt to sidestep the law." The group took direct aim at Ryan, noting that he joined hundreds of other college presidents in signing a public statement condemning the administration's "overreach and political interference." On Friday, the group vowed to continue to use every available tool to root out DEI. "This week's developments make clear: public universities that accept federal funds do not have a license to violate the Constitution," Redshaw said in a statement to The Associated Press. "They do not get to impose ideological loyalty tests, enforce race and sex-based preferences, or defy lawful executive authority."
Miami Herald
34 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
County leaders mostly silent after arrest of woman objecting to ICE deal in Miami-Dade
A day after a 36-year-old real estate agent was dragged out of the Miami-Dade County Commission chambers by plain-clothed officers during a public meeting, the elected officials who watched it happen are mostly keeping mum on what they saw. The Miami Herald requested statements from the county's 13 commissioners and Mayor Daniella Levine Cava, who until January oversaw a county police force that's now under the control of an elected sheriff. No commissioner offices provided statements. Levine Cava did, but the message did not directly address the police response that landed Camila Ramos in jail overnight on felony charges after a brief and tense exchange with the sheriff's deputies that serve as plain-clothed sergeants-at-arms during commission meetings. VIDEO: Officers drag woman out of Miami-Dade meeting during ICE discussion Ramos had intended to speak on a modified agreement between the county's jails system and Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the allotted public comment portion of the meeting but was removed while attempting to ask a question about the rules after an officer had warned her not to speak. 'It was unfortunate that yesterday's meeting escalated the way it did when people were there simply to make their voices heard,' Levine Cava said. 'Public input is an essential part of an accessible, accountable local government and as elected officials we should encourage all residents to exercise their right to participate.' The Herald also requested a statement from Sheriff Rosie Cordero-Stutz, the veteran county police administrator who in November won the county's first sheriff election since the 1950s under a change mandated by Florida's Constitution. The Sheriff's Office has not released a statement but did provide arrest reports alleging a deputy saw Ramos punch an officer while being dragged to the chamber doors. Ramos was heard denying to an officer that she had punched her — or that if she had, it was inadvertent. Video of the ejection showed officers with hands on both of Ramos' arms and, at one point, also on her hair and foot. Less than two minutes passed between when a sergeant-at-arms first took hold of Ramos' arm near the microphone that members of the public use to address commissioners to when she was dragged out of the chamber doors by officers, her hand briefly grasping the arm of her husband, who was there to speak as well. 'I'm trying to understand the process,' Ramos said as the two sergeants took hold of her arms and started pulling her toward the exits. 'You're ejecting me?' Video shows Ramos dragging her feet and then falling to the ground while the sergeants still held her arms. They then began dragging her while her body remained in contact with the floor. 'I deserve to know the process,' she said. 'Let me go of me.' While commissioners have kept quiet on the incident, some politicians are sharing their views. Ken Russell, a former Miami commissioner running for city mayor, said on social media: 'Being silent is a message in itself…ANY elected [official] can speak up to allow someone to be heard or to stop an ejection.' Surfside Mayor Charles Burkett sent an email Friday morning to town administrators urging them to make sure Surfside could avoid that kind of incident. 'This is really bad. I can't think of any good reason why a situation like this ought to evolve with a woman on the floor with two very strong police around her,' Burkett wrote. 'We must never allow something like this to happen under our watch.' Ramos was released from the Turner Guilford Knight jail on Friday after posting bond for two felony charges, including battery against an officer. The arrest report shows uniformed deputies who helped take her out of the chambers were wearing body cameras, but that footage hasn't yet been released. It could prove crucial in her criminal case because a uniformed deputy wrote in the report that he witnessed Ramos strike a sergeant-at-arms in the face. While Ramos hasn't spoken publicly, supporters on Friday held a press conference outside of County Hall to denounce what happened to her. 'Her flailing may have mistakenly grazed an officer,' Juan Cuba, director of Sheriff Accountability Action, an advocacy group. 'I don't see in any video evidence it was battery.' He urged the county's elected officials to denounce what happened in the chambers Thursday. Cuba, a longtime Miami activist, is married to one of Levine Cava's top aides, Deputy Chief of Staff Rachel Johnson. Video of the meeting showed the confrontation began during a confusing moment in the session. While commissioners were scheduled to vote on a modification of the county's existing ICE agreement, there was a last-minute move to delay that vote indefinitely. As Chair Anthony Rodriguez explained the plan to the audience, he also outlined speaking rules that seemed to contradict guidelines from the county's top lawyer. Rodriguez told the audience they had a right to speak on the ICE item. At that point, Ramos was standing in an area near the lecterns where members of the public typically wait their turn for their allotted time at the microphones. While the audience members could still speak on the item about to be deferred, Rodriguez said, doing so would mean the public wouldn't have the chance to address commissioners if the item ever came up for an actual vote at a future meeting. 'Even if just one person speaks,' he said, 'then public hearing has been had on this item. And if it resurfaces, there will be no opportunity to speak on this item again.' Those instructions appeared more restrictive than guidance provided by County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan a couple of minutes earlier. Asked by Rodriguez how to handle the list of people signed up to speak about the ICE item at Thursday's meeting, the top lawyer outlined a procedure where people wanting to speak Thursday could line up for the microphones and those who chose to stay seated could address commissioners if the item came up at a future meeting. 'I would just start calling the names,' Bonzon-Keenan said. 'And those that wish to speak can stand up. And those that don't stand up, they can come back and speak at the appropriate time when the matter is under consideration.' Those conflicting rules were what faced Ramos as she waited for her allotted 60 seconds before commissioners, with a paper of prepared remarks in her hand. Video showed she was approached by sergeant-at-arms and a disagreement followed, with Ramos pointed toward the dais. Soon, two sergeants had her by the arms and pulled her away as the audience chanted 'Let her go!' and 'Let her speak!'
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Few thought airstrikes could ‘obliterate' Iran's nuclear program. Then Trump said they did.
Experts long argued that airstrikes alone would not be capable of permanently ending Iran's nuclear program absent negotiations. WASHINGTON — A highly politicized debate is unfolding over the impact of June 21 U.S. airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, raising questions over the attack's goal and projected impact. President Donald Trump quickly claimed total victory in the strikes' wake, claiming that Iran's 'key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' Subsequent scrutiny of that claim amid early assessments from intelligence agencies has led Trump and his allies to double down on and even expand on his declarations of success. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed to CNN that the strikes 'obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.' Iran itself has acknowledged the impact of the U.S. and Israeli attacks. But in the years since Washington's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, experts and analysts have emphasized that airstrikes alone would merely delay Iran's nuclear ambitions rather than permanently derail them. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Illinois, reiterated that long-held understanding in a June 26 interview. 'The targets are hard targets, deep targets, mobile targets. So it was never meant to eliminate the program,' Quigley told USA TODAY. 'It was never meant to do anything but slow the program.' The congressman, who is on the House's intelligence committee and has regularly received briefings on Iran, added, 'We've always been told . . . the only way to end this (nuclear) program is with a lot of troops on the ground for a long time. A war.' The former head of the National Nuclear Security Agency's nonproliferation programs, Corey Hinderstein, struck a similar tone. 'The conventional wisdom that you can't destroy the Iranian (nuclear) program through air attack alone has actually held,' said Hinderstein, now a vice president at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'While some are saying that the airstrikes were tactically and strategically successful, I think that the jury is still out on that, and we don't actually have the information that we need to believe that this program is gone.' Third nuclear site, hidden centrifuges, missing uranium Iran may have another nuclear site that, if equipped with enrichment centrifuges and conversion equipment, could continue the process of preparing uranium for use in a nuclear bomb, if the regime wishes to pursue one. Shortly before Israel began its air campaign against Iran, the regime told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had a third nuclear enrichment site but did not reveal details. Analysts believe an undisclosed underground facility at Pickaxe Mountain near the Natanz nuclear plant may be even deeper under the surface than the Fordow enrichment plant that was severely damaged in the U.S. strikes. The Pickaxe Mountain facility was first publicly revealed in 2023 by experts who spoke with the Associated Press. And it's unclear how much of Tehran's approximately 880 pounds of highly enriched uranium was destroyed or buried during the strikes — satellite images show cargo trucks parked outside the Fordow enrichment plant in the days before the U.S. attack. U.S. lawmakers briefed June 26 and June 27 on intelligence assessments of the strikes acknowledged the missing uranium and called for a full accounting of the material, according to CNN. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told the news agency that the question of the uranium's whereabouts underscores the importance of Iran negotiating 'directly with us, so the (IAEA) can account for every ounce of enriched uranium that's there.' More: Where is Iran's enriched uranium? Questions loom after Trump claims victory. But whether Iran wants to negotiate is another question. Despite the country's obligations as a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran's Guardian Council approved a law June 25 halting the country's cooperation with the IAEA and its inspections of Tehran's nuclear sites 'until the safety and security of our nuclear activities can be guaranteed,' the country's foreign minister said on social media. Contributing: Tom Vanden Brook and Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA TODAY Davis Winkie's role covering nuclear threats and national security at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
