Federal appeals court weighs Trump birthright citizenship order as admin outlines enforcement details
The three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed this summer to hear arguments in two consolidated cases centered on the matter, O. Doe. v. Trump, and the State of New Jersey v. Trump, joining several other appeals courts in reviewing the legality of Trump's executive order.
The hearing comes roughly five weeks after the Supreme Court partially sided with the Trump administration in a case centered on the birthright citizenship order. Justices narrowed when lower courts can issue so-called "universal injunctions" blocking the president's orders from taking effect nationwide.
Trump signed his birthright citizenship executive order on his first day in office. It seeks to clarify the 14th Amendment, which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Instead, the language put forth by the Trump administration, and subsequently blocked, would have clarified that individuals born to illegal immigrant parents, or those who were here legally but on temporary non-immigrant visas, are not citizens by birthright.
The Supreme Court declined to rule on the merits, instead giving the Trump administration 30 days to outline how it would enforce the order — effectively punting the issue back to the lower courts. So far, the administration hasn't found much success there.
A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a nationwide injunction last month blocking Trump's order from taking force, and certified as a class all infants born in the U.S. who would be denied citizenship under the order.
Arguments before the First Circuit come just one week after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also blocked Trump's birthright citizenship order from taking force nationwide.
Judges on the Ninth Circuit voted 2-1 to block the order, siding with the Democratic-led states in ruling it unconstitutional.
They also ruled it "is impossible to avoid this harm" caused by the order "absent a uniform application of the citizenship clause throughout the United States," prompting them to issue the nationwide injunction.
"The district court below concluded that a universal preliminary injunction is necessary to provide the states with complete relief," U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, writing for the Ninth Circuit majority, said in the ruling.
"We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the states complete relief."
It's unclear how judges on the First Circuit will rule. But their oral arguments come days after the Trump administration detailed new specifics on how it plans to enforce its order in question.
Guidance from roughly half a dozen U.S. agencies outlines these new requirements for parents. One document published by the Social Security Administration outlines new requirements parents will need to meet to prove their child is a U.S. citizen at birth.
"With respect to citizenship, an SSN applicant may currently demonstrate U.S. citizenship by providing a birth certificate showing a U.S. place of birth," a document from SSA said.
"Once the EO takes effect, a birth certificate showing a U.S. place of birth will not be sufficient documentary evidence of U.S. citizenship for persons born after the EO takes effect."
The policy, which remains halted by the lower courts, is widely unpopular.
More than 22 U.S. states and immigrants' rights groups have sued the Trump administration to block the change to birthright citizenship, arguing in court filings that the executive order is both unconstitutional and "unprecedented."
And to date, no court has sided with the Trump administration's executive order seeking to ban birthright citizenship, though multiple district courts have blocked it, including in wake of the Supreme Court ruling, from taking effect.
This is a developing news story. Check back soon for updates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A Tunisian musician was detained in LA after living in US for a decade. His doctor wife speaks out
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Dr. Wafaa Alrashid noticed fewer of her patients were showing up for their appointments at the Los Angeles area hospital where she works as immigration raids spread fear among the Latino population she serves. The Utah-born chief medical officer at Huntington Hospital understood their fear on a personal level. Her husband Rami Othmane, a Tunisian singer and classical musician, began carrying a receipt of his pending green card application around with him. Over the past few months, immigration agents have arrested hundreds of people in Southern California, prompting protests against the federal raids and the subsequent deployment of the National Guard and Marines. Despite living in the U.S. for a decade as one of thousands of residents married to U.S. citizens, he was swept up in the crackdown. On July 13, Othmane was stopped while driving to a grocery store in Pasadena. He quickly pulled out his paperwork to show federal immigration agents. 'They didn't care, they said, 'Please step out of the car,'' Alrashid recalled hearing the officers say as she watched her husband's arrest in horror over FaceTime. Alrashid immediately jumped in her car and followed her phone to his location. She arrived just in time to see the outline of his head in the back of a vehicle driving away. 'That was probably the worst day of my life," she said. The Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration has ensnared not only immigrants without legal status but legal permanent residents like Othmane who has green cards. Some U.S. citizens have even been arrested. Meanwhile, many asylum-seekers who have regular check-in appointments are being arrested in the hallways outside courtrooms as the White House works toward its promise of mass deportations. Alrashid said her husband has been in the U.S. since 2015 and overstayed his visa, but his deportation order was dismissed in 2020. They wed in March 2025 and immediately filed for a green card. After his arrest, he was taken to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in downtown Los Angeles where he was held in a freezing cold room with 'no beds, no pillows, no blankets, no soap, no toothbrushes and toothpaste, and when you're in a room with people, the bathroom's open,' she said. The Department of Homeland Security in an emailed statement noted the expiration of his tourist visa but did not address the dismissal of the deportation order in 2020 nor his pending green card application. The agency denied any allegations of mistreatment, and said "ensuring the safety, security, and well-being of individuals in our custody is a top priority at ICE.' Alrashid said for years her husband has performed classical Arabic music across Southern California. They first met when he was singing at a restaurant. 'He's the kindest person,' Alrashid said, adding that he gave a sweater she brought him to a fellow detainee and to give others privacy, he built a makeshift barrier around the open toilet using trash bags. 'He's brought a lot to the community, a lot of people love his music," she said. More than a week after his arrest, fellow musicians, immigration advocates and activists joined Alrashid in a rally outside the facility. A few of his colleagues performed classical Arabic music, drumming loud enough that they hoped the detainees inside could hear them. Los Jornaleros del Norte musicians, who often play Spanish-language music at rallies, also were there. 'In Latin American culture, the serenade — to bring music to people — is an act of love and kindness. But in this moment, bringing music to people who are in captivity is also an act of resistance," said Pablo Alvarado, co-executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. Leading up to the rally, Alrashid was worried because she hadn't received her daily call from her husband and was told she couldn't visit him that day at the detention facility. She finally heard from him that evening. Othmane told her over the phone he was now at an immigration detention facility in Arizona, and that his left leg was swollen. 'They should ultrasound your leg, don't take a risk,' she said. Alrashid hopes to get her husband out on bail while his case is being processed. They had a procedural hearing on Thursday where the judge verified his immigration status, and have a bail bond hearing scheduled for Tuesday. Until then, she'll continue waiting for his next phone call.
USA Today
22 minutes ago
- USA Today
From marginal religious groups to mainstream Christians: Why some see a shift in Supreme Court cases
The court's first case involving a Rastafarian highlights the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history, even as more cases come from mainstream Christian groups. WASHINGTON – There have been no shortage of religious groups seeking help from the Supreme Court in recent years, including three cases last term that involved the Catholic Church. But the religion at the center of a case set for after the summer is not nearly as well represented in the population - or in the courtroom. In fact, it appears to be the first time the Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a Rastafarian. Damon Landor said his religious rights were violated when his dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by Louisiana prison guards. More: Supreme Court to decide if prison officials can be sued over inmates' religious rights Handcuffed to a chair while his dreadlocks were shaved off Landor had shown prison officials a copy of a court ruling that dreadlocks grown for religious reasons should be accommodated. But an intake guard threw the ruling in the trash and Landor was handcuffed to a chair while his knee-length locks were shaved off. The justices will decide whether Landor can sue the guards for compensation under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Landor – whose appeal was backed by more than 30 religious groups and the Justice Department − argues that monetary damages are often the only way to hold prison officials accountable when religious rights are violated. Legal experts on religion cases expect the court will side with the Rastafarian. That would be consistent not just with the high success rate of appeals the court agrees to hear from religious people, but also with the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history. Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists Most of the religious cases Richard Garnett teaches in his classes at the University of Notre Dame Law School involve smaller religious communities, including Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists. 'The story of religious freedom in America has developed through cases involving members of minority religions,' Garnett said. Other court watchers, however, say that was more true in the past than it is now. 'That's kind of a legacy view,' said Carl Esbeck, an expert on religious liberty at the University of Missouri School of Law. In fact, a 2022 study found that; since 2005, the winning religion in most Supreme Court religious cases was a mainstream Christian organization. In the past, by contrast, pro-religion outcomes more frequently favored minority or marginal religious organizations, according to the analysis by Lee Epstein at Washington University in St. Louis and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School. 'The religion clauses of the First Amendment were once understood to provide modest but meaningful protection for non-mainstream religions from discrimination by governments that favored mainstream Christian organizations, practices, or values,' they wrote. Similarly, traditionalist Christians – such as orthodox Catholics and Baptists – had been significantly less successful than other religious groups in getting accommodations from lower federal courts from 1986 to 1995, according to a study by Michael Heise of Cornell Law School and Gregory Sisk of the University of St. Thomas School of Law. But from 2006 to 2015, their disadvantage 'appeared to fade into statistical insignificance,' they wrote in 2022. The Supreme Court, they said, 'appears to be setting the stage for a more equitable and expansive protection of religious liberty.' Colorado and the gay wedding cake debate Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, agrees that the court has taken an expansive view of religious liberty protections. But he says it hasn't always been equitable. In 2018, the court said Colorado had shown "religious hostility" to a baker who didn't want to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. More: How a Supreme Court case about a gay couple's wedding cake got caught up in Israeli judicial reform But that same month, Mach said, the court upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban 'even in the face of Trump's repeated unambiguous statements condemning Islam and Muslims.' More broadly, he said, the court's 'general hostility to the separation of church and state' erodes protections for minority groups promised by the First Amendment's prohibition against the government favoring a specific religion or favoring religion in general. 'Built into that structure is necessarily a protection against the imposition by the majority of its favored religious doctrine,' he said. In February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at 'Eradicating anti-Christian Bias' and calling on agencies to eliminate the "anti-Christian weaponization of government." The administration cited that order when telling federal employees in a July 28 memo they may discuss and promote their religious beliefs in the workplace. More: Supreme Court blocks Catholic charter school in big setback for religion advocates Ruling for Amish built on to benefit other religions In June, the Supreme Court built upon a 1972 ruling for the Amish as it affirmed the religious rights of parents to remove their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being used. When deciding more than 50 years ago that Amish parents did not have to keep their children in school until age 16 as Wisconsin required, the court said those parents had an argument 'that probably few other religious groups or sects could make.' But Justice Samuel Alito left no doubt about the broader significance of Wisconsin v. Yoder in the 6-3 opinion he authored in June that sided with parents from a variety of religious backgrounds − including Roman Catholic but also Muslim, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and other faiths − who objected to the LGBTQ+ storybooks used in Maryland school district. 'Yoder is an important precedent of this Court, and it cannot be breezily dismissed as a special exception granted to one particular religious minority,' Alito wrote. More: Supreme Court sides with Maryland parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools In a 2020 speech to the conservative Federalist Society, Alito had warned that 'religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right.' He listed examples of cases he'd judged about religious minorities, including the rights of Muslim police officers to have beards, of a Jewish prisoner to organize a Torah study group and whether a Native American could keep a bear for religious services. The baker who didn't want to make a cake for a same-sex wedding and Catholic nuns who objected to insurance coverage for contraceptives 'deserve no less protection,' Alito said about more recent cases. More: Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in case about tax exemptions and religion `Clear pattern of preference for religious groups' Cornell Law School Professor Nelson Tebbe said more of the claims about religious freedom started to come from mainstream majority Christian groups as political polarization increased and as the gay rights movement picked up speed. 'Suddenly, civil libertarian groups who had been on the side of minority religions…started to realize that civil rights laws could be vulnerable to religious attacks by conservative Christians and they started to get worried,' Tebbe said. As the court has shifted its approach, he said, the justices have both granted exemptions from regulations that burden religion as well as said government must treat religious groups no differently than secular organizations when providing public benefits − such as school vouchers. 'While both of those could be seen as understandable on their own terms, when you put them together, there's a clear pattern of preference for religious groups,' he said. 'It's a pretty dramatic moment in constitutional law in this area.' Garnett, the religious freedom expert at the University of Notre Dame Law School, said the court's decisions are a reflection of the ongoing debate over how much accommodation should be given in a country with diverse religious views. 'So the fact that those cases are coming up isn't because the court sort of shifted to protecting majority groups,' he said. 'It's because events on the ground shifted. And the nature of the controversies that are served up are different.'
Boston Globe
22 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
I didn't want to need free groceries
So I share Kidder's lament that feeding the hungry is on track to be a growth industry in Donald Trump's America. The Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Experience first. Before 2009, as the son of a judge and the privileged middle class, I'd never been unemployed and in need of charity in three decades of working. I loved what I did, even though freelance writing is a constant scramble for income. I've always read a book before bed; as a freelancer, I chose only books for which I was earning a reviewer's paycheck. Advertisement When the recession and its double-digit unemployment hit, the 'subprime mortgages,' 'mortgage-backed securities,' and unregulated 'shadow banks' that underlay them — and that many Americans had never heard of — unleashed work-killing forces too devastating for individual initiative to counter. Even wealthy Harvard scrapped a lucrative project (by my bank account's standards) that I'd done for four straight summers. My then-wife's part-time job invaluably backstopped the family income. But after a year of little work and with no idea how long I'd be idle, I despaired of ever being employed again. Free groceries to stretch our household resources seemed the only responsible path, especially with a child to feed. Advertisement The other folks in St. Paul's basement made for an interesting cross-section of people. Some were fellow baby boomers. The age and dress of others suggested they were students, presumably not destitute but nevertheless on a budget as they contended with Greater Boston's formidable living costs. No one dressed in rags. (Neither did the recipients Kidder observed, which he attributes to their efforts 'to ward off disgrace' from having to seek charity.) My anxious heart beat fast during my first time at the pantry. Normally a chatterbox, I made little small talk with others. It took a number of weeks before the habitual visits and the saintly volunteers' freedom from judgment thawed some of my embarrassment. I also found psychic balm in the relief of free food for my household's budget. Not everyone adjusted as easily. At least one person at the pantry teared up at having to seek aid in public. I never saw her return. Advertisement The volunteers who set out and distributed food never questioned who we were or why we were there. Hard hearts will call that poor quality control. Those who know better, who relied on the kindness of these strangers, recognize it as mindfulness of recipients' dignity. Today, those who do such work can't fully backfill the Beautiful Bill's shrinkage of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called food stamps). Kidder notes that the national food bank network Feeding America says SNAP supplied nine times as much food as its own agency's food banks do. That the bill's backers had not just food support but the broader safety net in their sights is clear from the legislation's attaching work requirements to Medicaid. Two years ago, perhaps anticipating this dark American moment, Republican Representative Steve Scalise Yet do work. Work requirements Perhaps if our leaders saw who goes to food pantries and why — perhaps if they spent a week or two living as pantry patrons — the mythic myopia would lift from their eyes. But there are none so blind as those who will not see. Advertisement
