Latest news with #14thAmendment
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contributor: A stunning and tragic Supreme Court decision
The Supreme Court on Friday dealt a grievous blow to separation of powers by holding that federal courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions to halt unconstitutional actions by the president and the federal government. At a time when President Trump is asserting unprecedented powers, the court made it far more difficult to restrain his unconstitutional actions. The case, Trump vs. CASA, involved the president's executive order ending birthright citizenship. The first sentence of the 14th Amendment provides that '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.' In 1898, in United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that this means that everyone born in the United States, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, is a United States citizen. The court explained that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was meant to exclude just children born to soldiers in an invading army or those born to diplomats. Trump's executive order directly contradicted this precedent and our national understanding of citizenship by decreeing that only those born here to citizens or to residents with green cards are citizens too. Immediately, several federal courts issued nationwide injunctions to stop this from going into effect. Read more: Supreme Court limits judges' ability to block Trump's birthright citizenship ban But the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, said that federal courts lack the power to issue such orders. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the conservative justices, declared that such universal injunctions 'likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.' Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, put this succinctly: 'Today puts an end to the 'increasingly common' practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions.' Indeed, the court's opinion indicated that a federal court can give relief only to the plaintiffs in a lawsuit. This is a radical limit on the power of the federal courts. Nothing in any federal law or the Constitution justifies this restriction on the judicial power. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, but it made it far more difficult to stop what is a clearly unconstitutional act. The practical consequences are enormous. It would mean that to challenge the constitutionality of a presidential action or federal law a separate lawsuit will need to be brought in all 94 federal districts. It means that the law often will be different depending on where a person lives. Astoundingly, it could mean that there could be two people born in identical circumstances in different federal districts and one would be a citizen, while the other would not. This makes no sense. It will mean that the president can take an unconstitutional act and even after courts in some places strike it down, continue it elsewhere until all of the federal districts and all of the federal courts of appeals have invalidated it. In fact, the court said that a federal court can give relief only to the named plaintiff, which means that in the context of birthright citizenship each parent affected by the birthright citizenship executive order will need to sue separately. Never before has the Supreme Court imposed such restrictions on the ability of courts to provide relief against unconstitutional acts. The court holds open the possibility of class actions as a way around this. But the requirements for class action litigation are often burdensome, and the Supreme Court has consistently made it much more difficult to bring such suits. Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a powerful dissent expressed what this means. She wrote: '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. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief. That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent.' Let there be no doubt what this means; the Supreme Court has greatly reduced the power of the federal courts. And it has done so at a time when the federal judiciary may be our only guardrail to protect the Constitution and democracy. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained in her dissent, 'The Court's decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.' It is a stunning and tragic limit on the power of the courts to enforce the Constitution. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, is an Opinion Voices contributing writer. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Politics
- Economic Times
Bad news for undocumented immigrants! ICE detentions to rise as US President Donald Trump will... Details here
AP FILE - A federal agent holds handcuffs outside immigration court, May 21, 2025, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File) The US Congress is moving closer to approving a large spending package that would provide billions of dollars for immigration enforcement. This funding would help President Donald Trump carry out his campaign promise of deporting millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United immigration plans have long been a core part of his agenda. The issue was central to his 2024 presidential campaign and continues to be his strongest area of support. According to a recent NBC News poll, 51% of US adults approve of how he handles immigration, while 49% disapprove. Even without completing a border wall, illegal crossings have fallen. Trump and his team highlight this decline as a success of their broader enforcement Supreme Court recently made a ruling that allows the Trump administration to continue challenging the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship guarantees. This ruling, though limited in scope, supports Trump's push for stricter immigration plan requires major increases in immigration personnel. A House bill includes $8 billion over five years to add 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees. This would grow ICE's staff by nearly 50%. An additional $858 million is planned for bonuses to help hire and retain these agents. Border Protection could receive $2 billion more for bonuses, with up to $30,000 per new turnover has made immigration enforcement more difficult. Former ICE official Chris Musto said many agents have left their posts. He added that investigators trained for complex cases are now being redirected to routine immigration administration has also reassigned staff from other federal departments to focus on immigration cities like Los Angeles, local resistance to Trump's policies has led to the deployment of National Guard troops. Federal agents have also received support from US Marines to ensure enforcement activities say the result of new funding and staffing will lead to more public immigration raids and a visible federal presence in communities. Also Read: Squid Game Season 3 Ending: Who is Front Man and who wins the game? Here's new twist in last episode While the administration highlights arrests of people with criminal records, most enforcement actions have targeted those without any criminal convictions. Tom Homan, Trump's border policy advisor, says more agents mean more criminals will be removed from the streets. However, recent data shows most ICE arrests involve non-criminals. White House staff have reportedly pressured ICE leaders to increase daily arrests. In May, top advisor Stephen Miller demanded 3,000 detentions per urgency has led to confusion about which undocumented immigrants should be targeted. Trump initially said some workers in industries like farming and hospitality would be exempt, but that position later changed. Also Read: Reacher Season 4 Casting Update: Christopher Rodriguez-Marquette joins cast. See which role will he play Polls show divided views. Americans support targeting violent offenders but oppose workplace raids, ending asylum protections and expanding detention in Congress have largely opposed Trump's plan. Most Republicans support it, but some, like Senator Rand Paul, have called for reduced draft Senate bill includes less funding than the House version. However, after internal GOP discussions, the Senate plan is expected to match the House's.A recent report showed that 71% of ICE arrests and 67% of detainees had no criminal records. Nearly half of the 55,000 people in ICE detention in late June had no convictions or pending say Trump's enforcement efforts have shifted from targeting serious criminals to focusing on nonviolent individuals. What does Trump's deportation plan include? Trump's plan includes hiring thousands of new ICE agents, expanding detention facilities, and conducting wide-scale immigration enforcement, including detaining undocumented immigrants without criminal records. How do Americans feel about the plan? Polls show Americans support deporting violent offenders but oppose workplace raids, expanded detention, and removal of asylum protections. Views on the plan vary by political affiliation.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Bad news for undocumented immigrants! ICE detentions to rise as US President Donald Trump will... Details here
Congress is close to approving a multi-billion-dollar plan that supports President Donald Trump's mass deportation strategy. The proposed funding would increase ICE staffing, enhance enforcement and expand detention efforts. The plan has drawn support and criticism as officials debate its scope and impact on undocumented immigrants, especially those without criminal records. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Immigration Remains Key Focus Supreme Court Ruling How much ICE Funding is Required? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Agencies Struggle to Retain Officers Deployment of Military in Los Angeles Focus on Arrests of Non-Criminals Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Pressure to Detain More Immigrants Public Opinion and Congressional Debate Detention of Nonviolent Migrants Raises Concern FAQs The US Congress is moving closer to approving a large spending package that would provide billions of dollars for immigration enforcement. This funding would help President Donald Trump carry out his campaign promise of deporting millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United immigration plans have long been a core part of his agenda. The issue was central to his 2024 presidential campaign and continues to be his strongest area of support. According to a recent NBC News poll, 51% of US adults approve of how he handles immigration, while 49% without completing a border wall, illegal crossings have fallen. Trump and his team highlight this decline as a success of their broader enforcement Supreme Court recently made a ruling that allows the Trump administration to continue challenging the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship guarantees. This ruling, though limited in scope, supports Trump's push for stricter immigration plan requires major increases in immigration personnel. A House bill includes $8 billion over five years to add 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees. This would grow ICE's staff by nearly 50%.An additional $858 million is planned for bonuses to help hire and retain these agents. Border Protection could receive $2 billion more for bonuses, with up to $30,000 per new turnover has made immigration enforcement more difficult. Former ICE official Chris Musto said many agents have left their posts. He added that investigators trained for complex cases are now being redirected to routine immigration administration has also reassigned staff from other federal departments to focus on immigration cities like Los Angeles, local resistance to Trump's policies has led to the deployment of National Guard troops. Federal agents have also received support from US Marines to ensure enforcement activities say the result of new funding and staffing will lead to more public immigration raids and a visible federal presence in the administration highlights arrests of people with criminal records, most enforcement actions have targeted those without any criminal Homan, Trump's border policy advisor, says more agents mean more criminals will be removed from the streets. However, recent data shows most ICE arrests involve House staff have reportedly pressured ICE leaders to increase daily arrests. In May, top advisor Stephen Miller demanded 3,000 detentions per urgency has led to confusion about which undocumented immigrants should be targeted. Trump initially said some workers in industries like farming and hospitality would be exempt, but that position later show divided views. Americans support targeting violent offenders but oppose workplace raids, ending asylum protections and expanding detention in Congress have largely opposed Trump's plan. Most Republicans support it, but some, like Senator Rand Paul, have called for reduced draft Senate bill includes less funding than the House version. However, after internal GOP discussions, the Senate plan is expected to match the House's.A recent report showed that 71% of ICE arrests and 67% of detainees had no criminal records. Nearly half of the 55,000 people in ICE detention in late June had no convictions or pending say Trump's enforcement efforts have shifted from targeting serious criminals to focusing on nonviolent plan includes hiring thousands of new ICE agents, expanding detention facilities, and conducting wide-scale immigration enforcement, including detaining undocumented immigrants without criminal show Americans support deporting violent offenders but oppose workplace raids, expanded detention, and removal of asylum protections. Views on the plan vary by political affiliation.
an hour ago
- Politics
What next for birthright citizenship after Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions
The Supreme Court on Friday handed down a highly-anticipated ruling involving President Donald Trump's Day 1 executive order to effectively end birthright citizenship. But many questions remain about how such an order would be carried out on a practical level. And while the court's conservative majority limited nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges against the order, the court did not rule on whether the order itself is constitutional. Still, the decision could lead to a radical reshaping of a legal right to citizenship that's been long guaranteed by the 14th Amendment -- at least in the short term. Effective immediately, the administration can begin planning for how it would implement an end to birthright citizenship. Trump's order itself has a 30-day grace period before taking effect, meaning right now there is no change to birthright citizenship and children born everywhere in the country are still U.S. citizens. Regulations will need to be drafted and specifics of such an order still need to be addressed: for example, will every pregnant woman in America now need to go to the hospital with a passport or birth certificate? The White House on Friday had no clear answers when pressed for specifics. Federal district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and New Hampshire will soon have to revisit nationwide injunctions issued there in light of the court's decision and tailor or narrow them to apply only to the plaintiffs who brought these cases. The plaintiffs were 22 states, immigrant advocacy groups and a number of pregnant noncitizen women. Challengers to Trump's executive order will continue to litigate the order on the merits. No court has directly considered the constitutionality of the executive order, though three lower courts have said it would appear to plainly violate the 14th Amendment and there are three longstanding Supreme Court precedents unambiguously upholding birthright citizenship. But for the remaining 28 states that have not sued, Trump's attempts to end birthright citizenship could go into effect in as soon as 30 days. Challengers can and will also fight broad implementation in other ways as it moves forward. On Friday, one group filed a class action lawsuit seeking broad protection of all noncitizen pregnant women, even those who are not plaintiffs. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated plaintiffs might also be able to challenge the administration's citizenship regulations, once issued, under the Administrative Procedures Act. Attorney General Pam Bondi, though, struggled on Friday to address how exactly administration is planning to implement Trump's order. Asked who would be tasked with vetting citizenship (for example, whether it would be nurses or doctors as babies are being born) Bondi only responded: "This is all pending litigation." Another reporter asked Bondi, "If you have an undocumented baby, would that baby then be an enforcement priority?" "The violent criminals in our country are the priority," Bondi deflected. What's next for nationwide injunctions? More broadly, the administration will likely seek to roll back nationwide injunctions blocking Trump policies in other cases. Those hearings and decisions will play out in the coming weeks. "These injunctions have blocked our policies from tariffs to military readiness to immigration to foreign affairs, fraud, abuse and many other issues," Bondi said on Friday. "The judges have tried to seize the executive branch's power and they cannot do that. No longer." President Trump said similarly as he celebrated the ruling. "So, thanks to this decision, we can now promptly filed to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries and numerous other priorities of the American people," the president said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling
WASHINGTON (AP) — The legal battle over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration's major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. What does birthright citizenship mean? Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump has long said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship Trump's executive order, signed in Januar,y seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' – saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. Is Trump's order constitutional? The justices didn't say The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. Questions and uncertainty swirl around next steps The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review" in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.' ____ Associated Press reporters Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, New Jersey, contributed.
