Latest news with #AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion
Fox News
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
ACLU sues Trump over birthright order as Supreme Court clears path for it to take effect
Hours after the Supreme Court delivered the Trump administration a major victory Friday by ruling lower courts may issue nationwide injunctions only in limited instances, a coalition of liberal legal groups filed a sweeping new class-action lawsuit in New Hampshire federal court. It takes aim at President Donald Trump's January executive order that redefines who qualifies for U.S. citizenship at birth. While the justices' 6-3 ruling leaves open the question of how the ruling will apply to the birthright citizenship order at the heart of the case, Friday's lawsuit accuses the administration of violating the Constitution by denying citizenship to children born on U.S. soil if their mothers are either unlawfully present or temporarily in the country and their fathers are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus and Democracy Defenders Fund. It seeks to represent a proposed class of children born under the terms of the executive order and their parents. It is not the first legal challenge to the policy. The same group filed a separate suit in January 2025 in the same court on behalf of advocacy organizations with members expecting children who would be denied citizenship under the order. That case led to a ruling protecting members of those groups and is now pending before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral arguments scheduled for Aug. 1. Friday's SCOTUS ruling states that lower courts can no longer block federal policies nationwide unless it's absolutely necessary to give full relief to the people suing. The decision does not say whether Trump's birthright citizenship order is legal, but it means the order could take effect in parts of the country while legal challenges continue. The court gave lower courts 30 days to review their existing rulings. "The applications do not raise — and thus we do not address — the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act," Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, writing for the majority. "The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions." "A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power," she added. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, suggested plaintiffs could pursue class actions as an alternative. "Nevertheless, the parents of children covered by the Citizenship Order would be well advised to file promptly class action suits and to request temporary injunctive relief for the putative class pending class certification," Sotomayor wrote. "For suits challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order, moreover, lower courts would be wise 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." The ACLU lawsuit calls birthright citizenship "America's most fundamental promise" and claims the executive order threatens to create "a permanent, multigenerational subclass" of children denied legal recognition. "The Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead attorney in the case. "This executive order directly opposes our Constitution, values, and history," added Devon Chaffee, executive director of the ACLU of New Hampshire. "No politician can ever decide who among those born in our country is worthy of citizenship." The lawsuit cites the 14th Amendment, which provides that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." It also references the Supreme Court's 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of noncitizens. The plaintiffs include individuals from Honduras, Taiwan and Brazil. One mother in New Hampshire is expecting her fourth child and fears the baby will be denied citizenship despite being born in the U.S. The case is Barbara et al. v. Trump et al., No. 1:25-cv-244, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. "Trump's executive order directly opposes our Constitution, values, and history and it would create a permanent, multigenerational subclass of people born in the U.S. but who are denied full rights," said SangYeob Kim of the ACLU of New Hampshire in January. "Today's historic decision delivers a decisive rejection of the weaponized lawfare President Trump has endured from leftist activist judges who attempted to deny the president his constitutional authority," White House spokesperson Liz Huston wrote to Fox News Digital. "President Trump will continue to implement his America First agenda, and the Trump Administration looks forward to litigating the merits of the birthright citizenship issue to ensure we secure our borders and Make America Safe Again."
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump wins again. Conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett again. Supreme Court takeaways
WASHINGTON − For the second year in a row, the Supreme Court ended its term with a big win for President Donald Trump. This time, the conservative court − which includes three justices appointed by Trump in his first term − limited the ability of judges to block the president's policies as they're being challenged in court. Last year, the court said formers presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, a decision that helped Trump avoid being tried for trying to overturn the 2020 election. And Trump has also been on a winning streak on emergency appeals that the justices decide relatively quickly, without oral arguments. Those emergency actions will continue over the summer, while the court is in recess. But June 27 was the final day for decisions on cases the justices have been considering for months. In addition to ruling on the holds judges put on Trump's changes to birthright citizenship, they handed down opinions about LGBTQ+ schoolbooks, online porn, Obamacare and internet subsidies. Updates Supreme Court hands down wins for Trump and Obamacare Here are the highlights. Rather than deal directly with birthright citizenship, the high court instead ordered lower courts to review nationwide blocks on Trump policies. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the 6-3 majority that nationwide orders 'likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.' Judges have 30 days to review their rulings. 'These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump said. 'This was a colossal abuse of power.' Attorney General Pam Bondi, who complained that 35 of 40 national blocks on Trump policies came from five jurisdictions, said the decision would stop regional judges from becoming 'emperors." But states and immigration advocates had warned such a decision would leave a patchwork where newborns are recognized as citizens in nearly half the states where judges have blocked Trump's order but not in other jurisdictions. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit to halt Trump's birthright order in the wake of the high court's decision. 'Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,' said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. Varu Chilakamarri, a partner at K&L Gates, said the decision could result in more class-action lawsuits or fast-tracking litigation to get decisions from the Supreme Court faster. 'The Supreme Court's sweeping rejection of nationwide injunctions sharply limits the power of lower courts to block controversial executive actions,' Chilakarmarri said. 'But all of those paths will inevitably take longer to unfold – making it harder to stop the broad implementation of highly contested policies.' The high court didn't consider the constitutionality of whether Trump's order limiting birthright citizenship for the children of parents in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. Bondi said that decision could come in the court's next session starting in October. Maybe Justice Amy Coney Barrett will stop being vilified by Trump supporters. Some of the president's loudest supporters called her diversity, equity and inclusion hire after Barrett (and Chief Justice John Roberts) sided with the court's three liberal justices in a March decision that the Trump administration has to pay foreign aid organizations for work they already did for the government. But Barrett authored the big win for Trump. Conservative commentator Sean Davis said on social media that in Barrett's opinion 'nuking universal injunctions,' she also 'juked' the dissent written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'I want to thank Justice Barrett who wrote the opinion brilliantly,' Trump told reporters at the White House. Trump said he wasn't familiar with conservative criticism of Barrett as a 'squishy' or 'rattled' law professor. 'I don't know about that. I just have great respect for her. I always have,' Trump said. 'Her decision was brilliantly written today, from all accounts.' While the justices like to emphasize how many of the decisions they hand down are unanimous, the ones that split along ideological lines are more common at the end of the term. In three of the five full opinions handed down on June 27, the court's six conservatives were on one side and the three liberals were on the other. In the decision, limiting how judges can block Trump's policies, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the president "has made a `solemn mockery' of our Constitution." 'Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way,' she wrote in her dissent. In response to the majority upholding Texas' age verification law for pornographic websites, Justice Elena Kagan said the court should've pushed Texas on whether there's a way to stop minors from seeing sexually explicit content with less of a burden on the First Amendment rights of adults to view the content. In the third decision, Sotomayor said requiring schools to let parents remove their children from class when books with LGBTQ+ characters are being read "threatens the very essence of public education.' Two more decisions also broke 6-3, but for a different reason. Three of the court's conservatives – Roberts, Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh – joined the three liberals in rejecting conservative challenges to Obamacare and to an internet subsidy program. The court's other three conservatives – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch – dissented. In the latest challenge to the 2010 Affordable Care Act – commonly known as Obamacare – the majority turned aside an attack on free access to cancer screenings, drugs that prevent HIV, cholesterol-lowering medication and other preventive health care services. And in a case rooted in a longstanding conservative complaint about Congress delegating too much authority to agencies, the majority said Congress didn't do that when it created a program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans. The court was supposed to announce whether Louisiana could keep its congressional map, a decision that would potentially affect the 2026 elections and states' ability to consider race when drawing legislative boundaries. Instead, the court said it wants to hear more arguments first. Why? They didn't say. When? They didn't say that either, except that they will be laying out a timeline 'in due course.' The case tests the balancing act states must strike when complying with a civil rights law that protects the voting power of a racial minority while not discriminating against other voters. A group of non-Black voters challenged the map as unconstitutional, arguing it relied too heavily on race to sort voters. The state says it drew the lines to protect powerful incumbents like House Speaker Mike Johnson and to comply with a court's decision that it could reasonably create a second majority-Black district. Democrats have the advantage in that district, which could be a factor when voters decide in 2026 which party will control the closely divided House. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump's big win and other takeaways from final Supreme Court decisions
NBC News
9 hours ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling sparks new round of legal fights
WASHINGTON — Almost as soon as the Supreme Court released its ruling limiting the ability of judges to block President Donald Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship, challengers brought new legal claims seeking the same result by a different means. While the Supreme Court on Friday said judges cannot issue sweeping "universal injunctions" that can apply nationwide in many cases, it left open the option of plaintiffs seeking broad relief via class action lawsuits. The American Civil Liberties Union filed such a lawsuit in New Hampshire on behalf of immigrants whose children may not obtain U.S. citizenship at birth if Trump's order was to go into effect. In a separate case in Maryland, in which groups had previously obtained a nationwide injunction, lawyers filed an amended complaint seeking similar class-wide relief for anyone effected by Trump's plan within hours of the ruling authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. 'Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,' said ACLU lawyer Cody Wofsy. 'The Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise." Under Trump's plan, birthright citizenship would be limited to those who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. That is at odds with the widely accepted understanding of the Constitution's 14th Amendment — that it grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., with a few minor exceptions. William Powell, a lawyer involved in the Maryland case, told reporters the amended complaint would seek to "certify a nationwide class of all people who are affected by the executive order." That would include babies already born and babies to be born in the future, as well as their parents, he said. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion on Friday appeared to endorse the idea of class action lawsuits, saying that plaintiffs can "sometimes seek to proceed by class action ... and ask a court to award preliminary class-wide relief that may, for example, be statewide, region-wide, or even nationwide." The Supreme Court limited the scope of the injunction in the Maryland case, as well as two other nationwide injunctions imposed by judges in Washington state and Massachusetts in cases brought by states. States cannot bring class action lawsuits, but Barrett wrote in her opinion that they may still be able to seek broad relief in their cases. That leaves open the possibility of injunctions covering anyone who lives within a state and potentially even children who were born elsewhere but move to a covered state. Samuel Bray, a critic of nationwide injunctions at Notre Dame Law School whose work was cited in the ruling, said both the states and individual plaintiffs can still get broad injunctions against the birthright citizenship executive order, potentially even on a nationwide basis. "I don't expect the executive order will ever go into effect," he added. It remains unclear how the Justice Department will respond to new claims. But at a press conference on Friday, Trump made it clear the administration would proactively use the Supreme Court ruling not just to bolster its birthright citizenship proposal but also to push forward on other policies that have been blocked by judges on a nationwide basis. "Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis," the president said.
USA Today
9 hours ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Trump wins again. Conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett again. Supreme Court takeaways
WASHINGTON − For the second year in a row, the Supreme Court ended its term with a big win for President Donald Trump. This time, the conservative court − which includes three justices appointed by Trump in his first term − limited the ability of judges to block the president's policies as they're being challenged in court. Last year, the court said formers presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, a decision that helped Trump avoid being tried for trying to overturn the 2020 election. And Trump has also been on a winning streak on emergency appeals that the justices decide relatively quickly, without oral arguments. Those emergency actions will continue over the summer, while the court is in recess. But June 27 was the final day for decisions on cases the justices have been considering for months. In addition to ruling on the holds judges put on Trump's changes to birthright citizenship, they handed down opinions about LGBTQ+ schoolbooks, online porn, Obamacare and internet subsidies. Here are the highlights. Justices halt nationwide blocks on Trump policies from lower courts Rather than deal directly with birthright citizenship, the high court instead ordered lower courts to review nationwide blocks on Trump policies. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the 6-3 majority that nationwide orders 'likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.' Judges have 30 days to review their rulings. 'These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump said. 'This was a colossal abuse of power.' Attorney General Pam Bondi, who complained that 35 of 40 national blocks on Trump policies came from five jurisdictions, said the decision would stop regional judges from becoming 'emperors." But states and immigration advocates had warned such a decision would leave a patchwork where newborns are recognized as citizens in nearly half the states where judges have blocked Trump's order but not in other jurisdictions. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit to halt Trump's birthright order in the wake of the high court's decision. 'Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,' said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. Varu Chilakamarri, a partner at K&L Gates, said the decision could result in more class-action lawsuits or fast-tracking litigation to get decisions from the Supreme Court faster. 'The Supreme Court's sweeping rejection of nationwide injunctions sharply limits the power of lower courts to block controversial executive actions,' Chilakarmarri said. 'But all of those paths will inevitably take longer to unfold – making it harder to stop the broad implementation of highly contested policies.' The high court didn't consider the constitutionality of whether Trump's order limiting birthright citizenship for the children of parents in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. Bondi said that decision could come in the court's next session starting in October. Conservaties like Amy Coney Barrett again Maybe Justice Amy Coney Barrett will stop being vilified by Trump supporters. Some of the president's loudest supporters called her diversity, equity and inclusion hire after Barrett (and Chief Justice John Roberts) sided with the court's three liberal justices in a March decision that the Trump administration has to pay foreign aid organizations for work they already did for the government. But Barrett authored the big win for Trump. Conservative commentator Sean Davis said on social media that in Barrett's opinion 'nuking universal injunctions,' she also 'juked' the dissent written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'I want to thank Justice Barrett who wrote the opinion brilliantly,' Trump told reporters at the White House. Trump said he wasn't familiar with conservative criticism of Barrett as a 'squishy' or 'rattled' law professor. 'I don't know about that. I just have great respect for her. I always have,' Trump said. 'Her decision was brilliantly written today, from all accounts.' Liberals said conservatives gave in to Trump's 'mockery' of the Constitution While the justices like to emphasize how many of the decisions they hand down are unanimous, the ones that split along ideological lines are more common at the end of the term. In three of the five full opinions handed down on June 27, the court's six conservatives were on one side and the three liberals were on the other. In the decision, limiting how judges can block Trump's policies, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the president "has made a `solemn mockery' of our Constitution." 'Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way,' she wrote in her dissent. In response to the majority upholding Texas' age verification law for pornographic websites, Justice Elena Kagan said the court should've pushed Texas on whether there's a way to stop minors from seeing sexually explicit content with less of a burden on the First Amendment rights of adults to view the content. In the third decision, Sotomayor said requiring schools to let parents remove their children from class when books with LGBTQ+ characters are being read "threatens the very essence of public education.' Conservatives joined with liberals to reject conservative cases Two more decisions also broke 6-3, but for a different reason. Three of the court's conservatives – Roberts, Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh – joined the three liberals in rejecting conservative challenges to Obamacare and to an internet subsidy program. The court's other three conservatives – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch – dissented. In the latest challenge to the 2010 Affordable Care Act – commonly known as Obamacare – the majority turned aside an attack on free access to cancer screenings, drugs that prevent HIV, cholesterol-lowering medication and other preventive health care services. And in a case rooted in a longstanding conservative complaint about Congress delegating too much authority to agencies, the majority said Congress didn't do that when it created a program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans. In a surprise, the court punted on a racial gerrymandering challenge The court was supposed to announce whether Louisiana could keep its congressional map, a decision that would potentially affect the 2026 elections and states' ability to consider race when drawing legislative boundaries. Instead, the court said it wants to hear more arguments first. Why? They didn't say. When? They didn't say that either, except that they will be laying out a timeline 'in due course.' The case tests the balancing act states must strike when complying with a civil rights law that protects the voting power of a racial minority while not discriminating against other voters. A group of non-Black voters challenged the map as unconstitutional, arguing it relied too heavily on race to sort voters. The state says it drew the lines to protect powerful incumbents like House Speaker Mike Johnson and to comply with a court's decision that it could reasonably create a second majority-Black district. Democrats have the advantage in that district, which could be a factor when voters decide in 2026 which party will control the closely divided House.
The Hindu
11 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
U.S. Supreme Court backs parents opting children out of LGBTQ-themed books
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday (June 27, 2025) ruled 6-3 to let parents opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed lessons at public schools, a move critics warn threatens the future of secular education by opening the door to broad religious objections. The Justices reviewed an appeal brought by Christian and Muslim parents against a Maryland public school district that, in 2022, added books tackling prejudice and exploring gender identity to its elementary curriculum. U.S. President Donald Trump, who has made fighting 'woke ideology' a hallmark of his second term, hailed the outcome as a 'great ruling for parents'. 'They lost control of the schools and they lost control of their child, and this is a tremendous victory for parents,' he said at a White House press conference. The Court found that the Montgomery County parents were likely to prevail in their claim that blocking them from opting out 'unconstitutionally burdens' their religious freedom. 'For many people of faith, there are few religious acts more important than the religious education of their children,' wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the majority. He said the books in question 'are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' Justice Alito cited specific texts, including 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding', which celebrates gay marriage, and 'Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope', about a transgender boy. The right-wing Heritage Foundation, which authored the blueprint for Mr. Trump's second term, also praised the ruling as 'a resounding victory for parents across America, affirming their fundamental right to guide their children's moral and religious upbringing'. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor — joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — defended public schools as places where 'children of all faiths and backgrounds' gain exposure to a pluralistic society. 'That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality,' she wrote. 'Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs.' She warned of a slippery slope: 'Books expressing implicit support for patriotism, women's rights, interfaith marriage, consumption of meat, immodest dress, and countless other topics may conflict with sincerely held religious beliefs and thus trigger stringent judicial review under the majority's test.' The ruling could even reopen settled legal ground on how schools teach evolution and other scientific topics, said Daniel Mach, a legal expert with the American Civil Liberties Union. 'The issue had come up many times in lower courts, including where parents claimed a religious right to opt out of biology lessons on evolution,' he told AFP. 'In each of those cases, the courts rejected the claim, but now with today's decision, the door has been bashed open to invite all manner of objections.' Mach warned that schools may now choose to self-censor rather than navigate a patchwork of opt-outs in anticipation of lawsuits.
