Latest news with #Bondi
7 hours 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.
News.com.au
8 hours ago
- Business
- News.com.au
Congratulations, you've just won the lottery – here's what you should do next
It's early in the morning, and your phone's ringtone starts to buzz. It's The Lott, and they've just informed you that you're the sole winner of the jackpot the night before. Your heart rate spikes, you close your eyes and imagine everything you can possibly do with your bags of cash. Then reality sets in. Now what? It's been more than two weeks since one lucky Powerball ticketholder nabbed the only division one prize of the $100m Powerball jackpot. Weeks later, they are yet to claim their winnings, with The Lott revealing the mystery division one winner purchased their winning ticket from a newsagent in Bondi in Sydney. So, if you were the lucky one to hold the wining ticket, what exactly would you do first? Take a deep breath It's natural to get overworked as the reality of winning the jackpot hits you, so experts recommend you stop, take a deep breath and give yourself time to think. There's no need to reveal your identity, either, even to family or friends, RSM Financial Services Australia director Grace Bacon said. 'There will always be someone in your circle that feels they would like financial assistance, and you may feel pressured to assist them,' she told NewsWire. 'It's sad to say, but money can end very long-term family and friend relationships – I've seen it happen. You can get very caught up in what people need from you versus what you need for yourself.' White Rabbit Advisory financial planner Nicola Beswick said winners in Australia had the 'legal right to stay anonymous' to protect their 'safety and decision-making'. 'As hard as it is, keep quiet!' she told NewsWire. 'You will find lots of new best friends if you don't. Stay calm, remain anonymous, and book a confidential meeting with a trusted financial adviser.' Lock your winnings down Before you begin splashing your cash on a new home, holiday or paying off your debts, Ms Beswick recommends parking the winnings in a bank while you work on your 'long-term strategy'. However, she warns against relying on 'one account or bank' to reduce risk and allow 'time to plan properly before making any big decisions'. 'Spread the funds over multiple high-interest savings accounts or term deposits to stay within government deposit guarantees ($250,000 per institution),' she said. Do winners have to pay any taxes? Thankfully, the ATO does not classify a lottery win as an income, meaning the ticket holder will be awarded their full jackpot. With that in mind, Ms Bacon said winners may need to fork out a bit of cash if they are a 'regular game show contestant' or make any investments with their winnings. 'Keep in mind that once you start investing, you may have to pay tax on your investment earnings,' she told NewsWire. Avoid impulse spending As tempting as it is to splurge as soon as your bank account becomes fatter, financial advisers urge winners to avoid making too many rash decisions. Ms Bacon told NewsWire that winners should steer clear of impulse spending, no matter how alluring the idea could be. 'It may be very tempting to go on a shopping spree but ensure you set some smart financial goals so that you can use this new-found wealth to create something more sizeable for the longer term,' she said. Don't quit your job (just yet) Ms Beswick also advised winners to 'avoid making any decisions straight away'. This includes calling your boss and handing in your letter of resignation. 'Don't quit your job on the spot,' she said. 'Take some leave so that you can think clearly. 'Protect your identity and your future by taking things slowly and getting professional advice.' Make a list before you spend With lashings of cash at your disposal, it's easy to list off all the things you could spend your money on – holidays, fancy cars or a cheeky shopping spree. However, it's extremely common for people to lose their winnings almost as soon as they pocket it due to unregulated spending or failing to pay back debts. Ms Beswick said you could avoid this by writing a list with two columns – one titled 'need' and the other 'want' – before spending anything. 'The 'need' column will include things like buying or paying off your home, helping out family and investing a certain amount,' she said. 'The 'want' column will have material things that are not a priority – a holiday in Rome, a new Lamborghini, a private jet with a personal chef and gold-plated seatbelt buckles.' Have a 'bucket' strategy At the end of the day, the best way to avoid lottery wins slipping through your fingers is by having a solid financial plan. Ms Bacon recommends using a 'bucket' strategy to keep an ongoing pool of money to dip into whenever required. 'Money is not a bottomless pit no matter how big the win is,' she said. 'I suggest having a 'bucket' strategy so that you reward yourself and loved ones to celebrate the win (it might be that big holiday you've always dreamt of or that particular car), but having medium-term and long-term buckets for the bulk of the winnings will help fund your future.'
Miami Herald
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
‘Meant for the babies of slaves': Trump praises Supreme Court's birthright ruling
President Donald Trump celebrated the Supreme Court decision Friday that will allow his administration to end automatic birthright citizenship in some cases, calling the ruling a 'huge one.' The president said birthright citizenship, enshrined in the Constitution's 14th Amendment shortly after the end of the Civil War, was meant for the 'babies of slaves.' 'It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system,' Trump said. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason.' Appearing in the White Press press room with the president, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi echoed the president's remarks in thanking the justices for their decision. 'No longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation,' she said. 'These injunctions have allowed for district court judges to be emperors.' In its 6-3 ruling, the high court did not rule on the underlying constitutionality of the president's executive order ending birthright citizenship. The ruling keeps federal judges' actions on the case limited to the areas under their jurisdiction, rather than apply nationwide. That means that the administration can move to end birthright citizenship to states where the order has not yet been challenged or stopped by federal judges. Bondi said the merits of the president's order will be decided in the Supreme Court's next session, which begins in October. She added that Fridays' decision does have indirect implications, because federal court decisions in birthright citizenship cases will only affect the part of the country where the case was filed. 'If there's a birthright citizenship case in Oregon, it will only affect the plaintiff in Oregon, not the entire country,' Bondi said. The Attorney General said the administration is confident in the Supreme Court the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the administration's interpretation of the 14th Amendment when it takes up the case on the merits in the next term. The determination of who would be tasked with vetting the citizenship of newborns in the meantime remains unclear. Bondi said the administration will provide more clarity after the Supreme Court rules on the merits of the case. 'The violent criminals in our country are the priority now,' she said. The Supreme Court decisions included a 30-day grace period before going into effect. The Trump administration said it will follow the law respecting the grace period. 'We're gonna do what's right in the bounds of the law,' Bondi said. Trump said previous administrations had been wrongly looking at birthright citizenship and claimed drug cartels haed been using it as a means to 'get very bad people' into the country. Trump reiterated multiple times that birthright citizenship only had to deal with slave-era citizenship, concluding at the end of the press conference: . 'This was a tremendous win today.'
The Hill
14 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court's blockbuster day
Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here Happy Friday! This is a great weekend for television — the third and final season of 'Squid Game' is out on Netflix, and 'The Bear' is also back! Oh, and did you know, that infamous debate between Biden and Trump was one year ago today? In today's packed Supreme Court edition: To close out its term, the Supreme Court fired off major decision after major decision this morning. 1 — Birthright citizenship: The Supreme Court delivered President Trump a major win this morning, allowing his executive order to restrict birthright citizenship to go into effect in some areas of the country — at least for now. Importantly, the high court's ruling limits the ability of federal judges across the country to issue nationwide injunctions blocking Trump's policies. The White House is thrilled (more below on that). The ruling: 6-3, along ideological lines. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson issued fiery dissent over the conservative court's decision. But here's the thing: The court didn't weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order. Instead, the justices weighed in on whether three federal judges have the power to block Trump's order nationwide. The court ruled those judges went too far. But the administration has to wait 30 days before attempting to deny citizenship to anyone. There are still legal challenges to the constitutionality of restricting birthright citizenship, so this may not be the end of the issue. Trump took a victory lap: He called it a 'GIANT WIN' in a quick social media post. He then held a press conference to celebrate what he hailed as a 'monumental' ruling, praising Justice Amy Coney Barrett and giving a shout-out to each of the conservative justices by name. 'That was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation,' Trump said, referring to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Attorney General Pam Bondi chimed in at the podium. 'The judges have tried to cease the executive branch's power and they cannot do that. No longer,' Bondi said, bashing 'rogue' judges who she claims have 'turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.' 'Active liberal [judges] have used these injunctions to block virtually all of President Trump's policies,' Bondi told reporters. 💻 Watch Trump's presser Backstory: Trump issued an executive order restricting birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. with parents who do not have permanent legal status. 2 — Parent opt-out options for LGBTQ+ books: The court sided with religious parents this morning, allowing parents of Maryland elementary school children to opt out of classroom discussions involving LGBTQ+-inclusive books. The ruling: 6-3, along ideological lines. The three liberal justices dissented. 3 — Age verification for porn sites: The Supreme Court ruled that Texas's age-verification law for porn websites *is* constitutional. The ruling: 6-3, along ideological lines. The three liberal justices dissented. The case: Texas has a law requiring porn sites to verify that users are at least 18 years old. The Supreme Court was weighing whether this law is a violation of the First Amendment. Twenty other states have similar laws, so this ruling could limit porn access. 4 — ObamaCare's preventative care requirements: The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in allowing Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to appoint and fire members of an ObamaCare task force. The ruling: 6-3. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the opinion. The case: Is a task force created by ObamaCare that determines free preventative care services constitutional? 5 — Federal internet subsidies: The court upheld a multibillion-dollar federal subsidy program to give internet to rural and poor Americans. The ruling: 6-3. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The case: The court weighed whether programs that bring high-speed internet to rural and poor communities are a violation of the separation of powers. Read more ❌ 6 — Racial redistricting: The Supreme Court did *not* rule on this case and will rehear arguments next term. The case: Can Louisiana continue to use its congressional map that includes two majority-Black districts, or is that unconstitutional racial gerrymandering? Read more on the case 📸The cloudy, humid Supreme Court today 🗨️ Follow today's live blog Republicans are barreling toward their own deadline to pass President Trump's legislative agenda, even after the Senate parliamentarian threw a grenade into their plan. How's that going?: Trump has cranked up the pressure on the GOP, despite the hurdles. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) says he has 'contingency plans, plan B, plan C.' Trump was asked what he thinks about the parliamentarian's ruling: 'The parliamentarian's been a little difficult. I would say that I disagree with the parliamentarian on some things and on other ways [she's] been fine.' Is the July 4 deadline still possible?: Technically, yes, but it's tricky. Here's a helpful explainer. Why gutting some Medicaid cuts from the bill was such a big blow: Republicans needed those steep Medicaid cuts to pay for the rest of the bill. Without that component, they're back to the drawing board without those hundreds of billions of dollars in savings to offset the cost of their legislation. The Hill's Nathaniel Weixel wrote a helpful explainer. This is some Olympic-level ping-ponging: Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said this morning that the House may need to amend the Senate bill. That would mean the bill would need to head *back* to the Senate again, explains The Hill's Mychael Schnell. Like a game of hot potato! Tidbit: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will attend the Senate GOP lunch today, per Punchbowl News. ➤ THE PARLIAMENTARIAN PULLED OUT HER RED PEN AGAIN: Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough rejected another part of the 'big, beautiful bill.' She ruled against a Republican attempt to exempt some religious colleges from a tax carve-out. She also ruled against Republicans' gun silencer deregulation. Read more ➤ MEANWHILE ON THE HOUSE SIDE: House lawmakers received a briefing this morning on the U.S. strikes against Iran. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine and CIA Director John Ratcliffe led it, per Politico. The House and Senate are in today. President Trump is in Washington. (All times EST) 3 p.m.: Trump meets with the foreign ministers of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Rwanda. 6 p.m.: The Senate votes on Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-Va.) war powers resolution on Iran. 📆Today's agenda Sunday: Sens. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani will appear on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' 🎂 Celebrate: Today is National Ice Cream Cake Day! It feels like the perfect weekend to make this one. 🍕 'Did Busy Pizza Shops Really Predict US Airstrikes on Iran?': An account on social platform X has been tracking the activity of pizza shops near the Pentagon, based on Google's 'popular times' data, suggesting it may predict foreign policy events. Washingtonian spoke with an intelligence expert to weigh in on whether this may be an accurate measure. ✖️ The Pentagon Pizza Report X account 🐾 'Here's the mail, it never fails, it makes me wanna wag my tail': Steve Burns, the original host of 'Blue's Clues,' is launching a podcast for adults. 'When it comes I wanna wail, MAAAAIL!' 🍦 I will wake up in a cold sweat because of this headline: The Atlantic's Yasmin Tayag writes, 'Brace Yourself for Watery Mayo and Spiky Ice Cream.' The gist: 'Emulsifiers have become targets in RFK Jr.'s push to remove many additives from the American diet. But without them, food wouldn't be the same.' To leave you on a good note before the weekend, here's a bird creatively scavenging for nest materials.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
'We're throwing them in jails': Bondi's fiery clash with Reed on Mexican cartel arms flow
Bondi pushed back hard against Democratic criticism, declaring, 'We're not sending people back to Mexico with guns, we're throwing them in jail.' She cited recent ATF data showing nearly 9,700 firearms intercepted since Trump's return to office on January 20th, underscoring the administration's aggressive strategy to stop deadly weapons from reaching Mexican gangs. Show more Show less
