Latest news with #CASAInc
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court hands down wins for Trump and Obamacare: Live updates on the rulings
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court voted to lift temporary blocks on President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. The court ruled 6-3 that district court rulings temporarily blocking Trump's order "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." It did not decide whether the order is constitutional − a question that is being argued in lower federal courts. "This was a big decision, one that we're very happy about," Trump said later on June 27. 'The Constitution has been brought back." More: Trump wins again. Conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett again. Supreme Court takeaways More: In win for Trump, Supreme Court orders courts to reconsider limits on birthright citizenship and other policies In other decisions on the last day of the court's term, the justices ruled against a challenge to an Obamacare provision that forces health insurers to cover certain medicines and services, like HIV-preventive medication and cholesterol-lowering drugs; allowed parents to remove young school children from classes where the books include gay characters; and upheld a Texas law requiring age verification for users of pornographic web content. More: Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to Obamacare health coverage Appearing alongside Trump at the White House, Attorney General Pam Bondi took aim at what she called "imperial judges" who have tried to block the Trump administration's policies. She singled out federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, California, Washington and the District of Columbia who ordered 35 of 40 nationwide blocks against Trump's policies, and noted the high court halted that practice. 'Americans are finally getting what they voted for,' Bondi said. 'No longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation.' A group fighting Trump's birthright citizenship order shifted gears to block the president's restrictions after the Supreme Court struck down nationwide holds by several district judges. CASA Inc. refiled its lawsuit over the policy as a class action case. Class actions are still subject to nationwide injuctions, the Supreme Court ruled June 27. CASA asked a federal judge in Maryland to "immediately, without awaiting furtherbriefing, enter a temporary restraining order" against enforcement of Trump's birthright restrictions, protecting 'all children who have been born or will be born in the United States on or after February 19, 2025, who are designated by ExecutiveOrder 14,160 to be ineligible for birthright citizenship...' President Donald Trump and his top aides are declaring victory over federal judges who have blocked the Republican administration's policies at unprecedented rates, after the Supreme Court said nationwide decisions from regional judges likely exceed their authority. "This was a big decision, one that we're very happy about," Trump told reporters in a previously-unscheduled White House press conference on June 27. Later, he added, 'The Constitution has been brought back." The Supreme Court earlier in the day ordered U.S. district court judges to review their orders temporarily blocking Trump policies, in a case about the second-term president's executive order limiting birthright citizenship for children whose parents were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. More: Live: Trump calls news conference after Supreme Court win on judges blocking his policies Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has been targeted by some MAGA activists for siding against President Trump, but he had nothing but praises for her after a key decision. Barrett wrote the majority opinion in a 6-3 decision limiting the use of nationwide injunctions by federal courts, something the Trump administration has railed against. 'I have great respect for her, I always have, and her decision was brilliantly written today,' Trump said June 27 during a press conference celebrating the ruling. Barrett earlier had ruled against the Trump administration's efforts to freeze foreign aid funding, drawing criticism from the right. -Zac Anderson The Supreme Court upheld a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify their users are at least 18. The case pitted concerns about protecting minors against worries about violating the First Amendment rights of adults. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the 6-3 majority that the law survived 'because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults.' Eighteen other, largely conservative states have enacted similar laws in recent years as access to a growing cache of online pornography has exploded and the material has become more graphic. -Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen More: Supreme Court upholds Texas' age verification law for porn sites The Supreme Court sided with a group of parents who want to withdraw their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. In a 6-3 decision that divided along ideological lines, the court said a Maryland public school district's refusal to allow opt-outs likely burdens parents' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. They said the school must allow opt-outs while the legal challenge continues. Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed with the ruling, saying children of all faiths and backgrounds deserve an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society. "That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality," Sotomayor said. "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." Their decision continues a recent trend of high court rulings backing claims of religious discrimination, sometimes at the expense of other values like gay rights. -Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen The Supreme Court on June 27 upheld an $8 billion federal program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans, rejecting a conservative argument that the program is funded by an unconstitutional tax. The case was decided by a 6-3 majority, with Justice Elena Kagan writing the opinion. The court endorsed the way the Federal Communications Commission funds its multi-billion dollar program to expand phone and broadband internet access to low-income and rural Americans and other beneficiaries. The decision overturned a lower-court ruling that the FCC's funding mechanism employing mandatory contributions from telecommunications companies had effectively levied a "misbegotten tax" on consumers in violation of the Constitution. The case raised questions about how much Congress can 'delegate' its legislative authority to a federal agency and whether the Supreme Court should tighten that standard. -Maureen Groppe, Bart Jansen The court ruled against a challenge to an Obamacare board that determines which preventative care must be covered by insurance companies. The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration's appointment of a Department of Health and Human Services task force is constitutional. The decision upheld a key part of Obamacare that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive care such as cancer screenings at no cost to patients. Individuals and small businesses had challenged the structure of the task force that makes recommendations about preventive services that insurers would be required to cover at no additional cost to patients. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the 6-3 majority that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. can remove task force members at will and can review their recommendations before they take effect. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch disagreed. -Bart Jansen The Supreme Court decided to lift nationwide blocks on President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. More: Trump wants to end birthright citizenship. How many people would that impact? The court ruled 6-3 that District Court rulings that temporarily blocked Trump's order "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority that the lower courts should review their temporary blocks on Trump's policy. She explicitly said the court wasn't deciding whether Trump's order was constitutional. -Bart Jansen Several important Supreme Court decisions will be announced after 10 a.m. Eastern time on June 27. These will be the final rulings of court's current term. The opinions will be announced in order of the author, with the most junior justice going first. The justice who wrote the opinion will read a summary of the decision, which usually takes several minutes. If there's a dissenting opinion, that may also be summarized but is usually done only in major cases. That's happened only once so far this term. Justice Sonia Sotomayor read parts of her dissent from the majority's opinion upholding Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors. -Maureen Groppe One of the most hotly anticipated Supreme Court decisions of the year deals with President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship for the children parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. But how the justices will resolve case is anyone's guess. The Justice Department asked the high court to ignore for now the constitutionality of Trump's executive order. Instead, the department asked the justices to allow his order signed his first day back in office to go into effect while the case is litigated. But states and immigration advocates contend the order is clearly unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Lower courts in three states temporarily halted Trump's order while the cases are argued. The justices could lift the pause on those lower-court rulings – or not. Or fully decide Trump's order is constitutional – or not. Or ask for more arguments for the next court session beginning in October. Or maybe something else. -Bart Jansen Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy warned 'freedom is at risk' as he expressed concern about the "tone of our political discourse" as he defended the role judges play. More: How Trump's clash with the courts is brewing into an 'all-out war' Kennedy made his comments during an online forum June 26 called 'Speak Up for Justice,' which featured judges from other countries warning about how attacks on courts can threaten democracies. "And if they see a hostile, fractious discourse, if they see a discourse that uses identity politics rather than to talk about issues, democracy is at risk," Kennedy said. "Freedom is at risk. Kennedy, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan and retired during President Donald Trump's first term, stressed that the rest of the world looks 'to the United States to see what democracy is, to see what democracy ought to be." -Reuters The latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act takes aim at 2010 law's popular requirement that insurers cover without extra costs preventive care such as cancer screenings, cholesterol-lowering medication and diabetes tests. Two Christian-owned businesses and some people in Texas argue that the volunteer group of experts that recommends the services health insurance must cover is so powerful that, under the Constitution, its members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Supreme Court decided only three cases out of more than 60 decisions along strict ideological lines during the current year-long term ending June 27. The three cases so far decided on votes of the six justices appointed by Republicans and opposed by three justices appointed by Democrats were: A decision June 18 upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. A ruling June 26 siding with South Carolina's effort to deprive Planned Parenthood of public funding, A case about unsolicited faxes. -Bart Jansen The Supreme Court has nine justices: John G. Roberts Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch Brett Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barrett Ketanji Brown Jackson Six of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents and three by Democrats. But their rulings often do not split along strictly ideological lines, other than in political cases or those involving thorny cultural issues. -Bart Jansen and Anna Kaufman The Supreme Court still has to decide the last of three cases brought this year by religious groups. The justices will say if parents should be allowed to remove their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court decisions recap: Latest on big wins for Trump, Obamacare
Indianapolis Star
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
Migrant groups left shocked, scared over Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship
DENVER ‒ The Supreme Court's reticence to stop President Donald Trump from revoking automatic birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States has set off shockwaves among migrant communities. The court's June 27 ruling does not change the status of anyone subject to birthright citizenship, and gives lower courts 30 days to further consider the issue. Advocates immediately filed a class-action lawsuit to block Trump's plan, which would end automatic citizenship for babies born in the United States unless their parents were also citizens or legal, permanent residents. The measure is not retroactive, meaning it would only apply to babies born after it takes effect, if allowed by the courts. Among those suing to stop Trump's plan is "Liza," a Texas-based Russian-born graduate student who gave birth after the president issued his executive order. Liza, who has been granted anonymity by the federal courts in recognition of her immigration status, said she fears going to the Russian embassy to register their child's birth because her husband has applied for asylum in the United States after fleeing their homeland. Liza's baby is currently protected from losing U.S. citizenship due to a preliminary injunction issued by a lower court, which will now consider the merit's of Trump's plan. Liza said she was "sick with worry" that the courts would rule before her baby was born. "Thankfully our baby was born health and happy … we remain worried even now that one day the government would one day take away our baby's citizenship," she said during a press conference following the June 27 Supreme Court ruling. "I'm sad about what today's decision means for all the parents whose children are not protected by the current preliminary injunction and who are now even more scared about their children's future." In Denver, the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition was hurriedly trying to reassure pregnant women that the court's decision in the Trump v. CASA Inc. case changes nothing immediately. "It is really scary for people who are having children right now … that someone would want to take away this fundamental right," said spokeswoman Raquel Lane-Arellano. "I don't see a reality where birthright citizenship gets revoked, (but) for people watching the news, that might not be clear." Birthright citizenship ‒ explicitly granted by the 14th Amendment ‒ says that virtually anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen. The only current exception is children of foreign diplomats, a position the Supreme Court has previously upheld. But the possibility that Trump could end the right granted by the 14th Amendment has raised alarm among groups that had hoped the Supreme Court would outright block his initiative. The Supreme Court's decision sets the stage for lower courts to consider the president's plan over the next month. "Today is a sad day for all of those who care about the U.S. Constitution and the constitutional rights of children born in the United States each and every day," said Conchita Cruz, the co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project. "It is a confusing moment for immigrant families as they see the news and are not necessarily sure what it means or how it could it impact them." Trump in one of his first actions upon returning to the White House issued an executive order declaring that children born to parents visiting on tourist, student or work visas, or who are illegally present, are not automatically citizens. His order would not affect children born to U.S. citizens or people with legal permanent residency. Migrant-rights groups had hoped the Supreme Court would have reaffirmed its previous ruling in favor of birthright citizenship, and were shocked when the court instead ordered lower courts to consider the legal merits of the president's plan. If ended, the policy could affect about 255,000 babies born in the United States annually, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Experts warn that Trump's order could create "stateless" people who are born in the United States but who have no connection to the birth country of their own parents. New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said he was glad that the High Court recognized that nationwide judicial orders can be appropriate to protect plaintiffs from harm and vowed to continue to fight for birthright citizenship on its merits. 'We welcome the opportunity to continue making our case before the district court particularly because the Executive Order will not take immediate effect, to show that the President's approach to birthright citizenship is a recipe for chaos on the ground and harm to the States,' Platkin said on X. 'We are confident that his flagrantly unconstitutional order will remain enjoined by the courts." Trump ran for office on a platform of strict immigration control, and repeatedly said he would attempt to revoke birthright citizenship. Many countries have ended their birthright citizenship, including the United Kingdom and most of Europe.
Indianapolis Star
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
Migrant groups left shocked, scared over Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship
DENVER ‒ The Supreme Court's reticence to stop President Donald Trump from revoking automatic birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States has set off shockwaves among migrant communities. The court's June 27 ruling does not change the status of anyone subject to birthright citizenship, and gives lower courts 30 days to further consider the issue. Advocates immediately filed a class-action lawsuit to block Trump's plan, which would end automatic citizenship for babies born in the United States unless their parents were also citizens or legal, permanent residents. The measure is not retroactive, meaning it would only apply to babies born after it takes effect, if allowed by the courts. Among those suing to stop Trump's plan is "Liza," a Texas-based Russian-born graduate student who gave birth after the president issued his executive order. Liza, who has been granted anonymity by the federal courts in recognition of her immigration status, said she fears going to the Russian embassy to register their child's birth because her husband has applied for asylum in the United States after fleeing their homeland. Liza's baby is currently protected from losing U.S. citizenship due to a preliminary injunction issued by a lower court, which will now consider the merit's of Trump's plan. Liza said she was "sick with worry" that the courts would rule before her baby was born. "Thankfully our baby was born health and happy … we remain worried even now that one day the government would one day take away our baby's citizenship," she said during a press conference following the June 27 Supreme Court ruling. "I'm sad about what today's decision means for all the parents whose children are not protected by the current preliminary injunction and who are now even more scared about their children's future." In Denver, the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition was hurriedly trying to reassure pregnant women that the court's decision in the Trump v. CASA Inc. case changes nothing immediately. "It is really scary for people who are having children right now … that someone would want to take away this fundamental right," said spokeswoman Raquel Lane-Arellano. "I don't see a reality where birthright citizenship gets revoked, (but) for people watching the news, that might not be clear." Birthright citizenship ‒ explicitly granted by the 14th Amendment ‒ says that virtually anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen. The only current exception is children of foreign diplomats, a position the Supreme Court has previously upheld. But the possibility that Trump could end the right granted by the 14th Amendment has raised alarm among groups that had hoped the Supreme Court would outright block his initiative. The Supreme Court's decision sets the stage for lower courts to consider the president's plan over the next month. "Today is a sad day for all of those who care about the U.S. Constitution and the constitutional rights of children born in the United States each and every day," said Conchita Cruz, the co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project. "It is a confusing moment for immigrant families as they see the news and are not necessarily sure what it means or how it could it impact them." Trump in one of his first actions upon returning to the White House issued an executive order declaring that children born to parents visiting on tourist, student or work visas, or who are illegally present, are not automatically citizens. His order would not affect children born to U.S. citizens or people with legal permanent residency. Migrant-rights groups had hoped the Supreme Court would have reaffirmed its previous ruling in favor of birthright citizenship, and were shocked when the court instead ordered lower courts to consider the legal merits of the president's plan. If ended, the policy could affect about 255,000 babies born in the United States annually, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Experts warn that Trump's order could create "stateless" people who are born in the United States but who have no connection to the birth country of their own parents. New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said he was glad that the High Court recognized that nationwide judicial orders can be appropriate to protect plaintiffs from harm and vowed to continue to fight for birthright citizenship on its merits. 'We welcome the opportunity to continue making our case before the district court particularly because the Executive Order will not take immediate effect, to show that the President's approach to birthright citizenship is a recipe for chaos on the ground and harm to the States,' Platkin said on X. 'We are confident that his flagrantly unconstitutional order will remain enjoined by the courts." Trump ran for office on a platform of strict immigration control, and repeatedly said he would attempt to revoke birthright citizenship. Many countries have ended their birthright citizenship, including the United Kingdom and most of Europe.
Daily Mail
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Supreme Court delivers bombshell ruling on Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship
President Donald Trump was handed a major victory by the Supreme Court in his bid to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. Trump signed an executive order when he took office bolding ending birthright citizenship - the legal principle that U.S. citizenship is automatically granted to individuals upon birth. Under the directive, children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens, radically altering the interpretation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment for over 150 years. The president claimed the idea was tied to 'slavery' and should be immediately dismantled. 'That's not about tourists coming in and touching a piece of sand and then all of the sudden there's citizenship, you know they're a citizen, that is all about slavery,' Trump argued. 'If you look at it that way, that case is an easy case to win,' he had previously stated. Six conservative justices – three appointed by Trump himself – sided with the president when it handed down its decision on Friday. The majority opinion in the Trump v. CASA Inc., New Jersey and Washington case came on the last day of the high court's term. Democratic states and an immigrant rights group sued to stop Trump's January 20, 2025 executive order from taking effect. Lower courts issued nationwide preliminary injunctions on the presidential order. Birthright citizenship was ratified in 1868 in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, establishing that anyone born on American soil, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status, is automatically a U.S. citizen. '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,' Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states. After his election but before being sworn in as president for a second time, Trump vowed he would fight for a constitutional shake-up by ending the provision. 'Can you get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action?' NBC host Kristen Welker asked Trump in an interview that aired in December. 'Well, we're going to have to get it changed,' he said. 'We'll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it.' 'We're the only country that has it, you know,' Trump added in explaining his bid to end 125 years of precedent. The president was elated in April when the Supreme Court decided to take on the case despite the high court rarely hearing emergency appeals. 'I am so happy,' he told reporters in the Oval Office on April 17. 'I think the case has been so misunderstood.' But oral arguments earlier this spring set the stage for the staggering decision that the president is sure to denounce. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer was grilled by both liberal and conservative justices over how the narrowing of birthright citizenship rights would work when put into action. Sauer didn't seem clear on how it would work, and said it would be up to legislators to work out the logistics. 'What do hospitals do with newborns?' Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump pick, questioned during oral arguments last month. 'What do states do with a newborn?' 'Federal officials will have to figure that out,' Sauer replied. Additionally, Justice Amy Comey Barrett was not pleased with how Sauer refused to answer a legitimate question from liberal Justice Elana Kagan.
Forbes
a day ago
- Politics
- Forbes
Birthright Citizenship: Supreme Court To Decide Trump Executive Order Today—What To Know
The Supreme Court is set to decide the fate of President Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship on Friday, a decision that marks the first major Supreme Court ruling of the president's second term—and one that could impact litigation against him going forward, as justices could restrict lower courts from banning his policies nationwide. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters on the South Lawn at the White House on June 15. Getty Images The Supreme Court is set to issue its ruling Friday in Trump v. CASA Inc., a case consolidating several lawsuits against Trump's executive order, which reverses longstanding Constitutional precedent to bar children born in the U.S. from automatically getting citizenship at birth if their parents aren't U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Trump asked the Supreme Court to take up the legality of his executive order after lower courts unanimously blocked it, and the policy has not yet taken effect. The president also asked justices to rule on whether federal judges representing a single state or region can impose injunctions that block a policy nationwide, meaning courts would not be able to unilaterally block his agenda going forward unless the Supreme Court rules. Trump's request to the court on nationwide injunctions comes as administration officials and allies have repeatedly complained about federal judges blocking the president's policies, claiming judges are abusing their power and are biased against him politically. The court's decision will come out when it releases opinions in the case at 10 a.m. EDT. The decision will the first major ruling by the Supreme Court on Trump's second-term policies. While justices have now issued a number of rulings regarding Trump policies on its 'shadow docket'—meaning it issues quicker rulings on issues without taking them up for oral argument first—the birthright citizenship dispute will mark the first time since Inauguration Day that justices held arguments regarding a Trump policy and then issued an opinion. But it's unlikely to be the last: hundreds of lawsuits have been brought against the Trump administration in the months since Trump took office, and the court is expected to make the final call in a number of major disputes on everything from immigration to the economy. A group of small businesses asked the court in mid-June to take up Trump's sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs and whether they're lawful, after lower courts blocked the tariffs but appeals courts then put them back into effect while the litigation moves forward. Plaintiffs have asked the Supreme Court to hold oral arguments over Trump tariffs right after its next term starts in the fall, and while the court rejected that request to expedite the case, it still could take up the dispute. Big Number More than 90. That's the approximate number of preliminary injunctions that have been issued against the Trump administration since Inauguration Day, including the ones on Trump's birthright citizenship order that prompted the dispute at the Supreme Court. That number only includes injunctions, which keep a policy on hold while a case moves forward, and does not include quicker temporary restraining orders, which judges use to immediately block a policy while they deliberate on whether to issue a more lasting order. Judges have also issued numerous temporary restraining orders against the Trump administration, which have similarly applied nationwide. While the Supreme Court has only issued one ruling on the Trump administration's policies after hearing oral arguments, the court's quicker 'shadow docket' rulings have largely come out in favor of the president. The court has so far ruled 14 times on Trump administration policies, not including the birthright citizenship case. Of those, the 6-3 conservative court has ruled in the Trump administration's favor nine times, while only three cases have come out against him. Another two rulings have been mixed, with aspects of it both for and against Trump. That being said, Trump has still stewed over the Supreme Court justices he appointed in his first term not being as favorable to him as he hoped, CNN reported in early June, with anonymous sources saying the president has expressed 'particular ire' at Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Trump's birthright citizenship order was one of the first the president issued after his inauguration, after Trump long suggested he could take aim at the policy as part of his wider immigration crackdown. The executive order sparked a number of lawsuits and the first district and appeals court rulings of Trump's second terms, with judges broadly decrying Trump's effort to change the longstanding Constitutional protection. 'The president cannot change, limit, or qualify this Constitutional right via an executive order,' Judge John Coughenour wrote in his ruling blocking the policy. As more court rulings against the president followed, with judges blocking other policies nationwide, the Trump administration and its allies increasingly started taking aim at judges, claiming they were abusing their authority to usurp the president's agenda and claiming judges have been harsher on Trump than courts were on other previous presidents. They also started specifically complaining about judges imposing orders that went beyond their districts: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt decried Judge James Boasberg for blocking the Trump administration from halting deportation flights to El Salvador, for instance, claiming, 'A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil.' In addition to the Trump administration taking the issue to the Supreme Court, Trump's allies in Congress have also sought to solve the issue of lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions, introducing legislation that would prohibit judges' ability to issue orders beyond the region their court covers. That bill is unlikely to become law, however, given it would need 60 votes in the narrowly divided Senate. Further Reading: Forbes Supreme Court Suggests It Won't Allow Trump's Birthright Citizenship Ban—But Could Limit How Other Policies Can Be Blocked By Alison Durkee Forbes Can Trump End Birthright Citizenship? What To Know After Judge Blocks Executive Order By Alison Durkee
