Latest news with #CASAInc.
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Birthright citizenship plaintiffs make new push to block Trump's order nationwide
A group of plaintiffs challenging President Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions quickly made a new push to block it nationwide, following the Supreme Court's decision Friday. In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, the high court's conservative majority curtailed federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. But it left the door open for plaintiffs to try to seek broad relief by filing class action lawsuits. Within hours, a group of plaintiffs suing in Maryland jumped on the suggestion, asking a district judge to issue a new ruling that applies to anyone designated as ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order. 'Without a class-wide injunction, Defendants will deny thousands of babies in the putative class their constitutional and statutory right to United States citizenship, as well as all of the rights and privileges that citizenship entails,' the motion reads. 'Consistent with the Supreme Court's most recent instructions, the Court can protect all members of the putative class from irreparable harm that the unlawful Executive Order threatens to inflict,' it continues. The motion was filed by CASA Inc., the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and several expectant mothers who filed one of the original lawsuits challenging Trump's executive order. The request will go to U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, an appointee of former President Biden. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Axios
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Axios
New birthright citizenship challenges filed in wake of Supreme Court ruling
Two immigrants rights organization suing over President Trump's birthright citizenship order recast their lawsuit as a class action following the Supreme Court's ruling Friday. The big picture: The high court imposed new limits on lower courts' ability to freeze federal policies — specifically, Trump's effort to eliminate birthright citizenship in the U.S. But the order left room for broader relief through the filing of class action lawsuits. Driving the news: Following the ruling Friday, the plaintiffs — CASA Inc., the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and a group of expectant mothers — asked a federal judge in Maryland to block Trump's executive order attacking birthright citizenship. "Without a class-wide injunction, Defendants will deny thousands of babies in the putative class their constitutional and statutory right to United States citizenship, as well as all of the rights and privileges that citizenship entails," the complaint states. The Supreme Court indicated in its Friday order that class action lawsuits are among the permitted methods to block federal government policy. "Consistent with the Supreme Court's most recent instructions, the Court can protect all members of the putative class from irreparable harm that the unlawful Executive Order threatens to inflict," the suit states. Catch up quick: Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office this year, seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents and undocumented immigrants. The order was quickly met with legal challenges, which resulted in temporary blocks on the order's enforcement nationwide. Trump's DOJ asked the Supreme Court to limit the scope of those orders, and the high court on Friday imposed such limits on lower courts' ability to freeze federal policies. CASA Inc. and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.
The Hill
21 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Birthright citizenship plaintiffs make new push to block Trump's order nationwide
A group of plaintiffs challenging President Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions quickly made a new push to block it nationwide, following the Supreme Court's decision Friday. In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, the high court's conservative majority curtailed federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. But it left the door open for plaintiffs to try to seek broad relief by filing class action lawsuits. Within hours, a group of plaintiffs suing in Maryland jumped on the suggestion, asking a district judge to issue a new ruling that applies to anyone designated as ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order. 'Without a class-wide injunction, Defendants will deny thousands of babies in the putative class their constitutional and statutory right to United States citizenship, as well as all of the rights and privileges that citizenship entails,' the motion reads. 'Consistent with the Supreme Court's most recent instructions, the Court can protect all members of the putative class from irreparable harm that the unlawful Executive Order threatens to inflict,' it continues. The motion was filed by CASA Inc., the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and several expectant mothers who filed one of the original lawsuits challenging Trump's executive order. The request will go to U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, an appointee of former President Biden.
Forbes
a day ago
- Politics
- Forbes
Supreme Court Doesn't Overturn Birthright Citizenship—But Otherwise Sides With Trump
The Supreme Court broadly gave President Donald Trump a win Friday in its first major case over his agenda, as the court limited lower court judges' ability to block his policies nationwide, though the court side-stepped the question of whether his policy restricting birthright citizenship is constitutional. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters on the South Lawn at the White House on June 15. Getty Images The Supreme Court issued its ruling 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. The president asked justices to more broadly 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. The court punted on the question of whether the birthright citizenship rule is lawful, but ruled 6-3 that lower courts cannot block policies nationwide, saying 'Congress has granted federal courts no such power.' 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. This story is breaking and will be updated. The decision is 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
The Hill
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court's final decision day: Top cases to watch
The Supreme Court is set to announce its final slate of opinions Friday, with several blockbuster cases left to be decided before the court's summer break begins. The justices have yet to hand down major decisions expected to implicate porn website rules, LGBTQ books in schools, Louisiana's congressional map and President Trump's efforts to narrow birthright citizenship. Here's a look at the major cases left this term: Birthright citizenship Case name: Trump v. CASA Inc.; Trump v. New Jersey; Trump v. Washington What they're weighing: Can three federal judges block Trump's birthright citizenship order nationwide? On Trump's first day back in the White House, he issued an executive order restricting birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil who don't have at least one parent with permanent legal status. Three federal judges issued nationwide injunctions blocking the directive, and the relevant federal appeals courts declined to halt those orders. The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal seeking to narrow the nationwide scope of the lower courts' rulings. It has not yet asked the justices to decide whether the order is constitutional. What it will impact: The scope of power federal judges yield. Racial gerrymandering Case name: Louisiana v. Callais; Robinson v. Callais What they're weighing: Is Louisiana's congressional map an unconstitutional racial gerrymander? This case is the latest stage of the long-running legal battle over Louisiana's congressional map design following the 2020 census. Initially, the Republican-led Legislature overrode the Democratic governor's veto to approve a map with only one majority-Black district. A district court struck it down for likely violating the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. At issue now is a new design, which the Legislature drew with an additional Black-majority district to prevent the courts from taking over. A group of white voters argued the Legislature went too far in boosting Black voter power and that it is now an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th Amendment. What it will impact: States' latitude to draw additional minority-majority districts to remedy a Voting Rights Act violation. Parent opt-out options for LGBTQ material in schools Case name: Mahmoud v. Taylor What they're weighing: Must Montgomery County, Md., provide parents an opt-out option from LGBTQ-inclusive books in elementary schools? In 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education introduced LGBTQ-inclusive books in elementary schools. Initially, parents could opt out, but the county later eliminated the option. A group of parents with religious beliefs at odds with the books' teachings argue the lack of an opt-out option violates their religious rights under the Constitution's Free Exercise Clause. What it will impact: When parents can opt out their children from instruction inconsistent with their religious beliefs. Age-verification laws Case name: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton What they're weighing: Is Texas's age-verification law for porn websites constitutional? Texas's H.B. 1181, passed in 2023, requires websites to verify users that are 18 years or older if the websites' content is more than one-third 'sexual material harmful to minors.' The porn industry, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, is challenging the law, which it claims is materially identical to the federal Child Online Protection Act — a measure the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2002. What it will impact: Similar laws limiting access to online pornography in nearly half the country. ObamaCare Case name: Becerra v. Braidwood Management What they're weighing: Does the structure of the Preventive Services Task Force violate the Constitution's Appointments Clause? The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover preventive services without any cost for the patient. The law empowers the federal Preventive Services Task Force, a group of medical experts, to recommend which services should be covered. A group of individuals and small businesses sued after the task force recommended covering HIV-prevention medication. The plaintiffs contend the task force members are principal officers who needed Senate confirmation under the Constitution's Appointments Clause. What it will impact: The task force's recommendations, which could all be thrown into question if the justices rule against it. Universal Service Fund Case name: FCC v. Consumers' Research; SHLB Coalition v. Consumers' Research What they're weighing: Does the Universal Service Fund violate the nondelegation doctrine? The Universal Service Fund (USF) spends $9 billion annually to subsidize telecommunications services for rural and low-income consumers. A conservative nonprofit asserts it violates the nondelegation doctrine, which prevents Congress from delegating its legislative authority to the executive branch. Congress allows the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to determine how much telecommunications companies must contribute to the fund, which the FCC, in turn, sets based on a private company's financial projections. What it will impact: The court has not struck down a statute under the doctrine since 1935, but anti-regulatory interests are hoping the case will revitalize the doctrine and place more limits on federal agency power. CASES DECIDED Texas DNA testing law The court ruled 6-3 that Texas death row inmate Ruben Gutierrez has the legal right to sue over the state's laws governing DNA testing in a bid to test evidence he says would block his execution. Case name: Gutierrez v. Saenz What they're weighing: Can death-row inmate Ruben Gutierrez proceed in his quest for DNA testing? Texas death row inmate Ruben Gutierrez has sought DNA testing for more than a decade, claiming it will make him ineligible for the death penalty by showing he had no major role in a 1998 robbery and murder. Texas's law only allows DNA testing when favorable results would prove a defendant's innocence, which Gutierrez claims violates due process. He appealed a ruling that he has no legal standing to move forward. What it will impact: The use of DNA as a tool in capital cases. South Carolina's bid to defund Planned Parenthood The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines in throwing out a challenge to South Carolina's bid to defund Planned Parenthood. Case name: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic What they're weighing: Can Planned Parenthood challenge South Carolina deeming it an unqualified provider for Medicaid recipients? Known as the free choice-of-provider provision, the Medicaid Act allows recipients to receive health services from any 'qualified' provider. In 2018, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) signed executive orders deeming abortion clinics unqualified. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a patient challenged McMaster's decision. The Supreme Court heard the state's arguments that private parties have no right to sue under the provision. What it will impact: Whether private parties can enforce the Medicaid Act's free choice-of-provider provision. Suing Palestine The justices unanimously upheld the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. Case name: Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization; United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization What they're weighing: Does the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violate the Fifth Amendment? Congress in 2019 passed a law easing terror victims' ability to seek damages from the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization. The Supreme Court reviewed two lower court decisions ruling the law violates due process by forcing the groups to consent to U.S. courts' authority. What it will impact: Whether Americans injured in Middle East terror attacks can take Palestinian leadership groups to U.S. courts for damages. California's emission standard The court ruled 7-2 that fuel producers have standing to sue over the state's car emissions rule. Case name: Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA What they're weighing: Do fuel producers have standing to sue over California's car emissions rule? The Clean Air Act generally preempts state laws that regulate car emissions. But the law allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to grant California — and only California — a waiver, which the state has used to impose stricter standards. The EPA granted such a waiver during the Obama administration, the first Trump administration partially withdrew it, and the Biden administration reinstated it in 2022. Fuel producers that sued over the reinstatement appealed a lower ruling that found they have no legal standing. What it will impact: Whether the energy industry can revive its effort to axe California's stricter emission standard. Vape product challenges The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that RJ Reynolds Vapor Co.'s lawsuit against the FDA can proceed in the 5th Circuit. Case name: FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. What they're weighing: Where can vape manufacturers sue when the FDA denies a product's marketing authorization? Federal law requires vape manufacturers to receive U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval before marketing their products. 'Any person adversely affected' by a denial can sue in Washington, D.C., or the federal circuit court where they reside. In this case, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. attempted to bring a challenge in the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit by adding as plaintiffs a retail store and a trade association based there. The federal government wants the Supreme Court to shut down the tactic. What it will impact: Whether vape companies can forum shop to challenge FDA denials. Gender-affirming care The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban in a 6-3 vote along ideological lines. Case name: United States v. Skrmetti What they're weighing: Is Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors constitutional? Tennessee's S.B. 1 prohibits health care providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to allow a transgender minor to live consistent with their gender identity. The Biden administration and a group of transgender adolescents and doctors argue the law violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Trump administration abandoned the government's challenge upon taking office but urged the court to still decide the case. What it will impact: Similar laws passed by Republican-led legislatures in roughly half the country. West Texas nuclear facility The court ruled 6-3 that federal law does not provide Texas the ability to sue over the facility's license, allowing it to stand. Case name: Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas What they're weighing: Can the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license a private entity to temporarily store nuclear waste away from the reactor where it was generated? And who can sue? In 2021, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensed Interim Storage Partners to store up to 5,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuels for 40 years at its West Texas facility. The commission was appealing two findings that allowed Fasken Land and Minerals and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) to block the license. What it will impact: Limits on who can challenge certain federal agency actions. Clean Air Act In the first case, the court ruled 7-2 that the oil refineries must sue in the D.C. Circuit. In the second case, the court ruled 8-0 that that the states can sue in the regionally appropriate circuit. Case name: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining; Oklahoma v. EPA; and PacifiCorp v. EPA What they're weighing: What is the proper venue for lawsuits brought under the Clean Air Act? These cases involve the federal government's bid to move to Washington, D.C., a series of lawsuits brought by Republican-led states and the energy industry challenging EPA actions under the Clean Air Act. The EPA is attempting to transfer the first case out of the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit, while the plaintiffs appealed in the other cases after the 10th Circuit agreed to move them to D.C. What it will impact: When more conservative-leaning courts can get involved in key environmental cases. Mistaken FBI raid In a unanimous decision, the court revived the family's lawsuit. Case name: Martin v. United States What they're weighing: Can a family whose house was mistakenly raided by the FBI seek damages from the federal government? The FBI raided an Atlanta family's home — detonating a flash-bang grenade with guns raised — in 2017 before realizing it was the wrong house. The family sued for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but lower courts tossed the challenge. What it will impact: When people injured by certain actions of federal officers can bring damages claims. Mexico's suit against US gunmakers In a unanimous decision, the court ruled Mexico's lawsuit is barred by federal law. Case name: Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos What they're weighing: Is Mexico's lawsuit against the American firearms industry barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)? Mexico sued a group of prominent American firearms companies over their guns turning up in cartel violence, seeking $10 billion and injunctive relief that would change the state of U.S. firearm regulation. But in 2005, Congress passed the PLCAA, which provides broad legal immunity to the gun industry. The Supreme Court heard the gun industry's appeal after a lower court held Mexico's lawsuit falls under an exception to the law's immunity shield. What it will impact: The scope of the gun industry's liability shield. Reverse discrimination In a unanimous decision, the court ruled straight plaintiffs don't have to clear a higher legal bar than minorities. Case name: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services What they're weighing: Do members of a majority group have to clear a higher legal bar than minority groups to win an employment discrimination claim? Marlean Ames alleges the Ohio Department of Youth Services discriminated against her because she is heterosexual. Ames unsuccessfully applied for a promotion in 2019, but the job long remained vacant until her boss, who is gay, offered the job to a gay person who didn't apply. Then, Ames says she was given a demotion and replaced by another gay person. A lower court agreed Ames met the normal requirements to bring a federal discrimination lawsuit but ruled against her, saying she needed to additionally prove 'background circumstances' since she was a member of a majority group. What it will impact: How easily white and straight individuals can bring employer discrimination suits. Catholic Charities tax exemption In a unanimous decision, the court ruled Wisconsin violated Catholic Charities' First Amendment rights. Case name: Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission What they're weighing: Can Wisconsin deny its unemployment tax religious exemption to Catholic Charities Bureau? Catholic Charities Bureau, the charitable arm of a Wisconsin diocese, is challenging the state's refusal to grant a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. The exemption requires recipients to be 'operated primarily for religious purposes.' The state and its top court held that the charity does not meet that requirement because it employs non-Catholics, provides services that could be provided by secular groups and does not proselytize. What it will impact: The extent to which states can scrutinize a group's professed religious purpose. Environmental reviews In an 8-0 decision, the court narrowed the scope of environmental review under one of the nation's bedrock environmental laws. Case name: Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo. What they're weighing: Did the Surface Transportation Board conduct a sufficient environmental review in approving an 88-mile proposed railway in Utah? In 2021, the Surface Transportation Board approved plans for an 88-mile railroad in Utah. The parties are battling over the board's review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to consider the 'reasonably foreseeable' environmental effects of a proposed action. Eagle County, Colo., and several environmental groups challenged the approval, arguing the board ignored required upstream and downstream effects. What it will impact: The scope of environmental reviews required by NEPA. Publicly funded charter schools The court failed to reach a decision after deadlocking 4-4. Case name: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond; St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond What they're weighing: Can Oklahoma officials approve the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school? In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board approved a contract for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which would be the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond (R) contested the school's approval. The case tests whether the school complies with the First Amendment's religion clauses. What it will impact: The bounds of religion in publicly funded education. Unreasonable force standard The Supreme Court made it easier to bring unreasonable force claims by ruling unanimously that courts should examine the 'totality of the circumstances.' Case name: Barnes v. Felix Jr. What they're weighing: What legal test governs Fourth Amendment unreasonable force claims? Ashtian Barnes was shot and killed by a police officer during a 2016 traffic stop for driving a rental car that had unpaid toll fees. Officer Roberto Felix Jr. asked Barnes to step out of the car, but the vehicle started moving forward, prompting Felix to shoot Barnes. Barnes's mother sued for damages, claiming Felix used unreasonable force against her son. The justices were to decide whether courts should assess everything that happened during the traffic stop or just the split seconds when the officer feared for his safety. What it will impact: The standard for use of deadly force by police. Ghost guns The Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision upheld the Biden administration's rule. Case name: Bondi v. VanDerStok What they're weighing: Is the Biden administration's crackdown on 'ghost guns' legal? In 2022, the Biden-era Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a rule cracking down on 'ghost guns,' subjecting them to background checks, licensing and other requirements. The Supreme Court is reviewing whether that the Biden administration could do so by deeming ghost guns as 'firearms' under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The case did not implicate the Second Amendment. What it will impact: The executive branch's ability to regulate ghost guns without congressional approval.
