Latest news with #CitizenshipClause
American Military News
15 hours ago
- Politics
- American Military News
Supreme Court hands Trump ‘Giant Win' in birthright citizenship case
The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a 'GIANT WIN' on Friday by ruling against 'universal injunctions' and limiting court injunctions after a lower court issued a preliminary injunction against the president's executive order blocking birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. In a 6-3 ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court wrote, 'Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.' In Friday's ruling, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett claimed that the 'universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent' for the majority of U.S. history. 'Its absence from 18th- and 19th-century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority,' Barrett wrote. 'That the absence continued into the 20th century renders any claim of historical pedigree still more implausible.' Barrett explained that the Supreme Court's ruling does not address whether the president's executive order on birthright citizenship violates the Nationality Act of the Citizenship Clause. Instead, Barrett said the issue presented to the Supreme Court 'is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.' READ MORE: Supreme Court issues major deportation ruling Barrett added, 'A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power.' In a concurring opinion, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that the court's decision will now require district courts throughout the country to 'follow proper legal procedures' with regard to injunctions. 'Most significantly, district courts can no longer award preliminary nationwide or classwide relief except when such relief is legally authorized,' Kavanaugh stated. Following Friday's Supreme Court ruling, Trump issued a statement on Truth Social, saying, 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process.' Vice President J.D. Vance also released a statement regarding the Supreme Court's decision, describing it as a 'huge ruling.' Vance claimed that the ruling will stop the 'ridiculous process of nationwide injunctions' that Democrat judges have used to continually block the president's executive orders. 'Under our system, everyone has to follow the law–including judges!' Vance tweeted.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions; allows Trump to partially enforce birthright citizenship order
The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines Friday allowing President Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship to go into effect in some areas of the country, for now, by curtailing judges' ability to block the president's policies nationwide. Ruling that three federal district judges went too far in issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump's order, the high court's decision claws back a key tool plaintiffs have used to hamper the president's agenda in dozens of lawsuits. 'These injunctions — known as 'universal injunctions' — likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court's six Republican-appointed justices. But it does not yet definitively resolve whether Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship are constitutional, a hefty legal question that could ultimately return to the justices. For now, the justices narrowed the lower court rulings to only block Trump's order as applied to the 22 Democratic-led states, expectant mothers and immigration organizations that are suing. The Trump administration can now resume developing guidance to implement the order, though it must wait 30 days before attempting to deny citizenship to anyone. However, the majority left the door open for plaintiffs to still try to seek broad relief by filing class action lawsuits. In dissent, the court's three Democratic-appointed justices accused the administration of 'gamesmanship' and condemned their colleagues for 'shamefully' playing along. 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,' wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship,' Sotomayor continued. She read her dissent aloud from the bench, which the justices reserve for only a few cases each term to express their deep disagreement. Signed on his first day in office, Trump's order curbs birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil if they don't have at least one parent with permanent legal status. The sweeping restrictions upend the conventional understanding of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, long recognized to only have few exceptions. Every court to directly confront the legality of Trump's order so far has found it likely unconstitutional. The administration went to the Supreme Court on its emergency docket to narrow nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Greenbelt, Md., Seattle and Boston. The cases will now return to the lower courts for further proceedings as Trump's order partially goes into effect. The parties could bring the case back to the justices once the appeals courts issue their final rulings. In a rare move, the high court agreed to hear oral arguments in the case, despite typically handling emergency applications solely based on a round of written briefing. The arguments took place in May, a special session scheduled after the normal window that ended in April. The Trump administration raised alarm about the dozens of nationwide injunctions imposed by judges since the president's inauguration, a sharp rise that the Justice Department insisted demonstrates judicial overreach intruding on Trump's authority. Trump's critics, however, have pushed back, saying the smattering of court injunctions reflects that the president has been acting lawlessly on birthright citizenship and other areas. Updated at 10:20 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Independent
16 hours ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Supreme Court limits judges' power to block birthright citizenship ban. Here's how it's a legal win for Trump
President Donald Trump can continue to pursue attempts to redefine birthright citizenship in the United States, after the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door for him on Friday. The nation's highest court limited the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide blocks, otherwise known as injunctions, on the president's executive order, which seeks to strip citizenship from people born in the U.S. to certain immigrant parents. Now, those injunctions may only apply to individuals, groups, or states that have sued. Friday's ruling did not address the actual merits of ending birthright citizenship, but the ruling still hands the president a massive win. It means that Trump's birthright citizenship order could potentially be implemented in states where challenges have not been addressed by courts. In the meantime, the Supreme Court said it would pause the order from taking effect for 30 days. Here's what to know about the case. Birthright citizenship is the right of automatic citizenship to any person born in the United States, regardless of where their parents may be from. It is ingrained in the Constitution as part of the 14th Amendment under Section 1. '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,' the Citizenship Clause Doctrine reads. 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Why does Trump want to end birthright citizenship? Trump is determined to carry out the largest mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, as well as severely restrict immigration to the U.S. He has falsely blamed immigrants for violent crime, fewer job opportunities, higher housing prices, shortages of public benefits, and more. Ending birthright citizenship is part of his policies in restricting immigration. The president's executive order seeks to end automatic citizenship given to anyone born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally, or here temporarily but legally – such a students or tourists. Why is ending nationwide injunctions part of this? The Trump administration did not ask the Supreme Court to rule on the merits of birthright citizenship, despite the case being tied to his executive order. Rather, they used the case as a vehicle to ask the court to limit lower court judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. Nationwide injunctions have been a thorn in Trump's side for years. More than half of the injunctions issued over the last 70 years were against the Trump administration, according to the Harvard Law Review. Judges have blocked federal funding cuts and mass firings of federal workers, as well as Trump's executive order banning transgender service members from the U.S. military, among others. By limiting the scope of a judge's injunction, it means Trump's order could take effect in some states where courts have not ruled on the matter. What does this mean moving forward? For the next 30 days, while the order is paused, plaintiffs are likely to bring lawsuits across the country to try and temporarily stop Trump's attempts to end birthright citizenship from taking effect. Lower court judges will need to revise their rulings to narrow the scope of injunctions. One way they can get around this is if plaintiffs bring class action lawsuits. However, if lawsuits are not brought in certain states, Trump's order could take effect – although its likely to face many legal challenges. Meanwhile, Trump is likely to continue pushing the court to allow him to redefine the Constitution and birthright citizenship. The actual merits of that may return to the court in a separate case later this year or next year.
The Hill
19 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Bondi takes victory lap over ruling limiting nationwide injunctions
Attorney General Pam Bondi on Friday took a victory lap over the Supreme Court ruling that allowed for President Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship to go into effect in some areas of the country. 'Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,' Bondi said on X. She continued, 'This would not have been possible without tireless work from our excellent lawyers @TheJusticeDept and our Solicitor General John Sauer. This Department of Justice will continue to zealously defend @POTUS's policies and his authority to implement them.' The high court's decision found that three federal district judges went too far in issuing nationwide injunctions and limited blocks on implementing Trump's birthright citizenship ban only in states that have filed challenges against it. In the other states however, the ruling allows the Trump administration to resume developing guidance to implement the order, though it must wait 30 days before attempting to deny citizenship to anyone. The ruling though does not yet definitively resolve whether Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship are constitutional. But the case will have significance for legal battles beyond birthright citizenship, as the Trump administration fights nationwide injunctions in other cases blocking their policies. The Trump administration has railed against the use of nationwide injunctions, fuming that district court judges have the power to block implementation. 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court!' Trump posted on Truth Social Friday morning. 'Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.' But what the Trump administration has called judicial activism, Democrats and legal challengers argue is a reflection of the illegality of multiple Trump policies. Democrats argue that Trump — who has already issued more than 100 executive orders during his second term — has far surpassed his predecessors in seeking to shape policy through executive orders that go beyond the scope of his powers. His policies have been struck down by judges of both parties, including some of his own appointees. The use of nationwide injunctions has grown over recent decades, spurring louder calls to limit judicial power. The House earlier this year passed a bill limiting the ability of district court judges to impose nationwide injunctions, though it has not yet been taken up in the Senate. Trump signed an order on his first day in office that curbs birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil if they don't have at least one parent with permanent legal status, which would upend the conventional understanding of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Before Friday's high court decision, every other court to directly confront the legality of Trump's order so far has found it likely unconstitutional. The administration went to the Supreme Court on its emergency docket to narrow nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Greenbelt, Md., Seattle and Boston. In the birthright citizenship case, Democrats have argued that nationwide injunctions make sense to protect a right afforded to all regardless of where they are born. Steve Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University, told lawmakers earlier this year that applying relief in such a narrow way wouldn't make sense. 'Consider the birthright citizenship cases. Do we really think that parents should have to challenge that policy one child at a time? Would it make any sense at all, even on a broader scale, for the scope of birthright citizenship to differ in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, simply because those three states fall into three different circuits?' he asked. 'Any time a court invalidates a state or federal law on its face, rather than as applied to the specific plaintiffs, it is necessarily providing relief to non-parties, since the law can no longer be enforced against anyone.'
Time Magazine
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Time Magazine
On Birthright Citizenship, Supreme Court Limits Lower Courts' Power to Block Trump Order
The Supreme Court on Friday handed President Donald Trump a major victory by limiting the ability of lower courts to block his executive order curbing birthright citizenship while sidestepping the core constitutional question at the heart of the controversy: whether the children of undocumented immigrants born on U.S. soil are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. In a 6-to-3 decision split along ideological lines, the Court ruled that lower federal judges had overstepped their authority by imposing nationwide injunctions that blocked the policy across all 50 states. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett criticized such sweeping judicial orders, stating, 'When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' The Justices did not address the legality of Trump's effort to dismantle automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to noncitizen parents, leaving that question for future litigation. But their ruling weakens a key legal tool that had previously stalled the Administration's immigration agenda—and may open the door to new, state-by-state battles over one of the most deeply rooted principles in American law. The order will not go into effect for 30 days, the Justices said in their opinion, allowing its legality to be contested further. The decision means that, barring further legal action, Trump's birthright citizenship order could soon take effect in 28 states that have not formally challenged it. However, it remains blocked in New Hampshire, where a separate case is still pending. The executive order, issued on Trump's first day back in office, could reshape the country's immigration framework. It called for denying citizenship to the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors, a dramatic departure from more than a century of legal interpretation. The order specified that only children with at least one U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident parent would be considered citizens at birth. Critics argue that the policy directly contradicts the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' The Supreme Court has upheld this clause as conferring citizenship to nearly all children born on American soil—a position most legal scholars consider settled law since the Court's landmark 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
