Latest news with #DemocraticAGs
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Mass. AG Campbell vows to fight on after Supreme Court hands Trump birthright citizenship win
While expressing disappointment with Friday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the birthright citizenship case, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea J. Campbell is confident states will 'absolutely be successful' in defeating President Donald Trump's executive order in court. In a 6-3 decision Friday, the Supreme Court handed a win to the Trump administration in the much-anticipated birthright citizenship case, while simultaneously not ruling on the birthright issue directly. The court ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, which have effectively blocked many of Trump's policies since he took office in January. The ruling means injunctions would only apply to plaintiffs in the specific lawsuits at hand. The decision left unclear the fate of Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship. Read more: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of Trump birthright citizenship order unclear The court's conservative majority left open the possibility that Trump's changes — an executive order signed on his first day in office that would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally — could remain blocked nationwide. Speaking alongside fellow Democratic attorneys general from Connecticut, New Jersey, California and Washington, Campbell on Friday said Trump cannot change the U.S. Constitution, in this case the 14th Amendment, with the 'simple strike of a pen.' 'Millions of Americans can trace their citizenship back to immigrant ancestors who helped build this country (and) fuel our economy under the protections of the 14th Amendment,' she said. 'Deeply disappointed' that the Supreme Court did not decide that a nationwide injunction is warranted in the case, Campbell said she and other attorneys general who have sued will press on for the more than 150,000 babies born in the U.S. every year into birthright citizenship. Campbell also addressed the state-by-state patchwork legal issues potentially created by Friday's ruling. 'Citizenship does not depend on whether a baby is born in New Hampshire or Massachusetts,' she said. 'People move, they live along state borders, they're born in hospitals outside the state they live in. A baby's citizenship should not, cannot and must not be determined by the borders of the state they find themselves in at the time of birth. And that's why the district court initially granted nationwide relief because they understood that to be true.' Immigrant rights groups and 22 states had sued over Trump's order, and four federal judges, including one in Boston, subsequently blocked it from going into effect. On Truth Social, Trump hailed Friday's ruling as a 'GIANT WIN.' Material from the Associated Press was used in this story. Chicopee's next budget is 6% hike from this year. Here's where spending has increased Trump says he's terminating trade talks with Canada over tax on technology firms Mass. lawmakers get a deal; gun for first on-time (ish) state budget in years 'You have been the worst': Secretary Hegseth blasts former Fox colleague Healey slams Trump for canceling $45M to protect farms, forests and wetlands in WMass and beyond Read the original article on MassLive.
CBC
a day ago
- Politics
- CBC
U.S. Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, in case on Trump birthright citizenship order
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases, as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked the policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, where all the justices appointed by Republican presidents voted in favour, granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The court ordered lower courts to reconsider the scope of their injunctions and specified that Trump's order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states, as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. "Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens to prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship," wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett for the majority. Complaints about 'judge shopping' The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive, even without weighing its legal merits. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The issue is intertwined with concerns of "judge shopping," where interest groups and plaintiffs of all kinds file lawsuits before judges they perceive as political allies or friendly to their causes. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body for the federal courts, has been in the process of issuing guidance to curtail the practice. Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed the decision as a win to stop "the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump." Republicans and conservatives in particular have long complained about a single judge enjoining matters for the entire country, though Democrats were aggrieved during Joe Biden's administration when a single judge in Texas issued a sweeping ruling on the abortion medication mifepristone. Ultimately, the Supreme Court essentially rejected that judge's interpretation in a 9-0 ruling. No ruling on birthright citizenship The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order "reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors." The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that 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." Not all countries automatically confer citizenship at birth. Britain and Australia modified their laws in the 1980s, requiring a parent to be a citizen or permanent resident in order for a newborn to qualify for citizenship, in part to prevent so-called birth tourism. Mobile users: View the document (PDF KB) (Text KB) CBC is not responsible for 3rd party content In Canada, citizenship is overwhelmingly granted to any child born on its soil, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, following the principle of jus soli, Latin for "right of the soil." There are a few exceptions, notably for the children of foreign diplomats. The current Liberal government in Ottawa is looking through legislation to expand citizenship to children born outside of Canada to Canadian parents. String of court rulings allow White House to enact agenda The U.S. Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process.
Reuters
a day ago
- Politics
- Reuters
US Supreme Court may rule on allowing enforcement of Trump birthright citizenship limits
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court may rule on Friday on Donald Trump's attempt to broadly enforce his executive order to limit birthright citizenship, a move that would affect thousands of babies born each year as the Republican president seeks a major shift in how the U.S. Constitution has long been understood. The administration has made an emergency request for the justices to scale back injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts blocking Trump's directive nationwide. The judges found that Trump's order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that 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 administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order "reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors." An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States." Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties - Republican and Democratic - and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the policy. Proponents have said they are an efficient check on presidential overreach, and have stymied actions deemed unlawful by presidents of both parties.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Maryland joins more legal actions against Trump, including a challenge to billions in grant cuts
Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought is one of 12 federal agency directors named in a new federal lawsuit filed by Democratic state attorneys general contesting abrupt funding cuts to state governments, research institutions, universities and nonprofits. (Photo by) Maryland joined two more legal challenges to the Trump administration Tuesday, one to defend a specific minority business program and another to challenge a sweeping legal maneuver the White House has used to terminate billions in federal funding. The legal actions, like many against the administration, were filed by Democratic attorneys general and governors from 20 or more states and the District of Columbia. They are the latest of about two dozen such suits that Maryland has joined since President Donald Trump took office. The states filed a friend of the court brief in a federal case in Kentucky that Maryland Attorney General Brown called a 'backdoor attempt to dismantle' the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program in federal contracting. The lawsuit targets the Office of Management and Budget and a dozen other federal departments and agencies for what it calls their unlawful use of 'a single subclause buried in federal regulations' to cut 'billions of dollars of federal funding' to the states. That subclause says a congressionally approved grant can be canceled for a handful of reasons, including if the grant 'no longer effectuates … agency priorities.' OMB originally interpreted that to apply when new evidence showed that a grant was ineffective or not feasible. It was not to 'terminate grants arbitrarily.' But that's what OMB has done since Trump took office, says the suit that was filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. OMB now claims that that five-word clause 'permits agencies to terminate grant awards when the agency simply changes its mind.' Electric shock: Maryland has not joined suit against Trump over EV sales rules Under that interpretation of the regulation, Trump and his Department of Government Efficiency directed federal agencies, including all of those listed in the lawsuit, to cut billions in grants that were already awarded in what the lawsuit described as a 'slash-and-burn campaign.' In a statement Tuesday afternoon, Brown's office said that in Maryland these cuts have targeted funding for STEM research, food purchasing programs that support underserved communities and modernization of the state's unemployment insurance systems. The lawsuit is asking the court to rule that the OMB clause doesn't 'independently authorize the Trump administration to terminate funding based on agency priorities that were identified after the grant was awarded.' Alternatively, the lawsuit seeks to overturn the Trump administration's decision to terminate billions of dollars in federal funding 'based on purported changes in agency priorities.' 'The Trump administration cannot unilaterally cut federal funding that Congress has already approved simply to serve its political agenda,' Brown said in a statement Tuesday. 'We will not stand by while Maryland families lose access to healthy, affordable food or our universities are stripped of critical research funding.' The challenge to the Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program stems from a lawsuit filed by two highway contractors in 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. They argued that the program violates the Constitution's equal protection clause by mandating a certain amount of funds be reserved for woman- or minority-owned businesses. The program, founded in 1983, aims to ensure nondiscrimination in the awarding of contracts and has steered billions in federal transportation and infrastructure contracts to minority- and woman-owned businesses. Disadvantaged Business Enterprises include firms that are classified as a small business, majority owned by women, minorities or other socially and economically disadvantaged adults, and are run day-to-day by women or minorities. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE The federal government, under former President Joe Biden, initially opposed the lawsuit. But after President Donald Trump was returned to office in January, the government switched its position and now sides with the highway contractors, according to the brief. The administration asked the court to issue a consent order which 'could restrict or eliminate' the program across the country, according to a statement on Tuesday from Brown's office. The brief argues that if the court were to grant the order requested by the federal government and the two highway contractors, it would be exceeding 'the proper role of the court in our adversarial system of government, because the parties requesting the order take the same position on the issues.' 'This so-called settlement is a backdoor attempt to dismantle a program that helps underrepresented businesses compete for federally funded transportation projects,' Brown said in a separate statement Tuesday. 'We're fighting to protect fair access, strengthen our infrastructure, and ensure these investments benefit all of our communities.'
Reuters
4 days ago
- Politics
- Reuters
Democratic-led states challenge Trump's ability to slash grant funding
BOSTON, June 24 (Reuters) - Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit on Tuesday asking a judge to declare that a key tool Republican President Donald Trump's administration has relied on to cancel federal grants is being used unlawfully to slash billions of dollars in funding. In a lawsuit, opens new tab filed in Boston federal court, 18 state attorneys general plus Pennsylvania's governor took aim at the administration's reliance on a regulation the White House budget office adopted during Trump's first term that strengthened the ability of agencies to cancel grant awards. That regulation, which the White House Office of Management and Budget adopted in 2020, says federal agencies can terminate a grant if it "no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities." The Trump administration has relied on that language to cancel billions of dollars in funding to states and nonprofits as part of its efforts to roll back federal backing for various projects, including those it sees as supporting diversity, equity and inclusion and climate change preparation. It did so with the aide of the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in Trump's drive to slash federal spending that was the brainchild of billionaire Elon Musk. States, nonprofits and others have filed a myriad of lawsuits challenging those grant terminations. Just last week, a judge in Boston sided with Democratic-led states by declaring that the National Institutes of Health's termination of hundreds of grants because of their perceived link to diversity-related topics was void and illegal. The administration in court has argued it acted within its authority to freeze and cancel grant awards that did not reflect revised agency priorities following Trump's return to office in January. But the state attorneys general argue the Trump administration cannot rely on the OMB regulation to overrule laws Congress passes appropriating grant funding. "Congress has the power of the purse, and the president cannot cut billions of dollars of essential resources simply because he doesn't like the programs being funded," New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. They said that under the regulation, agencies may only terminate grants where additional evidence reveals it was ineffective at achieving program goals. They asked a judge to declare the rule does not allow grants to be terminated based on new agency priorities identified after the grant is awarded. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
