Latest news with #ExecutiveOrder14160
Economic Times
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Economic Times
What is Birthright Citizenship? 10 key points to know about the US Supreme Court's decision today
US Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling has opened a new chapter in America's immigration and legal policy. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled 6–3 to limit federal courts from issuing nationwide blocks on presidential actions, giving President Donald Trump the green light to begin implementing his controversial executive order to end automatic citizenship for some U.S.-born children. While birthright citizenship is still protected under the 14th Amendment, this procedural decision gives Trump more control over immigration policy and future executive powers. The legal fight isn't over, but the balance of power has clearly shifted—possibly for years to come. US Supreme Court limits court powers, boosting Trump's move to end birthright citizenship. The June 27 ruling clears the way for executive action on immigration, reshaping how legal challenges are handled. Birthright citizenship fight now heads into deeper legal waters. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What is birthright citizenship and why is it at the center of the legal fight? Why did the Supreme Court limit nationwide injunctions? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Is birthright citizenship still legal in the US? Here are 10 key takeaways from today's Supreme Court decision: Birthright citizenship explained Birthright citizenship refers to the legal principle that anyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status. This right is granted by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that all persons 'born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' are citizens. The Trump Executive Order In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aiming to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or temporarily. This move reignited national debate on the scope of the 14th Amendment. The lawsuit and injunction Several immigrant advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations sued the administration, and federal courts quickly issued nationwide injunctions, temporarily halting enforcement of the order across the country. Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions In today's ruling, the Supreme Court held that federal district courts had overreached their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said courts can only block executive actions for named plaintiffs and within their jurisdiction—not for the entire nation. A procedural, not constitutional, decision Importantly, the Court did not rule on whether Trump's executive order violates the 14th Amendment. It focused only on the legal question of how far courts can go in stopping federal actions during ongoing litigation. The 30-day window The Court gave lower courts 30 days to revise or narrow their injunctions. This means the current block on Trump's order remains for now—but likely only for those directly involved in the case. Liberal dissent Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. They warned that limiting injunctions would allow potentially unconstitutional actions to impact millions of people before a full legal review can be completed. Impact on future litigation This decision redefines how legal challenges to federal policies proceed. Moving forward, district courts will find it harder to issue sweeping nationwide bans—even in urgent civil rights cases. Trump hails the ruling President Trump celebrated the decision, calling it a victory over 'radical left judges' who he claims have tried to overrule executive power. His campaign has emphasized ending birthright citizenship as part of his broader immigration agenda. What's next? While the nationwide injunctions are likely to be scaled back, the underlying case about whether the executive order violates the Constitution will continue through the courts. A final ruling on the substance of birthright citizenship may still be months—or years—away. What do dissenting justices say about this change? How does this ruling expand presidential power? What happens next in the legal battle over birthright citizenship? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What's the broader impact of the ruling? Birthright citizenship is still alive, but the rules are changing FAQs: In a landmark decision on June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court made a major ruling affecting the future of birthright citizenship and how much power presidents have when issuing executive orders. The Court didn't outright end the constitutional right to citizenship for children born on U.S. soil—but it did clear the way for President Donald Trump's controversial executive order to begin taking effect. More importantly, it drastically limits how federal courts can block presidential actions nationwide. Here's everything you need to know about what happened, why it matters, and what comes citizenship is based on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that anyone born in the United States and 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' is a U.S. citizen. This rule has long applied even to children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aimed at denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or only temporarily. This sparked immediate backlash from immigrant rights groups, who argue that the executive order goes against the Trump's executive order was issued, federal courts quickly stepped in and blocked its enforcement with nationwide injunctions. But on June 27, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal district courts had overstepped their Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the conservative majority, said that lower courts may only issue injunctions that protect the people who actually filed the lawsuit, not block the law across the entire country. This means that while Trump's order remains on hold for now, it's only blocked for a limited number of plaintiffs, not for now. The Court's ruling did not decide whether Trump's order is constitutional. Instead, it focused only on the procedure—specifically how courts can pause government actions while cases are pending. So birthright citizenship still stands, but the fight over it will continue in the courts for months, if not Barrett made it clear that lower courts have 30 days to narrow their injunctions. In practical terms, this opens the door for the Trump administration to start enforcing the executive order soon—at least for people not directly involved in the Court's three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented. They warned that limiting courts' ability to block federal actions could allow potentially unconstitutional policies to harm millions before being properly argued that in cases affecting civil rights, immigration, healthcare, and more, courts need the power to issue broader protections. Without that, executive actions could go unchecked until higher courts finally weigh in—potentially too late for those already Trump called the ruling a 'giant win', saying it strikes back at 'radical left judges' who he believes have blocked his policies unfairly. His administration says the decision restores a proper balance between the executive branch and the his return to office, Trump has pushed dozens of executive actions—many of which have been held up by federal judges. These include cuts to foreign aid, changes to diversity programs, rollbacks on immigration protections, and adjustments to election ruling doesn't just apply to birthright citizenship—it makes it much harder for lower courts to freeze other executive orders nationwide, allowing Trump and future presidents to act more freely while legal battles play the Supreme Court ruling doesn't end the legal challenge, it shifts the strategy. The main lawsuit will continue, and eventually, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether ending birthright citizenship is constitutional—possibly as soon as October 2025, according to Attorney General Pam the meantime, enforcement will vary depending on which state you're in. Because states issue birth certificates, and many Democratic-led states don't collect data on parents' immigration status, they may resist implementing Trump's Barrett also acknowledged that states may suffer financial and administrative burdens from the new rule—hinting that lower courts might still justify broader injunctions if specific harms are ruling marks a shift in American legal and political power. For decades, both Democratic and Republican presidents have clashed with district courts that blocked their actions. The Supreme Court's decision now narrows that power, giving the White House more room to Congressional Research Service noted that from Trump's inauguration to April 29, 2025, there were 25 instances where federal courts halted executive decision could affect not only immigration, but also climate policies, student loan programs, and workplace rules, giving presidents more control while the courts catch Supreme Court's ruling on June 27, 2025, doesn't eliminate birthright citizenship—but it paves the way for President Trump to start enforcing his order, and it reshapes how the legal system checks executive next few months will be crucial as lower courts revise their rulings, and states decide how to respond. Meanwhile, the broader debate over constitutional rights, immigration, and presidential power is far from Court allowed Trump's executive order to move forward by limiting court but Trump's policy could change how it's applied during ongoing court battles.
Fast Company
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Fast Company
Supreme Court backs Trump on birthright citizenship injunctions. Here's what that means:
The Supreme Court ended its term on Friday with a major decision in the closely watched birthright citizenship case, that is likely to have a profound impact on whether the lower courts can pause or halt President Donald Trump's executive orders—which many legal experts say constitute an overreach of presidential power. What happened? Ruling along ideological lines 6–3, the court's conservative majority decided to curb injunctions from the lower courts that temporarily paused President Donald Trump's plan to end automatic birthright citizenship via Executive Order 14160, which aims to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally, on temporary visas, or not 'lawful permanent residents' at the time of the child's birth. However, that right is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to '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.' To be clear, the Supreme Court justices did not rule on the merits, or constitutionality, of ending birthright citizenship. The Trump administration didn't ask the court to rule on the issue itself, and instead asked the high court to rule on whether federal judges have the power to issue injunctions that would block Trump's order nationwide, while litigation continues. The Supreme Court ruled in Trump's favor to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by federal judges, effectively sending back the rulings to lower courts. For the 28 states that have not challenged the birthright executive order in court, automatic citizenship could end for children born in the U.S. whose parents are undocumented immigrants, and some temporary residents and visitors, according to the New York Times. The court also stopped his executive order from taking effect for 30 days. Friday's ruling is a significant victory for Trump, and a major blow to his opponents who have been trying to limit his executive orders. Trump calls ruling 'monumental victory' On Friday, speaking at the White House, Trump called the decision a 'monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.' That's the opposite of what Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, which argued ' the Court's decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution. The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival. Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort. With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a 'solemn mockery' of our Constitution.' And added, 'The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.' In a separate dissent, Jackson called the majority decision an ' existential threat to the rule of law.' In response, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority decision pushed back, and said 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.' Trump first pledged to end birthright as early as 2015, and again in 2018, before issuing an executive order on the issue in January. Trump has instituted a crackdown on immigration since taking office that has lead to some immigrants, green card holders, foreigners, and even American citizens being detained by the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
Time of India
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
What is Birthright Citizenship? 10 key points to know about the US Supreme Court's decision today
US Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling : What it means and how it changes presidential powers- In a landmark decision on June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court made a major ruling affecting the future of birthright citizenship and how much power presidents have when issuing executive orders. The Court didn't outright end the constitutional right to citizenship for children born on U.S. soil—but it did clear the way for President Donald Trump's controversial executive order to begin taking effect. More importantly, it drastically limits how federal courts can block presidential actions nationwide. Here's everything you need to know about what happened, why it matters, and what comes next. What is birthright citizenship and why is it at the center of the legal fight? Birthright citizenship is based on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that anyone born in the United States and 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' is a U.S. citizen. This rule has long applied even to children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors. In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aimed at denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or only temporarily. This sparked immediate backlash from immigrant rights groups, who argue that the executive order goes against the Constitution. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Victoria Principal Is Almost 75, See Her Now Reportingly Undo Why did the Supreme Court limit nationwide injunctions? After Trump's executive order was issued, federal courts quickly stepped in and blocked its enforcement with nationwide injunctions. But on June 27, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal district courts had overstepped their authority. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the conservative majority, said that lower courts may only issue injunctions that protect the people who actually filed the lawsuit, not block the law across the entire country. This means that while Trump's order remains on hold for now, it's only blocked for a limited number of plaintiffs, not for everyone. Live Events Is birthright citizenship still legal in the US? Yes—for now. The Court's ruling did not decide whether Trump's order is constitutional. Instead, it focused only on the procedure—specifically how courts can pause government actions while cases are pending. So birthright citizenship still stands, but the fight over it will continue in the courts for months, if not years. Justice Barrett made it clear that lower courts have 30 days to narrow their injunctions. In practical terms, this opens the door for the Trump administration to start enforcing the executive order soon—at least for people not directly involved in the lawsuit. Here are 10 key takeaways from today's Supreme Court decision: Birthright citizenship explained Birthright citizenship refers to the legal principle that anyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status. This right is granted by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that all persons 'born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' are citizens. The Trump Executive Order In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aiming to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or temporarily. This move reignited national debate on the scope of the 14th Amendment. The lawsuit and injunction Several immigrant advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations sued the administration, and federal courts quickly issued nationwide injunctions , temporarily halting enforcement of the order across the country. Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions In today's ruling, the Supreme Court held that federal district courts had overreached their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said courts can only block executive actions for named plaintiffs and within their jurisdiction—not for the entire nation. A procedural, not constitutional, decision Importantly, the Court did not rule on whether Trump's executive order violates the 14th Amendment. It focused only on the legal question of how far courts can go in stopping federal actions during ongoing litigation. The 30-day window The Court gave lower courts 30 days to revise or narrow their injunctions. This means the current block on Trump's order remains for now—but likely only for those directly involved in the case. Liberal dissent Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. They warned that limiting injunctions would allow potentially unconstitutional actions to impact millions of people before a full legal review can be completed. Impact on future litigation This decision redefines how legal challenges to federal policies proceed. Moving forward, district courts will find it harder to issue sweeping nationwide bans—even in urgent civil rights cases. Trump hails the ruling President Trump celebrated the decision, calling it a victory over 'radical left judges' who he claims have tried to overrule executive power. His campaign has emphasized ending birthright citizenship as part of his broader immigration agenda. What's next? While the nationwide injunctions are likely to be scaled back, the underlying case about whether the executive order violates the Constitution will continue through the courts. A final ruling on the substance of birthright citizenship may still be months—or years—away. What do dissenting justices say about this change? The Court's three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented. They warned that limiting courts' ability to block federal actions could allow potentially unconstitutional policies to harm millions before being properly reviewed. They argued that in cases affecting civil rights, immigration, healthcare, and more, courts need the power to issue broader protections. Without that, executive actions could go unchecked until higher courts finally weigh in—potentially too late for those already impacted. How does this ruling expand presidential power? President Trump called the ruling a 'giant win', saying it strikes back at 'radical left judges' who he believes have blocked his policies unfairly. His administration says the decision restores a proper balance between the executive branch and the courts. Since his return to office, Trump has pushed dozens of executive actions—many of which have been held up by federal judges. These include cuts to foreign aid, changes to diversity programs, rollbacks on immigration protections, and adjustments to election laws. This ruling doesn't just apply to birthright citizenship—it makes it much harder for lower courts to freeze other executive orders nationwide, allowing Trump and future presidents to act more freely while legal battles play out. What happens next in the legal battle over birthright citizenship? While the Supreme Court ruling doesn't end the legal challenge, it shifts the strategy. The main lawsuit will continue, and eventually, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether ending birthright citizenship is constitutional—possibly as soon as October 2025, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi. In the meantime, enforcement will vary depending on which state you're in. Because states issue birth certificates, and many Democratic-led states don't collect data on parents' immigration status, they may resist implementing Trump's policy. Justice Barrett also acknowledged that states may suffer financial and administrative burdens from the new rule—hinting that lower courts might still justify broader injunctions if specific harms are proven. What's the broader impact of the ruling? This ruling marks a shift in American legal and political power. For decades, both Democratic and Republican presidents have clashed with district courts that blocked their actions. The Supreme Court's decision now narrows that power, giving the White House more room to operate. The Congressional Research Service noted that from Trump's inauguration to April 29, 2025, there were 25 instances where federal courts halted executive actions. This decision could affect not only immigration, but also climate policies, student loan programs, and workplace rules, giving presidents more control while the courts catch up. Birthright citizenship is still alive, but the rules are changing The Supreme Court's ruling on June 27, 2025, doesn't eliminate birthright citizenship—but it paves the way for President Trump to start enforcing his order, and it reshapes how the legal system checks executive power. The next few months will be crucial as lower courts revise their rulings, and states decide how to respond. Meanwhile, the broader debate over constitutional rights, immigration, and presidential power is far from over. FAQs: Q1: What did the Supreme Court decide about birthright citizenship? The Court allowed Trump's executive order to move forward by limiting court blocks. Q2: Is birthright citizenship still legal in the U.S. after the ruling? Yes, but Trump's policy could change how it's applied during ongoing court battles.
Economic Times
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Economic Times
Indian parents face uncertainty over US citizenship for newborns
The wait for temporary US visas for soon-to-be-born babies of expectant Indian moms has just gotten longer, immigration lawyers told ET. The challenge to the Presidential executive order on birthright citizenship is still awaiting a decision in the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS). Trump's executive order puts the US citizenship of unborn children of foreign nationals including Indians on temporary visa in limbo. This has caused much anxiety among the expecting Indian parents as they throng immigration attorney offices to seek further counsel. While some are even considering shifting to those states that do not recognize the Trump order as of now, an attorney, who did not wish to be identified, told ET."The scenario for Indian nationals on temporary visas expecting children in the US is quite uncertain. Depending on the jurisdiction, children born in the US may or may not automatically acquire citizenship," said Sukanya Raman, country head, Davies and Associates. "This is complicating decisions around childbirth and long-term residency planning." (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) According to experts, about 1.5 lakh newborns annually could be denied US citizenship if the order comes into effect. Many foreign nationals have in the past used the US' birthright citizenship path to gain legal entry for their offsprings. This has given way to "birth tourism" which refers to the practice where foreign nationals travel to the United States on visitor visas with the primary intention of giving birth. This ensures their children automatically acquire US citizenship under the 14th trend has been particularly common among women from countries like Russia, China, and Nigeria, said experts. "Recently, a growing number of Indian nationals have also pursued this route," said an SCOTUS deliberations, which started on May 15, primarily focused on the scope of nationwide injunctions rather than the constitutionality of executive order itself, said experts. Despite being a smaller share, Indian families could be deeply impacted by changes to birthright citizenship laws, given the large number of Indian nationals on temporary visas, say experts. "Our firm has been receiving a continuous flow of inquiries from Indian nationals ever since Executive Order 14160 was announced," said attorney Prachi Shah who runs her eponymous firm. Expecting parents on H-1B, H-4, F-1 and OPT visas are queueing up at the immigration lawyers' offices. There is widespread anxiety in the Indian diaspora, said lawyers."The executive order is quite egregious," said Rajiv Khanna, managing attorney, some parents, it's devastating because to have a child in the US after decades of living here and not have them be a US citizen is ridiculous," he usually takes 10-15 years for people to get a green card in the US for people who are here legally."The outcome of the hearing is not clear as to what is going to happen," said Khanna."The US Census doesn't collect statistics on the legal status of parents, but roughly 21-25% of babies have at least one foreign citizen parent," said Jath Shao, principal attorney, Shao Law Firm."The Trump administration's strategy seems to be arguing technicalities and wanting to impose their changes and make all the individual states and plaintiffs fight it," said Shao.
Time of India
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Indian parents face uncertainty over US citizenship for newborns
The wait for temporary US visas for soon-to-be-born babies of expectant Indian moms has just gotten longer, immigration lawyers told ET. The challenge to the Presidential executive order on birthright citizenship is still awaiting a decision in the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS). Trump's executive order puts the US citizenship of unborn children of foreign nationals including Indians on temporary visa in limbo. This has caused much anxiety among the expecting Indian parents as they throng immigration attorney offices to seek further counsel. While some are even considering shifting to those states that do not recognize the Trump order as of now, an attorney, who did not wish to be identified, told ET. "The scenario for Indian nationals on temporary visas expecting children in the US is quite uncertain. Depending on the jurisdiction, children born in the US may or may not automatically acquire citizenship," said Sukanya Raman, country head, Davies and Associates. "This is complicating decisions around childbirth and long-term residency planning." (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) According to experts, about 1.5 lakh newborns annually could be denied US citizenship if the order comes into effect. Live Events Many foreign nationals have in the past used the US' birthright citizenship path to gain legal entry for their offsprings. This has given way to "birth tourism" which refers to the practice where foreign nationals travel to the United States on visitor visas with the primary intention of giving birth. This ensures their children automatically acquire US citizenship under the 14th Amendment. This trend has been particularly common among women from countries like Russia, China, and Nigeria, said experts. "Recently, a growing number of Indian nationals have also pursued this route," said an attorney. The SCOTUS deliberations, which started on May 15, primarily focused on the scope of nationwide injunctions rather than the constitutionality of executive order itself, said experts. Despite being a smaller share, Indian families could be deeply impacted by changes to birthright citizenship laws, given the large number of Indian nationals on temporary visas, say experts. "Our firm has been receiving a continuous flow of inquiries from Indian nationals ever since Executive Order 14160 was announced," said attorney Prachi Shah who runs her eponymous firm. Expecting parents on H-1B, H-4, F-1 and OPT visas are queueing up at the immigration lawyers' offices. There is widespread anxiety in the Indian diaspora, said lawyers. "The executive order is quite egregious," said Rajiv Khanna, managing attorney, "For some parents, it's devastating because to have a child in the US after decades of living here and not have them be a US citizen is ridiculous," he said. It usually takes 10-15 years for people to get a green card in the US for people who are here legally. "The outcome of the hearing is not clear as to what is going to happen," said Khanna. "The US Census doesn't collect statistics on the legal status of parents, but roughly 21-25% of babies have at least one foreign citizen parent," said Jath Shao, principal attorney, Shao Law Firm. "The Trump administration's strategy seems to be arguing technicalities and wanting to impose their changes and make all the individual states and plaintiffs fight it," said Shao.
