Latest news with #FourteenthAmendment
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Memo: SCOTUS clears the way for Trump – and for his successors
The Supreme Court's decision in a birthright citizenship case, handed down on Friday, has ramifications way beyond President Trump. The big, long-term impact is the granting of greater leeway to future presidents as well as to the current one. The power of the courts to curb actions emanating from the Oval Office has been significantly diluted. Whether that is a good or bad thing is in the eye of the beholder — refracted through the lens of party loyalties. For now, the decision is being celebrated by Republicans and lamented by Democrats. Those roles are nearly sure to reverse the next time a Democratic president moves into the White House. The high court did not, in fact, weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order to shift the definition of birthright citizenship. Trump wants to change the automatic assumption that people born in the United States are automatically American citizens, regardless of the immigration status of their parents. That push is framed by immigration hawks as a battle to thwart the concept of 'anchor babies' – infants born in the United States, allegedly in order to put their unauthorized-migrant parents effectively outside the reach of deportation efforts. But liberals argue the Trump effort is unconstitutional on its face, given the Fourteenth Amendment's apparently clear statement that, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' Liberals also assert that the clause about 'jurisdiction' is largely beside the point where immigration is concerned, since unauthorized migrants are still subject to the laws of the United States while they reside within its borders. In any event, lower courts have found against the Trump administration on the question, the administration has appealed and it is likely that the specific question will end up before the justices yet again. But for now, the court by a 6-3 majority has circumscribed the ability of district courts to block a law or presidential action. The ruling was, in the end, akin to a party line vote, the six conservative justices – three of whom were nominated by Trump during his first term – outvoting the three liberals. Lower courts will no longer be able to issue a 'universal injunction' – that is, an injunction that bars enforcement of a presidential order nationwide. Instead, decisions in those district courts will only be binding upon the parties involved in each case. 'A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote, delivering the majority opinion. Barrett also warned about those – including her colleague Justice Ketanj Brown Jackson – who she said would try to thwart an 'imperial presidency' by empowering an imperial judiciary instead. The new reality will be beneficial to the current president and his successors. But it could also be messy, given that it opens a up a vista in which presidential edicts are lawful in one set of states – presumably those whose ideological coloring is the same as that of the incumbent in the Oval Office – and unlawful in the rest, at least until the Supreme Court settles the matter. Trump, who made a hastily convened appearance in the White House briefing room after the ruling was announced, contended that the court had delivered 'a monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law.' It was, to be sure, a major win at the nexus of politics and jurisprudence for Trump and his allies. The president and key aides like Stephen Miller have repeatedly assailed judges who ruled against them as exceeding their legitimate powers and even engaging in a 'judicial coup.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the main dissenting opinion, objected in strenuous terms, saying that her minority position was spurred by her desire to 'not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law.' 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,' Sotomayor wrote. '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 also issued a bleak warning about the way in which such an expansive view of executive power could be used in the future to hollow out the rights that had been previously enjoyed – just as the doctrine of birthright citizenship had been seen as settled law until relatively recently. The liberal justice, nominated to the high court by President Obama, was also far more willing than her conservative colleagues to engage with the merits of the arguments over birthright citizenship. She alleged that the focus on universal injunctions amounted merely to the Trump administration playing a 'different game' because it had no realistic chance of making its more limited interpretation of birthright citizenship work. On the latter point, she wrote, Trump had 'an impossible task in light of the Constitution's text, history, this Court's precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice.' On the bigger question of how the legal processes will now work, some worries were voiced even by one of the conservative judges who concurred in the ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Referring to the period where different court orders could hold sway in different parts of the nation, Kavanaugh argued that 'there often (perhaps not always, but often) should be a nationally uniform answer on whether a major new federal statute, rule, or executive order can be enforced throughout the United States during the several-year interim period until its legality is finally decided on the merits.' He added: 'It is not especially workable or sustainable or desirable to have a patchwork scheme, potentially for several years, in which a major new federal statute or executive action of that kind applies to some people or organizations in certain States or regions, but not to others.' Such concerns are the thorniest questions to emerge from Friday's decision. The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
NC State professor breaks down SCOTUS ruling on birthright citizenship, impact on North Carolina
RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) — A major Supreme Court ruling Friday appears to clear the way for President Donald Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship, but NC State political science professor Steven Greene said it is not clear if that is feasible – or how exactly it will impact North Carolina. Greene said it is important to note the Supreme Court's ruling did not take a position on the issue of birthright citizenship itself. The case dealt with Trump's executive order aimed at getting rid of birthright citizenship, specifically on an injunction handed down by a federal judge which blocked the executive order from taking effect. 'What the supreme court ruled is that a single federal judge cannot make a nationwide policy ruling against the government,' Greene explained. By ending the injunction, the ruling does appear to let Trump's executive order move forward. The order denies automatic citizenship to children born to parents who are not US citizens or legal residents. Greene said that is more complicated than it seems. 'It's not entirely clear, honestly, how exactly the Trump administration will look to enforce this, whether that gets enforced one way in red states that want to cooperate versus blue states that don't,' he said. North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson released a statement Friday: 'Because we took action to defend the Constitution, North Carolinians still have their Fourteenth Amendment right to full citizenship. While this case has been sent back to a lower court for review, our position remains unchanged. The language of the Fourteenth Amendment is clear, and we are going to defend it.' Greene said that likely means not much will change right away. 'The executive branch in North Carolina, as much as Republicans have tried to take power away, still has a Democratic governor, a Democratic attorney general, who would not at all be interested in trying to cooperate with these kinds of policies unless they absolutely had to, probably under court order,' he said. Greene said the biggest impact of Friday's ruling has little to do with birthright citizenship. He said the decision limits the court's ability to balance the president. 'It really does seem to free up President Trump to be able to do more,' he said. Greene also said birthright citizenship as a practice will probably come before the Supreme Court, and he thinks it is unlikely justices will rule against it. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
17 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
The Memo: SCOTUS clears the way for Trump – and for his successors
The Supreme Court's decision in a birthright citizenship case, handed down on Friday, has ramifications way beyond President Trump. The big, long-term impact is the granting of greater leeway to future presidents as well as to the current one. The power of the courts to curb actions emanating from the Oval Office has been significantly diluted. Whether that is a good or bad thing is in the eye of the beholder — refracted through the lens of party loyalties. For now, the decision is being celebrated by Republicans and lamented by Democrats. Those roles are nearly sure to reverse the next time a Democratic president moves into the White House. The high court did not, in fact, weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order to shift the definition of birthright citizenship. Trump wants to change the automatic assumption that people born in the United States are automatically American citizens, regardless of the immigration status of their parents. That push is framed by immigration hawks as a battle to thwart the concept of 'anchor babies' – infants born in the United States, allegedly in order to put their unauthorized-migrant parents effectively outside the reach of deportation efforts. But liberals argue the Trump effort is unconstitutional on its face, given the Fourteenth Amendment's apparently clear statement that, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' Liberals also assert that the clause about 'jurisdiction' is largely beside the point where immigration is concerned, since unauthorized migrants are still subject to the laws of the United States while they reside within its borders. In any event, lower courts have found against the Trump administration on the question, the administration has appealed and it is likely that the specific question will end up before the justices yet again. But for now, the court by a 6-3 majority has circumscribed the ability of district courts to block a law or presidential action. The ruling was, in the end, akin to a party line vote, the six conservative justices – three of whom were nominated by Trump during his first term – outvoting the three liberals. Lower courts will no longer be able to issue a 'universal injunction' – that is, an injunction that bars enforcement of a presidential order nationwide. Instead, decisions in those district courts will only be binding upon the parties involved in each case. 'A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote, delivering the majority opinion. Barrett also warned about those – including her colleague Justice Ketanj Brown Jackson – who she said would try to thwart an 'imperial presidency' by empowering an imperial judiciary instead. The new reality will be beneficial to the current president and his successors. But it could also be messy, given that it opens a up a vista in which presidential edicts are lawful in one set of states – presumably those whose ideological coloring is the same as that of the incumbent in the Oval Office – and unlawful in the rest, at least until the Supreme Court settles the matter. Trump, who made a hastily convened appearance in the White House briefing room after the ruling was announced, contended that the court had delivered 'a monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law.' It was, to be sure, a major win at the nexus of politics and jurisprudence for Trump and his allies. The president and key aides like Stephen Miller have repeatedly assailed judges who ruled against them as exceeding their legitimate powers and even engaging in a 'judicial coup.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the main dissenting opinion, objected in strenuous terms, saying that her minority position was spurred by her desire to 'not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law.' 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,' Sotomayor wrote. '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 also issued a bleak warning about the way in which such an expansive view of executive power could be used in the future to hollow out the rights that had been previously enjoyed – just as the doctrine of birthright citizenship had been seen as settled law until relatively recently. The liberal justice, nominated to the high court by President Obama, was also far more willing than her conservative colleagues to engage with the merits of the arguments over birthright citizenship. She alleged that the focus on universal injunctions amounted merely to the Trump administration playing a 'different game' because it had no realistic chance of making its more limited interpretation of birthright citizenship work. On the latter point, she wrote, Trump had 'an impossible task in light of the Constitution's text, history, this Court's precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice.' On the bigger question of how the legal processes will now work, some worries were voiced even by one of the conservative judges who concurred in the ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Referring to the period where different court orders could hold sway in different parts of the nation, Kavanaugh argued that 'there often (perhaps not always, but often) should be a nationally uniform answer on whether a major new federal statute, rule, or executive order can be enforced throughout the United States during the several-year interim period until its legality is finally decided on the merits.' He added: 'It is not especially workable or sustainable or desirable to have a patchwork scheme, potentially for several years, in which a major new federal statute or executive action of that kind applies to some people or organizations in certain States or regions, but not to others.' Such concerns are the thorniest questions to emerge from Friday's decision. The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.
19 hours ago
- Politics
イランに「孤独ではない」 旧ソ連経済同盟が首脳会議
After the Supreme Court issued a ruling that limits the ability of federal judges to issue universal injunctions — but didn't rule on the legality of President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship — immigrant rights groups are trying a new tactic by filing a national class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two immigrant rights organizations whose members include people without legal status in the U.S. who "have had or will have children born in the United States after February 19, 2025," according to court documents. One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, William Powell, senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, says his colleagues at CASA, Inc. and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project think that, with the class action approach "we will be able to get complete relief for everyone who would be covered by the executive order." The strategic shift required three court filings: one to add class allegations to the initial complaint; a second to move for class certification; and a third asking a district court in Maryland to issue "a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction asking for relief for that putative class," Powell said. In the amended complaint, filed two hours after the Supreme Court's ruling, the immigrant rights attorneys said that Trump's effort to ban birthright citizenship, if allowed to stand, "would throw into doubt the citizenship status of thousands of children across the country." "The Executive Order threatens these newborns' identity as United States citizens and interferes with their enjoyment of the full privileges, rights, and benefits that come with U.S. citizenship, including calling into question their ability to remain in their country of birth," reads the complaint. Rights groups and 22 states had asked federal judges to block President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. Issued on his first day in office, the executive order states, "the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States." But after three federal district court judges separately blocked Trump's order, issuing universal injunctions preventing its enforcement nationwide, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block universal injunctions altogether. The Supreme Court did not rule on the birthright issue itself. But after the ruling, Trump called it a "monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law," in a briefing at the White House. The president said the ruling means his administration can now move forward with his efforts to fundamentally reshape longstanding U.S. policy on immigration and citizenship. Friday's ruling quickly sparked questions about how the dispute over birthright citizenship will play out now — and how the ruling on universal injunctions might affect other efforts to push back on executive policies, under President Trump and future presidents. "Nationwide injunctions have been an important tool to prevent blatantly illegal and unconstitutional conduct," the National Immigrant Justice Center's director of litigation, Keren Zwick, said in a statement sent to NPR. The decision to limit such injunctions, she said, "opens a pathway for the president to break the law at will." Both Zwick and Powell emphasized that the Supreme Court did not rule on a key question: whether Trump's executive order is legal. At the White House, Attorney General Pam Bondi would not answer questions about how the order might be implemented and enforced. "This is all pending litigation," she said, adding that she expects the Supreme Court to take up the issue this fall. "We're obviously disappointed with the result on nationwide injunctions," Powell said. But, he added, he believes the Supreme Court will ultimately quash Trump's attack on birthright citizenship. "The executive order flagrantly violates the 14th Amendment citizenship clause and Section 1401a of the Immigration and Nationality Act," Powell said, "both of which guarantee birthright citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States, with only narrow exceptions for ambassadors [and] invading armies." The court's ruling set a 30-day timeframe for the policy laid out in Trump's executive order to take effect. "The Government here is likely to suffer irreparable harm from the District Courts' entry of injunctions that likely exceed the authority conferred by the Judiciary Act," a syllabus, or headnote, of the Supreme Court's ruling states. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also discusses the differences between "complete relief " and "universal relief." "Here, prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship," Barrett wrote. "Extending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete." In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling suggests that constitutional guarantees might not apply to anyone who isn't a party to a lawsuit. The concept of birthright citizenship has deep roots, dating to the English common law notion of jus soli ("right of the soil"). The doctrine was upended for a time in the U.S. by the Supreme Court's notorious Dred Scott ruling. Current legal standing for birthright citizenship in the U.S. extends back to the 1860s, when the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was ratified, stating, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." "Any executive order purporting to limit birthright citizenship is just as unconstitutional today as it was yesterday," Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, told NPR. "There is nothing substantively in the decision that undercuts those lower court opinions. The opinion just undercuts the tools available to the courts to enforce that constitutional mandate." Copyright 2025 NPR
The Hill
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court's blockbuster day
Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here Happy Friday! This is a great weekend for television — the third and final season of 'Squid Game' is out on Netflix, and 'The Bear' is also back! Oh, and did you know, that infamous debate between Biden and Trump was one year ago today? In today's packed Supreme Court edition: To close out its term, the Supreme Court fired off major decision after major decision this morning. 1 — Birthright citizenship: The Supreme Court delivered President Trump a major win this morning, allowing his executive order to restrict birthright citizenship to go into effect in some areas of the country — at least for now. Importantly, the high court's ruling limits the ability of federal judges across the country to issue nationwide injunctions blocking Trump's policies. The White House is thrilled (more below on that). The ruling: 6-3, along ideological lines. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson issued fiery dissent over the conservative court's decision. But here's the thing: The court didn't weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order. Instead, the justices weighed in on whether three federal judges have the power to block Trump's order nationwide. The court ruled those judges went too far. But the administration has to wait 30 days before attempting to deny citizenship to anyone. There are still legal challenges to the constitutionality of restricting birthright citizenship, so this may not be the end of the issue. Trump took a victory lap: He called it a 'GIANT WIN' in a quick social media post. He then held a press conference to celebrate what he hailed as a 'monumental' ruling, praising Justice Amy Coney Barrett and giving a shout-out to each of the conservative justices by name. 'That was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation,' Trump said, referring to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Attorney General Pam Bondi chimed in at the podium. 'The judges have tried to cease the executive branch's power and they cannot do that. No longer,' Bondi said, bashing 'rogue' judges who she claims have 'turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.' 'Active liberal [judges] have used these injunctions to block virtually all of President Trump's policies,' Bondi told reporters. 💻 Watch Trump's presser Backstory: Trump issued an executive order restricting birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. with parents who do not have permanent legal status. 2 — Parent opt-out options for LGBTQ+ books: The court sided with religious parents this morning, allowing parents of Maryland elementary school children to opt out of classroom discussions involving LGBTQ+-inclusive books. The ruling: 6-3, along ideological lines. The three liberal justices dissented. 3 — Age verification for porn sites: The Supreme Court ruled that Texas's age-verification law for porn websites *is* constitutional. The ruling: 6-3, along ideological lines. The three liberal justices dissented. The case: Texas has a law requiring porn sites to verify that users are at least 18 years old. The Supreme Court was weighing whether this law is a violation of the First Amendment. Twenty other states have similar laws, so this ruling could limit porn access. 4 — ObamaCare's preventative care requirements: The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in allowing Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to appoint and fire members of an ObamaCare task force. The ruling: 6-3. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the opinion. The case: Is a task force created by ObamaCare that determines free preventative care services constitutional? 5 — Federal internet subsidies: The court upheld a multibillion-dollar federal subsidy program to give internet to rural and poor Americans. The ruling: 6-3. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The case: The court weighed whether programs that bring high-speed internet to rural and poor communities are a violation of the separation of powers. Read more ❌ 6 — Racial redistricting: The Supreme Court did *not* rule on this case and will rehear arguments next term. The case: Can Louisiana continue to use its congressional map that includes two majority-Black districts, or is that unconstitutional racial gerrymandering? Read more on the case 📸The cloudy, humid Supreme Court today 🗨️ Follow today's live blog Republicans are barreling toward their own deadline to pass President Trump's legislative agenda, even after the Senate parliamentarian threw a grenade into their plan. How's that going?: Trump has cranked up the pressure on the GOP, despite the hurdles. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) says he has 'contingency plans, plan B, plan C.' Trump was asked what he thinks about the parliamentarian's ruling: 'The parliamentarian's been a little difficult. I would say that I disagree with the parliamentarian on some things and on other ways [she's] been fine.' Is the July 4 deadline still possible?: Technically, yes, but it's tricky. Here's a helpful explainer. Why gutting some Medicaid cuts from the bill was such a big blow: Republicans needed those steep Medicaid cuts to pay for the rest of the bill. Without that component, they're back to the drawing board without those hundreds of billions of dollars in savings to offset the cost of their legislation. The Hill's Nathaniel Weixel wrote a helpful explainer. This is some Olympic-level ping-ponging: Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said this morning that the House may need to amend the Senate bill. That would mean the bill would need to head *back* to the Senate again, explains The Hill's Mychael Schnell. Like a game of hot potato! Tidbit: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will attend the Senate GOP lunch today, per Punchbowl News. ➤ THE PARLIAMENTARIAN PULLED OUT HER RED PEN AGAIN: Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough rejected another part of the 'big, beautiful bill.' She ruled against a Republican attempt to exempt some religious colleges from a tax carve-out. She also ruled against Republicans' gun silencer deregulation. Read more ➤ MEANWHILE ON THE HOUSE SIDE: House lawmakers received a briefing this morning on the U.S. strikes against Iran. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine and CIA Director John Ratcliffe led it, per Politico. The House and Senate are in today. President Trump is in Washington. (All times EST) 3 p.m.: Trump meets with the foreign ministers of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Rwanda. 6 p.m.: The Senate votes on Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-Va.) war powers resolution on Iran. 📆Today's agenda Sunday: Sens. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani will appear on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' 🎂 Celebrate: Today is National Ice Cream Cake Day! It feels like the perfect weekend to make this one. 🍕 'Did Busy Pizza Shops Really Predict US Airstrikes on Iran?': An account on social platform X has been tracking the activity of pizza shops near the Pentagon, based on Google's 'popular times' data, suggesting it may predict foreign policy events. Washingtonian spoke with an intelligence expert to weigh in on whether this may be an accurate measure. ✖️ The Pentagon Pizza Report X account 🐾 'Here's the mail, it never fails, it makes me wanna wag my tail': Steve Burns, the original host of 'Blue's Clues,' is launching a podcast for adults. 'When it comes I wanna wail, MAAAAIL!' 🍦 I will wake up in a cold sweat because of this headline: The Atlantic's Yasmin Tayag writes, 'Brace Yourself for Watery Mayo and Spiky Ice Cream.' The gist: 'Emulsifiers have become targets in RFK Jr.'s push to remove many additives from the American diet. But without them, food wouldn't be the same.' To leave you on a good note before the weekend, here's a bird creatively scavenging for nest materials.
