Latest news with #JudiciaryActof1789
New York Post
15 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Birthright citizenship remains law of the land — for now — despite SCOTUS ruling
Birthright citizenship remains a fact of life in the US — for now — following the Supreme Court's ruling Friday limiting judges' ability to issue universal injunctions halting executive action. Moments after the 6-3 ruling, the Trump administration announced plans to move forward with the president's Day One executive order redefining the 14th Amendment's promise that '[a]ll 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.' 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, and some of the cases we're talking about would be ending birthright citizenship, which now comes to the fore,' President Trump said during a rare appearance in the White House briefing room. Advertisement The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling did not judge the birthright citizenship question on its merits. Eric Kayne/ZUMA / '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.' 'Yes, birthright citizenship will be decided in October in the next session by the Supreme Court,' Attorney General Pam Bondi affirmed moments later, even though the high court has yet to finalize its argument schedule and no cases related to the executive order have been picked for review by the justices. Advertisement In an opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court ruled that the practice of a single district judge issuing a nationwide ruling 'likely exceed' the authority laid out by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Notably, the court did not decide whether Trump's actual order was constitutional. 'If there's a birthright citizenship case in Oregon, it will only affect the plaintiff in Oregon, not the entire country,' was how Bondi explained the ruling. Trump's order would limit US citizenship to children who have at least one parent who is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident. Advertisement The action was enjoined three days after Trump signed it by a Seattle federal judge, who called the move 'blatantly unconstitutional.' President Trump said the administration now can go forward with 'numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.' On Friday afternoon, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a fresh class-action lawsuit challenging the birthright citizenship order, a legal maneuver which must meet certain requirements before getting a hearing. 'This new case seeks protection for all families in the country, filling the gaps that may be left by the existing litigation,' the organization said in a press release. Advertisement The 22 Democrat-led states that challenged Trump's order also expressed confidence that it would never be enforced. 'We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land,' said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, 'and of course birthright citizenship as well.' Locally, a City Hall spokesperson confirmed to The Post that Friday's Supreme Court ruling has no effect on New York City at this time. With Post wires
American Military News
21 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.
New York Post
a day ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Amy Coney Barrett rips Ketanji Brown Jackson over dissent in birthright citizenship case
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett stunned veteran bench watchers Friday with a blunt takedown of liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's 'extreme' dissent in the landmark birthright citizenship case in which the Supreme Court curtailed lower court use of universal injunctions. 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,' wrote Barrett, the court's second-newest justice, in a jaw-dropping rebuke of her colleague, the newest justice. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' 7 Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett took a rare swipe at her colleague in the majority opinion of the birthright citizenship case. Getty Images Barrett had authored the majority opinion in the case, the most consequential on the docket this term, which gave President Trump a major win by limiting the power of district judges to block his actions. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the main dissent for the left flank of the high court, which Jackson joined. 7 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. The Washington Post via Getty Images 7 The liberal justice is the newest member of the Supreme Court and her dissent drew the ire of conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Getty Images for The Atlantic But Jackson also wrote a concurring dissent that featured a heavy fixation on the potential practical ramifications of the 6-3 decision rather than grounding her argument in legal theory. 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends. Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more,' Jackson dramatically fretted at one point. 'Quite unlike a rule-of-kings governing system, in a rule of law regime, nearly '[e]very act of government may be challenged by an appeal to law,'' Jackson wrote elsewhere. 'At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government's self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.' 7 Jackson's concurring dissent featured a heavy fixation on the potential practical ramifications of the 6-3 decision rather than legal theory. POOL/AFP via Getty Images Jackson even went so far as to dismiss the question of whether universal injunctions were provided for by the Judiciary Act of 1789 as 'legalese' that 'obscures a far more basic question of enormous legal and practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?' Barrett's response in her opinion was almost mocking: 'Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring 'legalese,' [Jackson] seeks to answer 'a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?' 'In other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: '[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law,'' Barrett continued. 'That goes for judges too.' 7 Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had implied the Supreme Court's decision could end democracy. POOL/AFP via Getty Images While Barrett, 53, gave lukewarm praise to Sotomayor, 71, for focusing her dissent on 'conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity,' she rounded on Jackson, 54, for adopting 'a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. 'Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a 'mind-numbingly technical query' … she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,' Barrett wrote. Meanwhile, Jackson opted not to conclude her opinion with the common phrases 'I dissent' or 'respectfully, I dissent' in an apparent sign of her fury at her colleagues' ruling. 7 Friday marked the last day of the Supreme Court's term. Getty Images 'It's not something that we see every day,' Republican Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird told The Post about Barrett's jabs, though Bird stressed that Barrett confined her critique to legal differences rather than personal attacks. Other commentators were more scathing. 'Holy s—, this is about as brutal as I've ever seen SCOTUS be on one of their own,' attorney Kostas Moros wrote on X in response to Barrett's 'imperial Judiciary' quote. 'Translated: 'you are so stupid that you aren't even worth responding to.'' 7 The Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's order on narrowing the definition of birthright citizenship. AFP via Getty Images 'The FACT that six Justices were OK with signing onto an opinion where Justice Barrett took a personal shot at Justice Jackson is a VERY STRONG indication that Jackson has alienated her colleagues and there is a growing lack of respect for her work,' mused X user Shipwreckedcrew, whose profile describes them as a former federal prosecutor. 'Justices circulate Memos among with their legal views on certain cases in order to bring others around to their thinking. Given what she has written in her dissent, imagine the memos that Jackson must have sent around in this case.' Three lower courts had stayed Trump's Jan. 20 executive order narrowing the definition of birthright citizenship — which the 14th Amendment states confers automatic naturalization on all individuals born in the US — after concluding the executive action was likely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's order — only the power courts had to enjoin it.
New York Post
a day ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Amy Coney Barrett rips Ketanji Brown Jackson over dissent in birthright citizenship case: ‘As brutal as I've ever seen'
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett stunned veteran bench watchers Friday with a blunt takedown of liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's 'extreme' dissent in the landmark birthright citizenship case in which the Supreme Court curtailed lower court use of nationwide injunctions. 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,' wrote Barrett, the court's second-newest justice, in a jaw-dropping rebuke of her colleague, the newest justice. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' Advertisement Barrett had authored the majority opinion in the case, the most consequential on the docket this term, which gave President Trump a major win by limiting the power of district judges to block his actions. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the main dissent for the left flank of the high court, which Jackson joined. 4 Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett took a rare swipe at her colleague in the majority opinion of the birthright citizenship case. Getty Images Advertisement 4 The liberal justice is the newest member of the Supreme Court and her dissent drew the ire of conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Getty Images for The Atlantic But Jackson also wrote a concurring dissent that featured a heavy fixation on the potential practical ramifications of the 6-3 decision rather than grounding her argument in legal theory. 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends. Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more,' Jackson dramatically fretted at one point. 'Quite unlike a rule-of-kings governing system, in a rule of law regime, nearly '[e]very act of government may be challenged by an appeal to law,'' Jackson wrote elsewhere. 'At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government's self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.' Advertisement Jackson even went so far as to dismiss the question of whether universal injunctions were provided for by the Judiciary Act of 1789 as 'legalese' that 'obscures a far more basic question of enormous legal and practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?' Barrett's response in her opinion was almost mocking: 'Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring 'legalese,' [Jackson] seeks to answer 'a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?' 'In other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: '[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law,'' Barrett continued. 'That goes for judges too.' Advertisement 4 Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had implied the Supreme Court's decision could end democracy. POOL/AFP via Getty Images 'Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a 'mind-numbingly technical query' … she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,' Barrett, 53, added in her withering rebuke of Jackson, 54. 'Rhetoric aside, Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down. She might be arguing that universal injunctions are appropriate—even required—whenever the defendant is part of the Executive Branch,' the conservative justice sniped at another point. Meanwhile, Jackson opted not to conclude her opinion with the common phrases 'I dissent' or 'respectfully, I dissent' in an apparently sign of her fury at her colleagues' ruling. 4 Friday marked the last day of the Supreme Court's term. Getty Images 'It's not something that we see every day,' Iowa Republican Attorney General Brenna Bird, told The Post about Barrett's jabs, though Bird stressed that Barrett confined her critique to legal differences. Other commentators were more scathing. 'Holy s—, this is about as brutal as I've ever seen SCOTUS be on one of their own,' attorney Kostas Moros wrote on X in response to Barrett's 'imperial Judiciary' quote. 'Translated: 'you are so stupid that you aren't even worth responding to.'' Advertisement 'The FACT that six Justices were OK with signing onto an opinion where Justice Barrett took a personal shot at Justice Jackson is a VERY STRONG indication that Jackson has alienated her colleagues and there is a growing lack of respect for her work,' mused X user Shipwreckedcrew, whose profile describes them as a former federal prosecutor. 'Justices circulate Memos among with their legal views on certain cases in order to bring others around to their thinking. Given what she has written in her dissent, imagine the memos that Jackson must have sent around in this case.' Three lower courts had stayed Trump's Jan. 20 executive order narrowing the definition of birthright citizenship — which the 14th Amendment states confers automatic naturalization on all individuals born in the US — after concluding the executive action was likely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's order — only the power courts had to enjoin it.
Fox News
a day ago
- Politics
- Fox News
SCOTUS rules on Trump's birthright citizenship order, testing lower court powers
The Supreme Court granted a partial stay Friday of President Donald Trump's request to block lower courts from issuing universal injunctions, granting a par victory for the administration as it looks to execute many of its top priorities via executive order and action. Justices ruled 6-3 to allow the lower courts to issue injunctions in certain cases. "The applications do not raise—and thus we do not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act," Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, writing for the majority. "The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions." "A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power," she added. The Supreme Court agreed in April to hear the consolidated cases, which focused on three lower court judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state who issued "universal" injunctions against Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. But that wasn't the main focus of the appeal, or the May 15 oral arguments before the high court. Rather, the justices considered whether lower courts should have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions at all, or whether doing so exceeds their authority, as argued by U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer. The ruling is expected to have sweeping implications for U.S. district courts, and comes at a time when presidents, including both Democrat and Republican administrations, have sought to use executive orders as a means of sidestepping a clunky, slow-moving Congress. Federal judges across the country have blocked Trump's ban on transgender persons serving in the U.S. military, ordered the reinstatement of core functions of the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID and halted Elon Musk's government efficiency organization, DOGE, from oversight and access to government agencies, among other things. Justices across the ideological spectrum appeared to agree during oral arguments this month that the use of universal injunctions has surged in recent years — but after more than two hours, remained split on how to proceed. No easy solution emerged to the thorny legal problem, as the justices wrestled with a tangle of procedural questions over whether to scale back the use of universal injunctions and what legal standard should govern them. Sauer argued that lower court judges have used universal injunctions to act beyond their authority and block the lawful powers of a sitting president. But Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that blocking or limiting lower court injunctions could invite hundreds or thousands of new individual lawsuits. "Your theory here is arguing that Article III and principles of equity [clause] both prohibit federal courts from issuing universal injunctions to have your argument," she said later, adding: "If that's true, that means even the Supreme Court doesn't have that power." Justice Elena Kagan, meanwhile, pointed out the practical challenge of expecting the Supreme Court to weigh in on every issue now handled by lower courts, which have already faced hundreds of federal lawsuits during Trump's second term. She also noted to Sauer that the Trump administration has lost every federal lawsuit challenging the birthright citizenship executive order, including under judges Trump appointed during his first term. As expected, several conservative justices on the court, including Justice Clarence Thomas, expressed criticism of universal injunctions. New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, representing the states, acknowledged that there could be alternative remedies for federal courts other than nationwide injunctions — though he suggested that in certain cases, the class action alternative presented by the Trump administration may not move fast enough to grant relief in certain cases. "We are sympathetic to some of the concerns the United States has about percolation, about running the table in particular cases," he said. "We just don't think that that supports a bright line rule that says they're never available." Roberts and Sotomayor questioned Feigenbaum more in depth on how to determine in what cases universal injunction should not be the preferred remedy and how to ensure district courts are following that. Lawyers for the Trump administration asked the high court to review the case earlier this year, arguing that the three lower courts, each of which blocked Trump's birthright citizenship order from taking force nationwide, acted beyond the scope of their authority. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer stressed this point during oral arguments earlier this month, telling justices that universal injunctions "require judges to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions." "They operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere," he said, and "invert," in the Trump administration's view, the ordinary hierarchical hierarchy of appellate review. The Supreme Court decision will have sweeping implications, both in the near- and longer-term, with knock-down effects on the the more than 300 federal lawsuits that have challenged White House actions since Trump's second presidency began on Jan. 20, 2025. This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
