Latest news with #SupremeCourt
Fox News
36 minutes ago
- Politics
- Fox News
SCOTUS AVALANCHE: Gregg Jarrett Joins the Show and Breaks Down Today's Decisions
Gregg Jarrett, Fox News Legal Analyst, defense attorney, and author of The Trial of the Century, joined The Guy Benson Show today to react to a blockbuster day at the Supreme Court. Jarrett broke down several major rulings, including the Court's decision to limit the power of nationwide injunctions, a key shift in how lower courts can influence national policy. He also discussed the high-stakes case on birthright citizenship that's now moving forward, and celebrated a win for parental rights out of Maryland, where the Court ruled that parents can opt their children out of LGBTQIAA2+ curriculum. Listen to the full interview below! Listen to the full interview at the top of the show below:
Toronto Star
38 minutes ago
- Politics
- Toronto Star
New Hampshire lawsuit seeks to stop politicization of youth center abuse victims' fund
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Lawyers representing hundreds of men and woman who claim they were abused at New Hampshire's youth detention center filed a class action lawsuit Friday seeking to prevent the independent administrator of the state's settlement fund for victims from being replaced with a political appointee. Lawmakers created the settlement fund in 2022, pitching it as a 'victim-centered' and 'trauma-informed' alternative to litigation that would be run by a neutral administrator appointed by the state Supreme Court. But the Republican-led Legislature changed that process through last-minute additions to the state budget approved Thursday and signed into law by Gov. Kelly Ayotte on Friday.
The Independent
41 minutes ago
- Politics
- The Independent
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling
The legal battle over President Donald Trump 's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration's major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court 's ruling and what happens next. Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump has long said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship Trump's executive order, signed in Januar,y seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' – saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. Is Trump's order constitutional? The justices didn't say The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. Questions and uncertainty swirl around next steps The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review" in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.' ____ Associated Press reporters Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, New Jersey, contributed.
Politico
42 minutes ago
- Politics
- Politico
Trump's big Supreme Court win has three significant loopholes
For Donald Trump, it was a 'monumental victory.' For the Trump resistance, there are signs of hope buried in the fine print. Those dueling interpretations emerged Friday in the hours after the Supreme Court issued its blockbuster decision in Trump's challenge to three nationwide injunctions that have blocked his attempt to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants born on American soil. And both contain an element of truth. The 6-3 decision has a single headline holding: Federal district judges 'lack authority' to issue 'universal injunctions,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the conservative majority. It's a breathtaking pronouncement given that district judges, with increasing frequency, have been issuing those sorts of injunctions for decades. It was precisely the bottom-line result that Trump's Justice Department asked for in the case. Sweeping injunctions have blocked many of Trump's second-term initiatives, not just his executive order on birthright citizenship. Now, the Supreme Court has made clear, an injunction against a challenged policy should ordinarily apply only to the individuals or organizations who sued. For everyone else, the policy can take effect even if a district judge believes it's likely illegal. But Barrett's 26-page opinion leaves a surprising degree of wiggle room. Yes, conventional nationwide injunctions are off the table, but Trump's opponents say they see alternative routes to obtain effectively the same sweeping blocks of at least some policies that run afoul of the law and the Constitution. The court appeared to leave open three specific alternatives: Restyle the legal challenges as class-action lawsuits; rely on state-led lawsuits to obtain broad judicial rulings; or challenge certain policies under a federal administrative law that authorizes courts to strike down the actions of executive branch agencies. The viability of these three potential alternatives is not yet clear. But the court explicitly declined to rule them out. That led Justice Samuel Alito — who joined the majority opinion — to write a concurrence to raise concerns that the court was leaving loopholes that could undercut its main holding. If lower courts permit litigants to exploit those loopholes, Alito wrote, 'today's decision will be of little more than minor academic interest.' Legal experts were unsure about the practical implications of the ruling — especially in the birthright citizenship cases, but also in other challenges to Trump policies. 'One of the things that's problematic about this decision is how difficult it will be to implement,' said Amanda Frost, a University of Virginia law professor whose scholarship was cited in the justices' ruling. 'I think it's really hard to say.' The court's decision explicitly left open one avenue for legal challengers to obtain a broad ruling that can apply to thousands or even millions of people: File a class-action case. Class actions allow large groups of similarly situated individuals to band together and sue over a common problem. If a judge sides with class-action challengers against a federal law or policy, the judge can issue a binding order that protects everyone in the class from being subject to the law or policy. Within hours of the court's decision on Friday, one of the groups challenging Trump's birthright citizenship policy moved to refashion its case as a class action. But class actions are not a panacea for the Trump resistance. Federal rules require special procedures before a court can 'certify' a class. Litigants seeking to use the class-action mechanism must meet several criteria that don't apply in ordinary lawsuits. And the Supreme Court itself has, in recent years, raised the legal standards for people to bring class actions. Barrett wrote that these heightened requirements underscore the need to limit universal injunctions, which she labeled a 'shortcut' around the stringent standards that accompany class-action suits. 'Why bother with a … class action when the quick fix of a universal injunction is on the table?' she wrote. Alito, in his concurrence Friday, warned district judges not to be overly lax in green-lighting class actions. 'Today's decision will have very little value if district courts award relief to broadly defined classes without following' procedural strictures, the conservative justice wrote. A second potential silver lining for Trump's opponents is that the court recognized that states may sometimes be entitled to broader injunctions than individual challengers. Barrett wrote in the majority opinion that district judges are empowered to provide 'complete relief' to litigants who are improperly harmed by government policies. And when states sue the federal government, it's possible, legal experts say, that 'complete relief' requires a sweeping judicial remedy. That remedy might take the form of an injunction that applies everywhere in the suing states. Barrett herself contemplated that it might be proper for lower courts to forbid Trump from applying his executive order on birthright citizenship anywhere within the states that have challenged the order. (About 22 Democratic-led states have done so.) That scenario would create an odd patchwork: Automatic birthright citizenship would apply in half the country but would disappear in the other half until the Supreme Court definitively resolves the constitutionality of Trump's executive order. There is even a chance that 'complete relief' for a state might extend beyond the state's borders and apply nationally — because residents of one state frequently move to another. Still, the bounds of what the court meant by 'complete relief' remain murky. Frost said that it's unclear what an injunction that affords 'complete relief' to a state, while stopping short of a 'universal' or 'nationwide' remedy, would look like. 'I don't know, and that's a problem of the court's own making,' she said. Nonetheless, Democrats like New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin seized on the 'complete relief' opening, saying it was a reason for optimism and effectively an endorsement of what he and other blue state officials had contended since the start. He and other Democratic attorneys general emphasized that they argued at all levels of the court system the need for nationwide relief in the birthright citizen case — because it would be pure chaos if residents left one state where they were entitled to birthright citizenship and moved to another state where they were not entitled to it, or vice versa. 'As I sit here now, as it relates to states, the court confirmed what we thought all along. Nationwide relief should be limited but is available to states,' Platkin said. Barrett, however, wrote that the court was not taking a firm position on the scope of any injunction the states might be entitled to. 'We decline to take up these arguments,' she wrote, adding that the lower courts should assess them first. The third potential workaround for opponents of Trump policies involves a federal statute known as the Administrative Procedure Act. That law authorizes lower courts to 'set aside' actions by regulatory agencies if the courts find the actions to be arbitrary, rather than based on reasoned analysis. That sort of wholesale judicial relief in some ways resembles a nationwide or 'universal' injunction, but Barrett wrote in a footnote that the court's decision does not address the scope of relief in lawsuits filed under the APA. Some of the lawsuits challenging Trump's policies have been brought under the APA. For instance, a district judge in Rhode Island issued a nationwide injunction against Trump's attempt to freeze vast amounts of federal spending after the judge found that the move would violate the APA. But not all policies are agency actions that would be subject to APA challenges. The birthright citizenship policy, for instance, was promulgated through an executive order, not through any federal agency. On the other hand, the order has a 30-day 'ramp-up period' in which agencies will develop guidelines before implementing the order. Those guidelines might become targets for APA challenges.
Asharq Al-Awsat
an hour ago
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Trump Calls Being President a ‘Very Dangerous Profession'
US President Donald Trump on Friday reflected on threats to his life as he celebrated a court ruling that handed his administration sweeping power to pursue his policy agenda. Asked by a reporter about such threats, the Republican suggested that he is occasionally reminded of when he was grazed in the ear by a bullet at a Pennsylvania campaign rally on July 13, 2024. "I get that throbbing feeling every once in a while," Trump said. "But you know what? That's okay. This is a dangerous business." He made the comments during a wide-ranging, impromptu White House press conference scheduled to celebrate the US Supreme Court decision that handed him a major victory by curbing federal judges' power to impose nationwide rulings that block his policies. On Friday, the businessman-turned-politician described the presidency as riskier than some of the most perilous professions. "You have race car drivers as an example, 1/10 of 1% die. Bull riders, 1/10 of 1%. That's not a lot, but it's - people die. When you're president, it's about 5%. If somebody would have told me that, maybe I wouldn't have run. Okay? This is, this is a very dangerous profession." Four of the 45 US presidents have been assassinated. Several more presidents and candidates for the office have been shot. There have been several threats on Trump's life. Law enforcement officials said Trump also survived a September 15, 2024, assassination attempt while he was golfing on his course in West Palm Beach, Florida. The suspect in that incident faces five federal charges and has pleaded not guilty. The July shooting suspect was shot to death by Secret Service agents. One person at the Pennsylvania rally was killed; two others were wounded. The United States has also separately said Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard Corps at one point attempted to assassinate Trump. Iran, whose nuclear facilities were bombed by US forces last weekend, has denied the allegation. Trump, serving his second term in office, has pushed an expansive vision of presidential power, sharply attacked his political foes and vowed retribution against them. The United States is experiencing its most sustained period of political violence since the 1970s. Reuters has documented more than 300 cases of politically motivated violent acts since Trump supporters attacked the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
