Latest news with #Trump
Economic Times
15 minutes 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.
San Francisco Chronicle
16 minutes ago
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump says he's ending trade talks with Canada over its 'egregious Tax' on technology firms
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Friday that he's suspending trade talks with Canada over its plans to continue with its tax on technology firms, which he called 'a direct and blatant attack on our country.' Trump, in a post on his social media network, said Canada had just informed the U.S. that it was sticking to its plan to impose the digital services tax, which applies to Canadian and foreign businesses that engage with online users in Canada. The tax is set to go into effect Monday. 'Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period,' Trump said in his post. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said his country would 'continue to conduct these complex negotiations in the best interests of Canadians. It's a negotiation.' Trump's announcement was the latest swerve in the trade war he's launched since taking office for a second term in January. Progress with Canada has been a roller coaster, starting with the U.S. president poking at the nation's northern neighbor and repeatedly suggesting it would be absorbed as a U.S. state. Carney visited Trump in May at the White House, where he was polite but firm with Trump. Trump last week traveled to Canada for the G7 summit in Alberta, where Carney said that Canada and the U.S. had set a 30-day deadline for trade talks. The digital services tax will hit companies including Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb with a 3% levy on revenue from Canadian users. It will apply retroactively, leaving U.S. companies with a $2 billion U.S. bill due at the end of the month. The Republican president earlier told reporters that the U.S. was soon preparing to send letters to different countries, informing them of the new tariff rate his administration would impose on them. Trump has imposed 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum as well as 25% tariffs on autos. He is also charging a 10% tax on imports from most countries, though he could raise rates on July 9, after the 90-day negotiating period set by him would expire. Canada and Mexico face separate tariffs of as much as 25% that Trump put into place under the auspices of stopping fentanyl smuggling, though some products are still protected under the 2020 U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement signed during Trump's first term.
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- Politics
- The Hill
University of Virginia president resigns facing DOJ pressure: Report
University of Virginia's president has resigned amid a Department of Justice probe into the school's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, according to reports from the New York Times. Ryan's resignation will be effective 'no later than August 15,' a person familiar with the matter told the Times. University board members had alleged the school was not in compliance with President Trump's January executive order barring DEI practices at institutions that receive federal funding. Harmeet K. Dhillon, the head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, wrote a letter to Ryan on April 28 saying the office had received complaints the university's administration had failed to follow Trump's directive. The Times reported that the DOJ wrote another letter on June 17 saying, 'Time is running short, and the department's patience is wearing thin.' The school and Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment on the matter. Axios reported earlier on Friday that the Trump administration was trying to push out Ryan. A university spokesperson told the outlet, 'UVA is committed to complying with all federal laws and has been cooperating with the Department of Justice in the ongoing inquiries. The federal government's support of the University is essential to continue the core mission of research, education and clinical care.' Ryan previously served as the dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education prior to joining the University of Virginia in August 2018. Virginia's Democratic senators blasted the Trump administration following news of his departure. 'It is outrageous that officials in the Trump Department of Justice demanded the Commonwealth's globally recognized university remove President Ryan — a strong leader who has served UVA honorably and moved the university forward — over ridiculous 'culture war' traps,' Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine said in a statement. 'Decisions about UVA's leadership belong solely to its Board of Visitors, in keeping with Virginia's well-established and respected system of higher education governance. This is a mistake that hurts Virginia's future.' The Trump administration has picked fights with various high-profile universities over diversity programs and their alleged failure to tackle anti-semitism on campus. Columbia University caved to those demands in an attempt to maintain federal funding, while Harvard has so far stood its ground. The Times reported this week that Harvard's leaders are debating how to reach a deal without being seen as capitulating to Trump.
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- Politics
- The Hill
5 takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling
The Supreme Court handed President Trump a clear victory Friday, stopping judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that block his executive order narrowing birthright citizenship. But the cases aren't over yet, as a new phase of the battle commences in the lower courts. Here are five takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling. Friday's opinion came from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's third appointee to the court who has recently faced a barrage of criticism from the president's own supporters. The heat grew as Barrett this spring ruled against the administration in several emergency cases, including Trump's bid to freeze foreign aid payments and efforts to swiftly deport alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. By tradition, the most senior member of the majority decides who authors the opinion. So, Chief Justice John Roberts would've assigned Barrett as the author soon after the May 15 oral arguments. On Friday, Barrett ultimately wrote for all five of her fellow Republican-appointed justices, being the face of the Trump administration's major win. Barrett rejected the challengers' notion that nationwide injunctions were needed as a powerful tool to check the executive branch. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,' she wrote. Though the court curtailed nationwide injunctions, the decision leaves the door open for plaintiffs to try to seek broad relief by pursuing class action lawsuits. Within hours, one group of plaintiffs quickly took the hint. A coalition of expectant mothers and immigration organizations suing asked a district judge in Maryland to issue a new ruling that applies to anyone designated as ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order — the same practical effect as a nationwide injunction. The Democratic-led states suing are also vowing to press ahead. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable, creating administrative chaos for California and others and harm to countless families across our country. The fight is far from over,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said in a statement. And the American Civil Liberties Union brought an entirely new lawsuit Friday seeking to do the same. The efforts could quickly bring the birthright citizenship battle back to the Supreme Court. 'In cases where classwide or set-aside relief has been awarded, the losing side in the lower courts will likewise regularly come to this Court if the matter is sufficiently important,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a solo concurring opinion. 'When a stay or injunction application arrives here, this Court should not and cannot hide in the tall grass.' Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the court's leading conservatives, cautioned lower courts against creating a 'significant loophole' to Friday's decision by stretching when plaintiffs can file class action lawsuits. 'Federal courts should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of these tools,' Alito wrote, joined by Thomas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the chief dissent, arguing that the rule of law is 'not a given' in America and the high court gave up its 'vital role' in preserving it with Friday's opinion. Joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she claimed that the Trump administration sought to tear down nationwide injunctions because it can't prove the president's order narrowing birthright citizenship is likely constitutional. Trump's order made a 'solemn mockery' of the Constitution, she said, and his request to instead curtail nationwide injunctions is obvious 'gamesmanship.' 'Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.' Going further than her liberal peers, Jackson wrote in a solo dissent that the court's decision was an 'existential threat to the rule of law' — drawing a harsh rebuke from Barrett, a dramatic exchange between the two most junior justices. Jackson argued that the majority uses legalese to obscure a more basic question at the heart of the case: 'May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' At another point, she said that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' suggesting that the Trump administration's efforts to 'vanquish' universal injunctions amounts to a request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior' — and that the majority gave the president just that. The rhetoric in Jackson's opinion amounts to a 'startling line of attack,' Barrett said, condemning her argument as 'extreme.' 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. '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.' She urged Jackson to 'heed her own admonition' that everyone, from the president down, is bound by law. 'That goes for judges too,' Barrett said. Trump and his allies hailed the ruling as a decisive victory for his administration, promising to move his sweeping second term agenda forward with judges' power significantly curtailed. 'It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump said at a press conference Friday afternoon. He specifically slammed 'radical left judges' he said used nationwide injunctions as a tool to 'overrule the rightful powers of the president' to stop illegal immigration. The decision means his administration can now move forward on a 'whole list' of policy priorities that were frozen nationwide by federal judges, he argued, from birthright citizenship to freezing federal funding. 'We have so many of them,' Trump said.
USA Today
16 minutes ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Trump wins again. Conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett again. Supreme Court takeaways
WASHINGTON − For the second year in a row, the Supreme Court ended its term with a big win for President Donald Trump. This time, the conservative court − which includes three justices appointed by Trump in his first term − limited the ability of judges to block the president's policies as they're being challenged in court. Last year, the court said formers presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, a decision that helped Trump avoid being tried for trying to overturn the 2020 election. And Trump has also been on a winning streak on emergency appeals that the justices decide relatively quickly, without oral arguments. Those emergency actions will continue over the summer, while the court is in recess. But June 27 was the final day for decisions on cases the justices have been considering for months. In addition to ruling on the holds judges put on Trump's changes to birthright citizenship, they handed down opinions about LGBTQ+ schoolbooks, online porn, Obamacare and internet subsidies. Here are the highlights. Justices halt nationwide blocks on Trump policies from lower courts Rather than deal directly with birthright citizenship, the high court instead ordered lower courts to review nationwide blocks on Trump policies. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the 6-3 majority that nationwide orders 'likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.' Judges have 30 days to review their rulings. 'These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump said. 'This was a colossal abuse of power.' Attorney General Pam Bondi, who complained that 35 of 40 national blocks on Trump policies came from five jurisdictions, said the decision would stop regional judges from becoming 'emperors." But states and immigration advocates had warned such a decision would leave a patchwork where newborns are recognized as citizens in nearly half the states where judges have blocked Trump's order but not in other jurisdictions. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit to halt Trump's birthright order in the wake of the high court's decision. 'Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,' said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. Varu Chilakamarri, a partner at K&L Gates, said the decision could result in more class-action lawsuits or fast-tracking litigation to get decisions from the Supreme Court faster. 'The Supreme Court's sweeping rejection of nationwide injunctions sharply limits the power of lower courts to block controversial executive actions,' Chilakarmarri said. 'But all of those paths will inevitably take longer to unfold – making it harder to stop the broad implementation of highly contested policies.' The high court didn't consider the constitutionality of whether Trump's order limiting birthright citizenship for the children of parents in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. Bondi said that decision could come in the court's next session starting in October. Conservaties like Amy Coney Barrett again Maybe Justice Amy Coney Barrett will stop being vilified by Trump supporters. Some of the president's loudest supporters called her diversity, equity and inclusion hire after Barrett (and Chief Justice John Roberts) sided with the court's three liberal justices in a March decision that the Trump administration has to pay foreign aid organizations for work they already did for the government. But Barrett authored the big win for Trump. Conservative commentator Sean Davis said on social media that in Barrett's opinion 'nuking universal injunctions,' she also 'juked' the dissent written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'I want to thank Justice Barrett who wrote the opinion brilliantly,' Trump told reporters at the White House. Trump said he wasn't familiar with conservative criticism of Barrett as a 'squishy' or 'rattled' law professor. 'I don't know about that. I just have great respect for her. I always have,' Trump said. 'Her decision was brilliantly written today, from all accounts.' Liberals said conservatives gave in to Trump's 'mockery' of the Constitution While the justices like to emphasize how many of the decisions they hand down are unanimous, the ones that split along ideological lines are more common at the end of the term. In three of the five full opinions handed down on June 27, the court's six conservatives were on one side and the three liberals were on the other. In the decision, limiting how judges can block Trump's policies, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the president "has made a `solemn mockery' of our Constitution." 'Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way,' she wrote in her dissent. In response to the majority upholding Texas' age verification law for pornographic websites, Justice Elena Kagan said the court should've pushed Texas on whether there's a way to stop minors from seeing sexually explicit content with less of a burden on the First Amendment rights of adults to view the content. In the third decision, Sotomayor said requiring schools to let parents remove their children from class when books with LGBTQ+ characters are being read "threatens the very essence of public education.' Conservatives joined with liberals to reject conservative cases Two more decisions also broke 6-3, but for a different reason. Three of the court's conservatives – Roberts, Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh – joined the three liberals in rejecting conservative challenges to Obamacare and to an internet subsidy program. The court's other three conservatives – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch – dissented. In the latest challenge to the 2010 Affordable Care Act – commonly known as Obamacare – the majority turned aside an attack on free access to cancer screenings, drugs that prevent HIV, cholesterol-lowering medication and other preventive health care services. And in a case rooted in a longstanding conservative complaint about Congress delegating too much authority to agencies, the majority said Congress didn't do that when it created a program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans. In a surprise, the court punted on a racial gerrymandering challenge The court was supposed to announce whether Louisiana could keep its congressional map, a decision that would potentially affect the 2026 elections and states' ability to consider race when drawing legislative boundaries. Instead, the court said it wants to hear more arguments first. Why? They didn't say. When? They didn't say that either, except that they will be laying out a timeline 'in due course.' The case tests the balancing act states must strike when complying with a civil rights law that protects the voting power of a racial minority while not discriminating against other voters. A group of non-Black voters challenged the map as unconstitutional, arguing it relied too heavily on race to sort voters. The state says it drew the lines to protect powerful incumbents like House Speaker Mike Johnson and to comply with a court's decision that it could reasonably create a second majority-Black district. Democrats have the advantage in that district, which could be a factor when voters decide in 2026 which party will control the closely divided House.
