Latest news with #TrumpExecutiveOrder
Economic Times
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Economic Times
What is Birthright Citizenship? 10 key points to know about the US Supreme Court's decision today
US Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling has opened a new chapter in America's immigration and legal policy. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled 6–3 to limit federal courts from issuing nationwide blocks on presidential actions, giving President Donald Trump the green light to begin implementing his controversial executive order to end automatic citizenship for some U.S.-born children. While birthright citizenship is still protected under the 14th Amendment, this procedural decision gives Trump more control over immigration policy and future executive powers. The legal fight isn't over, but the balance of power has clearly shifted—possibly for years to come. US Supreme Court limits court powers, boosting Trump's move to end birthright citizenship. The June 27 ruling clears the way for executive action on immigration, reshaping how legal challenges are handled. Birthright citizenship fight now heads into deeper legal waters. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What is birthright citizenship and why is it at the center of the legal fight? Why did the Supreme Court limit nationwide injunctions? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Is birthright citizenship still legal in the US? Here are 10 key takeaways from today's Supreme Court decision: Birthright citizenship explained Birthright citizenship refers to the legal principle that anyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status. This right is granted by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that all persons 'born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' are citizens. The Trump Executive Order In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aiming to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or temporarily. This move reignited national debate on the scope of the 14th Amendment. The lawsuit and injunction Several immigrant advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations sued the administration, and federal courts quickly issued nationwide injunctions, temporarily halting enforcement of the order across the country. Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions In today's ruling, the Supreme Court held that federal district courts had overreached their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said courts can only block executive actions for named plaintiffs and within their jurisdiction—not for the entire nation. A procedural, not constitutional, decision Importantly, the Court did not rule on whether Trump's executive order violates the 14th Amendment. It focused only on the legal question of how far courts can go in stopping federal actions during ongoing litigation. The 30-day window The Court gave lower courts 30 days to revise or narrow their injunctions. This means the current block on Trump's order remains for now—but likely only for those directly involved in the case. Liberal dissent Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. They warned that limiting injunctions would allow potentially unconstitutional actions to impact millions of people before a full legal review can be completed. Impact on future litigation This decision redefines how legal challenges to federal policies proceed. Moving forward, district courts will find it harder to issue sweeping nationwide bans—even in urgent civil rights cases. Trump hails the ruling President Trump celebrated the decision, calling it a victory over 'radical left judges' who he claims have tried to overrule executive power. His campaign has emphasized ending birthright citizenship as part of his broader immigration agenda. What's next? While the nationwide injunctions are likely to be scaled back, the underlying case about whether the executive order violates the Constitution will continue through the courts. A final ruling on the substance of birthright citizenship may still be months—or years—away. What do dissenting justices say about this change? How does this ruling expand presidential power? What happens next in the legal battle over birthright citizenship? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What's the broader impact of the ruling? Birthright citizenship is still alive, but the rules are changing FAQs: In a landmark decision on June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court made a major ruling affecting the future of birthright citizenship and how much power presidents have when issuing executive orders. The Court didn't outright end the constitutional right to citizenship for children born on U.S. soil—but it did clear the way for President Donald Trump's controversial executive order to begin taking effect. More importantly, it drastically limits how federal courts can block presidential actions nationwide. Here's everything you need to know about what happened, why it matters, and what comes citizenship is based on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that anyone born in the United States and 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' is a U.S. citizen. This rule has long applied even to children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aimed at denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or only temporarily. This sparked immediate backlash from immigrant rights groups, who argue that the executive order goes against the Trump's executive order was issued, federal courts quickly stepped in and blocked its enforcement with nationwide injunctions. But on June 27, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal district courts had overstepped their Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the conservative majority, said that lower courts may only issue injunctions that protect the people who actually filed the lawsuit, not block the law across the entire country. This means that while Trump's order remains on hold for now, it's only blocked for a limited number of plaintiffs, not for now. The Court's ruling did not decide whether Trump's order is constitutional. Instead, it focused only on the procedure—specifically how courts can pause government actions while cases are pending. So birthright citizenship still stands, but the fight over it will continue in the courts for months, if not Barrett made it clear that lower courts have 30 days to narrow their injunctions. In practical terms, this opens the door for the Trump administration to start enforcing the executive order soon—at least for people not directly involved in the Court's three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented. They warned that limiting courts' ability to block federal actions could allow potentially unconstitutional policies to harm millions before being properly argued that in cases affecting civil rights, immigration, healthcare, and more, courts need the power to issue broader protections. Without that, executive actions could go unchecked until higher courts finally weigh in—potentially too late for those already Trump called the ruling a 'giant win', saying it strikes back at 'radical left judges' who he believes have blocked his policies unfairly. His administration says the decision restores a proper balance between the executive branch and the his return to office, Trump has pushed dozens of executive actions—many of which have been held up by federal judges. These include cuts to foreign aid, changes to diversity programs, rollbacks on immigration protections, and adjustments to election ruling doesn't just apply to birthright citizenship—it makes it much harder for lower courts to freeze other executive orders nationwide, allowing Trump and future presidents to act more freely while legal battles play the Supreme Court ruling doesn't end the legal challenge, it shifts the strategy. The main lawsuit will continue, and eventually, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether ending birthright citizenship is constitutional—possibly as soon as October 2025, according to Attorney General Pam the meantime, enforcement will vary depending on which state you're in. Because states issue birth certificates, and many Democratic-led states don't collect data on parents' immigration status, they may resist implementing Trump's Barrett also acknowledged that states may suffer financial and administrative burdens from the new rule—hinting that lower courts might still justify broader injunctions if specific harms are ruling marks a shift in American legal and political power. For decades, both Democratic and Republican presidents have clashed with district courts that blocked their actions. The Supreme Court's decision now narrows that power, giving the White House more room to Congressional Research Service noted that from Trump's inauguration to April 29, 2025, there were 25 instances where federal courts halted executive decision could affect not only immigration, but also climate policies, student loan programs, and workplace rules, giving presidents more control while the courts catch Supreme Court's ruling on June 27, 2025, doesn't eliminate birthright citizenship—but it paves the way for President Trump to start enforcing his order, and it reshapes how the legal system checks executive next few months will be crucial as lower courts revise their rulings, and states decide how to respond. Meanwhile, the broader debate over constitutional rights, immigration, and presidential power is far from Court allowed Trump's executive order to move forward by limiting court but Trump's policy could change how it's applied during ongoing court battles.
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Supreme Court delivers bombshell ruling on Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship
President Donald Trump was handed a major victory by the Supreme Court in his bid to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. Trump signed an executive order when he took office bolding ending birthright citizenship - the legal principle that U.S. citizenship is automatically granted to individuals upon birth. Under the directive, children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens, radically altering the interpretation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment for over 150 years. The president claimed the idea was tied to 'slavery' and should be immediately dismantled. 'That's not about tourists coming in and touching a piece of sand and then all of the sudden there's citizenship, you know they're a citizen, that is all about slavery,' Trump argued. 'If you look at it that way, that case is an easy case to win,' he had previously stated. Six conservative justices – three appointed by Trump himself – sided with the president when it handed down its decision on Friday. The majority opinion in the Trump v. CASA Inc., New Jersey and Washington case came on the last day of the high court's term. Democratic states and an immigrant rights group sued to stop Trump's January 20, 2025 executive order from taking effect. Lower courts issued nationwide preliminary injunctions on the presidential order. Birthright citizenship was ratified in 1868 in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, establishing that anyone born on American soil, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status, is automatically a U.S. citizen. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,' Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states. After his election but before being sworn in as president for a second time, Trump vowed he would fight for a constitutional shake-up by ending the provision. 'Can you get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action?' NBC host Kristen Welker asked Trump in an interview that aired in December. 'Well, we're going to have to get it changed,' he said. 'We'll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it.' 'We're the only country that has it, you know,' Trump added in explaining his bid to end 125 years of precedent. The president was elated in April when the Supreme Court decided to take on the case despite the high court rarely hearing emergency appeals. 'I am so happy,' he told reporters in the Oval Office on April 17. 'I think the case has been so misunderstood.' But oral arguments earlier this spring set the stage for the staggering decision that the president is sure to denounce. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer was grilled by both liberal and conservative justices over how the narrowing of birthright citizenship rights would work when put into action. Sauer didn't seem clear on how it would work, and said it would be up to legislators to work out the logistics. 'What do hospitals do with newborns?' Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump pick, questioned during oral arguments last month. 'What do states do with a newborn?' 'Federal officials will have to figure that out,' Sauer replied. Additionally, Justice Amy Comey Barrett was not pleased with how Sauer refused to answer a legitimate question from liberal Justice Elana Kagan.
CNN
3 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
Federal judge halts Trump's order to end collective bargaining rights for many federal workers
A federal judge on Tuesday indefinitely blocked President Donald Trump's effort to terminate the collective bargaining rights for more than a million federal employees. Judge James Donato of the US District Court in San Francisco granted the preliminary injunction requested by a coalition of unions whose members would be stripped of their collective bargaining rights under Trump's executive order. However, Donato's decision clashes with a May ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which lifted a different judge's block on Trump's order pertaining to another union's members. Donato, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said the unions that brought the case before him had 'demonstrated a serious question as to whether their First Amendment rights have been violated.' The judge said he was blocking the executive order pending a trial over the order's constitutionality. 'Plaintiffs have raised serious questions under the First Amendment that warrant further litigation,' he wrote, adding that the unions have shown they would face 'a strong likelihood of irreparable harm from the loss of their collective bargaining and allied rights.' The Trump administration has the option of appealing Donato's ruling to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. At issue is Trump's unprecedented executive order from March that seeks to abolish multiple agencies' union contracts in the name of national security. It would apply to departments including State, Veterans Affairs and Justice, as well as smaller agencies such as the National Science Foundation and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The order is aimed at stopping federal unions who have 'declared war on President Trump's agenda,' according to a White House fact sheet. It claimed the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal workers' union, has filed many grievances to 'block Trump policies.' The unions, led by AFGE, argue that Trump's actions are retaliation and violate the right to engage in constitutionally protected speech. Also, the suit alleges the administration is attempting to apply the national security exemption to eliminate the rights of workers whose primary duties are not related to national security. Donato said in his 29-page ruling that the White House fact sheet was 'solid evidence of a tie between the exercise of First Amendment rights and a government sanction.' 'The Fact Sheet called out federal unions for vocal opposition to President Trump's agenda. It condemned unions who criticized the President and expressed support only for unions who toed the line. It mandated the dissolution of long-standing collective bargaining rights and other workplace protections for federal unions deemed oppositional to the President,' he wrote. Also, while Donato wrote he would not second guess the president's national security determinations, 'a claim of national security does not, of course, automatically negate the Constitution, particularly with respect to the First Amendment.' The ruling by Donato follows a defeat for federal workers in a separate lawsuit filed by the National Treasury Employees Union, which argued that Trump's directive would strip union rights from about two-thirds of its members and deprive it of critical union dues that are deducted from members' paychecks. The 2-1 order from the DC Circuit last month said that the NTEU had not shown that it would be irreparably harmed without a court order blocking the executive order. The panel's majority — made up of a President George H.W. Bush appointee and a Trump appointee — said the harms alleged by the union were 'speculative,' in part, because the Trump administration had directed agencies not to terminate collective bargaining agreements before litigation over the order concluded. A President Joe Biden appointee who dissented from the appellate decision said that self-imposed restriction showed the Trump administration would not be harmed if the preliminary injunction issued by the district judge was left in place.
CNN
3 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
Federal judge halts Trump's order to end collective bargaining rights for many federal workers
A federal judge on Tuesday indefinitely blocked President Donald Trump's effort to terminate the collective bargaining rights for more than a million federal employees. Judge James Donato of the US District Court in San Francisco granted the preliminary injunction requested by a coalition of unions whose members would be stripped of their collective bargaining rights under Trump's executive order. However, Donato's decision clashes with a May ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which lifted a different judge's block on Trump's order pertaining to another union's members. Donato, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said the unions that brought the case before him had 'demonstrated a serious question as to whether their First Amendment rights have been violated.' The judge said he was blocking the executive order pending a trial over the order's constitutionality. 'Plaintiffs have raised serious questions under the First Amendment that warrant further litigation,' he wrote, adding that the unions have shown they would face 'a strong likelihood of irreparable harm from the loss of their collective bargaining and allied rights.' The Trump administration has the option of appealing Donato's ruling to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. At issue is Trump's unprecedented executive order from March that seeks to abolish multiple agencies' union contracts in the name of national security. It would apply to departments including State, Veterans Affairs and Justice, as well as smaller agencies such as the National Science Foundation and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The order is aimed at stopping federal unions who have 'declared war on President Trump's agenda,' according to a White House fact sheet. It claimed the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal workers' union, has filed many grievances to 'block Trump policies.' The unions, led by AFGE, argue that Trump's actions are retaliation and violate the right to engage in constitutionally protected speech. Also, the suit alleges the administration is attempting to apply the national security exemption to eliminate the rights of workers whose primary duties are not related to national security. Donato said in his 29-page ruling that the White House fact sheet was 'solid evidence of a tie between the exercise of First Amendment rights and a government sanction.' 'The Fact Sheet called out federal unions for vocal opposition to President Trump's agenda. It condemned unions who criticized the President and expressed support only for unions who toed the line. It mandated the dissolution of long-standing collective bargaining rights and other workplace protections for federal unions deemed oppositional to the President,' he wrote. Also, while Donato wrote he would not second guess the president's national security determinations, 'a claim of national security does not, of course, automatically negate the Constitution, particularly with respect to the First Amendment.' The ruling by Donato follows a defeat for federal workers in a separate lawsuit filed by the National Treasury Employees Union, which argued that Trump's directive would strip union rights from about two-thirds of its members and deprive it of critical union dues that are deducted from members' paychecks. The 2-1 order from the DC Circuit last month said that the NTEU had not shown that it would be irreparably harmed without a court order blocking the executive order. The panel's majority — made up of a President George H.W. Bush appointee and a Trump appointee — said the harms alleged by the union were 'speculative,' in part, because the Trump administration had directed agencies not to terminate collective bargaining agreements before litigation over the order concluded. A President Joe Biden appointee who dissented from the appellate decision said that self-imposed restriction showed the Trump administration would not be harmed if the preliminary injunction issued by the district judge was left in place.
Fox News
04-06-2025
- Business
- Fox News
US judge dismisses DNC election commission lawsuit, in a victory for Trump
A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) claiming President Donald Trump's executive orders had threatened the independence of the Federal Election Committee (FEC), a significant – albeit rare – court victory for the president. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, said the DNC failed to demonstrate "concrete and imminent injury" – or the burden needed to justify their request for a preliminary injunction. He said that the concerns raised by the party about the FEC's independence as a result of Trump's executive order were far too speculative to satisfy the court's higher bar for emergency relief. At issue in the case was the executive order Trump signed on Feb. 18, titled, "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies." Democrats filed the lawsuit just 10 days after the order was signed, arguing that the order threatened to encroach on the independence of the FEC and risked subjecting it to the whims of the executive branch. The lawsuit focused largely on the claim that the FEC is an independent regulatory agency and argued that the credibility of the entire regulatory enterprise would be "fatally undermined if the party controlling the White House can unilaterally structure campaign rules and adjudicate disputes to disadvantage its electoral competitors." Notably, Ali said Tuesday that he had not found any evidence to date that the White House or the Trump administration had taken steps to change or undermine how the FEC interprets federal election law, or target its independent role. The "possibility that the president and attorney general would take the extraordinary step of issuing a directive to the FEC or its Commissioners purporting to bind their interpretation of FECA is not sufficiently concrete and imminent to create Article III injury," Ali said Tuesday. Should that change, however, Ali said the DNC was welcome to submit an amended filing to the court to reconsider the case. "This Court's doors are open to the parties if changed circumstances show concrete action or impact on the FEC's or its Commissioners' independence," Ali said.
