Latest news with #USConstitution
Straits Times
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Straits Times
US immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the US Constitution. PHOTO: REUTERS WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on June 27 granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the US Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Ms Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on June 27 morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. 'There are not many specifics,' said Ms Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. 'I don't understand it well.' She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. 'I don't know if I can give her mine,' she said. 'I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality.' Mr Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed US agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the US who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate US district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Mr Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On June 27 afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating 'an extremely confusing patchwork' across the country, according to Ms Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. 'Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?' she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Mr Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said during a White House press briefing on June 27. Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Ms Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on June 27 from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. 'He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution,' she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Mr Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the US annually from receiving automatic citizenship. 'It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights,' said Ms Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organisation United We Dream. 'That is really chaotic.' Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Mr Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Ms Betsy, a US citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the US from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. 'I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born,' she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Ms Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on June 27 from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. 'She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen,' she said. 'If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?' REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
AsiaOne
8 hours ago
- Politics
- AsiaOne
Supreme Court in birthright case limits judges' power to block presidential policies, World News
WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory on Friday (June 27) in a case involving birthright citizenship by curbing the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, changing the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The 6-3 ruling, authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's directive restricting birthright citizenship go into effect immediately, directing lower courts that blocked it to reconsider the scope of their orders. The ruling also did not address the legality of the policy, part of Trump's hardline approach toward immigration. The Republican president lauded the ruling and said his administration can now try to move forward with numerous policies such as his birthright citizenship executive order that he said "have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis." "We have so many of them. I have a whole list," Trump told reporters at the White House. The court granted the administration's request to narrow the scope of three so-called "universal" injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive nationwide while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The court's conservative justices were in the majority and its liberal members dissented. The ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. The ruling thus raises the prospect of Trump's order eventually applying in some parts of the country. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing numerous nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The three judges in the birthright citizenship litigation found that Trump's order likely violates citizenship language in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. Warning against 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." Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the ruling a "travesty for the rule of law" as she read a summary of her dissent from the bench. In her written dissent, joined by the court's two other liberal justices, Sotomayor criticised the court's majority for ignoring whether Trump's executive order is constitutional. "Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case," Sotomayor wrote. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The ruling was issued on the final day of decisions on cases argued before the Supreme Court during its nine-month term that began in October. The court also issued rulings on Friday backing a Texas law regarding online pornography, letting parents opt children out of classes when storybooks with LGBT characters are read, endorsing the Federal Communications Commission's funding mechanism for expanded phone and broadband internet access and preserving Obamacare's provision on health insurers covering preventive care. 'Monumental victory' Trump called the ruling a "monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law." The policies Trump said his administration can now attempt to proceed with included cutting off funds to so-called "sanctuary cities," suspending resettlement of refugees in the United States, freezing "unnecessary" federal funding and preventing federal funds from paying for gender-affirming surgeries. [[nid:632424]] The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue "universal" injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. Friday's ruling did not rule out all forms of broad relief. The ruling said judges may provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them. It did not foreclose the possibility that states might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to obtain complete relief. "We decline to take up those arguments in the first instance," wrote Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020. The ruling left untouched the potential for plaintiffs to seek wider relief through class action lawsuits, but that legal mechanism is often harder to successfully mount. In her dissent, Sotomayor said Trump's executive order is obviously unconstitutional. So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department "asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone." Sotomayor advised parents of children who would be affected by Trump's order "to file promptly class action suits and to request temporary injunctive relief for the putative class." Maryland-based US District Judge Deborah Boardman, who previously blocked the order nationwide, scheduled a Monday hearing after immigration rights advocates filed a motion asking her to treat the case as a class action and block the policy nationwide again. "The Supreme Court has now instructed that, in such circumstances, class-wide relief may be appropriate," the lawyers wrote in their motion. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, whose state helped secure the nationwide injunction issued by a judge in Seattle, called Friday's ruling "disappointing on many levels" but stressed that the justices "confirmed that courts may issue broad injunctions when needed to provide complete relief to the parties." Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties - Republican and Democratic - and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the policy. Proponents have said they are an efficient check on presidential overreach, and have stymied actions deemed unlawful by presidents of both parties. 'Illegal and cruel' The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling troubling, but limited, because lawyers can seek additional protections for potentially affected families. "The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "The court's decision to potentially open the door to enforcement is disappointing, but we will do everything in our power to ensure no child is ever subjected to the executive order." The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that 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." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24 per cent of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52 per cent opposed it. Among Democrats, 5 per cent supported ending it, with 84 per cent opposed. Among Republicans, 43 per cent supported ending it, with 24 per cent opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The Supreme Court has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process.
Indian Express
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
US Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions on Trump's birthright citizenship orders: What we know so far
The US Supreme Court on Friday gave President Donald Trump a partial legal win in his attempt to end birthright citizenship, limiting the power of federal judges to block presidential orders across the country. However, the court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's policy itself and has paused its enforcement for 30 days. In a divided judgment, the court said individual federal judges no longer have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions in orders that block executive actions from taking effect throughout the United States. This move is seen as a significant shift in the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive. The decision marks a procedural win for Trump, who has long criticised lower courts for halting his policies through broad rulings. According to the Associated Press, the justices found that such injunctions are beyond the legal powers of district court judges, unless they apply only to the parties involved in a specific case. Despite this ruling, the court did not allow Trump's executive order, which aims to deny US citizenship to children born in the country to undocumented parents to take effect immediately. The justices instead imposed a 30-day delay, giving lower courts time to adjust their existing orders or take further legal action, as reported by The New York Times. That means Trump's order remains blocked for now, although the path is clearer for it to be implemented if courts do not intervene again. On his first day back in office, President Trump signed an executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for nearly all children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution grants citizenship to 'all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' Trump's legal team argues that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' excludes the children of non-citizens in the country illegally. This interpretation has been widely rejected by lower courts and legal scholars. The Supreme Court deliberately avoided ruling on whether Trump's order is constitutional. Instead, the justices focused on judicial power, not immigration law. In doing so, the court left the door open for future legal challenges over the meaning of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and others expressed concern during hearings that allowing the executive order to take effect without broader review could create confusion and unequal treatment across states. For now, the executive order is not in force, and the administration cannot implement the changes to citizenship rules. But that could change quickly if lower courts revise or lift their current injunctions following the Supreme Court's new guidelines. The Trump administration is expected to issue formal guidance on how it would apply the new rules once the 30-day pause ends. Further court battles are likely, especially over the substance of the birthright citizenship policy. The Supreme Court could still be asked to weigh in directly on the constitutional question in a future case. (With inputs from agencies)
Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Politics
- Gulf Today
Popular condemnation
Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil was freed from detention at a US immigration facility last Friday after 104 days of captivity. A graduate student at Columbia University, Khalil – who is Palestinian by parentage – has an Algerian passport and permanent US residence. He was snatched without a warrant from his home in early March as he and his pregnant wife were returning from an evening out. His case attracted widespread popular condemnation. Rights groups accused the Trump administration of violation the sacrosanct First Amendment of the US Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech and assembly. Amnesty International condemned his arrest and pressed for his freedom. Amnesty's regional director Ana Piquer stated, 'We remain deeply concerned by the escalating use of detention, intimidation, deportation, and disregard to right of due process, to silence protest and chill public debate in the United States. This is not just about one student, it is about the growing pattern of authoritarian practices by the Trump administration that undermine human rights. We urge the US government to end the political targeting of students and other individuals based on their beliefs and to respect freedom of speech. Mahmoud's detention [was] a stark reminder of the human rights that are at stake in the country, and we will continue to monitor his case.' On his release, he rejoined his wife Noor Abdallah and hugged his newborn son for the first time. However, he is not a totally free man as his immigration case is ongoing and the authorities seized his passport and green card which identifies him as a legal US resident. His movements are restricted to New York and nearby states. A federal judge in Newark, New Jersey, ordered Khalil's release on bail, asserting, unconditionally: 'He is not a danger to the community. Period, full stop.' The judge accepted his lawyers' contention that his prosecution was politically motivated. Khalil had committed no crime. Officials had charged him with threatening national security by protesting US backing for Israel's Gaza war and accused him of antisemitism although Jewish students demonstrated alongside him at Columbia University and elsewhere. His high-profile arrest was the most energetically contested of multiple immigration cases levelled against foreign students who took part in these anti-war protests at US universities. Other detainees were either freed or deported from the country. His release could encourage others to fight. Khalil's release constitutes a blow to the Trump administration's campaign to dictate the US narrative and take questionable or downright illegal actions to stifle dissidence. In addition to branding protests against Israel as antisemitic and against US policies favouring Israel, Trump has nearly closed the Voice of America (VOA) by firing thousands of journalists on its staff. The administration claimed the VOA was 'riddled with dysfunction, bias, and waste. The VOA was established during World War II to counter Nazi propaganda and played the same role during the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union. Trump has followed up by cutting funding to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System which serves mainly rural communities. Critics argue the administration is taking this action to limit the public's access to independent reports and liberal, progressive views which challenge Trump's line and actions. Trump has led the charge against federal, educational, and institutional policies based on identity. These are meant to give opportunities to people of all backgrounds. These policies, dubbed 'diversity, equity and diversity,' remove gender, ethnic, religious, and educational requirements for inclusion in a wide range of activities and ensure equal treatment and pay. Trump has also issued a travel ban on visitors from 12 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Yemen, and Sudan, and a partial travel ban on seven more. This ban affects predominantly black and brown people as well as those from Muslim-majority countries. Amnesty accused the administration of racial discrimination, creates hatred, and promotes the idea that citizens from the targeted countries are likely to mount attacks in the US. Amnesty said, 'This arbitrary travel ban also violates the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution and the US obligation to protect [asylum seekers and refugees] under international and national refugee law.' US Senator Alex Padilla was arrested, thrown to the floor, and handcuffed by law officers for asking a question of Homeland Security chief Kristi Noem at a press conference. A judge was arrested in her office for helping a defendant to evade arrest by an immigration team. Masked squads snatch, arrest, and disappear targeted individuals in public and detain those protesting peacefully against his mass roundups of migrants. Trump placed the California National Guard under federal control and deployed 700 marines against largely peaceful Los Angeles demonstrations against his administration's crack down on migrants. This intervention coincided with the June 14th military parade in Washington to mark the 250th anniversary of the US army, Trump's 79th birthday, and anti-authoritarian 'No King' protests against Trump's authoritarianism which drew five million across the US. Trump again demonstrated his authoritarian bent on the international plane by ordering and carrying out attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities in support of Israel's war on Iran. While anti-Iran hawks and most lawmakers in Trump's Republican party praised this action, Democrats were highly critical. They argued that he failed to seek congressional authorisation to use military force abroad and insisted on a full, classified briefing on this operation. Some Democrats called for Trump's impeachment. Photo: AFP
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Why Harvard resistance matters for the future of democracy in US education
Trump administration's pressure on Harvard threatens academic freedom across US universities Harvard University has found itself at the center of an intensifying conflict between academic independence and political coercion. As detailed in a powerful opinion piece published by The Harvard Crimson, professors Ryan D. Enos and Steven Levitsky argue that Harvard's ongoing resistance to the Trump administration's demands represents more than an internal university matter—it is a critical test for the survival of democratic principles in US higher education. Enos, a professor of Government, and Levitsky, the David Rockefeller Professor of Latin American Studies and a professor of Government, caution that the stakes go beyond Harvard's own autonomy. They suggest that if the university capitulates, it could signal a broader erosion of academic freedom and democratic norms across the US educational landscape. The dispute is more than a legal battle—it is a fight over academic freedom According to The Harvard Crimson, the conflict escalated after University President Alan Garber issued a statement on April 14 defending Harvard's independence and denouncing what he described as "unlawful demands" from the federal government. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo This public stance drew strong support from students, faculty, and alumni, many of whom rallied around the university's decision to push back. However, recent reports suggest that Harvard may be engaging in negotiations with the Trump administration—a move Enos and Levitsky argue would be a grave mistake. They describe the situation as "not a negotiation" but "authoritarian extortion," noting that the federal government is offering relief from the harm it unlawfully imposed in exchange for ideological compliance. "The Trump administration's illegal actions imposed severe hardship on Harvard," the professors wrote, as quoted by The Harvard Crimson. "It is now offering relief from some of that illegally imposed hardship in exchange for Harvard's adoption of policies that are aligned with the government's ideology." Federal pressure jeopardizes constitutional rights and sets a dangerous precedent The professors point out that the Trump administration's leverage over Harvard was built on a series of unlawful actions, including the withholding of billions of dollars in congressionally approved research funding. As The Harvard Crimson reported, Harvard's lawsuits assert that these actions violate both statutory law and the US Constitution. Using government resources to punish a private institution for its political stance, they argue, is a clear violation of the First Amendment. "This is like negotiating the terms of a mugging," Enos and Levitsky wrote, stressing that succumbing to such tactics would embolden similar behavior toward other universities. They warned that the consequences would extend far beyond Cambridge. "If the country's wealthiest university gives in to the government's unlawful demands, then no university will be able to resist them," they stated, as quoted in The Harvard Crimson. The long-term cost of short-term compromise Harvard's potential capitulation would send a chilling message to other institutions, essentially providing a blueprint for further government interference in university affairs. The authors referenced statements from a federal official who, according to The Harvard Crimson, openly suggested that forcing Harvard into compliance would make it easier to control other institutions. The professors also underscored the widespread sacrifices already made by the Harvard community to uphold these democratic values. Faculty members pledged parts of their salaries, alumni mobilized in support, and international students publicly risked their standing to defend academic freedom. A defining moment for democracy and US higher education Enos and Levitsky conclude that this is a moment of democratic reckoning. Allowing federal authorities to dictate admissions, hiring, and research priorities undermines not just institutional autonomy but the democratic structure that supports academic inquiry in the US. As they argued in The Harvard Crimson, "American higher education has thrived precisely because we live in a free society." The decision Harvard makes now, they warn, will either reinforce that freedom or signal its gradual dismantling. Ultimately, they urge Harvard's leaders to stay the course—not only to preserve the university's integrity but to protect the democratic principles at the foundation of US education. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
