Latest news with #executiveorder
Times of Oman
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Times of Oman
Trump hails Supreme Court's "monumental" order on birthright citizenship limiting nationwide injunctions
Washington: US President Donald Trump hailed Supreme Court's ruling to limit the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide orders that temporarily stop the government from enforcing a policy, allowing his executive order restricting birthright citizenship to go into effect in some areas of the country, for now, by curtailing judges' ability to block the president's policies nationwide, reported New York Times. The Supreme Court on Friday limited the ability of lower-court judges to block executive branch policies nationwide, opening the door for a majority of states to at least temporarily enforce President Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. President Donald Trump called the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. CASA "monumental" and thanked the court for curbing injunctions from the briefing room podium, flanked by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. "This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch," said Trump. Nationwide injunctions have frequently been used by lower courts to stop executive actions from applying across the board rather than just granting relief to plaintiffs who sued. Trump's actions had been the subject of 25 injunctions between the start of his term in January and the end of April, more than any other president over the same time period, according to data from the Congressional Research Service and a Harvard Law Review tally, reported New York Post. Trump went on to thank the conservative justices on the court -- including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the majority opinion -- and said this allows his administration to move ahead with "numerous polices" now that lower court judges have been limited in their ability to issue nationwide injunctions. "Radical-left judges effectively tried to overrule the rightful powers of the president, to stop the Americans people from getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers. So, thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship; ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries and numerous other priorities of the American people. Our country should be very of the Supreme Court today," added Trump. Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. For now, the justices narrowed the lower court rulings to only block Trump's order as applied to the 22 Democratic-led states, expectant mothers and immigration organizations that are suing, "but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue." The justices ordered the lower courts to move "expeditiously" to refashion their injunctions to comply with the new ruling, reported The Hill. 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. Three federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state imposed sweeping injunctions halting the order from taking effect in response to lawsuits from plaintiffs including immigration groups and nearly two dozen states. 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, reported The Hill. 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. The states have vowed to press ahead, believing that nationwide relief is still necessary. The majority also left the door open for plaintiffs to still try to seek broad relief by filing class action lawsuits, which quickly commenced in two separate cases. The Trump administration can now resume developing guidance to implement the order, though it must wait 30 days before attempting to deny citizenship to anyone, reported The Hill. Trump v CASA was the most high-profile proceeding before the Supreme Court this term, which has now wrapped up. The Supreme Court will convene for its next term on October 6.
New York Times
9 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Times
What the Supreme Court's Ruling Will Mean for Birthright Citizenship
On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order intended to end birthright citizenship, a foundational principle that grants U.S. citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil. That right has been enshrined in the Constitution for more than 160 years. Lawsuits challenging the directive were swiftly filed, and judges in several states issued nationwide injunctions to stop the order from going into effect. But on Friday, the Supreme Court sided largely with the Trump administration. Though it did not rule on the constitutionality of the executive order on birthright citizenship, it did reject the nationwide injunctions that had blocked the order — clearing the way for it to be applied, at least temporarily, in a majority of states. That leaves a lot of questions. Will babies born to undocumented immigrants in some states be entitled to citizenship, but not in others? Can children born to such parents in states where the order is in effect be deported? Will a new court challenge start the argument all over again? Nothing is certain. But here's a look at how the next chapter of the debate is likely to unfold. No. Immigrant rights groups and 22 states, all with Democratic leadership, had sued over the birthright citizenship order, and three federal district courts vacated the policy. Among those states were Arizona, California, Maryland, New York, North Carolina and Washington. Challengers in those states will most likely try again. In 28 states that had not challenged the order, such as Arkansas, Mississippi, North Dakota and Texas, the order can go into effect. But the Supreme Court imposed a 30-day delay before that can happen, leaving time for any new legal maneuvers. While the Supreme Court rejected the ability of a single federal judge to block enforcement of a presidential order across the country, the justices did carve out other legal pathways for those trying to challenge an executive order such as the birthright citizenship measure. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Fox News
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
ACLU sues Trump over birthright order as Supreme Court clears path for it to take effect
Hours after the Supreme Court delivered the Trump administration a major victory Friday by ruling lower courts may issue nationwide injunctions only in limited instances, a coalition of liberal legal groups filed a sweeping new class-action lawsuit in New Hampshire federal court. It takes aim at President Donald Trump's January executive order that redefines who qualifies for U.S. citizenship at birth. While the justices' 6-3 ruling leaves open the question of how the ruling will apply to the birthright citizenship order at the heart of the case, Friday's lawsuit accuses the administration of violating the Constitution by denying citizenship to children born on U.S. soil if their mothers are either unlawfully present or temporarily in the country and their fathers are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus and Democracy Defenders Fund. It seeks to represent a proposed class of children born under the terms of the executive order and their parents. It is not the first legal challenge to the policy. The same group filed a separate suit in January 2025 in the same court on behalf of advocacy organizations with members expecting children who would be denied citizenship under the order. That case led to a ruling protecting members of those groups and is now pending before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral arguments scheduled for Aug. 1. Friday's SCOTUS ruling states that lower courts can no longer block federal policies nationwide unless it's absolutely necessary to give full relief to the people suing. The decision does not say whether Trump's birthright citizenship order is legal, but it means the order could take effect in parts of the country while legal challenges continue. The court gave lower courts 30 days to review their existing rulings. "The applications do not raise — and thus we do not address — the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act," Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, writing for the majority. "The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions." "A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power," she added. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, suggested plaintiffs could pursue class actions as an alternative. "Nevertheless, the parents of children covered by the Citizenship Order would be well advised to file promptly class action suits and to request temporary injunctive relief for the putative class pending class certification," Sotomayor wrote. "For suits challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order, moreover, lower courts would be wise 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." The ACLU lawsuit calls birthright citizenship "America's most fundamental promise" and claims the executive order threatens to create "a permanent, multigenerational subclass" of children denied legal recognition. "The Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead attorney in the case. "This executive order directly opposes our Constitution, values, and history," added Devon Chaffee, executive director of the ACLU of New Hampshire. "No politician can ever decide who among those born in our country is worthy of citizenship." The lawsuit cites the 14th Amendment, which provides that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." It also references the Supreme Court's 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of noncitizens. The plaintiffs include individuals from Honduras, Taiwan and Brazil. One mother in New Hampshire is expecting her fourth child and fears the baby will be denied citizenship despite being born in the U.S. The case is Barbara et al. v. Trump et al., No. 1:25-cv-244, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. "Trump's executive order directly opposes our Constitution, values, and history and it would create a permanent, multigenerational subclass of people born in the U.S. but who are denied full rights," said SangYeob Kim of the ACLU of New Hampshire in January. "Today's historic decision delivers a decisive rejection of the weaponized lawfare President Trump has endured from leftist activist judges who attempted to deny the president his constitutional authority," White House spokesperson Liz Huston wrote to Fox News Digital. "President Trump will continue to implement his America First agenda, and the Trump Administration looks forward to litigating the merits of the birthright citizenship issue to ensure we secure our borders and Make America Safe Again."
New York Times
10 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Judge Strikes Down Trump Order Targeting Another Top Law Firm
A federal judge in Washington ruled on Friday that an executive order President Trump signed imposing penalties against the law firm Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional, permanently barring the government from enforcing its terms. The decision by Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia effectively ended, at least for now, the president's campaign to subjugate several of the nation's top law firms. It also completed a perfect record among those firms that risked fighting the administration in court, notching four decisive rulings from four separate judges, none of which the Trump administration has, so far, tried to appeal. Like three of her colleagues in Washington, Judge AliKhan found that the Trump administration had tried to crush a law firm that had represented groups opposing Mr. Trump. 'The order was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed,' she wrote. 'In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full.' Two of the judges who ruled against the Trump administration were nominated by George W. Bush, and the other two by Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Mass. AG Campbell vows to fight on after Supreme Court hands Trump birthright citizenship win
While expressing disappointment with Friday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the birthright citizenship case, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea J. Campbell is confident states will 'absolutely be successful' in defeating President Donald Trump's executive order in court. In a 6-3 decision Friday, the Supreme Court handed a win to the Trump administration in the much-anticipated birthright citizenship case, while simultaneously not ruling on the birthright issue directly. The court ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, which have effectively blocked many of Trump's policies since he took office in January. The ruling means injunctions would only apply to plaintiffs in the specific lawsuits at hand. The decision left unclear the fate of Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship. Read more: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of Trump birthright citizenship order unclear The court's conservative majority left open the possibility that Trump's changes — an executive order signed on his first day in office that would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally — could remain blocked nationwide. Speaking alongside fellow Democratic attorneys general from Connecticut, New Jersey, California and Washington, Campbell on Friday said Trump cannot change the U.S. Constitution, in this case the 14th Amendment, with the 'simple strike of a pen.' 'Millions of Americans can trace their citizenship back to immigrant ancestors who helped build this country (and) fuel our economy under the protections of the 14th Amendment,' she said. 'Deeply disappointed' that the Supreme Court did not decide that a nationwide injunction is warranted in the case, Campbell said she and other attorneys general who have sued will press on for the more than 150,000 babies born in the U.S. every year into birthright citizenship. Campbell also addressed the state-by-state patchwork legal issues potentially created by Friday's ruling. 'Citizenship does not depend on whether a baby is born in New Hampshire or Massachusetts,' she said. 'People move, they live along state borders, they're born in hospitals outside the state they live in. A baby's citizenship should not, cannot and must not be determined by the borders of the state they find themselves in at the time of birth. And that's why the district court initially granted nationwide relief because they understood that to be true.' Immigrant rights groups and 22 states had sued over Trump's order, and four federal judges, including one in Boston, subsequently blocked it from going into effect. On Truth Social, Trump hailed Friday's ruling as a 'GIANT WIN.' Material from the Associated Press was used in this story. Chicopee's next budget is 6% hike from this year. Here's where spending has increased Trump says he's terminating trade talks with Canada over tax on technology firms Mass. lawmakers get a deal; gun for first on-time (ish) state budget in years 'You have been the worst': Secretary Hegseth blasts former Fox colleague Healey slams Trump for canceling $45M to protect farms, forests and wetlands in WMass and beyond Read the original article on MassLive.
