Latest news with #immigrantrights


BBC News
19 hours ago
- Politics
- BBC News
Supreme Court curbs judges' power to block Trump's orders in birthright citizenship case
The top court in the US has ruled judges in lower courts have limited ability to block presidential orders, giving President Donald Trump what he called a "giant win".The case surrounded whether Trump's attempt to use an executive order to end birthright citizenship for non-citizens and undocumented migrants was a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court's conservative justices sided with Trump and said they were not addressing Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship. Rather their ruling addressed presidential actions broadly. Experts said the ruling will change how executive actions are challenged in the future and noted legal challenges to the Friday ruling are likely to come. Immigrant rights groups and 22 states sued the Trump administration over an executive order the president signed on his first day back in office. That order was aimed at ending birthright citizenship which gives people born on US territory automatic citizenship rights. What to know about the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship caseThe lawsuits, filed in Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington state and elsewhere, were aimed at blocking the order from taking effect and temporarily did just the Justice Department disagreed and appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing those injunctions were not Friday, the court agreed with the Trump's administration and introduced limits on how universal injunctions are issued by federal courts. Trump hailed the ruling as a victory at a surprise press conference on Friday and said the decision was a "monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law". He said "radical left judges" have tried to overrule his powers as president and that nationwide injunctions are a "grave threat to democracy". Upon returning to the White House in January, Trump immediately began using executive actions as a means to accomplish his General Pam Bondi, who also spoke at the press conference, said the decision meant judges will not be able to stop Trump's policies. She said she expects the Supreme Court to take up the question of birthright citizenship itself, in October when the next session of court begins. While the Friday ruling said courts will still be able to halt presidential actions they deem unconstitutional or illegal, it will happen further along in the judicial process which will give presidents more space to of the ruling to limit injunctions, Trump's birthright citizenship order will be able to take effect, 30 days after the court's opinion was filed, the court said. However, the ruling is likely to see further legal Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and expert on nationwide injunctions, said the ruling "has fundamentally reset the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch".The Supreme Court's ruling will mean universal injunctions "will no longer be the default remedy in challenges to executive action". Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the majority opinion, said federal courts do not "exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch" and instead 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 Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote a concurring opinion, said that the Supreme Court, not the district courts or courts of appeals, "will often still be the ultimate decisionmaker as to the interim legal status of major new federal statutes and executive actions".Justice Sonya Sotomayor penned the dissent for the liberal justices and called the Trump administration's request of the court "gamesmanship" and said the court "plays along"."The Court's decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution," she wrote."The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival. Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort. With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a 'solemn mockery' of our Constitution."


CBC
a day ago
- Politics
- CBC
U.S. Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, in case on Trump birthright citizenship order
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases, as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked the policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, where all the justices appointed by Republican presidents voted in favour, granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The court ordered lower courts to reconsider the scope of their injunctions and specified that Trump's order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize 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. 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. "Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens to prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship," wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett for the majority. Complaints about 'judge shopping' The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive, even without weighing its legal merits. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The issue is intertwined with concerns of "judge shopping," where interest groups and plaintiffs of all kinds file lawsuits before judges they perceive as political allies or friendly to their causes. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body for the federal courts, has been in the process of issuing guidance to curtail the practice. Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed the decision as a win to stop "the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump." Republicans and conservatives in particular have long complained about a single judge enjoining matters for the entire country, though Democrats were aggrieved during Joe Biden's administration when a single judge in Texas issued a sweeping ruling on the abortion medication mifepristone. Ultimately, the Supreme Court essentially rejected that judge's interpretation in a 9-0 ruling. No ruling on birthright citizenship The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order "reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors." 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." Not all countries automatically confer citizenship at birth. Britain and Australia modified their laws in the 1980s, requiring a parent to be a citizen or permanent resident in order for a newborn to qualify for citizenship, in part to prevent so-called birth tourism. Mobile users: View the document (PDF KB) (Text KB) CBC is not responsible for 3rd party content In Canada, citizenship is overwhelmingly granted to any child born on its soil, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, following the principle of jus soli, Latin for "right of the soil." There are a few exceptions, notably for the children of foreign diplomats. The current Liberal government in Ottawa is looking through legislation to expand citizenship to children born outside of Canada to Canadian parents. String of court rulings allow White House to enact agenda The U.S. Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, 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.


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.


Reuters
a day ago
- Politics
- Reuters
US Supreme Court may rule on allowing enforcement of Trump birthright citizenship limits
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court may rule on Friday on Donald Trump's attempt to broadly enforce his executive order to limit birthright citizenship, a move that would affect thousands of babies born each year as the Republican president seeks a major shift in how the U.S. Constitution has long been understood. The administration has made an emergency request for the justices to scale back injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts blocking Trump's directive nationwide. The judges found that Trump's order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize 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. 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 case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. 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% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, 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. The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order "reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors." An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States." 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.


CBS News
2 days ago
- Politics
- CBS News
Judge blocks order directing Colorado state employees to comply with ICE subpoenas
State and city officials praised a Denver district judge's decision to block an order directing employees to comply with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement subpoenas as "a victory for everyone in Colorado." The ruling comes after Scott Moss, Director of the Division of Labor Standards and Statistics, filed suit against Gov. Jared Polis over the order, which Moss said was illegal and violated the community's trust. Gov. Polis directed state employees to comply with an "Immigration Enforcement Subpoena" for information on 35 individuals who the Department of Homeland Security said were listed as sponsors of unaccompanied children in the U.S. illegally. The governor's office said the federal subpoena concerned potential crimes against minors and was in accordance with state law. During a news conference Thursday, Moss praised the judge's ruling and said that the hearings revealed there was no evidence of any harm to children. He claimed the subpoena was an "effort to work with, and say 'yes' to ICE's overly aggressive deportation campaign against our community, against immigrants, drafting in state workers as the unwilling troops in the ICE army." Director of Division of Labor Standards and Statistics Scott Moss addresses the press after ruling on ICE subpoenas. CBS He praised previous laws signed by the governor protecting immigrants' personally identifying information, and said that following the governor's order would violate those laws and break the trust they've asked immigrants to put in their public servants. Laura Wolf, the lead attorney prosecuting the case, said they were deeply concerned that the governor's office did not notify the people listed in the subpoena that they were included or that their information would be turned over to ICE. "We pushed so hard on that in court yesterday, and the court said that it would be 'very problematic' if they were to ever turn over this information to ICE without first notifying these individuals so they could assert their rights," said Wolf. Wolf called the judge's ruling a "huge victory" that made it clear producing information under the subpoena would violate Colorado state law. "This victory isn't just a victory for Coloradans either, it's a call to action around the country. It's a warning to any governors, any mayors, or any state or local agencies thinking of turning over their community's private information to ICE. Your collaboration with ICE and against your own community will see the light of day. It won't be done in the shadows and the darkness, as was attempted here," said Moss. Nina DiSalvo, Policy Director of Towards Justice, an organization that provides access to justice for workers who joined the lawsuit, said that protecting workers' rights would have wide-reaching effects on Colorado's economy. "Colorado workers would no longer be comfortable coming forward to address even the most blatant violation of their rights. If workers don't report, our economy will be caught in a race to the bottom in which employers who break the law simply get away with it and employers who follow the law cannot compete," said DiSalvo. CBS A spokesperson for the governor's office said they would abide by Tuesday's ruling, "We are reviewing the court's preliminary ruling to determine next steps in this matter. We will abide by the court's decision as we have always said we would. Governor Polis remains committed to fully and promptly cooperating with federal criminal investigations into child trafficking and exploitation, while protecting unaccompanied children in Colorado. We hope if information is needed for criminal investigations, that going forward, HSI will provide subpoenas for state information consistent with this ruling."