Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen States remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions.
The States have argued Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court.
Lawyers for the government had argued Mr. Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.'
'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Mr. Sorokin wrote.
Mr. Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Mr. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.'
The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Mr. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise.
An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent on Friday.
A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect.
On Wednesday (July 23, 2025), a San Francisco-based appeals court found the President's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block.
A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off.
The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by States. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.
Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Mr. Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.'
They also argue that Mr. Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost States funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.'
At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Mr. Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed.
The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
24 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Akali Dal protests against Punjab govt's land pooling policy
As part of its series of State-wide protests, Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) members held a demonstration on Monday against the Punjab government's land pooling policy in Bathinda town. Terming the land pooling policy as anti-farming community, SAD president Sukhbir Singh Badal alleged that the policy was an attempt by the ruling government in the State to grab farmers' land. Addressing a gathering, he said, 'We will not allow one inch of land to be acquired under the AAP government's land grabbing scheme. We will continue our agitation till the land pooling scheme is withdrawn.' The Punjab government, in June this year, introduced a land pooling policy in the state to promote planned and sustainable development. The policy aims to involve landowners, promoters, and companies as stakeholders in the development process and to increase interest in land pooling among landowners. Mr. Badal alleged that the State government was being run through the AAP's Delhi-based leadership, and hence, Punjab's and its people's interests were being sidelined. 'Farmers would be the worst sufferers of the policy. Only 11,000 acres of land have been acquired in Punjab over the last 25 years, out of which 3,000 acres are yet to be developed. Similarly, only 28,000 acres of land were acquired to establish Chandigarh seventy-five years ago, out of which 8,000 acres are still vacant. How can the AAP government think it will be able to develop 44,000 acres with 24,000 acres in Ludhiana alone?' he said. 'Farmers would face long years of waiting for the development of their land, which would not only destroy them but also the agri-economy of the areas where acquisition would be done,' he added.
Hans India
24 minutes ago
- Hans India
Uttam tears into BRS, says rank irregularities at all levels in KLIP
Hyderabad: State Irrigation Minster N Uttam Kumar Reddy on Monday disclosed findings of the Judicial Commission on the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project, directly blaming former Chief Minister K. Chandrashekhar Rao for bypassing rules, ignoring expert warnings, and plunging the State into Rs 84,000 crore of high-interest debt. In a powerpoint presentation after the cabinet meeting, Uttam said the Commission's 660-page report, led by former Supreme Court judge Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, exposed how Telangana's most expensive project became an engineering and financial disaster due to unilateral and illegal decisions made during the BRS regime. 'We had promised the people that a judicial inquiry would be ordered into the Medigadda barrage collapse. After coming to power, we formed a Commission headed by Justice Ghose, and now that report has been submitted,' Uttam said. 'It clearly says KCR acted not as Chief Minister but as an administrative head issuing direct orders that went against institutional processes.' Quoting from the report, Minister Uttam said: 'The Commission has held that there is rank irregularity from the stage of conceptualisation of the project till the administrative approvals on March 1, 2016. These decisions were not those of the government, but of individuals.' He said the decision to shift the barrage from Tummidihatti to Medigadda was made solely by KCR, under the false pretext of water unavailability. 'The report says the reason for abandoning Tummidihatti does not appear sincere or honest,' Uttam added. The Minister reminded that even Union Minister Uma Bharti had confirmed water availability at Tummidihatti and the Central Water Commission (CWC) had approved the hydrology of the Pranahita-Chevella project in October 2014. 'But KCR's government wrote to the Centre saying there was no water, and that misrepresentation was found to be malicious by the Commission,' Uttam said. Minister Uttam revealed that an expert committee constituted by KCR's own government via G.O. Rt. No. 28 in January 2015 had recommended that building a barrage at Medigadda was unviable and not economical. 'They clearly said the barrage should be built at Vemanapally instead. That report was deliberately kept aside,' he said. 'The Commission observes that the suppression of this report was not accidental. It was done with intent to allow the CM and Irrigation Minister to go ahead with Medigadda against all expert advice,' he noted. Uttam Kumar Reddy laid out the timeline: 'The Medigadda barrage agreement was signed in 2016. The Kaleshwaram project was inaugurated in 2019. By October 21, 2023, Pillar 20 of Medigadda's Block-7 collapsed due to structural failure.' He said the Commission endorsed the NDSA's findings which cited serious planning and design flaws. 'The barrage was built on a permeable foundation, unsuitable for a storage structure. A cavity filled with soil was found instead of sand. Only 7,498 concrete samples were tested instead of the 37,000+ required,' he quoted from the report.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
24 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trump says June jobs data 'rigged', Wall Street and economists disagree
The monthly jobs report is already closely-watched on Wall Street and in Washington but has taken on a new importance after President Donald Trump on Friday fired the official who oversees it. Trump claimed that June's employment figures were "RIGGED" to make him and other Republicans "look bad". Yet he provided no evidence and even the official Trump had appointed in his first term to oversee the report, William Beach, condemned the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labour Statistics appointed by former President Joe Biden. The firing followed Friday's jobs report that showed hiring was weak in July and had come to nearly a standstill in May and June, right after Trump rolled out sweeping tariffs. Economists and Wall Street investors have long considered the job figures reliable, with share prices and bond yields often reacting sharply when they are released. Yet Friday's revisions were unusually large -- the largest, outside of a recession, in five decades. And the surveys used to compile the report are facing challenges from declining response rates, particularly since COVID, as fewer companies complete the surveys. Nonetheless, that has not led most economists to doubt them. "The bottom line for me is, I would not take the low collection rate as any evidence that the numbers are less reliable," Omair Sharif, founder and chief economist at Inflation Insights, a consulting firm, said. Many academics, statisticians and economists have warned for some time that declining budgets were straining the government's ability to gather economic data. There were several government commissions studying ways to improve things like survey response rates, but the Trump administration disbanded them earlier this year. Heather Boushey, a top economic adviser in the Biden White House, noted that without Trump's firing of McEntarfer, there would be more focus on last week's data, which points to a slowing economy. "We are having this conversation about made-up issues to distract us from what the data is showing," Boushey said. "Revisions of this magnitude in a negative direction may indicate bad things to come for the labour market." Here are some things to know about the jobs report: Economists and Wall Street trust the data Most economists say that the Bureau of Labour Statistics is a nonpolitical agency staffed by people obsessed with getting the numbers right. The only political appointee is the commissioner, who does not see the data until it is finalised, two days before it is issued to the public. Erica Groshen, the BLS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, said she suggested different language in the report to "liven it up", but was shot down. She was told that if asked to describe a cup as half-empty or half-full, BLS says "it is an eight ounce cup with four ounces of liquid". The revised jobs data that has attracted Trump's ire is actually more in line with other figures than before the revision. For example, payroll processor ADP uses data from its millions of clients to calculate its own jobs report, and it showed a sharp hiring slowdown in May and June that is closer to the revised BLS data. Trump and his White House have a long track record of celebrating the jobs numbers -- when they are good. These are the figures Trump is attacking Trump has focussed on the revisions to the May and June data, which on Friday were revised lower, with job gains in May reduced to 19,000 from 144,000, and for June to just 14,000 from 147,000. Every month's jobs data is revised in the following two months. Trump also repeated a largely inaccurate attack from the campaign about an annual revision last August, which reduced total employment in the United States by 818,000, or about 0.5 per cent. The government also revises employment figures every year. Trump charged that the annual revision was released before the 2024 presidential election to "boost" Vice President Kamala Harris's "chances of Victory", yet it was two months before the election and widely reported at the time that the revision lowered hiring during the Biden-Harris administration and pointed to a weaker economy. Here's why the government revises the data The monthly revisions occur because many companies that respond to the government's surveys send their data in late, or correct the figures they have already submitted. The proportion of companies sending in their data later has risen in the past decade. Every year, the BLS does an additional revision based on actual job counts that are derived from state unemployment insurance records. Those figures cover 95 per cent of US businesses and are not derived from a survey but are not available in real time. These are the factors that cause revisions Figuring out how many new jobs have been added or lost each month is more complicated than it may sound. For example, if one person takes a second job, should you focus on the number of jobs, which has increased, or the number of employed people, which has not? (The government measures both: The unemployment rate is based on how many people either have or do not have jobs, while the number of jobs added or lost is counted separately). Each month, the government surveys about 121,000 businesses and government agencies at over 630,000 locations -- including multiple locations for the same business -- covering about one-third of all workers. Still, the government also has to make estimates: What if a company goes out of business? It likely will not fill out any forms showing the jobs lost. And what about new businesses? They can take a while to get on the government's radar. The BLS seeks to capture these trends by estimating their impact on employment. Those estimates can be wrong, of course, until they are fixed by the annual revisions. The revisions are often larger around turning points in the economy. For example, when the economy is growing, there may be more startups than the government expects, so revisions will be higher. If the economy is slowing or slipping into a recession, the revisions may be larger on the downside. Here's why the May and June revisions may have been so large Ernie Tedeschi, an economic adviser to the Biden administration, points to the current dynamics of the labour market: Both hiring and firing have sharply declined, and fewer Americans are quitting their jobs to take other work. As a result, most of the job gains or losses each month are probably occurring at new companies, or those going out of business. And those are the ones the government uses models to estimate, which can make them more volatile. Groshen also points out that since the pandemic, there has been a surge of new start-up companies, after many Americans lost their jobs or sought more independence. Yet they may not have created as many jobs as startups did pre-COVID, which throws off the government's models. Revisions seem to be getting bigger The revisions to May and June's job totals, which reduced hiring by a total of 258,000, were the largest -- outside recessions -- since 1967, according to economists at Goldman Sachs. Kevin Hassett, Trump's top economic adviser, went on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday and said, "What we have seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the jobs numbers." Hassett blamed a sharp drop in response rates to the government's surveys during and after the pandemic: "When COVID happened, because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed." Yet calculations by Tedeschi show that while revisions spiked after the pandemic, they have since declined and are much smaller than in the 1960s and 1970s. Other concerns about the government's data Many economists and statisticians have sounded the alarm about things like declining response rates for years. A decade ago, about 60 per cent of companies surveyed by BLS responded. Now, only about 40 per cent do. The decline has been an international phenomenon, particularly since COVID. The United Kingdom has even suspended publication of an official unemployment rate because of falling responses. And earlier this year, the BLS said that it was cutting back on its collection of inflation data because of the Trump administration's hiring freeze, raising concerns about the robustness of price data just as economists are trying to gauge the impact of tariffs on inflation. US government statistical agencies have seen an inflation-adjusted 16-per cent drop in funding since 2009, according to a July report from the American Statistical Association. "We are at an inflection point," the report said. "To meet current and future challenges requires thoughtful, well-planned investment ... In contrast, what we have observed is uncoordinated and unplanned reductions with no visible plan for the future. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
