logo
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision

Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision

The Hindu25-07-2025
A federal judge on Friday (July 25, 2025) blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June.
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Madras High Court seeks State's response to PIL plea seeking to initiate process for empanelment of eligible IPS officers for T.N. DGP post
Madras High Court seeks State's response to PIL plea seeking to initiate process for empanelment of eligible IPS officers for T.N. DGP post

The Hindu

time14 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

Madras High Court seeks State's response to PIL plea seeking to initiate process for empanelment of eligible IPS officers for T.N. DGP post

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday sought response of the State government to a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking the direction to the Central and the State governments to immediately initiate the process for empanelment of eligible IPS officers for the post of Director General of Police (DGP), Tamil Nadu. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete sought response from the State on the procedure it would be adopting. The court also sought response regarding the Supreme Court guidelines in the Prakash Singh v. Union of lndia case, Supreme Court clarifications to the directions, Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) guidelines and the Single Window System. The court was hearing the PIL petition filed by K. Yasar Arafath of Paramakudi in Ramanathapuram district who sought appropriate directions regarding appointment of the Tamil Nadu DGP in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of lndia judgment. The incumbent DGP Mr. Shankar Jiwal is set to retire on August 31. However, till date the State government has not taken steps to initiate the mandatory process of empaneling eligible IPS officers and forwarding the names to UPSC for preparation of a panel, as directed by the Supreme Court, he said. He claimed there were credible reports indicating the possibility of appointing an in-charge or acting DGP or seeking an extension for the current DGP without following the prescribed process. It amounts to contempt of the directions laid down by the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh case, which require a merit based transparent selection of the DGP from a panel prepared by the UPSC in consultation with the State government, he said. The petitioner claimed in view of the upcoming Tamil Assembly Elections in 2026, the State government had planned to keep the Head of the Police Force as per their choice to get the support of the Police Department till the upcoming election. The Supreme Court has taken a serious note of the violation of its directions by several States, including the appointment of in-charge DGP and expressed grave concern over the continued non-compliance, he said. The petitioner sought a direction to restrain the State from appointing any officer as in-charge or acting DGP or granting extension to the retiring DGP, without following due process and UPSC panel recommendation pending disposal of the petition. The failure of the authorities to comply with the binding judicial directions undermines the rule of law and the independence and the professionalism of the police force, which has serious consequences for public administration and governance, he said. The court has ordered notice and posted the matter for hearing on August 11.

"Unjustified, Unreasonable" India Hits Back As Trump Threatens To Raise Tariffs Over Russian Oil
"Unjustified, Unreasonable" India Hits Back As Trump Threatens To Raise Tariffs Over Russian Oil

News18

time14 minutes ago

  • News18

"Unjustified, Unreasonable" India Hits Back As Trump Threatens To Raise Tariffs Over Russian Oil

Donald Trump announced a sharp increase in tariffs on Indian goods, citing New Delhi's continued import of Russian oil. The US President accused India of 'buying massive amounts of Russian oil and selling it on the open market for big profits." Trump had earlier imposed 25% tariff on India and an unspecified penalty for buying Russian crude oil and military equipment. India responded strongly to Trump's latest 'tariff" threat, saying that targeting New Delhi is 'unjustified and unreasonable" and highlighted how the US continues to import uranium hexafluoride from Russia for its nuclear industry. n18oc_world n18oc_crux

Colombia's former President Uribe petitions Supreme Court to lift house arrest after conviction
Colombia's former President Uribe petitions Supreme Court to lift house arrest after conviction

First Post

time14 minutes ago

  • First Post

Colombia's former President Uribe petitions Supreme Court to lift house arrest after conviction

Colombia's former president Álvaro Uribe has petitioned the Supreme Court to lift his house arrest while he appeals a 12-year sentence for witness tampering and obstruction of justice. read more Colombia's former president Alvaro Uribe, the country's first previous leader to be convicted of a crime, petitioned the Supreme Court on Monday for his release while appealing his sentence of 12 years house jail. Uribe's conviction and punishment last Friday marked the end of his long career as one of Colombia's most contentious politicians. The 73-year-old, who is still popular and powerful among conservatives, conducted a rigorous military battle against drug traffickers and the FARC rebel group as president from 2002 to 2010. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Uribe was found guilty of tampering with witnesses in a separate inquiry investigating his suspected involvement with right-wing paramilitaries responsible for atrocities while fighting leftist guerrillas. He was also found guilty of impeding justice. At his sentencing the trial court judge declared him to be a flight risk and ordered him to be placed under house arrest at his home in the town of Rionegro, near Colombia's second city of Medellin. Uribe's lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court on Monday to set him free, assuring he had no intention of leaving his homeland. A law-and-order hardliner, Uribe was a close ally of the United States and retains ties to the American right. He claims his conviction is a political witch hunt by the administration of left-wing President Gustavo Petro. He has until August 13 to appeal his conviction. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has decried the case against Uribe, saying it represented 'the weaponization of Colombia's judicial branch by radical judges.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store