In their own words: What justices, Trump and groups say about courts and birthright citizenship
At the Supreme Court Friday, justices lambasted one another over the extent of judicial authority. Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused President Donald Trump of trying to game the courts to break the law. The president expressed joy in reclaiming some power back from the judiciary, while advocates sounded worries for immigrant families before filing new legal challenges.
The high court ruled that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear whether Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country.
Here are some of the arguments and comments made by justices, Trump and advocates regarding the court's 6-3 ruling over an effort by the president to deny birthright citizenship to children born to immigrants.
Barrett, Jackson on the judiciary's role
Justice Amy Coney Barrett defended the majority opinion that the judiciary does not have 'unbridled authority' to enforce the president's duty to follow the law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who joined Sotomayor's dissent, wrote that the role of lower courts should ensure that.
'For that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law — full stop,' Jackson wrote.
Barrett called Jackson's arguments 'extreme' and said her reasoning was not tethered 'to any doctrine whatsoever.'
'She offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,' Barrett wrote.
She later stated: 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.'
Sotomayor accuses Trump of 'gamesmanship'
Sotomayor did not mince words when arguing the ruling presents a threat. She accused the Trump administration of using tactics to game the courts and said it has been defying the Constitution.
'The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the government makes no attempt to hide it,' she wrote. 'Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.'
Sotomayor also wrote that Trump's order is 'patently unconstitutional under settled law,' and argued that granting relief through Friday's decision 'is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution.'
'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,' she wrote.
A warning about what may be next
Sotomayor expressed worries about the chaos that may follow before the Supreme Court gets to decide on whether these children should get U.S. citizenship. She worried about the decision leaving some children 'stateless,' risking deportation even when their parents are in the country legally with temporary status visas or other programs.
Sotomayor also warned about the possible wider impact of the ruling.
'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship,' she wrote.
Trump celebrates
Trump, meanwhile, quickly celebrated the ruling, calling it a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' the separation of powers and the rule of law.
'These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump told reporters during a news conference in the White House briefing room. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.'
The president said he would try to advance restrictions on birthright citizenship and other policies that had been blocked by lower courts.
Immigrant rights group responds
One of the groups that challenged Trump's order quickly went back to court seeking to keep his new restrictions on birthright citizenship at bay. CASA, a nonprofit immigrant rights organization, asked a federal court in Maryland to certify a class-action lawsuit that would represent all newborns who would no longer automatically be citizens if Trump's order goes into effect.
'Scotus has carelessly put at risk the citizenship of many hundreds of thousands of newborns and yet to be born innocent. But in the end, this ruling does nothing more than guarantee that the fight and the movement towards justice continue,' said George Escobar, CASA's chief of programs and services.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
8 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
GOP Reaches Tentative SALT Deal at $40K Cap
"Balance of Power: Late Edition" focuses on the intersection of politics and global business. On today's show, Representative Mike Lawler (R) NY shares his thoughts on tentatively reaching a deal on SALT with his Republican colleagues in the Senate. Elizabeth Wydra, President of the Constitutional Accountability Center, & Rep. Sam Liccardo discuss the US Supreme Court's rulings and the impact of these rulings. PWC National Tax Office Co-Leader Rohit Kumar talks about what to expect from the US Senate as the self-imposted Tax Bill deadline is July 4th. (Source: Bloomberg)
Associated Press
13 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Arizona governor caps off quarrelsome legislative session with budget approval
PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs signed on Friday a bipartisan budget that boosts pay for first responders and increases spending on social services, capping a quarrelsome session of the Republican-led Legislature that brought the state to the brink of a government shutdown. The first-term Democrat broke her veto record, sparred with Republicans over agency leadership nominations and got on board with bipartisan proposals that ruffled the feathers of some members of her party. The session unfolded while Hobbs' 2026 bid to hold the reins of the battleground state loomed large. Hobbs began the session with an uphill climb, confronting expanded Republican majorities in the House and Senate. Arizona is one of eight states where the governor's office and legislature are controlled by opposing parties. Hobbs' office chose to negotiate on just a handful of issues this session, including water policy, funding for some of Arizona's most vulnerable residents and renovations to a stadium used by the Arizona Diamondbacks. Budget barbs The Legislature sent the governor a $17.6 billion budget after GOP lawmakers traded barbs with each other and Hobbs' office. The Senate approved one version, but it lacked votes in the House, leaving lawmakers in that chamber to introduce a measure meant to keep state operations running while negotiations continued. On Wednesday, Hobbs vetoed the proposal favored by House Republicans and the continuation measure, calling them partisan and reckless. House Speaker Steve Montenegro introduced amendments to the budget proposal Thursday, and the chamber passed it that night, clearing the way for the Senate to sign off. Border security Hobbs indicated last fall that she was willing to work with the Trump administration on border security issues like stopping fentanyl trafficking and followed up in January calling the Laken Riley Act 'an important step forward' in a post on the social platform X. The act requires detention of unauthorized immigrants accused of theft and violent crime. Hobbs' stance drew praise from GOP Senate President Warren Petersen, while members of her own party criticized the measure. She signed an executive order in February to create a task force that would oversee expanded operations at the border, but she later vetoed a measure that would have required local and state officials to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts. Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan, a Democrat, said her caucus pushed Hobbs to limit spending on border support, saying it had 'drawn a hard line' and planned to withhold votes on the state budget until the border funding was reduced. Senate Assistant Minority Leader Sen. Catherine Miranda, who voted against the budget, said last week that she could not support a budget that has language that opens the door to immigration enforcement. 'And while I know that Gov. Hobbs has promised she will not use the Local Border Support Fund to enforce immigrant laws, the language included in a bill has as much impact as the actual policy implementation,' Miranda said. Progressive lobbyist Marilyn Rodriguez said she would have liked to see Hobbs take a less hawkish posture on border security. Despite some frustrations, House Democratic Leader Oscar De Los Santos said the budget delivers on priorities that include public education, Medicaid and expanded health care for certain patients. 'We also make big investments to bring down the cost of childcare and make college tuition free for Arizona's students from working families,' he said in a statement. Hardball with Republicans Hobbs is no stranger to the veto pen, which she has wielded to knock down what she considers proposals that are out of touch with the state's purple electorate. This year, she vetoed about 170 bills, including an attempt to speed up the counting of ballots. She's repeatedly accused state Sen. Jake Hoffman, who chairs the Legislature's Freedom Caucus, for politicizing the confirmations of her agency head nominees. Her fight with Republicans over funding for a state agency that provides services for some of Arizona's most vulnerable residents led to a moratorium on bill signing, and she has criticized Republicans for hitting the breaks on a proposal that could have led to increased regulation of groundwater pumping in rural areas of the drought-stricken state. Hobbs has said she'd take action on the water front in the absence of a legislative deal, which could set up another round of sparring with Republican lawmakers as she prepares to seek another term. With no Democratic challenger, Hobbs is expected to face either Karrin Taylor Robson or U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, who are both endorsed by the president. ___ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
Key House GOP centrist will not seek reelection, opening up major swing seat battle
GOP Rep. Don Bacon, who represents one of House Republicans' toughest battleground districts, has decided not to run for reelection next year, according to three people familiar with his plans – opening up a critical seat in Nebraska for Democrats in the 2026 midterms. Bacon will formally make the announcement next week, likely on Monday, those people said. Bacon did not return a immediate request for comment from CNN. The departure of the centrist Republican will be a major loss for House GOP leaders, who will need to hang onto every GOP seat to maintain their narrow majority in the upcoming midterms. But his decision does not come as a shock to many House Republicans, who believe the retired Air Force officer has been telegraphing his plans to leave Congress, including through his voting record. Bacon, who was first elected in 2016, has long been weighing whether to seek reelection, making little secret of his frustration with Washington. His victory last fall was seen as one of the biggest Republican surprises in the country, given that he outperformed Donald Trump and overcame stiff Republican headwinds in his Omaha-area district. The outspoken Nebraskan has been one of the few Republicans willing to challenge Trump on key decisions in his second term, particularly on foreign policy issues like Ukraine. Some privately believe he could seek a run for the presidency in 2028. House Democrats were already feeling upbeat about their chances of retaking the majority, which would only require flipping a handful of seats next November. The party's campaign officials point to the long-time historical trends that show new presidential administrations enduring steep losses in their first midterm – as Trump did during his first term in the 2018 wave. Some Republicans, too, privately fear a blue wave, but they also point to key factors in their favor, including redistricting battles in red states like Ohio that will easily favor the GOP. They also believe Trump's personal involvement in 2026 – including his fundraising – will be crucial to turning out his voters that largely sat out the 2018 midterm.
