Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges, World News
During separate hearings in lawsuits challenging Trump's order, US District Judges Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Joseph LaPlante in Concord, New Hampshire, set expedited schedules to decide whether the order can be blocked again on grounds that the US Supreme Court's ruling on Friday curbing the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide does not preclude injunctions in class action lawsuits.
Both judges asked US Department of Justice lawyer Brad Rosenberg, who represented the government in both cases, for assurances that the Trump administration would not move to deport children who do not have at least one parent who is a US citizen or legal permanent resident at least until the executive order takes effect.
Rosenberg said it would not, which Boardman and LaPlante respectively asked him to confirm in writing by Tuesday and Wednesday.
In the Maryland case, immigrant rights advocates revised their lawsuit just a few hours after the 6-3 conservative majority US Supreme Court on Friday ruled in their case and two others challenging Trump's executive order. The New Hampshire lawsuit, a proposed class action, was filed on Friday.
The Supreme Court ruling did not address the merits or legality of Trump's birthright citizenship order, but instead curbed the ability of judges to issue "universal" injunctions to block the Republican president's policies nationwide.
But while the Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to issue injunctions that cover anyone other than the parties appearing before them, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion held out the possibility that opponents of a federal policy could still obtain the same type of relief if they instead pursued cases as class actions.
William Powell, a lawyer for immigration rights groups and pregnant non-citizen mothers pursuing the case, told Boardman at a hearing on Monday that an immediate ruling was necessary to address the fears and concerns migrants now face as a result of the Supreme Court's decision.
"They want to see how fast we can get class relief because they are afraid about their children and their babies and what their status might be," Powell said.
Trump's executive order, which he issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder.
In Friday's ruling, the high court narrowed the scope of the three injunctions issued by federal judges in three states, including Boardman, that prevented enforcement of his directive nationwide while litigation challenging the policy played out.
Those judges had blocked the policy after siding with Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violated the citizenship clause of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to recognise that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen.
Immigrant rights advocates in the hours after the Supreme Court ruled swiftly launched two separate bids in Maryland and New Hampshire to have judges grant class-wide relief on behalf of any children nationally who would be deemed ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order.
The Supreme Court specified the core part of Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. Boardman on Monday pressed Rosenberg on what it could do before then.
"Just to get to the heart of it, I want to know if the government thinks that it can start removing children from the United States who are subject to the terms of the executive order," Boardman said at the end of the hearing.
Boardman scheduled further briefing in the case to continue through July 9, with a ruling to follow. LaPlante scheduled a hearing for July 10.
Rosenberg said the Trump administration objected to the plaintiffs' attempt to obtain the same relief through a class action. He stood by the administration's view of the constitutionality of Trump's order.
"It is the position of the United States government that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed by the Constitution," he said
[[nid:719410]]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
23 minutes ago
- Business Times
Trump may look like he's winning the trade war, but hurdles remain
[WASHINGTON] At a glance, US President Donald Trump appears to be winning the trade war he unleashed after returning to the White House in January, bending major trading partners to his will, imposing double-digit tariff rates on nearly all imports, narrowing the trade deficit, and raking in tens of billions of US dollars a month in much-needed cash for federal government coffers. Significant hurdles remain, however, including whether US trading partners will make good on investment and goods-purchase commitments, how much tariffs will drive up inflation or stymie demand and growth, and whether the courts allow many of his ad-hoc levies to stand. On inauguration day, the effective US tariff rate was about 2.5 per cent. It has since jumped to somewhere between 17 per cent and 19 per cent, according to a range of estimates. The Atlantic Council estimates it will edge closer to 20 per cent, the highest in a century, with higher duties taking effect on Thursday (Aug 7). Trading partners have largely refrained from retaliatory tariffs, sparing the global economy from a more painful tit-for-tat trade war. Data on Tuesday showed a 16 per cent narrowing of the US trade deficit in June, while the US trade gap with China shrank to its smallest in more than 21 years. American consumers have shown themselves to be more resilient than expected, but some recent data indicate the tariffs are already affecting jobs, growth and inflation. 'The question is, what does winning mean?' said Josh Lipsky, who heads economic studies at the Atlantic Council. 'He's raising tariffs on the rest of the world and avoiding a retaliatory trade war far easier than even he anticipated, but the bigger question is what effect does that have on the US economy.' BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Michael Strain, head of economic policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said Trump's geopolitical victories could prove hollow. 'In a geopolitical sense, Trump's obviously getting tonnes of concessions from other countries, but in an economic sense, he's not winning the trade war,' he said. 'What we're seeing is that he is more willing to inflict economic harm on Americans than other countries are willing to inflict on their nations. And I think of that as losing.' Kelly Ann Shaw, a White House trade adviser during Trump's first term who is now a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, said a still-strong economy and near-record-high stock prices 'support a more aggressive tariff strategy.' But Trump's tariffs, tax cuts, deregulation and policies to boost energy production would take time to play out. 'I think history will judge these policies, but he is the first president in my lifetime to make major changes to the global trading system,' she added. Deals so far Trump has concluded eight framework agreements with the European Union, Japan, Britain, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines that impose tariffs on their goods ranging from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. That's well short of the '90 deals in 90 days' administration officials had touted in April, but they account for some 40 per cent of US trade flows. Adding in China, currently saddled with a 30 per cent levy on its goods but likely to win another reprieve from even higher tariffs before an August 12 deadline, would raise that to nearly 54 per cent. Deals aside, many of Trump's tariff actions have been mercurial. On Wednesday he ratcheted up pressure on India, doubling new tariffs on goods from there to 50 per cent from 25 per cent because of its imports of oil from Russia. The same rate is in store for goods from Brazil, after Trump complained about its prosecution of former leader Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally. And Switzerland, which Trump had previously praised, is facing 39 per cent tariffs after a conversation between its leader and Trump derailed a deal. Ryan Majerus, a trade lawyer who worked in both the first Trump administration and the Biden government, said what's been announced so far fails to address 'longstanding, politically entrenched trade issues' that have bothered US policymakers for decades, and getting there would likely take 'months, if not years.' He also noted they lack specific enforcement mechanisms for the big investments announced, including US$550 billion for Japan and US$600 billion for the EU. Promises and risks Critics lit into European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen after she agreed to a 15 per cent tariff during a surprise meeting with Trump during his trip to Scotland last month, while gaining little in return. The deal frustrated winemakers and farmers, who had sought a zero-for-zero tariff. Francois-Xavier Huard, head of France's FNIL national dairy sector federation, said 15 per cent was better than the threatened 30 per cent, but would still cost dairy farmers millions of euros. European experts say von der Leyen's move did avert higher tariffs, calmed tensions with Trump, averting potentially higher duties on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and cars, while making largely symbolic pledges to buy US$750 billion of US strategic goods and invest over US$600 billion. Meeting those pledges will fall to individual EU members and companies, and cannot be mandated by Brussels, trade experts and analysts note. US officials insist Trump can re-impose higher tariffs if he believes the EU, Japan or others are not honouring their commitments. But it remains unclear how that would be policed. And history offers a caution. China, with its state-run economy, never met its modest purchase agreements under Trump's Phase one US-China trade deal. Holding it to account proved difficult for the subsequent Biden administration. 'All of it is untested. The EU, Japan and South Korea are going to have to figure out how to operationalise this,' Shaw said. 'It's not just government purchases. It's getting the private sector motivated to either make investments or back loans, or to purchase certain commodities.' And lastly, the main premise for the tariffs Trump has imposed unilaterally faces legal challenges. His legal team met with stiff questioning during appellate court oral arguments over his novel use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, to justify his tariffs. A ruling could come any time and regardless of the outcome seems destined to be settled ultimately by the Supreme Court. REUTERS
Straits Times
23 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Trump may look like he's winning the trade war, but hurdles remain
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Mr Trump's tariffs, tax cuts, deregulation and policies to boost energy production would take time to play out. WASHINGTON - At a glance, US President Donald Trump appears to be winning the trade war he unleashed after returning to the White House in January, bending major trading partners to his will, imposing double-digit tariff rates on nearly all imports, narrowing the trade deficit, and raking in tens of billions of dollars a month in much-needed cash for federal government coffers. Significant hurdles remain, however, including whether US trading partners will make good on investment and goods-purchase commitments, how much tariffs will drive up inflation or stymie demand and growth, and whether the courts allow many of his ad-hoc levies to stand. On inauguration day, the effective US tariff rate was about 2.5 per cent. It has since jumped to somewhere between 17 per cent and 19 per cent, according to a range of estimates. The Atlantic Council estimates it will edge closer to 20 per cent, the highest in a century, with higher duties taking effect on Aug 7. Trading partners have largely refrained from retaliatory tariffs, sparing the global economy from a more painful tit-for-tat trade war. Data on Aug 5 showed a 16 per cent narrowing of the US trade deficit in June, while the US trade gap with China shrank to its smallest in more than 21 years. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Liquor licences for F&B, nightlife venues extended to 4am in Boat Quay, Clarke Quay Singapore Some ageing condos in Singapore struggle with failing infrastructure, inadequate sinking funds Singapore Wastewater overflow in Bedok and Chai Chee due to choked sewer at BTO worksite: PUB Singapore Fine for man who damaged PAP campaign materials on GE2025 Polling Day Singapore Jail for driver who drove over leg of special needs woman in accident on church driveway Singapore Teen's love of dance powers her through cancer to perform at NDP 2025 Singapore Ex-Hyflux director fined over firm's failure to disclose Tuaspring info Business S'pore firm looks to buy SMEs lacking successors, launches CEO training programme to foster renewal American consumers have shown themselves to be more resilient than expected, but some recent data indicate the tariffs are already affecting jobs, growth and inflation. "The question is, what does winning mean?" said Mr Josh Lipsky, who heads economic studies at the Atlantic Council. "He's raising tariffs on the rest of the world and avoiding a retaliatory trade war far easier than even he anticipated, but the bigger question is what effect does that have on the US economy." Mr Michael Strain, head of economic policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said Mr Trump's geopolitical victories could prove hollow. "In a geopolitical sense, Trump's obviously getting tons of concessions from other countries, but in an economic sense, he's not winning the trade war," he said. "What we're seeing is that he is more willing to inflict economic harm on Americans than other countries are willing to inflict on their nations. And I think of that as losing." Ms Kelly Ann Shaw, a White House trade adviser during Mr Trump's first term who is now a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, said a still-strong economy and near-record-high stock prices "support a more aggressive tariff strategy." But Mr Trump's tariffs, tax cuts, deregulation and policies to boost energy production would take time to play out. "I think history will judge these policies, but he is the first president in my lifetime to make major changes to the global trading system," she added. Deals so far Mr Trump has concluded eight framework agreements with the European Union , Japan, Britain, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines that impose tariffs on their goods ranging from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. That's well short of the "90 deals in 90 days" administration officials had touted in April, but they account for some 40 per cent of US trade flows. Adding in China, currently saddled with a 30 per cent levy on its goods but likely to win another reprieve from even higher tariffs before an August 12 deadline, would raise that to nearly 54 per cent. Deals aside, many of Mr Trump's tariff actions have been mercurial. On Aug 6, he ratcheted up pressure on India, doubling new tariffs on goods from there to 50 per cent from 25 per cent because of its imports of oil from Russia. The same rate is in store for goods from Brazil, after Mr Trump complained about its prosecution of former leader Jair Bolsonaro, a Mr Trump ally. And Switzerland, which Mr Trump had previously praised, is facing 39 per cent tariffs after a conversation between its leader and Mr Trump derailed a deal. Mr Ryan Majerus, a trade lawyer who worked in both the first Trump administration and the Biden government, said what's been announced so far fails to address "longstanding, politically entrenched trade issues" that have bothered US policymakers for decades, and getting there would likely take "months, if not years." He also noted they lack specific enforcement mechanisms for the big investments announced, including US$550 billion (S$706.19 billion) for Japan and US$600 billion for the EU. Promises and risks Critics lit into European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen after she agreed to a 15 per cent tariff during a surprise meeting with Mr Trump during his trip to Scotland in July, while gaining little in return. The deal frustrated winemakers and farmers, who had sought a zero-for-zero tariff. Mr Francois-Xavier Huard, head of France's FNIL national dairy sector federation, said 15 per cent was better than the threatened 30 per cent, but would still cost dairy farmers millions of euros. European experts say Dr von der Leyen's move did avert higher tariffs, calmed tensions with Mr Trump, averting potentially higher duties on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and cars, while making largely symbolic pledges to buy US$750 billion of US strategic goods and invest over US$600 billion. Meeting those pledges will fall to individual EU members and companies, and cannot be mandated by Brussels, trade experts and analysts note. US officials insist Mr Trump can re-impose higher tariffs if he believes the EU, Japan or others are not honouring their commitments. But it remains unclear how that would be policed. And history offers a caution. China, with its state-run economy, never met its modest purchase agreements under Mr Trump's Phase 1 US-China trade deal. Holding it to account proved difficult for the subsequent Biden administration. "All of it is untested. The EU, Japan and South Korea are going to have to figure out how to operationalise this," Ms Shaw said. "It's not just government purchases. It's getting the private sector motivated to either make investments or back loans, or to purchase certain commodities." And lastly, the main premise for the tariffs Mr Trump has imposed unilaterally faces legal challenges. His legal team met with stiff questioning during appellate court oral arguments over his novel use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, to justify his tariffs. A ruling could come any time, and regardless of the outcome seems destined to be settled ultimately by the Supreme Court. REUTERS
International Business Times
32 minutes ago
- International Business Times
Trump Says He Will Impose 100% Tariff on Imported Computer Chips but Spares Companies Investing in the US
President Donald Trump has announced plans to impose a 100% tariff on computer chips, potentially leading to increased costs for electronics, automobiles, home appliances, and other essential products that rely on these processors in today's digital world. "We'll be putting a tariff of approximately 100% on chips and semiconductors," Trump said in the Oval Office while meeting with Apple CEO Tim Cook on Wednesday. "But if you're building in the United States of America, there's no charge." The announcement comes more than three months after Trump had temporarily exempted most electronic products from his administration's harsh tariffs and on a day Apple said it will manufacture microchips in the US. Trump Makes Things Expensive Donald Trump X The Republican president said that the import tax would not be applicable to companies producing computer chips within the United States. During the Covid-19 pandemic, a chip shortage led to rising car prices and played a role in driving inflation higher. Investors appeared to view the possible tariff exemptions as a positive sign for Apple and other leading tech firms that have been heavily investing in expanding chip and component manufacturing in the U.S. Since Trump's return to the White House in January, major tech companies have collectively pledged around $1.5 trillion in U.S. investments. That total includes a $600 billion pledge from Apple, which increased its earlier February commitment by an additional $100 billion. The key question now is whether the deal negotiated between Apple CEO Tim Cook and Trump will be sufficient to shield the millions of iPhones manufactured in China and India from the tariffs already enacted by the administration—and whether it will ease the pressure on Apple to hike prices on the new models set to launch next month. Apple Rallies After Trump Announcement Donald Trump and Apple CEO Tim Cook X Wall Street appears optimistic. Apple's stock jumped 5% during regular trading on Wednesday and climbed another 3% in after-hours trading, following Trump's announcement that some tech firms would be exempt from the new tariffs, with Cook appearing alongside him. Shares of AI chipmaker Nvidia, which has also recently made large-scale investments in the U.S., saw a modest uptick in after-hours trading, further contributing to the company's $1 trillion increase in market value since the beginning of Trump's second term. Even Intel, the iconic chipmaker that has faced recent challenges, saw its stock rise in extended trading. So far, the Semiconductor Industry Association—the leading trade group for the chip sector—has declined to comment on Trump's latest round of tariffs. Global demand for semiconductors continues to surge, with sales up 19.6% year over year in June, according to data from the World Semiconductor Trade Statistics organization. However, it remains unclear how many chips, or which countries of origin, will be affected by the new import tax.
