What does the Supreme Court ruling on ghost guns mean for Minnesota?
The U.S. Supreme Court this week upheld a regulation on "ghost guns" that have led to an "explosion of crimes."
The court's decision allows the ATF to regulate weapons parts kits that can be quickly assembled into untraceable guns that do not have serial numbers.
Minnesota's Supreme Court is also expected to rule soon on a challenge to a state law increasingly used by police to crack down on ghost guns.
MINNEAPOLIS (FOX 9) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that the ATF can regulate untraceable "ghost guns" that have led to an explosion in crime across the country and in Minnesota.
What we know
In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled this week that the Gun Control Act of 1968 allows the ATF to regulate weapons parts kits that can be easily assembled into untraceable, unserialized firearms known as "ghost guns."
In 2022, the ATF adopted a rule that required weapons kits, which can be purchased easily online, to be regulated like any other firearm.
However, the rule was challenged and struck down before it was appealed to the Supreme Court.
In the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch concluded most weapons parts kits can be regulated because they are obviously meant to be "an instrument of combat."
Gorsuch added that untraceable "ghost guns" led to an "explosion of crimes" around the country.
Local perspective
More privately-made "ghost guns" are turning up at crime scenes in Minnesota than ever before.
Law enforcement agencies are using a state law that bans the possession of unserialized firearms to crack down.
By the numbers
The FOX 9 Investigators analyzed state court data and found 170 people were charged under that law in 2023 —ten times the amount charged in 2020.
But the law was challenged as being "unconstitutionally vague."
The Minnesota Supreme Court is expected to rule soon after hearing oral arguments last June.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Bailey, Bongino tag team FBI leadership role
President Trump is bringing in backup at the FBI, installing a staunch legal ally in a newly created leadership post. Andrew Bailey, Missouri's attorney general, is joining the Justice Department as co-deputy director of the FBI — a position he'll hold alongside Dan Bongino, a longtime backer of the president whose role in the administration has become more tenuous as it grapples with Jeffrey Epstein fallout. As Missouri's top prosecutor, Bailey positioned himself as a warrior for conservative causes, mounting challenges to abortion rights, Big Tech, student loan forgiveness and more. Last year, he took the Biden administration to the Supreme Court over its 'vast censorship enterprise,' asserting that federal officials violated the First Amendment by urging platforms to remove posts they deemed false or misleading. The justices denied the challenge brought by Bailey by finding he did not have legal standing, leaving the First Amendment issues untouched. Bailey also came to Trump's defense as the president faced criminal prosecution. Following Trump's conviction last year on 34 counts of falsifying business records in Manhattan, the Missouri attorney general sued New York, saying the prosecution stepped on the rights of his state's voters. He asked the Supreme Court — which has exclusive jurisdiction over legal disputes between two or more states — to block Trump's sentencing and a gag order until after the 2024 election. The justices rejected the plea. 'As Missouri's Attorney General, he took on the swamp, fought weaponized government, and defended the Constitution,' Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who was Trump's attorney in the hush money case, said Monday of Bailey. 'Now he is bringing that fight to DOJ.' It's not the first time Trump has made Bailey couple up. Trump last year endorsed both Bailey and his primary opponent, Will Scharf, as they competed to become Missouri attorney general. Scharf was one of Trump's personal attorneys, and after losing to Bailey, he joined Trump's White House as staff secretary. You may recognize Scharf as the person who now hands Trump executive orders to sign in the Oval Office. It's not apparent how Bailey's responsibilities at the FBI will be newly split with Bongino, but the appointment of a co-deputy director seems to minimize Bongino's role. It comes amid reported tensions surrounding Bongino over the administration's handling of the Epstein files. Bongino, like dozens of right-wing internet figures, was on the front lines of conspiracy theories about Epstein, the disgraced financier who died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. After the Justice Department last month issued a joint memo stating Epstein did not have a client list and confirming he died by suicide, Bongino erupted. Several news outlets reported he weighed resigning over the handling of the matter and raged at agency leaders, including Attorney General Pam Bondi. Trump told reporters last month that he still has confidence in him. Bongino's path to the FBI looked very different than Bailey's. A right-wing podcaster, Bongino was tapped as the sole deputy FBI director in February after spending years as one of the bureau's loudest critics. His career began in 1995 with the New York Police Department, and years later, he joined the U.S. Secret Service, where he eventually was placed on presidential protective duty for former Presidents George W. Bush and Obama. After leaving the Secret Service in 2011, he launched several failed political campaigns before his career as an internet provocateur took off. Despite their different paths, both Bongino and Bailey have something in common. Neither has previously worked for the FBI, breaking the tradition of selecting someone who has risen through the agency's ranks. Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill's weekly courts newsletter from Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. Click above to email us tips, or reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) or Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48). IN FOCUS Could TikTok kill Trump's national security legal defense? Two former Supreme Court advocates for the government warned Monday that the Trump administration's efforts to defend itself in court by pointing to national security could face an unexpected hindrance: TikTok. The Gavel joined judges and lawyers in Chicago on Monday at the annual conference for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Though Justice Amy Coney Barrett was pegged as a headliner, she spoke for less than three minutes that evening, opting to shy away from politics. The afternoon conversation between former Solicitors General Elizabeth Prelogar and Paul Clement proved more interesting. Prelogar and Clement pointed to the China-owned social media behemoth as reason Trump's legal defense might falter. In January, the Supreme Court upheld a law requiring TikTok's China-based parent company, ByteDance, to divest from the app or face a ban from U.S. app stores. The law was passed amid concerns the Chinese government could access Americans' data or manipulate the short-form video app's content algorithm to execute a covert influence operation. Clement, solicitor general during the younger Bush's second term, noted that Congress addressed the high-profile issue by pointing to the 'national security imperative to do something.' The statute was defended in part on that basis. 'But then the national security imperative, I guess, wasn't quite as imperative,' Clement said. Despite the high court's decision to let the law go into effect, the Biden administration said it would not enforce it ahead of Trump's inauguration. Trump has since kept enforcement on hold. 'I do think that that could have some long-term consequences when the administration, in subsequent cases, comes up to the Supreme Court and says, 'We really need to do something extraordinary for national security,'' Clement said. Prelogar, who was former President Biden 's solicitor general and argued the case for his administration, agreed. She called it a 'rare event' to litigate a 'seminal' Supreme Court decision to victory and see no 'real application' immediately. The president's decision to let TikTok remain operative, despite the national security risks expressed by the previous administration and Congress, could have consequences. 'Not only did the government make those arguments, but the court arguably relied on them, which could come back to haunt the government as it seeks to get the court's deference on national security issues going forward,' she said. The Trump administration has repeatedly pointed to national security as the president's sweeping agenda has faced legal challenges, namely in four Big Law firms' bids to deem illegal Trump's executive orders targeting them. Clement represents the law firm WilmerHale in its lawsuit. The conversation came amid the pair's review of the Supreme Court's major decisions this term — some argued by Prelogar herself. They spoke to a jam-packed ballroom in a hotel near Chicago's Magnificent Mile. Of the TikTok case, Prelogar said it was one of few her two sons watched closely. But when her 14-year-old son's friends asked 'which side' she would argue, he 'froze,' she joked, not willing to expose his mother's role in restricting the platform. 'There wasn't a ban,' she jokingly insisted. The Supreme Court advocates also commented on the justices' increasingly bloated emergency docket, especially now as challenges to Trump's sweeping agenda reach the high court in troves. They noted that the influx of emergency applications has not only changed the 'rhythm' of the court — but also the office of the solicitor general. 'There's a night and day difference in how the office functions,' Prelogar said. Clement suggested that his office filed only a 'couple' emergency applications during the younger Bush's presidency. Prelogar said she thinks the Trump administration has already filed as many emergency applications as she did in her four years in the office. 'And I felt like I was doing a lot,' she said. Trump pursues voting machine war as Newsmax settles Trump is returning to his war on mail-in ballots and voting machines ahead of next year's midterms, signaling plans to sign a new executive order that would ban them. 'Remember, the States are merely an 'agent' for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes,' Trump wrote Monday on Truth Social. 'They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.' Meeting with Ukraine's president in the Oval Office hours later, Trump doubled down on his push. The order's text remains to be seen, but if it's anything like what Trump has described, expect Democrats to challenge it. 'The President almost certainly has no authority to dictate how states conduct their elections, and his proposals run counter to the Constitution's Elections Clause,' New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver (D) said in a statement. Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar (D) responded similarly when we asked him for comment, noting that mail ballots are the top choice for voters in the key swing state. 'Nevada runs safe, secure elections and we will stand up against any attempts to silence the voices of our citizens,' Aguilar said in a statement. Trump's announcement came the same day that Newsmax announced it will pay voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems $67 million to settle its lawsuit over the conservative channel's 2020 election coverage. It's the latest sum for Dominion, which two years ago secured an eye-popping $787-million settlement from Fox News over its coverage. The president has long declared war on mail ballots and voting machines, asserting unfounded accusations that they sparked widespread voter fraud in his 2020 loss. More than four years later, Trump has continued to press the issue in his second term, supported by allies like MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. In an interview with The Gavel last month, Lindell was bullish about getting rid of voting machines. 'Mike wants to melt down the electronic voting machines and turn them into prison bars. That's what Mike wants, and that's what Mike's going to end up getting, is these machines will be gone,' Lindell told us. He was spotted at the White House the next day. Trump's forthcoming order appears to be the president's latest front on voting ahead of next year's midterms, when Republicans hope to maintain their control of both chambers of Congress. The president signed an executive order in March that asserts greater presidential control over elections and seeks to institute strengthened proof-of-citizenship requirements. That order has come under five lawsuits, and judges have halted portions of Trump's directive as the litigation proceeds. And in recent weeks, Trump has pushed Texas Republicans to commence a redistricting effort that would add several Republican-leaning seats. NFL will inch coach lawsuits closer to SCOTUS The NFL is inching two major lawsuits brought by coaches closer to the Supreme Court. Both involve whether the league can force the disputes into arbitration, which would keep the coaches' legal claims away from a jury and public view. Last week, the NFL's efforts fell flat in two separate courts, which ruled the coaches are entitled to pursue their claims before a jury. But the league isn't giving up. It plans to ask both courts to rehear the appeals, The Gavel has learned. And if that fails? The next step would be the Supreme Court. The NFL's first loss came when the Nevada Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that the league's arbitration clause doesn't apply to former Las Vegas Raiders coach Jon Gruden 's lawsuit. It reverses a panel decision that sided with the NFL. Gruden resigned in 2021 after The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal uncovered emails he wrote while working for ESPN that used racist, misogynistic and homophobic language. The NFL had found the emails during a sexual harassment investigation into the Washington Football Team (now the Commanders). Gruden's lawsuit claims the NFL engaged in a 'malicious and orchestrated campaign' to force his resignation, and he seeks the remainder of his 10-year, $100 million coaching contract. Nevada's high court ruled that Gruden is not bound by the NFL's forced arbitration provision since he is no longer an employee. Chief NFL spokesperson Brian McCarthy told The Gavel, 'We will be appealing the decision.' The NFL was handed another loss Thursday, when a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled Brian Flores and other Black coaches' discrimination claims against the NFL and three teams — the Denver Broncos, Houston Texans and New York Giants — can proceed before a jury. Th 2nd Circuit took issue with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell 's power under the league's rules to serve as arbitrator. The panel found the Federal Arbitration Act, a century-old law that enables parties to enforce arbitration agreements, doesn't apply because Goodell's role makes it 'arbitration in name only.' 'Accordingly, the agreement betrays the norm of bilateral dispute resolution,' the panel ruled. Though the disputes aren't heading to the Supreme Court quite yet, the NFL is already involved in one case pending before the justices. The NFL filed a friend-of-the-court brief backing the NBA in its bid to end a lawsuit filed by one of its online newsletter subscribers who claims the NBA violated federal law by disclosing his data. The justices will consider taking up the case at their first closed-door conference of the upcoming term, court records show. SIDEBAR 5 top docket updates Bondi walks back MPD memo: Bondi on Friday walked back her push to install an administration official as the emergency commissioner of the District of Columbia's police department under pressure from a federal judge. CFPB dismantling can resume: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Friday lifted an injunction that had long blocked the administration's efforts to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The new ruling is on hold for one week. O'Rourke fundraising block expanded: A Texas state judge on Friday expanded his order limiting former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas) and his political group from funding state Democratic lawmakers who fled the state to block a redistricting push. Alligator Alcatraz suit narrowed: A federal judge Monday partially dismissed Alligator Alcatraz detainees' lawsuit that raises concerns about attorney access. Some of the migrants' constitutional claims are proceeding, but the judge said they must be transferred to a different judicial district. Dem states sue over crime victim funds: Democratic attorneys general from D.C. and 20 states sued Monday over the administration's bid to condition federal funding for crime victims on cooperation with immigration enforcement. In other news Oops: A Fulton County, Ga., Superior Court judge accidentally relayed a 'not guilty' verdict as 'guilty.' He apologized for the 'mispronunciation.' Watch it here. Bye bye, Big Apple: Ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani 's penthouse in the Upper East Side has sold for $4.95 million, a significantly discounted price. The property was nearly seized by two ex-Georgia election workers who won a $146 million defamation judgment against him, but he was allowed to keep it as part of a settlement reached earlier this year. ON THE DOCKET Don't be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here's what we're watching for now: Today: A federal judge in South Carolina is set to hold a motions hearing in a man's defamation lawsuit against Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) over a House floor speech in which she accused him of being a predator. The judge will hear arguments over whether to dismiss the case, allow discovery and other matters. A federal judge in Rhode Island is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit brought by Democratic states over the Trump administration's extension of a law's requirements for states to verify a person's legal status before allowing them to access certain federal programs, including Medicaid. Thursday: A federal judge in Georgia is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a campaign finance case involving gubernatorial candidates Lt. Gov. Burt Jones and Chris Carr, the state's attorney general. A federal appeals court panel in San Francisco will hear arguments on the Trump administration's bid to overturn a judge's order requiring various agencies to turn over documents they used to plan mass layoffs. Friday: No notable hearings scheduled. Monday: A federal judge in Washington, D.C., will hold a hearing to assess the Trump administration's efforts to comply with his order to restore Voice of America 's operations. Tuesday: A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a hearing on new developments in a lawsuit challenging the Department of Government Efficiency's cost-cutting efforts at the Department of the Interior and environmental agencies. WHAT WE'RE READING Abigail Adcox, Amanda O'Brien and Christine Simmons: In Trump's Battle With Big Law, Has Leverage Shifted?
Politico
43 minutes ago
- Politico
Bill Daley, Ray LaHood revive Illinois map fight
Happy Wednesday, Illinois. We're getting antsy for our end-of-summer hiatus that starts Monday, so send your tips and scoops soon to get them in by Friday. skapos@ TOP TALKER REDISTRICTING DE JOUR: The redistricting battle isn't just a Texas or California thing. The fight has returned to draw political maps in Illinois, too — and two veterans of the Obama administration are leading the charge. The players: Former White House chief of staff Bill Daley, a Chicago Democrat, and Ray LaHood, a Peoria Republican who served as Obama's transportation secretary, rolled out their 'Fair Maps Illinois' proposal Tuesday at the Union League Club of Chicago. Their goal: stop state lawmakers from drawing their own districts, a system that critics say guarantees safe seats, partisan supermajorities, and little incentive for compromise. 'We're rolling the dice here,' LaHood said, noting the 5-2 Democratic tilt of the Illinois Supreme Court could hurt the group's efforts. 'There are no guarantees that the Illinois Supreme Court, as it exists today, will not throw this out. What we've done, though, is structure the language based on what the previous Supreme Court ruled in 2016.' The plan: Get voters to approve a state constitutional amendment via a ballot initiative during the 2026 general election. How it would work: If an amendment is passed, a 12-member commission appointed by legislative leaders would draw the maps with limits on using partisan or voting data. If the panel deadlocks, the Supreme Court would nominate two people of different parties and the 'winner' would be chosen by lot. The size of the Illinois General Assembly would also be tied to census population counts. Sounds familiar: Citizen-led efforts to create independent redistricting commissions have battled in the courts. In 2016, the state's high court ruled such ballot measures must focus strictly on the 'structure and procedure' of the legislature. To sidestep that precedent, the new plan focuses only on state legislative maps — not congressional ones. 'We'd love to, but we can't,' said election lawyer Michael Dorf, who helped draft the amendment. Former State Board of Elections Chair Bill Cadigan is also part of the redistricting effort. The ripple effect: The group expects legislators elected from a fairly drawn state map will in turn draw a fair congressional map. The plan isn't perfect, acknowledged Daley, arguing it would force politicians to appeal to broader swaths of voters. 'We're not looking for perfection here,' he said. 'We're trying to take the limitations of the Constitution courts have given us and trying to come up with a better system than just allowing whoever's got a massive majority in the legislature rigging the whole thing.' Not everyone is on board. CHANGE Illinois, which supported the 2016 push, saying it is 'troubled' that the initiative moved ahead without more input from community organizations and leaders, 'who are most impacted by racial and partisan gerrymandering.' Former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, however, lent her support. 'Decades of hyper-gerrymandered districts have produced supermajorities in both chambers of the General Assembly, to the point where they won't even talk to Republicans because they don't need their votes,' she said during the Q&A. 'What you end up doing is playing to the extremes of your caucus. We are paying for the General Assembly's failure to be accountable to average voters.' To get on the 2026 ballot, supporters will need more than 328,000 valid signatures — double that to withstand challenges — and as much as $4 million to fund the campaign. If the question makes it to the 2026, it would put a spotlight on Gov. JB Pritzker, reports the Tribune's Dan Petrella. The governor has said he supports fair maps being done nationally. Diving into the details: The proposal would create a 12-member 'Legislative Redistricting Commission,' by Capitol News' Andrew Adams About Tuesday's presentation: It was organized by the Lincoln Forum of Chicago, and the Tribune's Rick Pearson moderated. THE BUZZ DISMISSED: A federal judge sided with Illinois on Tuesday, rejecting the Trump administration's claim that the state's workplace privacy rules clash with immigration enforcement. The full opinion is here. Jettisoned: U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman tossed out the Justice Department lawsuit that targeted Illinois' Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act. The law sets rules for how employers use the federal E-Verify system, which checks a worker's eligibility to be employed. It was filed in May. The Justice Department argued the Illinois law was unconstitutional and conflicted with federal immigration law. But Coleman disagreed, saying the state was well within its rights. The law requires employers to notify workers if there are problems with their verification records and protects them during the process. From the judge: 'The provisions sit squarely within states' historic powers to regulate issues of employment,' she wrote. The heart of the fight was over whether Illinois' rules were actually punishing employers for hiring undocumented workers — something only the federal government can do. But Coleman dismissed that argument as 'absurd,' pointing out that the law applies to all workers, regardless of immigration status. The decision makes clear that states have the authority to set rules ensuring fairness on the job, even when federal immigration law is in play. The big question: Whether the Justice Department will appeal. If you are Bill Cadigan, Playbook would like to hear from you! Email: skapos@ WHERE'S JB In South Holland at 1:30 p.m. to give remarks at the groundbreaking ceremony for South Suburban College's Allied Health & Nursing Center WHERE's BRANDON At O.A. Thorp Scholastic Academy at 7:15 a.m. for the first day of school — At Manierre Elementary at 8:45 a.m. for the first day of school — At the Lincoln Park Zoo at 11:50 a.m. for the 43rd Ward's Day in the Ward press conference Where's Toni Also in South Holland for the groundbreaking of the South Suburban College Allied Health & Nursing Center Have a tip, suggestion, birthday, new job or a (gasp!) complaint? Email skapos@ BUSINESS OF POLITICS — Karim Lakhani, a businessman and community activist, is running for state representative in the 12th District, and his campaign says he's already raised $100,000 from individual donations. Lakhani has helped run his family's Lakhani Hospitality company. 'Our neighborhoods are some of the most vibrant in Chicago, but families deserve to feel safe, small businesses deserve real support and our most vulnerable communities deserve smart, data-driven investments that actually make a difference,' he said in his launch statement. 'This campaign is about ensuring every family has the opportunity to succeed and every neighborhood has the resources it needs to thrive.' — State Rep. Abdelnasser Rashid has launched his reelection campaign for a third term in the Illinois House. Rashid represents the 21st District. 'I'm running for re-election because our work is far from finished,' he said in kicking off his campaign. 'The fights that matter most — for affordability, justice, and our constitutional rights — require that we double down and take on the powerful interests that benefit from our broken political and economic systems.' THE STATEWIDES — Duckworth heads to Japan to boost Illinois' quantum chances in race against China: 'The trip marks the Illinois senator's 12th trip to Asia and 14th congressional member delegation trip since 2018,' by the Sun-Times' Tina Sfondeles. — New Illinois law aims to protect access to public education for immigrant students, by Chalkbeat's Reema Amin and Samantha Smylie — Billboard promoting far-right group Proud Boys springs up in southern Illinois, by Capitol News' Molly Parker — Illinois Gaming Board reports $113.9M in sports betting revenue, by InGame's Chris Altruda — 3 Illinois state parks named among best in the U.S. for 2025. One made the top 10, by the Belleville News-Democrat's Meredith Howard CHICAGO — Mayor Brandon Johnson got labor peace, but little else from firefighters contract: 'The rookie mayor started out wanting to reshape the fire department, but he failed just as his two predecessors did,' by the Sun-Times' Fran Spielman. — Mayor visits residents impacted by the floods and drops off supply kits, by the Sun-Times' Mohammad Samra, Anthony Vazquez and Fran Spielman — Sterling Bay puts its only finished Lincoln Yards building up for sale, by Crain's Danny Ecker — Chicago has a crop of opulent new steakhouses. How much beef can one city eat? by Maggie Hennessy for WBEZ — Column: The Tribune's film critic Michael Phillips says so long for now: 'The Tribune has eliminated the position of film critic, as part of a newsroom reorganization. This leaves me with two options: stick around for reassignment or take a buyout. I'm voting buyout. I'm opting in for opting out,' he writes in his last column. COOK COUNTY AND COLLARS — State's Attorney Eileen O'Neill Burke names prosecutor Craig Engebretson as top assistant, by the Sun-Times' Sophie Sherry — Arlington Heights trustees like street makeover, but not $4.4M cost, by the Daily Herald's Christopher Placek — DAY IN COURT: Former Jan. 6 defendant gets 17 years for wrong-way crash that killed Skokie woman, by the Sun-Times' Jon Seidel Reader Digest We forgot to pose a question Tuesday, so here you go for today: What's your wildest rainstorm story? THE NATIONAL TAKE — Trump bypasses the Senate — and the courts — to install loyal U.S. attorneys, by POLITICO's Erica Orden — Moscow waffles on Putin-Zelenskyy summit as Trump escalates pressure, by POLITICO's Elena Giordano — How Gavin Newsom trolled his way to the top of social media, by POLITICO's Adam Wren — RFK Jr. attacks pediatricians' group over vaccine recommendations, by POLITICO's Amanda Friedman IN MEMORIAM — Activist Rebecca Sive, who had 'deep passion for social change and civil rights,' dies: 'Sive also worked on the campaign of the late Mayor Harold Washington, who, after winning election in 1983, appointed her to the Chicago Park District Board of Commissioners. She was also executive director of the Chicago-based Playboy Foundation,' by Bob Goldsborough for the Tribune. EVENTS — Tonight: Ald. Ronnie Mosley will be feted at a birthday fundraiser. Details here — Tonight: Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias will host a virtual town hall addressing auto insurance rates. Also speaking: state Sen. Elgie Sims, state Sen. Mattie Hunter, state Rep. Kimberly du Buclet, Ald. Pat Dowell and AARP's Philippe Largent. RSVP TRIVIA MONDAY's ANSWER: Congrats to Bill Kresse for correctly answering that Glenn Voliva, head of the Christian Catholic Church of Zion, preached flat-earth theories. TODAY's QUESTION: Who was the Chicago federal judge who once said, 'I never met a self-made man or woman. The only thing you can do by yourself is fail.' Email: skapos@ HAPPY BIRTHDAY Congressman Brad Schneider, former White House Communications Director Ben LaBolt, Rise Strategy Group CEO and partner Tarrah Cooper Wright, PSP Partners External Affairs Managing Director Jim Hock, Save the Children U.S. Head of Data Dessa Gypalo, SouthSide Strategic Advisors CEO Pat Collier IV, Higher Glyphs Content Group CEO Shannon Travis, 2Civility Program Coordinator Lindsay Shaw and WTTW reporter Heather Cherone -30-
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Trump Admin Grapples With Supreme Court Dilemma on Birthright Citizenship
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration is seeking more time in federal court as it considers how to bring a challenge to birthright citizenship before the U.S. Supreme Court. In a consent motion filed on August 19 in the District of Maryland, government lawyers requested an additional 30 days to respond to an amended complaint in CASA Inc. v. Trump. The case contests executive order 14160, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." The order denies citizenship at birth when the mother is unlawfully present (or lawfully but temporarily present) and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice for comment by email outside regular working hours on Wednesday. Why It Matters The case goes to the core of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, which for more than a century has guaranteed citizenship to almost everyone born on U.S. soil. A successful challenge could affect hundreds of thousands of children born each year to undocumented parents, while also testing the limits of presidential power to redefine constitutional rights through executive orders. With the Trump administration signaling that it plans to seek a Supreme Court review, the litigation has the potential to reshape immigration law and the broader debate over American identity. What To Know The plaintiffs, a coalition of immigrant-rights organizations led by CASA, amended their complaint in June. On July 18, the government's deadline to respond was extended to August 22. The new motion seeks to push that date back to September 22. According to the filing, the delay is tied to the administration's broader legal strategy. The Justice Department acknowledged that multiple lawsuits were pending against the executive order across different jurisdictions. To resolve the matter more definitively, the solicitor general is preparing to ask the Supreme Court to take up the issue in its next term. "To that end, the Solicitor General of the United States plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Executive Order next Term, but he has not yet determined which case or combination of cases to take to the Court," government attorneys wrote. The administration emphasized that the extension request was not an attempt to stall the proceedings. "This request is not made for purposes of delay, and no party will be prejudiced by the relief requested herein, particularly because Plaintiffs consent to the same," the motion said. On August 7, the court in Maryland granted a classwide preliminary injunction, applying nationwide to members of the certified class. Birthright citizenship newspaper headlines on the U.S. Constitution. Birthright citizenship newspaper headlines on the U.S. Constitution. iStock / Getty Images Plus Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment Executive order 14160 has drawn criticism from immigrant advocacy groups, which argue that birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. The constitutional provision says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The administration, however, has contended that the clause does not extend to the children of undocumented immigrants. By moving toward a Supreme Court review, the administration appears to be seeking a definitive ruling on the scope of the citizenship clause. The outcome could have significant implications for immigration law and the legal status of U.S.-born children of noncitizen parents. What People Are Saying Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticizing the administration's approach in the Supreme Court, said on May 15: "Your argument … would turn our justice system into a 'catch me if you can' kind of regime, in which everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people's rights." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, emphasizing constitutional precedent, added: "So, as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents." What Happens Next If the Trump administration's request for more time is approved, the government's deadline would move to September 22. For now, a nationwide injunction continues to block the order, leaving it unenforceable. Justice Department lawyers say they are considering which case to present to the Supreme Court for review in the next term, a move that could bring arguments before the justices in 2026. Both sides have agreed to the extension, and the government emphasized that no party would be harmed by the delay. While the extension keeps the litigation on hold, the broader fight over birthright citizenship is poised to escalate. On June 27, the court ruled on nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA but did not decide the merits of birthright citizenship. The administration now plans to seek a full review next term on the lawfulness of the executive order itself. If the court grants the review, it will put the question of the core citizenship clause before the justices in a way not seen since United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
