Washington attorney general goes before 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on birthright citizenship
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown was back in a Seattle courtroom Wednesday on birthright citizenship.
Arguments were heard before a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. At issue was a nationwide preliminary injunction issued in February blocking President Donald Trump's executive order, which sought to change birthright citizenship, enshrined in the 14th Amendment.
The debate was whether to make the preliminary injunction permanent or overturn a lower court's ruling. The executive order would disqualify those born in this country to illegal immigrants from becoming birthright citizens.
WA AG says Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is unconstitutional
In court, Washington's Office of the Attorney General argued the executive order is clearly unconstitutional and the preliminary injunction should be made permanent.
'We're talking about overturning the fundamental understanding of what it means to be an American in this country, and what it has meant since the 14th Amendment,' Brown said.
Department of Justice lawyers argued birthright citizenship doesn't apply to undocumented immigrants' children born here, or those in the country on work or student visas.
'We're seeing some radical ideas take root at the highest level of government. And so it is more important than ever the attorneys general are standing united to fight against the unlawfulness of this president,' Brown said
There is no word on when a decision will be handed down. The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule on procedural questions, and that could affect the timing.
Follow James Lynch on X. Read more of his stories here. Submit news tips here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
11 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Says Musk Wants to Talk After Explosive Public Feud
President Donald Trump said Elon Musk is "the man who has lost his mind," brushing off their high-profile fallout despite headlines suggesting the two may soon speak, per ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl . "Not particularly," Trump said about whether he was interested in a call, claiming Musk was keen to speak. 08:28 AM EDT Russia offers political asylum to Elon Musk over Trump feud Elon Musk looks on during a news conference with US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 30, 2025. Elon Musk looks on during a news conference with US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 30, 2025. ALLISON ROBBERT/AFP via Getty Images A Russian official said the American billionaire Elon Musk could be offered political asylum in Russia over his fierce dispute with U.S. President Donald Trump. Dmitry Novikov, first deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs, commented to Russian state news outlet TASS. "I think that Musk has a completely different game, [so] he will not need any political asylum, although if he did, Russia, of course, could provide it," Novikov said, in remarks translated from Russian. Musk and Trump, ostensibly political allies over cuts to federal spending, publicly clashed on June 5 in a series of social media exchanges and comments to reporters. The dispute's origin is the impact of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill on U.S. public debt. Read the full story by Jordan King and Shane Croucher on Newsweek.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Canada needs a law that gives workers the right to govern their workplace
A major fault line in contemporary society is that while our political lives are governed by democratic principles, our economic lives largely are not. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, Maple Leaf Foods experienced an outbreak in its Brandon, Man. factory. Not only were workers ordered to keep working in unsafe conditions, they were forced to work overtime. Walmart has long been accused of forbidding its cashiers from sitting down, even during long shifts. At one of its warehouses in Pennsylvania, Amazon allowed the temperature to reach an unbearable 102 F in 2011. When employees pleaded to open the loading doors to let in fresh air, management refused, claiming this would lead to employee theft. Instead, Amazon parked ambulances outside and waited for employees to collapse from heat stroke. Employees who were sent home because of the heat were given demerits for missing work, and fired if they accumulated too many. These examples reflect the fact that, in most workplaces, employees have no say in who manages them or how major decisions are made. Entering the workplace typically means leaving the freedoms of democratic society behind and entering a private domain unilaterally controlled by an employer. For most workers who are not in senior management, the main job of every job is to follow orders. Functionally speaking, workers are servants. In its governance structure, the modern workplace operates as a kind of mini dictatorship. Although workplace discipline isn't enforced with physical violence, supervisors still have the power to discipline or punish those who dissent. But what if there were an actual legal right to workplace democracy? My research scrutinized the pros and cons of such novel legislation by drawing on decades of research comparing conventional, top-down firms with democratic worker co-operatives (where workers collectively own the firm and elect the governing board). In large American firms, the average CEO-to-worker pay ratio is now a jaw-dropping 351 to one. As CEO, Jeff Bezos made roughly 360,000 times more than Amazon's minimum wage workers. This inequality ripples across society with significant consequences. By contrast, most worker co-ops maintain a pay ratio of three to one and only very rarely exceed 10 to one. There's also a stark difference in how workers are treated. While conventional firms lay off workers whenever it's profitable to do so, co-ops do everything in their power to save jobs. Top-down decision-making also breeds degradation and disrespect. A 2016 Oxfam report, for instance, documented how some Tyson Foods employees were prevented from using the bathroom to the point where some urinated themselves and other felt compelled to wear diapers to work. A Gallup survey from 2021 found that across the American economy as a whole, only 20 per cent of workers strongly agreed with the statement that 'my opinions seem to count.' In co-ops, workers are generally treated with more respect and dignity. They typically participate more in decision-making, have higher job satisfaction and have less antagonism with management. In conventional workplaces, many employees hate or fear their boss. Roughly 17 per cent of the workforce opt for self-employment in order to get away from the tyranny of the boss, even though self-employed workers typically earn about 15 per cent less than their salaried counterparts and receive less than half the benefits. Worker co-operatives are typically less dominating than conventional firms because workers elect their managers and can create self-managing teams where workers have more autonomy over matters like scheduling and how tasks are carried out. Though co-ops are far from perfect, with workers often feeling that they aren't able to participate in decision-making as much as they would like. Most workers have no viable alternative to undemocratic work, and so no choice but to suffer its harms. While in theory, workers can quit and rely on welfare or social assistance, in practice, this isn't viable because welfare rates are often too low to live on. Starting a business or becoming self-employed is another theoretical option, but it's too financially risky to be a serious alternative for most. Joining a worker co-operative is the most promising alternative, but there were less than 400 worker co-ops in Canada in 2022, representing less than one per cent of employment. Converting an existing workplace into a co-op faces serious barriers too. Even if the workers desperately want a conversion, if the employer doesn't, they're out of luck; their employer owns the organization and can simply say no. Canada needs a new law to expand democracy by granting workers the legal right to collectively buy into the firms they work for. The process would resemble how unionization works today. It would start after a majority of employees sign a declaration stating their intent to form a worker co-operative. After this threshold is reached, a formal process would be triggered: employers would be required to disclose all relevant financial documents with the workers, and workers would receive education on the managerial, technical and legal requirements of co-ops. Co-op development bankers would provide loans and financing options. Once this is done, workers would hold a final vote. If a simple majority (50 per cent plus one) votes in favour, the employer would be paid the fair market value for the firm and the business would be restructured as a worker co-operative. Importantly, the law would allow this transition even if the employer is opposed, just as collective bargaining legislation allows workers to unionize without employer approval. It would also ensure owners are fairly compensated; owners shouldn't lose their property, but they should lose the right to unilaterally govern other human beings in perpetuity, especially when those others are willing and ready to govern themselves. Of course, this law might bring some economic disruption. It's possible that certain owners might oppose democratic ownership so strongly that they would rather shut down the business altogether than work as equals, but such cases would likely be rare. On the other hand, research shows that worker co-ops are just as productive as conventional firms (if not more so) and they have similar survival rates. This is highly reassuring for the overall well-being of the economy. Moreover, workers would need to invest significant amounts of their own money in order to buy out the firm, so conversions will occur only after serious consideration. The bottom line is that while the costs of this legislation would likely be modest, the benefits to workers and society at large would be substantial: reduced inequality and domination, increased job security and respect. Canada should establish a right to buy-in as soon as possible. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organisation bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Tom Malleson, Western University Read more: Canada's small businesses could be saved by converting them to co-operatives The key to a vibrant democracy may well lie in your workplace New budget offers Canada a chance to get employee ownership right Tom Malleson has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration imposes sanctions on four ICC judges in unprecedented move
By Humeyra Pamuk, Stephanie van den Berg WASHINGTON/THE HAGUE (Reuters) -President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday imposed sanctions on four judges at the International Criminal Court, an unprecedented retaliation over the war tribunal's issuance of an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a past decision to open a case into alleged war crimes by U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Washington designated Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza of Peru, Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou of Benin and Beti Hohler of Slovenia, according to a statement from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. "As ICC judges, these four individuals have actively engaged in the ICC's illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America or our close ally, Israel. The ICC is politicized and falsely claims unfettered discretion to investigate, charge, and prosecute nationals of the United States and our allies," Rubio said. The ICC slammed the move, saying it was an attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution that provides hope and justice to millions of victims of "unimaginable atrocities." Both judges Bossa and Ibanez Carranza have been on the ICC bench since 2018. In 2020 they were involved in an appeals chamber decision that allowed the ICC prosecutor to open a formal investigation into alleged war crimes by American troops in Afghanistan. Since 2021, the court had deprioritized the investigation into American troops in Afghanistan and focused on alleged crimes committed by the Afghan government and the Taliban forces. ICC judges also issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, former Israeli defense chief Yoav Gallant and Hamas leader Ibrahim Al-Masri last November for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza conflict. Alapini Gansou and Hohler ruled to authorize the arrest warrant against Netanyahu and Gallant, Rubio said. The move deepens the administration's animosity toward the court. During the first Trump administration in 2020, Washington imposed sanctions on then-prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and one of her top aides over the court's work on Afghanistan. The measures also follow a January vote at the U.S. House of Representatives to punish the ICC in protest over its Netanyahu arrest warrant. The move underscored strong support among Trump's fellow Republicans for Israel's government. DIFFICULT TIME FOR ICC The measures triggered uproar among human-rights advocates. Liz Evenson, international justice director at Human Rights Watch, said the punitive measures were a "flagrant attack on the rule of law at the same time as President Trump is working to undercut it at home." Sanctions severely hamper individuals' abilities to carry out even routine financial transactions as any banks with ties to the United States, or that conduct transactions in dollars, are expected to have to comply with the restrictions. But the Treasury Department also issued general licenses, including one allowing the wind-down of any existing transactions involving those targeted on Thursday until July 8, as long as any payment to them is made to a blocked, interest-bearing account located in the U.S. The new sanctions come at a difficult time for the ICC, which is already reeling from earlier U.S. sanctions against its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, who last month stepped aside temporarily amid a United Nations investigation into his alleged sexual misconduct. The ICC, which was established in 2002, has international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in member states or if a situation is referred by the U.N. Security Council. The United States, China, Russia and Israel are not members. It has high-profile war crimes investigations under way into the Israel-Hamas conflict and Russia's war in Ukraine as well as in Sudan, Myanmar, the Philippines, Venezuela and Afghanistan. The ICC has issued arrest warrants for President Vladimir Putin on suspicion of deporting children from Ukraine, and for Netanyahu for alleged war crimes in Gaza. Neither country is a member of the court and both deny the accusations and reject ICC jurisdiction.
