What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling
FILE - Mairelise Robinson, a U.S. citizen who is 6 months pregnant, attends a protest in support of birthright citizenship, outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, May 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)
By TIM SULLIVAN and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER
The legal battle over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration's major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions.
Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent.
The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president's policy remains uncertain.
Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next.
Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally.
The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship.
'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states.
Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents' legal status.
It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats.
Trump's executive order, signed in Januar,y seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.'
Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' – saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally.
A series of federal judges have said that's not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect.
'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom.
In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship.
The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters.
But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order.
'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor.
Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case.
The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps.
The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order.
But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor.
'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review" in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.'
Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief.
'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.'
Associated Press reporters Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, New Jersey, contributed.
© Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
2 hours ago
- Japan Times
Trump says he will 'get the conflict solved with North Korea'
U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday said he would 'get the conflict solved with North Korea,' while also saying that such a conflict "wouldn't involve us.' Asked about a report that the North Korean side had refused to accept a letter from Trump to Kim aimed at kick-starting long-stalled bilateral talks, the U.S. president did not answer the question, but instead touted his ties with Kim. 'I get along with him very, very well, and we'll get the conflict solved with North Korea,' Trump told reporters at a White House event. 'Somebody's saying there's a potential conflict, I think we'll work it out.' It wasn't clear what conflict Trump was speaking about, but the North has ratcheted up tensions with U.S.-allied South Korea in recent years by testing advanced weapons at an unprecedented clip. Trump also appeared to inadvertently spotlight fears among U.S. allies that, under his administration, Washington could put their security in jeopardy by not adhering to alliance commitments. 'If there is (a conflict), it wouldn't involve us,' Trump said. 'We're very far away from a lot of these places." NK News, a website that monitors North Korea, quoted an unidentified source earlier this month as saying that the United States had attempted to deliver a Trump-drafted letter multiple times through North Korean diplomats stationed at United Nations headquarters in New York, but they "bluntly" refused. It was not clear when the attempts had been made. Trump said in late March that his administration had been in touch with Kim, and that the two sides could engage each other 'at some point.' The U.S. leader, who met with Kim three times during his first term and became the first sitting American president to enter North Korea, has repeatedly called Pyongyang a "nuclear power," raising questions about whether he could pursue arms-reduction talks rather than return to the denuclearization efforts that ultimately failed in his first term in any attempt to reengage with Kim. White House officials, however, have ruled out such a scenario, saying that Trump 'will pursue the complete denuclearization of North Korea, just as he did in his first term." Trump has spooked U.S. allies like South Korea, which hosts 28,500 U.S, troops, with his transactional approach to the alliances, fueling doubts about Washington's commitment to protecting the country. Amid negotiations over punishing U.S. tariffs on South Korea, Trump and his team have at times sought to link trade and security issues, including demands that Seoul cough up more cash for its own defense and for hosting American forces. But regardless of the White House's approach to the Korean Peninsula, it's unclear if North Korea is even interested in returning to talks in the first place. Kim is in a vastly different position than in 2019, when the summit diplomacy between the two sides broke down. In the years since, it has prioritized its nuclear weapons and missile programs, testing a spate of advanced weapons. The country is now estimated to have assembled around 50 nuclear warheads, possess enough fissile material to produce up to 40 more and is accelerating the production of even more fissile material, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Last November, Kim called for a 'limitless' expansion of his country's military nuclear program. In January, he used a key ruling party meeting to announce North Korea's 'toughest' ever strategy to counter the United States, though details of that strategy were scant. Trump's decision to attack key Iranian nuclear sites earlier this month could also play into Kim's calculus, observers say, further cementing his view that parting with his nuclear weapons would spell doom for his regime. Still, the North has so far taken a muted approach to dealing with Trump himself — though it's unclear how long this period of relative calm will last before Pyongyang again attempts to capture his attention. Experts have said Kim could eventually try to shift Trump's focus to the North Korean nuclear issue with a dramatic missile launch or seventh nuclear test.
The Mainichi
2 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Japan wrestling with US tariff talks as July deadline looms
WASHINGTON (Kyodo) -- Japanese and U.S. tariff negotiators agreed Friday to continue talks in pursuit of a deal that will be beneficial to both countries, but significant differences apparently remain in areas such as Washington's treatment of its key Asian ally's automotive industry. Japan's government said its top tariff negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, and U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick held talks in Washington, with each side reaffirming its position during "fruitful" discussions on trade expansion, nontariff measures and economic security cooperation. Akazawa, however, did not meet the press following the tariff meeting as he had done after his previous six with U.S. Cabinet members. He was also hoping to hold another separate meeting with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, but the Japanese government stopped short of saying whether one was arranged. The meeting between Akazawa and Lutnick, which lasted about an hour, took place as U.S. President Donald Trump and his trade team increasingly suggest they could give trading partners that are currently negotiating more time for talks beyond early July, when the administration's 90-day pause on so-called reciprocal tariffs is set to expire. Bessent said Friday that the Trump administration could complete negotiations with key trading partners by Sept. 1. In a Fox Business interview, Bessent said, "I think we could have trade wrapped up by Labor Day" if the United States can make "10 or 12" deals among its 18 highest-priority trading partners and seal "another important 20 relationships" with new agreements. Japan is among the group of 18 trading partners, also including the European Union, India and South Korea, with which the Trump administration has prioritized making deals. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt also said at a press briefing on Thursday that the 90-day pause for negotiations could be extended. On Friday, when asked what he might do with the suspension, set to expire July 9, Trump said, "We can do whatever we want. We could extend it. We could make it shorter." "I'd like to make it shorter. I'd like to just send letters out to everybody: 'Congratulations, you're paying 25 percent,'" he added during a press conference at the White House. Akazawa arrived in Washington on Thursday for his seventh round of ministerial meetings on tariffs. His visit through Saturday comes after Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and Trump failed to strike a deal last week when they met on the sidelines of a Group of Seven summit in Canada. The 90-day pause applies only to country-specific tariffs under Trump's reciprocal scheme, covering about 60 trading partners that have notable trade surpluses with the United States. It does not affect his baseline duty of 10 percent, targeting imports globally. Japan is facing an additional country-specific tariff of 14 percent, for a total rate of 24 percent. However, the Trump administration's additional tariffs targeting the automotive industry, which are not subject to the pause, have been a particular concern for Japan. The administration raised the tariff rate on imported passenger vehicles by 25 percentage points to 27.5 percent in early April, a measure that has already severely impacted the industry in Japan.
Yomiuri Shimbun
2 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions, but Fate of Trump Birthright Citizenship Order Unclear
WASHINGTON (AP) — A united conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled Friday that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear whether President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. The outcome represented a victory for Trump, who has complained about judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. Nationwide, or universal, injunctions had emerged as an important check on the Republican president's efforts to expand executive power and remake the government and a source of mounting frustration to him and his allies. But the court left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, which was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Enforcement of the policy can't take place for another 30 days, Barrett wrote. Even then it's unclear whether the court's decision could produce a confusing patchwork of rules that might differ in the 22 states that sued over the Trump order and the rest of the country. The justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden's Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court. Judges have issued more than 40 such orders since Trump took office for a second term in January. The administration has filed emergency appeals with the justices of many of those orders, including the ones on birthright citizenship. The court rarely hears arguments and issues major decisions on its emergency, or shadow, docket, but it did so in this case. Federal courts, Barrett wrote, 'do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' The president, speaking in the White House briefing room, said that the decision was 'amazing' and a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' the separation of powers and the rule of law. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York wrote on X that the decision is 'an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent for the three liberal justices, called the decision 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.' This is so, Sotomayor said, because the administration may be able to enforce a policy even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower court. The administration didn't even ask, as it has in other cases, for the lower-court rulings to be blocked completely, Sotomayor wrote. 'To get such relief, the government would have to show that the order is likely constitutional, an impossible task,' she wrote. But the ultimate fate of the changes Trump wants to make were not before the court, Barrett wrote, just the rules that would apply as the court cases continue. Rights groups that sued over the policy filed new court documents following the high court ruling, taking up a suggestion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh that judges still may be able to reach anyone potentially affected by the birthright citizenship order by declaring them part of 'putative nationwide class.' Kavanaugh was part of the court majority on Friday but wrote a separate concurring opinion. States that also challenged the policy in court said they would try to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests was through a nationwide hold. 'We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land and of course birthright citizenship as well,' said Attorney General Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts. Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes. The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or 'right of the soil' — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called 'a priceless and profound gift' in the executive order he signed on his first day in office. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship. But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment's adoption. Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration. The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings. The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump's plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case. The justices also agreed that the administration may make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.
