Federal appeals court weighs Trump birthright citizenship order as admin outlines new details
The three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed this summer to hear arguments in two consolidated cases centered on the matter, O. Doe. v. Trump, and the State of New Jersey v. Trump, joining several other appeals courts in reviewing the legality of Trump's executive order.
The hearing comes roughly five weeks after the Supreme Court partially sided with the Trump administration in a case centered on the birthright citizenship order. Justices narrowed when lower courts can issue so-called "universal injunctions" blocking the president's orders from taking effect nationwide.
Trump signed his birthright citizenship executive order on his first day in office. It seeks to clarify the 14th Amendment, which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Instead, the language put forth by the Trump administration, and subsequently blocked, would have clarified that individuals born to illegal immigrant parents, or those who were here legally but on temporary non-immigrant visas, are not citizens by birthright.
The Supreme Court declined to rule on the merits, instead giving the Trump administration 30 days to outline how it would enforce the order — effectively punting the issue back to the lower courts. So far, the administration hasn't found much success there.
A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a nationwide injunction last month blocking Trump's order from taking force, and certified as a class all infants born in the U.S. who would be denied citizenship under the order.
Arguments before the First Circuit come just one week after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also blocked Trump's birthright citizenship order from taking force nationwide.
Judges on the Ninth Circuit voted 2-1 to block the order, siding with the Democratic-led states in ruling it unconstitutional.
They also ruled it "is impossible to avoid this harm" caused by the order "absent a uniform application of the citizenship clause throughout the United States," prompting them to issue the nationwide injunction.
"The district court below concluded that a universal preliminary injunction is necessary to provide the states with complete relief," U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, writing for the Ninth Circuit majority, said in the ruling.
"We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the states complete relief."
It's unclear how judges on the First Circuit will rule. But their oral arguments come days after the Trump administration detailed new specifics on how it plans to enforce its order in question.
Guidance from roughly half a dozen U.S. agencies outlines these new requirements for parents. One document published by the Social Security Administration outlines new requirements parents will need to meet to prove their child is a U.S. citizen at birth.
"With respect to citizenship, an SSN applicant may currently demonstrate U.S. citizenship by providing a birth certificate showing a U.S. place of birth," a document from SSA said.
"Once the EO takes effect, a birth certificate showing a U.S. place of birth will not be sufficient documentary evidence of U.S. citizenship for persons born after the EO takes effect."
The policy, which remains halted by the lower courts, is widely unpopular.
More than 22 U.S. states and immigrants' rights groups have sued the Trump administration to block the change to birthright citizenship, arguing in court filings that the executive order is both unconstitutional and "unprecedented."
And to date, no court has sided with the Trump administration's executive order seeking to ban birthright citizenship, though multiple district courts have blocked it, including in wake of the Supreme Court ruling, from taking effect.
This is a developing news story. Check back soon for updates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
More Republican lawmakers call out Canada over wildfire smoke
WASHINGTON — More Republican lawmakers are calling out Canada because of wildfires sending smoke billowing across the international border into their states. Wisconsin state Rep. Calvin Callahan has joined other Republican state lawmakers from Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota in filing a formal complaint against Canada to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the International Joint Commission. In a news release issued today, Callahan says that 'if Canada can't get these wildfires under control, they need to face real consequences.' He joins a chorus of Republican politicians at other levels of government who have been voicing concerns about Canada's wildfires. Michigan Rep. Jack Bergman sent a letter to Canadian Sen. Michael MacDonald on Monday calling for stronger forest management policies and more accountability from Canadian officials. Michigan Rep. John James sent a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney last week saying his constituents are choking on toxic wildfire smoke. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 6, 2025. Kelly Geraldine Malone, The Canadian Press Sign in to access your portfolio
New York Post
16 minutes ago
- New York Post
Voting rights protected by the historic Voting Rights Act threatened as law has its 60th anniversary
WASHINGTON (AP) — Wednesday is the 60th anniversary of the day President Lyndon Johnson made his way to the U.S. Capitol and, with Martin Luther King Jr. standing behind him, signed the Voting Rights Act into law. The act protected the right to vote and ensured the government would fight efforts to suppress it, especially those aimed at Black voters. For many Americans, it was the day U.S. democracy fully began. That was then. 7 President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 60 years ago. AP The law has been slowly eroding for more than a decade, starting with the 2013 Supreme Court decision ending the requirement that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting get federal approval before changing the way they hold elections. Within hours of the ruling, some states that had been under the preclearance provision began announcing plans for stricter voting laws. Those changes have continued, especially since the 2020 presidential election and President Donald Trump's false claims that widespread fraud cost him reelection. The Supreme Court upheld a key part of the Voting Rights Act in 2023, but in its upcoming term it's scheduled to hear a case that could roll back that decision and another that would effectively neuter the law. Voting rights experts say those cases will largely determine whether a landmark law passed during a turbulent era decades ago will have future anniversaries to mark. 'We're at a critical juncture right now,' said Demetria McCain, director of policy at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. 'And, let's be clear, our democracy is only about to turn 60 when the Voting Rights Act anniversary gets here. I say that because there are so many attacks on voting rights, particularly as it relates to Black communities and communities of color.' Native Americans celebrate a win that could be temporary The reservation of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians is about 10 miles (16 kilometers) from the Canadian border, a region of forests, small lakes and vast prairie land. Its main highway is a mix of small houses, mobile homes and businesses. A gleaming casino and hotel stand out, not far from grazing bison. In 2024, the tribe and another in North Dakota, the Spirit Lake Tribe, formed a joint political district for the first time. They had filed a lawsuit arguing that the way lines were drawn for state legislative seats denied them the right to elect candidates of their choice. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Peter Welte agreed and put a new map in place. 7 The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and another tribe in North Dakota, the Spirit Lake Tribe, formed a joint political district for the first time in 2024. AP State Rep. Collette Brown ran for the legislature because she wanted to see more Native American representation, and she won under the new map. 'It felt surreal. I felt accomplished, I felt recognized,' said Brown, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and the Spirit Lake Tribe's Gaming Commission executive director. 'I felt, OK, it's time for us to really start making change and really start educating from within so that we're not silenced.' Brown, a Democrat, co-sponsored several bills on Native American issues that became law, including aid for repatriation of remains and artifacts and alerts for missing Indigenous people. 7 The future of the tribes' district is in the hands of the Supreme Court. AP This year's anniversary of the Voting Rights Act 'forces you to look at how far we've come,' from Native Americans to women, said Jamie Azure, chairman of the Turtle Mountain tribe. Now the future of their district is in the hands of the Supreme Court. Will individuals be allowed to file voting rights challenges? The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers North Dakota and six other states, overturned Welte's decision 2-1, saying the tribes and entities such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU do not have a right to sue over potential violations of voters' constitutional rights. That ruling expanded on an earlier 8th Circuit opinion out of Arkansas that rejected a different challenge on the same grounds. Late last month, a 3rd Circuit court panel ruled in a separate case out of Arkansas that only the U.S. attorney general can file such cases — not private individuals or groups. 7 The University of Michigan Law School Voting Rights Initiative found that since 1982 nearly 87% of claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act were from private individuals and organizations. AP Those decisions upended decades of precedent. The Supreme Court has stayed the ruling for the tribes while it decides whether it will take the North Dakota case. The University of Michigan Law School Voting Rights Initiative found that since 1982 nearly 87% of claims under that part of the Voting Rights Act, known as Section 2, were from private individuals and organizations. Leaving individuals without the ability to file challenges is especially troublesome now because the Justice Department under Trump, a Republican, seems focused on other priorities, said Sophia Lin Lakin, who heads the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! 7 Voters waiting in line to cast their ballots in Fort Defiance, Ariz., on Election Day in 2024. AP The government's voting rights unit has been dismantled and given new priorities that, she said, have turned enforcement 'against the very people it was created to protect.' The Justice Department declined to answer questions about its voting rights priorities, cases it is pursuing or whether it would be involved in the voting rights cases coming before the nation's highest court. Supreme Court weighs another case on race and congressional districts Two years ago, voting rights activists celebrated when the Supreme Court preserved Section 2 in a case out of Alabama that required the state to draw an addition congressional district to benefit Black voters. Now it's poised to rehear a similar case out of Louisiana that could modify or undo that decision. 7 The Justice Department declined to answer questions about its voting rights priorities, cases it is pursuing or whether it would be involved in the voting rights cases coming before the nation's highest court. AP The court heard the case in March but did not make a decision during the term. In an order on Friday, the court asked the lawyers to supply briefs explaining 'whether the State's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' Robert Weiner, the director of voting rights for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said while it is a 'matter of concern' that the court is asking the question, the fact the nine justices did not reach a decision during the last term suggests there weren't five votes already. 'They wouldn't need re-argument if the sides had already been chosen,' he said. Trump's Justice Department shifts focus on voting issues At a time when the remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act are under threat, the Justice Department has shifted its election-related priorities. Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, it has dropped or withdrawn from several election- and voting-related cases. The department instead has focused on concerns of voter fraud raised by conservative activists following years of false claims surrounding elections. 7 Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Justice Department has dropped or withdrawn from several election- and voting-related cases. AP The department also has sent requests for voter registration information as well as data on election fraud and warnings of election violations to at least 19 states. In addition to the shift in focus at the Justice Department, federal legislation to protect voting rights has gone nowhere. Democrats have reintroduced the John Lewis voting rights bill, but it's legislation they failed to pass in 2022 when they held both houses of Congress and the White House and needed some Republican support in the Senate. Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order seeking to overhaul voting in the states, which includes a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voting form, though much of it has been blocked in the courts. The GOP-controlled House passed a bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. And gerrymandering state legislative and congressional districts remains prevalent. The slow chipping away at the 60-year-old law has created a nation with an unequal distribution of voting rights, said Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the voting rights center at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. Some states have been active in expanding access to voting while others have been focused on restricting the vote. 'The last five to 10 years,' he said, 'the experiences of voters increasingly depend on where they live.'
Business Insider
17 minutes ago
- Business Insider
What Apple's $100 billion US pledge really means — and what it doesn't mean
At a White House event scheduled for Wednesday afternoon, Apple is going to announce plans to invest $100 billion in US manufacturing. Is this a real plan, with real money? A bit of stagecraft designed to give Donald Trump a public win for his reshoring push? Or a way for Apple to keep on the right side of Trump tariffs that could cause great harm to the company? Yes. And yes. And yes. Here's what we know about Apple's plans, via news reports and the White House press office. (Apple hasn't responded to a request for comment, but the White House was happy to confirm the reports in advance of the event, which is supposed to feature both Trump and Apple CEO Tim Cook.) In February, Apple said it would invest $500 billion and hire 20,000 US employees over the next four years. Now Apple is going to add another $100 billion to that commitment, though there's no word about any potential hiring increase. But this isn't the first time Apple has announced a pledge like this. In 2021 — when Joe Biden was president — it announced a plan to invest $430 billion in the US over five years and hire 20,000 employees. Some of those plans involved new construction, like a new "engineering hub" in North Carolina. Others involved expansions of existing facilities, or construction that was already underway, like a $1 billion campus in Austin. As Bloomberg notes, Apple's announcement from February was really an acceleration of its earlier plans — it meant Apple was planning to spend an extra $39 billion a year, and to increase its hiring plans by 1,000 people a year. Using that same logic, Apple's Wednesday announcement means it is planning on spending another $25 billion a year above its earlier plans. (Again: No word, yet, about any additional hiring.) So that's definitely some additional spending. Will Apple make iPhones in the US? Does that mean Apple is going to start making iPhones in the US, as Trump has demanded? No. As we've discussed before, recreating the supply chain Apple would need to make iPhones in the US seems close to impossible. And certainly not something that Apple could pull off in a few years — if it even wanted to. But getting to stand next to the CEO of one of the world's most valuable companies, while that CEO says he's going to invest in America, is most definitely valuable to Trump. And it's not as if any particular number means much to Trump, who recently announced he was going to reduce drug prices by "1,500 percent," which is definitely not possible. Trump is also flexible when it comes to announcements about Trump-directed spending in America. Like when he stood next to Cook during his first term and announced that Apple had opened a new plant in Texas at his behest. Also not true. What does Apple get in return? It would most obviously like permanent relief from Trump's tariffs. So far, Trump has granted Apple some immunity from some of his tariffs on foreign manufacturing — but not all of them, which is why Apple has said it will have paid some $2 billion in tariffs over its last two quarters. Apple and other tech companies are also hoping Trump will keep pushing on their behalf to beat down other countries' tech regulations. Apple is particularly vexed by the European Union, which has forced the company to do things like change its iPhone chargers and open up its App Store. So yes: Apple is spending money in the US. And no: It's not exactly the story Donald Trump would like to tell.
