US Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Donald Trump's birthright citizenship plan
Donald Trump's administration will be allowed to take steps to implement its proposal to end automatic birthright citizenship in the US following a decision by the Supreme Court.
Under the current rules, nearly anyone born on US territory has automatic citizenship rights - commonly known as "birthright citizenship".
But, on his first day back in the White House, Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending that right.
A series of lawsuits followed, with district courts issuing nationwide injunctions aiming to block the order from taking effect.
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration to take steps to implement its proposal to end automatic birthright citizenship, handing a major win to the government.
The court granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by judges so that they apply only to states, groups and individuals that sued.
The US president responded with a post on Truth Social by welcoming the ruling.
"Giant win in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the scamming of our immigration process."
Friday's ruling means the birthright citizenship proposal can likely move forward at least in part in the states that challenged it, as well as those that did not.
The Supreme Court decision was on cases filed in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state.
The policy remains blocked for now in one additional state, New Hampshire, as a result of a separate lawsuit that is not before the Supreme Court.
Please refresh the page for the latest version.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
11 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE The big beautiful BLUFFERS: Here are the conservatives expected to cave on BBB once Trump cranks up the pressure
As Congress barrels towards the self-imposed July 4th deadline to pass President Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' some Republicans are vowing a vote against it, potentially tanking the seismic signature legislation of the White House. Insiders on Capitol Hill think they're bluffing - and see most climbing aboard at the last possible moment. 'Most of these guys will eventually cave,' one House GOP aide told the Daily Mail. 'It's not about principles anymore, it's just thirsty members knowing how to get as much attention as possible.' A handful of Republicans in Congress have taken some issue with the current format of Trump's marquee policy agenda, called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB). Their bicameral concerns vary from the overregulation of AI, Medicaid cuts, rural hospital funding and deficit reduction. Republican Representatives Chip Roy, Andy Harris, Victoria Spartz and more were named by Capitol Hill sources as those most likely to flip and back the bill despite their noisy opposition. Harris and Roy, for example, threatened to hold up the OBBB in the House before ultimately voting for it in late May. This week, the Trump administration has ramped up the pressure, deploying a slew of social media posts by the president on top of visits from Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to Capitol Hill. Once the Senate figures out its version and Trump decides to personally apply more pressure, Capitol Hill aides believe the hardheaded opposition will eventually melt away like a popsicle on a summer city sidewalk. 'The biggest bluffers are the Medicaid moderates,' a senior House GOP aide told the Daily Mail, adding that Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska is one of the Republicans most upset by Medicaid reforms. A former Senate GOP aide shared that most lawmakers will choose to avoid the president's wrath when the rubber meets the road. 'Of course most of the holdouts will eventually back President Trump and vote for the bill,' the former aide told the Daily Mail. 'Even though their constituents probably agree with a lot of their objections —they will rightly calculate that the political risk of drawing President Trump's ire or failing to stop huge tax hikes would far outweigh the reward of a protest vote.' The former staffer added: 'President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill will pass, warts and all.' The House passed its version of the OBBB in late May by just a single vote. Multiple Republicans defected at the time and voted against the over 1,000-page bill because it was not conservative enough. According to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the House-passed OBBB framework carries an eye-watering price tag of $2.4 - $2.77 trillion. Though that price is likely to change once the Senate finishes its version of the bill. Reps. Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson were the lone GOPers to vote 'no' on the bill over concerns on how the package will impact the deficit. The bill is now with the Senate, and the tweaks made by GOP lawmakers in the upper chamber have made some House members fume. In addition, the Senate Parliamentarian struck down key Republican provisions in the reconciliation bill, declaring they cannot remain in the bill due to Senate rules. One of those provisions slashed is meant to prevent illegal immigrants from collecting Medicaid - a move that has enraged many House lawmakers, and even prompted many to call for the parliamentarian's removal from her post. There are multiple internal GOP factions currently vying for different additions and cuts to the mega-bill. Many Republican moderates have expressed distaste with deep Medicaid cuts, members of the House Freedom Caucus - a conservative cohort of the lower chamber - are upset with the spending levels and lawmakers in blue states are most concerned with state and local tax (SALT) reforms. 'You have so many [Republicans] trying to inject themselves into the Senate's process by drawing red lines it's laughable,' the senior House GOP aide shared. 'It's true the Senate has had significant setbacks with the parliamentarian, but these House guys' posturing is setting themselves up for a rude awakening.' In the House, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is upset with an AI provision that would hamper states' ability to regulate the nascent tech. House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris and Reps. Chip Roy and Ralph Norman, meanwhile, have decried the price tag of the overall bill. 'Chip Roy will for sure,' buckle and vote for the bill under pressure, the GOP House aide shared, adding that Harris would also fold. 'We didn't realize demanding fiscal responsibility, opposing trillion-dollar deficit hikes, and fighting swamp subsidies counted as 'bluffing,"' a source familiar with the HFC chairman responded. New York Republican Nick Lalota has said he's a 'no for now' until SALT reforms are made. Other 'bluffers' who will eventually back the OBBB despite previously voicing doubts include Rep. Victoria Spartz, Tim Burchett, Eric Burlison and Josh Breechen. 'The Senate version, as it stands currently, cuts out many of the key provisions from the House bill that the President wanted,' a spokesperson for Burchett told the Daily Mail. 'The Congressman always votes his conscience, and will continue to do so when it is time to vote on the OBBB.' Still, most House Republicans say they are flexible and are waiting to see the final text passed by the Senate. A crop of upper chamber Republicans are also making a fuss. GOP Sens. Josh Hawley, Thom Tillis, Lisa Murkoswki, Susan Collins and Jerry Moran have all expressed concern over a provider tax provision that could cut funding to rural hospitals. A Senate GOP aide told the Daily Mail Tillis, who faces re-election in 2026, will fold '100 percent.' 'He has to vote for it or else Trump will support a primary challenger,' they added, noting a longstanding feud between Trump and the North Carolina senator. As the Senate continues to finalize its version of the bill, time is running out. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said this week he hopes to have the chamber vote on the OBBB on Saturday, however, it's unclear whether the text of the measure will be ready. Should the Senate pass the bill by then, the House would have to sprint to align itself with all of the changes before July 4th on next Friday. The president plans on hosting a ceremony at the White House on Independence Day to sign the landmark legislation, though if the Senate delays its vote - and therefore the vote in the House - Trump may not get his desired celebration. 'It's important. It's not the end all. We can go longer,' Trump said of the July 4th deadline for the OBBB on Friday. 'But, we'd like to get it done by that time if possible.'
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘American death zones': Trump admin announces $30m for Gaza aid program where dozens have been killed trying to get food
The Trump administration has approved $30 million in funding for a controversial American non-profit to deliver aid in Gaza, even after hundreds of Palestinians have been reported killed trying to get food at its sites in recent weeks. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a U.S.-based non-profit now run by an evangelical preacher who was a White House adviser during Donald Trump's first term, launched operations in May following a months-long Israeli blockade of nearly all food and aid. But Gaza's health ministry says that more than 500 Palestinians have been killed since then while attempting to get food at GHF sites and other aid points run by the United Nations in the north of the territory. In response to a question about the high death toll, a State Department spokesperson denied the 'false allegations' of killings at GHF sites, telling The Independent that 'most incidents are occurring at non-GHF aid sites that operate near GHF. And none of this would be happening if Hamas would lay down their arms.' 'Hamas will stop at nothing to stay in power and disseminated false propaganda in order to do so,' they added. But testimony collected by The Independent from Palestinians whose family members have been killed at the sites paints a picture of chaos and death. Some have described them as 'American death zones' because of the contractors who patrol them. Salwa Al-Daghma, 50, told The Independent that her brother Khaled, a 36-year-old father of five, was killed earlier this month while trying to get food for his family. 'Hunger is the reason. There is no food. He went to feed his wife and children. He went to provide them with food, but he left and never returned,' she said. 'When relatives came to tell me something, I assumed it was my son. They told me it was my brother, so I started screaming and crying.' 'This aid is a morsel of food soaked in blood. They don't want to help us; they are actually killing us,' she added. Iyad Abu Darabi, a 48-year-old father of six, said his son was killed when he went to get rice from a GHF distribution point. 'My son went to get some flour for his family, but came back in a coffin and a death shroud,' he said. 'This aid is a trap. It's in a barren land surrounded by fences, and the gates are opened for tens of thousands to fight over without any order. They leave people fighting each other over food,' he added. Almost all aid that has entered Gaza since Israel lifted a total blockade now runs through the GHF, which operates four food distribution sites that are overseen by American private security contractors and situated alongside Israeli army positions, which provide security at the perimeter. Israeli soldiers have described the sites as 'killing fields' and said they were ordered to shoot at unarmed civilians in shocking testimony released this week. "Where I was stationed, between one and five people were killed every day. They're treated like a hostile force – no crowd-control measures, no tear gas – just live fire with everything imaginable: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars. Then, once the center opens, the shooting stops, and they know they can approach. Our form of communication is gunfire," one soldier told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. "We open fire early in the morning if someone tries to get in line from a few hundred meters away, and sometimes we just charge at them from close range. But there's no danger to the forces," the soldier added. The soldier quoted by Haaretz said he was 'not aware of a single instance of return fire. There's no enemy, no weapons," at the sites. The story includes testimony from an Israeli army officer who said his unit fired machine guns, mortars and threw grenades at civilians approaching the aid distribution centers because 'a combat brigade doesn't have the tools to handle a civilian population in a war zone.' Despite the dozens of deaths, the U.S. State Department has continued to back the GHF politically, and on Thursday said it would fund the group to deliver aid in Gaza. 'This support is simply the latest iteration of President Trump's and Secretary Rubio's pursuit of peace in the region," State Department deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott told reporters at a regular news briefing. It is unclear why the Trump administration has decided to deliver aid to Gaza exclusively through the GHF, but former officials from the U.S. state department and USAID who have worked on emergency aid delivery described the new system as 'grotesque', 'dangerous' and part of a larger plan to use aid to control the movement of Palestinians. 'What is so infuriatingly tragic about this is that it's playing out exactly as any experienced humanitarian could have predicted,' said Jeremy Konyndyk, who oversaw famine relief for three years during the Obama administration and is now president of Refugees International. 'When you have an aid distribution model that is premised on forcing huge crowds of desperately hungry people to cluster directly adjacent to IDF military installations, you're going to get massacres,' he added. Mr Konyndyk said it was 'not a coincidence' that most of the distribution sites were in the south of Gaza, at a time when the Israeli army was trying to force Palestinians out of the north of the territory. 'A basic principle of humanitarian response is you move the aid as close to you can to where the people are. They're doing the opposite of that, the diametric opposite of that, which suggests that they want to draw people to the south,' he said. 'I think that is highly suggestive of the longer-term agenda here,' he added. Stacey Gilbert, who resigned from the state department in 2024 over the Biden administration's failure to hold Israel accountable for blocking aid to Gaza, also believes the sites are located primarily in the south to draw Palestinians away from the north. 'This is trying to draw them all to one area, to get them away from the area that Israel doesn't want them in,' she said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz hit out at the Haaretz story in a joint statement, describing the testimonies as 'contemptible blood libels.' 'These are malicious falsehoods designed to defame the IDF, the most moral military in the world,' the statement said. The IDF said it is 'operating to allow and facilitate the distribution of humanitarian aid by the American 'Gaza Humanitarian Foundation' (GHF), and to secure the routes leading to the distribution centers, in order to allow the aid to reach the civilians rather than Hamas.' It added that it 'strongly' rejected the accusations raised in the Haaretz article. 'The IDF did not instruct the forces to deliberately shoot at civilians, including those approaching the distribution centers. To be clear, IDF directives prohibit deliberate attacks on civilians,' it said in a statement. The GHF's Interim Executive Director John Acree said in a statement provided to The Independent that 'there have been no incidents or fatalities at or in the immediate vicinity of any of our distribution sites.' 'However, IDF is tasked with providing safe passage for aid-seekers to all humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza, including GHF. GHF is not aware of any of these incidents but these allegations are too grave to ignore and we therefore call on Israel to investigate them and transparently publish the results in a timely manner,' he added. Acree said the GHF was 'grateful for the support from President Trump and his administration in getting life-saving aid directly into the hands of the Palestinian people in Gaza'. The GHF's current leader, Johnnie Moore, an evangelical preacher who was a White House adviser in the first Trump administration, said in a post on X on Thursday that the group has delivered more than 46 million meals to Gazans since it began its operations in May. Israel imposed a full blockade on aid into Gaza when a ceasefire collapsed in March, pushing the population to the edge of famine. When aid is finally permitted to enter, many convoys are overwhelmed by hungry families and civilians in desperation, and armed gangs have reportedly exploited the chaos on occasion to steal the aid.
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Oh, Canada! Trump cuts off all trade talks with US's northern neighbor citing ‘blatant attack on our country'
President Donald Trump on Friday said he was suspending all trade talks with Canada — and making plans to force Americans to pay high import taxes on its goods — after the northern ally's finance department confirmed plans to collect a digital services tax. The late afternoon move quickly caused markets to spiral amid fears of a return to t he president's self-inflicted trade war. In a post on Truth Social, the president complained that he had 'just been informed' about the Canadian government's decision, which will see it require payment of a 3-percent tax on revenue collected from Canadian users of digital platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and X, above $14.6 million in a calendar year retroactive to 2022. The tax could saddle American technology companies with bills as large as $2 billion for the first retroactive payments. Although it is meant to apply to any company that provides digital services and takes in profits from selling advertising or user data, Trump groused that it amounted to Ottawa 'putting a Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies' and called the move 'a direct and blatant attack on our Country.' 'They are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us, also,' wrote Trump, who added that the result of the 'egregious tax' would be the U.S. 'hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately.' The president concluded his post with an unsubstantiated claim that any tariffs on Canadian goods would be paid by the government of Canada (rather than by American importers and consumers), writing: 'We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.' Trump's threat to punish Canada by taxing Americans comes just weeks after a group of House members wrote to him urging 'a swift government response' to any attempt by Canada to collect what they called an 'unprecedented, retroactive tax' that would 'set a terrible precedent that will have long-lasting impacts on global tax and trade practices.' 'Allowing Canada to proceed with this unprecedented, retroactive tax on U.S. firms would send a signal to the rest of the world that they have the green light to proceed with similar discriminatory cash grabs targeting our firms, workers, and tax base,' they said. According to the U.S. Trade Representative's office, U.S. goods trade with Canada totaled roughly $762 billion last year, making Canada one of the country's two largest trading partners. Earlier this month, Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced an agreement to set a July 21 deadline for a new trade agreement at the Group of Seven summit hosted by Carney in Alberta. Ottawa has been pushing for Washington to stand down from the 50 percent tax currently charged on steel, aluminum and automobile imports as well as other taxes Trump has unilaterally imposed on Americans with the aim of purportedly punishing Canada for not doing enough to stop fentanyl trafficking. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court for International Trade had previously ruled that Trump's use of tariffs for such purposes was illegal but that ruling is on hold pending an appeal.
