Trump's lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges
Remove Ads
Also Read: US Supreme Court may rule on allowing enforcement of Trump birthright citizenship limits
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Popular in NRI
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
President Donald Trump 's administration will not deport children deemed ineligible for US citizenship until his executive order curtailing birthright citizenship takes effect on July 27, a government lawyer said on Monday after being pressed by two federal judges.During separate hearings in lawsuits challenging Trump's order, US District Judges Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Joseph LaPlante in Concord, New Hampshire, set expedited schedules to decide whether the order can be blocked again on grounds that the US Supreme Court 's ruling on Friday curbing the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide does not preclude injunctions in class action lawsuits.Both judges asked US Department of Justice lawyer Brad Rosenberg, who represented the government in both cases, for assurances that the Trump administration would not move to deport children who do not have at least one parent who is a US citizen or legal permanent resident at least until the executive order takes effect.Rosenberg said it would not, which Boardman and LaPlante respectively asked him to confirm in writing by Tuesday and Wednesday.In the Maryland case, immigrant rights advocates revised their lawsuit just a few hours after the 6-3 conservative majority US Supreme Court on Friday ruled in their case and two others challenging Trump's executive order. The New Hampshire lawsuit, a proposed class action, was filed on Friday.The Supreme Court ruling did not address the merits or legality of Trump's birthright citizenship order, but instead curbed the ability of judges to issue "universal" injunctions to block the Republican president's policies nationwide.But while the Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to issue injunctions that cover anyone other than the parties appearing before them, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion held out the possibility that opponents of a federal policy could still obtain the same type of relief if they instead pursued cases as class actions.William Powell, a lawyer for immigration rights groups and pregnant non-citizen mothers pursuing the case, told Boardman at a hearing on Monday that an immediate ruling was necessary to address the fears and concerns migrants now face as a result of the Supreme Court's decision."They want to see how fast we can get class relief because they are afraid about their children and their babies and what their status might be," Powell said.Trump's executive order, which he issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder.In Friday's ruling, the high court narrowed the scope of the three injunctions issued by federal judges in three states, including Boardman, that prevented enforcement of his directive nationwide while litigation challenging the policy played out.Those judges had blocked the policy after siding with Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violated the citizenship clause of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen.Immigrant rights advocates in the hours after the Supreme Court ruled swiftly launched two separate bids in Maryland and New Hampshire to have judges grant class-wide relief on behalf of any children nationally who would be deemed ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order.The Supreme Court specified the core part of Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. Boardman on Monday pressed Rosenberg on what it could do before then."Just to get to the heart of it, I want to know if the government thinks that it can start removing children from the United States who are subject to the terms of the executive order," Boardman said at the end of the hearing.Boardman scheduled further briefing in the case to continue through July 9, with a ruling to follow. LaPlante scheduled a hearing for July 10.Rosenberg said the Trump administration objected to the plaintiffs' attempt to obtain the same relief through a class action. He stood by the administration's view of the constitutionality of Trump's order."It is the position of the United States government that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed by the Constitution," he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
25 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Can Trump's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac IPO plan slash mortgage rates? Bill Ackman says...
Synopsis Donald Trump is reportedly planning to IPO Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, potentially the largest IPO in history. Billionaire Investor Bill Ackman suggests merging the two mortgage giants to reduce mortgage rates and government oversight costs. Ackman believes privatization could yield substantial gains for the government, citing their improved capitalization and government backing. AP American hedge fund manager Bill Ackman took to X, formerly known as Twitter, and one way to reduce mortgage rates would be to merge government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac US President Donald Trump Saturday seemed to acknowledge reporting by The Wall Street Journal on Friday that he plans to IPO Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the end of this year. The President and his economic advisers are planning a historic sale of stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-owned mortgage giants that help provide stability and affordability to America's home loan market. Reacting to the development, American hedge fund manager Bill Ackman took to X, formerly known as Twitter, and one way to reduce mortgage rates would be to merge government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He suggested the merger move would help reduce mortgage rates and achieve huge synergies both in their operations and in the trading price. ALSO READ: 'Ban Gay sex, end women's voting': Pete Hegseth sparks controversy for re-posting pastor's radical message Bill Ackman said Fannie and Freddie merger would also reduce the costs and risks of government way to reduce mortgage rates would be to merge Fannie and Freddie. A merger would enable them to achieve huge synergies both in their operations and in the trading price and spreads of their MBS, savings which could be passed along to consumers in the form of reduced mortgage rates, Ackman wrote in his post. "A merger would also reduce the cost and risks of government oversight as there would be only one institution that would require FHFA oversight. I suspect that this is @realDonaldTrump 's idea as implied by his post below. It's a really good one," his post read. US-government owned twin giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are tasked with expanding credit availability in the American market by securitising mortgages. Their shares surged over 20 per cent on Friday after the Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump administration may privatise the two institutions this year. ALSO READ: Powerball jackpot rises to $479 million: Who won lottery jackpot last night? Lotto results, drawing time US President Donald Trump has previously met the top leadership of US investment banks such as Citigroup, the Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase to explore potential public offerings of the twin mortgage giants, Reuters reported, citing an the plans have not been finalised yet, and Trump continues to weigh various options, according to a senior administration official. But the White House believes an initial public offering of up to 15% of the two companies' shares could raise $30 billion, which could make it the largest IPO in has been weighing an IPO for years now. During his first term, Trump attempted — but ultimately failed — to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, removing them from government conservatorship. Now, in his second term, he has revived the push. In May, he wrote on Truth Social that he was 'giving very serious consideration to bringing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac public,' adding that he would consult with his Cabinet before making a decision 'in the near future.'Trump has argued for the monetisation of these two institutions, which were brought under US government control in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. In May this year, Trump floated the idea while emphasising that the government will maintain its implicit guarantees for the securities issued by the two institutions. ALSO READ: Last planet parade of 2025 happening today? How to watch the rare planetary alignment in the US Trump backer Bill Ackman, a long-time shareholder in the twin behemoths, has repeatedly called for their privatisation. Ackman, founder, Pershing Capital Management, told Forbes magazine last month that the US government is the preferred stockholder of the twins, and in a position to realise gains worth $300 billion. He argued that the two institutions were 'vastly better capitalised' today than for the past 60 two institutions are not banks, but tap creditworthy mortgage buyers and pack the mortgages in securities to be sold on the market, Ackman explained. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have guarantees worth $7 trillion coupled with enormous cash flows, apart from a government backing, underlining their ability to weather any future crisis, Ackman added.
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Investigation in the train blast case is a sad comment on how little policing has changed since 1872'
There were two recent judgments in terror cases–the 2006 Mumbai train blasts and the 2008 Malegaon blasts judgments. The high court verdict acquitting 12 people for the train blasts (7/11) called the torture meted out to them as 'barbaric' and 'inhuman'–the use of the judgment as a precedent in cases of MCOCA was stayed by the Supreme Court while not interfering with the high court's findings on the men's innocence. The trial court in the Malegaon case said there was a strong suspicion, but no legal proof against the seven accused it acquitted, citing reasons including the lack of procedure followed by the prosecution. Sadaf Modak speaks with advocates Yug Chaudhry and Payoshi Roy, who represented the accused in the train blasts case, about procedures and safeguards in terror probes. While drafting the Indian Evidence Act, James Fitzjames Stephen had decreed confessions to police officers as inadmissible. This holds equally true today and even the new criminal laws bar the use of confessions and witness statements made before police officers. The investigation in the train blast case is a sad comment on how little policing has changed since 1872, despite the upgrade in resources and technique. In this case, torture was the investigative tool of choice whether it be by obtaining false confessions, or coerced signatures on make-believe recovery /seizure panchnamas concocted in the police station. Superior officers endorsed the use of torture, and often threatened the prisoners with it if they did not cooperate or if they complained to the judges. Remand judges and later the trial judge pretended that there were no signs of torture even when it was staring them in the face. It appears that investigating officers resorting to such fabrication are enabled by the judicial latitude they are assured of receiving in terror cases. The failure therefore is not one of technique or manner of probe but a crisis of impunity. The burden lies not only on courts but also on the State to strictly monitor these investigations and pull up erring officers. This is a case where the High Court has found that the police have tortured the accused to procure confessions and destroyed evidence of CDR that would exonerate the accused. Instead of immediately instituting a wide-ranging review of this botched investigation, the state has denied its falsity. This attitude is a disservice to the victims who deserve an honest investigation, like the high court itself observed, that there is no greater betrayal of victims of terror crimes than fabricated investigations. This judgment should serve as a clarion call to the political leadership that short-cuts in terror investigations are unacceptable. At present, sanction and prior approval for MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act) prosecution are given by an officer of the DIG Rank. When a terror offence of this magnitude is committed, officers at the highest level supervise the investigation. Seeking sanction from the DIG or the DGP of the state, who has been actively monitoring the investigation, is like an appeal from Ceaser to Ceaser's wife. In the 7/11 case, the approval for Act was granted without looking at the chargesheets, which allows DCPs to record confessions. One of the reasons the high court rejected the confessions is because prior approval was given without application of mind. Even under UAPA, sanction is sought from an authority appointed by the Central or state government. These safeguards have been reduced to a nullity. The authority granting sanction must be independent and quasi-judicial and must be able to scrutinise the material independently. Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code and now Section 230 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita penalises giving of false evidence and fabricating evidence with the intent to procure a conviction in a capital case. It is punishable with life imprisonment. It is time this law is implemented. Responsible police officers of the highest to the lowest rank must be prosecuted under the law. Police officers cannot be prosecuted for failing to collect sufficient evidence or if a prosecution fails to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a case such as the 7/11 blasts where officers have lied on oath about recording contemporaneous confessions, where there is stark evidence of brutal torture, where officers have deliberately destroyed the accused's CDR despite repeated applications by the defence for the CDR knowing that would exonerate the accused–such criminal action from the custodians of the law must be prosecuted under the law. If this is not done, there will be no acknowledgement by the State that they have failed the victims, failed society and undermined national security.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trump demands $1 billion from UCLA over antisemitism claims: Here's why California says it's political
The administration of US President Donald Trump is seeking a $1 billion settlement from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), following accusations from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that the university violated federal civil rights laws by failing to address antisemitic incidents on campus. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the demand, as reported by the Associated Press. UCLA is the first public university to face such a large-scale financial penalty amid the Trump administration's broader push to reform higher education institutions it claims are failing to uphold civil rights protections. Federal funding for UCLA was suspended earlier, totalling $584 million, according to university officials. DOJ cites violation of civil rights law and the Fourteenth Amendment According to a DOJ finding issued on July 29, UCLA violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by 'acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students,' as reported by the Associated Press. The allegations stem largely from the university's handling of protests related to the 2024 Israel-Hamas war. During one night of unrest, counterprotesters attacked a pro-Palestinian encampment on UCLA's campus, resulting in several injuries before police intervened hours later. Over 200 individuals were arrested the following day after refusing orders to disband. Jewish students reported being blocked from campus areas and classrooms by demonstrators. California officials respond to $1 billion demand California Governor Gavin Newsom accused the Trump administration of using financial threats for political purposes. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Speaking to reporters, he said, 'He has threatened us through extortion with a billion-dollar fine unless we do his bidding,' as quoted by the Associated Press. He contrasted California's response with settlements reached by private institutions, stating, 'We will not be like some of those other institutions that have followed a different path. ' James B. Milliken, president of the University of California, said the university had 'just received' the DOJ document and would review it. He noted that such a settlement 'would completely devastate our country's greatest public university system,' as reported by the Associated Press. Milliken, who recently assumed office, stated the university had offered to engage in a 'good faith dialogue' with the DOJ. Settlements with other universities set precedent The Trump administration has already reached civil rights settlements with other institutions, including $50 million from Brown University and $221 million from Columbia University. Columbia also regained access to over $400 million in research grants. Negotiations with Harvard University are ongoing, with the administration reportedly pressing for a larger settlement. UCLA previously settled separate civil rights lawsuit Last week, UCLA reached a $6 million settlement in a civil rights lawsuit filed by three Jewish students and a Jewish professor. The university also committed $2.3 million to organisations addressing antisemitism and supporting its Jewish community. As part of broader reforms, UCLA established an Office of Campus and Community Safety and introduced new systemwide protest guidelines. As reported by the Associated Press, Chancellor Julio Frenk, whose family history includes Holocaust survivors, also launched an initiative aimed at combating antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias on campus. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us .
