In win for Trump, Supreme Court orders courts to reconsider limits on birthright citizenship and other policies
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 27 said lower courts exeeded their authority when they put nationwide holds on restrictions to birthright citizenship, an at least temporary victory for President Donald Trump that will also make it harder to block other new policies.
In a 6-3 decision, the court said the holds must be narrowed to allow no more relief than necessary.
The Trump administration had not asked – and the Supreme Court did not decide – whether the president can permanently deny citizenship to newborns whose parents were in this country illegally or temporarily.
Instead, the Justice Department pursued a more technical – and easier to win – argument that district judges don't have the power to entirely block presidential actions while they're being challenged in court.
That's a setback for the expectant parents, immigrant rights groups and states suing the administration.
And it's a boost for the administration's battles in other areas.
The administration is already defending itself in more than 400 challenges to Trump's sweeping efforts to downsize and reshape the federal government, swiftly deport migrants, end diversity initiatives, impose tariffs and go after adversaries.
How does Trump want to limit birthright citizenship?
The executive order Trump signed his first day back in office directed government agencies not to recognize as citizens anyone born in the United States unless at least one of their parents is a citizen or lawful permanent resident.
That order was particularly bold in giving a new interpretation to the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, which says: '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.'
In an 1898 ruling about the citizenship of a man born in the United States to Chinese parents, the Supreme Court said the 14th Amendment, 'in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States.'
And a 1940 law defines citizenship using the terms of the 14th Amendment.
But Trump argues that phrasing in the constitutional amendment rules out children born to parents who aren't citizens, because they may feel loyal to a foreign country even if they have to follow U.S. laws while they're here.
How did the case come before the Supreme Court?
Trump's order was immediately challenged through multiple lawsuits filed by expectant parents, immigrant rights groups and 22 state attorney generals.
Federal district court judges in Washington state, Massachusetts and Maryland blocked the policy everywhere in the country while it's being litigated. They said the executive order conflicts with the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent and federal law.
In an emergency appeal, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to let the policy go into effect for everyone other than the specific expectant parents named in the lawsuits or, at most, any member of the immigrant rights groups or residents of a state that challenged the policy.
What was Trump's argument?
The administration argues one judge shouldn't be able to entirely block a federal policy for anyone other than the parties suing. And they say that phenomenon has gotten out of control, pointing to numerous court orders putting the brakes on Trump initiatives.
'If Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble!" Trump said in a March Truth Social post.
Democratic presidents have also complained about nationwide holds on policies issued by one judge. And some Supreme Court justices had also expressed frustration with them.
But during the May oral arguments, the justices struggled with how to restrict nationwide orders, particularly in the case of citizenship rules which have been applied nationally.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
23 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump says he's ending trade talks with Canada over its 'egregious Tax' on technology firms
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Friday that he's suspending trade talks with Canada over its plans to continue with its tax on technology firms, which he called 'a direct and blatant attack on our country.' Trump, in a post on his social media network, said Canada had just informed the U.S. that it was sticking to its plan to impose the digital services tax, which applies to Canadian and foreign businesses that engage with online users in Canada. The tax is set to go into effect Monday. 'Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. 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 said in his post. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said his country would 'continue to conduct these complex negotiations in the best interests of Canadians. It's a negotiation.' Trump's announcement was the latest swerve in the trade war he's launched since taking office for a second term in January. Progress with Canada has been a roller coaster, starting with the U.S. president poking at the nation's northern neighbor and repeatedly suggesting it would be absorbed as a U.S. state. Carney visited Trump in May at the White House, where he was polite but firm with Trump. Trump last week traveled to Canada for the G7 summit in Alberta, where Carney said that Canada and the U.S. had set a 30-day deadline for trade talks. The digital services tax will hit companies including Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb with a 3% levy on revenue from Canadian users. It will apply retroactively, leaving U.S. companies with a $2 billion U.S. bill due at the end of the month. The Republican president earlier told reporters that the U.S. was soon preparing to send letters to different countries, informing them of the new tariff rate his administration would impose on them. Trump has imposed 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum as well as 25% tariffs on autos. He is also charging a 10% tax on imports from most countries, though he could raise rates on July 9, after the 90-day negotiating period set by him would expire. Canada and Mexico face separate tariffs of as much as 25% that Trump put into place under the auspices of stopping fentanyl smuggling, though some products are still protected under the 2020 U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement signed during Trump's first term.
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
University of Virginia president resigns facing DOJ pressure: Report
University of Virginia's president has resigned amid a Department of Justice probe into the school's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, according to reports from the New York Times. Ryan's resignation will be effective 'no later than August 15,' a person familiar with the matter told the Times. University board members had alleged the school was not in compliance with President Trump's January executive order barring DEI practices at institutions that receive federal funding. Harmeet K. Dhillon, the head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, wrote a letter to Ryan on April 28 saying the office had received complaints the university's administration had failed to follow Trump's directive. The Times reported that the DOJ wrote another letter on June 17 saying, 'Time is running short, and the department's patience is wearing thin.' The school and Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment on the matter. Axios reported earlier on Friday that the Trump administration was trying to push out Ryan. A university spokesperson told the outlet, 'UVA is committed to complying with all federal laws and has been cooperating with the Department of Justice in the ongoing inquiries. The federal government's support of the University is essential to continue the core mission of research, education and clinical care.' Ryan previously served as the dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education prior to joining the University of Virginia in August 2018. Virginia's Democratic senators blasted the Trump administration following news of his departure. 'It is outrageous that officials in the Trump Department of Justice demanded the Commonwealth's globally recognized university remove President Ryan — a strong leader who has served UVA honorably and moved the university forward — over ridiculous 'culture war' traps,' Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine said in a statement. 'Decisions about UVA's leadership belong solely to its Board of Visitors, in keeping with Virginia's well-established and respected system of higher education governance. This is a mistake that hurts Virginia's future.' The Trump administration has picked fights with various high-profile universities over diversity programs and their alleged failure to tackle anti-semitism on campus. Columbia University caved to those demands in an attempt to maintain federal funding, while Harvard has so far stood its ground. The Times reported this week that Harvard's leaders are debating how to reach a deal without being seen as capitulating to Trump.
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
5 takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling
The Supreme Court handed President Trump a clear victory Friday, stopping judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that block his executive order narrowing birthright citizenship. But the cases aren't over yet, as a new phase of the battle commences in the lower courts. Here are five takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling. Friday's opinion came from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's third appointee to the court who has recently faced a barrage of criticism from the president's own supporters. The heat grew as Barrett this spring ruled against the administration in several emergency cases, including Trump's bid to freeze foreign aid payments and efforts to swiftly deport alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. By tradition, the most senior member of the majority decides who authors the opinion. So, Chief Justice John Roberts would've assigned Barrett as the author soon after the May 15 oral arguments. On Friday, Barrett ultimately wrote for all five of her fellow Republican-appointed justices, being the face of the Trump administration's major win. Barrett rejected the challengers' notion that nationwide injunctions were needed as a powerful tool to check the executive branch. 'Federal courts 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,' she wrote. Though the court curtailed nationwide injunctions, the decision leaves the door open for plaintiffs to try to seek broad relief by pursuing class action lawsuits. Within hours, one group of plaintiffs quickly took the hint. A coalition of expectant mothers and immigration organizations suing asked a district judge in Maryland to issue a new ruling that applies to anyone designated as ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order — the same practical effect as a nationwide injunction. The Democratic-led states suing are also vowing to press ahead. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable, creating administrative chaos for California and others and harm to countless families across our country. The fight is far from over,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said in a statement. And the American Civil Liberties Union brought an entirely new lawsuit Friday seeking to do the same. The efforts could quickly bring the birthright citizenship battle back to the Supreme Court. 'In cases where classwide or set-aside relief has been awarded, the losing side in the lower courts will likewise regularly come to this Court if the matter is sufficiently important,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a solo concurring opinion. 'When a stay or injunction application arrives here, this Court should not and cannot hide in the tall grass.' Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the court's leading conservatives, cautioned lower courts against creating a 'significant loophole' to Friday's decision by stretching when plaintiffs can file class action lawsuits. 'Federal courts should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of these tools,' Alito wrote, joined by Thomas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the chief dissent, arguing that the rule of law is 'not a given' in America and the high court gave up its 'vital role' in preserving it with Friday's opinion. Joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she claimed that the Trump administration sought to tear down nationwide injunctions because it can't prove the president's order narrowing birthright citizenship is likely constitutional. Trump's order made a 'solemn mockery' of the Constitution, she said, and his request to instead curtail nationwide injunctions is obvious 'gamesmanship.' 'Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.' Going further than her liberal peers, Jackson wrote in a solo dissent that the court's decision was an 'existential threat to the rule of law' — drawing a harsh rebuke from Barrett, a dramatic exchange between the two most junior justices. Jackson argued that the majority uses legalese to obscure a more basic question at the heart of the case: 'May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' At another point, she said that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' suggesting that the Trump administration's efforts to 'vanquish' universal injunctions amounts to a request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior' — and that the majority gave the president just that. The rhetoric in Jackson's opinion amounts to a 'startling line of attack,' Barrett said, condemning her argument as 'extreme.' 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.' She urged Jackson to 'heed her own admonition' that everyone, from the president down, is bound by law. 'That goes for judges too,' Barrett said. Trump and his allies hailed the ruling as a decisive victory for his administration, promising to move his sweeping second term agenda forward with judges' power significantly curtailed. 'It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump said at a press conference Friday afternoon. He specifically slammed 'radical left judges' he said used nationwide injunctions as a tool to 'overrule the rightful powers of the president' to stop illegal immigration. The decision means his administration can now move forward on a 'whole list' of policy priorities that were frozen nationwide by federal judges, he argued, from birthright citizenship to freezing federal funding. 'We have so many of them,' Trump said.
