logo
Trump's Running Tab in the Abrego Garcia Case

Trump's Running Tab in the Abrego Garcia Case

The Atlantic5 hours ago

The Trump administration's long, belabored campaign to prove that Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a gang leader, a terrorist, and an all-around bad guy—not a wrongfully deported Maryland man—has produced some extraordinary legal maneuvers. The administration fought Abrego Garcia's return from El Salvador all the way to the Supreme Court, lost, and eventually brought him back to the United States to slap him with criminal charges it had started investigating after it had already sent him to a foreign prison.
But with that criminal case off to a shaky start, the administration is threatening to deport Abrego Garcia again—this time to a country other than his native El Salvador—because the judge has ordered his release while the trial is pending. Having spent months trying to gather evidence against Abrego Garcia, the administration is suggesting it may walk away from it all by sending him to Mexico, Guatemala, or another nation willing to take him.
The threat of Abrego Garcia's imminent re-deportation prompted his attorneys to take the extraordinary step today of asking a district court to delay their client's release and keep him locked up for several more weeks to protect him from ICE. 'The irony of this request is not lost on anyone,' his attorneys told the court. 'In a just world, he would not seek to prolong his detention further.' The lawyers accused the government of pretending to want Abrego Garcia to face 'American justice,' while really only wanting to 'convict him in the court of public opinion.'
The head-spinning developments of the past several days add to the administration's running tab in a case that has challenged its determination to admit no wrongdoing. The case has produced nearly 57,000 pages of documents; ended the Department of Justice careers of one, perhaps two prosecutors; and prompted the Trump administration to cut deals with convicted felons that protect them from deportation in exchange for testimony.
Some of the most remarkable accommodations appear in the transcript of a June 13 pretrial hearing for Abrego Garcia in Tennessee, where the government is trying to convict him of human smuggling. Under cross-examination by defense attorneys, the government's lead investigator, the Department of Homeland Security agent Peter Joseph, told the court that his primary cooperating witness—the source of the most damning testimony—is a twice-convicted felon who had been previously deported five times.
Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes, who was presiding over the hearing, did a double take. 'Sorry. Deported how many times?' she asked.
Joseph, who confirmed the total, said the cooperator has been moved out of prison to a halfway house and is now awaiting a U.S. work permit. He told the court that a second cooperating witness is seeking similar inducements from the government.
Trump and his top officials have said for months that their mass-deportation campaign would prioritize the swift removal of criminals from the United States. But in its effort to punish Abrego Garcia—who does not have a criminal record—the administration is protecting convicted felons from deportation.
Other costs include ending the 15-year career of a Department of Justice attorney, Erez Reuveni, who filed a whistleblower claim with Congress this week alleging that he was fired for refusing to go along with unsubstantiated claims, pushed by the White House, that Abrego Garcia is an MS-13 gang leader and a terrorist.
When Reuveni's superiors told him to sign a legal brief making those claims, he refused, saying he 'didn't sign up to lie' when he became a federal prosecutor. He was suspended seven hours later and fired on April 11.
Reuveni's career may not be the only DOJ casualty. Another federal prosecutor, Ben Schrader, the head of the criminal division at the U.S. attorney's office in Nashville, submitted his resignation last month when the government brought Abrego Garcia there to face charges. Schrader, who declined to comment and has not discussed his departure publicly, wrote in a LinkedIn post that 'the only job description I've ever known is to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons.'
As Reuveni and others have pointed out, ICE officials initially recognized that Abrego Garcia had been deported on March 15 due to an ' administrative error.' His removal from the country was in violation of a 2019 order protecting him from being sent to El Salvador, which he fled at age 16, after a U.S. immigration judge found that he was likely to be attacked by gangs. At that point, the Trump administration could have brought Abrego Garcia back and deported him to another country, or reopened his case to try to strip him of his protected status. But Trump, Vice President J. D. Vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi, the White House aide Stephen Miller, and other administration officials dug in and insisted there was no error. They declared that Abrego Garcia would never come back and never go free in the United States. They launched an all-of-government campaign to make the case about his character, not his due-process rights.
How the Trump administration flipped on Kilmar Abrego Garcia
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, told me in a statement that Abrego Garcia 'is a terrorist illegal alien gang member.' Those who defend him 'should take a good look in the mirror and ask themselves if they really want to side with this heinous illegal criminal,' she said, 'simply because they dislike President Trump.'
'If the answer is yes, they need to seek help,' Jackson added. 'The American people elected President Trump to hold criminals like Abrego Garcia accountable.'
But as attorneys for the Justice Department put it in a court filing Wednesday: 'This is no typical case.'
Not one, but two, overlapping cases will determine Abrego Garcia's fate. The first is the civil lawsuit that Abrego Garcia's wife, a U.S. citizen, filed in district court in Maryland in March, which seeks his release.
The Trump administration opened a second case when it brought Abrego Garcia back from El Salvador earlier this month to face criminal charges in Tennessee. The charges stem from a 2022 highway stop in which Abrego Garcia was pulled over in a Chevrolet Suburban by officers who said he'd been driving 70 miles per hour in a 65-miles-per-hour zone. Police said there were nine passengers in the vehicle and no luggage, raising suspicions of smuggling. Abrego Garcia told officers he was driving construction workers from St. Louis to Maryland on behalf of his boss.
The highway-patrol officers reported the incident to federal authorities, but Abrego Garcia was not charged and allowed to continue the journey. Police-bodycam footage of the stop was obtained and released by the Trump administration as it called him a 'human trafficker' and later alleged, citing unnamed cooperating witnesses, that Abrego Garcia transported thousands of migrants during smuggling trips across the United States as part of a conspiracy dating back to 2016 that earned him roughly $100,000 a year.
Joseph, the Homeland Security investigator, said cooperating witnesses told him more: that Abrego Garcia transported guns and narcotics, that he sexually abused younger female passengers in his care, and that he routinely endangered underage minors, including his own children, whom he left sitting without seat belts on the floor of the vehicle during lengthy trips from Texas to Maryland. The government made its claims to convince Judge Holmes that Abrego Garcia should remain in federal custody while awaiting his criminal trial.
Holmes was not swayed. The defense attorneys representing Abrego Garcia pointed out that the government was relying on stories transmitted through multiple levels of hearsay—claims made outside court, not under oath—by cooperating witnesses seeking some benefit from the government.
'You've got agents going to jails and prisons around the United States right now trying to talk to people who you think might know something about Mr. Abrego?' the federal public defender Dumaka Shabazz asked Joseph, the investigator.
'They have done it through the course of the investigation, yes, sir,' Joseph answered.
Shabazz told the court that the first cooperator, 'despite all of his deportations, his criminal history, being the criminal mastermind behind a transport business,' was 'chilling at the halfway house.'
'He's not in jail. He's not getting deported. He's living his life right here in the United States of America. But he sounds like the exact type of person that this government should be wanting to deport.'
Holmes largely agreed, issuing a decision Sunday denying the government's attempt to keep Abrego Garica locked up. Her decision did not seem to bode well for the evidence and testimony the government is preparing against Abrego Garcia.
Holmes said she gave 'little weight to this hearsay testimony' of the top cooperating witness, whom she called 'a two-time, previously-deported felon, and acknowledged ringleader of a human smuggling operation.' Holmes wrote that she considered the hearsay statements of the second cooperator no more reliable.
Furthermore, she said the testimony and statements 'defy common sense,' because she did not believe the claims that Abrego Garcia drove thousands of miles every week with his children—two of whom have autism—sitting on the floor.
Another federal judge in Tennessee decided on Wednesday that Abrego Garcia should not remain in criminal custody. District Court Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, who is overseeing the criminal case, said the government had largely failed to prove he was a flight risk or a threat to the community.
The Trump administration made clear that as soon as Abrego Garcia was released, ICE could immediately take him back into custody. Then it played a new card, warning that ICE could try to deport Abrego Garcia before the criminal case goes to trial. By threatening to deport Abrego Garcia again, the government was pressuring his legal team and the judge to agree to his continued detention.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia was never coming back. Then he did.
Crenshaw tried to shift responsibility from his courtroom back to the administration, saying the Justice Department needed to convey its deportation concerns to DHS, which oversees ICE, not him. 'If the Government finds this case to be as high priority as it argues here, it is incumbent upon it to ensure that Abrego is held accountable for the charges in the Indictment,' Crenshaw wrote. 'If the Department of Justice and DHS cannot do so, that speaks for itself.'
egotiations over where Abrego Garcia should go next ping-ponged through the courts yesterday, as his lawyers reacted to the administration saying one thing in court and other things publicly.
At first, Abrego Garcia's attorneys in Maryland asked the district court to have him transferred there while he awaits the Tennessee criminal trial. 'Absent order from this Court, the Government will likely shuttle Abrego Garcia elsewhere,' they wrote.
The attorneys said the government's public statements 'leave little doubt about its plan: remove Abrego Garcia to El Salvador once more.' The last time the government detained Abrego Garcia for deportation, they noted, it sent him to detention facilities in Louisiana and Texas, a move they said was part of a 'pattern' in which the administration sends detainees to those states in anticipation that the more conservative federal courts in that circuit are likelier to side with the government.
The administration's position became even more muddled after a Justice Department attorney told the court in Maryland that the administration was indeed planning to deport Abrego Garcia if he's released from custody but would send him to a country other than El Salvador. Abrego Garcia's 2019 protections—the ones the Trump administration violated—prevent his deportation only to El Salvador. The Trump administration has secured agreements with Guatemala, Honduras, and other countries around the region to take back deportees from other nations.
The rushed, blundering effort to send deportees to third countries
Jackson, the White House spokesperson, said on social media last night that the Department of Justice threat to deport Abrego Garcia was 'fake news' and that the criminal case in Tennessee would go forward. 'He will face the full force of the American justice system - including serving time in American prison for the crimes he's committed,' Jackson wrote.
In response to the mixed messages and distrust of the government's intentions, Abrego Garcia's lawyers wrote today that they would rather keep him in jail than trust the administration not to deport him. 'When Mr. Abrego revealed the weaknesses in that case—securing the pretrial release to which he is entitled—the government threatened to remove him to a third country,' they wrote.
Government attorneys said they intend to 'see this case to resolution,' a message echoed by White House officials.
But if Abrego Garcia were poised to walk out of detention and reunite with his family as news cameras rolled, those involved know the administration could be tempted to do something drastic, even if it meant ditching their own case.
'Anything is possible,' an attorney who is tracking the case but did not want to be named told me. 'It seems clear they are committed to not allowing him to be at liberty during the case.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Justices' nerves fray in Supreme Court's final stretch
Justices' nerves fray in Supreme Court's final stretch

Politico

time36 minutes ago

  • Politico

Justices' nerves fray in Supreme Court's final stretch

The Supreme Court's nine justices often like to tout their camaraderie, hoping to dispel public perceptions that they are locked into warring ideological camps. But the final rulings of the current term — issued from the bench during a tense 90-minute court session Friday — revealed some acrimonious, even acidic, exchanges. Most of the rhetorical clashes pitted the court's conservative and liberal wings against each other in politically polarized cases. But not all of the spats fell squarely along ideological lines. On the whole, they paint a picture of nine people who are deeply divided over the law and the role of the courts — and who also may just not like each other very much. The most acerbic feud Friday came in the biggest ruling of the year: the justices' 6-3 decision granting the Trump administration's bid to rein in the power of individual district court judges to block federal government policies nationwide. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court's entire conservative supermajority, responded sharply to a pair of dissents, one written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the other written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. But Barrett reserved her most pointed barbs for Jackson. Barrett, a Trump appointee and the second-most-junior justice, accused Jackson, a Biden appointee and the court's most junior member, of mounting 'a startling line of attack' not 'tethered … to any doctrine whatsoever.' According to Barrett, Jackson was promoting 'a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,' and she was skipping over legal issues she considers 'boring.' 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,' wrote Barrett. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' Well, maybe not 'only' that. While insisting she wouldn't 'dwell' on Jackson's arguments, Barrett wound up devoting nearly 900 words to them, capping the passage off with another zinger suggesting hypocrisy on Jackson's part. 'Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: 'Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,'' Barrett wrote. 'That goes for judges too.' For her part, Jackson accused Barrett and the other conservatives of an obsession with 'impotent English tribunals' and of blessing a 'zone of lawlessness.' 'What the majority has done is allow the Executive to nullify the statutory and constitutional rights of the uncounseled, the underresourced, and the unwary, by prohibiting the lower courts from ordering the Executive to follow the law across the board,' Jackson declared. Although 42 percent of the court's opinions this term were unanimous, this week's decisions continued the pattern of liberals often finding themselves on the losing end of 6-3 rulings in the hardest-fought and most impactful cases. So, perhaps it's no surprise that the liberal justices are the ones to often paint the court's decisions in grave, even apocalyptic, terms. The court's 6-3 decision that public-school parents must be allowed to pull their children out of lessons involving LGBTQ-themed books produced a fiery dissent from Sotomayor. She predicted a 'nightmare' for school as parents choose to pull their kids out of lessons they disapprove of on topics ranging from evolution to the role of women in society to vaccines. The ensuing 'chaos' and self-censorship by schools threatens to end American public education as we know it, she said. 'Today's ruling threatens the very essence of public education,' Sotomayor wrote. 'The reverberations of the Court's error will be felt, I fear, for generations.' While the liberal justices more often found themselves on the losing side than the conservatives, some members of the court's right flank also found occasion to voice grave concerns about select rulings. Consider a decision issued Friday involving an FCC fund that supports broadband access in rural areas. It's not exactly a hot culture-war issue. And a mixed coalition of three conservatives and three liberals joined together to uphold the fund. But Justice Neil Gorsuch, animated by the case's implications for the balance of power between Congress and federal agencies, filed a lengthy dissent that accused the majority of embarking on a judicial 'misadventure' and deploying 'ludicrously hypothetical' reasoning. The majority, he wrote, 'defies the Constitution's command' that power be divided among the branches. A day earlier, Gorsuch had exchanged sharp words with Jackson — but this time, he was in the majority. Jackson, in an opinion joined by the court's other two liberals, suggested the conservative majority's decision allowing South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program there amounted to a continuation of the long campaign by racists and segregationists in the South to resist federal civil rights laws enacted in the wake of the Civil War. 'A century and a half later, the project of stymying one of the country's great civil rights laws continues,' Jackson wrote. Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, dismissed the inflammatory claim out of hand, calling it 'extravagant.' Jackson has also used stark language in dissents from rulings on the court's emergency docket. In April, she predicted 'devastation' from the Trump administration suspension of education grants and called the court's decision to allow the cuts to proceed 'in equal parts unprincipled and unfortunate.' One of the major surprises Friday was the court's decision to pass up issuing any opinion in the term's big redistricting case. It involved the Louisiana legislature's creation of a second majority-Black congressional district after courts ordered the legislature to do so to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Although the justices heard the case in March, they ordered that the case be reargued, likely this fall. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing alone, scolded his colleagues for copping out despite a full round of legal briefing and 80 minutes of oral arguments on the issue. 'The Court today punts without explanation,' Thomas complained. The way to resolve the Louisiana case 'should be straightforward,' the court's longest-serving justice said. Then he stepped up his rhetoric another notch, declaring that the court had not only failed to explain its action but that it defied any logic whatsoever. 'The Court … inexplicably schedules these cases for reargument,' Thomas griped. The consternation displayed by the justices this week came as one of their former colleagues, retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, issued an impassioned warning that 'hostile, fractious discourse' was tearing at the fabric of American democracy. To be sure, there are no outward signs the acrimony at the high court has reached the levels it did in 2022, following POLITICO's publication of a draft of the court's not-yet-released opinion overturning the federal constitutional right to an abortion. Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee, said then that trust at the court was 'gone forever.' And after that bombshell ruling was officially published, Justice Elena Kagan accused the court of making political decisions. The Obama appointee said only 'time will tell' if the justices could again find 'common ground.' While the justices' disagreement in the major cases often seemed stark this week, there were occasional efforts to bridge the divide. Playing a role he often adopts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed eager to downplay the practical significance of the court's ruling barring nationwide injunctions in most instances. Kavanaugh said the district court injunctions at issue are rarely 'the last word' in high-profile fights over executive power. Those battles ultimately end up at the Supreme Court, he argued, so whether a district court's injunction is enforced nationwide or not matters less than what the justices decide on the slew of emergency applications landing on their so-called shadow docket. 'When a stay or injunction application arrives here, this Court should not and cannot hide in the tall grass,' wrote Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee. During speaking appearances last month, Chief Justice John Roberts insisted the justices aren't at each other's throats, despite the tone of some of the opinions that come out as the court winds down its work for the term. 'I'm sure people listening to the news or reading our decisions, particularly decisions that come out in May and June, maybe think, 'Boy, those people really must hate each other. They must be at hammer and tong the whole time,'' the chief justice told an audience in Buffalo. However, Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, also said the court's summer recess is a welcome respite not only from work, but from colleagues. 'That break is critical to maintaining a level of balance,' he said. Roberts, who traditionally teaches a legal course overseas during the summer and lounges at his vacation home in Maine, has one more official gig before he heads out. He's scheduled to speak Saturday morning to a judicial conference in North Carolina, where he'll have a chance to offer his latest thoughts on whether his colleagues are grating on each other or getting along.

House Democrats not convinced Iran nuclear capabilities wiped
House Democrats not convinced Iran nuclear capabilities wiped

The Hill

time37 minutes ago

  • The Hill

House Democrats not convinced Iran nuclear capabilities wiped

The Big Story A House briefing from Trump administration officials on last weekend's strikes against Iranian nuclear sites has done little to mollify the concerns of Democrats, who say they were presented little evidence that the attacks will prevent Tehran from producing nuclear weapons. © Greg Nash Skeptical Democrats had gone into the briefing with two pressing questions: Did Iran pose an imminent threat to Americans, thereby justifying President Trump's move to launch the strikes without congressional approval? And did the attacks 'obliterate' Iran's capacity to make nuclear weapons, as Trump has claimed? Leaving the closed-door gathering, Democrats said they got satisfactory answers to neither question. 'I would say that that particular briefing left me with more concerns and a true lack of clarity on how we are defining the mission and the success of it,' said Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.), the Democratic whip. Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), a former nuclear physicist, said the U.S. strikes likely knocked out Iran's centrifuges and other infrastructure required to enrich uranium in the future. But there's no evidence, he said, that the attacks destroyed Iran's existing stockpiles of enriched uranium. If those are intact, he warned, Iran could still produce weapons with the strength of a Hiroshima bomb in 'a very small breakout time.' 'The goal of this mission, from the start, was to secure or destroy that material,' he said. 'That's where they're hiding the ball. And that's what we have to keep our eyes on.' Friday's House briefing came six days after Trump ordered strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to dismantle Tehran's ability to produce nuclear weapons. The briefing was conducted by top administration officials — including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — who had also briefed Senate lawmakers a day earlier. Trump has repeatedly said the mission was an unqualified success, 'obliterating' Iran's nuclear capacity and setting the program back by years. And the president's GOP allies in the Capitol echoed that message after the briefing. 'It is clear, everyone can see by the videos, that these massive ordinance penetrating bombs did the job,' Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said. 'I think their key facilities have been disabled, and I think Iran is now a long time away from doing what they might have done before this very successful operation.' A preliminary report from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reached different conclusions, finding that the strikes set back Iran's nuclear program by months, rather than years. More recent statements from the CIA and Trump's head of national intelligence have disputed the DIA report, creating mixed messages from the administration about the success of the mission. Read the full report at Welcome to The Hill's Defense & National Security newsletter, I'm Ellen Mitchell — your guide to the latest developments at the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill and beyond. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will affect defense and national security now and inthe future: Iran's foreign minister: Israel had to run to 'daddy' Iran 'showed the world that the Israeli regime had NO Choice but to RUN to 'Daddy' to avoid being flattened out by our missiles,' wrote Seyeb Abbas Araghchi, Iran's Foreign Minister, on X. This comes amid a back and forth between Iran and the U.S. after the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei spoke for the first time since the U.S. strikes. 'My congratulations on our dear Iran's victory over the US regime,' … Senate blocks Iran war powers resolution The Senate blocked an effort Friday to prevent President Trump from taking future military action against Iran without authorization from Congress, less than a week after he directed strikes aimed at the country's nuclear capabilities. Senators voted 47-53 largely along party lines against the war powers resolution. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was the lone GOP lawmaker to vote with Democrats. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), … Schiff: 'Too many unknowns' to claim 'victory' in stopping Iran nuclear weapons Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Friday it's 'premature' for anyone to be claiming that Iran will not try to continue its nuclear program. 'The Iranian regime had not made a decision to build a bomb, was not pursuing the mechanism of a bomb, even though it was enriching uranium,' he said in Friday comments on ABC News Live. Over the past week, there has been heavy debate over whether the U.S. strikes in Iran on June 21 … McConnell: Trump has 'some pretty rabid isolationists over at' DOD Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took a swipe at President Trump's national security team in a rare interview as part of a recent pattern of public comments urging the president to consider military intervention in Iran and elsewhere more favorably. 'He's got some pretty rabid isolationists over at [the Department of Defense] — you could argue the vice president is in that group,' the former Senate Republican leader told Politico. … On Our Radar Upcoming things we're watching on our beat: In Other News Branch out with a different read from The Hill: Senators diverge sharply on damage done by Iran strikes after classified briefing WASHINGTON (AP) — Senators emerged from a classified briefing Thursday with sharply diverging assessments of President Donald Trump's bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites, with Republicans calling the mission a clear success and Democrats expressing deep skepticism. CIA Director John Ratcliffe, … On Tap Monday Events in and around the defense world: What We're Reading News we've flagged from other outlets: Trending Today Two key stories on The Hill right now: GOP leader sets Saturday vote on Trump 'big, beautiful bill' despite Republican pushback Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told Senate Republicans to expect to see the legislative text of the budget reconciliation package on Friday … Read more Trump approval underwater, voters say US is on wrong track: Poll President Trump's approval rating is underwater and a majority of voters believe the country is on the wrong track, according to a poll released Friday. … Read more Opinions in The Hill Op-eds related to defense & national security submitted to The Hill: Check out The Hill's Defense page for the latest coverage. You're all caught up. See you next time! Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here

Birthright citizenship remains law of the land — for now — despite SCOTUS ruling
Birthright citizenship remains law of the land — for now — despite SCOTUS ruling

New York Post

time41 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Birthright citizenship remains law of the land — for now — despite SCOTUS ruling

Birthright citizenship remains a fact of life in the US — for now — following the Supreme Court's ruling Friday limiting judges' ability to issue universal injunctions halting executive action. Moments after the 6-3 ruling, the Trump administration announced plans to move forward with the president's Day One executive order redefining the 14th Amendment's promise that '[a]ll 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.' 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, and some of the cases we're talking about would be ending birthright citizenship, which now comes to the fore,' President Trump said during a rare appearance in the White House briefing room. Advertisement The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling did not judge the birthright citizenship question on its merits. Eric Kayne/ZUMA / 'That was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation.' 'Yes, birthright citizenship will be decided in October in the next session by the Supreme Court,' Attorney General Pam Bondi affirmed moments later, even though the high court has yet to finalize its argument schedule and no cases related to the executive order have been picked for review by the justices. Advertisement In an opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court ruled that the practice of a single district judge issuing a nationwide ruling 'likely exceed' the authority laid out by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Notably, the court did not decide whether Trump's actual order was constitutional. 'If there's a birthright citizenship case in Oregon, it will only affect the plaintiff in Oregon, not the entire country,' was how Bondi explained the ruling. Trump's order would limit US citizenship to children who have at least one parent who is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident. Advertisement The action was enjoined three days after Trump signed it by a Seattle federal judge, who called the move 'blatantly unconstitutional.' President Trump said the administration now can go forward with 'numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.' On Friday afternoon, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a fresh class-action lawsuit challenging the birthright citizenship order, a legal maneuver which must meet certain requirements before getting a hearing. 'This new case seeks protection for all families in the country, filling the gaps that may be left by the existing litigation,' the organization said in a press release. Advertisement The 22 Democrat-led states that challenged Trump's order also expressed confidence that it would never be enforced. 'We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land,' said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, 'and of course birthright citizenship as well.' Locally, a City Hall spokesperson confirmed to The Post that Friday's Supreme Court ruling has no effect on New York City at this time. With Post wires

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store