Latest news with #14thAmendmentoftheConstitution
Los Angeles Times
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling
WASHINGTON — The legal battle over President Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite his major Supreme Court victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with a more than century-old constitutional precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of Trump's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in part to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved Americans, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused reentry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States, no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a few exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump signed an executive order upon assuming office in January that seeks to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The order is part of the president's hard-line anti-immigration agenda, and he has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' — which they contend means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Md., a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued are usurping the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities on immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review' in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of policies across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and chief executive of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.' Sullivan and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court to hear birthright citizenship challenge
The Brief Supreme Court considers birthright citizenship case, which also impacts judicial authority Trump administration seeks policy enforcement in some states. Legal experts debate constitutional interpretation. WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court will take up arguments Thursday that could have sweeping impacts across the nation. The matter is on challenges filed in federal court to President Donald Trump's Executive Order to restrict birthright citizenship. Also being taken up in this case is judicial power and whether federal judges have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions. President Trump and his administration have been calling on the Supreme Court to stop what the administration has referred to as "activist judges" after a number of changes initiated by the president have been halted by three district courts around the country. The Associated Press says Appeals courts declined to "disturb those rulings" with the Department of Justice arguing individual judges do not have the authority to issue nation-wide injunctions. Back in January, President Trump signed an Executive Order that ends automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to mothers in the country illegally or non-permanent residents. Birthright citizenship and equal protections under the law have been protected under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution for over a century. There are exceptions that include children born of foreign diplomats and children born from members of an invading army. Several groups and multiple statues sued. The response — a nationwide injunction preventing the order from taking effect. In arguments to start Thursday, the Trump Administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to move forward with the executive order in the states that did not sue, as legal battles continue in the states that did. Many of those who joined coalition and states in suing are pregnant women, concerned their children will be left in limbo. One spoke with FOX 5's Katie Barlow back in January, explaining that she fled Venezuela for fear of political persecution. READ MORE: Trump's birthright citizenship ban: Pregnant women file federal lawsuit to overturn Ventezi Nelson spoke with FOX 5 while waiting in line for the Thursday arguments to begin. He says he flew in from North Dakota to hear the case in-person. The first line of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution reads: "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." An expert explained to FOX 5, the president's executive order takes on a different interpretation of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," to mean more of whether you have a political allegiance of the United States. "I was born in Bulgaria. I became a naturalized citizen, and I don't know what this means if the Supreme Court decides to support Trump and his efforts to dismantle the balance of powers — check and balances — and what this means for the future of what this country stands for," said Nelson. Oral arguments begin at 10 a.m. READ MORE: Maryland judge becomes second to block Trump's birthright citizenship order Section 1 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2 Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4 The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5 The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. MORE DETAILS on The Source Information in this article comes from The Associated Press &
Boston Globe
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Is this Supreme Court case about birthright citizenship? Yes and no.
For now, the justices have been asked to look only at the legality of the nationwide pauses, which are called national injunctions, that are blocking Trump's executive order that would end birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants in the country illegally and some temporary foreign residents. A case focused on the policy itself — whether the 14th Amendment of the Constitution requires birthright citizenship for children born on American soil — could come later, but lawsuits challenging the policy are still at early stages in federal trial courts. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The constitutionality of Trump's executive order may well come up, along with the practicality of allowing patchwork citizenship rules in different states should the justices decide that national injunctions are not allowed. Advertisement But the bulk of the argument Thursday from three lawyers -- the U.S. solicitor general, D. John Sauer; the New Jersey solicitor general; and a lawyer arguing on behalf of immigrant advocacy groups and individuals — is expected to concern the legality of injunctions and whether a single federal judge can issue an order temporarily freezing a policy for the entire country. Nationwide injunctions have been a contentious subject for years. The tool has been used under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Advertisement Although the Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling that squarely addresses nationwide injunctions, some of the conservative justices have expressed skepticism that federal courts can block policies for the entire country. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in an opinion in 2020, criticized injunctions of ''nationwide,' 'universal' or 'cosmic' scope,' writing that such 'patently unworkable' rulings were 'sowing chaos.' In a dissent in an emergency application in March, Justice Samuel Alito criticized 'the unchecked power' of a district judge who had ordered the State Department to release roughly $2 billion to contractors for the U.S. Agency for International Development. Justices Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh joined him. In a friend-of-the-court brief, Mila Sohoni, a law professor at Stanford who has published law review articles arguing that such injunctions are constitutional, argued that nationwide injunctions were the best way to keep the status quo in place while lower court challenges proceed, preventing a patchwork of policies. Opponents say these injunctions give far too much power to a single judge and improperly thwart national policies. The West Virginia attorney general's office, in a friend-of-the-court brief, argued that 'broad injunctions like those seen here invite all sorts of mischief' and are an improper overreach of federal courts that comes 'at the expense of state power.' This article originally appeared in .
New York Times
15-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Is This Supreme Court Case About Birthright Citizenship? Yes and No.
When the justices hear oral arguments on Thursday in a challenge related to President Trump's ban on birthright citizenship, they will face an issue that sounds like a blockbuster: Can the president upend birthright citizenship, long held up as a bedrock of the United States? But the legal question before the justices is actually much narrower. For now, the justices have been asked to look only at the legality of the nationwide pauses, which are called national injunctions, that are blocking President Trump's executive order that would end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary foreign residents. A case focused on the policy itself — whether the 14th Amendment of the Constitution requires birthright citizenship for children born on American soil — could come later, but lawsuits challenging the policy are still at early stages in federal trial courts. The constitutionality of Mr. Trump's executive order may well come up, along with the practicality of allowing patchwork citizenship rules in different states should the justices decide that national injunctions are not allowed. But the bulk of the argument Thursday from three lawyers — the U.S. solicitor general, D. John Sauer; the New Jersey solicitor general; and a lawyer arguing on behalf of immigrant advocacy groups and individuals — is expected to concern the legality of injunctions, and whether a single federal judge can issue an order temporarily freezing a policy for the entire country. Nationwide injunctions have been a contentious subject for years. The tool has been used under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Although the Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling that squarely addresses nationwide injunctions, some of the conservative justices have expressed skepticism that federal courts can block policies for the entire country. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, in an opinion in 2020, criticized injunctions of ''nationwide,' 'universal' or 'cosmic' scope,' writing that such 'patently unworkable' rulings were 'sowing chaos.' In a dissent in an emergency application in March, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. criticized 'the unchecked power' of a district judge who had ordered the State Department to release roughly $2 billion to contractors for the U.S. Agency for International Development. Justices Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh joined him. In a friend-of-the-court brief, Mila Sohoni, a law professor at Stanford who has published law review articles arguing that such injunctions are constitutional, argued that nationwide injunctions were the best way to keep the status quo in place while lower court challenges proceed, preventing a patchwork of policies. Opponents say these injunctions give far too much power to a single judge and improperly thwart national policies. The West Virginia attorney general's office, in a friend-of-the-court brief, argued that 'broad injunctions like those seen here invite all sorts of mischief' and are an improper overreach of federal courts that comes 'at the expense of state power.'
Boston Globe
30-03-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Trump's second term is fueling the power of boycotts
Advertisement Many Target customers, especially Black shoppers, responded by spending their dollars elsewhere. According to Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up 'We're asking people to divest from Target because they have turned their back on our community,' the Rev. Jamal Bryant, the boycott's organizer and senior pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church near Atlanta, told CNN in March. Corporate America is learning that political cowardice comes with a financial cost. And that's far from the only boycott in response to Trump, his corporate abettors, or Elon Musk, his unelected billionaire sugar daddy. Other companies bending to Trump's will, including Amazon, Walmart, and Mark Zuckerberg's Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, have also been hit with boycotts. And then there's Tesla. Since Musk, with Trump's blessing, insinuated himself into the federal government seemingly for the sole purpose of destroying it, Tesla stock has On any given day, hundreds gather to protest in front of the Advertisement Since desperate times for Musk call for dumb measures, the president hawked Teslas on the White House lawn like some late-night infomercial peddler. 'I mean, who wouldn't invest in Elon Musk?' Lutkin said. The answer came quickly when Tesla stock again dropped after his comments. A boycott has always been a powerful tool. It is, perhaps, the simplest form of direct resistance — don't give your money to companies whose actions contradict your values. In one of this nation's most famous boycotts, more than 40,000 Black people — the majority of the bus riders in Montgomery, Ala. — turned to other means of transportation when Rosa Parks, a seamstress and NAACP secretary, was arrested in 1955 for refusing to move to the back of the bus as laws dictated for Black riders. Instead of taking the bus, Black people walked. They carpooled with friends and neighbors. Black taxi drivers charged Black customers 10 cents a ride, the same price as bus fare. They absorbed the losses to keep the boycott going. After 381 days, which included threats and intimidation, the boycott ended when the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that racially segregated seating on buses violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law. Coming months after the lynching of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old Black boy from Chicago who was kidnapped, tortured, and killed by two white men while visiting relatives in Mississippi, the bus boycott became a seminal moment in the civil rights movement. Advertisement In her 2018 book, 'History Teaches Us to Resist: How Progressive Moments Have Succeeded in Challenging Times,' Mary Frances Berry, a historian and legal scholar, wrote, 'It's crucial to recognize that resistance works even if it does not achieve all of the movement's goals, and that movements are always necessary, because major change will engender resistance, which must be addressed.' Target and other large corporations that ditched DEI initiatives or have aligned with Trump will survive these boycotts. But damage to their brand image and reputation will linger and the financial jolts will be acute. As for Teslas, even those reluctantly keeping the cars are broadcasting their feelings with bumper stickers like 'Eco Friendly, Not Elon Friendly.' Today's boycotts link arms across generations with those that came before and defined consumers' political power. As Benjamin F. Chavis Jr., president and CEO of the National Newspaper Publishers Association, an organization of Black newspaper publishers, told the Washington Informer, 'If corporations believe they can roll back diversity commitments without consequence, they are mistaken.' And those mistakes will continue to eat into corporate America's bottom line, one boycott at a time. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
