Latest news with #14thamendment
The Guardian
30-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
UCLA agrees to $6.5m settlement with Jewish students over pro-Palestinian protests
The University of California, Los Angeles, will pay nearly $6.5m to settle a lawsuit by Jewish students and a professor who said the university allowed antisemitic discrimination to take place on campus during last year's pro-Palestinian protests. The lawsuit alleged that with the 'knowledge and acquiescence' of university officials, protesters prevented Jewish students from accessing parts of campus, and made antisemitic threats. Under the settlement agreement announced on Tuesday, the university admitted it had 'fallen short' and agreed to pay $2.33m to eight groups that support UCLA's Jewish community, $320,000 to a campus initiative to fight antisemitism, and $50,000 to each plaintiff. 'We are pleased with the terms of today's settlement. The injunction and other terms UCLA has agreed to demonstrate real progress in the fight against antisemitism,' the parties said in a joint statement provided by the University of California. On Tuesday, the Trump administration announced the US Department of Justice's civil rights division found UCLA violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students'. 'UCLA failed to take timely and appropriate action in response to credible claims of harm and hostility on its campus,' said Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general of the justice department's civil rights division. The university has said that it is committed to campus safety and will continue to implement recommendations. UCLA was the site of massive protests last year amid a wave of campus demonstrations nationwide in response to the war in Gaza, in which Israeli forces have killed more than 60,000 Palestinians, which experts say is probably an undercount. The protests at UCLA attracted national attention, particularly after counter-protesters staged a violent attack on pro-Palestinian demonstrators. UCLA also faces a lawsuit from more than 30 pro-Palestinian protesters who say the university was negligent during the 'brutal mob assault' on the encampment and that officials did not intervene. 'This was four-plus hours of unmitigated violence while UCLA private security stood sometimes feet away and did nothing to protect the faculty, students and community members protesting genocide,' Thomas Harvey, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said earlier this year. The lawsuit that was settled this week was filed last year. This spring the Department of Justice announced it would investigate the University of California system for possible antisemitic discrimination and violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The university said it had taken 'substantive action' to combat antisemitism, including publicizing information about campus bans on encampments, opposing calls to boycott Israel and publishing a systemwide anti-discrimination policy. 'Antisemitism, harassment and other forms of intimidation are antithetical to our values and have no place at the University of California. We have been clear about where we have fallen short, and we are committed to doing better moving forward,' said Janet Reilly, the UC board of regents chair. 'Today's settlement reflects a critically important goal that we share with the plaintiffs: to foster a safe, secure and inclusive environment for all members of our community and ensure that there is no room for antisemitism anywhere.'
ABC News
10-07-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
Court blocks Donald Trump's birthright citizenship order for illegal migrants
A federal judge has blocked an executive order by US President Donald Trump that would have ended the ability for the children of illegal migrants to claim birthright citizenship. Mr Trump issued the order upon his return to the White House in January, in effect denying citizenship to those born to parents living in the US illegally or temporarily. But the order has been appealed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their infants on the grounds that it may infringe on the US constitution's 14th amendment. The ruling by Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire puts the birthright citizenship issue en route to the Supreme Court. Judge LaPlante issued a preliminary injunction blocking Mr Trump's order and certified a class action lawsuit including all children who will be affected. "This is going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order," said Cody Wofsy, an attorney for the plaintiffs. The order, which followed an hour-long hearing, included a seven-day stay to allow for appeal. Numerous cases have been launched since Mr Trump's January order denying citizenship to those born to parents living in the US illegally or temporarily. In the New Hampshire case, the plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and others. Lawyers for the US government had been arguing in court that the 14th amendment had been misinterpreted, and that the US could deny citizenship to children of women in the country illegally. "Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country's sovereignty, national security, and economic stability," government lawyers wrote. Judge LaPlante said while he didn't consider the government's arguments frivolous, he found them unpersuasive. He said his decision to issue an injunction was "not a close call" and that deprivation of US citizenship clearly amounted to irreparable harm. "[Citizenship] is the greatest privilege that exists in the world," he said. Judge LePlante's decision means the birthright citizenship issue is likely to return to the Supreme Court. The justices could be asked to rule whether the order complies with their decision last month limiting judges' authority to issue nationwide injunctions. Several federal judges had issued nationwide injunctions stopping Mr Trump's order from taking effect, but the US Supreme Court limited those injunctions in a June 27 ruling that gave lower courts 30 days to act. With that timeframe in mind, opponents of the change quickly returned to court to try to block it. AP
Time of India
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Melania should be on first boat: Deportation calls for US' First Lady gains traction amid Trump's immigration crackdown
Petition calling for Melania's deportation Live Events Melania Trump visa controversy (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Americans have started a petition asking the US government to deport Melania Trump, her parents and Barron Trump amid the President's plan to target naturalised citizens for deportation. A petition on MoveOn has gained traction online demanding that US First Lady Melania Trump her son Barron, and her parents also be deported, reports The Irish petition says that since the President wants to deport naturalized citizens, "it's only fair that Melania and her parents are on the first boat out." This comes as the Department of Justice began to prioritize stripping naturalized Americans of their citizenship when charged with petition claims that since Melania Trump is a naturalised citizen, she and her family should be 'on the first boat out' if Trump's proposals are applied also refers to Barron Trump as an 'anchor baby' and cites the birth of Melania's mother outside the US as part of the criteria Trump's policy reportedly Anchor Baby is a term used to refer to a child born to a non-citizen mother in the US, especially when viewed as providing an advantage to family members seeking to secure citizenship or legal residency.'Since Trump wants to deport naturalized citizens, I believe it is only fair that Melania and her parents are on the first boat out,' the page reads. 'In addition, Melania's anchor baby, Baron, should be forced to leave as well because we know that his mother's mother was born in a different country. That is part of the criteria that Trump is putting into place. Your mother's mother has to have been born in the United States and we know Melania's mother was born elsewhere. If it's good for one, it's good for all! There should be no exceptions! On the first boat or flight out!'The petition further argued that the move would prevent perceptions of favoritism, adding, "If this is truly about national security, then Melania needs to go!" The remarks reflected growing public frustration over what many viewed as double standards in Trump's deportation though the petition was launched five months ago, it has gained popularity over the last few months, going from 100 signatures two days ago to over 3,300 at the time of publication. Earlier this year, Congresswoman Maxine Waters called for the deportation of Melania, saying Trump should "first look at Melania's records.' Waters' remarks came after Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office seeking to restrict birthright citizenship by reinterpreting the 14th amendment. The order is currently under judicial review."When he [Trump] talks about birthright, and he's going to undo the fact that the Constitution allows those who are born here, even if the parents are undocumented, they have a right to stay in America. If he wants to start looking so closely to find those who were born here and their parents were undocumented, maybe he ought to first look at Melania," Waters was seen saying from the stage, various videos posted on social media showed, Fox News added, "We don't know whether or not her parents were documented. And maybe we better just take a look." According to Fox News, her remarks were met with loud cheers from protestors at the rally, which focused on opposing Trump's federal government downsizing Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett turned her sights on First Lady Melania Trump over her visa."We don't know whether or not her parents were documented. And maybe we better just take a look," Waters said at a rally. 'If he wants to start looking so closely to find those who were born here and their parents were undocumented, maybe he ought to first look at Melania.''The first lady, a model—and when I say model, I'm not talking Tyra Banks, Cindy Crawford, or Naomi Campbell-level—applied for and was given an EB-1 visa,' Crockett said.'Let me tell you how you receive an Einstein visa,' she said, 'you're supposed to have some sort of significant achievement, like being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize or a Pulitzer, being an Olympic medallist, or having other sustained extraordinary abilities and success in sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. Last time I checked, the first lady had none of those accolades under her belt. It doesn't take an Einstein to see that the math ain't mathin' here.'Melania was born in Slovenia in 1970 and moved to New York in 1996. She is the first Lady of the United States to become a naturalized citizen. She was a Slovenian model living in New York when she applied for the EB-1 in 2000. The visa was approved in 2001, and she became a US citizen in 2006. That citizenship later allowed her to sponsor her parents for green about her immigration status before she got her green card in 2001 have remained unclear, often kicking off conspiracy theories about whether or not she had maintained legal immigration 2018, The New York Times reported that Melania sponsored her parents, Viktor and Amalija Knavs, for green cards and later citizenship. Amalija Knavs passed away in 2024, while Viktor Knavs has been seen at recent public events with the Trump familyHowever, Robert Scott, an immigration attorney based in New York, told Fact Check last year: 'There's really no sound argument that any of Donald's children are not U.S. citizens.' The 14th Amendment states, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.'
Time of India
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
‘On the first boat out': Viral petition seeks Melania's deportation; says Trump's policy must apply to all
ANI photo As criticism grows over US president Donald Trump's reported plan to target naturalised citizens for deportation, a petition on MoveOn has gone viral, demanding that US first lady Melania Trump, her son Barron, and her parents also be deported. The petition claims that since Melania is a naturalised citizen, she and her family should be 'on the first boat out' if Trump's proposals are applied fairly. It also refers to Barron Trump as an 'anchor baby' and cites the birth of Melania's mother outside the US as part of the criteria Trump's policy reportedly targets. 'If it's good for one, it's good for all. There should be no exceptions,' the petition reads. It adds that removing the first lady would prevent any perception of double standards, saying, 'If this is truly about national security, then Melania needs to go.' According to Fox News, the petition surfaced soon after Congresswoman Maxine Waters, speaking at an anti-DOGE protest in Los Angeles on 25 March, questioned Melania Trump's immigration history. 'Maybe he ought to first look at Melania,' she said, referring to Trump's comments about changing birthright citizenship. Waters also said it was unclear whether Melania's parents were documented when they came to the US. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo Melania Trump was born in the former Yugoslavia and became a US citizen in 2006. She is the first US first lady to be naturalised and only the second to be born outside the country. The New York Times reported in 2018 that she sponsored her parents for green cards and later citizenship. Her mother, Amalija Knavs, died in 2024. Her father, Viktor Knavs, has recently appeared at public events with the Trump family. Waters' remarks came after Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office seeking to restrict birthright citizenship by reinterpreting the 14th amendment. The order is currently under judicial review. Waters' comments were met with loud cheers at the protest, where hundreds marched against Trump's federal downsising agenda. She also criticised Trump ally Elon Musk, saying, 'We are not going to let Trump, or Elon Musk, or anybody else take the United States constitution down.'
Mint
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Mint
A blow to judicial power and a win for Donald Trump
A year ago John Sauer, then Donald Trump's personal lawyer, persuaded six justices to hand the presidential candidate sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution. On June 27th Mr Sauer, now Mr Trump's solicitor general, notched another huge victory for his boss—one that will enhance the power of future presidents, too. Whereas Trump v United States articulated a capacious standard of presidential immunity and cleared the way for Mr Trump to complete his campaign free of legal jeopardy, Trump v CASA liberates him from nationwide injunctions—the most potent tool judges have been using to thwart his agenda. It was, as Mr Trump wrote on social media, a 'GIANT WIN'. On the surface, Trump v CASA was about Mr Trump's executive order denying citizenship to babies born to undocumented immigrants and temporary-visa holders. That proclamation, issued on his first day back in office, departed from more than 125 years of understanding that the 14th amendment promises citizenship to 'all persons born or naturalised' in America. Three district courts issued nationwide injunctions blocking the order, with one judge (appointed by Ronald Reagan) calling it 'blatantly unconstitutional'. But when the Department of Justice (DoJ) approached the Supreme Court, it did not request a wholesale reversal of any of these decisions—an apparent recognition that the justices, too, would likely see the order as unconstitutional. Instead the DoJ asked the justices to limit the injunctions to the litigants who brought the cases: a group of pregnant women, the members of two immigrants-right organisations and 22 states, plus San Francisco and the District of Columbia. By doing so the DoJ invited the justices to turn from the question of 'birthright citizenship' to the broader question of district judges usurping executive power by issuing nationwide or 'universal' injunctions. The tack may have been cynical, but it was effective. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's 26-page majority opinion is an indictment of such injunctions. The trend of individual district-court judges blocking presidential actions has held 'across administrations', wrote Justice Barrett. During the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, the tool was used about 25 times. Congress has granted judges 'no such power', she argued, and universal injunctions are not a valid application of the judicial role. The practice was unheard of until the 20th century. 'No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law,' she wrote. 'But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation'. The three liberal justices dissented vigorously. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that '[n]o right is safe in the new legal regime' of Trump v CASA. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the majority's decision gives the president authority 'to violate the constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued', posing 'an existential threat to the rule of law'. Soon, she cautioned, 'executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional republic will be no more'. To this, Justice Barrett had a rejoinder: 'When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' The blast zone from Trump v CASA could be wide. As the majority noted, judges across America have been issuing nationwide injunctions to stymie a host of Mr Trump's policies, from eliminating foreign aid appropriated by Congress to imposing new voter-identification rules. The DoJ is expected to promptly file motions to lift the injunctions. Moving forward, America's 677 district-court judges will be deprived of a particularly powerful tool. But there are other ways that the judicial system can deal with broad violations of the constitution or individual rights. One is class-action lawsuits, whereby one or several named plaintiffs, or an organisation, sue on behalf of similarly situated plaintiffs across America. All pregnant women without legal status, for example, could be a 'class' that courts recognise as entitled to relief from Mr Trump's birthright-citizenship proclamation. But this form of litigation has high procedural hurdles and classes can take months to certify—a process the Supreme Court has made increasingly difficult in recent years. In the case of birthright citizenship, there is another possibility that Justice Barrett's opinion explicitly leaves open to the lower courts. The cost and administrative burden of tracking the immigration status of babies traveling around the country, for example, could make anything less than a comprehensive bar on Mr Trump's policy unworkable for the 22 states seeking relief. So these states have a plausible argument that the only injunction that can ease their burden is one that blocks Mr Trump's executive order everywhere. Justice Barrett closed her opinion by delaying implementation of the court's decision for 30 days. That gives the plaintiffs until July 27th to hasten back to district courts to file class-action cases or argue that a blanket injunction against Mr Trump's policies is required to grant the suing parties 'complete relief'. If neither of these efforts is successful, the country could be left with a patchwork of rules that grants citizenship to the baby of an undocumented mother born in Minnesota, but not one born in Mississippi (at least until the constitutionality of Mr Trump's executive order is decided by the high court). The 6-3 split in Trump v CASA reveals a court that remains deeply divided over executive power. For those hoping to challenge the president's more aggressive policies, the courthouse doors remain open—but the path to meaningful relief is considerably narrower.
