Latest news with #CivilWarof1861-1865
India Today
10 hours ago
- Politics
- India Today
US Supreme Court curbs judges' power to stop Trump in birthright citizenship order
The US Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked the policy to reconsider the scope of their justices, in a 6-3 ruling, granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The ruling was written by conservative Justice Amy Coney court ordered lower courts to reconsider the scope of their injunctions and specified that Trump's order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. "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," Barrett his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that 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."The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. US Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order "reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors."advertisementAn 1898 US Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States."Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties - Republican and Democratic - and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the have said they are an efficient check on presidential overreach, and have stymied actions deemed unlawful by presidents of both parties.- Ends
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
10 hours ago
- Politics
- First Post
Supreme Court hands Trump major win by curbing nationwide Injunctions
In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by lower court judges 'likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.' read more A US Supreme Court police officer stands watch as anti-abortion protesters rally outside of the Supreme Court, on Thursday in Washington. AP The US Supreme Court on Friday backed President Donald Trump in his bid to limit the reach of lower court rulings that have repeatedly stalled key parts of his policy agenda. In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by lower court judges 'likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.' The top court did not immediately rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. These broad court orders have been central to the president's ongoing clashes with the judiciary over his efforts to reshape immigration policy, cut government spending, and assert greater control over independent agencies. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a 'green card' holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or 'universal,' injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that 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.' The ruling could have lasting consequences — not just for the remainder of Trump's presidency, but for future administrations across both political parties, reported CNN. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's final appointee to the Supreme Court, authored the sweeping majority opinion. '(F)ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,' CNN quoted Barrett as writing for the majority. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,' Barrett added. Meanwhile, US Attorney General Pam Bondi responded to the court's ruling backing President Trump's effort to curtail lower court orders that have hampered his agenda for months. 'Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump. This would not have been possible without tireless work from our excellent lawyers @TheJusticeDept and our Solicitor General John Sauer,' Bondi wrote on X. 'This Department of Justice will continue to zealously defend @POTUS's policies and his authority to implement them.' With inputs from agencies
