Latest news with #ProtectingtheMeaningandValueof
Newsweek
7 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Justice Department Issues Birthright Citizenship Update
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Department of Justice has released an update confirming that it plans to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. The announcement was disclosed in a joint status report filed Wednesday, August 6, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Why It Matters The Justice Department's plan to seek a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship—entitled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship"—marks a critical juncture in the national debate over immigration and constitutional rights. Signed on January 20, 2025, it directs the federal government to deny citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents. At stake is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil. A ruling in favor of the order could reshape federal authority over citizenship, impact millions of U.S.-born children, and redefine the limits of executive power—making this one of the most consequential legal battles in recent memory. What To Know On February 6, 2025, the district court in Seattle issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of President Trump's executive order. The case under review, State of Washington v. Trump, was just one of several ongoing legal challenges in which lower courts have largely rejected the administration's legal theory. District courts in Maryland (February 5), New Hampshire (February 10), and Massachusetts (February 13), have each upheld that the order conflicted with constitutional protections and halted its enforcement in their respective jurisdictions. A map showing states where President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship remains restricted, following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on June 27, 2025. A map showing states where President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship remains restricted, following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on June 27, 2025. Newsweek/Flourish One of those judges, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who sits on the federal bench in Boston, granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, affirming that the constitutional guarantee of citizenship applies broadly, and finding the policy to be, "unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute." The government appealed the ruling and sought partial stays from the district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court denied a partial stay, the Ninth Circuit requested further briefing and, on July 23, upheld the injunction. The new update came in a joint status report filed August 6, 2025, in which the DOJ stated that Solicitor General D. John Sauer intends to file a petition "expeditiously" for certiorari—a legal term that refers to the process by which a higher court (most commonly the U.S. Supreme Court), agrees to review a lower court's decision—in order to place the case before the Court during its next term, which begins in October. This means the Justice Department has now formally indicated it will seek a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order; though it has not yet chosen which specific case—or combination of ongoing cases—it will use as the basis for its appeal. The parties plan to update the court further once those appellate steps are finalized. An editorial stock photo of a new USA passport. Photographed isolated on a white background. An editorial stock photo of a new USA passport. Photographed isolated on a white background. Stock Photo - Getty Images Fourteenth Amendment At Stake Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: "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." Courts have consistently upheld this principle for more than a century, most notably in the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. However, the Trump administration argues that the amendment should not apply to children of parents who lack permanent legal status, a position that has been repeatedly rejected by lower courts. What People Are Saying President Trump, during an interview with NBC's Meet the Press, December 8, 2024, said: "Do you know if somebody sets a foot—just a foot, one foot, you don't need two—on our land, 'Congratulations you are now a citizen of the United States of America,' … Yes, we're going to end that, because it's ridiculous." Adding: "...we're going to have to get it changed. We'll maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it. … We're the only country that has it, you know." Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters in June 2025: "Birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court." DOJ attorneys wrote in the filing: "In light of the Ninth Circuit's decision, Defendants represent that the Solicitor General plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Citizenship Order next Term." Jessica Levinson, constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, said: "You can't 'executive order' your way out of the Constitution. If you want to end birthright citizenship, you need to amend the Constitution, not issue an executive order." What Happens Next The Justice Department must decide which case or combination of cases it will use to challenge lower court rulings and bring the birthright citizenship issue before the Supreme Court. Once it makes that decision, the DOJ will file a petition for certiorari. The Court is not required to accept every petition, but because this involves a major constitutional question, it is likely to grant review. If that happens, the Court could hear arguments in 2026 and issue a ruling by June of that year. For now, the Justice Department and attorneys representing plaintiff states—including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—have agreed to submit another update once the appellate process is clarified or if further proceedings in the district court are required. Until then, the order remains unenforceable, lower court rulings blocking Trump's executive order remain in effect, and current birthright citizenship protections continue to apply.
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Upending US birthright citizenship would have drastic negative impact, defenders warn
The Supreme Court heard a case this month centered on President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end so-called birthright citizenship, in one of the most closely watched and potentially impactful cases heard by the court in recent years. Though the case itself was used largely as a means of challenging lower court powers to issue so-called universal or nationwide injunctions, justices on the high court did inquire about the merits of the order itself, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," which Trump signed on the first day of his second White House term. The order, which was slated to take force Feb. 20, directed all U.S. agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents to children born to illegal immigrants or children born to mothers living in the country on a temporary visa, if the father is not a permanent resident or U.S. citizen. Despite the Supreme Court's focus on universal injunctions in hearing the case, deep and unyielding concerns persist about Trump's attempt to undo more than 100 years of legal precedent. Judges V Trump: Here Are The Key Court Battles Halting The White House Agenda The ACLU included in its lawsuit the story of one couple from Indonesia but living in New Hampshire whom they said would be affected by the order. Read On The Fox News App "They arrived in 2023, applied for asylum, and their application awaits review," ACLU attorneys said of the couple. "The mom-to-be is in her third trimester. "Under this executive order, their baby would be considered an undocumented noncitizen and could be denied basic health care and nutrition, putting the newborn at grave risk at such a vulnerable stage of life," they added. And such problems would persist throughout their lives, lawyers for the group noted. These persons would not be able to obtain necessary identification, such as drivers' licenses, and would not be able to vote, hold some jobs or serve on juries. Though Trump had spoken in detail in his first term and on the campaign trail about wanting to end birthright citizenship, his executive order sent shockwaves through the nation. It was met by a wave of lawsuits from Democrat-led states and immigrants' rights groups. Who Is James Boasberg, The Us Judge At The Center Of Trump's Deportation Efforts? One lawsuit, brought by 18 Democratic attorneys general, warned that ending birthright citizenship would strip hundreds of thousands of U.S.-born children of their citizenship as the result of a circumstance completely outside a child's control. Statistics also bear this out. Roughly 150,000 children are born annually in the U.S. to parents of noncitizens. If the order were to take force as Trump envisioned, experts warned the impact would be catastrophic. "President Trump's attempt to unilaterally end birthright citizenship is a flagrant violation of our Constitution," New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who joined 17 other Democrat-led states in suing to block the order, said earlier this year. Trump Faces Another Deportation Setback With 4Th Circuit Appeals Court "For more than 150 years, our country has followed the same basic rule: Babies who are born in this country are American citizens," Platkin added. More than 22 U.S. states and immigrants' rights groups sued the Trump administration to block the change to birthright citizenship prior to the Supreme Court's decision to take up the case, arguing in court filings that the executive order is both unconstitutional and "unprecedented." To date, no court has sided with the Trump administration in upholding the executive article source: Upending US birthright citizenship would have drastic negative impact, defenders warn
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Nebraska AG joins fray over birthright citizenship, draws criticism from some
Attorney General Mike Hilgers speaks during a news conference in Lincoln. May 13, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner) LINCOLN — Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers' entry into the growing conflict over President Donald Trump's directive to end birthright citizenship has sparked criticism from statewide civil rights and immigrant advocate groups. Hilgers and Republican counterparts in 17 other states signed onto a so-called friend of the court brief filed Monday in support of Trump's executive order. Marty Ramirez, co-chair of Las Voces Nebraska, an advocacy group representing Latinos and immigrants, said Hilgers is 'riding a tidal wave' of politicians following nonsensical acts to avoid upsetting Trump. 'He has to join or Nebraska pays a consequence,' Ramirez said. 'It's a dangerous movement.' Issued on the first day of his new presidency, Trump's 'Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship' order instructs federal officials not to issue documents recognizing the U.S. citizenship of children born after Feb. 19 to parents who were in the country without proper authorization or in the states lawfully but temporarily. According to Hilgers, the nation's immigration system is broken in part 'because of the idea that the child of any person who is here illegally, under nearly any set of circumstances, receives the privilege of United States citizenship so long as they are born here.' He echoed Trump in calling that a mistake. Said Hilgers: 'We stand with Iowa and our sister states in defending the executive order, and urging the Court to restore the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.' Contrary to the attorney general's claims, Nebraskans know that immigrants make our state and our nation stronger. – Rose Godinez, legal director, ACLU Nebraska Hilgers and the GOP group, led by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, filed their amicus brief in the wake of a flurry of lawsuits challenging the Trump order by groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, immigrant rights organizations and Democrat-led states. In their brief, the Republican attorneys general argue that 'allowing virtually anyone born on American soil to claim American citizenship creates incentives for illegal immigration and exacerbates states' costs.' They argue, like the Trump administration, that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution did not intend to grant citizenship to every child born on U.S. soil. The Hilgers group argued that immigration policies during the Biden administration 'transformed every state into a border state by flooding them with illegal aliens, including criminals convicted of crimes in their home country, violent international gang members, and suspected ISIS terrorists.' ACLU Nebraska fired back, calling Hilgers' action a 'waste of state resources and deeply harmful.' Judge issues nationwide injunction blocking Trump executive order on birthright citizenship 'He knows that this order violates the clear text of the U.S. Constitution and more than a century of Supreme Court precedent,' said Rose Godinez, legal director of ACLU Nebraska. Birthright citizenship is a core piece of the Constitution, she said, adding that the Nebraska chapter was proud of colleagues and clients working to permanently overturn the 'cruel and unlawful order.' 'Contrary to the attorney general's claims, Nebraskans know that immigrants make our state and our nation stronger,' Godinez. On Wednesday, a federal judge in Maryland blocked President Trump's executive order. The nationwide preliminary injunction by U.S District Judge Deborah Boardman expanded a ruling two weeks ago by another federal court in Seattle that blocked the president's order for 14 days, saying it was 'blatantly unconstitutional.' Boardman's preliminary injunction puts the executive order on hold until the merits of the case are resolved, barring a successful Trump administration appeal. More hearings are set to come soon in other birthright citizenship cases. In addition to Iowa and Nebraska, other state attorneys general endorsing the friend-of-the-court brief were: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
