Latest news with #SupremeCourtJustices
Washington Post
3 days ago
- General
- Washington Post
Mexico's ruling party headed toward control of newly elected Supreme Court, vote tallies show
MEXICO CITY — Mexico's ruling Morena party appeared to be heading toward control over the Supreme Court, preliminary vote tallies of the country's first judicial election indicated. While votes were still being counted for the majority of the 2,600 federal, state and local judge positions up for grabs in Sunday's judicial elections, results rolled in for the nine Supreme Court positions.
The Independent
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Supreme Court won't hear challenge to Maryland assault weapons ban
News The Supreme Court has declined, for now, to hear a challenge to assault weapons bans in a case from Maryland Supreme Court won't hear challenge to Maryland assault weapons ban Show all 2
New York Times
15-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Live Updates: Supreme Court Seems Torn Over Judges' Power in Birthright Citizenship Case
While protesters denounced President Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court justices mostly focused on nationwide injunctions during oral arguments in the case. The Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday in a case related to President Trump's executive order trying to end so-called birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented migrants. But the question before the justices was narrower: whether a single district court judge has the power to block a policy across the country. Here are four takeaways from the arguments. The case was not really about birthright citizenship. Video transcript Back bars 0:00 / 1:09 - 0:00 transcript During oral arguments on Thursday, Supreme Court justices were not considering the legal merits of an order signed by President Trump shortly after his inauguration that reinterpreted the meaning of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to grant automatic citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil. The argument here is that the president is violating an established — not just one, but by my count, four established Supreme Court precedents. We have the Wong Ark case where we said fealty to a foreign sovereign doesn't defeat your entitlement. Your parents' fealty to a foreign sovereign doesn't defeat your entitlement to citizenship as a child. We have another case where we said that even if your parents are here illegally, if you're born here, you're a citizen. We have yet another case that says, even if your parents came here and were stopped at the border and — but you were born in our territory, you're still a citizen. And we have another case that says even if your parents secured citizenship illegally, you're still a citizen. So as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents. During oral arguments on Thursday, Supreme Court justices were not considering the legal merits of an order signed by President Trump shortly after his inauguration that reinterpreted the meaning of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to grant automatic citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil. Credit Credit... Doug Mills/The New York Times The justices were not considering the legal merits of Mr. Trump's order, even though it brought greater attention to the arguments on Thursday. Shortly after being sworn in to his second term, Mr. Trump signed an order that reinterpreted the meaning of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to grant automatic citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil. The order seeks to deny citizenship to babies born to undocumented migrants and visitors without green cards. As a practical matter, that would start with agencies in the executive branch refusing them citizenship-affirming documents like Social Security cards. Multiple courts around the country have blocked the government from obeying that order, ruling that it is most likely illegal. They did so using universal injunctions, or orders that apply nationwide and cover people in similar situations who were not parties to the cases. At this stage, the Trump administration is challenging only the ability of courts to issue such orders. Still, the underlying issue came up several times. Several justices expressed skepticism about the legality of Mr. Trump's proclamation. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, for example, said that it violated, 'by my count, four established Supreme Court precedents.' No justice expressed clear support for the legality of the order. Justices asked about the history of universal injunctions. Image Justice Clarence Thomas suggested at times that nationwide injunctions did not have deep roots in American jurisprudence, although some scholars have challenged those assertions. Credit... Eric Lee/The New York Times Some of the justices — particularly its longest sitting member, Justice Clarence Thomas — seemed interested in the history of nationwide injunctions, suggesting at times that the practice did not have deep roots in American jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has rejected certain legal practices — most prominently, the constitutional right to abortion — by arguing that they were not traditionally recognized in U.S. law. At one point, Justice Thomas said the nation had 'survived until the 1960s' without the use of nationwide injunctions. While some legal scholars have challenged that assertion, pointing to examples of the tool's use as far back as 1913, Justice Thomas seemed to be expressing skepticism about the widespread use of the injunctions. Echoing that position, D. John Sauer, the U.S. solicitor general, said that courts have typically worked by addressing claims filed by individuals. He noted that during the flurry of legislative changes enacted during the New Deal in the 1930s, one policy in particular prompted lawsuits from more than 1,000 separate plaintiffs. These days were different, Mr. Sauer said, pointing out that nearly 40 nationwide injunctions had been entered by a court in the past four months. He said the number of such injunctions had soared over the past five administrations, describing it as a 'bipartisan problem.' The justices also wrestled with practicalities. Image Jeremy M. Feigenbaum, New Jersey's solicitor general, pointed out that children of immigrants born in states without birthright citizenship might not be able to get Social Security numbers. Credit... Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York Times One of the major themes drawn out by lawyers for the plaintiffs was the practical effect of doing away with nationwide injunctions in a case that touched on an issue affecting all Americans. The lawyers worried that before the Supreme Court issued a final ruling on the question of birthright citizenship, there could be 'chaos on the ground' if some states were allowed to keep the practice and others states did not. Jeremy M. Feigenbaum, New Jersey's solicitor general, pointed out that if Mr. Trump's policy prevailed in certain states, children of immigrants born there might not be able to get Social Security numbers. That could become a problem, he suggested, if they later moved to states that did recognize them as citizens, particularly if they tried to apply for government benefits. Mr. Feigenbaum also noted that if a person's citizenship depended on what state they were in, there could be widespread confusion about their immigration status as well. He wondered aloud whether the children of immigrants might be subject to deportation in states that did not recognize birthright citizenship and yet be shielded from removal in states that did. Several worried about a potential loophole. Image Under a solution presented by D. John Sauer, the U.S. solicitor general, Justice Elena Kagan suggested the administration might choose never to appeal any of its losses to the Supreme Court. Credit... Kenny Holston/The New York Times Justice Elena Kagan, noting that every lower court that has looked at Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship order so far has ruled that it is illegal, asked Mr. Sauer how such an issue could be definitively resolved without a universal injunction. Mr. Sauer proposed a world in which, after a legal issue 'percolates' among many different individual lawsuits in the lower courts, the Supreme Court eventually issues a ruling in one of them that becomes a binding precedent that resolves the rest. But Justice Kagan suggested that the Trump administration might simply choose to never appeal any of its losses to the Supreme Court. That, she said, would allow it to keep denying citizenship documents to the overwhelming number of babies who were born to parents who lacked the resources or wherewithal to sue. Mr. Sauer suggested that a class-action lawsuit might be the way to solve that problem, but he also acknowledged that the administration would most likely argue that the standards were not met to grant class certification to all children affected by Mr. Trump's order. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch remarked, 'Justice Kagan asked my questions better than I could have,' leading to a rare moment of laughter in the courtroom. He again pressed Mr. Sauer, 'How do you suggest we reach this on the merits expeditiously?' Justice Gorsuch went on to ask whether the administration intended to appeal to the Supreme Court after it lost — he said 'when' that happens, not 'if' — on the merits before an appeals court. 'If we lose?' Mr. Sauer replied. 'Yes, absolutely.'
