Latest news with #TrumpExecutiveOrder
Fox News
6 days ago
- Business
- Fox News
US judge dismisses DNC election commission lawsuit, in a victory for Trump
A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) claiming President Donald Trump's executive orders had threatened the independence of the Federal Election Committee (FEC), a significant – albeit rare – court victory for the president. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, said the DNC failed to demonstrate "concrete and imminent injury" – or the burden needed to justify their request for a preliminary injunction. He said that the concerns raised by the party about the FEC's independence as a result of Trump's executive order were far too speculative to satisfy the court's higher bar for emergency relief. At issue in the case was the executive order Trump signed on Feb. 18, titled, "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies." Democrats filed the lawsuit just 10 days after the order was signed, arguing that the order threatened to encroach on the independence of the FEC and risked subjecting it to the whims of the executive branch. The lawsuit focused largely on the claim that the FEC is an independent regulatory agency and argued that the credibility of the entire regulatory enterprise would be "fatally undermined if the party controlling the White House can unilaterally structure campaign rules and adjudicate disputes to disadvantage its electoral competitors." Notably, Ali said Tuesday that he had not found any evidence to date that the White House or the Trump administration had taken steps to change or undermine how the FEC interprets federal election law, or target its independent role. The "possibility that the president and attorney general would take the extraordinary step of issuing a directive to the FEC or its Commissioners purporting to bind their interpretation of FECA is not sufficiently concrete and imminent to create Article III injury," Ali said Tuesday. Should that change, however, Ali said the DNC was welcome to submit an amended filing to the court to reconsider the case. "This Court's doors are open to the parties if changed circumstances show concrete action or impact on the FEC's or its Commissioners' independence," Ali said.
CBC
15-05-2025
- Politics
- CBC
U.S. Supreme Court grapples with nationwide injunctions stopping presidential directives in citizenship case
Social Sharing The U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments Thursday in Donald Trump's attempt to broadly enforce his executive order to limit birthright citizenship, a move that would affect thousands of babies born each year as the Republican president seeks a major shift in how the U.S. Constitution has long been understood. The justices are considering the administration's emergency request to scale back injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts, blocking Trump's directive nationwide. The judges found Trump's order — a key part of his hardline approach toward immigration — likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Trump's order was challenged by Democratic attorneys general from 22 states, as well as individual pregnant immigrants and immigrant rights advocates. The case is unusual in that the administration has used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and have asked the justices to rule that way and enforce Trump's directive even without weighing its legal merits. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, arguing for the Trump administration, called the increasing use by judges of universal injunctions a "pathology." Universal injunctions have become increasingly contentious and have been opposed in recent years by both Republican and Democratic administrations. Judges often have impeded Trump's aggressive use of executive orders and other initiatives this year, sometimes employing universal injunctions. The plaintiffs and other critics have said Trump's directive is the quintessential example of a case in which judges should retain the power to issue universal relief, even if that power is curtailed by the Supreme Court. Different explanations for rise in nationwide injunctions There were 17 nationwide injunctions in the first two months of this Trump presidency, more than the entire presidencies of Joe Biden (14 overall), Barack Obama (12) and George W. Bush (6), according to the Center for American Progress. During Trump's first presidency, according to that same liberal think-tank, there were 64 nationwide injunctions. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with Sauer that universal injunctions "have proliferated over the last three decades or so." Many Republican lawmakers and policy experts argue those numbers are evidence that the legal system has been "weaponized" against Trump, while Democrats counter that the increase reflects the fact that no modern president has tested the limits of the law more than Trump. WATCH l Trump, Republicans excoriate adverse rulings from judges: Trump's team scoffs at attempts to slow agenda through court 3 months ago Duration 2:03 The issue is intertwined with concerns of "judge shopping," where interest groups and plaintiffs of all kinds file lawsuits before judges they perceive as political allies or friendly to their causes. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body for the federal courts, has been in the process of issuing guidance to curtail the practice. Trump's executive order in this case directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. The Migrant Policy Institute in 2018 estimated that approximately 4.4 million U.S.-born children had at least one parent who is an undocumented immigrant. The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive violated the 14th Amendment. That 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 14th Amendment overrode an infamous 1857 Supreme Court decision called Dred Scott v. Sandford that had denied citizenship to Black people and helped fuel the Civil War. The amendment was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War during the post-slavery era in the United States. Britain and Australia in the 1980s modified their laws to prevent so-called birth tourism, requiring a parent to be a citizen or permanent resident in order for a newborn to qualify for citizenship. Canada's Citizenship Act and court rulings through the years — including one involving the child of Russian spies — have been guided by the principle that citizenship is granted based on birthplace rather than the citizenship of one's parents. Citizenship rules could vary by state, official argues Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she believes Trump's order violates multiple Supreme Court precedents concerning citizenship. Sotomayor said that if Trump's order goes into effect, thousands of children would be born in the United States without citizenship, rendering some of them stateless. More than 150,000 newborn children would be denied citizenship annually if Trump's order is allowed to stand, according to the plaintiffs. The administration contends that the citizenship clause does not extend to immigrants in the country illegally or immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. Without a universal injunction blocking Trump's order, it could be years before the Supreme Court finally decides the legality of the directive on a nationwide basis, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said. "There are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions. But I think that the question that this case presents is that if one thinks that it's quite clear that the [executive order] is illegal, how does one get to that result in what time frame, on your set of rules without the possibility of a nationwide injunction?" Kagan asked Sauer. Sauer noted that after the dispute percolates in lower courts, the Supreme Court can ultimately pronounce on the legal merits of the policy, prompting conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett to express skepticism. "Are you really going to answer Justice Kagan by saying there's no way to do this expeditiously?" Barrett said. Sotomayor compared Trump's directive to a hypothetical action by a president taking away guns from every American who owns one, despite the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. Sauer said such injunctions exceed judicial power granted under the Constitution's Article III and disrupt the Constitution's "careful balancing of the separation of powers" among the judicial, executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government. WATCH l Major changes to U.S. citizenship laws could affect residents born in Canada: What Trump's 'birthright citizenship' order means for Canadians in the U.S. 4 months ago Duration 2:04 The administration is seeking to narrow the injunctions to apply only to the individual plaintiffs and the 22 states, if the justices find the states have the required legal standing to sue. That could allow the policy to take effect in the 28 states that did not sue, aside from any plaintiffs living in those states. New Jersey Attorney General Jeremy Feigenbaum, the lawyer arguing for the states, asked the justices to deny the administration's request. Feigenbaum said the injunction issued in the lawsuit brought by the states was properly tailored to address "significant pocketbook and sovereign harms" they would experience from Trump's action. Feigenbaum said the administration's approach in the litigation "would require citizenship to vary based on the state in which you're born." "Since the 14th Amendment, our country has never allowed American citizenship to vary based on the state in which someone resides," Feigenbaum said. Feigenbaum also noted that the legal issue surrounding Trump's executive order was resolved by the Supreme Court 127 years ago. An 1898 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 citizenship.
Al Jazeera
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
What's at stake in US Supreme Court birthright citizenship case?
It was one of US President Donald Trump's most ambitious executive orders, and it came just hours after he took office for his second term: ending the United States' decades-long policy of birthright citizenship. And just three days after Trump issued the order, a federal judge in Washington state blocked the decree from going into effect. In the months that followed, two other federal judges joined in issuing nationwide injunctions. On Thursday, the issue will reach the US Supreme Court, with the 6-3 conservative dominated bench set to hear oral arguments in the case. What the court decides could be transformative. Proponents have long argued that the practice of granting citizenship to all those born on US soil is woven into the national fabric. American Civil Liberties Union executive director Anthony Romero did not mince words in January, when he called Trump's order a 'reckless and ruthless repudiation of American values', destined to create a 'permanent subclass of people born in the US who are denied full rights as Americans'. Meanwhile, a smaller but vocal contingency, empowered by Trump, has maintained that the practice is based on faulty constitutional interpretation and serves as an incentive for undocumented migration. The Trump administration has called it 'birth tourism'. Here's what to expect from Thursday's hearing: The hearing will start at 9am local (14:00 GMT). The most fundamental question that could be answered by the top court is whether birthright citizenship will be allowed to continue. Proponents point to the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which 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'. A subsequent 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v Wong Kim Ark, interpreted the language as applying to all immigrants, creating a precedent that has since stood. Some studies estimate that about 150,000 immigrant infants are born with citizenship every year under the policy. The Trump administration, in contrast, has embraced the theory that babies born to noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the US, and therefore are not constitutionally guaranteed citizenship. Speaking to reporters in April, Trump described a scenario of 'tourists coming in and touching a piece of sand and then all of a sudden, there's citizenship'. He has embraced the theory that the 14th Amendment was meant to apply only to former slaves, and not newly arriving immigrants At the time, Trump predicted it would be 'easy' to win the case based on that logic. Yes. The Trump administration has taken a strategically unique tack in the case. In their emergency filing to the Supreme Court, they have focused on the actions of the three judges who blocked Trump's order from going into effect nationwide. They argue the orders extend beyond the judges' authorities and should only apply to the plaintiffs or jurisdictions directly connected to Trump's executive order. Theoretically, the Supreme Court could rule on whether the judges can issue nationwide injunctions, without ruling on whether birthright citizenship is, in fact, protected by the Constitution. For example, if the justices rule that the lower judges exceeded their power, but do not make a determination on the constitutional merits of birthright citizenship, the executive order would only be blocked in the 22 states that successfully challenged Trump's order. Attorneys General in those states had challenged the order in a joint lawsuit, with a federal judge in Massachusetts ruling in their favour in February. Birthright citizenship would effectively be banned in 28 other states unless they also successfully challenge the order or until the Supreme Court makes a future ruling. The possibility has split legal scholars, with some arguing it is unlikely the Supreme Court would make the narrower decision on the scope of the lower judges' power without also ruling on the underlying constitutional merits of birthright citizenship. Yes. If the justices do decide to only address the scope of the lower judges' power, the implications could extend far beyond the birthright citizenship question. It would also apply to several other Trump executive orders that have been blocked by a federal judge's national injunction, also called 'universal injunctions'. Those include several Trump executive orders seeking to unilaterally transform the federal government, the military, and how funding is disbursed to states, to name a few. In a written filing in the birthright citizenship case, the Department of Justice pointed to the wider implications, saying the need for the Supreme Court's 'intervention has become urgent as universal injunctions have reached tsunami levels'. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs in the Maryland case that successfully challenged Trump's birthright order said doing away with national injunctions would create different tiers of rights depending on an individual's geographical location. 'An infant would be a United States citizen and full member of society if born in New Jersey, but a deportable noncitizen if born in Tennessee,' they wrote in a court filing.
The Independent
13-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Pam Bondi ‘scrambled' to find Epstein material to appease MAGA after Phase 1 release flopped, report claims
Attorney General Pam Bondi 'scrambled' to find Epstein material to appease the far right over the failed Phase 1 release of the files, but 'found little', according to a report. Since vowing to carry out President Donald Trump's executive order demanding the government make documents related to cases of national interest public, including Jeffrey Epstein, Bondi has been under intense pressure, particularly from the right, to release the files on the disgraced financier. Epstein was accused of sex trafficking of minors in a decades-long scheme. Epstein, who had links to a number of high-profile names, died behind bars awaiting trial in 2019. A botched release of the 'Phase 1' files saw MAGA influencers descend on the White House for what turned out to be a photo opportunity. Right-wing influencers posed, clutching binders containing information that was already in the public domain. According to The New York Times, Bondi made moves to appease the right by deploying staff from the Department of Justice 's National Security Division to scour through files. 'After 'Phase 1' of the Epstein Files flopped, Pam Bondi diverted staff from the NatSec Division, an elite DOJ unit, to scour archives for any material to appease the far right,' Glenn Thrush, the newspaper's D.C. correspondent, posted on X. 'They found little.' 'Phase 2, when (or if) it happens, is likely to be a dud too,' Thrush added, citing sources. The Independent has contacted the Department of Justice for comment. Bondi reportedly pushed the FBI and her own agency to urgently review and declassify more files, with the FBI enlisting thousands of agents to help with the effort, ABC News reported last month. But nothing materialized. FBI Director Kash Patel was quizzed about the Epstein files on May 8 during a Senate Appropriations hearing and said the bureau was 'working through' releasing the files. Patel suggested their release would be 'in the near future.' 'We've been working on that and we're doing it in a way that protects victims and also doesn't put out into the ether information that is irrelevant,' Patel told the panel. Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman of New York on Monday accused Bondi of deliberately delaying the release of the Epstein files. 'I write to express my grave concern about what appears to be a concerted effort by you to delay and even prevent the release of the Jeffrey Epstein Files in their entirety – potentially at the direction of the sitting President of the United States, Donald J. Trump,' Goldman's letter to Bondi said. 'President Trump's well-documented affiliation with Epstein, and his view that the Department of Justice is his personal law firm raises serious questions about whether President Trump has intervened to prevent the public release of the Epstein Files in order to hide his own embarrassing and potentially criminal conduct,' Goldman added. Trump was quizzed by a reporter on April 22 about when the public could expect to see the release of more documents. 'I don't know, I'll speak to the attorney general about that, I really don't know,' Trump said. A few days later, Virginia Giuffre, one of the first and most prominent survivors of Epstein's abuse to speak out, died by suicide.
Times of Oman
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Times of Oman
All illegal aliens, book your free flight right now!": President Trump signs order for self-deportation of illegal immigrants
Washington DC : US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order on Friday (US Local time) which will allow people who have entered into the US illegally to get free flights out of the US. Calling it the "first-ever self-deportation program for illegal aliens", the US President said the order incentivises illegal immigrants to leave America. His remarks were shared through a video message posted on the official page of the White House. In the video message, Donald Trump said, "Today I signed an executive order to launch the first-ever self-deportation program for illegal aliens. We are making it as easy as possible for illegal aliens to leave America. Any illegal alien can simply show up at an airport and receive a free flight out of our country. We have also launched a phone app called CBP Home where illegals can book a free flight to any foreign country. As long as it's not here, you can go anywhere you want. We're also adding a very important exit bonus for illegals to further incentivize their self-deportation. This deportation bonus will save American taxpayers billions and billions of dollars." Taking a dig at former US President Joe Biden, Trump slammed him for his policies on immigration. "What Biden did to this country can never be explained, will never, ever be accepted. Eventually, when the illegals are gone, it will save us trillions of dollars." Coming back to the issue of illegal immigrants, the US President said that they would face severe consequences such as "punishments including significant jail time, enormous financial penalties, confiscation of all property, garnishment of all wages, imprisonment and incarceration, and sudden deportation in a place and manner solely of our discretion", if they continue to stay in India. Trump said, "So to all illegal aliens, book your free flight right now. We want you out of America, but if you're really good, we're going to try and help you get back in." Earlier in an article shared by the White House, titled, "Week 16 wins", on May 9, several actions taken by the US President against illegal immigrants were highlighted. These include plans to house America's most ruthless, violent criminals at Alcatraz prison and establishing a "Project Homecoming" to encourage illegal immigrants to voluntarily depart the US. "The Department of Homeland Security announced it will offer financial assistance and stipends for illegal immigrants voluntarily returning to their home country via the CBP Home App -- saving taxpayers as much as USD 1 million per illegal alien family in long-term costs of welfare and public support", the White House said in its statement.
