Latest news with #TrumpOrder
Yahoo
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Decision On Birthright Citizenship Could Cause Social Security Number 'Chaos'
WASHINGTON – The federal government could have to change how it issues Social Security numbers now that the Supreme Court has said President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship can take effect outside of specific cases where it's been blocked by a lower court. For decades, whenever a baby is born in the U.S., hospitals have notified state vital records agencies, which have in turn notified the Social Security Administration, that a new person needs a Social Security number. The so-called 'enumeration at birth' policy is automatic for the government and simple for parents, who merely check a box on a hospital form. Trump's order, if it takes effect in 30 days, could make the process more complicated, though neither the Social Security Administration nor the White House responded to requests for comment Friday about how it could change. Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, a liberal advocacy group that opposes benefit cuts, said the Supreme Court decision, allowing at least partial implementation of Trump's birthright directive, could create 'widespread chaos' and require more Americans to visit Social Security field offices in order to get Social Security numbers for their babies. The order forbids federal agencies to accept or issue documents recognizing citizenship to babies whose mothers are not lawfully present in the United States. The text describes exactly the sort of sending and receiving of documents that occurs through the enumeration at birth process. 'It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) when that person's mother's presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.' The order specifically mentions Social Security and gives agencies 30 days to issue public guidance about how it would be implemented. The Supreme Court's decision did not address the constitutionality of the order, which is plainly contrary to the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, but rather the practice of lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions, like the ones several federal judges imposed blocking the birthright order from taking effect. The court said the injunctions can remain, but only to the extent they 'provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.' It's likely there will be lots more plaintiffs, class action cases and additional injunctions that could cover wide geographic areas. To the extent the order takes effect, in Altman's telling, the Social Security Administration will have to track court cases and devise some way of determining which babies are eligible for enumeration and which aren't, and that doing so could be extremely difficult. 'It might mean that SSA simply ends its enumeration at birth program, costing huge amounts of money, causing huge inconvenience, and swamping already overwhelmed field offices,' Altman said. Canceling or curtailing Social Security's enumeration at birth program would likely cause a public backlash, one that the Trump administration might like to avoid, since it's the way 99% of babies have received their Social Security numbers since the 1990s. In March, the Social Security Administration canceled vital records contracts with the state of Maine in an act of political retaliation against Maine's Democratic governor. The state notified parents they would have to visit Social Security field offices to get their kids' Social Security numbers, prompting an outcry that forced Social Security to quickly reinstate the contracts. Supreme Court Rules With Trump On Birthright Citizenship — And Chaos May Be Coming Trump Administration Forces Maine Parents To Visit Social Security Offices To Register Newborns (UPDATE) Trump's Victory In Birthright Citizenship Puts Him 1 Step Closer To Being A King
Yahoo
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court stokes fear of state patchwork in birthright citizenship
(Bloomberg) — A US Supreme Court ruling is stoking fears that the babies of many noncitizen parents could be treated differently depending on the state in which they're born, as legal challenges unfold against President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship. Philadelphia Transit System Votes to Cut Service by 45%, Hike Fares US Renters Face Storm of Rising Costs Squeezed by Crowds, the Roads of Central Park Are Being Reimagined Sprawl Is Still Not the Answer Mapping the Architectural History of New York's Chinatown The justices didn't rule on the constitutionality of Trump's restrictions. But in a divided decision Friday, they paused nationwide injunctions in three cases that had blocked the policy from taking effect. That opens a potential path for Trump's ban on birthright citizenship to be enforced in the 28 states where no court order to block it is currently in place, many of them Republican strongholds from Texas to Florida and Wyoming to Oklahoma. State officials and legal experts warn the arrangement could lead to a patchwork quilt of outcomes, in which the children of people in the US unlawfully or on temporary visas would be recognized as citizens in some states but not in others. 'What we have is an unworkable mess that will leave thousands of babies in an untenable legal limbo,' said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who joined officials from 21 other Democratic-led states in suing to block the order. 'Will babies born in Connecticut have different citizenship rights than those born in Texas or Florida?' Nothing will change immediately — the justices said Trump's restrictions can't take effect for 30 days. Much will be in flux during that period as lower courts revise their rulings to align with the new precedent set by the high court. Justices also left open an avenue for opponents to continue trying to block Trump's order through a class action lawsuit. And they left key questions unanswered about the scope of relief that certain challengers — particularly individual states — are entitled to receive. Trump celebrated Friday's ruling as a 'monumental victory.' His administration has long sought to limit the ability of a single judge to block a federal policy across the country. Organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Defenders Fund and CASA Inc. have sued to block his order on birthright citizenship. They're already adjusting their legal strategy in light of the Supreme Court ruling, refiling their cases as class action lawsuits and seeking fresh court orders to block Trump's policy while their lawsuits proceed. 'Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead attorney in this case, said in a statement. 'The Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.' Litigation will also proceed in cases filed by the 22 Democratic-led states that sued to block the order. Those states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, emphasized the legal uncertainty and said lower courts will now have to determine the scope of relief available to states that sued in order to avoid running afoul of the Supreme Court. 'There's lots of unanswered questions,' she said. Some state attorneys general said language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion leaves open the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. 'The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this president's anti-democratic agenda,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable.' America's Top Consumer-Sentiment Economist Is Worried How to Steal a House Inside Gap's Last-Ditch, Tariff-Addled Turnaround Push Apple Test-Drives Big-Screen Movie Strategy With F1 Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Yahoo
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Court Fans Fear of State Patchwork in Birthright Citizenship
(Bloomberg) -- A US Supreme Court ruling is stoking fears that the babies of many noncitizen parents could be treated differently depending on the state in which they're born, as legal challenges unfold against President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship. Philadelphia Transit System Votes to Cut Service by 45%, Hike Fares US Renters Face Storm of Rising Costs Squeezed by Crowds, the Roads of Central Park Are Being Reimagined Sprawl Is Still Not the Answer Mapping the Architectural History of New York's Chinatown The justices didn't rule on the constitutionality of Trump's restrictions. But in a divided decision Friday, they paused nationwide injunctions in three cases that had blocked the policy from taking effect. That opens a potential path for Trump's ban on birthright citizenship to be enforced in the 28 states where no court order to block it is currently in place, many of them Republican strongholds from Texas to Florida and Wyoming to Oklahoma. State officials and legal experts warn the arrangement could lead to a patchwork quilt of outcomes, in which the children of people in the US unlawfully or on temporary visas would be recognized as citizens in some states but not in others. 'What we have is an unworkable mess that will leave thousands of babies in an untenable legal limbo,' said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who joined officials from 21 other Democratic-led states in suing to block the order. 'Will babies born in Connecticut have different citizenship rights than those born in Texas or Florida?' Nothing will change immediately — the justices said Trump's restrictions can't take effect for 30 days. Much will be in flux during that period as lower courts revise their rulings to align with the new precedent set by the high court. Justices also left open an avenue for opponents to continue trying to block Trump's order through a class action lawsuit. And they left key questions unanswered about the scope of relief that certain challengers — particularly individual states — are entitled to receive. Trump celebrated Friday's ruling as a 'monumental victory.' His administration has long sought to limit the ability of a single judge to block a federal policy across the country. Organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Defenders Fund and CASA Inc. have sued to block his order on birthright citizenship. They're already adjusting their legal strategy in light of the Supreme Court ruling, refiling their cases as class action lawsuits and seeking fresh court orders to block Trump's policy while their lawsuits proceed. 'Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead attorney in this case, said in a statement. 'The Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.' Litigation will also proceed in cases filed by the 22 Democratic-led states that sued to block the order. Those states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, emphasized the legal uncertainty and said lower courts will now have to determine the scope of relief available to states that sued in order to avoid running afoul of the Supreme Court. 'There's lots of unanswered questions,' she said. Some state attorneys general said language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion leaves open the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. 'The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this president's anti-democratic agenda,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable.' America's Top Consumer-Sentiment Economist Is Worried How to Steal a House Inside Gap's Last-Ditch, Tariff-Addled Turnaround Push Apple Test-Drives Big-Screen Movie Strategy With F1 Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Erreur lors de la récupération des données Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données
NHK
28-06-2025
- Politics
- NHK
US Supreme Court curbs nationwide injunctions against Trump
The US Supreme Court has ruled on Friday that judges on federal courts lack the authority to grant what is known as nationwide injunctions. President Donald Trump has had one after another of his policy initiatives blocked by judges issuing the injunctions. The specific case before the court had to do with what is known as birthright citizenship, which allows anyone born on US soil to automatically become a citizen regardless of their parents' immigration status. Trump signed an order on his first day in office to revoke the right for certain people. Those include babies whose mothers are in the country illegally or temporarily, as well as children whose fathers are not US citizens or permanent residents. The court's decision limits the ability of federal judges to issue rulings that apply nationwide. It specifies that Trump's order cannot take effect for 30 days, but it didn't address the constitutionality of the order.
BBC News
27-06-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
US Supreme Court rule on birthright citizenship case
Di US Supreme Court today don issue ruling wey go curb judges' powers to block President Trump orders nationwide. Di case na from President Donald Trump order to end di constitutional right of birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants Almost everyone dem born on US territory dey granted automatic citizenship Afta plenti courts suspend Trump order, im administration bin appeal to Supreme Court, argue say lower judges no get di right to block presidential actions E bin get one conservative majority in di Supreme Court and na Trump appoint three of di nine justices. Justices split along ideological lines Di justices bin vote 6-3, wit di liberals dissenting. Di conservative justices bin stress say dem no dey address di merits of Trump attempt to end birthright citizenship for non-citizens and undocumented migrants. We dey read through di 119-page decision wey dem split along ideological lines. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, di senior most liberal justice, bin deliver different opinion wit justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson wey join. Here na wetin she write: Undeterred, di Government now ask dis Court to grant emergency relief, insist say e go suffer irreparable harm unless e fit deprive at least some children wey dem born in di United States of citizenship... Di gamesmanship in dis request dey apparent and di Government make no attempt to hide am. Yet, shamefully, dis Court dey play along. One majority of dis Court decide say dis applications, of all cases, provide di appropriate occasion to resolve di question of universal injunctions and end di centuries-old practice once and for all. For im rush to do so di Court disregard basic principles of equity as well as di long history of injunctive relief grant to nonparties. Justice Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court limit lower judges ability to block presidential orders Di Supreme court from dia rulling don limit di ability of judges in lower courts to block presidential orders nationwide. E appear to be win for di Trump Administration, wey don appeal to di Supreme Court say lower courts do no get di right to block presidential actions. According to di 119 pages long document, we di BBC bin read through. E show say e no go be clear upheld or rejected decision from di court. Trump win, but e fit be double-edged sword for future Republicans BBC chief North America correspondent, bin report from Washington DC Say di rulling na significant win for di Trump administration and di president. Nationwide injunctions on Donald Trump blizzard of executive orders don anger am and frustrate im agenda. And while dis injunctions no dey removed entirely, dia scope dey being significantly limited. E go dey harder for individuals and groups to prevent controversial policies like di ending of birthright citizenship to dey enforced. Importantly though, di challenges to dis policies go still proceed through di courts, potentially right up to di Supreme Court – and di merits or constitutionality of each case na separate question to wetin been dey decided today. To tok true, dis na issue wey administrations of both complexions don complain about, so expect Republicans to see dis as a double-edged sword. Wen and if a Democrat enter di White House, dey go enjoy di same legal advantages as Donald Trump go now make di most of. There go also be much more work for lawyers – and who no dey in favour of dat! Wetin dey di birthright citizenship case? On im inauguration day for January, President Trump bin issue one executive order to repeal birthright citizenship for babies wey dem born to pipo in di US temporarily and undocumented migrants. Many legal experts tok say di president no get di power to end birthright citizenship sake of say e dey guaranteed by di 14th Amendment of di US Constitution. Di amendment tok say "all pesins wey dem born or naturalise in di United States, and subject to di jurisdiction thereof, be citizens". Trump order argue say di phrase "jurisdiction thereof" mean say automatic citizenship no apply to di children of undocumented immigrants, or pipo in di kontri temporarily. Federal justices in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington, however, issue nationwide - or universal - injunctions wey block di order make e no dey enforced. Di injunctions, in turn, bin prompt di Trump administration to argue say di lower courts pass dia powers. Di administration ask di court to rule say di injunctions fit only apply to those immigrants wey dey named in di case or to di plaintiff states – wey go allow di government to at least partly carry out Trump order even as legal battles continue.
