Latest news with #birthrightCitizenship
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Lawlessness will flourish': SCOTUS Justice issues chilling warning after major ruling
MSNBC's Antonia Hylton reports on the Supreme Court's consequential ruling that restricts the ability of lower courts to block President Trump's executive orders nationwide — specifically his ban on birthright citizenship, which had been stopped by every federal judge who encountered it. University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman and former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori join to discuss. (Subscribe to Ari's YouTube now:
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contributor: A stunning and tragic Supreme Court decision
The Supreme Court on Friday dealt a grievous blow to separation of powers by holding that federal courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions to halt unconstitutional actions by the president and the federal government. At a time when President Trump is asserting unprecedented powers, the court made it far more difficult to restrain his unconstitutional actions. The case, Trump vs. CASA, involved the president's executive order ending birthright citizenship. The first sentence of the 14th Amendment provides 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.' In 1898, in United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that this means that everyone born in the United States, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, is a United States citizen. The court explained that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was meant to exclude just children born to soldiers in an invading army or those born to diplomats. Trump's executive order directly contradicted this precedent and our national understanding of citizenship by decreeing that only those born here to citizens or to residents with green cards are citizens too. Immediately, several federal courts issued nationwide injunctions to stop this from going into effect. Read more: Supreme Court limits judges' ability to block Trump's birthright citizenship ban But the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, said that federal courts lack the power to issue such orders. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the conservative justices, declared that such universal injunctions 'likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.' Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, put this succinctly: 'Today puts an end to the 'increasingly common' practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions.' Indeed, the court's opinion indicated that a federal court can give relief only to the plaintiffs in a lawsuit. This is a radical limit on the power of the federal courts. Nothing in any federal law or the Constitution justifies this restriction on the judicial power. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, but it made it far more difficult to stop what is a clearly unconstitutional act. The practical consequences are enormous. It would mean that to challenge the constitutionality of a presidential action or federal law a separate lawsuit will need to be brought in all 94 federal districts. It means that the law often will be different depending on where a person lives. Astoundingly, it could mean that there could be two people born in identical circumstances in different federal districts and one would be a citizen, while the other would not. This makes no sense. It will mean that the president can take an unconstitutional act and even after courts in some places strike it down, continue it elsewhere until all of the federal districts and all of the federal courts of appeals have invalidated it. In fact, the court said that a federal court can give relief only to the named plaintiff, which means that in the context of birthright citizenship each parent affected by the birthright citizenship executive order will need to sue separately. Never before has the Supreme Court imposed such restrictions on the ability of courts to provide relief against unconstitutional acts. The court holds open the possibility of class actions as a way around this. But the requirements for class action litigation are often burdensome, and the Supreme Court has consistently made it much more difficult to bring such suits. Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a powerful dissent expressed what this means. She wrote: 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief. That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent.' Let there be no doubt what this means; the Supreme Court has greatly reduced the power of the federal courts. And it has done so at a time when the federal judiciary may be our only guardrail to protect the Constitution and democracy. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained in her dissent, 'The Court's decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.' It is a stunning and tragic limit on the power of the courts to enforce the Constitution. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, is an Opinion Voices contributing writer. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Bloomberg
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Trump's Court Win Opens a Path to Clear Hurdles to His Agenda
The US Supreme Court's ruling curbing the power of judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis has raised questions about whether dozens of orders that have halted President Donald Trump's policies will stand. The conservative majority's ruling Friday came in a fight over Trump's plan to limit automatic birthright citizenship. But it may have far-reaching consequences for the ability of US courts to issue orders that apply to anyone affected by a policy, not just the parties who filed lawsuits.
Khaleej Times
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Khaleej Times
US Supreme Court curbs judges' power to block Trump after bid to end birthright citizenship
A divided US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory on Friday by curbing the power of lone federal judges to block executive actions. In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by district court judges "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." The top court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on American soil. But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings removes a big roadblock to Trump's often highly controversial policy agenda and has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump or future American presidents. Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels. Trump celebrated by telling reporters he had "a whole list" of policies he could now proceed on without opposition in the courts. Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of a number of his moves that have been blocked by judges around the country -- both Democratic and Republican appointees – since he took office in January. Courts have, for example, blocked or slowed down his hardline immigration crackdown, firing of federal employees, efforts to end diversity programs and punitive actions against law firms and universities. Past presidents have also complained about national injunctions shackling their agenda, but such orders have sharply risen under Trump, who saw more in his first two months than Democrat Joe Biden did during his first three years in office. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee who authored the majority opinion joined by the other five conservative justices, said "the universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation's history." "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch," Barrett wrote. "When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too," she said. The three liberal justices dissented with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying "no right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates." "The Court's decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution," Sotomayor said. "The Executive Branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals' constitutional rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully," she said. 'Giant win' Trump, in a post on Truth Social, welcomed the ruling as a "GIANT WIN." The case was ostensibly about Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, which was deemed unconstitutional by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. But it actually focused on whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction. The issue has become a rallying cry for Trump and his Republican allies, who accuse the judiciary of impeding his agenda against the will of voters. Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, said the court's ruling "sharply undermines the power of federal courts to rein-in lawless actions by the government." "The ruling will likely create a patchwork of birthright citizenship rights," Schwinn told AFP, where it is recognized in some locations for people who have successfully sued and not recognized for people who have not sued. "This patchwork approach to individual rights is inconsistent with our history and tradition of federal rights in the United States and is inconsistent with the rule of law," he said. The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to restrict the application of a district court's injunction solely to the parties who brought the case and the district where the judge presides. Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens. The three lower courts ruled that to be a violation of the 14th Amendment, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
News.com.au
10 hours ago
- Politics
- News.com.au
US Supreme Court curtails power of individual judges to block Trump
A divided US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory on Friday by curbing the power of lone federal judges to block executive actions. In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by district court judges "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." The top court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on American soil. But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings removes a big roadblock to Trump's often highly controversial policy agenda and has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump or future American presidents. Trump celebrated by telling reporters he had "a whole list" of policies he could now proceed on without opposition in the courts. Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of a number of his moves that have been blocked by judges around the country -- both Democratic and Republican appointees – since he took office in January. Courts have, for example, blocked or slowed down his hardline immigration crackdown, firing of federal employees, efforts to end diversity programs and punitive actions against law firms and universities. Past presidents have also complained about national injunctions shackling their agenda, but such orders have sharply risen under Trump, who saw more in his first two months than Democrat Joe Biden did during his first three years in office. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee who authored the majority opinion joined by the other five conservative justices, said "the universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation's history." "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch," Barrett wrote. "When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too," she said. The three liberal justices dissented with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying "no right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates." "The Court's decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution," Sotomayor said. "The Executive Branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals' constitutional rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully," she said. - 'GIANT WIN' - Trump, in a post on Truth Social, welcomed the ruling as a "GIANT WIN." The case was ostensibly about Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, which was deemed unconstitutional by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. But it actually focused on whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction. The issue has become a rallying cry for Trump and his Republican allies, who accuse the judiciary of impeding his agenda against the will of voters. Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, said the court's ruling "sharply undermines the power of federal courts to rein-in lawless actions by the government." "The ruling will likely create a patchwork of birthright citizenship rights," Schwinn told AFP, where it is recognized in some locations for people who have successfully sued and not recognized for people who have not sued. "This patchwork approach to individual rights is inconsistent with our history and tradition of federal rights in the United States and is inconsistent with the rule of law," he said. The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to restrict the application of a district court's injunction solely to the parties who brought the case and the district where the judge presides. Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens. The three lower courts ruled that to be a violation of the 14th Amendment, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
