Second US appeals court rejects Trump’s order curtailing birthright citizenship. Well, isn’t that something? The second court of appeals has now tossed out Trump’s attempt to chip away at birthright citizenship. You know, the one enshrined in the 14th Amendment? This isn’t just a legal issue; it strikes at the very heart of who we are as Americans. It’s about the promise of equal protection under the law, a promise that’s been a cornerstone of our nation since the Civil War.
This whole situation is like watching a slow-motion train wreck. You know where it’s headed: potentially all the way to the Supreme Court.… Continue reading
The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has ruled that the Trump administration cannot withhold citizenship from children born to individuals in the country illegally or temporarily, solidifying the mounting legal setbacks for the president’s birthright order. This ruling marks the fifth federal court since June to either issue or uphold orders blocking the order, concluding that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claims based on the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. The court upheld preliminary injunctions, which block the order that would have halted automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The case is expected to move quickly back to the Supreme Court, where the administration hopes to be vindicated.
Read More
The Trump administration has appealed to the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the president’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship, arguing that the long-held understanding of the 14th Amendment is “mistaken.” This appeal follows lower court rulings that have blocked the policy, citing the Constitution and precedent, including the case of *US v. Wong Kim Ark*. The administration contends the policy is crucial for border security, asserting that American citizenship should only be granted to those lawfully entitled. The ACLU, which has been involved in lawsuits against the order, has voiced opposition, calling the order illegal.
Read More
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of an executive order that would end birthright citizenship, marking the second time this year the issue has been brought before the justices. The administration’s appeal argues that the long-held understanding of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to those born in the U.S., is “mistaken.” The order was blocked by lower courts, with the administration now seeking a final ruling to resolve the issue. The executive order, signed in January, stated that the federal government will not recognize the U.S. citizenship of children born on American soil to parents who were in the country unlawfully or temporarily.
Read More
In a significant legal development, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, upholding a lower court’s nationwide injunction. This decision, reached by a three-judge panel, prevents the administration from denying citizenship to children born to individuals in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The court’s ruling affirmed the district court’s interpretation of the Constitution, while also addressing the issue of nationwide injunctions. The case, which was brought by several states, now moves closer to a potential review by the Supreme Court.
Read More
President Trump has publicly threatened to revoke the citizenship of comedian Rosie O’Donnell, signaling a further attempt to weaponize citizenship against his political opponents. This move is part of a broader pattern, as the administration is prioritizing a large denaturalization push, with Trump reportedly viewing naturalized and native-born citizens similarly when considering who might lose their citizenship. Trump has also floated the idea of targeting other individuals, such as a New York assemblyman, demonstrating a disregard for the First Amendment and constitutional values. This is in addition to the fact that Trump has openly challenged the 14th Amendment, by attempting to end birthright citizenship.
Read More
A federal judge in New Hampshire has ruled to certify a class-action lawsuit and issue a preliminary injunction against President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. This ruling, which will protect all children affected by the order, follows a Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of nationwide injunctions and gave lower courts a deadline to act. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a pregnant woman and parents of infants, challenges the executive order’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The judge found the government’s arguments unpersuasive and determined that the deprivation of U.S. citizenship would cause irreparable harm.
Read More
Immigrant rights advocates swiftly filed a nationwide class action lawsuit challenging President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. This action was taken in direct response to a Supreme Court decision limiting nationwide injunctions against the order. The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU and other groups, alleges the administration is violating the Constitution, congressional intent, and Supreme Court precedent, seeking protections for affected babies and their parents. Constitutional experts and Rep. Jamie Raskin criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling and predicted the action of public interest groups would be to file a nationwide class action suit. This legal strategy follows the Supreme Court leaving the door open to other avenues to challenge the administration.
Read More
The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Friday restricting the ability of lower courts to issue “nationwide injunctions,” specifically impacting the enforcement of potential orders, such as those from the Trump administration, that target civil liberties. The majority opinion, while not addressing the constitutionality of the executive order, stated that such injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, with the former strongly criticizing the decision and the latter authoring a separate dissenting opinion. The dissenters felt this ruling provides fuel for attacks on civil liberties.
Read More
The Supreme Court heard arguments regarding President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, focusing less on the order’s constitutionality and more on the use of nationwide injunctions by lower courts. The administration argued that these injunctions create inefficiencies and encourage forum shopping, while Justice Jackson countered that eliminating them would force countless individual lawsuits, effectively allowing the government to circumvent judicial review indefinitely. This debate highlights the tension between individual rights and the efficient implementation of federal policy, with the Court’s decision to potentially limit nationwide injunctions having far-reaching consequences. The case touches upon historical precedent, the 14th Amendment, and the practical implications of resolving such disputes on a case-by-case basis.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker