A US appeals court refused the Trump administration’s request to immediately halt a lower court’s block on an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for some immigrant children. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will conduct a full review of the case in June. The administration argued the order was crucial to immigration reform, while opposing states contended it violated the 14th Amendment. The appeals court majority found the administration failed to demonstrate an urgent need for immediate action.
Read More
Following a string of legal setbacks, President Trump, echoing a Napoleon Bonaparte quote from the film *Waterloo*, asserted on social media that a president saving the country violates no law. This statement, endorsed by the White House, comes amidst widespread court challenges to his administration’s actions, including efforts to curtail federal funding and redefine the 14th Amendment. Allies, including Elon Musk, have attacked judges ruling against them, raising serious concerns among constitutional scholars about a potential constitutional crisis. The White House dismisses these concerns, instead blaming the judiciary.
Read More
A New Hampshire federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking President Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented or temporarily residing immigrants. The order, targeting a clause within the 14th Amendment, would have denied citizenship documents to these newborns starting February 19th. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs, including community support organizations, would likely suffer irreparable harm if the order proceeded, citing established legal precedent affirming birthright citizenship, such as the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case. This injunction follows similar rulings in Washington and Maryland, and the legal battle over the constitutionality of the executive order continues.
Read More
During a flight to the Super Bowl, Donald Trump claimed that DOGE analysts discovered irregularities in U.S. Treasuries, suggesting the country might not be obligated to repay some debts. This statement directly contradicts the 14th Amendment, which explicitly prohibits questioning the validity of the public debt. While markets haven’t reacted significantly, the assertion is alarming given its potential to destabilize the financial system and its reliance on purported analyses from individuals with questionable expertise. The gravity of the situation remains uncertain pending further developments.
Read More
Following arguments from 18 state attorneys general and several cities, a federal judge in Boston is considering a request to block President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. Plaintiffs contend the order violates the 14th Amendment and would cost states significant funding for essential services. The judge’s decision is pending, but two other federal judges have already issued nationwide injunctions against the order. The core legal dispute centers on the 14th Amendment’s definition of citizenship and the executive branch’s authority to alter it.
Read More
A second federal judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against President Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, deeming it likely unconstitutional. The judge’s ruling cites the order’s conflict with the 14th Amendment, established Supreme Court precedent, and contradicts over two centuries of US birthright citizenship practices. The injunction, granted in response to a lawsuit filed by pregnant women and immigrant-rights groups, will remain in effect pending further legal proceedings. The administration is expected to appeal, potentially leading the case to the Supreme Court.
Read More
Donald Trump’s second term began with a flurry of executive orders, fulfilling his campaign promise of immediate, sweeping changes. These actions included pardoning January 6th rioters, undermining the 14th Amendment, and initiating mass deportations, among other controversial policies. Experts warn of an escalating authoritarian trend, with Trump exhibiting disregard for legal precedent and norms. The resulting chaos and confusion aim to overwhelm opposition, but concerted resistance is crucial to counter this aggressive agenda.
Read More
President Trump’s executive order seeks to overturn the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause, a cornerstone of American equality established in 1868. This action, challenged in court by multiple states and individuals, is based on a narrow interpretation of the amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause. Legal experts overwhelmingly disagree with this interpretation, citing established precedent and arguing that the order is unconstitutional and would reverse over a century of legal precedent. The case is expected to reach the Supreme Court, with significant implications for racial justice and the future of American citizenship.
Read More
Renewed efforts to impeach President Trump for a third time are underway, fueled by allegations of unconstitutional conduct and threats to democracy. The Free Speech For People organization cites violations of the 14th Amendment (insurrection) and emoluments clauses, along with numerous other alleged offenses including campaign finance violations and the use of inflammatory rhetoric. While a third impeachment is currently improbable due to Republican control of Congress, the possibility remains should Democrats regain control in 2026. The ongoing push highlights the deep partisan divisions within the country.
Read More
A federal judge in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order blocking President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, deeming it “blatantly unconstitutional.” The order, granted in response to a lawsuit filed by Washington state and other Democratic-led states, halts implementation for 14 days pending further legal proceedings. The judge questioned the legal basis for the executive order, highlighting the potential for significant harm to affected children. The Trump administration argued that the 14th Amendment allows for exclusion of certain children, while the plaintiffs contend the order violates the amendment and will cause substantial financial and logistical burdens on state programs.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker