The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, focusing on injunctions against his executive order. This order, based on a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, seeks to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen mothers. Several lower courts swiftly issued nationwide injunctions against the order, which the administration unsuccessfully attempted to overturn. The Court must decisively reject the administration’s arguments to uphold birthright citizenship and maintain the integrity of the judicial system.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s decision to consider former President Trump’s attempt to ban birthright citizenship via executive order is deeply troubling. The very notion that such a fundamental right, enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, could be overturned through an executive action, rather than the constitutionally mandated process of amendment, is alarming. This isn’t just a legal battle; it’s a direct challenge to the bedrock principles of American citizenship.
The sheer audacity of attempting to circumvent the Constitution through an executive order is astounding. The established legal framework for altering constitutional rights is clear and deliberate, yet this attempt seeks to bypass it entirely.… Continue reading
Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez, a U.S. citizen born in Georgia, was arrested in Florida under a controversial state law for allegedly entering the state illegally. Despite a judge verifying his birth certificate and Social Security card, and finding no probable cause for the charge, he remains detained by ICE. This detention is occurring despite a prior federal court injunction temporarily blocking the law’s enforcement. His family and advocates are demanding his immediate release, citing potential racial profiling.
Read More
The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn nationwide injunctions blocking its attempt to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. Lower courts have consistently rejected the administration’s argument, deeming the executive order unconstitutional and contrary to established legal precedent interpreting the 14th Amendment. The administration’s appeal focuses on limiting the scope of the injunctions, not directly challenging the constitutionality of the policy itself, though it presented arguments questioning the long-held interpretation of birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court will likely issue a briefing schedule soon, requiring a rapid response from those opposing the administration’s efforts.
Read More
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
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
Judge Coughenour granted a preliminary injunction against former President Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, finding the order unconstitutional. The judge’s decision, which blocks enforcement of the order ahead of its February 18th effective date, strongly affirmed the rule of law and rejected the administration’s attempt to amend the Constitution via executive action. He declared that altering birthright citizenship requires a constitutional amendment, not an executive order. This ruling comes from a Reagan-appointed judge, underscoring the bipartisan nature of the legal challenge to the executive order.
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
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
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood