The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling, partially blocking nationwide injunctions against Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing the majority opinion. The court’s decision limits the ability of lower courts to issue broad injunctions, aligning with arguments that such measures overreach the executive branch’s policy-making authority. Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, argued the ruling would disproportionately impact the vulnerable. The court did not address the merits of the birthright citizenship order itself, maintaining the status quo while returning the case to lower courts to reconsider the scope of their orders.
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 ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing them to take steps to implement the proposal to end automatic birthright citizenship by limiting the scope of nationwide injunctions. In a 6-3 decision, the court determined that injunctions should apply only to the specific states, groups, and individuals that sued, enabling the policy to potentially proceed in states that did not challenge it. The ruling, which did not address the plan’s legal merits, sparked responses from plaintiffs who vowed to continue legal challenges, while the administration can now continue with its administrative work on implementation. The court also noted that the executive order would technically go into effect in 30 days.
Read More
Two-year-old American citizen Emanuelly Borges Santos was deported to Brazil with her undocumented parents by the Trump administration, despite possessing a U.S. passport and Social Security card. Brazilian officials were surprised by her presence among the deportees, and Manu now lacks access to healthcare and education while living on a temporary tourist visa. Her parents claim they were not given a choice regarding her deportation, contradicting DHS statements. This incident highlights concerns about the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts and the potential impact of a Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship.
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
Senator Ted Cruz recently denounced birthright citizenship as “terrible policy” during a Fox News interview, despite benefiting from it himself. This 14th Amendment guarantee of citizenship for those born in the U.S. has faced criticism from some conservatives, with Cruz’s statement sparking immediate backlash on social media. Many users highlighted the irony of Cruz’s position given his own Canadian birth and subsequent acquisition of citizenship via his mother. Cruz has yet to clarify whether his stance would retroactively affect his own citizenship.
Read More
Following oral arguments in a Supreme Court case challenging his executive order ending birthright citizenship, President Trump accused Democrats of “playing the ref,” alleging coordinated efforts to influence the justices. He warned the court against succumbing to these perceived games, claiming widespread public support. However, this assertion contradicts recent polling data showing low approval ratings for both Trump and his executive order. Trump’s rhetoric implied potential repercussions for justices ruling against his administration.
Read More
During Supreme Court oral arguments concerning birthright citizenship, Justice Barrett questioned Solicitor General Sauer about the Trump administration’s adherence to lower court rulings. Sauer stated that while the DOJ generally respects circuit precedents, exceptions exist, particularly when seeking to overturn rulings. This prompted Barrett, and previously Justice Kagan, to question whether this was a long-standing practice of the federal government or specific to the Trump administration. Sauer’s responses highlighted a potential conflict between the executive branch’s actions and the principle of judicial authority, with the ultimate decision on birthright citizenship and the administration’s approach to be determined by the Supreme Court.
Read More
During Supreme Court arguments concerning birthright citizenship, Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the Trump administration’s legal strategy, challenging the solicitor general’s assertion that expedited legal challenges were impossible. This sharp questioning, defending Justice Kagan’s concerns, directly contradicted the Trump administration’s position and sparked significant backlash from MAGA supporters. Her actions were interpreted as undermining conservative goals and prompted online accusations of disloyalty and calls for her removal from the Supreme Court. The case itself centers on the legality of a Trump executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Read More
President Trump, in a series of Truth Social posts, vehemently attacked birthright citizenship, labeling the U.S. as “stupid” and its citizens as “suckers,” while the Supreme Court considered a case challenging the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to those born within U.S. borders. Trump’s claims falsely narrowed the 14th Amendment’s historical context to solely encompass the children of slaves, ignoring its broader application and established legal precedent. Despite this, the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, overturned the Dred Scott decision and has been consistently interpreted to include children of immigrants, as affirmed by the 1898 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court is now tasked with resolving the conflict between Trump’s executive order and longstanding legal interpretation.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker