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 controversial ruling that significantly impacts the legal landscape surrounding birthright citizenship. The decision, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, effectively allows a Trump executive order denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents to take effect. While the court avoided directly addressing the constitutional questions about birthright citizenship, the ruling also bars lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions, which has been criticized for its implications on immigration enforcement. Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, accused the Court of “gamesmanship,” and Justice Jackson called the decision “an existential threat to the rule of law.”
Read More
During a recent press conference, President Trump was criticized for misstating the end date of the Civil War while discussing birthright citizenship. He incorrectly cited 1869 as the war’s conclusion, sparking widespread online mockery. This gaffe led users to question his knowledge of American history and ability to pass a citizenship test, especially as he advocated against birthright citizenship, a concept rooted in the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court’s ruling could impact who qualifies for automatic citizenship based on birth within the United States.
Read More
The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision restricting federal judges’ ability to issue universal injunctions, impacting cases like those challenging President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. This ruling, split along ideological lines, enables the Trump administration to advance its policies and reinforces claims of judicial overreach. The case involved nationwide injunctions used to halt the order’s enforcement while lawsuits progressed. Ultimately, the court determined that universal injunctions likely surpass the authority granted to federal courts by Congress.
Read More
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
John Q. Hosedrinker