In a Truth Social post, former President Donald Trump stated he is considering revoking Rosie O’Donnell’s U.S. citizenship, citing her as a “threat to humanity.” This sparked backlash, especially since legal experts have noted that the President does not have the authority to revoke the citizenship of someone born in the U.S. except in cases of fraud. The feud between Trump and O’Donnell dates back to 2006 when O’Donnell criticized Trump’s moral character, leading to ongoing public attacks. O’Donnell currently resides in Ireland.
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
Donald Trump and his allies are targeting the U.S. census, with a new proposal backed by Trump aiming to alter the electoral map significantly. This plan, championed by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, would mandate a new census that only counts U.S. citizens, effectively excluding non-citizens from the apportionment process. This proposal, mirroring a previous Republican bill, is framed as a response to false claims of election rigging and is seen by critics as an unconstitutional attack on the electoral system. Such actions align with historical efforts by white supremacists, violating the Constitution’s requirement to count all residents for apportionment and potentially leading to a constitutional crisis.
Read More
The Department of Justice has signaled its intent to broaden the scope of denaturalization efforts, as indicated in a recent memo outlining enforcement priorities. The memo prioritizes cases involving individuals posing a potential national security threat, including those with alleged ties to terrorism, raising concerns about the potential for politically motivated targeting. This expansion could involve scrutinizing naturalized citizens for omissions on their citizenship applications based on broad interpretations of national security. Although legal challenges and Supreme Court precedents may limit the administration’s ability to carry out mass denaturalizations, the policy of fear could discourage political activism.
Read More
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is making denaturalization a top priority, directing its attorneys to aggressively pursue cases against naturalized citizens who commit crimes. This initiative will focus on individuals who may have committed fraud or other violations, expanding the criteria for which crimes could result in a loss of citizenship. Immigration experts express serious concerns about the constitutionality of the effort, especially regarding its potential impact on naturalized citizens and their families. The government has indicated that it plans to pursue these cases through civil litigation, raising due process questions and fears of creating a second class of citizens.
Read More
A recent Justice Department memo outlines the Trump administration’s prioritization of denaturalization for naturalized citizens who commit certain crimes or procured citizenship through fraudulent means. The memo targets the estimated 25 million naturalized U.S. citizens, identifying ten priority categories for denaturalization, including those involved in war crimes, serious human rights abuses, and criminal activities. Legal experts express concerns over the civil proceedings that lack the same legal protections as criminal cases. This policy shift coincides with the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division’s involvement in ending DEI programs and other initiatives, while the division itself faces significant attrition of attorneys.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has paved the way for potential federal enforcement of an executive order restricting birthright citizenship. This ruling, though not addressing the order’s legality, limits federal courts’ power to issue nationwide injunctions, preventing policies from taking effect during litigation. In dissent, Justices Sotomayor and Jackson criticized the decision, accusing the court of undermining its role in checking government power and warning of broader threats to constitutional protections, including the potential for executive overreach and creation of a “zone of lawlessness.” The justices emphasized that the principle of birthright citizenship has stood unchallenged for over a century.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA, effectively dismantling nationwide injunctions, has unleashed legal chaos. This decision removes the ability of lower courts to issue broad injunctions, empowering Trump to potentially violate constitutional rights on a case-by-case basis, varying by state or even county. The ruling’s consequence could mean that citizenship status will depend on where a person is born, mirroring the pre-Civil War era, which is a step backward. By targeting nationwide injunctions in this context, the court paves the way for Trump to implement policies previously blocked, including those related to birthright citizenship, thus pulling the country back to a neo-Confederate legal landscape.
Read More
Opponents of President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship are pursuing new legal strategies to challenge it. The ACLU and immigration rights advocates have filed a class-action lawsuit arguing the order violates the Constitution, seeking an emergency restraining order. The suit, filed in New Hampshire, seeks to protect a class of babies and their parents, potentially filling gaps left by existing litigation. The legal move is an attempt to navigate a recent Supreme Court decision limiting sweeping injunctions, although justices have raised concerns about the use of nationwide class actions to challenge the order.
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
John Q. Hosedrinker