|
|
|
What’s next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court’s ruling
Court News |
2025/06/28 08:07
|
The legal battle over President Donald Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration’s major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions.
Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent.
The high court’s ruling sends cases challenging the president’s birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president’s policy remains uncertain.
Here’s what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court’s ruling and what happens next.
What does birthright citizenship mean?
Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally.
The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” the amendment states.
Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents’ legal status.
It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats.
Trump has long said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship
Trump’s executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It’s part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a “magnet for illegal immigration.”
Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” – saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally.
A series of federal judges have said that’s not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect.
“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom.
In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that “the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed” Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship.
Is Trump’s order constitutional? The justices didn’t say
The high court’s ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge’s authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president’s authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters.
But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump’s bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order.
“The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges’ decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,” said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor.
Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is “very confident” that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case.
Questions and uncertainty swirl around next steps
The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps.
The Supreme Court’s ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump’s order.
But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor.
“It’s not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,” said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nations react to US strikes on Iran with many calling for diplomacy
Court News |
2025/06/23 05:35
|
Several close U.S. allies urged a return to the negotiating table in the wake of American strikes on Iran that fueled fears of a wider conflict, while noting the threat posed by Tehran’s nuclear program. Some countries and groups in the region, including those that support Iran, condemned the move while also urging de-escalation.
U.S. President Donald Trump had said Thursday that he would decide within two weeks whether to get involved in Israel’s war with Tehran. In the end, it took just days. Washington hit three Iranian nuclear sites early Sunday.
While the amount of damage remained unclear, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the U.S. had “crossed a very big red line,” the time for diplomacy was over and Iran had the right to defend itself.
Some have questioned whether a weakened Iran would capitulate or remain defiant and begin striking with allies at U.S. targets scattered across the Gulf region.
Here is a look at reactions from governments and officials around the world.
U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said he was “gravely alarmed” by the use of force by the United States.
“There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world,” he said in a statement on the social media platform X. “I call on Member States to de-escalate.”
“There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy.”
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned of escalation beyond the Middle East as he called for all sides to negotiate a diplomatic end to the crisis, saying stability was the priority in the volatile region.
The U.K., along with the European Union, France and Germany, tried unsuccessfully to broker a diplomatic solution in Geneva last week with Iran.
Starmer said Iran’s nuclear program posed a grave threat to global security.
“Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the U.S. has taken action to alleviate that threat,” Starmer said.
Dmitry Medvedev, who serves as deputy head of President Vladimir Putin’s Security Council, said several countries were prepared to supply Tehran with nuclear weapons.
He didn’t specify which countries, but said the U.S. attack caused minimal damage and would not stop Tehran from pursuing nuclear weapons.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry said it “strongly condemned” the airstrikes and called them a “a gross violation of international law, the U.N. Charter, and U.N. Security Council resolutions.”
The Iraqi government condemned the U.S. strikes, saying the military escalation created a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East. It said it poses serious risks to regional stability and called for diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the crisis.
“The continuation of such attacks risks dangerous escalation with consequences that extend beyond the borders of any single state, threatening the security of the entire region and the world,” government spokesman Bassem al-Awadi said in the statement.
Saudi Arabia, which previously condemned Israel’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and military leaders, expressed “deep concern” about the U.S. airstrikes, but stopped short of condemning them.
“The Kingdom underscores the need to exert all possible efforts to exercise restraint, de-escalate tensions, and avoid further escalation,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
China condemned U.S. strikes on Iran, calling them a serious violation of international law that further inflamed tensions in the Middle East.
In a statement, the Chinese Foreign Ministry urged all parties — especially Israel — to implement a cease-fire and begin dialogue.
“China is willing to work with the international community to pool efforts together and uphold justice, and contribute to the work for restoring peace and stability in the Middle East,” the ministry said.
The European Union’s top diplomat said Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, but she urged those involved in the conflict to show restraint.
“I urge all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said in a post on social media.
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told reporters Sunday that it was crucial to calm the situation as soon as possible, adding that the Iranian nuclear weapons development also must be prevented.
Ishiba, asked if he supports the U.S. attacks on Iran, declined to comment.
Pope Leo XIV made a strong appeal for peace during his Sunday Angelus prayer in St. Peter’s square, calling for international diplomacy to “silence the weapons.”
After an open reference to the “alarming” situation in Iran, the first American pontiff stressed that “today more than ever, humanity cries out and invokes peace and it is a cry that demands reason and must not be stifled.”
Pope Leo urged every member of the international community to take up their moral responsibility to “stop the tragedy of war before it becomes an irreparable abyss.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labor & Employment Law Attorneys in Queens, NY
Court News |
2025/06/08 10:56
|
Experienced Advocates in Labor and Employment Law
With years of experience representing both employees and employers, our firm has developed a comprehensive understanding of the legal challenges that arise in today’s workplaces. Our labor and employment attorneys provide strategic, personalized representation tailored to your specific circumstances.
We are passionate about protecting the rights of employees. If you’ve faced discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or any other form of workplace injustice, we are prepared to stand by you and pursue the justice you deserve.
We also advise employers on navigating the complex landscape of labor and employment law. From drafting employment agreements and enforcing non-compete clauses to ensuring compliance and resolving disputes, we offer practical, results-oriented legal support designed to protect your organization.
Our attorneys have successfully represented clients in both the public and private sectors across a wide range of employment matters, including:
-Wrongful termination and layoffs
-Workplace discrimination and harassment
-Promotion and advancement disputes
-Disciplinary actions
-Employment contract and severance negotiations
-Non-compete and confidentiality agreements
-Disability accommodations and related claims
Whether you're an individual seeking justice or a business seeking clarity, we are here to help.
Seo Law Group, PLLC
https://seolawgroup.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What to know about the Supreme Court arguments in the birthright citizenship case
Court News |
2025/05/18 09:37
|
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Thursday in its first case stemming from the blitz of actions that have marked the start of President Donald Trump’s second term.
Before the court are the Trump administration’s emergency appeals of lower court orders putting nationwide holds on the Republican president’s push to deny citizenship to children born to people who are in the United States illegally.
Birthright citizenship is among several issues, many related to immigration, that the administration has asked the court to address on an emergency basis, after lower courts acted to slow the president’s agenda.
The justices are also considering the administration’s pleas to end humanitarian parole for more than 500,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela and to strip other temporary legal protections from another 350,000 Venezuelans. The administration remains locked in legal battles over its efforts to swiftly deport people accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.
In Thursday’s arguments, the justices will be weighing whether judges have the authority to issue what are called nationwide, or universal, injunctions. The Trump administration, like the Biden administration before it, has complained that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court.
Yet in discussing the limits of a judge’s power, the court almost certainly will have to take up the change to citizenship that Trump wants to make, which would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years.
The first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The Citizenship Clause, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, was included to ensure that formerly enslaved people would be citizens. It effectively overturned the notorious Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court held that Black people, no matter their status, were not citizens.
Since at least 1898 and the Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark, the provision has been widely interpreted to make citizens of everyone born on U.S. soil except for the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; and, until a federal law changed things in 1924, sovereign Native American tribes.
Trump’s executive order would deny citizenship to children if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Those categories include people who are in the country illegally or temporarily because, the administration contends, they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Almost immediately, states, immigrants and rights groups sued to block the executive order, accusing the Republican administration of trying to unsettle the understanding of birthright citizenship. Every court to consider the issue has sided with the challengers.
The administration is asking for the court orders to be reined in, not overturned entirely, and spends little time defending the executive order. The Justice Department argues that there has been an “explosion” in the number of nationwide injunctions issued since Trump retook the White House. The far-reaching court orders violate the law as well as long-standing views on a judge’s authority, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote on behalf of the administration.
Courts typically deal only with the parties before them. Even class actions reach only the people who are part of a class certified by a judge, though those can affect millions of people, Sauer wrote.
Nationwide injunctions, by contrast, have no limits and can even include parties who oppose what the court orders are designed to protect, he wrote. As an example, Sauer pointed to Republican-led states that favor the administration’s position but are subject to the nationwide injunctions.
But the justices may well ask about Trump’s executive order and perhaps even tip their hand.
Lawyers for the states and immigrants argue that this is an odd issue for the court to use to limit judges’ authority because courts have uniformly found that Trump’s order likely violates the Constitution. Limiting the number of people who are protected by the rulings would create a confusing patchwork of rules in which new restrictions on citizenship could temporarily take effect in 27 states. That means a child born in a state that is challenging Trump’s order would be a citizen, but a child born at the same time elsewhere would not, the lawyers said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trump Seeks Supreme Court Approval to End Protections for Venezuelans
Court News |
2025/05/15 10:55
|
The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to strip temporary legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans, potentially exposing them to being deported.
The Justice Department asked the high court to put on hold a ruling from a federal judge in San Francisco that kept in place Temporary Protected Status for the Venezuelans that would have otherwise expired last month.
The status allows people already in the United States to live and work legally because their native countries are deemed unsafe for return due to natural disaster or civil strife.
A federal appeals court had earlier rejected the administration’s request.
President Donald Trump’s administration has moved aggressively to withdraw various protections that have allowed immigrants to remain in the country, including ending TPS for a total of 600,000 Venezuelans and 500,000 Haitians. TPS is granted in 18-month increments.
The emergency appeal to the high court came the same day a federal judge in Texas ruled illegal the administration’s efforts to deport Venezuelans under an 18th-century wartime law. The cases are not related.
The protections had been set to expire April 7, but U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ordered a pause on those plans. He found that the expiration threatened to severely disrupt the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and could cost billions in lost economic activity.
Chen, who was appointed to the bench by Democratic President Barack Obama, found the government hadn’t shown any harm caused by keeping the program alive.
But Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote on behalf of the administration that Chen’s order impermissibly interferes with the administration’s power over immigration and foreign affairs.
In addition, Sauer told the justices, people affected by ending the protected status might have other legal options to try to remain in the country because the “decision to terminate TPS is not equivalent to a final removal order.”
Congress created TPS in 1990 to prevent deportations to countries suffering from natural disasters or civil strife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Law Firm Web Design Information |
| Law Promo has worked with attorneys, lawyers and law firms all over the world in designing beautiful law firm websites that look great on all devices, from desktop computers to mobile phones. Law Promo can construct your law firm a brand new responsive law firm website, or help you redesign your existing site to secure your place in the mobile world. Solo Practice Law Firm Website Design |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
