XPost: law.court.federal, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns
XPost: sac.politics, talk.politics.misc
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/27/trump-supreme-court- birthright-citizenship-scotus
The US supreme court has supported Donald Trump’s attempt to limit federal judges’ power to block his orders on a nationwide basis, in a
controversial ruling on an emergency appeal related to the birthright citizenship case that has wide implications for the executive branch’s
power and which Trump claimed as a “giant win”.
The decision represents a fundamental shift in how US federal courts can constrain presidential power. Previously, any of the country’s more than
1,000 judges in its 94 district courts – the lowest level of federal
court, which handles trials and initial rulings – could issue nationwide injunctions that immediately halt government policies across all 50
states.
Under the supreme court ruling, however, those court orders only apply to
the specific plaintiffs – for example, groups of states or non-profit organizations – that brought the case.
The court’s opinion on the constitutionality of whether some American-born children can be deprived of citizenship remains undecided and the fate of
the US president’s order to overturn birthright citizenship rights was
left unclear, despite Trump claiming a “giant win”.
The decision on Friday morning, however, decided six votes to three by the nine-member bench of the highest court in the land, sided with the Trump administration in a historic case that tested presidential power and
judicial oversight.
The conservative majority wrote that “universal injunctions likely exceed
the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts”,
granting “the government’s applications for a partial stay of the
injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue”.
The ruling, written by the conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not
let Trump’s policy seeking a ban on birthright citizenship go into effect immediately and did not address the policy’s legality. The fate of the
policy remains imprecise.
With the court’s conservatives in the majority and its liberals
dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump’s executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday’s ruling.
Trump celebrated the ruling as vindication of his broader agenda to roll
back judicial constraints on executive power. “Thanks to this decision, we
can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been
wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,” Trump said from the White House
press briefing room on Friday. “It wasn’t meant for people trying to scam
the system and come into the country on a vacation.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a scathing dissent. She argued
that the majority’s decision, restricting federal court powers to grant national legal relief in cases, allows Trump to enforce unconstitutional policies against people who haven’t filed lawsuits, meaning only those
with the resources and legal standing to challenge the order in court
would be protected.
“The court’s decision to permit the executive to violate the constitution
with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to
the rule of law,” Jackson wrote. “Given the critical role of the judiciary
in maintaining the rule of law ... it is odd, to say the least, that the
court would grant the executive’s wish to be freed from the constraints of
law by prohibiting district courts from ordering complete compliance with
the constitution.”
Barrett also delivered a particularly sharp rebuke directed at Jackson in
the majority opinion, writing: “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of
precedent, not to mention the constitution itself.”
Speaking from the bench, the liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor called the
court’s majority decision “a travesty for the rule of law”.
Trump added from the podium in the West Wing of the White House that
birthright citizenship “was meant for the babies of slaves” and claimed “hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under
birthright citizenship and it wasn’t meant for that reason”.
Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the 14th Amendment following the
US civil war in 1868, specifically to overturn the supreme court’s 1857
Dred Scott decision that denied citizenship to Black Americans.
The principle has stood since 1898, when the supreme court granted
citizenship to Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant
parents who could not naturalize.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) condemned the ruling as opening
the door to partial enforcement of a ban on automatic birthright
citizenship for almost everyone born in the US, in what it called an
illegal policy.
“The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be
applied to anyone,” Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’
Rights Project, said in a statement.
Democratic attorneys general who brought the original challenge said in a
press conference that while the ruling had been disappointing, the silver lining is that the supreme court left open pathways for continued
protection and that “birthright citizenship remains the law of the land”.
“We fought a civil war to address whether babies born on United States
soil are, in fact, citizens of this country,” New Jersey’s attorney
general, Matthew Platkin, said, speaking alongside colleagues from
Washington, California, Massachusetts and Connecticut. “For a century and
a half, this has not been in dispute.”
The court’s ruling in Trump v Casa Inc will boost Trump’s potential to
enforce citizenship restrictions, in this and other cases in future, in
states where courts had not specifically blocked them, creating a chaotic patchwork.
Trump’s January executive order sought to deny birthright citizenship to
babies born on US soil if their parents lack legal immigration status –
defying the 14th amendment’s guarantee that “all persons born or
naturalized in the United States” are citizens – and made justices wary
during the hearing.
The real fight in Trump v Casa Inc, wasn’t about immigration but judicial power. Trump’s lawyers demanded that nationwide injunctions blocking presidential orders be scrapped, arguing judges should only protect
specific plaintiffs who sue – not the entire country.
Three judges blocked Trump’s order nationwide after he signed it on inauguration day, which would enforce citizenship restrictions in states
where courts hadn’t specifically blocked them. The policy targeted
children of both undocumented immigrants and legal visa holders, demanding
that at least one parent be a lawful permanent resident or US citizen.
--
November 5, 2024 - Congratulations President Donald Trump. We look
forward to America being great again.
We live in a time where intelligent people are being silenced so that
stupid people won't be offended.
Every day is an IQ test. Some pass, some, not so much.
Thank you for cleaning up the disasters of the 2008-2017, 2020-2024 Obama
/ Biden / Harris fiascos, President Trump.
Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)