Free Republic

‘When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.’On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared rogue lower courts’ universal injunctions against President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order to be unlawful.“[F]ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote.The final decision was 6-3,...

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday handed a major win to the Trump administration by allowing it to take steps to implement its proposal to end automatic birthright citizenship. In a 6-3 vote, the court granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by judges so that they apply only to states, groups and individuals that sued. That means the birthright citizenship proposal can likely move forward at least in part in the states that challenged it as well as those that did not. The court was divided on ideological lines, with...

On the very day Donald Trump became president again, he signed an executive order prospectively eliminating birthright citizenship for children born to aliens unlawfully present in the United States. Immediately, lawsuits were filed in a half-dozen jurisdictions across the country challenging this order. The groups bringing these suits claim the order disrupts long-standing legal norms governing citizenship. Yet, in fact, Trump’s contention — that birthright citizenship is not possessed by children of illegal aliens under the “correct interpretation of the law” — is exactly right. Birthright citizenship is conventionally understood to apply to any child born in the United States,...

Attending oral argument last week in the case touching on birthright citizenship pending before the Supreme Court, I observed a combination of confusion, omissions, and outright lies from some of the justices. As the lawyer for one of the amici, I witnessed the Court address the propriety of the nationwide, universal injunctions that have been issued by several district court judges blocking the execution of President Trump’s day-one executive order on birthright citizenship. Let’s begin with the lies. Early in the argument, Justice Sotomayor unequivocally stated that the Court had held 127 years ago that anyone born on U.S. soil...

On Thursday’s broadcast of CNN’s “The Arena,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship was “a loser.” Host Kasie Hunt said, “I want to start with what the Supreme Court discussed here today. They seemed open to limiting the ability of district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Do you think there’s potential validity to that?” Raskin said, “Not really. It would mean, for example in this case on birthright citizenship, that every family in America that might be affected or every person who might be affected would have to go themselves to court...

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Thursday in three (consolidated) cases involving challenges to President Donald Trump's executive order regarding birthright citizenship. I listened to the argument and have a few takeaways that I'll share here, but there are some preliminary matters to address before I do that.First, as explained previously, today's argument was not about the merits of the executive order (though they necessarily were discussed to a degree), nor was it about the merits of nationwide or universal injunctions in all contexts. Second, even the most learned legal scholars (which I most assuredly am not) will tell...

At 10:00 a.m. today, the Court will issue opinions in one or more of the cases pending for the October 2024 term. Scotusblog will be liveblogging as the opinions are released. You can follow that blog at:Scotusblog opinion release A list of the pending cases can be found here:October 2024 casesAfter the release of Opinions, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the government's implementation of Trump's Executive Order on birthright citizenship. I'm not sure how much the Court will address the actual merits of the case since the main issue is the constitutionality of federal judges issuing national...

For far too long, the American legal and political landscape has been distorted by a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment: that merely being born on U.S. soil makes one a citizen. This misconception contradicts the original intent of the amendment’s framers. Furthermore, it undermines the foundational principle that citizenship arises from allegiance, not geographic happenstance. On May 15, the Supreme Court will take up three cases, consolidated under the name Trump v. CASA. It will address Donald Trump’s bold and necessary attempt to end the unconstitutional practice of granting citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental...

@ThomasEWoods Trump is right about birthright citizenship (14th Amendment )

The US Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments in response to President Trump’s emergency request to stop nationwide injunction against his birthright citizenship executive order. President Trump asked the Supreme Court to stay the nationwide injunctions issued by the federal judges. The high court agreed to an expedited schedule and set arguments for May 15. ABC News reported: The Supreme Court on Thursday said it would hear expedited oral arguments next month over President Donald Trump’s emergency request to rollback nationwide injunctions against his executive order to end birthright citizenship. The nation’s highest court set arguments for May 15...

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to rein in lower court rulings that have prevented a ban on birthright citizenship from taking effect nationwide. Judges should not be able to govern “the whole Nation” from their courtrooms by issuing universal injunctions that block policies across the entire country while litigation is pending, the administration told the justices in its application. “District courts have issued more universal injunctions and TROs [temporary restraining orders] during February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden Administration,” the application states. “That sharp rise in universal injunctions stops the...

Leaving birthright citizenship to the Roberts court is walking into a minefield – legislation is the smarter route to end this unnecessary relic of the 19th century. Here’s why. If conservatives are counting on the Supreme Court to rule birthright citizenship for illegal aliens unconstitutional, think again – it isn’t the slam dunk many believe it to be. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a better path to abolishing this disastrous policy for good.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has rejected an attempt by President Donald Trump to reinstate his executive order aimed at curbing birthright citizenship. The court's decision on Wednesday (February 19) leaves in place a nationwide injunction that blocks the order, which was signed on the day of Trump's inauguration. The order sought to deny birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and certain foreigners by reinterpreting the 14th Amendment. The Ninth Circuit's three-judge panel unanimously ruled against the Trump administration's emergency request to lift the injunction, stating that the administration did not make a strong case...

President Donald Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, tied to the invasion on the border, tees up a major Supreme Court case that could become a historic Trump win that fixes a growing, decades-long problem.

Since winning his election and taking office for his second term, President Donald J. Trump wasted no time sweeping up the messes left by the dark ages of the Biden presidency, including mass deporting the multitude of law-breaking people who invaded our sovereign borders. Rather than speaking up for the rights of American citizens violently ripped from their mothers’ wombs every day, the abortion-hungry Left has leapt to defend the cause of illegal aliens. In doing so, they deem illegal aliens in the womb worthy of greater legal protections than American children in the womb. Main Idea: The American Civil...

President Trump has placed this once relatively obscure legal issue into the public square of American political democracy. He has, in essence, democratized the issue. Automatic birthright citizenship is no longer solely a technical question confined to legal elites, but a vital political and policy issue, a space where the people’s voice should be heard. Trump’s executive order and the proposed congressional legislation mean that the democratically elected branches of government have joined the conversation in deciding the critical question of who should or should not automatically become an American citizen. This is not a transient issue that will simply...

@oversightpr obtained a copy of a secret pact between 22 blue states, DC, and San Francisco which was signed just 3 days after Trump’s landslide victory, to resist his plan to end birthright citizenship. Instead of fixing gas prices, groceries, or public safety, Democrats’ top priority was ensuring that children of illegal aliens from the Biden Border Crisis could become future voters.

An immigrant group behind a major lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship receives millions of dollars in government funding annually, a Washington Examiner analysis of public records has found. CASA, an organization that helps migrants find work regardless of their legal status, filed the lawsuit alongside the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and five pregnant noncitizens in January, arguing that Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional.

America First Legal filed two amicus briefs this week in support of President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. The firm filed the briefs on behalf of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and 17 other committee members. Despite there being nearly two dozen Democrat-run states and civil rights groups suing to stop the order and two federal judges ruling to temporarily block it, America First is arguing that there is a clear constitutional basis for denying citizenship to illegal migrants who have broken the country’s immigration laws. Trump’s order titled "Protecting...

Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee, ruled that the order is likely unconstitutional. ... Boardman said the civil rights group plaintiffs, five pregnant women whose children would not be granted citizenship under the order, were likely to succeed on the merits. The plaintiffs are represented by the CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project.