citizenship

NEW YORK — President Trump’s request to add a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form cannot be enforced, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., sided with Democratic and civil rights groups that sued the Trump administration over his executive order to overhaul U.S. elections.

She ruled that the proof-of-citizenship directive is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, dealing a blow to the administration and its allies who have argued that such a mandate is necessary to restore public confidence that only Americans are voting in U.S. elections.

“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her opinion.

She further emphasized that on matters related to setting qualifications for voting and regulating federal election procedures “the Constitution assigns no direct role to the President in either domain.”

Kollar-Kotelly echoed comments she made when she granted a preliminary injunction over the issue.

The ruling grants the plaintiffs a partial summary judgment that prohibits the proof-of-citizenship requirement from going into effect. It says the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which has been considering adding the requirement to the federal voter form, is permanently barred from taking action to do so.

A message seeking comment from the White House was not immediately returned.

The lawsuit brought by the DNC and various civil rights groups will continue to play out to allow the judge to consider other challenges to Trump’s order. That includes a requirement that all mailed ballots be received, rather than just postmarked, by Election Day.

Other lawsuits against Trump’s election executive order are ongoing.

In early April, 19 Democratic state attorneys general asked a separate federal court to reject Trump’s executive order. Washington and Oregon, where virtually all voting is done with mailed ballots, followed with their own lawsuit against the order.

Swenson and Riccardi write for the Associated Press.

PORTLAND, Maine — Maine’s elections in recent years have been relatively free of problems, and verified cases of voter fraud are exceedingly rare.

That’s not stopping Republicans from pushing for major changes in the way the state conducts its voting.

Maine is one of two states with election-related initiatives on the Nov. 4 ballot but is putting the most far-reaching measure before voters. In Texas, Republicans are asking voters to make clear in the state constitution that people who are not U.S. citizens are ineligible to vote.

Maine’s Question 1 centers on requiring voter ID, but is more sweeping in nature. The initiative, which has the backing of an influential conservative group in the state, also would limit the use of drop boxes to just one per municipality and create restrictions for absentee voting even as the practice has been growing in popularity.

Voters in both states will decide on the measures at a time when President Trump continues to lie about widespread fraud leading to his loss in the 2020 presidential election and make unsubstantiated claims about future election-rigging, a strategy that has become routine during election years. Republicans in Congress and state legislatures have been pushing for proof of citizenship requirements to register and vote, but with only limited success.

Maine’s initiative would impose voter ID, restrict absentee voting

The Maine proposal seeks to require voters to produce a voter ID before casting a ballot, a provision that has been adopted in several other states, mostly those controlled by Republicans. In April, Wisconsin voters enshrined that state’s existing voter ID law into the state’s constitution.

Question 1 also would eliminate two days of absentee voting, prohibit requests for absentee ballots by phone or family members, end absentee voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, and limit the number of drop boxes, among other changes.

Absentee voting is popular in Maine, where Democrats control the Legislature and governor’s office and voters have elected a Republican and an independent as U.S. senators. Nearly half of voters there used absentee voting in the 2024 presidential election.

Gov. Janet Mills is one of many Democrats in the state speaking out against the proposed changes.

“Whether you vote in person or by absentee ballot, you can trust that your vote will be counted fairly,” Mills said. “But that fundamental right to vote is under attack from Question 1.”

Proponents of the voter ID push said it’s about shoring up election security.

“There’s been a lot of noise about what it would supposedly do, but here’s the simple truth: Question 1 is about securing Maine’s elections,” said Republican Rep. Laurel Libby, a proponent of the measure.

A key supporter of the ballot initiative is Dinner Table PAC, a conservative group in the state. Dinner Table launched Voter ID for ME, which has raised more than $600,000 to promote the initiative. The bulk of that money has come from the Republican State Leadership Committee, which advocates for Republican candidates and initiatives at the state level through the country. Save Maine Absentee Voting, a state group that opposes the initiative, has raised more than $1.6 million, with the National Education Assn. as its top donor.

The campaigning for and against the initiative is playing out as the state and FBI are investigating how dozens of unmarked ballots meant to be used in this year’s election arrived inside a woman’s Amazon order. The secretary of state’s office says the blank ballots, still bundled and wrapped in plastic, will not be used in the election.

Texas voters consider a citizenship requirement

In Texas, voters are deciding whether to add wording to the state constitution that Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and other backers said would guarantee that noncitizens will not be able to vote in elections there. State and federal laws already make it illegal for noncitizens to vote.

Thirteen states have made similar changes to their constitutions since North Dakota first did in 2018. Proposed constitutional amendments are on the November 2026 ballot in Kansas and South Dakota.

The measures have so far proven popular, winning approval with an average of 72% of the vote.

“I think it needs to sweep the nation,” said Republican state Rep. A.J. Louderback, who represents a district southwest of Houston. “I think we need to clean this mess up.”

Voters already have to attest they are U.S. citizens when they register, and voting by noncitizens, which is rare, is punishable as a felony and can lead to deportation.

Louderback and other supporters of such amendments point to policies in at least 20 communities across the country that allow noncitizens to vote in local elections, though none are in Texas. They include Oakland and San Francisco, where noncitizens can cast ballots in school board races if they have children in the public schools, the District of Columbia, and several towns in Maryland and Vermont.

Other states, including Kansas, have wording in their constitutions putting a citizenship requirement in affirmative terms: Any U.S. citizen over 18 is eligible to vote. In some states, amendments have rewritten the language to make it more of a prohibition: Only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote.

The article on voting in the Texas Constitution currently begins with a list of three “classes of persons not allowed to vote”: people under 18, convicted felons and those “who have been determined mentally incompetent by a court.” The Nov. 4 amendment would add a fourth, “persons who are not citizens of the United States.”

Critics say the proposed changes are unnecessary

Critics say the Maine voter ID requirement and Texas noncitizen prohibition are solutions in search of a problem and promote a longstanding conservative GOP narrative that noncitizen voting is a significant problem, when in fact it’s exceedingly rare.

In Texas, the secretary of state’s office recently announced it had found the names of 2,700 “potential noncitizens” on its registration rolls out of the state’s nearly 18.5 million registered voters.

Veronikah Warms, staff attorney at the Texas Civil Rights Project, said pushing the narrative encourages discrimination and stokes fear of state retaliation among naturalized citizens and people of color. Her group works to protect the rights of those groups and immigrants and opposes the proposed amendment.

“It just doesn’t serve any purpose besides furthering the lie that noncitizens are trying to subvert our democratic process,” she said. “This is just furthering a harmful narrative that will make it scarier for people to actually exercise their constitutional right.”

In Maine, approval of Question 1 would most likely make voting more difficult overall, said Mark Brewer, chair of the University of Maine political science department. He added that claims of widespread voter fraud are unsupported by evidence.

“The data show that the more hoops and restrictions you put on voting, the harder it is to vote and the fewer people will vote,” he said.

Whittle and Hanna write for the Associated Press. Hanna reported from Topeka, Kan.

Gennadiy Trukhanov is alleged to have Russian citizenship, which is prohibited in Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stripped the mayor of Odesa, Gennadiy Trukhanov, of Ukrainian citizenship over allegations that he possesses a Russian passport.

The Ukrainian leader has instead appointed a military administration to run the country’s biggest port city on the Black Sea, with a population of about 1 million.

“The Ukrainian citizenship of the mayor of Odesa, Gennadiy Trukhanov, has been suspended,” Ukraine’s SBU security service announced on the Telegram messaging app on Tuesday, citing a decree signed by Zelenskyy.

The SBU accused the mayor of “possessing a valid international passport from the aggressor country”.

Ukraine prohibits its citizens from also holding citizenship in Russia, which launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and the move against Trukhanov could see him deported from the country.

In a post on social media, Zelenskyy said he had held a meeting with the head of the SBU, which had reported on “countering Russian agent networks and collaborators in the front-line and border regions, as well as in the south of our country”.

The SBU chief “confirmed… the fact that certain individuals hold Russian citizenship – relevant decisions regarding them have been prepared. I have signed the decree”, Zelenskyy said.

I held a meeting on the security situation in some of our regions – these are matters of principle.

Head of the Security Service of Ukraine Vasyl Maliuk reported on countering Russian agent networks and collaborators in the frontline and border regions, as well as in the south… pic.twitter.com/MxKyKjPYc9

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) October 14, 2025

“Far too many security issues in Odesa have remained unanswered for far too long,” the president also said, according to reports, without providing specific details.

A former member of parliament, Trukhanov has been the mayor of Odesa since 2014. He has consistently denied accusations of holding Russian citizenship, an allegation that has dogged him throughout his political career.

“I have never received a Russian passport. I am a Ukrainian citizen,” Trukhanov stressed in a video message posted on Telegram following the announcement of his citizenship revocation.

Trukhanov said he would “continue to perform the duties of elected mayor” as long as possible and that he would take the case to court.

Images of a Russian passport allegedly belonging to Trukhanov have been shared widely on social media in Ukraine.

SBU says: pic.twitter.com/fcRe8acOgo

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) October 14, 2025

Once considered a politician with pro-Russian leanings, Trukhanov pivoted after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and has publicly condemned Moscow while focusing on defending Odesa and aiding the Ukrainian army.

A source familiar with the matter told the Reuters news agency that Zelenskyy had also removed the Ukrainian citizenships of two other people.

Local media outlet The Kyiv Independent identified the two as Ukrainian ballet dancer Sergei Polunin, a vocal supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and former Ukrainian politician and now alleged Russian collaborator Oleg Tsaryov.

Polunin, who sports a large tattoo of Putin on his chest, was born in southern Ukraine but obtained Russian citizenship in 2018. He supported Russia’s 2022 invasion and, earlier in 2014, backed Russia’s annexation of Crimea, where he lived and worked.

In July, Zelenskyy revoked the citizenship of Metropolitan Onufriy, the head of the formerly Moscow-linked Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices like to talk about the Constitution’s separation of powers and how it limits the exercise of official authority.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts and his conservative colleagues have given no sign so far they will check President Trump’s one-man governance by executive order.

To the contrary, the conservative justices have repeatedly ruled for Trump on fast-track appeals and overturned federal judges who said the president had exceeded his authority.

The court’s new term opens on Monday, and the justices will begin hearing arguments.

But those regularly scheduled cases have been overshadowed by Trump’s relentless drive to remake the government, to punish his political enemies, including universities, law firms, TV networks and prominent Democrats, and to send troops to patrol U.S. cities.

The overriding question has become: Are there any legal limits on the president’s power? The Supreme Court itself has raised the doubts.

A year ago, as Trump ran to reclaim the White House, the justices blocked a felony criminal indictment against him related to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, mob attack on the Capitol as Congress met to certify Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election, for which Trump was impeached.

Led by Roberts, the court ruled for Trump and declared for the first time that presidents were immune from being prosecuted for their official actions in the White House.

Not surprisingly, Trump saw this as a “BIG WIN” and proof there is no legal check on his power.

This year, Trump’s lawyers have confidently gone to Supreme Court with emergency appeals when lower-court judges have stood in their way. With few exceptions, they have won, often over dissents from the court’s three liberal Democrats.

Many court scholars say they are disappointed but not surprised by the court’s response so far to Trump’s aggressive use of executive power.

The Supreme Court “has been a rubber stamp approving Trump’s actions,” said UC Berkeley law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “I hope very much that the court will be a check on Trump. There isn’t any other. But so far, it has not played that role.”

Roberts “had been seen as a Republican but not a Trump Republican. But he doesn’t seem interested or willing to put any limits on him,” said UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. “Maybe they think they’re saving their credibility for when it really counts.”

Acting on his own, Trump moved quickly to reshape the federal government. He ordered cuts in spending and staffing at federal agencies and fired inspectors general and officials of independent agencies who had fixed terms set by Congress. He stepped up arrests and deportations of immigrants who are here illegally.

But the court’s decisions on those fronts are in keeping with the long-standing views of the conservatives on the bench.

Long before Trump ran for office, Roberts had argued that the Constitution gives the president broad executive authority to control federal agencies, including the power to fire officials who disagree with him.

The court’s conservatives also think the president has the authority to enforce — or not enforce — immigration laws.

That’s also why many legal experts think the year ahead will provide a better test of the Supreme Court and Trump’s challenge to the constitutional order.

“Overall, my reaction is that it’s too soon to tell,” said William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and a former clerk for Roberts. “In the next year, we will likely see decisions about tariffs, birthright citizenship, alien enemies and perhaps more, and we’ll know a lot more.”

In early September, Trump administration lawyers rushed the tariffs case to the Supreme Court because they believed it was better to lose sooner rather than later.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the government could face up to a $1-trillion problem if the court delayed a decision until next summer and then ruled the tariffs were illegal.

“Unwinding them could cause significant disruption,” he told the court.

The Constitution says tariffs, taxes and raising revenue are matters for Congress to decide. Through most of American history, tariffs funded much of the federal government. That began to change after 1913 when the 16th Amendment was adopted to authorize “taxes on incomes.”

Trump has said he would like to return to an earlier era when import taxes funded the government.

“I always say ‘tariffs’ is the most beautiful word to me in the dictionary,” he said at a rally after his inauguration in January. “Because tariffs are going to make us rich as hell. It’s going to bring our country’s businesses back that left us.”

While he could have gone to the Republican-controlled Congress to get approval, he imposed several rounds of large and worldwide tariffs acting on his own.

Several small businesses sued and described the tariffs as “the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.”

As for legal justification, the president’s lawyers pointed to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. It authorizes the president to “deal with any unusual or extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.”

The law did not mention tariffs, taxes or duties but said the president could “regulate” the “importation” of products.

Trump administration lawyers argue that the “power to ‘regulate importation’ plainly encompasses the power to impose tariffs.” They also say the court should defer to the president because tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security.

They said the president invoked the tariffs not to raise revenue but to “rectify America’s country-killing trade deficits and to stem the flood of fentanyl and other lethal drugs across our borders.”

In response to lawsuits from small businesses and several states, judges who handle international trade cases ruled the tariffs were illegal. However, they agreed to keep them in place to allow for appeals.

Their opinion relied in part on recent Supreme Court’s decisions which struck down potentially far-reaching regulations from Democratic presidents on climate change, student loan debt and COVID-19 vaccine requirements. In each of the decisions, Roberts said Congress had not clearly authorized the disputed regulations.

Citing that principle, the federal circuit court said it “seems unlikely that Congress intended to … grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”

Trump said that decision, if allowed to stand, “could literally destroy the United States of America.” The court agreed to hear arguments in the tariffs case on Nov. 5.

A victory for Trump would be “viewed as a dramatic expansion of presidential power,” said Washington attorney Stephanie Connor, who works on tariff cases. Trump and future presidents could sidestep Congress to impose tariffs simply by citing an emergency, she said.

But the decision itself may have a limited impact because the administration has announced new tariffs last week that were based on other national security laws.

Last month, Trump administration lawyers asked the Supreme Court to rule during the upcoming term on the birthright citizenship promised by the 14th Amendment of 1868.

They did not seek a fast-track ruling, however. Instead, they said the court should grant review and hear arguments on the regular schedule early next year. If so, a decision would be handed down by late June.

The amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

And in the past, both Congress and the Supreme Court have agreed that rule applies broadly to all children who are born here, except if their parents are foreign ambassadors or diplomats who are not subject to U.S. laws.

But Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said that interpretation is mistaken. He said the post-Civil War amendment was “adopted to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, not to the children of illegal aliens, birth tourists and temporary visitors.”

Judges in three regions of the country have rejected Trump’s limits on the citizenship rule and blocked it from taking effect nationwide while the litigation continues.

DES MOINES — Officials put the leader of Iowa’s largest school district on administrative leave Saturday, a day after federal immigration agents arrested him because they said he was in the country illegally.

The Des Moines school board voted unanimously to place Supt. Ian Roberts on paid leave. The board said during a three-minute meeting that Roberts was not available to carry out his duties for the 30,000-student district and that officials would reassess his status after getting more information.

After the meeting, school board President Jackie Norris read a statement saying that word of Roberts’ arrest Friday made for a “jarring day,” but noting that board members still didn’t have all the facts.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said agents detained Roberts because he was in the country illegally, didn’t have authorization to work and was subject to a final removal order issued in 2024. ICE agents stopped Roberts while he was driving a school-issued vehicle, and the agency said he then fled into a wooded area before being apprehended with help from Iowa State Patrol officers.

He was held in the Woodbury County Jail in Sioux City, in northwest Iowa, about 150 miles from Des Moines.

“I want to be clear, no one here was aware of any citizenship or immigration issues that Dr. Roberts may have been facing,” Norris said. “The accusations ICE had made against Dr. Roberts are very serious, and we are taking them very seriously.”

Norris said Roberts has retained a Des Moines law firm to represent him. Lawyer Alfredo Parrish confirmed his firm was representing Roberts, but declined to comment on his case.

Norris also repeated that the district had done a background check on Roberts before he was hired that didn’t indicate any problems and that he signed a form affirming he was a U.S. citizen. A company that aided in the search for a superintendent in 2023 also hired another firm to conduct “comprehensive criminal, credit and background checks” on Roberts that didn’t indicate any citizenship problems, Norris said.

Also Saturday, the Iowa Department of Education released a statement saying Roberts stated he was a U.S. citizen when he applied for an administrator license. The department said the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners conducted a criminal history check with state and federal authorities before issuing a license.

The department said it is reviewing the Des Moines district’s hiring procedures for ensuring people are authorized to work in the U.S.

Roberts had previously said he was born to immigrant parents from Guyana and spent much of his childhood in Brooklyn, N.Y. He competed in the 2000 Olympics in track and field for Guyana.

ICE said he entered the U.S. on a student visa in 1999.

A former senior Guyanese police official on Saturday remembered Roberts as a middle-distance runner who could have risen through the ranks of the South American country’s police force had he not emigrated to the U.S. decades ago. Retired Assistant Guyana Police Force Commissioner Paul Slowe said Roberts entered the police force after graduating from the country’s standard military officers’ course.

“He served for a few years and then left. He was not dismissed or dishonorably discharged at all; he just moved on,” Slowe told the Associated Press. “He was a good, promising and disciplined man.”

McFetridge writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Bert Wilkinson in Georgetown, Guyana, contributed to this report.

Sept. 27 (UPI) — The Justice Department on Friday asked the Supreme Court to rule on the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship provision following adverse rulings in lower courts.

President Donald Trump on the first day of his second term in office signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship for anyone who does not have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, but lower courts have blocked the order’s implementation, according to NBC News.

“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” the DOJ said in its appeal to the Supreme Court, as reported by USA Today.

“Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people,” the appeal said.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in July ruled in favor of a challenge filed by officials for Washington state and three others.

In a separate case, U.S. District Court of New Hampshire Judge Joseph Laplante granted class action status to a case filed by individuals, which enabled that court’s ruling against the president’s executive order to have national impact.

President George W. Bush appointed Laplante to the federal court in 2007.

The DOJ wants the Supreme Court to review the New Hampshire case and Laplante’s ruling despite the matter being appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

The federal appellate court has not ruled on that case.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to uphold President Trump’s birthright citizenship order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

The appeal, shared with the Associated Press on Saturday, sets in motion a process at the high court that could lead to a definitive ruling from the justices on whether the citizenship restrictions are constitutional.

Lower-court judges have blocked them from taking effect anywhere. The Republican administration is not asking the court to let the restrictions take effect before it rules.

The Justice Department’s petition has been shared with lawyers for parties challenging the order, but is not yet docketed at the Supreme Court.

Any decision on whether to take up the case probably is months away and arguments probably would not take place until the late winter or early spring.

“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote. “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”

Cody Wofsy, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said the administration’s plan is plainly unconstitutional.

“This executive order is illegal, full stop, and no amount of maneuvering from the administration is going to change that. We will continue to ensure that no baby’s citizenship is ever stripped away by this cruel and senseless order,” Wofsy said in an email.

Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term in the White House that would upend more than 125 years of understanding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.

In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down the executive order as unconstitutional, or likely so, even after a Supreme Court ruling in late June that limited judges’ use of nationwide injunctions.

While the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions, it did not rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The justices did not decide at that time whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

But every lower court that has looked at the issue has concluded that Trump’s order violates or probably violates the 14th Amendment, which was intended to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved people, had citizenship.

The administration is appealing two cases.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled in July that a group of states that sued over the order needed a nationwide injunction to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship being in effect in some states and not others.

Also in July, a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the citizenship order in a class-action lawsuit including all children who would be affected.

Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers who are in the country illegally, under long-standing rules. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.

The administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

Sherman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

The Trump administration moved again Wednesday to make it harder to gain U.S. citizenship, announcing a slate of changes to the core civics test that immigrants must pass to be naturalized.

The changes would expand the number of questions immigrants need to be prepared to answer, and increase the number of questions they must answer correctly in order to pass.

The changes, announced as pending in the Federal Register, would largely revert the test to a similarly longer and harder version that was introduced in 2020 during President Trump’s first term, but was swiftly rolled back under President Biden in 2021.

The shift follows other Trump administration changes to the process by which U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials determine whether prospective citizens are qualified, including enhanced assessments of their “moral character” and whether they ascribe to any “anti-American” beliefs, and intense checks into their community ties and social media networks.

It also comes amid a broader crackdown on undocumented immigration, and what Trump has said will be the largest “mass deportation” in U.S. history. That effort has been heavily centered in the Los Angeles region, to the consternation of many Democratic leaders and immigration advocacy organizations.

The new naturalization test, like the short-lived 2020 version, would draw from 128 possible questions and require prospective citizens to answer 12 out of 20 questions correctly in order to pass. Under the current test, which dates to 2008, there are 100 possible questions, and prospective citizens must answer six out of 10 correctly.

Trump administration officials said the new test “will better assess an alien’s understanding of U.S. history, government, and English language,” and is part of a “multi-step overhaul” of the citizenship process that will ensure traditional American culture and values are protected.

“We are doing everything in our power to make sure that anyone who is offered the privilege of becoming an American citizen fulfills their obligation to their new country,” Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement.

Immigration advocates cast the change as an attempt by the administration to further impede the legal pathway to citizenship for hardworking immigrants already deeply rooted in the U.S. They say it is part of a broader, authoritarian campaign by Trump and his administration to vet potential new citizens and other legal immigrants for conservative ideology and loyalty to him — all while the administration aggressively targets people for deportation based on little more than the color of their skin and the work that they do.

“The Trump administration lauding the privileges of becoming a U.S. citizen — while making it harder to obtain it — rings hollow when you consider that it is also arguing before the Supreme Court that law enforcement can racially profile Latines,” said Jennifer Ibañez Whitlock, senior policy counsel at the National Immigration Law Center. “All this does is make it harder for longtime residents who contribute to this country every day to finally achieve the permanent protections that only U.S. citizenship can offer.”

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled in a case challenging immigration raids in California that immigration agents may stop and detain people they suspect are in the U.S. illegally based on little more than the color of their skin, their speaking Spanish and their working in fields or locations with large immigrant workforces.

Last month, USCIS announced that it was ramping up its vetting of immigrants’ social media activity and looking for “anti-American ideologies or activities,” including “antisemitic ideologies.” That announcement followed months of enforcement against pro-Palestinian student activists and other U.S. visa and green card holders that raised alarms among constitutional scholars and free speech advocates.

Trump administration officials have rejected such concerns, and others about raids sweeping up people without criminal records and racial profiling being used to target them, as part of a misguided effort by liberals and progressives to protect even dangerous, undocumented immigrants for political reasons.

In announcing the latest change to the naturalization test, Homeland Security said it would make the test more difficult, and in the process ensure that “only those who are truly committed to the American way of life are admitted as citizens.”

The department also lauded its recent moves to more deeply vet prospective citizens, saying the new process “includes reinstating neighborhood interviews of potential new citizens, considering whether aliens have made positive contributions to their communities, determining good moral character, and verifying they have never unlawfully registered to vote or unlawfully attempted to vote in an American election.”

In rolling back the first Trump administration’s test — which is very similar to the newly proposed one — USCIS officials under the Biden administration said that it “may inadvertently create potential barriers to the naturalization process.”

By contrast, the agency under Biden said the 2008 test — the one Trump is now replacing again — was “thoroughly developed over a multi-year period with the input of more than 150 organizations, which included English as a second language experts, educators, and historians, and was piloted before its implementation.”

My dad’s passport is among his most valuable possessions, a document that not only establishes that he’s a U.S. citizen but holds the story of his life.

It states that he was born in Mexico in 1951 and is decorated with stamps from the regular trips he takes to his home state of Zacatecas. Its cover is worn but still strong, like its owner, a 74-year-old retired truck driver. It gives Lorenzo Arellano the ability to move across borders, a privilege he didn’t have when he entered the United States for the first time in the trunk of a Chevy as an 18-year-old.

The photo is classic Papi. Stern like old school Mexicans always look in portraits but with joyful eyes that reveal his happy-go-lucky attitude to life. He used to keep the passport in his underwear drawer to make sure he never misplaced it in the clutter of our home.

At the beginning of Trump’s second term, I told Papi to keep the passport on him at all times. Just because you’re a citizen doesn’t mean you’re safe, I told my dad, who favors places — car washes, hardware stores, street vendors, parks, parties — where immigrants congregate and no one cares who has legal status and who doesn’t.

“Exagera,” my dad replied — Trump exaggerates. As a citizen, my dad reasoned he now had rights. He didn’t have to worry like in the old days, when one shout of “¡La migra!” would send him running for the nearest exit of the carpet factory in Santa Ana where he worked back in the 1970s.

Then came Trump’s summer of deportation.

Masked migra swept across Southern California under the pretense of rounding up criminals. In reality, they grabbed anyone they thought looked suspicious, which in Southern California meant brown-skinned Latinos like my father. The feds even nabbed U.S. citizens or detained them for hours before releasing them with no apology. People who had the right to remain in this country were sent to out-of-state detention camps, where government officials made it as difficult as possible for frantic loved ones to find out where they were, let alone retrieve them.

This campaign of terror is why the ACLU and others filed a lawsuit in July arguing that la migra was practicing racial profiling in violation of the 4th Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches. A federal judge agreed, issuing a temporary restraining order. The Trump administration appealed, arguing to the Supreme Court that it needed to racially profile to find people to kick out of the country, otherwise “the prospect of contempt” would hang “over every investigative stop.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices lifted the temporary restraining order as the ACLU lawsuit proceeds. L.A.’s long, hot deportation summer will spill over to the fall and probably last as long as Trump wants it to. The decision effectively states that those of us with undocumented family and friends — a huge swath of Southern California and beyond — should watch over our shoulders, even if we’re in this country legally.

And even if you don’t know anyone without papers, watch out if you’re dark-skinned, speak English with an accent or wear guayaberas or huaraches. Might as well walk around in a T-shirt that says, “DEPORT ME, POR FAVOR.”

The ruling didn’t surprise me — the Supreme Court nowadays is a Trump-crafted rubber stamp for his authoritarian project. But what was especially galling was how out of touch Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion was with reality.

Kavanaugh describes what la migra has wrought on Southern California as “brief investigative stops,” which is like describing a totaled car as a “scratched-up vehicle.” A citizen or permanent resident stopped on suspicion of being in this country illegally “will be free to go after the brief encounter,” he wrote.

The justice uses the words “brief” or “briefly” eight times to describe what la migra does. Not once does he mention plaintiff Brian Gavidia, the U.S. citizen who on June 9 was at a Montebello tow yard when masked immigration agents shoved him against the fence and twisted his arm.

Gavidia’s offense? He stated he was an American three times but couldn’t remember the name of the East L.A. hospital where he was born. A friend recorded the encounter and posted it to social media. It quickly went viral and showed the world that citizenship won’t save you from Trump’s migra hammer.

Would Kavanaugh describe this as a “brief encounter” if it happened to him? To a non-Latino? After more cases like this inevitably happen, and more people are gobbled up by Trump’s anti-immigrant Leviathan?

Brian Gavidia stands in a parking lot next to East Los Angeles College in Monterey Park. A video of him having his arm twisted and held by an immigration officer against a wall despite being a U.S. citizen went viral. He’s currently a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit alleging the Trump administration is violating the 4th Amendment with indiscriminate immigration raids.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Anyone who applauds this decision is sanctioning state-sponsored racism out of apartheid-era South Africa. They’re all right with Latinos who “look” a certain way or live in communities with large undocumented populations becoming second-class citizens, whether they just migrated here or can trace their heritage to before the Pilgrims.

I worry for U.S.-born family members who work construction and will undoubtedly face citizenship check-ins. For friends in the restaurant industry who might also become targets. For children in barrios who can now expect ICE and Border Patrol trucks to cruise past their schools searching for adults and even teens to detain — it’s already happened.

Life will irrevocably change for millions of Latinos in Southern California and beyond because of what the Supreme Court just ruled. Shame on Kavanaugh and the five other justices who sided with him for uncorking a deportation demon that will be hard to stop.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor recounts Gavidia’s travails in her dissent, adding that the Real ID he was able to show the agents after they roughed him that established his citizenship “was never returned” and mocking Kavanaugh’s repeated use of “brief.”

“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job,” she wrote. “Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”

I will also dissent, but now I’m going to be more careful than ever. I’m going to carry my passport at all times, just in case I’m in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even that is no guarantee la migra will leave me alone. It’s not a matter of if but when: I live in a majority Latino city, near a Latino supermarket on a street where the lingua franca is Spanish.

And I’m one of the lucky ones. I will be able to remain, no matter what may happen, because I’m a citizen. Imagine having to live in fear like this for the foreseeable future for those who aren’t?

There’s nothing “brief” about that.

WASHINGTON — The State Department is proposing requiring applicants for business and tourist visas to post a bond of up to $15,000 to enter the United States, a move that may make the process unaffordable for many.

In a notice to be published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, the department said it would start a 12-month pilot program under which people from countries deemed to have high overstay rates and deficient internal document security controls could be required to post bonds of $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 when they apply for a visa.

The proposal comes as the Trump administration is tightening requirements for visa applicants. Last week, the State Department announced that many visa renewal applicants would have to submit to an additional in-person interview, something that was not required in the past. In addition, the department is proposing that applicants for the Visa Diversity Lottery program have valid passports from their country of citizenship.

A preview of the bond notice, which was posted on the Federal Register website on Monday, said the pilot program would take effect within 15 days of its formal publication and is necessary to ensure that the U.S. government is not financially liable if a visitor does not comply with the terms of his or her visa.

“Aliens applying for visas as temporary visitors for business or pleasure and who are nationals of countries identified by the department as having high visa overstay rates, where screening and vetting information is deemed deficient, or offering citizenship by investment, if the alien obtained citizenship with no residency requirement, may be subject to the pilot program,” the notice said.

The countries affected will be listed once the program takes effect, it said.

The bond would not apply to citizens of countries enrolled in the Visa Waiver Program and could be waived for others depending on an applicant’s individual circumstances.

Visa bonds have been proposed in the past but have not been implemented. The State Department has traditionally discouraged the requirement because of the cumbersome process of posting and discharging a bond and because of a possible misperceptions by the public.

However, the department said that previous view “is not supported by any recent examples or evidence, as visa bonds have not generally been required in any recent period.”

Lee writes for the Associated Press.

DAKAR, Senegal — U.S. singer Ciara is one of the first public figures to become a citizen of Benin under a recent law by the small West African country granting citizenship to descendants of enslaved people.

The Grammy-winning performer’s acquisition of citizenship at a ceremony Saturday in the city of Cotonou is part of a broader initiative by Benin to attract the Black diaspora, acknowledge the country’s role in the transatlantic slave trade and promote tourism focused on slavery-related sites of remembrance.

“By legally recognizing these children of Africa, Benin is healing a historical wound. It is an act of justice, but also one of belonging and hope,” Justice Minister Yvon Détchénou said at the ceremony.

Here’s what to know about Benin’s efforts to welcome descendants of enslaved people:

Benin’s Afro-descendant citizenship law

In September, Benin passed a law granting citizenship to those who can trace their lineage to the slave trade.

It is open to anyone older than 18 who doesn’t already hold other African citizenship and can provide proof that an ancestor was deported via the slave trade from anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa. Beninese authorities accept DNA tests, authenticated testimonies and family records.

Last week, the government launched My Afro Origins, the digital platform that processes applications.

Although Benin is not the first country to grant citizenship to descendants of enslaved people, its citizenship law carries added significance, in part because of the role it played in the transatlantic slave trade.

A national reckoning with its role in the slave trade

European merchants deported an estimated 1.5 million enslaved people from the Bight of Benin — a region that includes present-day Benin, Togo and parts of Nigeria — to the Americas.

Beninese kings actively participated in capturing and selling enslaved people to Portuguese, French and British merchants. The former kingdoms and the communities they raided still exist today as tribal networks.

Benin has long been working to reconcile with its legacy of complicity. It has openly acknowledged its role in the slave trade, a stance not shared by many other African nations that participated.

In the 1990s, it hosted an international conference to examine how and where enslaved people were sold. In 1999, then-President Mathieu Kérékou apologized to African Americans during a visit to a church in Baltimore.

‘Memorial tourism’

Alongside this national reckoning, “memorial tourism” around the legacy of the slave trade has become a key approach of Benin’s government to attract Afro-descendants.

Memorial sites are mostly in Ouidah, one of Africa’s most active slave-trading ports in the 18th and 19th centuries. They include the Slave Route, which was the path marking enslaved people’s final journey to ships, and the Door of No Return, a haunting doorway that opens to the Atlantic Ocean where they left Africa, and their families, for the last time.

Sindé Chekete, the head of Benin’s state-run tourism agency, said these sites give Afro-descendants the opportunity to learn about and honor the struggles and resilience of their ancestors.

“It may inspire some people to say ‘I want to return to Africa and choose Benin to understand this history’,” Chekete said.

Following her citizenship ceremony, Ciara toured the historic city, where she walked the Slave Route to the Door of No Return.

“Between emotion, reflection and heritage, I experienced a profound return to what truly matters,” she said.

Ciara is best known for chart-topping hits such as “Goodies” and “Level Up,” her dynamic choreography as well as her work in fashion and philanthropy.

Banchereau writes for the Associated Press.

BOSTON — President Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship for the children of people who are in the U.S. illegally will remain blocked as an order from one judge went into effect Friday and another seemed inclined to follow suit.

U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week his order went into effect.

“The judge’s order protects every single child whose citizenship was called into question by this illegal executive order,” said Cody Wofsy, the ACLU attorney representing children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions. “The government has not appealed and has not sought emergency relief so this injunction is now in effect everywhere in the country.”

The Trump administration could still appeal or even ask that LaPlante’s order be narrowed, but the effort to end birthright citizenship for children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily can’t take effect for now.

The Justice Department didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.

Meanwhile, a judge in Boston heard arguments from more than a dozen states who say Trump’s birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for essential services. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation’s highest court.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin was asked to consider either keeping in place the nationwide injunction he granted earlier or consider a request from the government either to narrow the scope of that order or stay it altogether. Sorokin, located in Boston, did not immediately rule but seemed to be receptive to arguments from states to keep the injunction in place.

Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be “tailored to the States’ purported financial injuries.”

Much of the hearing was focused on what a narrower ruling would look like. The plaintiffs raised concerns that some alternatives floated by the Trump administration — such as giving children in states affected by the birthright citizenship order Social Security numbers, but not citizenship — would be costly and unworkable.

They said such a system would burden these states with having to set up new administrative systems, sow confusion among the parents whose children are affected and possibly turn these states into magnets for families from other states looking to access the benefits.

Government lawyers didn’t seem tied to any one alternative, but told Sorokin the scope of his injunction should be limited. When pressed on how they would do that, a lawyer for the government, Eric Hamilton, would only commit to complying with whatever order was issued.

“If the court modifies the preliminary injunction or stays the preliminary injunction, it should be at most tailored to injuries plaintiffs are alleging, which are primary financial,” Hamilton said.

Sorokin pushed back, at one point using an analogy of someone who sued a neighbor over loud music. The defendant offers to build a wall to limit the noise but Sorokin wondered how they could ensure it met the zoning code and was something the defendant could afford.

“What you are telling me is we will do it but, in response to my question, you have no answer how you will do it,” Sorokin said.

LaPlante issued the ruling last week prohibiting Trump’s executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit, and a Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off.

The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can’t issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn’t rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn’t a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed.

The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

O’Donnell says the Republican US president hates her because she sees ‘him for who he is – a criminal con man’.

United States President Donald Trump has said he might revoke talk-show host Rosie O’Donnell’s US citizenship after she criticised his administration’s handling of weather forecasting agencies in the wake of the deadly Texas floods.

Trump’s threats are the latest salvo in a years-long feud the two have waged over social media.

“Because of the fact that Rosie O’Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship,” the US president wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Trump has long called for the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, but in recent weeks, he has suggested that he would remove US citizens that he disagrees with from the country.

“She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her. GOD BLESS AMERICA!” Trump wrote.

Under the law, a president cannot revoke the citizenship of an American born in the US. O’Donnell was born in New York state.

Trump’s latest jab at O’Donnell seemed to be in response to a TikTok video she posted this month, mourning the 119 deaths in the July 4 floods in Texas and blaming Trump’s widespread cuts to environmental and science agencies involved in forecasting major natural disasters.

“What a horror story in Texas,” O’Donnell said in the video. “And you know, when the president guts all the early warning systems and the weathering forecast abilities of the government, these are the results that we’re gonna start to see on a daily basis.”

The Trump administration, as well as local and state officials, have faced mounting questions about whether more could have been done to protect and warn residents in advance of the Texas flooding, which killed at least 120 people earlier this month.

Trump, on Friday, visited Texas and defended the government’s response to the disaster, saying his agencies “did an incredible job under the circumstances.”

O’Donnell responded to Trump’s threat in two posts on her Instagram account, saying: “the president of the usa has always hated the fact that i see him for who he is – a criminal con man sexual abusing liar out to harm our nation to serve himself.”

She added that he opposes her because she “stands in direct opposition with all he represents”.

O’Donnell has been a longtime target of Trump’s insults and jabs.

In 2014, when she opened up about her weight loss journey, Trump said on X that “she felt ‘shame’ at being fat-not politically correct! She killed Star Jones for weight loss surgery, just had it!”

During Trump’s first presidency, O’Donnell told W magazine that she feared whether she would be able to “live through” his presidency.

Following Trump’s inauguration for his second presidential term in January this year, she moved to Ireland earlier this year with her 12-year-old son.

In a March TikTok video, she said that she would return to the US “when it is safe for all citizens to have equal rights there in America”.

Earlier this month, Trump said he may look at options to deport his former aide-turned-critic, Elon Musk, a naturalised US citizen.

And last month, the White House said allegations that Democratic nominee for New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani has supported “terrorism” in the past “should be investigated”, with the intent of revoking his citizenship.

United States President Donald Trump is threatening to strip away citizenship from some naturalised citizens, including billionaire Elon Musk and New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. In a country where more than 25 million people are naturalised citizens, who is really at risk?

WASHINGTON — Just months after President Trump returned to office amid a wave of anti-immigration sentiment, the share of U.S. adults saying immigration is a “good thing” for the country has jumped substantially — including among Republicans, according to new Gallup polling.

About 8 in 10 Americans, 79%, say immigration is “a good thing” for the country today, an increase from 64% a year ago and a high point in the nearly 25-year trend. Only about 2 in 10 U.S. adults say immigration is a bad thing right now, down from 32% last year.

During Democratic President Joe Biden’s term in office, negative views of immigration had increased markedly, reaching a high point in the months before Trump, a Republican, took office. The new Gallup data suggests U.S. adults are returning to more pro-immigrant views that could complicate Trump’s push for sweeping deportations and other anti-immigration policies. The poll shows decreasing support for the type of mass deportations Trump has championed since before he was elected.

Since taking office, Trump has called on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to do all in its power to deliver “the single largest Mass Deportation Program in History.” His administration has also pushed to limit access to federal benefits for immigrants who lack legal status, sought to revoke the citizenship of immigrants who commit crimes and is working to end birthright citizenship for children born to those without legal status or who are in the country temporarily.

In general, Americans’ views of immigration policies have shifted dramatically in the last year, the Gallup polling shows — including among Republicans, who have become much more content with immigration levels since Trump took office but who have also grown more supportive of pathways to citizenship for people in the country illegally.

The broader trend also shows that public opinion is generally much more favorable to immigrants than it was decades ago.

The vast majority of U.S. adults say immigration is good

Americans’ more positive view on immigration is driven primarily by a shift among Republicans and independents.

About two-thirds of Republicans now say immigrants are “a good thing” for the country, up from 39% last year. And independents moved from about two-thirds last year to 80% this year.

Democrats have maintained their overwhelmingly positive view of immigration in the last few years.

The share of Americans who want immigration decreased has dropped significantly

In the time since Trump took office, Republicans have become more satisfied with the level of immigration in the country.

The share of Americans who want immigration “decreased” in the United States dropped from 55% to 30%. While fewer Americans now want to decrease the number of people who come to the U.S. from other countries, more want immigration levels kept the same than want higher immigration levels. About 4 in 10 say immigration should be kept at its current level, and only 26% say immigration should be increased.

The poll suggests Republicans’ sharp anti-immigrant views highlighted before November’s election — which helped return Trump to the White House — have largely faded. The share of Republicans saying immigration should be decreased dropped from a high of 88% to 48% in the last year. Close to 4 in 10 Republicans now say immigration levels should remain the same, and only about 1 in 10 would like an increase.

Much of that Republican movement probably comes from support for the Trump administration’s stringent immigration enforcement, but there are also signs in the Gallup polling that Republicans have become more supportive of pathways to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally and more likely to see benefits from immigration that could be at odds with the Trump administration’s priorities.

More Americans back a pathway to citizenship

Most Americans favor allowing immigrants living in the U.S. illegally the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time, the poll shows.

Almost 9 in 10 U.S. adults, 85%, favor a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, and nearly as many say they favor a path to citizenship for all immigrants in the country illegally as long as they meet certain requirements.

That increased support for pathways to citizenship largely comes from Republicans, about 6 in 10 of whom now support that, up from 46% last year. Support was already very high among independents and Democrats.

Support for deporting immigrants in the country illegally has also decreased across the board, but less significantly. About 4 in 10 U.S. adults now favor deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally, down from about half a year ago.

Sanders writes for the Associated Press.

Human rights activists fear the move approved by lawmakers could be used to target political opponents.

Lawmakers in Cambodia have amended the country’s constitution to allow legislation that would see citizenship stripped from those deemed to have colluded with foreign powers.

The constitutional change, which was unanimously supported by 125 politicians in the National Assembly on Friday, has drawn criticism from rights groups, which have expressed concern that it could be used to target political opponents.

The government said it will soon make use of the amendment.

Justice Minister Koeut Rith confirmed that a new citizenship revocation bill would be swiftly brought before parliament.

“If you betray the nation, the nation will not keep you,” he said before dismissing critics’ unease about the move.

The justice minister claimed that those who have not harmed the national interests will not be stripped of their citizenship, adding that they might still “face other charges”.

Before Friday’s vote, the constitution specified that Khmer citizens could lose their citizenship only “through mutual agreement”.

However, after being revised, Article 33 of the constitution now states that “receiving, losing and revoking Khmer nationality shall be determined by law”.

Amnesty International condemned the change on Friday, urging the international community to criticise Cambodia over the decision.

“As the proposal moves closer to becoming reality, anyone who speaks out against or opposes the ruling party will be at risk of having their citizenship revoked,” the NGO’s regional research director, Montse Ferrer, said.

“We are deeply concerned that the Cambodian government, given the power to strip people of their citizenship, will misuse it to crack down on its critics and make them stateless.”

Last month, Hun Sen, the influential former Cambodian prime minister, called for the constitution to be changed so Cambodians could be stripped of their citizenship.

This came after exiled opposition figures condemned the government over its ongoing border dispute with Thailand.

Former opposition leader Sam Rainsy, who lives in exile to avoid being sent to prison, was among those Hun Sen accused of speaking against the interests of the nation.

CONCORD, N.H. — A federal judge in New Hampshire said Thursday he will certify a class action lawsuit including all children who will be affected by President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship and issue a preliminary injunction blocking it.

Judge Joseph LaPlante announced his decision after an hour-long hearing and said a written order will follow. The order will include a seven-day stay to allow for appeal, he said.

The class is slightly narrower than that sought by the plaintiffs, who originally included parents as plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their infants. It’s among numerous cases challenging Trump’s January order denying citizenship to those born to parents living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and others.

At issue is the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Trump administration says the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally, ending what has been seen as an intrinsic part of U.S. law for more than a century.

“Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country’s sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,” government lawyers wrote in the New Hampshire case.

LaPlante, who had issued a narrow injunction in a similar case, said while he didn’t consider the government’s arguments frivolous, he found them unpersuasive. He said his decision to issue an injunction was “not a close call” and that deprivation of U.S. citizenship clearly amounted to irreparable harm.

Cody Wofsy, an attorney for the plaintiffs, and his team have been inundated by families who are confused and fearful about the executive order, he said. Thursday’s ruling “is going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order,” he said.

Several federal judges had issued nationwide injunctions stopping Trump’s order from taking effect, but the U.S. Supreme Court limited those injunctions in a June 27 ruling that gave lower courts 30 days to act. With that time frame in mind, opponents of the change quickly returned to court to try to block it.

In a Washington state case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges have asked the parties to write briefs explaining the effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Washington and the other states in that lawsuit have asked the appeals court to return the case to the lower court judge.

As in New Hampshire, a plaintiff in Maryland seeks to organize a class-action lawsuit that includes every person who would be affected by the order. The judge set a Wednesday deadline for written legal arguments as she considers the request for another nationwide injunction from CASA, a nonprofit immigrant rights organization.

Ama Frimpong, legal director at CASA, said the group has been stressing to its members and clients that it is not time to panic.

“No one has to move states right this instant,” she said. “There’s different avenues through which we are all fighting, again, to make sure that this executive order never actually sees the light of day.”

The New Hampshire plaintiffs, referred to only by pseudonyms, include a woman from Honduras who has a pending asylum application and is due to give birth to her fourth child in October. She told the court the family came to the U.S. after being targeted by gangs.

“I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,” she wrote. “I fear our family could be at risk of separation.”

Another plaintiff, a man from Brazil, has lived with his wife in Florida for five years. Their first child was born in March, and they are in the process of applying for lawful permanent status based on family ties — his wife’s father is a U.S. citizen.

“My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,” he wrote.

Ramer and Catalini write for the Associated Press. Catalini reported from Trenton, N.J.

A federal judge in New Hampshire has blocked United States President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship as part of a class-action lawsuit.

Thursday’s ruling is the first to test the limits of a recent Supreme Court decision limiting the use of nationwide injunctions. It is expected to face an immediate appeal from the Trump administration.

Birthright citizenship is a right protected under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. That amendment establishes that “all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”.

For decades, that amendment has been understood to grant citizenship to anyone born in the US, regardless of their parentage.

But Trump has argued that undocumented parents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US and therefore their US-born children cannot be considered citizens.

On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order that would restrict birthright citizenship based on the immigration status of a newborn’s parents — but critics have warned that decision could render babies stateless.

That concern has prompted a slew of legal challenges, including the one that came before US District Judge Joseph Laplante on Thursday.

In his federal courtroom in Concord, New Hampshire, Laplante announced that a class-action lawsuit representing all children affected by Trump’s order could proceed.

Then he proceeded to award a preliminary injunction on behalf of the plaintiffs, suspending Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship. He added that his decision was “not a close call”.

“That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone,” he said. “It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”

Laplante, however, did place a stay on his injunction, allowing the Trump administration seven days to appeal it.

What are the origins of this case?

Thursday’s case is one of several seeking to overturn Trump’s executive order.

It was brought on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their children born during Trump’s second term. But they filed their lawsuit as a class action, meaning it represents an entire group — or “class” — of people.

In court filings made on Tuesday, the plaintiffs argued they needed immediate relief from Trump’s executive order, which could deprive the children of Social Security numbers and access to other government services.

“Tens of thousands of babies and their parents may be exposed to the order’s myriad harms in just weeks and need an injunction now,” the plaintiffs wrote in their lawsuit.

The individual parents and children are not identified by name in the lawsuit. But they did speak to the uncertainty they faced as a result of the executive order.

The pregnant woman, for example, explained that she is seeking asylum in the US after fleeing gangs in her home country of Honduras. Her child is expected to be born in October.

“I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,” she wrote in the court filings. “I fear our family could be at risk of separation.”

Another plaintiff is a father from Brazil who has lived in Florida for five years. He and his wife are in the process of applying for permanent residency, and they welcomed their first child in March.

“My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,” he wrote, pointing out that his wife’s father is a US citizen.

The Trump administration, however, has argued that the longstanding interpretation of birthright citizenship encourages undocumented immigration to the US, a trend it has compared to an “invasion”.

Furthermore, it asserts that the modern understanding of birthright citizenship is based on a misinterpretation of the law.

“Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country’s sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,” government lawyers wrote in response to the New Hampshire case.

How has the Supreme Court affected these cases?

The Trump administration had previously faced setbacks in court, with three federal judges issuing nationwide injunctions against the executive order restricting birthright citizenship.

But those injunctions were overturned on June 27, in a Supreme Court ruling with sweeping implications.

In a six-to-three decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority ruled that the lower court judges had exceeded their authority by issuing “universal injunctions”.

It suggested federal court injunctions should only apply to the plaintiffs in the case at hand.

“Traditionally, courts issued injunctions prohibiting executive officials from enforcing a challenged law or policy only against the plaintiffs in the lawsuit,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote on behalf of the majority.

There was an exception, however: class-action lawsuits.

By definition, those suits could seek protection for a whole class of people. But class-action complaints must follow specific rules, clearly defining the class in question and ensuring no members of that group would be disadvantaged by their inclusion in the lawsuit.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the Supreme Court’s June 27 decision risked prompting a tsunami of class-action lawsuits in the federal court system.

“District courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23,” Alito wrote, referencing the procedures that define what constitutes a class action.

“Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of ‘nationwide class relief’.”

The Supreme Court gave a 30-day window for plaintiffs to adjust their lawsuits in the wake of its decision. That window is set to expire on July 27, allowing Trump’s executive order to take effect.

The court has not yet ruled on the merits of birthright citizenship itself and is expected to do so in its next term, which begins in October.

Meanwhile, lower courts are weighing how to address the Supreme Court’s decision.

A group of states that brought a case challenging Trump’s executive order, for instance, has asked that a Massachusetts federal court consider whether an injunction they were awarded would still apply under the Supreme Court’s ruling. A hearing is set for July 18.

Advocates estimate more than 150,000 babies could be denied citizenship each year if Trump’s executive order is allowed to stand.

The US Supreme Court has reshaped birthright citizenship – and the judiciary itself. US President Donald Trump is claiming victory after last week’s Supreme Court ruling that federal judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions. Has the ruling reshaped the power of the presidency?