citizenship

Mayor Karen Bass fired back at the Department of Justice on Tuesday, calling its lawsuit against her city part of an “all-out assault on Los Angeles” by President Trump.

Bass said she and other city leaders would not be intimidated by the lawsuit, which seeks to invalidate sanctuary policies that prohibit city resources from being used in federal immigration enforcement in most cases.

The mayor, appearing before reporters at City Hall, assailed federal agents for “randomly grabbing people” off the street, “chasing Angelenos through parking lots” and arresting immigrants who showed up at court for annual check-ins. She also took a swipe at Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a Santa Monica native widely viewed as the architect of the sweeping immigration crackdown.

“We know that U.S. citizens have been detained, so it’s basically indiscriminate,” Bass said. “It’s a wide net they have cast in order to meet Stephen Miller’s quota of 3,000 people a day being detained around the nation.”

L.A.’s mayor has been at odds with the Trump administration since early June, when federal immigration agents began a series of raids across Southern California, spurring protests in downtown Los Angeles, Paramount and other communities. Her latest remarks came one day after Trump’s Department of Justice sued the city over its sanctuary law, alleging it has hindered the federal government’s ability to combat “a crisis of illegal immigration.”

In the lawsuit, federal prosecutors accused the City Council of seeking to “thwart the will of the American people,” arguing that Trump won his election on a platform of deporting “millions of illegal immigrants.” They also alleged that L.A.’s refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities had triggered “lawlessness, rioting, looting, and vandalism” during the anti-ICE demonstrations.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson pushed back against Bass’ assertions, saying in an email that Bass should “thank President Trump for helping get dangerous criminals off L.A.’s streets.”

“The only ‘assault’ being committed is by Bass’s radical left-wing supporters who are assaulting ICE officers for simply doing their job and enforcing federal immigration law,” Jackson said. “Thanks to inflammatory rhetoric like Bass’s, ICE officers are facing a 500% increase in assaults.”

Elected officials in Los Angeles, Pasadena, Huntington Park and other communities have decried the raids, saying they are tearing families apart, disrupting public life and choking off economic activity. In some communities, July 4 fireworks shows have been canceled for fear of ICE raids destroying the events.

Even some who support Trump have begun to voice concerns. Last week, six Republicans in the state legislature sent Trump a letter urging him to focus on targeting violent criminals during his immigration crackdown, saying the raids are instilling widespread fear and driving workers out of critical industries.

From June 1 to June 10, 722 people were arrested by immigration agents in the Los Angeles region, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement data obtained by the Deportation Data Project at UC Berkeley Law. A Times analysis of the figures found that 69% of those arrested during that period had no criminal conviction, and 58% had never been charged with a crime.

In L.A., the sanctuary ordinance bars city employees from seeking out information about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status unless needed to provide a city service. They also must treat data or information that can be used to trace a person’s citizenship or immigration status as confidential.

Trump has been trying to strike down the state’s sanctuary policies almost since they were enacted — largely without success.

In 2019, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a federal challenge to Senate Bill 54, which barred local police departments from helping federal agencies take custody of immigrants being released from jails. The Supreme Court declined to take up the case the following year.

In a separate case, the 9th Circuit ruled that the Trump administration may not force the city of L.A. to help deport immigrants as a condition of receiving a federal police grant.

City Councilmember Tim McOsker, who worked for several years in the city attorney’s office, said Tuesday that he views the Trump lawsuit as a publicity stunt.

“There are over 100 years of case law that tell us this is a baseless lawsuit,” he said.

Times staff writer Rachel Uranga contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The legal battle over President Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite his major Supreme Court victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions.

Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with a more than century-old constitutional precedent.

The high court’s ruling sends cases challenging the president’s birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of Trump’s policy remains uncertain.

Here’s what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court’s ruling and what happens next.

What does birthright citizenship mean?

Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally.

The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in part to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved Americans, had citizenship.

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

Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused reentry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States, no matter their parents’ legal status.

It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a few exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats.

Trump’s longtime goal

Trump signed an executive order upon assuming office in January that seeks to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The order is part of the president’s hard-line anti-immigration agenda, and he has called birthright citizenship a “magnet for illegal immigration.”

Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — which they contend means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally.

A series of federal judges have said that’s not true and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect.

“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing this year in his Seattle courtroom.

In Greenbelt, Md., a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that “the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed” Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship.

Is Trump’s order constitutional?

The high court’s ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge’s authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued are usurping the president’s authority with rulings blocking his priorities on immigration and other matters.

But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump’s bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order.

“The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges’ decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,” said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is “very confident” that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case.

Uncertainty ahead

The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps.

The Supreme Court’s ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump’s order.

But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor.

“It’s not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,” said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court’s dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to “act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court’s prompt review” in cases “challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.”

Opponents of Trump’s order warned there would be a patchwork of policies across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief.

“Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and chief executive of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. “By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.”

Sullivan and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.

US President Donald Trump is vowing to push ahead with his attempt to end birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court ruled that lower court judges had overstepped in blocking Trump’s executive orders nationwide.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has limited the power of federal district judges to hand down orders that apply nationwide.

By 6-3 vote, the justices said Friday that judges may not issue orders that apply to people beyond those who sued.

“Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,” said Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And while judges can give full relief to plaintiffs, including groups of people, their injunctions should not be “broader than necessary” to shield those people.

The court’s three liberals dissented.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the Trump administration is trying to defend a blatantly unconstitutional order repealing birthright citizenship.

“The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along,” she said.

The procedural ruling is a victory for President Trump and a setback for advocates who seek to block his executive orders.

It prevents a single district judge in Boston or San Francisco from blocking Trump’s policies from taking effect nationwide.

However, it does not decide on the constitutionality of Trump’s plan to limit birthright citizenship.

Three federal district judges—in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington—issued nationwide orders declaring Trump’s plan unconstitutional.

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order disagreeing with the traditional understanding and asserting the Constitution does not “extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”

He said it would be U.S. policy to not recognize citizenship for newborns if the child’s mother or father was “not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”

But in quick succession, judges declared Trump’s order may not be enforced across the nation. They said his proposed restrictions violated the federal law and Supreme Court precedent as well as the plain words of the 14th Amendment.

Rather than challenge those rulings directly, Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court with “a modest request.”

Rather than rule on birthright citizenship, they urged the justices to rein in the practice of district judges handing down nationwide orders.

They have “reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,” they said.