Civil Rights

The ruling follows a 6-3 decision from the Supreme Court that found Trump’s effort to limit birthright citizenship was illegal.

A United States federal judge in Maryland has blocked President Donald Trump’s latest effort to roll back birthright citizenship, after the Supreme Court ruled that his last attempt violated the Constitution.

District Judge Deborah Boardman issued a preliminary injunction on Wednesday against Trump’s new executive order, which was issued on August 6.

The new order took aim at what Trump has called “birth tourism”, the practice of intentionally giving birth on foreign soil.

It sought to deny citizenship to children of foreign nationals in certain groups, including those accused of engaging in a commercial transaction to obtain citizenship or classified as an “alien enemy”.

Boardman, however, said the order was unconstitutional for the same reason Trump’s previous effort failed. She cited the Supreme Court’s June decision in the case Barbara v Trump.

The order “is almost certainly unconstitutional as applied to the certified class for the simple reason that the Supreme Court in Barbara already decided that the children in the class are citizens at birth”, she wrote.

“This Court must, once again, preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the President’s most recent attempt to strip the right to citizenship from them.”

In the Barbara case, the Supreme Court ruled six to three that birthright citizenship was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Birthright citizenship confers automatic citizenship on anyone born in the US, outside of a handful of narrow exceptions, such as the children of diplomats or invading armies.

The constitutional basis for birthright citizenship has been upheld in several Supreme Court cases over the years, most notably in US v Wong Kim Ark, the case of an American man born to Chinese parents.

But Trump campaigned for a second term as president on the pledge to crack down on immigration into the country.

One of his promises was to reform the concept of birthright citizenship. Trump and his allies have argued that children of temporary or undocumented immigrants do not qualify for the right, as they are not under the “jurisdiction” of the US.

Since the Supreme Court defeat in June, Trump and his allies have continued to probe for ways to challenge the constitutional protections for birthright citizenship.

Wednesday’s legal challenge was brought by immigrant rights advocates and families, including groups like the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project.

They had previously won an injunction from Boardman last year, blocking the Trump administration from enforcing his initial executive order about birthright citizenship.

Last week, Boardman instructed the plaintiffs to revise their complaint to specifically address the second executive order, rather than relying on the same material used for the first.

But she signalled scepticism at the time about the constitutionality of Trump’s latest attempt, calling it “unprecedented”.

“The Supreme Court has spoken: Children in the certified class are ‘citizens at birth’,” she wrote in Wednesday’s decision.

Court order rules that Pentagon acted illegally, punishing AI company for criticism of government.

A United States judge has blocked the Pentagon’s blacklisting of technology company Anthropic.

In a 59-page written order issued on Thursday night, District Judge Rita Lin ruled that the Department of Defense had acted illegally when it designated the company a supply chain risk to national security.

The decision marks the latest turn in the Claude maker’s high-stakes fight with the US military over artificial intelligence safety on the battlefield. The government is expected to fight the ruling.

The judge’s order rebuked the Pentagon, saying it had targeted and punished Anthropic for the company’s public criticism of the Defense Department’s stance on AI deployment on the battlefield.

“The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics,” Lin, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, wrote.

Autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance

Anthropic’s lawsuit in a California federal court alleges that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth overstepped his authority when he designated the company a national security supply-chain risk.

Hegseth’s move, which blocked Anthropic from military contracts, followed the company’s refusal to allow the military to use its Claude AI models for US surveillance or autonomous weapons.

Anthropic argues that AI models are not reliable enough for autonomous weapons and opposes domestic surveillance. The Pentagon maintains that private companies should not constrain military action.

Executives have said the ban could cost the company billions of dollars in lost business.

During a hearing on July 30, Lin described the government’s position as “really troubling” and “at odds … with the First Amendment”, adding that the record had “gotten worse for the government” over time.

In the same hearing, Department of Justice lawyers argued that the nature of AI models is “so staggeringly enormous and opaque” that the Pentagon cannot evaluate them like physical hardware.

First use of obscure statute

Anthropic welcomed the ruling, stating it remained “focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology”.

The designation was the first time a US company has been publicly labelled a supply-chain risk under an obscure procurement statute aimed at protecting military systems from foreign sabotage.

In its lawsuit, Anthropic alleged the government violated its constitutional rights to free speech and due process by retaliating against its views on AI safety without allowing it to dispute the claim.

The lawsuit called the decision unlawful, unsupported by facts, and inconsistent with the military’s past praise of Claude.

There was no immediate comment from the Pentagon on the ruling.

ICE agent Christian Castro faces criminal charges for shooting a Minnesota man in the leg during an immigration raid.

A United States judge has denied a request to compel the extradition of a federal immigration agent charged with shooting a man during an immigration raid in the state of Minnesota and lying about it.

Wednesday’s decision concerns the case of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Christian Castro, who has been detained in a county jail in Texas since May.

Minnesota has sought his extradition as he faces charges of assault and falsely reporting a crime in Hennepin County, which covers Minneapolis.

Under Texas law, the state cannot hold the subject of an extradition order for more than 90 days. At that point, the suspect must either be transferred or released. The deadline for Castro is set to expire on Thursday.

Minnesota argued in a lawsuit this month that Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, has refused to authorise the extradition for political reasons.

But in Wednesday’s ruling, Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr wrote that he could not intervene because Abbott has not yet acted – and has therefore not yet violated any law.

“The record reflects only that Governor Abbott has neither agreed nor refused to sign the rendition warrant as to Castro,” Rodriguez wrote.

Castro has been charged in connection with the non-fatal shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis during an immigration raid in Minnesota on January 14, part of a mass deportation effort under President Donald Trump.

Starting in December, Trump oversaw a large-scale deployment of federal agents to the Midwestern state, dubbed Operation Metro Surge.

The operation, which lasted less than three months, sparked protests and allegations of civil liberty violations from residents and watchdog groups.

Prosecutors say Castro fired a gun through the front door of a Minneapolis home, shooting Sosa-Celis in the leg.

Afterwards, he and another agent accused Sosa-Celis and another man of assaulting federal authorities with a broom handle and snow shovel. Those allegations were later disproven after video of the incident emerged. Criminal charges against Sosa-Celis were subsequently dropped.

Todd Lyons, then-acting director of ICE, confirmed in February that the agents appeared to have made “untruthful statements”. Castro and the second agent were placed on administrative leave.

Castro is currently in custody in Brownsville, Texas. Minnesota officials have warned that he may flee the country if released, citing calls he made from jail to a woman in Mexico.

During those calls, Castro talked “about marrying her and buying a house in Mexico when he is released”, according to Minnesota’s lawsuit.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a request for a temporary restraining order last week to stop Castro’s anticipated release and force Governor Abbott to sign the extradition warrant.

Ellison has framed Abbott’s decision not to take action as a way of supporting Trump’s mass deportation campaign and skirting federal extradition law.

“For nearly three months, Greg Abbott has refused to return ICE agent Christian Castro to Minnesota, where he’s charged with shooting a Minnesotan in his own home,” Ellison wrote in a social media post.

“Abbott has a legal obligation to return him. Instead, he’s chosen to ignore the law.”

According to a new report, the United States federal government has taken a massive step back from its role in protecting civil rights across the country.

On Thursday, the nonprofit Human Rights Watch issued a 112-page analysis of the government’s civil rights activities from January 2025 through the start of 2026, a period that captures the opening months of President Donald Trump’s second term.

The report concludes that the federal agencies responsible for stopping discrimination have largely been gutted of their staff.

Additionally, top-down directives by Trump have de-emphasised the federal government’s role in protecting civil rights across the country, according to the group.

“While claiming to protect all Americans, the administration is rolling back systems that communities have long turned to for relief,” Trey Walk, a researcher at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement.

Which agencies did the report analyse?

The report examines four key agencies within the federal government dedicated to civil rights.

They include the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, the Office of Civil Rights at the Education Department, the Fair Housing Office at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Human Rights Watch spoke with current and former federal workers, lawyers, complainants and community groups who had been involved in cases alleging discrimination.

It also reviewed court filings and federal agency directives that illustrated the pivot in priorities under the second Trump administration.

What is the history of civil rights enforcement in the federal government?

The federal government’s role in civil rights protections goes back centuries, starting with the US Constitution.

In 1791, Congress ratified an addition to the country’s founding document that established civil protections like the freedom of religion. Those first 10 amendments became known as the Bill of Rights.

Over the decades, more amendments were added, most notably after the US Civil War, to guarantee rights like equal protection under the law.

While the Constitution contains explicit language about religion and race, critics point out that there is no language that confers equal protection based on sex or gender.

The history of the Department of Justice is closely entwined with the need to enforce civil rights law after the Civil War.

Created in 1870, the department addressed several needs, including a push to professionalise and centralise the country’s federal law enforcement. But it also helped prosecute violent white supremacist groups at a time when local authorities, particularly in southern states, sometimes refused to.

The US Civil Rights Movement, starting in the 1950s, also spurred a surge in federal infrastructure. It was the Civil Rights Act of 1957, for instance, that established a dedicated civil rights division within the Justice Department.

How did federal policy change under Trump?

Trump’s second term ushered in a backlash towards policies broadly considered to be part of the “diversity, equity and inclusion” movement, or DEI.

That movement gained popularity in the early 2020s, particularly after the murder of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, sparked a public reckoning over racial inequality.

Trump, however, has called DEI “racially discriminatory”. During his campaign for a second term, he argued that there was a “definite anti-white feeling in this country”.

Since starting his second term, Trump has sought to undo policies that his administration argues give unfair advantages to demographics like women and minorities.

In addition, federal agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division suspended certain cases they were pursuing, including some involving sexual harassment and transgender rights.

New investigations were opened instead, including against the footwear giant Nike, which was accused this year of discrimination against white employees.

In May 2025, the Department of Justice also announced it would halt investigations and reform agreements involving police departments accused of racial discrimination.

Such measures had been taken in places like Louisville, Kentucky, and Minneapolis, Minnesota, after public outcry over the police killings of unarmed Black people, including Floyd.

What did the Human Rights Watch report find?

The report chronicled an overall weakening in the federal bodies designed to protect civil rights.

Job cuts and resignations were part of that trend. The Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, for instance, boasted about 365 lawyers in January 2025, when Trump took office.

By the end of that year, three-quarters of those lawyers had left the agency, an exodus driven by what Human Rights Watch called a “coordinated effort to undermine career staff”.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department told Al Jazeera its Civil Rights Division “remains dedicated to protecting the rights of all Americans”.

The department also said it had added 100 personnel since the 2025 departures.

According to the spokesperson, the Civil Rights Division is currently focused on “protecting religious liberty, Second Amendment rights, and women’s and girls’ spaces, standing against illegal race-based policymaking and DEI, and defending parents’ fundamental right to direct their children’s upbringing and education”.

What other offices were affected?

Other agencies in the Human Rights Watch report likewise saw a decrease in their ranks as well as a reduction in their civil rights work.

The Office of Fair Housing went from 31 staffers to 11 by mid-2025. Some 115 complaints prepared by the office and referred to the Justice Department for possible legal action were quashed, according to the report.

At the Department of Education, the Office for Civil Rights initially had 568 workers across 12 offices when Trump took office in 2025. Within a few months, seven of those offices were shuttered, and half of the civil rights-related workers were gone.

Between May and September 2025, the office dismissed about 90 percent of the nearly 10,000 complaints it received, a higher rate than it would have in the past, the report said.

What has been the impact of these changes?

Human Rights Watch found that many victims and communities grappling with discrimination no longer had the benefit of a federal agency to help them in their cases.

One community housing group told Human Rights Watch that the Department of Housing and Urban Development no longer responds in a timely fashion to reported instances of anti-LGBTQ discrimination.

Some federal agencies also appear to have walked away from their role in monitoring discrimination and overseeing reforms around the country, according to the report.

The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has a long history of investigating discrimination claims and working with school districts to enact change.

But Human Rights Watch observed that the office has largely stopped dealing with complaints under Trump.

While the Office of Civil Rights required policy changes or monitoring in response to 336 cases in the first half of 2024, only 59 cases received such a remedy over a similar period in 2025.

In Springfield, Massachusetts, for instance, parents complained after white students held a mock “slave auction” on the social media platform Snapchat, where they bid for the sale of their fellow Black students. That case is no longer being pursued by the Office of Civil Rights as of last year.