limit

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.

Judge blocks Trump’s mail voting rules for a second time, just days before ballots go out for the midterms.

A United States federal judge has for a second time blocked the Trump administration’s overhaul of election rules aimed at limiting voting by mail.

District Judge Indira Talwani late on Thursday blocked the US Postal Service’s new ballot rules for 14 days, hours after the agency said they had taken effect.

The ruling is part of an ongoing battle prompted by President Donald Trump’s bid to limit voting by mail, which is heating up as the US heads towards midterm elections in November that will decide control of Congress and the Senate.

Nearly a third of American voters cast votes by mail. The first ballots for the midterms are due to be sent out in about a week.

The new rules require states to submit approved voter lists and follow new ballot formatting before USPS can deliver voting slips. The restrictions were enacted on Thursday after the Supreme Court cleared the way for them.

Talwani wrote in a statement late on Thursday that states “have neither time nor funds” to redesign ballots, update election systems or train officials on the new USPS portal before the upcoming election.

The fight traces back to March, when Trump ordered the Postal Service to withhold ballots unless states supplied approved voter lists and new formatting rules.

Voting rights groups and democratic officials sued, arguing only states and Congress, not the president, can set election rules. Talwani agreed, blocking the rules over the summer.

On Monday, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority threw out that earlier ruling on a technicality, saying that the legal challenge on which it was based was filed too early.

Democratic officials and voting rights groups quickly refiled their challenge once the rules became official, allowing Talwani to block them once more in a late-night order.

Separately, attorneys general from 24 states filed a new lawsuit this week making the same core argument: that only the Senate and Congress, not the president, can have constitutional authority to set election rules.

A hearing on the refiled case is scheduled for September 3, just as ballots are set to go out. That timeline means whatever Talwani or a higher court decides next could take effect as voting begins, or after it is already under way.

The El Nino weather phenomenon is expected to increase the likelihood of drought and excess heat across the region.

The Panama Canal is expected to limit traffic starting in early September, as it prepares for lower water levels due to the El Nino weather phenomenon.

On Thursday, the Panama Canal Authority, the body that oversees the waterway, announced that daily transit caps would be set to address concerns about the drier weather conditions ahead.

Under the new measures, 34 vessels will be permitted to sail through the canal as of September 4. A further reduction will start on September 15, when the limit will be 32 ships.

The travel restrictions are a reversal for the Panama Canal Authority. Officials told the news service Reuters in May that they had no plans to limit crossings this year, citing water conservation measures imposed last year.

The canal, which handles about 5 percent of global maritime trade, usually has capacity to accommodate about 40 vessels per day.  Since June, it has seen a daily average of 35 transits.

Any significant decrease in travel through the canal is likely to translate into slower international shipping for industries that rely on the waterway. That, in turn, could increase costs.

A severe drought in 2023, for instance, cut traffic through the Panama Canal by roughly 36 percent, leading to disruptions in global supply chains.

The declining water levels that year were also attributed to El Nino, as well as climate change accelerated by human activities.

El Nino is a naturally occurring weather phenomenon that takes place every two to seven years, when the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean is warmer than usual.

The resulting weather patterns can have an impact across the region and even globally, putting some areas at risk of excessive heat and drought, while others suffer from flooding

Scientists expect a particularly strong El Nino in the coming months, potentially among the strongest on record. That could lead to an increase in cases of extreme weather events.

Panama Canal authorities have previously imposed vessel limits in order to conserve water.

The canal relies on a lock system that lifts and lowers vessels as they travel from the Pacific Ocean to the Caribbean Sea, and vice versa.

But the canal is fed, in part, by freshwater from nearby lakes and reservoirs, most notably Gatun Lake.

Panamanians rely on that lake as well to supply drinking water to nearby cities, including the capital Panama City, putting additional strain on the waterway during times of drought.