WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing Thursday to a lawyer for President Trump who was appealing rulings that blocked his plan to deny citizenship to newborns whose parents were in this country illegally or temporarily.
None of the justices spoke in favor of Trump’s plan to restrict birthright citizenship, and several were openly skeptical.
“Every court is ruling against you,” said Justice Elena Kagan. “There’s not going to be a lot of disagreement on this.”
If his plan were to take effect, “thousands of children will be born and rendered stateless,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
But Thursday’s hearing was devoted to a procedural question raised by the administration: Can a single federal judge issue a nationwide order to block the president’s plan?
Shortly after Trump issued his executive order to limit birthright citizenship, federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state declared it unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement nationwide.
In response, Trump’s lawyers asked the court to rein in the “epidemic” of nationwide orders handed by district judges.
It’s an issue that has divided the court and bedeviled both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Trump’s lawyers argued that on procedural grounds the judges overstepped their authority. But it is also procedurally unusual for a president to try to revise the Constitution through an executive order.
Thursday’s hearing did not appear to yield a consensus on what to do.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the plaintiffs should be required to bring a class-action claim if they want to win a broad ruling. But others said that would lead to delays and not solve problem.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said he was looking for a way to decide quickly. “How we get to the merits expeditiously?” he asked.
One possibility was to have the court ask for further briefing and perhaps a second hearing to decide the fundamental question: Can Trump acting on his own revise the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment?
Shortly after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress wrote the 14th Amendment, which begins with the words: “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.”
Prior to that time, Americans were citizens of their states. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the infamous Dred Scott decision said Black people were not citizens of their states and could not become citizens even if they were living in a free state.
The amended Constitution established U.S. citizenship as a birthright. The only persons not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the laws of the United States were foreign diplomats and their families and, in the 19th century, Indians who were “not taxed” and were treated as citizens of their tribal nations.
However, Congress changed that rule in 1924 and extended birthright citizenship to Native Americans.
Since 1898, the Supreme Court has agreed that birthright citizenship extended to the native-born children of foreign migrants living in this country. The court said then “the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth, notwithstanding the alienage of parents” had been established by law.
The decision affirmed the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who were living and working there, but who were not U.S. citizens.
But several conservative law professors have disputed the notion that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States means simply that people living here are subject to the laws here.
Instead, they say it refers more narrowly to people who owe their undivided allegiance to this country. If so, they contend it does not extend broadly to illegal immigrants or to students and tourists who are here temporarily.
On Jan. 20, Trump issued an executive order proclaiming the 14th Amendment 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.”
Immigrants rights groups sued on behalf of several pregnant women, and they were joined by 22 states and several cities.
Judges wasted no time in declaring Trump’s order unconstitutional. They said his proposed restrictions violated the federal law and Supreme Court precedent as well as the plain words of the 14th Amendment.
In mid-March, Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court with “a modest request.” Rather than decide the “important constitutional questions” involving 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.
A month later, and without further explanation, the court agreed to hear arguments based on that request.
The justices are likely to hand down a decision in Trump vs. CASA, but it may not come until late June.
‘Bring it on, Gavin,’ White House says to Newsom on threat to sue over UCLA cuts
WASHINGTON — As Gov. Gavin Newsom and the University of California consider whether to sue the Trump administration to restore more than half a billion dollars in federal grants to ULCA, the White House on Tuesday had a terse response.
“Bring it on, Gavin,” said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt when asked about Newsom’s opposition to a Trump plan demanding more than $1 billion and sweeping campus changes at UCLA to resolve federal antisemitism findings against the university.
“This administration is well within its legal right to do this, and we want to ensure that our colleges and our universities are respecting the First Amendment rights and the religious liberties of students on their campuses and UCLA has failed to do that, and I have a whole list of examples that I will forward to Gavin Newsom’s press office, if he hasn’t seen them himself,” Leavitt said.
The statement was the first public comment from the White House about the high-stakes conflict between the nation’s premier public university system and the Trump administration, which has accused UCLA of violating the civil rights of Jewish students, illegally considering race in admissions and treating transgender people in sports, healthcare and campus life in ways that the government claims hinder women’s rights.
Leavitt spoke after a question from The Times about how Trump would response Newsom’s comments late last week that the settlement offer for UCLA was “extortion” and “ransom.”
“We’ll sue,” Newsom said Friday.
Responding to Leavitt’s comments, a Newsom spokesperson pointed The Times to a meme posted on X after the press conference.
“Glorious leader is entitled to all treasures of the realm, especially from universities,” said the post from Newsom’s press office account. The graphic features an image of what appears to a be a North Korean news anchor with a North Korea flag in the background.
In an earlier joint statement with California legislative leaders, Newsom said that the action against UCLA “isn’t about protecting Jewish students — it’s a billion-dollar political shakedown from the pay-to-play president. Trump has weaponized the Department of Justice to punish California, crush free thinking, and kneecap the greatest public university system in the world.”
No lawsuit has been filed and the UC board of regents, who held an emergency meeting Monday afternoon over the grant cuts, has not announced how it will proceed aside from calling Trump’s current terms “unacceptable.”
Newsom sits as a voting member on the 24-person board, has appointed several of its members and can wield influence on the body, although the final decision on a lawsuit or settlement rests with the regents. Newsom did not attend Monday’s meeting.
In a statement after the meeting, a UC spokesperson said the $1 billion price tag would be “devastating.”
“UC’s leadership spent recent days evaluating the demand, updating the UC community, and engaging with stakeholders,” said Meredith Turner, UC senior vice president of external relations. “Our focus remains on protecting students’ access to a UC education and promoting the academic freedom, excellence, and innovation that have always been at the heart of UC’s work.”
Hundreds of grants — from the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health and Department of Energy — are on hold at UCLA. The money funds research into cancer, math, brain science and other areas, and helps pay for graduate student stipends and tuition as well as lab upkeep. If the freezes stay for the long-term, administrators are considering layoffs and other budget reductions.
Citing the reasons for the freezes, a July 30 NSF leter to UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk alleged UCLA “engages in racism, in the form of illegal affirmative action, UCLA fails to promote a research environment free of antisemitism and bias; UCLA discriminates against and endangers women by allowing men in women’s sports and private women-only spaces.”
Frenk, in a campuswide message the next day, disputed the funding halt.
“This far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination,” he wrote.
Source link
Justices skeptical of Trump plan to limit birthright citizenship and judges who blocked it
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing Thursday to a lawyer for President Trump who was appealing rulings that blocked his plan to deny citizenship to newborns whose parents were in this country illegally or temporarily.
None of the justices spoke in favor of Trump’s plan to restrict birthright citizenship, and several were openly skeptical.
“Every court is ruling against you,” said Justice Elena Kagan. “There’s not going to be a lot of disagreement on this.”
If his plan were to take effect, “thousands of children will be born and rendered stateless,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
But Thursday’s hearing was devoted to a procedural question raised by the administration: Can a single federal judge issue a nationwide order to block the president’s plan?
Shortly after Trump issued his executive order to limit birthright citizenship, federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state declared it unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement nationwide.
In response, Trump’s lawyers asked the court to rein in the “epidemic” of nationwide orders handed by district judges.
It’s an issue that has divided the court and bedeviled both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Trump’s lawyers argued that on procedural grounds the judges overstepped their authority. But it is also procedurally unusual for a president to try to revise the Constitution through an executive order.
Thursday’s hearing did not appear to yield a consensus on what to do.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the plaintiffs should be required to bring a class-action claim if they want to win a broad ruling. But others said that would lead to delays and not solve problem.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said he was looking for a way to decide quickly. “How we get to the merits expeditiously?” he asked.
One possibility was to have the court ask for further briefing and perhaps a second hearing to decide the fundamental question: Can Trump acting on his own revise the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment?
Shortly after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress wrote the 14th Amendment, which begins with the words: “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.”
Prior to that time, Americans were citizens of their states. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the infamous Dred Scott decision said Black people were not citizens of their states and could not become citizens even if they were living in a free state.
The amended Constitution established U.S. citizenship as a birthright. The only persons not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the laws of the United States were foreign diplomats and their families and, in the 19th century, Indians who were “not taxed” and were treated as citizens of their tribal nations.
However, Congress changed that rule in 1924 and extended birthright citizenship to Native Americans.
Since 1898, the Supreme Court has agreed that birthright citizenship extended to the native-born children of foreign migrants living in this country. The court said then “the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth, notwithstanding the alienage of parents” had been established by law.
The decision affirmed the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who were living and working there, but who were not U.S. citizens.
But several conservative law professors have disputed the notion that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States means simply that people living here are subject to the laws here.
Instead, they say it refers more narrowly to people who owe their undivided allegiance to this country. If so, they contend it does not extend broadly to illegal immigrants or to students and tourists who are here temporarily.
On Jan. 20, Trump issued an executive order proclaiming the 14th Amendment 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.”
Immigrants rights groups sued on behalf of several pregnant women, and they were joined by 22 states and several cities.
Judges wasted no time in declaring Trump’s order unconstitutional. They said his proposed restrictions violated the federal law and Supreme Court precedent as well as the plain words of the 14th Amendment.
In mid-March, Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court with “a modest request.” Rather than decide the “important constitutional questions” involving 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.
A month later, and without further explanation, the court agreed to hear arguments based on that request.
The justices are likely to hand down a decision in Trump vs. CASA, but it may not come until late June.
Source link