|
|
|
What’s next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court’s ruling
Law Firm Blog News |
2025/06/28 08:06
|
The legal battle over President Donald Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration’s major 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 more than a century of 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 the president’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 Constitution’s 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, 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 re-entry 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 U.S., no matter their parents’ legal status.
It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats.
Trump has long said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship
Trump’s executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It’s part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who 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” – saying it 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 earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom.
In Greenbelt, Maryland, 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court widens options for vaping companies pushing back against FDA rules
Top Court Watch |
2025/06/26 08:06
|
The Supreme Court sided with e-cigarette companies on Friday in a ruling making it easier to sue over Food and Drug Administration decisions blocking their products from the multibillion-dollar vaping market.
The 7-2 opinion comes as companies push back against a yearslong federal regulatory crackdown on electronic cigarettes. It’s expected to give the companies more control over which judges hear lawsuits filed against the agency.
The justices went the other way on vaping in an April decision, siding with the FDA in a ruling upholding a sweeping block on most sweet-flavored vapes instituted after a spike in youth vaping.
The current case was filed by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., which had sold a line of popular berry and menthol-flavored vaping products before the agency started regulating the market under the Tobacco Control Act in 2016.
The agency refused to authorize the company’s Vuse Alto products, an order that “sounded the death knell for a significant portion of the e-cigarette market,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion.
The company is based in North Carolina and typically would have been limited to challenging the FDA in a court there or in the agency’s home base of Washington. Instead, it joined forces with Texas businesses that sell the products and sued there. The conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the lawsuit to go forward, finding that anyone whose business is hurt by the FDA decision can sue.
The agency appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that R.J. Reynolds was attempting to find a court favorable to its arguments, a practice often referred to as “judge shopping.”
The justices, though, found that the law does allow other businesses affected by the FDA decisions, like e-cigarette sellers, to sue in their home states.
In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said she would have sided with the agency and limited where the cases can be filed.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids called the majority decision disappointing, saying it would allow manufacturers to “judge shop,” though it said the companies will still have to contend with the Supreme Court’s April decision.
Attorney Ryan Watson, who represented R.J. Reynolds, said that the court recognized that agency decisions can have devastating downstream effects on retailers and other businesses, and the decision “ensures that the courthouse doors are not closed” to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nations react to US strikes on Iran with many calling for diplomacy
Attorney Blog News |
2025/06/23 05:31
|
Several close U.S. allies urged a return to the negotiating table in the wake of American strikes on Iran that fueled fears of a wider conflict, while noting the threat posed by Tehran’s nuclear program. Some countries and groups in the region, including those that support Iran, condemned the move while also urging de-escalation.
U.S. President Donald Trump had said Thursday that he would decide within two weeks whether to get involved in Israel’s war with Tehran. In the end, it took just days. Washington hit three Iranian nuclear sites early Sunday.
While the amount of damage remained unclear, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the U.S. had “crossed a very big red line,” the time for diplomacy was over and Iran had the right to defend itself.
Some have questioned whether a weakened Iran would capitulate or remain defiant and begin striking with allies at U.S. targets scattered across the Gulf region.
Here is a look at reactions from governments and officials around the world.
U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said he was “gravely alarmed” by the use of force by the United States.
“There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world,” he said in a statement on the social media platform X. “I call on Member States to de-escalate.”
“There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy.”
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned of escalation beyond the Middle East as he called for all sides to negotiate a diplomatic end to the crisis, saying stability was the priority in the volatile region.
The U.K., along with the European Union, France and Germany, tried unsuccessfully to broker a diplomatic solution in Geneva last week with Iran.
Starmer said Iran’s nuclear program posed a grave threat to global security.
“Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the U.S. has taken action to alleviate that threat,” Starmer said.
Dmitry Medvedev, who serves as deputy head of President Vladimir Putin’s Security Council, said several countries were prepared to supply Tehran with nuclear weapons.
He didn’t specify which countries, but said the U.S. attack caused minimal damage and would not stop Tehran from pursuing nuclear weapons.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry said it “strongly condemned” the airstrikes and called them a “a gross violation of international law, the U.N. Charter, and U.N. Security Council resolutions.”
The Iraqi government condemned the U.S. strikes, saying the military escalation created a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East. It said it poses serious risks to regional stability and called for diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the crisis.
“The continuation of such attacks risks dangerous escalation with consequences that extend beyond the borders of any single state, threatening the security of the entire region and the world,” government spokesman Bassem al-Awadi said in the statement.
Saudi Arabia, which previously condemned Israel’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and military leaders, expressed “deep concern” about the U.S. airstrikes, but stopped short of condemning them.
“The Kingdom underscores the need to exert all possible efforts to exercise restraint, de-escalate tensions, and avoid further escalation,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
China condemned U.S. strikes on Iran, calling them a serious violation of international law that further inflamed tensions in the Middle East.
In a statement, the Chinese Foreign Ministry urged all parties — especially Israel — to implement a cease-fire and begin dialogue.
“China is willing to work with the international community to pool efforts together and uphold justice, and contribute to the work for restoring peace and stability in the Middle East,” the ministry said.
The European Union’s top diplomat said Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, but she urged those involved in the conflict to show restraint.
“I urge all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said in a post on social media.
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told reporters Sunday that it was crucial to calm the situation as soon as possible, adding that the Iranian nuclear weapons development also must be prevented.
Ishiba, asked if he supports the U.S. attacks on Iran, declined to comment.
Pope Leo XIV made a strong appeal for peace during his Sunday Angelus prayer in St. Peter’s square, calling for international diplomacy to “silence the weapons.”
After an open reference to the “alarming” situation in Iran, the first American pontiff stressed that “today more than ever, humanity cries out and invokes peace and it is a cry that demands reason and must not be stifled.”
Pope Leo urged every member of the international community to take up their moral responsibility to “stop the tragedy of war before it becomes an irreparable abyss.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge asks if troops in Los Angeles are violating the Posse Comitatus Act
Top Court Watch |
2025/06/19 05:31
|
California’s challenge of the Trump administration’s military deployment in Los Angeles returned to a federal courtroom in San Francisco on Friday for a brief hearing after an appeals court handed President Donald Trump a key procedural win.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer put off issuing any additional rulings and instead asked for briefings from both sides by noon Monday on whether the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from conducting civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil, is being violated in Los Angeles.
The hearing happened the day after the 9th Circuit appellate panel allowed the president to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed in response to protests over immigration raids.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in his complaint that “violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is imminent, if not already underway” but Breyer last week postponed considering that allegation.
Vice President JD Vance, a Marine veteran, traveled to Los Angeles on Friday and met with troops, including U.S. Marines who have been deployed to protect federal buildings.
According to Vance, the court determined Trump’s determination to send in federal troops “was legitimate” and he will do it again if necessary.
“The president has a very simple proposal to everybody in every city, every community, every town whether big or small, if you enforce your own laws and if you protect federal law enforcement, we’re not going to send in the National Guard because it’s unnecessary,” Vance told journalists after touring a federal complex in Los Angeles.
Vance’s tour of a multiagency Federal Joint Operations Center and a mobile command center came as demonstrations have calmed after sometimes-violent clashes between protesters and police and outbreaks of vandalism and break-ins that followed immigration raids across Southern California earlier this month. Tens of thousands have also marched peacefully in Los Angeles since June 8.
National Guard troops have been accompanying federal agents on some immigration raids, and Marines briefly detained a man on the first day they deployed to protect a federal building. The marked the first time federal troops detained a civilian since deploying to the nation’s second-largest city.
Breyer found Trump acted illegally when, over opposition from California’s governor, the president activated the soldiers. However, the appellate decision halted the judge’s temporary restraining order. Breyer asked the lawyers on Friday to address whether he or the appellate court retains primary jurisdiction to grant an injunction under the Posse Comitatus Act.
California has sought a preliminary injunction giving Newsom back control of the troops in Los Angeles, where protests have calmed down in recent days.
Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops have been necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said their presence on the streets of a U.S. city inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources.
The demonstrations appear to be winding down, although dozens of protesters showed up Thursday at Dodger Stadium, where a group of federal agents gathered at a parking lot with their faces covered, traveling in SUVs and cargo vans. The Los Angeles Dodgers organization asked them to leave, and they did.
On Tuesday, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted a downtown curfew that was first imposed in response to vandalism and clashes with police after crowds gathered in opposition to agents taking migrants into detention.
Trump federalized members of the California National Guard under an authority known as Title 10.
Title 10 allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country “is invaded,” when “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,” or when the president is otherwise unable “to execute the laws of the United States.”
Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said allows presidents to control state National Guard troops only during times of “rebellion or danger of a rebellion.”
“The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion,’ ” wrote Breyer, a Watergate prosecutor who was appointed by President Bill Clinton and is the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.
The Trump administration argued that courts can’t second-guess the president’s decisions. The appellate panel ruled otherwise, saying presidents don’t have unfettered power to seize control of a state’s guard, but the panel said that by citing violent acts by protesters in this case, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for federalizing the troops.
For now, the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit proceeds. It is the first deployment by a president of a state National Guard without the governor’s permission since troops were sent to protect Civil Rights Movement marchers in 1965.
Trump celebrated the appellate ruling in a social media post, calling it a “BIG WIN” and hinting at more potential deployments.
Newsom, for his part, has also warned that California won’t be the last state to see troops in the streets if Trump gets his way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge blocks plan to allow immigration agents in New York City jail
Law & Court News |
2025/06/15 10:54
|
A judge blocked New York City’s mayor from letting federal immigration authorities reopen an office at the city’s main jail, in part because of concerns the mayor invited them back in as part of a deal with the Trump administration to end his corruption case.
New York Judge Mary Rosado’s decision Friday is a setback for Democratic Mayor Eric Adams, who issued an executive order permitting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies to maintain office space at the Rikers Island jail complex. City lawmakers filed a lawsuit in April accusing Adams of entering into a “corrupt quid pro quo bargain” with the Trump administration in exchange for the U.S. Justice Department dropping criminal charges against him.
Rosado temporarily blocked the executive order in April. In granting a preliminary injunction, she said city council members have “shown a likelihood of success in demonstrating, at minimum, the appearance of a quid pro quo whereby Mayor Adams publicly agreed to bring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (”ICE”) back to Rikers Island in exchange for dismissal of his criminal charges.”
Rosado cited a number of factors, including U.S. border czar Tom Homan’s televised comments in February that if Adams did not come through, “I’ll be in his office, up his butt saying, ‘Where the hell is the agreement we came to?’ ”
Adams has repeatedly denied making a deal with the administration over the criminal case. He has said he deputized his first deputy mayor, Randy Mastro, to handle decision-making on the return of ICE to Rikers Island to make sure there was no appearance of any conflict of interest.
Rosado said that Mastro reports to Adams and “cannot be considered impartial and free from Mayor Adams’ conflicts.”
Mastro said in a prepared statement Friday the administration was confident they will prevail in the case. “Let’s be crystal clear: This executive order is about the criminal prosecution of violent transnational gangs committing crimes in our city. Our administration has never, and will never, do anything to jeopardize the safety of law-abiding immigrants, and this executive order ensures their safety as well,” Mastro said.
City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, who is running in the Democratic primary for mayor, called the decision a victory for public safety.
“New Yorkers are counting on our city to protect their civil rights, and yet, Mayor Adams has attempted to betray this obligation by handing power over our city to Trump’s ICE because he is compromised,” she said in a prepared statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Law Promo can construct your law firm a brand new responsive website, or help you redesign your existing site to secure your place in the internet world. Small Law Firm Web Design by Law Promo |
|
Recent Lawyer Blog Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
