|
|
|
What to know about the Supreme Court arguments in the birthright citizenship case
Legal Center |
2025/05/16 07:54
|
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Thursday in its first case stemming from the blitz of actions that have marked the start of President Donald Trump’s second term.
Before the court are the Trump administration’s emergency appeals of lower court orders putting nationwide holds on the Republican president’s push to deny citizenship to children born to people who are in the United States illegally.
Birthright citizenship is among several issues, many related to immigration, that the administration has asked the court to address on an emergency basis, after lower courts acted to slow the president’s agenda.
The justices are also considering the administration’s pleas to end humanitarian parole for more than 500,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela and to strip other temporary legal protections from another 350,000 Venezuelans. The administration remains locked in legal battles over its efforts to swiftly deport people accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.
In Thursday’s arguments, the justices will be weighing whether judges have the authority to issue what are called nationwide, or universal, injunctions. The Trump administration, like the Biden administration before it, has complained that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court.
Yet in discussing the limits of a judge’s power, the court almost certainly will have to take up the change to citizenship that Trump wants to make, which would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years.
The first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution reads: “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.”
The Citizenship Clause, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, was included to ensure that formerly enslaved people would be citizens. It effectively overturned the notorious Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court held that Black people, no matter their status, were not citizens.
Since at least 1898 and the Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark, the provision has been widely interpreted to make citizens of everyone born on U.S. soil except for the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; and, until a federal law changed things in 1924, sovereign Native American tribes.
Trump’s executive order would deny citizenship to children if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Those categories include people who are in the country illegally or temporarily because, the administration contends, they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Almost immediately, states, immigrants and rights groups sued to block the executive order, accusing the Republican administration of trying to unsettle the understanding of birthright citizenship. Every court to consider the issue has sided with the challengers.
The administration is asking for the court orders to be reined in, not overturned entirely, and spends little time defending the executive order. The Justice Department argues that there has been an “explosion” in the number of nationwide injunctions issued since Trump retook the White House. The far-reaching court orders violate the law as well as long-standing views on a judge’s authority, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote on behalf of the administration.
Courts typically deal only with the parties before them. Even class actions reach only the people who are part of a class certified by a judge, though those can affect millions of people, Sauer wrote.
Nationwide injunctions, by contrast, have no limits and can even include parties who oppose what the court orders are designed to protect, he wrote. As an example, Sauer pointed to Republican-led states that favor the administration’s position but are subject to the nationwide injunctions.
But the justices may well ask about Trump’s executive order and perhaps even tip their hand. Lawyers for the states and immigrants argue that this is an odd issue for the court to use to limit judges’ authority because courts have uniformly found that Trump’s order likely violates the Constitution. Limiting the number of people who are protected by the rulings would create a confusing patchwork of rules in which new restrictions on citizenship could temporarily take effect in 27 states. That means a child born in a state that is challenging Trump’s order would be a citizen, but a child born at the same time elsewhere would not, the lawyers said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jury begins deliberating in UK trial of men accused of felling Sycamore Gap tree
Legal Center |
2025/05/09 12:36
|
Jurors began deliberating Thursday in the case of two men charged with cutting down the Sycamore Gap tree that once stood along the ancient Hadrian’s Wall in northern England.
Daniel Graham, 39, and Adam Carruthers, 32, have pleaded not guilty to two counts each of criminal damage. The former friends each testified that they were at their separate homes that night and not involved.
Justice Christina Lambert told jurors in Newcastle Crown Court to take as long as they need to reach unanimous verdicts in the trial that began April 28.
The tree was not Britain’s biggest or oldest, but it was prized for its picturesque setting along the ancient wall built by Emperor Hadrian in A.D. 122 to protect the northwest frontier of the Roman Empire.
The tree was long known to locals but achieved international fame in Kevin Costner’s 1991 film “Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves.” It sat symmetrically between two hills along the historic wall and was a draw for tourists, landscape photographers and those taking selfies for social media.
Prosecutors said the tree’s value exceeded 620,000 pounds ($830,000) and damage to the wall, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, was assessed at 1,100 pounds. Andrew Gurney, a lawyer for Carruthers, said Graham’s story didn’t add up and he was projecting his guilt on his former friend.
“Is that a plausible chain of events or is that the desperate story of a man caught out?” Gurney said.
Wright mocked the duo’s defense, saying common sense and a trail of evidence should lead jurors to convict them for their “moronic mission.”
Prosecutors showed grainy video from Graham’s phone of the tree being cut down — a video sent shortly afterward to Carruthers’ phone. Metadata showed it was taken at the tree’s location in Northumberland National Park. Data showed Graham’s Range Rover had traveled there.
Wright said he couldn’t say who cut the tree and who held the phone, but the two were the only people in the world who had the video on their devices.
Text and voice messages exchanged the following day between Carruthers and Graham captured their excitement as the story went viral.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-UK lawmaker charged with cheating in election betting scandal
Legal Center |
2025/04/11 14:26
|
A former Conservative lawmaker and 14 others have been charged with cheating when placing bets on the timing of Britain’s general election last year, the Gambling Commission said Monday.
Craig Williams was one of several people who had been investigated for cashing in on insider knowledge on the date then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak would call the election. Other members of the Conservative Party that controlled government at the time and a police officer were among those facing charges that carry a potential two-year prison term, if convicted.
It’s legal for politicians to wager on elections, but the investigation was about whether they used inside information to gain an unfair advantage. One of the popular bets at the time was to wager on the date the prime minister would call an election.
At the time, the conventional wisdom was that Sunak would call an election in the fall, but he surprised people in May when he set the election date for July 4th. The announcement was a disaster as Sunak was drenched in pouring rain outside his residence and word quickly spread that a handful of people with connections to the party had placed suspiciously timed bets.
The vote six weeks later ended up being a bloodbath for Conservatives, as the Labour Party, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, swept them out of office for the first time in 14 years.
Williams, who was Sunak’s parliamentary private secretary and running for reelection, had disclosed he placed a 100-pound ($131) bet on a July election days before the date had been announced.
“I committed an error of judgment, not an offense, and I want to reiterate my apology directly to you,” he said in a video posted on social media in June.
In the election, Williams lost his seat representing an area of Wales, finishing third.
Others facing charges included Russell George, a Conservative in the Welsh parliament, Nick Mason, a former chief data officer for the Tories and Thomas James, the director of the Welsh Conservatives.
Anthony Lee, a former Conservative campaign director, was also charged alongside his wife, Laura Saunders, who ran unsuccessfully for a seat in Parliament representing an area of southwest England.
George was suspended by the Conservative Party after news of the criminal case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trump administration says it’s cutting 90% of USAID foreign aid contracts
Legal Center |
2025/02/27 08:03
|
The Trump administration said it is eliminating more than 90% of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s foreign aid contracts and $60 billion in overall U.S. assistance around the world, putting numbers on its plans to eliminate the majority of U.S. development and humanitarian help abroad.
The cuts detailed by the administration would leave few surviving USAID projects for advocates to try to save in what are ongoing court battles with the administration.
The Trump administration outlined its plans in both an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press and filings in one of those federal lawsuits Wednesday.
The Supreme Court intervened in that case late Wednesday and temporarily blocked a court order requiring the administration to release billions of dollars in foreign aid by midnight.
Wednesday’s disclosures also give an idea of the scale of the administration’s retreat from U.S. aid and development assistance overseas, and from decades of U.S. policy that foreign aid helps U.S. interests by stabilizing other countries and economies and building alliances.
The memo said officials were “clearing significant waste stemming from decades of institutional drift.” More changes are planned in how USAID and the State Department deliver foreign assistance, it said, “to use taxpayer dollars wisely to advance American interests.”
President Donald Trump and ally Elon Musk have hit foreign aid harder and faster than almost any other target in their push to cut the size of the federal government. Both men say USAID projects advance a liberal agenda and are a waste of money.
Trump on Jan. 20 ordered what he said would be a 90-day program-by-program review of which foreign assistance programs deserved to continue, and cut off all foreign assistance funds almost overnight.
The funding freeze has stopped thousands of U.S.-funded programs abroad, and the administration and Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency teams have pulled the majority of USAID staff off the job through forced leave and firings.
Widely successful USAID programs credited with containing outbreaks of Ebola and other threats and saving more than 20 million lives in Africa through HIV and AIDS treatment are among those still cut off from agency funds, USAID officials and officials with partner organizations say. Meanwhile, formal notifications of program cancellations are rolling out.
In the federal court filings Wednesday, nonprofits owed money on contracts with USAID describe both Trump political appointees and members of Musk’s teams terminating USAID’s contracts around the world at breakneck speed, without time for any meaningful review, they say.
“‘There are MANY more terminations coming, so please gear up!’'' a USAID official wrote staff Monday, in an email quoted by lawyers for the nonprofits in the filings.
The nonprofits, among thousands of contractors, owed billions of dollars in payment since the freeze began, called the en masse contract terminations a maneuver to get around complying with the order to lift the funding freeze temporarily.
So did a Democratic lawmaker.
The administration was attempting to “blow through Congress and the courts by announcing the completion of their sham ‘review’ of foreign aid and the immediate termination of thousands of aid programs all over the world,” said Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
A coalition representing major U.S. and global businesses and nongovernmental organizations and former officials expressed shock at the move. “The American people deserve a transparent accounting of what will be lost — on counterterror, global health, food security, and competition,” the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition said.
The State Department said Secretary of State Marco Rubio had reviewed the terminations.
In all, the Trump administration said it will eliminate 5,800 of 6,200 multiyear USAID contract awards, for a cut of $54 billion. Another 4,100 of 9,100 State Department grants were being eliminated, for a cut of $4.4 billion.
The State Department memo, which was first reported by the Washington Free Beacon, described the administration as spurred by a federal court order that gave officials until the end of the day Wednesday to lift the Trump administration’s monthlong block on foreign aid funding. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TikTok asks Supreme Court to temporarily block law that could ban site in U.S.
Legal Center |
2024/12/16 06:20
|
TikTok on Monday asked the Supreme Court to step in on an emergency basis to block the federal law that would ban the popular platform in the United States unless its China-based parent company agreed to sell it.
Lawyers for the company and China-based ByteDance urged the justices to step in before the law’s Jan. 19 deadline. A similar plea was filed by content creators who rely on the platform for income and some of TikTok’s more than 170 million users in the U.S.
“A modest delay in enforcing the Act will create breathing room for this Court to conduct an orderly review and the new Administration to evaluate this matter — before this vital channel for Americans to communicate with their fellow citizens and the world is closed,” lawyers for the companies told the Supreme Court.
President-elect Donald Trump, who once supported a ban but then pledged during the campaign to “save TikTok,” said his administration would take a look at the situation.
“As you know, I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok,” Trump said during a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida. His campaign saw the platform as a way to reach younger, less politically engaged voters.
Trump was meeting with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at Mar-a-Lago on Monday, according to two people familiar with the president-elect’s plans who were not authorized to speak publicly about them and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
The companies have said that a shutdown lasting just a month would cause TikTok to lose about a third of its daily users in the U.S. and significant advertising revenue.
The case could attract the court’s interest because it pits free speech rights against the government’s stated aims of protecting national security, while raising novel issues about social media platforms.
The request first goes to Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversees emergency appeals from courts in the nation’s capital. He almost certainly will seek input from all nine justices.
On Friday, a panel of federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied an emergency plea to block the law, a procedural ruling that allowed the case to move to the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US inflation ticked up last month as some price pressures remain persistent
Legal Center |
2024/12/07 10:08
|
Fueled by pricier used cars, hotel rooms and groceries, inflation in the United States moved slightly higher last month in the latest sign that some price pressures remain elevated.
Consumer prices rose 2.7% in November from a year earlier, up from a yearly figure of 2.6% in October. Excluding volatile food and energy costs, so-called core prices increased 3.3%, the same as in the previous month. Measured month to month, prices climbed 0.3% from October to November, the biggest such increase since April. Core prices also rose 0.3% for a fourth straight month.
Wednesday’s inflation figures from the Labor Department are the final major piece of data that Federal Reserve officials will consider before they meet next week to decide on interest rates. The relatively mild November increase won’t likely be enough to discourage the officials from cutting their key rate by a quarter-point. The probability of a rate cut next week, as envisioned by Wall Street traders, rose to 98% after Wednesday’s inflation report was released, according to futures pricing tracked by CME FedWatch.
“It’s generally in the ballpark of what the Fed would like to see,” said Jason Pride, chief investment strategist at Glenmede, a wealth management firm. Though sharp increases for such items as groceries and hotel rooms increased overall inflation last month, those categories are often volatile. Pride noted that the cost of services, such as rents, car insurance, and airline fares, cooled in November.
Last week, Fed Chair Jerome Powell suggested that with the economy generally healthy, the Fed could reduce its key rate slowly.
“We’re not quite there on inflation, but we’re making progress,” Powell said. “We can afford to be a little more cautious.”
With the job market cooling, growth in Americans’ paychecks has slowed from a nearly 6% annual pace in 2022 to about 4% now, a rate nearly consistent with inflation at the Fed’s 2% target. Powell has said he doesn’t think the current job market is a driver of higher prices.
Randy Carr, CEO of World Emblem, a maker of patches, labels and badges for companies, universities and law enforcement agencies, said he is providing smaller wage increases, in the 3% to 5% range, than his company did during the height of inflation.
“Things have kind of leveled off,” he said.
Carr’s customers, which include the company that makes emblems for UPS uniforms, generally won’t accept price hikes much more than 2% a year. So World Emblem aims to offset the cost of its higher wages through greater efficiencies in manufacturing.
In September, the Fed slashed its benchmark rate, which affects many consumer and business loans, by a sizable half-point. It followed that move with a quarter-point rate cut in November. Those cuts lowered the central bank’s key rate to 4.6%, down from a four-decade high of 5.3%.
Though inflation is now way below its peak of 9.1% in June 2022, average prices are still about 20% higher than they were three years ago — a major source of public discontent that helped drive President-elect Donald Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in November.
Grocery prices jumped last month, an uncomfortable reminder for consumers that food prices remain a big drag on households’ budgets. Beef prices leapt 3.1% just from October to November and are up 5% from a year earlier.
Egg prices, which have been volatile for more than two years, in part because of outbreaks of bird flu, soared 8.2% just last month. They are nearly 38% higher than a year ago.
Gas prices ticked up 0.6% from October to November, ending a string of declines. Still, gas is down more than 8% from a year earlier. Hotel prices leapt 3.2% from October to November and are 3.7% higher than a year ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer News RSS Feed
