| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| -Land of the Free | ||
| Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship, rejecting Trump's restrictions, gave president firing authority over FTC, and more | ||
| 2026-06-30 | ||
| WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump's executive order declaring that children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens. The justices relied on a long-settled understanding of the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, and more recent federal laws in ruling that anyone born in the country, with very limited exceptions, is a citizen. The Republican president's restrictions had been blocked by several lower courts and had not taken effect anywhere in the U.S. During arguments in April, both conservative and liberal justices questioned the order's legality in a momentous case that was magnified by Trump's unprecedented attendance in the courtroom. The case framed another test of Trump's assertions of executive power that defy long-standing precedent for a court with a conservative majority and a robust view of presidential power that has largely ruled in his favor. In the notable exceptions when the court has not, Trump has responded with starkly personal criticisms of the justices. The justices ruled on Trump's appeal of a lower-court ruling from New Hampshire that struck down the citizenship restrictions. The birthright citizenship order, which Trump signed on the first day of his second term, is part of his administration's broad immigration crackdown. Birthright citizenship was the first Trump immigration-related policy to reach the court for a final ruling. The justices previously struck down global tariffs Trump had imposed under an emergency powers law that had never been used that way. Trump reacted furiously to the late February tariffs decision, saying he was ashamed of the justices who ruled against him and calling them unpatriotic. He also seemed to recognize the court was likely to rule against him on birthright citizenship, too, using his Truth Social platform to criticize "dumb judges and justices" and wealthy pregnant women from China and elsewhere who come to the U.S. to give birth so their newborns will have American citizenship. Trump's order would have upended widely held views that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born in the U.S., excluding only the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force. The amendment was intended to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship, though the Citizenship Clause is written more broadly. "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," it reads. In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down Trump's executive order as illegal. The decisions have invoked the high court's 1898 ruling in Wong Kim Ark, which held that the U.S.-born child of Chinese nationals was a citizen. The Trump administration argued that the common view of citizenship is wrong, asserting that children of noncitizens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore are not entitled to citizenship. More than one-quarter of a million babies born in the U.S. each year would have been affected by the executive order, according to research by the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University's Population Research Institute. While Trump has largely focused on illegal immigration in his rhetoric and actions, the birthright citizenship restrictions also would have applied to people who are legally in the United States, including students and applicants for green cards, or permanent resident status.
[FoxNews] The 6-3 ruling overturns nearly 90 years of precedent that protected independent agency officials from presidential removal The Supreme Court may have done more Monday than give President Donald Trump new firing power — it may have opened the door to a far broader challenge to the modern administrative state, the sprawling network of federal agencies that many conservatives have long dubbed the "deep state." In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled Trump could lawfully remove Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, overturning much of the nearly 90-year-old Humphrey's Executor precedent that had protected independent agency officials from at-will dismissal. While Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion held that the FTC's leaders must remain accountable to the president because the agency exercises executive power, Gorsuch argued the ruling raises a broader constitutional question over whether Congress can continue allowing executive agencies to exercise sweeping legislative and judicial powers. "The fourth branch's powers still exist; they have just been reassigned to the President," Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion. That observation could become the next major front in the Supreme Court's ongoing effort to reshape the modern administrative state. For decades, independent agencies such as the FTC, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Communications Commission and National Labor Relations Board have combined multiple governmental functions under one roof. They investigate alleged violations, write regulations carrying the force of law and adjudicate enforcement actions through administrative proceedings. With Humphrey's Executor now overruled, those agencies remain intact, but their leadership is subject to presidential control if they exercise executive power. Gorsuch questioned whether Congress can continue delegating broad legislative and judicial authority to agencies that are now unmistakably under presidential supervision. "The power to write new regulatory crimes still exists," Gorsuch wrote. "The ability to judge disputes in-house remains, but now the house is white." Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said Gorsuch's concurrence points toward the next phase of litigation. "I think the next step in this type of litigation won't be looking at firings per se, but really trying to make sure all of these administrative agencies actually fall into one of our constitutional buckets," Severino said. "Are they executive agencies or are they legislative or are they judicial? You can't straddle all of this." She said that while Monday's ruling restored presidential control over executive agencies, it did not resolve whether those same agencies can continue exercising quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers that Congress has delegated over decades. Trump issues emphatic statement on 'ridiculous' trans situation after bombshell Supreme Court victory
| ||
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #12 |
| Posted by: DooDahMan 2026-06-30 22:24 |
| #11 |
| Posted by: NN2N1 2026-06-30 18:55 |
| #10 |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2026-06-30 18:44 |
| #9 |
| Posted by: Frank G 2026-06-30 18:35 |
| #8 |
| Posted by: Chantry 2026-06-30 17:49 |
| #7 |
| Posted by: NN2N1 2026-06-30 14:07 |
| #6 |
| Posted by: Chris 2026-06-30 13:37 |
| #5 |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2026-06-30 12:27 |
| #4 |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2026-06-30 11:25 |
| #3 |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2026-06-30 11:11 |
| #2 |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2026-06-30 10:57 |
| #1 |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2026-06-30 10:56 |