The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday delivered a 6-3 ruling limiting the authority of individual federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions against executive actions. The decision came in response to a case involving President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship.
The Court stated that such broad injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." In what maybe a win for Trump, the top court's ruling restricts lower courts from blocking federal policies beyond the scope of the specific parties involved in a legal challenge.
The Supreme Court ruling does not immediately determine whether Trump’s directive on birthright citizenship will be implemented.
The executive directive, signed on Trump’s first day back in office, instructs federal agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The Supreme Court had heard arguments in the case on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices the order “reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors.”
An 1898 Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, held that nearly all children born on U.S. soil are granted citizenship, with few exceptions such as children of diplomats or those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes. That precedent has long supported the application of jus soli, or “right of the soil,” in the United States, one of around 30 countries that recognize birthright citizenship.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted June 11–12 found that 52% of Americans opposed ending birthright citizenship, while 24% supported it. The rest were undecided.
The Court stated that such broad injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." In what maybe a win for Trump, the top court's ruling restricts lower courts from blocking federal policies beyond the scope of the specific parties involved in a legal challenge.
The Supreme Court ruling does not immediately determine whether Trump’s directive on birthright citizenship will be implemented.
The executive directive, signed on Trump’s first day back in office, instructs federal agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The Supreme Court had heard arguments in the case on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices the order “reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors.”
An 1898 Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, held that nearly all children born on U.S. soil are granted citizenship, with few exceptions such as children of diplomats or those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes. That precedent has long supported the application of jus soli, or “right of the soil,” in the United States, one of around 30 countries that recognize birthright citizenship.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted June 11–12 found that 52% of Americans opposed ending birthright citizenship, while 24% supported it. The rest were undecided.
You may also like
Dubai's ambitious education reforms: New student visas, scholarships, jobs for 90% of graduates; vision 2033
Skin Care Tips- Do you want to clear the blackheads on your nose, then try these home remedies
Apollo MedSkills to provide Indian faculty to teach MBBS in Uzbekistan
Pete Hegseth renames USNS Harvey Milk to USNS Oscar V. Peterson
Jojo Siwa and Chris Hughes join the great Jaffa Cake debate at BST Hyde Park
