倍可親

Trump Gets Legal Green Light from Supreme Court

作者:劉龍珠律師  於 2025-6-28 23:53 發表於 最熱鬧的華人社交網路--貝殼村

通用分類:移民生活

美國#美國華人#移民美國#移民#法律#律師#劉龍珠#刑事案件#民事案件#犯罪 劉龍珠律師事務所有律師、顧問律師、法律助理約20人,從人數上為美國華人擁有的最大規模律師樓。 防遣返熱線電話:(626)664-9919 • 服務時間:洛杉磯時間上午9時至晚上6時(PST) 同時,為適應不同時區需求,熱線提供24小時二維碼掃描服務。通過掃描二維碼,求助者可獲取在線資源及相關信息,以便在緊急時刻尋求幫助。 地址:1163 Fairway Drive, Suite 105 City of Industry, CA 91789 電話:909-468-2165 微信:lawyerlongliu9

 

Supreme Court gives Trump more power after 『birthright citizenship』 ruling curbs nationwide injunctions

 

The Supreme Court』s conservative majority has stripped federal courts』 authority to issue nationwide injunctions that have blocked key parts of Donald Trump』s agenda.

Friday』s 6-3 ruling, written by Trump appointee Justice Amy Coney Barrett, states that federal judges went too far blocking his executive order that seeks to unilaterally redefine who gets to be a citizen. Those nationwide injunctions 「exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to the federal courts,」 according to the ruling.

The ruling opens the door for partial enforcement of Trump』s executive order, putting thousands of American-born children at risk of being denied their constitutional rights. Trump』s executive order will be blocked for another 30 days, however, allowing lower courts to revisit the scope of their injunctions and giving time for opponents to file new legal challenges.

Department of Justice attorneys will now 「promptly file」 legal challenges in cases where the president』s executive actions were temporarily blocked, Trump told reporters at the White House. Moments after the ruling, plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit that would protect citizenship rights for all newborn Americans, not just in the states that initially sued.

But the ruling does not definitively resolve challenges to birthright citizenship. A series of federal court rulings across the country earlier this year struck down the president』s attempt to block citizenship from newborn Americans who are born to certain immigrant parents. The government argued those decisions should only impact the individual states — and the unborn children of pregnant mothers in them — who sued him and won.

Opponents have warned that such a decision would open a backdoor to begin stripping away constitutional rights. In a blistering dissent, Justices Sonia Sotomayor called the court』s ruling 「a travesty for the rule of law.」

Olga Urbina, left, and her 9-month-old son Ares Webster join demonstrations outside the Supreme Court on May 14 as justices grilled the Trump administration over challenges to birthright citizenship (Getty)

Allowing the president to unilaterally redefine who gets to be a U.S. citizen in states subject to Trump』s rewriting of the 14th Amendment would create a patchwork system of constitutional rights and citizenship benefits — including voting rights.

More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship every year under Trump』s order, according to the plaintiffs.

「Make no mistake: Today』s ruling allows the Executive to deny people rights that the Founders plainly wrote into our Constitution, so long as those individuals have not found a lawyer or asked a court in a particular manner to have their rights protected,」 Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her dissent.

The court』s decision gifted Trump the 「prerogative of sometimes disregarding the law」 that opens the door to 「put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy,」 Jackson warned.

「It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,」 she wrote. 「Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more."

 

Trump, flanked by his former criminal defense attorney turned top Justice Department official Todd Blanche and Attorney General Pam Bondi, says the administration will now 『promptly file』 legal challenges in every case where nationwide injunctions have blocked his executive orders (AFP via Getty Images)

In January, more than 20 states, immigrants』 advocacy groups and pregnant plaintiffs sued the administration to block the president』s executive order.

Three federal judges and appellate court panels argued his order is unconstitutional and blocked the measure from taking effect nationwide while legal challenges continue. During oral arguments, the Supreme Court』s liberal justices appeared shocked at the president』s 「unlawful」 measure.

A Pregnant Alabama Woman Says She And Her Trump-Supporting Husband Were "Blindsided" When ICE Detained Him

 

Lawmakers remove 『revenge』 tax provision from Trump's big bill after Treasury Department request

Trump Praises Supreme Court for Fixing Birthright Citizenship 『Scam』 Originally Meant for the 『Babies of Slaves』

But the administration used the case not necessarily to argue over whether he can change the 14th Amendment but to target what has become a major obstacle to advancing Trump』s agenda: federal judges blocking aggressive executive actions.

The government asked the court to limit the authority of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have imperilled the bulk of the president』s agenda.

The Supreme Court』s 6-3 decision on Friday limits federal justices』 ability to temporarily pause Trump』s executive orders, marking a major victory for the administration (EPA)

In cases across the country, plaintiffs have pushed for injunctions as a tool for critical checks and balances against an administration that critics warn is mounting an ongoing assault against the rule of law.

More than half of the injunctions issued over the last 70 years were against the Trump administration, according to the Harvard Law Review, as Trump pushed the limits of his authority.

In arguments to the Supreme Court, Trump』s personal attorney John Sauer, who was appointed by the president to serve as U.S. solicitor general, called the 「cascade of universal injunctions」 against the administration a 「bipartisan problem」 that exceeds judicial authority.

Trump』s allies, however, have relied on nationwide injunctions to do the very same thing they commanded the Supreme Court to strike down. Critics have accused right-wing legal groups of 「judge shopping」 for ideologically like-minded venues where they can sue to strike down — through nationwide injunctions — policies with which they disagree.

After the government』s arguments fell flat in front of a mostly skeptical Supreme Court last month, Trump accused his political opponents of 「playing the ref」 through the courts to overturn his threat to the 14th Amendment.

 

Trump』s executive order seeks to redefine the 14th Amendment』s citizenship clause to deny citizenship to children whose mother is undocumented or is temporarily legally in the country on a visa, and if the father isn』t a citizen or a lawful permanent resident (Getty)

The 14th Amendment plainly states that 「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.」

For more than 100 years, the Supreme Court has upheld the definition to apply to all children born within the United States.

But under the terms of Trump』s order, children can be denied citizenship if a mother is undocumented or is temporarily legally in the country on a visa, and if the father isn』t a citizen or a lawful permanent resident.

The president』s attempt to redefine citizenship is central to his administration』s sweeping anti-immigration agenda.

His administration has also effectively ended entry for asylum seekers; declared the United States under 「invasion」 from foreign gangs to summarily remove alleged members; and stripped legal protections for more than 1 million people — radically expanding the pool of 「undocumented」 people now vulnerable for arrest and removal.

The administration 「de-legalised」 tens of thousands of immigrants, and thousands of people with pending immigration cases are being ordered to court each week only to have those cases dismissed, with federal agents waiting to arrest them on the other side of the courtroom doors.

The White House has also rolled back protections barring immigration arrests at sensitive locations like churches and bumped up the pace of immigration raids in the interior of the country.

To carry out the arrests, the administration has tapped resources from other state and local agencies while moving officers from federal agencies like the FBI and DEA to focus on immigration. There are more people in immigration detention centers today than in any other point in modern history.

 




高興

感動

同情

搞笑

難過

拍磚

支持

鮮花

評論 (0 個評論)

facelist doodle 塗鴉板

您需要登錄后才可以評論 登錄 | 註冊

其它[移民生活]博文更多

關於本站 | 隱私權政策 | 免責條款 | 版權聲明 | 聯絡我們

Copyright © 2001-2013 海外華人中文門戶:倍可親 (http://big5.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系統基於 Discuz! X3.1 商業版 優化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

本站時間採用京港台時間 GMT+8, 2025-7-26 15:18

返回頂部