{"id":157159,"date":"2025-06-30T10:32:20","date_gmt":"2025-06-30T15:32:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/indianz.com\/News\/?p=157159"},"modified":"2025-06-30T11:44:50","modified_gmt":"2025-06-30T16:44:50","slug":"cronkite-news-president-trump-claims-victory-in-birthright-citizenship-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/indianz.com\/News\/2025\/06\/30\/cronkite-news-president-trump-claims-victory-in-birthright-citizenship-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Cronkite News: President Trump claims victory in birthright citizenship case"},"content":{"rendered":" \"U.S.<\/a>
Crowds demonstrate outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices hear a dispute involving birthright citizenship on May 15, 2025. Photo: Victoria Pickering<\/a><\/figcaption>\r\n
Supreme Court lets Trump birthright citizenship rewrite proceed as it curbs nationwide injunctions<\/div>\r\n
Monday, June 30, 2025<\/div>\r\n
By Collin Hodge and Derry Lenehan<\/div>\r\n
Cronkite News<\/DIV>\r\n
cronkitenews.azpbs.org<\/A><\/DIV>\r\n

<\/P>\r\nWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dramatically scaled back lower courts\u2019 authority to freeze presidential orders facing legal challenge \u2013 even those a judge views as unconstitutional \u2013 in a ruling Friday that centered on an effort to end automatic birthright citizenship.\r\n

<\/P>\r\nPresident Donald Trump\u2019s order reinterpreting the concept declared that children with at least one parent in the country illegally or temporarily are not entitled to U.S. citizenship \u2013 a stance at odds with previous Supreme Court rulings on the meaning of the 14th Amendment.\r\n

<\/P>\r\nFederal district court judges in three states issued nationwide injunctions, prompting the administration to seek emergency review by the high court.\r\n

<\/P>\r\nThe justices voted 6 to 3 to lift the injunctions against Trump\u2019s order, except as it relates to the specific plaintiffs in those three cases \u2013 a major, if potentially temporary, victory for the president.\r\n

<\/P>\r\nThe court also clamped down on the use of so-called \u201cuniversal\u201d injunctions by lower courts \u2013 temporary halts on executive action pending the outcome of a case.\r\n

<\/P>\r\n\u201cWhen a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,\u201d Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the ruling, joined by the other conservatives. [Decision: Trump v. CASA, Inc.<\/a>]\r\n

<\/P>\r\n

\r\nTrump v. CASA, Inc.<\/a>\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n

<\/P>\r\nTrump\u2019s order will take effect in 30 days. After that, a newborn without at least one parent lawfully present in the U.S. will not receive automatic citizenship.\r\n

<\/P>\r\nIn a dissent by the three liberals, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that under this ruling, \u201cno right is safe\u201d because a president could violate the Constitution knowing the judiciary would be unable to effectively or quickly step in.\r\n

<\/P>\r\n\u201cToday, the threat is to birthright citizenship,\u201d she wrote. \u201cTomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.\u201d\r\n

<\/P>\r\nFellow liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing separately, underscored the point. \u201cThe Court\u2019s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law,\u201d she wrote.\r\n

<\/P>\r\nThe majority held that injunctions should apply only to the specific plaintiffs.\r\n

<\/P>\r\n\u201cProhibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief,\u201d the majority stated, adding, \u201cExtending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete.\u201d\r\n

<\/P>\r\n