News
An attorney general explains how states will fight Trump's birthright citizenship ban
The Constitution is held by a member of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 23, 2016.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
The legal fight over President Trump and many conservatives’ wish to end birthright citizenship for children of immigrants living in the country without legal status is underway.
A group of 18 Democratic state attorneys general sued the Trump administration Tuesday over its executive order titled “PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.” Two other lawsuits have been filed.
The Trump administration argues in the order that the 14th Amendment “has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’” The order would exclude from automatic U.S. citizenship babies born after Feb. 19 to parents who are “unlawfully” present or have “lawful but temporary” status in the U.S..
In the lawsuit, states argue that “The President has no authority to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment or duly enacted statute. Nor is he empowered by any other source of law to limit who receives United States citizenship at birth.”
But beyond that, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said the administration is “twisting itself in knots” given its stated goal of deporting all immigrants living in the country without legal status.
The lawsuit further argues that children denied automatic citizenship “will live under a constant threat of deportation,” potentially meaning they’d be under some degree of jurisdiction of the United States.
“For an administration that is taking such a hard line on undocumented immigration and removing those individuals saying they do not have jurisdiction over those people is directly in contradiction to what they are saying in other aspects of their immigration policy,” Platkin told Morning Edition.

Platkin discussed the lawsuit and the administration’s interpretation with NPR’s Steve Inskeep.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Steve Inskeep: I want to go to the Constitution here. The administration’s case revolves around the first sentence of the 14th Amendment. It begins “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.” What does that mean to you? In the case of someone who’s born in the U.S. and one or both of their parents are here illegally?
Matthew Platkin: Birthright citizenship has been part of the fabric of this nation for centuries. And it was put in the Constitution 157 years ago in the wake of the Civil War, when the people of this nation said we were no longer going to let the political whims determine whether or not someone born on United States soil is an American citizen. And it’s been upheld by the Supreme Court multiple times. This is until Monday night, not something that was ever contested by a president who signed an order that was extraordinary, unprecedented and upended the rule of law.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin (center) speaks during a press conference at the Justice Department in Washington, DC, on March 21, 2024.
Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
Inskeep: Well, let’s go through the two key phrases in that sentence that I read the first part. All persons born. I can’t believe I need to ask this, but I’m going to ask this: Does “all persons born in the United States” mean all persons born in the United States?
Platkin: Of course it does. And courts have said so for centuries.
Inskeep: OK. But then the other part is the part the administration is focusing on all persons born in the United States “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It is said that that phrase gives some wiggle room. You could redefine who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and say someone born in the United States, to a person who’s here without legal status is not subject to the jurisdiction. What do you make of that part of the argument?
Platkin: I think the administration is twisting itself in knots to try to find a political way of making an argument. There’s no good legal argument that people born here are not subject to our jurisdiction. And frankly, for an administration that is taking such a hard line on undocumented immigration and removing those individuals, saying they do not have jurisdiction over those people is directly in contradiction to what they are saying in other aspects of their immigration policy.
So again, this has not been a controversial legal position for centuries. And for 157 years, the plain text of the Constitution has provided this right. And all we are saying is that while presidents are powerful, they are not kings, and they cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen.
Inskeep: Many of the Supreme Court justices describe themselves as originalists. They’ll want to go back to the original public, meaning or they may even go into the intent in some cases. So tell me, do you understand why the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in there?
Platkin: Well, I think you have to remember the reason why birthright citizenship is in the 14th Amendment. Again, 157 years ago in the wake of this nation’s Civil War.

Inskeep: Yeah, I get that. But why is that phrase in there? It does seem to limit the power in some way.
Platkin: But again, Steve, courts have already reviewed this and said very clearly that people born here – going back to the 1890s, the Supreme Court has reviewed this and said people born here are subject.
Inskeep: Is it an exception for the children of diplomats who aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Is that what this is about?
Platkin: There is potentially that, but the order is not focused on diplomats. The order is much more broadly targeted on people born here to non-citizen parents, which again has been something we have provided American citizenship for centuries.
Inskeep: Are you prepared to file a lot of lawsuits against this administration?
Platkin: We’re prepared to stand up for the rule of law, and that’s what we’re doing here and that’s what we’ll continue to do.
This article was edited by Treye Green.
News
How the federal government is painting immigrants as criminals on social media
Getty Images, Dept. of Homeland Security and The White House via X/Collage by Emily Bogle/NPR
Two days after At Chandee, who goes by Ricky, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the White House’s X account posted about him, calling the 52-year-old the “WORST OF WORST” and a “CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIEN.”
Except that the photo the White House posted was of a different person. The post also incorrectly claimed Chandee had multiple felony convictions — he has one, for second-degree assault in 1993 when he was 18 years old. He shot two people in the legs and served three years in prison.
At “Ricky” Chandee with his wife, Tina Huynh-Chandee.
Via the Chandee family
hide caption
toggle caption
Via the Chandee family
Chandee, who came to the U.S. as a child refugee, was ordered to be deported back to his home country, Laos. But Laos had not been accepting all of the people the U.S. wanted it to, so the federal government determined that it was likely infeasible to deport him, his lawyer Linus Chan told NPR. Chandee therefore was granted permission to stay in the U.S. and work so long as he checked in with immigration authorities periodically. He has not missed a check-in in over 30 years and has not had another criminal incident.
People who know Chandee do not see him as “worst of the worst.”
After Chandee completed his prison sentence, he finished school and became an engineering technician. He worked for the City of Minneapolis for 26 years, became a father, and his son grew up to join the military.
In his free time, Chandee enjoys hiking and foraging for mushrooms, Minnesota Public Radio reported.
“We are proud to work alongside At ‘Ricky’ Chandee,” said Tim Sexton, Director of Public Works for the City of Minneapolis in a statement. “I don’t understand why he would be a target for removal now, why he was brutally detained and swiftly flown to Texas, or how his removal benefits our city or country.” Chandee is petitioning for his release in federal court.
Chandee’s case is not unique
Social media accounts from the White House, the Department of Homeland Security and other immigration agencies have spent much of the past year posting about people detained in the administration’s immigration crackdown, typically portraying them as hardened, violent criminals. That’s even as over 70% of the people detained don’t have criminal records according to ICE data.
NPR’s research of cases in Minnesota shows that while many of the people who have been highlighted on social media do have recent, serious criminal records, about a quarter are like Chandee, with decades-old convictions, minor offenses or only pending criminal proceedings. Scholars of immigration, media and criminal law say such a media campaign is unprecedented and paints a distorted picture of immigrants and crime.
A year into President Trump’s second term, the X accounts of DHS and ICE have posted about more than 2,000 people who were targets of mass deportation efforts. Starting late last March, DHS and ICE began posting on X on a near daily basis, often highlighting apprehensions of multiple people a day, an NPR review of government social media posts show.
Among the 2,000 people highlighted by the agencies, NPR identified 130 who were arrested by federal agents in Minnesota and tried to verify the government’s statements about their criminal histories.
In most of the social media posts, the government did not provide the state where the conviction occurred or the person’s age. Public court records do not tend to include photos so definitive identification can be a challenge.
NPR derived its findings from cases where it was able to locate a name and matching criminal history in the Minnesota court and detention system, in nationwide criminal history databases, sex offender databases, and in some cases, federal courts and other state courts.
In 19 of the 130 cases, roughly 1-in-7, public records show the most recent convictions were at least 20 years ago.
Seventeen of the 19 cases with old convictions did include violent crimes like homicide and first-degree sexual assault. ICE provided some of those names to Fox News as key examples of the agency’s accomplishments. “It’s the most disturbing list I’ve ever seen,” said Fox News reporter Bill Melugin on X, highlighting the criminal convictions of each person on the list.
For seven people, their only criminal history involved driving under the influence or disorderly conduct.
ICE agents approach a house before detaining two people in Minneapolis on Jan. 13.
Stephen Maturen/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Stephen Maturen/Getty Images
Six of the 130 Minnesota cases highlighted by the administration involved people with no criminal convictions. The government’s social media posts for those six instead rely upon the charges and arrests as evidence of their criminality, even though arrests don’t always lead to charges and charges can be dismissed.
In yet another case, the government highlighted a criminal charge even while noting it had been dismissed. (The person did have other existing convictions.)
For 37 of the 130 people, NPR was unable to confirm matching criminal history after consulting the databases and news coverage. Some of the names turned up no criminal history at all. The government said these people committed crimes ranging from homicide and assault to drug trafficking, and cited one by name to Fox News. NPR tried to reach out to all 37 people and their families for comment but did not receive a response from any.
In a statement to NPR, DHS’s chief spokesperson Lauren Bis did not dispute NPR’s findings or provide documentation where NPR wasn’t able to confirm matching criminal history.
“The fact that NPR is defending murderers and pedophiles is gross,” Bis wrote. “We hear far too much about criminals and not enough about their victims.” before listing four of the people with old convictions of homicide and sexual assault, underlining the date of deportation order for three of them.
Images designed to trigger emotion
The stream of social media posts with photos of mostly nonwhite people are meant to draw an emotional response, says Leo Chavez, an emeritus professor of anthropology at the University of California, Irvine. They “have been used repeatedly over and over to get people to buy into, really drastic, drastic and draconian actions and policies,” he said.
Chavez, whose most recent book is The Latino Threat: How Alarmist Rhetoric Misrepresents Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation, recalls how political campaigns in past decades presented images of Latinos — often men — without context. “Just by showing their image, showing brown people, particularly brown men, it’s supposed to be scary.”
The fact that the government’s social media posts come with statements about criminal history as well as photos reinforces that emotional response, Chavez said. DHS has previously acknowledged inaccuracies on their website. But even if the department issues corrections, Chavez said, “the goal was actually achieved, which was to reinforce the criminality and the visualization.”
CNN’s analysis of DHS’s “Arrested: Worst of the Worst” website showed that for hundreds out of about 25,000 people posted on the website, the crimes listed were not violent felonies. Instead, DHS listed people with records that included traffic offenses, marijuana possession or illegal reentry. DHS said the website had a “glitch” that it will fix but also that the people in question “have [committed] additional crimes.”
“I’ve never seen anything like this when it comes to immigration enforcement in the modern era,” said Juliet Stumpf, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School who studies the intersection of immigration and criminal law. She said the drumbeat of social media posts focused on specific individuals was like “FBI’s most wanted posters” or “like reality TV shows.”
Then-DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin, flanked by deputy director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Madison Sheahan (left), and Acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd Lyons, speaks during a news conference at ICE Headquarters, in Washington, D.C., on May 21, 2025.
Jose Luis Magana/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Jose Luis Magana/AP
Stumpf drew a parallel with an incident from the 1950s when the U.S. government deported two permanent residents suspected of being communists. “The government was kind of proclaiming and celebrating their deportation because getting rid of these communists was making the country safer,” said Stumpf, “Maybe that’s comparable to something like [this].”
An analysis by the Deportation Data Project shows a dramatic increase in arrests of noncitizens without criminal records during President Trump’s current term compared to President Biden’s term.
“If you look at research, immigrants actually tend to commit fewer crimes than even U.S. citizens do. And that’s true of immigrants who have lawful status here and immigrants who don’t,” said Stumpf. “If we have a number of social media posts that are painting immigrants as the worst of the worst…it’s actually really putting out a distorted version of reality about who immigrants actually are.”
Some claims are disputed by other authorities
In some posts, DHS and ICE have also used photos of people and statements about their criminal histories to burnish the federal government’s accomplishments, defend their agents and criticize states like Minnesota. State and local authorities have in turn pushed back, and some of the federal government’s claims about the people it has detained have been met with setbacks in the courts.
DHS accused Minnesota’s Cottonwood County of not honoring detainers, written requests by ICE to hold prisoners in custody for a period of time so ICE can pick them up. In one post, the agency identified a person who was charged with child sexual abuse, writing “This is who sanctuary city politicians and anti-ICE agitators are defending.”
The Cottonwood County sheriff’s office said DHS’s post “misrepresented the truth” in their own post on Facebook. According to their account, the county did honor the detainer but ICE said it was unable to pick up the person before the order expired and the county had to release the suspect.
The Minnesota Department of Corrections wrote in a blog post that dozens of people DHS listed on its “Worst of the Worst” website were not arrested as DHS described, but were transferred to ICE by the state because they were already in state custody. The Corrections Department has since launched a page dedicated to “correct the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) repeated false claims.”
The “Worst of the Worst” website has some overlap with the department’s social media posts, but it contains a much larger number of people — over 30,000 nationally. It included a Colombian soccer star who was extradited to the U.S., tried in Texas, convicted of drug trafficking and served time in federal prison. The website incorrectly describes him as being arrested in Wisconsin. The soccer player, Jhon Viáfara Mina, recently finished his sentence early and returned to Colombia, according to Spanish newspaper El Diario Vasco.
In some instances, DHS and ICE wrote about incidents where they ran into conflict when carrying out arrests. In those posts, they named the arrestees and posted their photos. But in one case where the incident went to court, the government’s account of the events shifted. After a federal agent shot Julio C. Sosa-Celis in Minneapolis in January, DHS claimed he was lodging a “violent attack on law enforcement.” Assault charges against Sosa-Celis fell apart in court as new evidence surfaced, and the officers involved were put on leave.
Despite the fact that the charges were dropped, DHS’s post profiling Sosa-Celis remains online.
News
Bill Clinton to testify before House committee investigating Epstein links
Former president Bill Clinton is scheduled to give deposition Friday to a congressional committee investigating his links to Jeffrey Epstein, one day after Hillary Clinton testified before the committee and called the proceedings “partisan political theatre” and “an insult to the American people”.
During remarks before the House oversight committee, Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, insisted on Thursday that she had never met Epstein.
The former Democratic president, however, flew on Epstein’s private jet several times in the early 2000s but said he never visited his island.
Clinton, who engaged in an extramarital affair while president and has been accused of sexual misconduct by three women, also appears in a photo from the recently released files, in a hot tub with Epstein and a woman whose identity is redacted.
Clinton has denied the sexual misconduct claims and was not charged with any crimes. He also has not been accused of any wrongdoing connected to Epstein.
Epstein visited the White House at least 17 times during the early years of Clinton’s presidency, according to White House visitor records cited in news reports. Clinton said he cut ties with him around 2005, before the disgraced financier, who died from suicide in 2019, pleaded guilty to solicitation of a minor in Florida.
The House committee subpoenaed the Clintons in August. They initially refused to testify but agreed after Republicans threatened to hold them in contempt.
The Clintons asked for their depositions to be held publicly, with the former president stating that to do so behind closed doors would amount to a “kangaroo court”.
“Let’s stop the games + do this the right way: in a public hearing,” Clinton said on X earlier this month.
The committee’s chair, James Comer, did not grant their request, and the proceedings will be conducted behind closed doors with video to be released later.
On Thursday, Hillary Clinton’s proceedings were briefly halted after representative Lauren Boebert leaked an image of Clinton testifying.
During the full day deposition, Clinton said she had no information about Epstein and did not recall ever meeting him.
Before the deposition, Comer said it would be a long interview and that one with Bill Clinton would be “even longer”.
News
Read Judge Schiltz’s Order
CASE 0:26-cv-00107-PJS-DLM
Doc. 12-1 Filed 02/26/26
Page 5 of 17
and to file a status update by 11:00 am on January 20. ECF No. 5. Respondents never provided a bond hearing and did not release Petitioner until January 21, ECF Nos. 10, 12, after failing to file an update, ECF No. 9. Further, Respondents released Petitioner subject to conditions despite the Court’s release order not providing for conditions. ECF Nos. 5, 12–13.
Abdi W. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 26-CV-00208 (KMM/SGE)
On January 21, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents, within 3 days, to either (a) complete Petitioner’s inspection and examination and file a notice confirming completion, or (b) release Petitioner immediately in Minnesota and confirm the date, time, and location of release. ECF No. 7. No notice was ever filed. The Court emailed counsel on January 27, 2026, at 10:39 am. No response was provided.
Adriana M.Y.M. v. David Easterwood, et al., Case No. 26-CV-213 (JWB/JFD)
On January 24, 2026, the Court ordered immediate release in Minnesota and ordered Respondents to confirm the time, date, and location of release, or anticipated release, within 48 hours. ECF No. 12. Respondent was not released until January 30, and Respondents never disclosed the time of release, instead describing it as “early this morning.” ECF No. 16.
Estefany J.S. v. Bondi, Case No. 26-CV-216 (JWB/SGE)
On January 13, 2026, at 10:59 am, the Court ordered Respondents to file a letter by 4:00 pm confirming Petitioner’s current location. ECF No. 8. After receiving no response, the Court ordered Respondents, at 5:11 pm, to immediately confirm Petitioner’s location and, by noon on January 14, file a memorandum explaining their failure to comply with the initial order. ECF No. 9. Respondents did not file the memorandum, requiring the Court to issue another order. ECF No. 12. On January 15, the Court ordered immediate release in Minnesota and required Respondents to confirm the time, date, and location of release within 48 hours. ECF No. 18. On January 20, having received no confirmation, the Court ordered Respondents to comply immediately. ECF No. 21. Respondents informed the Court that Petitioner was released in Minnesota on January 17, but did not specify the time. ECF No. 22.
5
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO2 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology7 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology7 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics7 days agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT