Connect with us

News

What is birthright citizenship and what happens after the Supreme Court ruling?

Published

on

What is birthright citizenship and what happens after the Supreme Court ruling?

Demonstrators hold a sign reading “Hands Off Birthright Citizenship!” outside the Supreme Court on June 27, 2025. The Supreme Court did not rule on President Trump’s controversial executive order, but it did limit lower courts’ ability to block executive actions with universal injunctions.

Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images

After the Supreme Court issued a ruling that limits the ability of federal judges to issue universal injunctions — but didn’t rule on the legality of President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship — immigrant rights groups are trying a new tactic by filing a national class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two immigrant rights organizations whose members include people without legal status in the U.S. who “have had or will have children born in the United States after February 19, 2025,” according to court documents.

One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, William Powell, senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, says his colleagues at CASA, Inc. and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project think that, with the class action approach “we will be able to get complete relief for everyone who would be covered by the executive order.”

Advertisement

The strategic shift required three court filings: one to add class allegations to the initial complaint; a second to move for class certification; and a third asking a district court in Maryland to issue “a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction asking for relief for that putative class,” Powell said.

In the amended complaint, filed two hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling, the immigrant rights attorneys said that Trump’s effort to ban birthright citizenship, if allowed to stand, “would throw into doubt the citizenship status of thousands of children across the country.”

“The Executive Order threatens these newborns’ identity as United States citizens and interferes with their enjoyment of the full privileges, rights, and benefits that come with U.S. citizenship, including calling into question their ability to remain in their country of birth,” reads the complaint.

Rights groups and 22 states had asked federal judges to block President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. Issued on his first day in office, the executive order states, “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”

But after three federal district court judges separately blocked Trump’s order, issuing universal injunctions preventing its enforcement nationwide, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block universal injunctions altogether.

Advertisement

The Supreme Court did not rule on the birthright issue itself. But after the ruling, Trump called it a “monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law,” in a briefing at the White House.

The president said the ruling means his administration can now move forward with his efforts to fundamentally reshape longstanding U.S. policy on immigration and citizenship.

Friday’s ruling quickly sparked questions about how the dispute over birthright citizenship will play out now — and how the ruling on universal injunctions might affect other efforts to push back on executive policies, under President Trump and future presidents.

“Nationwide injunctions have been an important tool to prevent blatantly illegal and unconstitutional conduct,” the National Immigrant Justice Center’s director of litigation, Keren Zwick, said in a statement sent to NPR. The decision to limit such injunctions, she said, “opens a pathway for the president to break the law at will.”

Both Zwick and Powell emphasized that the Supreme Court did not rule on a key question: whether Trump’s executive order is legal.

Advertisement

At the White House, Attorney General Pam Bondi would not answer questions about how the order might be implemented and enforced.

“This is all pending litigation,” she said, adding that she expects the Supreme Court to take up the issue this fall.

“We’re obviously disappointed with the result on nationwide injunctions,” Powell said. But, he added, he believes the Supreme Court will ultimately quash Trump’s attack on birthright citizenship.

“The executive order flagrantly violates the 14th Amendment citizenship clause and Section 1401a of the Immigration and Nationality Act,” Powell said, “both of which guarantee birthright citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States, with only narrow exceptions for ambassadors [and] invading armies.”

The court’s ruling set a 30-day timeframe for the policy laid out in Trump’s executive order to take effect.

Advertisement

“The Government here is likely to suffer irreparable harm from the District Courts’ entry of injunctions that likely exceed the authority conferred by the Judiciary Act,” a syllabus, or headnote, of the Supreme Court’s ruling states.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also discusses the differences between “complete relief ” and “universal relief.” 

“Here, prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship,” Barrett wrote. “Extending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete.”

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling suggests that constitutional guarantees might not apply to anyone who isn’t a party to a lawsuit.

The concept of birthright citizenship has deep roots, dating to the English common law notion of jus soli (“right of the soil”). The doctrine was upended for a time in the U.S. by the Supreme Court’s notorious Dred Scott ruling.

Advertisement

Current legal standing for birthright citizenship in the U.S. extends back to the 1860s, when the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was ratified, stating, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

“Any executive order purporting to limit birthright citizenship is just as unconstitutional today as it was yesterday,” Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, told NPR.
“There is nothing substantively in the decision that undercuts those lower court opinions. The opinion just undercuts the tools available to the courts to enforce that constitutional mandate.”

News

Family, former presidents and a Hall of Famer give Rev. Jesse Jackson a final sendoff

Published

on

Family, former presidents and a Hall of Famer give Rev. Jesse Jackson a final sendoff

The casket with the Rev. Jesse Jackson is seen before the Public Homegoing Service at the House of Hope in Chicago, on Friday, March 6, 2026.

Erin Hooley/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Erin Hooley/AP

The rare qualities that distinguished the Rev. Jesse Jackson — his fortitude as a civil rights leader, and the love he shared as a mentor, a friend and father — were praised time and again on Friday, as his family and a roster of luminaries, including three former U.S. presidents, gathered for Jackson’s funeral service on Chicago’s South Side.

Repeatedly, it came down to three words that Jackson made famous.

“I am! Somebody!” the crowd chanted in the House of Hope megachurch, repeating Jackson’s belief that every person matters, no matter their race or economic standing.

Advertisement

“He paved the road,” former President Barack Obama said. He noted that Jackson brought social change, and also proved, in the 1980s, that a Black presidential candidate could be taken seriously.

“His voice called on each of us to be heralds of change, to be messengers of hope, to step forward and say, ‘Send me,’” Obama said. “Wherever we have a chance to make an impact, whether it’s in our schools, our workplaces, our neighborhoods, our cities.”

Jackson’s son, Yusef, gave vivid detail to Jackson’s commitment to helping those who need it most.

“I intend to die with my shoes on,” Yusef Jackson said, quoting his father’s refusal to let health problems stop him from aspiring to help people in war-torn Ukraine, and Americans struggling with food insecurity. Along the way, Yusef Jackson said, his father also managed to find time to share his love for his children and grandchildren.

“Keep hope alive,” Yusef Jackson said in closing, echoing another of Jesse Jackson’s mottos.

Advertisement

Speakers emphasized Jackson’s message of hope throughout the service, especially as some referenced the Trump administration. 

Obama said “it’s hard to hope” when “every day you wake up to things you just didn’t think were possible. Each day we’re told … to fear each other, to turn on each other and that some Americans count more than others, and that some don’t even count at all.” 

Former presidential candidate Kamala Harris said she predicted how President Trump’s second term would play out. 

“I’m not into saying ‘I told you so,’ but we did see it coming,” Harris said. “But what I did not predict is that we would not have Jesse Jackson with us to get through this.”

Several speakers credited Jackson for sowing the seeds that would carry them through storied careers. 

Advertisement

For Judge Greg Mathis, from the hit daytime television show Judge Mathis, hearing Jackson say “I am somebody” began a domino effect that would catapult him to success in the worlds of law and entertainment. 

“Those were the three words that I heard 50 years ago this month that changed my life forever,” Mathis said. 

He first met Jackson when he was a teenager incarcerated in Detroit. Jackson had stopped at the facility where Mathis was being held during a speaking tour. Mathis wanted to join Jackson’s cause right then and there. But it wouldn’t happen that fast. Jackson told Mathis to go to college first.

After graduating, Mathis worked on Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign, and was later elected to a judgeship in Detroit. Years later, he reunited with Jackson to serve as vice president of Jackson’s nonprofit, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition.

Then, Mathis got the offer to be on television. 

Advertisement

“‘Oh yeah, you gotta take this,’” Mathis said, recalling Jackson’s reaction. “‘But primarily, I want you to take this so that you can spread a message of hope to millions and millions of people who you will inspire to overcome their obstacles, as we’ve overcome ours.’” 

Obama reminisced about being a college student while watching Jackson’s first presidential debate.

“When that debate was over, I turned off that TV, and I thought the same thing that I know a lot of people thought, even if they didn’t want to admit it. That in his idea, and his platform, in his analysis, in his intelligence, in his insight, Jesse hadn’t just held his own. He had owned that stage,” Obama said. 

He continued, “And the message he sent to a 22-year-old child of a single mother with a funny name, an outsider, was that there wasn’t any place, any room, where we didn’t belong.”

One of the most emotional speeches came from NBA Hall of Famer Isiah Thomas, a longtime friend of Jackson’s who recalled meeting the civil rights leader when Thomas was a child in Chicago. In those days, Thomas said, his family was living in poverty, relying on a soup line for sustenance.

Advertisement

That’s when, Thomas said, he and his mother encountered Jackson walking down a street.

When Jackson saw the boy, he bent down and looked Thomas in the eye.

“When society was telling me I was a nobody, when society was telling me we don’t even want to go to school with you,” Thomas said, Jackson shared a different message.

“You are somebody,” Jackson told Thomas.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

A dead woman’s key fob and two grisly crime scenes: How the Utah triple-murder suspect was tracked across state lines | CNN

Published

on

A dead woman’s key fob and two grisly crime scenes: How the Utah triple-murder suspect was tracked across state lines | CNN

As investigators raced to find the person responsible for three killings in rural Wayne County, Utah, they used automated license plate readers and a victim’s own vehicle key fob to track their suspect – a man police said has no connection to the victims or the region that is known for its awe-inspiring landscapes dotted with quiet, small towns.

It would take just hours to pin down the suspect in a search that spanned multiple states in the Four Corners region of the Southwest – ending early Thursday with the arrest of 22-year-old Iowa resident Ivan Miller, who is charged with three counts of first-degree, aggravated murder, officials said.

Miller was taken into custody in Colorado, officials said –– more than 350 miles from where the bodies of three women were found at two locations in Utah.

Miller’s first court appearance is scheduled for Friday afternoon in Archuleta County, Colorado. He will be represented by a public defender, court records show.

The victims were identified as Margaret Oldroyd, 86; Linda Dewey, 65; and Natalie Graves, 34, Utah’s Department of Public Safety said.

Advertisement

Dewey and Graves, an aunt and niece who’d gone for a hike together, were found dead near a trailhead just outside the town of Torrey, Utah’s DPS said. The women’s bodies were found by their husbands who grew concerned when the pair didn’t return from their hike, Utah Highway Patrol spokesperson Lt. Cameron Roden said at a news conference Thursday.

Investigators found Oldroyd’s vehicle at the trailhead and deputies went to her home in nearby Lyman, where they discovered her body, Roden said.

After his arrest, Miller told investigators he spent a night in Oldroyd’s back shed and snuck into her house while she was out, according to an indictment filed in court Thursday. Miller “waited for her behind a door and shot her in the back of the head … while she was sitting down to watch television,” the indictment said.

Miller made efforts to clean up the scene before dragging the 86-year-old’s body to a cellar under the shed, where she was later found, the indictment read. He then stole her Buick Regal and traveled to the trailhead, investigators said. Miller told investigators “he did not like the car and wanted to find a different vehicle,” the indictment said.

At the trailhead, Miller said he saw Dewey and Graves get out of a white Subaru and shot them both, according to the indictment. Miller told investigators he stabbed one of the women in the chest multiple times because she was still moving, the document said.

Advertisement

He then admitted dragging their bodies into a ditch, where the two were discovered by their husbands, the indictment said.

Officials said Miller ditched Oldroyd’s car at the trail and drove away in the white Subaru. Miller also admitted stealing the women’s credit cards and using one to pay for gas, according to documents.

Investigators used a network of license plate scanners to track the Subaru “through southern Utah into northern Arizona and eventually into Colorado,” Roden said.

“Colorado law enforcement located the vehicle abandoned in Pagosa Springs, Colorado, and after a brief search, took the individual into custody without incident,” Utah DPS said Thursday.

One of the husbands was also able to track the car’s location using an app that monitored the vehicle’s key fob, investigators said. Just after 9 p.m. Wednesday, the key fob appeared to be in Farmington, New Mexico — about two hours southwest of where Miller would later be taken into custody, according to the indictment.

Advertisement

Miller had a handgun and a large knife in his possession at the time of his arrest, according to police in Pagosa Springs.

Miller told investigators he killed the women because he needed money, according to the indictment. “Miller confessed that it ‘had to be done’ but he did not like to do it,” the document reads.

Miller, who lived in Blakesburg, Iowa, set out on a cross-country road trip about two and a half weeks ago, his brother, who spoke with The New York Times on condition of anonymity, said.

Miller’s brother said the two stayed in contact during the trip, and Miller mentioned crashing his truck after hitting an elk, according to the Times.

The brother was concerned about how Miller was traveling around after that and offered to bring him back to Iowa, which he declined, the Times reported.

Advertisement

After his arrest, Miller told officials that he had been staying at a hotel in the area for a few days after he hit an elk with his truck, which he then sold to a tow truck company, according to the indictment.

On Thursday, shaken residents across Wayne County placed pink ribbons around trees and fences in their communities as they remembered the three women who were killed in apparently random attacks carried out by a stranger.

“We wanted to honor our friend and neighbor,” Mary Sorenson, who put up ribbons around Lyman, told CNN affiliate KSL.

The Wayne County School District announced it would be closed for the rest of the week and would “have counselors in place to support students when we are back in session next week.”

In a statement Thursday, Torrey Mayor Mickey Wright described the multiple homicides as a “heartbreaking moment for our small, close‑knit community.”

Advertisement

“Our community is strong. In the coming days, we will support one another, check on our neighbors, and ensure that those affected by this tragedy are not alone,” Wright said. “We stand together today — in grief, in compassion, and in solidarity.”

Continue Reading

News

Iran’s fight for survival / The widening war / Trump’s nebulous goals : Sources & Methods

Published

on

Iran’s fight for survival / The widening war / Trump’s nebulous goals : Sources & Methods
The U.S.-Israeli war with Iran is spilling out across the region. What are the goals? And how does it end?Host Mary Louise Kelly talks with International Correspondent Aya Batrawy, based in Dubai, and Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman, about the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran. Six days of war have turned the middle east upside down, and it’s still not clear how the U.S. will determine when its objectives have been accomplished.Recommended Iran reading:Blackwave by Kim GhattasAll the Shah’s Men by Stephen KinzerPrisoner by Jason RezaianPersian Mirrors by Elaine SciolinoListener spy novel recommendation: Pariah by Dan FespermanEmail the show at sourcesandmethods@npr.orgNPR+ supporters hear every episode without sponsor messages and unlock access to our complete archive. Sign up at plus.npr.org.
Continue Reading

Trending