Connect with us

News

An attorney general explains how states will fight Trump's birthright citizenship ban

Published

on

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

Advertisement

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..

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

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

Advertisement

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?

Advertisement

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?

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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

National Park Service will void passes with stickers over Trump’s face

Published

on

National Park Service will void passes with stickers over Trump’s face

The Interior Department’s new “America the Beautiful” annual pass for U.S. national parks.

Department of Interior


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Department of Interior

The National Park Service has updated its policy to discourage visitors from defacing a picture of President Trump on this year’s pass.

The use of an image of Trump on the 2026 pass — rather than the usual picture of nature — has sparked a backlash, sticker protests, and a lawsuit from a conservation group.

The $80 annual America the Beautiful pass gives visitors access to more than 2,000 federal recreation sites. Since 2004, the pass has typically showcased sweeping landscapes or iconic wildlife, selected through a public photo contest. Past winners have featured places like Arches National Park in Utah and images of bison roaming the plains.

Advertisement

Instead, of a picture of nature, this year’s design shows side-by-side portraits of Presidents George Washington and Trump. The new design has drawn criticism from parkgoers and ignited a wave of “do-it-yourself” resistance.

Photos circulating online show that many national park cardholders have covered the image of Trump’s face with stickers of wildlife, landscapes, and yellow smiley faces, while some have completely blocked out the whole card. The backlash has also inspired a growing sticker campaign.

Jenny McCarty, a longtime park volunteer and graphic designer, began selling custom stickers meant to fit directly over Trump’s face — with 100% of proceeds going to conservation nonprofits. “We made our first donation of $16,000 in December,” McCarty said. “The power of community is incredible.”

McCarty says the sticker movement is less about politics and more about preserving the neutrality of public lands. “The Interior’s new guidance only shows they continue to disregard how strongly people feel about keeping politics out of national parks,” she said.

Advertisement

The National Park Service card policy was updated this week to say that passes may no longer be valid if they’ve been “defaced or altered.” The change, which was revealed in an internal email to National Park Service staff obtained by SFGATE, comes just as the sticker movement has gained traction across social media.

In a statement to NPR, the Interior Department said there was no new policy. Interagency passes have always been void if altered, as stated on the card itself. The agency said the recent update was meant to clarify that rule and help staff deal with confusion from visitors.

The Park Service has long said passes can be voided if the signature strip is altered, but the updated guidance now explicitly includes stickers or markings on the front of the card.

It will be left to the discretion of park service officials to determine whether a pass has been “defaced” or not. The update means park officials now have the leeway to reject a pass if a sticker leaves behind residue, even if the image underneath is intact.

In December, conservation group the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C., opposing the new pass design.

Advertisement

The group argues that the image violates a federal requirement that the annual America the Beautiful pass display a winning photograph from a national parks photo contest. The 2026 winning image was a picture of Glacier National Park.

“This is part of a larger pattern of Trump branding government materials with his name and image,” Kierán Suckling, the executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, told NPR. “But this kind of cartoonish authoritarianism won’t fly in the United States.”

The lawsuit asks a federal court to pull the current pass design and replace it with the original contest winner — the Glacier National Park image. It also seeks to block the government from featuring a president’s face on future passes.

The America the Beautiful National Parks Annual Pass for 2025, showing one of the natural images which used to adorn the pass. Its picture, of a Roseate Spoonbill taken at Everglades National Park, was taken by Michael Zheng.

The America the Beautiful National Parks Annual Pass for 2025, showing one of the natural images which used to adorn the pass. Its picture, of a Roseate Spoonbill taken at Everglades National Park, was taken by Michael Zheng.

Department of Interior


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Department of Interior

Not everyone sees a problem with the new design. Vince Vanata, the GOP chairman of Park County, Wyoming, told the Cowboy State Daily that Trump detractors should “suck it up” and accept the park passes, saying they are a fitting tribute to America’s 250th birthday this July 4.

Advertisement

“The 250th anniversary of our country only comes once. This pass is showing the first president of the United States and the current president of the United States,” Vanata said.

But for many longtime visitors, the backlash goes beyond design.

Erin Quinn Gery, who buys an annual pass each year, compared the image to “a mug shot slapped onto natural beauty.”

She also likened the decision to self-glorification: “It’s akin to throwing yourself a parade or putting yourself on currency,” she said. “Let someone else tell you you’re great — or worth celebrating and commemorating.”

When asked if she plans to remove her protest sticker, Gery replied: “I’ll take the sticker off my pass after Trump takes his name off the Kennedy Center.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Federal immigration agents shoot 2 people in Portland, Oregon, police say

Published

on

Federal immigration agents shoot 2 people in Portland, Oregon, police say

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Federal immigration officers shot and wounded two people in a vehicle outside a hospital in Portland, Oregon, on Thursday, a day after an officer shot and killed a driver in Minnesota, authorities said.

The Department of Homeland Security described the vehicle’s passenger as “a Venezuelan illegal alien affiliated with the transnational Tren de Aragua prostitution ring” who had been involved in a recent shooting in Portland. When agents identified themselves to the vehicle occupants Thursday afternoon, the driver tried to run them over, the department said in a written statement.

“Fearing for his life and safety, an agent fired a defensive shot,” the statement said. “The driver drove off with the passenger, fleeing the scene.”

There was no immediate independent corroboration of those events or of any gang affiliation of the vehicle’s occupants. During prior shootings involving agents involved in President Donald Trump’s surge of immigration enforcement in U.S. cities, including Wednesday’s shooting by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in Minneapolis, video evidence cast doubt on the administration’s initial descriptions of what prompted the shootings.

READ MORE: What we know so far about the ICE shooting in Minneapolis

Advertisement

According to the the Portland Police bureau, officers initially responded to a report of a shooting near a hospital at about 2:18 p.m.

A few minutes later, police received information that a man who had been shot was asking for help in a residential area a couple of miles away. Officers then responded there and found the two people with apparent gunshot wounds. Officers determined they were injured in the shooting with federal agents, police said.

Their conditions were not immediately known. Council President Elana Pirtle-Guiney said during a Portland city council meeting that Thursday’s shooting took place in the eastern part of the city and that two Portlanders were wounded.

“As far as we know both of these individuals are still alive and we are hoping for more positive updates throughout the afternoon,” she said.

The shooting escalates tensions in an city that has long had a contentious relationship with President Donald Trump, including Trump’s recent, failed effort to deploy National Guard troops in the city.

Advertisement

Portland police secured both the scene of the shooting and the area where the wounded people were found pending investigation.

“We are still in the early stages of this incident,” said Chief Bob Day. “We understand the heightened emotion and tension many are feeling in the wake of the shooting in Minneapolis, but I am asking the community to remain calm as we work to learn more.”

Portland Mayor Keith Wilson and the city council called on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to end all operations in Oregon’s largest city until a full investigation is completed.

“We stand united as elected officials in saying that we cannot sit by while constitutional protections erode and bloodshed mounts,” a joint statement said. “Portland is not a ‘training ground’ for militarized agents, and the ‘full force’ threatened by the administration has deadly consequences.”

The city officials said “federal militarization undermines effective, community‑based public safety, and it runs counter to the values that define our region. We’ll use every legal and legislative tool available to protect our residents’ civil and human rights.”

Advertisement

They urged residents to show up with “calm and purpose during this difficult time.”

“We respond with clarity, unity, and a commitment to justice,” the statement said. “We must stand together to protect Portland.”

U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, urged any protesters to remain peaceful.

“Trump wants to generate riots,” he said in a post on the X social media platform. “Don’t take the bait.”

A free press is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy.

Advertisement

Support trusted journalism and civil dialogue.


Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: What Trump Told Us About the ICE Shooting

Published

on

Video: What Trump Told Us About the ICE Shooting

new video loaded: What Trump Told Us About the ICE Shooting

The New York Times sat down with President Trump in the Oval Office for an exclusive interview just hours after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot a 37-year-old woman in Minneapolis. Our White House correspondent Zolan Kanno-Youngs explains how the president reacted to the shooting.

By Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Alexandra Ostasiewicz, Nikolay Nikolov and Coleman Lowndes

January 8, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending