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
Explosion at Lumber Mill in Searsmont, Maine, Draws Large Emergency Response
An explosion and fire drew a large emergency response on Friday to a lumber mill in the Midcoast region of Maine, officials said.
The State Police and fire marshal’s investigators responded to Robbins Lumber in Searsmont, about 72 miles northeast of Portland, said Shannon Moss, a spokeswoman for the Maine Department of Public Safety.
Mike Larrivee, the director of the Waldo County Regional Communications Center, said the number of victims was unknown, cautioning that “the information we’re getting from the scene is very vague.”
“We’ve sent every resource in the county to that area, plus surrounding counties,” he said.
Footage from the scene shared by WABI-TV showed flames burning through the roof of a large structure as heavy, dark smoke billowed skyward.
The Associated Press reported that at least five people were injured, and that county officials were considering the incident a “mass casualty event.”
Catherine Robbins-Halsted, an owner and vice president at Robbins Lumber, told reporters at the scene that all of the company’s employees had been accounted for.
Gov. Janet T. Mills of Maine said on social media that she had been briefed on the situation and urged people to avoid the area.
“I ask Maine people to join me in keeping all those affected in their thoughts,” she said.
Representative Jared Golden, Democrat of Maine, said on social media that he was aware of the fire and explosion.
“As my team and I seek out more information, I am praying for the safety and well-being of first responders and everyone else on-site,” he said.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
News
Woman killed in Atlanta Beltline stabbing identified
Crime scene tape surrounds a bicycle in front of St. Lukes Episcopal Church in Atlanta on May 14, 2026. (SKYFOX 5)
ATLANTA – The woman stabbed to death on the Beltline has been identified as 23-year-old Alyssa Paige, according to the Fulton County Medical Examiner.
The backstory:
Paige was killed by a 21-year-old man Thursday afternoon while she was on the Beltline. Officials confirmed to FOX 5 that the stabbing happened near the 1700 block of Flagler Avenue NE.
Atlanta Police Chief Darin Schierbaum said the department was alerted around 12:10 p.m. that a woman had been stabbed just north of the Montgomery Ferry Drive overpass. She was rushed to Grady Memorial Hospital where she later died. Another person was also stabbed during the incident, but their condition remains unknown.
According to officers, the man responsible attacked a U.S. Postal worker prior to the stabbing before getting away on a bike. He then used that bike to flee the scene of the stabbing as well.
The suspect was arrested near St. Luke’s Episcopal Church on Peachtree Street in Midtown around 5:25 p.m.
What we don’t know:
While officials haven’t released an official motive, they noted the man may have been suffering a mental health crisis.
The Source: Information in this article came from the Fulton County Medical Examiner’s Office and previous FOX 5 reporting.
News
Man Charged With Posting Bomb Instructions Used in New Orleans Attack
Federal prosecutors have filed charges against a former Army serviceman they accused of distributing instructions on how to build explosives that were used by a man who conducted a deadly attack in New Orleans on New Year’s Day last year.
The former serviceman, Jordan A. Derrick, a 40-year-old from Missouri, was charged with one count of engaging in the business of manufacturing explosive materials without a license; one count of unlawful possession of an unregistered destructive device; and one count of distributing information relating to manufacturing explosives, according to a criminal complaint unsealed on Wednesday. The three charges together carry a maximum sentence of 40 years in federal prison.
Starting in September 2023, the authorities said, Mr. Derrick was using various social media sites to share videos of himself making explosive materials, including detonators. His videos provided step-by-step instructions, and he often engaged with viewers in comments, sometimes answering their questions about the chemistry behind the explosives.
The authorities said that Mr. Derrick’s videos were downloaded by Shamsud-Din Bahar Jabbar, 42, who was accused of ramming a pickup truck into a crowd on Bourbon Street in New Orleans on Jan. 1, 2025, in a terrorist attack that killed 14 people and injured dozens. Mr. Jabbar was killed in a shootout with the police. Before the attack, Mr. Jabbar had placed two explosives on Bourbon Street, the authorities said, but they did not detonate.
The authorities later recovered two laptops and a USB drive in a house that Mr. Jabbar had rented. The USB drive contained several videos created by Mr. Derrick that provided instructions on making explosives. The authorities said the explosives they recovered were consistent with the ones Mr. Derrick had posted about.
Mr. Derrick’s lawyers did not respond to requests for comment.
Mr. Derrick was a combat engineer in the Army, where he provided personnel and vehicle support, the authorities said. He also helped supervise safety personnel during demolitions and various operations. He was honorably discharged in February 2013.
The authorities did not say whether Mr. Derrick had any communication with Mr. Jabbar, or whether the men had known each other. In some of Mr. Derrick’s videos and comments, he indicated that he was aware that his videos could be misused.
“There are a plethora of uh, moral, you know, entanglements with topics, any topic of teaching explosives, right?” he asked in one video, according to the affidavit. “Of course, the wrong people could get it.”
The authorities also said that an explosion occurred at a private residence in Odessa, Mo., on May 4, and the occupant of the residence told investigators that he had manufactured explosives after watching online tutorials from Mr. Derrick.
Mr. Derrick’s YouTube account had more than 15,000 subscribers and 20 published videos, the affidavit said. He had also posted content on other platforms, including Odysee and Patreon. Some videos were accessible to the public for free, while others required a paid subscription to view.
“My responsibility to my countrymen is to make sure that I serve the function of the Second Amendment to strengthen it,” Mr. Derrick said in one of his videos, according to the affidavit. “This is how I serve my country for real.”
Outside of the income he received through content creation, Mr. Derrick did not have any known employment. He did receive a monthly disability check from Veterans Affairs, the affidavit stated.
-
Delaware2 minutes agoHistoric School House Opens at Bellevue State Park – State of Delaware News
-
Florida8 minutes agoJudge to rule on Florida congressional map dispute
-
Georgia14 minutes agoKemp extends Georgia’s gasoline tax suspension by 2 weeks
-
Hawaii20 minutes agoMan accused of stabbing teen in Kalihi charged, held on $100K bail
-
Idaho26 minutes ago“Mamas know best”: Idaho Fish and Game Warns against interfering with spring baby animals – LocalNews8.com
-
Illinois32 minutes agoIllinois, Brad Underwood agree to new contract terms
-
Indiana38 minutes agoIndiana gambling case, Bears schedule and McDonald’s Park | Week in Review
-
Iowa44 minutes agoTwo separate traffic stops leads to four arrests in Iowa County