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

Waymo called the cops on teen riders, raising privacy concerns

Published

on

Waymo called the cops on teen riders, raising privacy concerns

A Waymo robotaxi drives in San Francisco’s North Beach neighborhood this week.

Heather Diehl/Getty Images


hide caption



toggle caption

Advertisement

Heather Diehl/Getty Images

Police in San Mateo, Calif., posted Monday on social media that they had apprehended a pair of teenagers from a Waymo driverless robotaxi after the company alerted authorities to suspected criminal activity. It’s the latest incident involving video surveillance of passengers and others by autonomous vehicles — raising questions about the limits of privacy in such vehicles.

The Facebook post by the San Mateo County Police said: “Parents do you know where your teens are? @waymo does!”

The 15-year-olds were allegedly drinking alcohol and shooting toy guns from the car, according to the police. They said Waymo’s systems detected behavior that then triggered a safety response, after which the company disabled the vehicle and contacted police.

Advertisement

Waymo’s cars, equipped with an array of cameras, microphones and other sensors to monitor passengers and other nearby vehicles, are becoming more common in cities across the United States. Experts say the detention of the two teens in San Mateo highlights a potential — but not inevitable — trade-off between privacy and convenience. It also questions the extent to which companies similar to Waymo are required to hand over private data, including audio and video of passengers, in situations where a crime is suspected.

NPR reached out to Waymo, which is owned by Alphabet, the parent company of Google, for comment on the details of the San Mateo incident and how the company responded, but did not hear back. But on its website, the company says that as many as 29 cameras in its autonomous cars provide an all-around view and “are designed with high dynamic range and thermal stability, to see in both daylight and low-light conditions, and tackle more complex environments.”

“There already exist laws that govern duty to report or even duty to protect” for carriers such as Waymo, according to Alessandro Acquisti, a professor of information technology at the MIT Sloan School of Management. “The privacy problems arise when and if driverless carrier companies used such laws or ethical obligations as a pretext for blanket, indiscriminate accumulation of identifiable data for unspecified future purposes.”

That includes not just monitoring people inside the cars, but outside too. Take, for example, a hit-and-run investigation last year in Los Angeles. Media reported that the police inquiry was aided by video captured by a Waymo taxi that had a clear view of the crime. Critics suggested at the time that authorities were using the company’s vehicles as a mobile surveillance platform. And during 2025 protests in Los Angeles against Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdowns, demonstrators vandalized Waymos, apparently angry that video recorded by the vehicles could be used by police, although there is no evidence that happened.

Continue Reading

News

Trump fires last members of election commission, inciting fears of midterm ‘chaos’

Published

on

Trump fires last members of election commission, inciting fears of midterm ‘chaos’

Donald Trump has terminated the remaining members of the independent, federal commission that assists election administration officials nationwide just a few months before the midterm elections, multiple outlets reported Thursday.

The remaining three commissioners of the four-member bipartisan commission ⁠were forced out on Thursday in different ways. The one Republican appointee resigned and the other ⁠two, Democratic appointees were notified of their terminations via email from ​the White House presidential personnel office.

“On ‌behalf of President ‌Donald J Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position ‌as Commissioner of the Election Assistance Commission is terminated, effective immediately. Thank you for your service,” the email, seen by Reuters, said.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Election Assistance Commission serves as a “national clearinghouse of information on election ‌administration”, accredits testing laboratories and certifies voting systems, and maintains the national mail-voter registration form developed by the National ​Voter Registration Act of 1993, according to the commission’s website. The terminations follow Trump and top administration officials’ advocacy to change vote-by-mail requirements and investigations into the 2020 election outcome, which Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

Advertisement

“It is ⁠irresponsible and dangerous that this Administration remains dead set on ​causing chaos for ​our election officials across this ​country,” Arizona secretary of state Adrian Fontes said in a ​Thursday statement. “This ‌move undermines the integrity ​of nonpartisan ​election administration.”

The 2002 law that established the commission, the Help America Vote Act, states the president can appoint replacements to the commission.

It is unclear how Trump will move ahead with the commission.

Reuters contributed reporting

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Former Olympian pleads not guilty in reflecting pool vandalism charges

Published

on

Former Olympian pleads not guilty in reflecting pool vandalism charges

Former U.S. Olympian David Hearn (left) walks with his attorney Norman Eisen to speak to reporters and protesters gathered after his arraignment at the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in Washington, D.C. on Thursday.

Finn Gomez/Getty Images


hide caption



toggle caption

Advertisement

Finn Gomez/Getty Images

Former U.S. Olympic canoeist David Hearn pleaded not guilty to damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in D.C. Superior Court Thursday morning.

Federal prosecutors charged Hearn with a single count of destruction of property causing more than $1,000 in damage to the pool.

Hearn has previously claimed, which his attorneys repeated during a short press conference outside the court, that he simply touched the water in the pool out of curiosity.

Advertisement

The Trump administration had just completed a $14 million renovation of the pool.

But shortly after the work finished, peeling paint and algae gathered in the water. The remodel has been largely criticized as a massive failure and waste of taxpayer dollars.

Superior Court Judge Carmen McLean released Hearn on his own recognizance. His next hearing is scheduled for Aug. 5.

Norm Eisen, one of Hearn’s attorneys, spoke to reporters outside of court following the hearing. He said the administration is using Hearn as a “scapegoat … for their own failures.”

“It is not a crime to touch the reflecting pool, to touch water in the United States of America,” he said.

Advertisement

Prosecutors say there is a host of evidence against Hearn.

This is a developing story.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending