Connect with us

Politics

Justices skeptical of Trump plan to limit birthright citizenship but also injunctions that block it

Published

on

Justices skeptical of Trump plan to limit birthright citizenship but also injunctions that block it

The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing Thursday to a lawyer for President Trump who was appealing rulings that blocked his plan to deny citizenship to newborns whose parents were in this country illegally or temporarily.

None of the justices spoke in favor of Trump’s plan to restrict birthright citizenship, and several were openly skeptical.

“Every court is ruling against you,” Justice Elena Kagan said. “There’s not going to be a lot of disagreement on this.”

If his plan were to take effect, “thousands of children will be born and rendered stateless,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

But Thursday’s hearing was devoted to a procedural question raised by the administration: Can a single federal judge issue a nationwide order to block the president’s plan?

Advertisement

Shortly after Trump issued his executive order to limit birthright citizenship, federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state declared it unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement nationwide.

In response, Trump’s lawyers asked the court to rein in the “epidemic” of nationwide orders handed down by district judges.

It’s an issue that has divided the court and bedeviled both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Trump’s lawyers argued that on procedural grounds, the judges overstepped their authority. But it is also procedurally unusual for a president to try to revise the Constitution through an executive order.

Thursday’s hearing did not appear to yield a consensus on what to do.

Advertisement

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the plaintiffs should be required to bring a class-action claim if they want to win a broad ruling. But others said that would lead to delays and not solve the problem.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said he was looking for a way to decide quickly. “How do we get to the merits expeditiously?” he asked.

One possibility was to have the court ask for further briefing and perhaps a second hearing to decide the fundamental question: Can Trump acting on his own revise the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment?

Shortly after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress wrote the 14th Amendment, which begins with the words: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Before that, Americans were citizens of their states. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the infamous Dred Scott decision said Black people were not citizens of their states and could not become citizens even if they were living in a free state.

Advertisement

The amended Constitution established U.S. citizenship as a birthright. The only persons not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the laws of the United States were foreign diplomats and their families and, in the 19th century, Indians who were “not taxed” and were treated as citizens of their tribal nations.

However, Congress changed that rule in 1924 and extended birthright citizenship to Native Americans.

Since 1898, the Supreme Court has agreed that birthright citizenship extends to the native-born children of foreign migrants living in this country. The court said then that “the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth, notwithstanding the alienage of parents” had been established by law.

The decision affirmed the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who were living and working there, but who were not U.S. citizens.

But several conservative law professors dispute the notion that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States means simply that people living here are subject to the laws here.

Advertisement

Instead, they say it refers more narrowly to people who owe their undivided allegiance to this country. If so, they contend it does not extend broadly to illegal immigrants or to students and tourists who are here temporarily.

On Jan. 20, Trump issued an executive order proclaiming the 14th Amendment does not “extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.” He said it would be U.S. policy to not recognize citizenship for newborns if the child’s mother or father was “not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”

Immigrants rights groups sued on behalf of several pregnant women, and they were joined by 22 states and several cities.

Judges wasted no time in declaring Trump’s order unconstitutional. They said his proposed restrictions violated the federal law and Supreme Court precedent as well as the plain words of the 14th Amendment.

In mid-March, Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court with “a modest request.” Rather than decide the “important constitutional questions” involving birthright citizenship, they urged the justices to rein in the practice of district judges handing down nationwide orders.

Advertisement

They have “reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,” they said.

A month later, and without further explanation, the court agreed to hear arguments based on that request.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer struggled to explain how judges should proceed when faced with a government policy that would be unconstitutional and harm an untold number of people. Is it wise or realistic to insist that thousands of people sign on to lawsuits? the justices asked.

He also had a hard time explaining how such a new policy would be enforced.

“How’s it going to work? What do hospitals do with a newborn?” Kavanaugh asked. “What do states do with a newborn?”

Advertisement

“Federal officials will have to figure that out, essentially,” Sauer replied, noting that Trump’s order, if upheld, would not take effect for 30 days.

California joined 21 other states in suing successfully to block Trump’s order, but California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said it was important those rulings apply nationwide.

“The rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution belong to everyone in this country — not just those born in states whose attorneys general have stood up to challenge the president’s unlawful executive order. It’s clear that a nationwide injunction is not only appropriate here to avoid devastating harm to the states and their residents, but is also directly aligned with prior Supreme Court precedent,” Bonta said after Thursday’s argument.

The justices are likely to hand down a full opinion in Trump vs. CASA, but it may not come until late June.

Advertisement

Politics

DNI Gabbard warns ‘Islamist ideology’ threatens Western freedom at AmFest

Published

on

DNI Gabbard warns ‘Islamist ideology’ threatens Western freedom at AmFest

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard delivered a blunt warning about “Islamist ideology” at a high-profile conservative gathering Saturday, casting the threat as fundamentally incompatible with Western freedom.

“The threats from this Islamist ideology come in many forms,” Gabbard told an audience at Turning Point USA’s (TPUSA) annual AmericaFest conference.

RIFT IN MAGA MOVEMENT ON FULL DISPLAY AT TPUSA’S AMERICAFEST

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard oversees the nation’s 18 intelligence agencies. (Ross D. Franklin/AP)

Advertisement

“As we approach Christmas, right now in Germany they are canceling Christmas markets because of this threat.”

Gabbard, who oversees the nation’s 18 intelligence agencies, said the ideology stands in direct conflict with American liberty.

“When we talk about the threat of Islamism, this political ideology, there is no such thing as individual freedom or liberty,” she said.

Gabbard’s remarks were notable given her role overseeing the nation’s intelligence community, a position that traditionally avoids overt ideological framing in public remarks, particularly at partisan political events.

TPUSA BEGAN AS A SCRAPPY CAMPUS GROUP AND GREW INTO A NATIONAL, MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR POLITICAL FORCE

Advertisement

AmericaFest 2025, hosted by Turning Point USA, is taking place in Phoenix, Arizona. (Jon Cherry/AP)

Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest has become a marquee gathering for conservative activists, lawmakers and influencers, where national security, immigration and cultural issues are increasingly framed as part of a broader ideological struggle.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not immediately respond to a request for comment clarifying whether Gabbard’s remarks reflected official U.S. intelligence assessments or her personal views.

TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk positioned the organization as a hub for conservative youth activism, frequently hosting high-profile figures who frame political and security debates in ideological terms.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

Charlie Kirk, who founded Turning Point USA, was killed on Sept. 10 while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Kirk carried that influence onto college campuses nationwide, drawing large crowds for live, unscripted debates on religion, Islamism, free speech, immigration and American culture. It was at an event at Utah Valley University where he was fielding open-mic questions from thousands on Sept. 10 where he was shot and killed.

The charged nature of modern political activism has also raised alarms about political violence, with authorities increasingly warning of threats tied to large public gatherings.

European security officials have raised security alerts around holiday events in recent years following a series of Islamist-inspired attacks, including deadly incidents in Germany, France and Belgium, prompting heightened police presence or temporary cancellations at some Christmas markets.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: She went to jail for Trump’s Big Lie. He’s trying to get her sprung

Published

on

Commentary: She went to jail for Trump’s Big Lie. He’s trying to get her sprung

Just in time for the holidays, President Trump has issued another of his dubious pardons. Or rather, make that a “pardon.”

This one comes on behalf of a former Colorado elections official serving a nine-year sentence for election fraud.

“Democrats have been relentless in their targeting of TINA PETERS, a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure our elections were fair and honest,” Trump said in a typically gaseous, dissembling post on social media.

“Tina is sitting in a Colorado prison for the ‘crime’ of demanding Honest Elections,” the president went on. “Today I am granting Tina a full pardon for her attempts to expose voter fraud in the rigged 2020 Presidential Election.”

Actually, Peters’ crime was conspiring to let an unauthorized person access voting equipment as part of a nutty scheme to “prove” the November 2020 balloting was bogus, then lying and covering up her illegal actions.

Advertisement

And she’s not likely to leave jail anytime soon.

That’s because Trump has precisely zero say over Peters’ fate, given the former Mesa County elections chief was convicted on state charges. The president’s pardon power — which Trump has twisted to a snapping point — extends only to federal cases. If we’re going to play make-believe, then perhaps Foo-Foo the Snoo can personally escort Peters from prison and crown her Queen of the Rockies.

That’s not to suggest, however, that Trump’s empty gesture was harmless. (Apologies to Foo-Foo and Dr. Seuss.)

Some extremists, ever ready to do Trump’s malevolent bidding, have taken up Peters’ cause, using the same belligerent language that foreshadowed the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. In fact, threats have come from some of the very same thugs whom Trump pardoned in one of the first shameless acts of his presidency.

“WE THE PEOPLE ARE COMING TO BREAK TINA PETERS OUT OF PRISON IN 45 DAYS,” Jake Lang, a rioter who was charged with attacking police with an aluminum baseball bat, said on social media. “If Tina M. Peters is not released from La Vista Prison in Colorado to Federal Authorities by January 31st, 2026; US MARSHALS & JANUARY 6ERS PATRIOTS WILL BE STORMING IN TO FREE TINA!!”’

Advertisement

(Capitalization and random punctuation are apparently the way to show fervency as well as prove one’s MAGA bona fides.)

Enrique Tarrio, the former head of the Proud Boys extremist group whom Trump also pardoned, shared a screenshot of the president’s social media post. “A battle,” Tarrio said, “is coming.”

Trump’s pretend pardon is not the first intervention on Peters’ behalf.

In March, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to free her from prison, saying there were “reasonable concerns” about the length of Peters’ sentence. The judge declined.

In November, the administration wrote the Colorado Department of Corrections and asked that Peters be transferred to federal custody, which would presumably allow for her release. No go.

Advertisement

Earlier this month, apparently looking to up the pressure, the Justice Department announced an investigation of the state’s prison system. (Perhaps Peters was denied the special “magnetic mattress” she requested at her sentencing, to help deal with sleep issues.)

Like any child, when Trump doesn’t get his way he calls people names. On Monday, he set his sights on Colorado’s Democratic governor, Jared Polis — “a weak and pathetic man” — for refusing to spring Peters from state prison.

“The criminals from Venezuela took over sections of Colorado,” Trump said, “and he was afraid to do anything, but he puts Tina in jail for nine years because she caught people cheating.”

The only true part of that statement is that Colorado does, in fact, exist.

While Trump portrays Peters as a martyr, she is nothing of the sort.

Advertisement

As Polis noted in response to Trump’s “pardon,” she was prosecuted by a Republican district attorney and convicted by a jury of her peers — a jury, it should be noted, that was drawn from the citizenry of Mesa County. The place is no liberal playpen. Voters in the rugged enclave on Colorado’s Western Slope backed Trump all three times he ran for president, by margins approaching 2-to-1.

If Peters’ sentence seems harsh — which it does — hear what the judge had to say.

Peters was motivated not by principle or a search for the truth but rather, he suggested, vanity and personal aggrandizement. She betrayed the public trust and eroded faith in an honestly run election to ingratiate herself with Trump and others grifting off his Big Lie.

“You are as privileged as they come and you used that privilege to obtain power, a following and fame,” Judge Matthew Barrett told Peters in a lacerating lecture. “You’re a charlatan who used and is still using your prior position in office to peddle a snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again.”

Peters remains unrepentant.

Advertisement

In petitioning Trump for a pardon, her attorney submitted nine pages of cockamamie claims, asserting that Peters was the victim of a conspiracy involving, among others, voting-machine vendors, Colorado’s secretary of state and the Venezuelan government.

To her credit, Peters has rejected calls for violence to set her free.

“Tina categorically DENOUNCES and REJECTS any statements or OPERATIONS, public or private, involving a ‘prison break’ or use of force against La Vista or any other CDOC facility in any way,” a post on social media stated, again with the random capitalization.

Perhaps the parole board will take note of those sentiments when the 70-year-old Peters becomes eligible for conditional release in January 2029, a date that just happens to coincide with the end of Trump’s term.

Which seems fitting.

Advertisement

Keep Peters locked up until then, serving as an example and deterrent to others who might consider emulating her by vandalizing the truth and attacking our democracy.

Continue Reading

Politics

FBI Director Kash Patel says bureau ramping up AI to counter domestic, global threats

Published

on

FBI Director Kash Patel says bureau ramping up AI to counter domestic, global threats

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

FBI Director Kash Patel said Saturday that the agency is ramping up its use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to counter domestic and international threats.

In a post on X, Patel said the FBI has been advancing its technology, calling AI a “key component” of its strategy to respond to threats and stay “ahead of the game.”

“FBI has been working on key technology advances to keep us ahead of the game and respond to an always changing threat environment both domestically and on the world stage,” Patel wrote. “Artificial intelligence is a key component of this.”

‘PEOPLE WOULD HAVE DIED’: INSIDE THE FBI’S HALLOWEEN TAKEDOWN THAT EXPOSED A GLOBAL TERROR NETWORK

Advertisement

Kash Patel, director of the FBI, speaks during a news conference at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. ( Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Patel said the bureau is developing an AI initiative aimed at supporting investigators and analysts working in the national security space.

“We’ve been working on an AI project to assist our investigators and analysts in the national security space — staying ahead of bad actors and adversaries who seek to do us harm,” he said.

Patel added that FBI leadership has established a “technology working group” led by outgoing Deputy Director Dan Bongino to ensure the agency’s tools “evolve with the mission.”

EXCLUSIVE: FBI CONCLUDES TRUMP SHOOTER THOMAS CROOKS ACTED ALONE AFTER UNPRECEDENTED GLOBAL INVESTIGATION

Advertisement

The bureau is ramping up its use of AI tools to counter domestic and international threats. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP )

“These are investments that will pay dividends for America’s national security for decades to come,” Patel said.

A spokesperson for the FBI told Fox News Digital it had nothing further to add beyond Patel’s X post.

The FBI currently uses AI for tools such as vehicle recognition, voice-language identification, speech-to-text analysis and video analytics, according to the agency’s website.

DAN BONGINO TO RESIGN FROM FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROLE IN JANUARY

Advertisement

Patel credited outgoing Deputy Director Dan Bongino for his leadership with the AI initiative. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Earlier this week, Bongino announced he would leave the bureau in January after speculation rose concerning his departure.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“I will be leaving my position with the FBI in January,” Bongino wrote in an X post Wednesday. “I want to thank President [Donald] Trump, AG [Pam] Bondi, and Director Patel for the opportunity to serve with purpose. Most importantly, I want to thank you, my fellow Americans, for the privilege to serve you. God bless America, and all those who defend Her.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending