Politics
Justices skeptical of Trump plan to limit birthright citizenship but also injunctions that block it
WASHINGTON — 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?”
“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.
Politics
Crews Drape Tarp Over White House in Latest Trump Restoration
Construction workers unfurled a large printed tarp to cover scaffolding installed at the White House’s front entrance. Doug Burgum, the interior secretary, said President Trump had ordered the repairs after noticing damage to columns.
Politics
WATCH: Trump’s Energy chief reveals what escalating Iran tensions could mean for gas prices
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Energy Secretary Chris Wright is telling Americans not to be concerned about the possibility of another surge of sharp increases in gasoline prices as tensions with Iran have started to escalate once again.
Asked whether Americans should worry about higher prices at the pump and how the Trump administration is preparing to keep the economy stable if the conflict continues to worsen, Wright told Fox News Digital: “It has not been any good behavior from Iran that’s allowed oil to flow. It’s been the United States military.”
“That’s not changing,” he assured, speaking from the Great American State Fair on the National Mall this week.
US CLAWS BACK KEY CONCESSION TO IRAN AFTER FRESH ATTACKS ON COMMERCIAL SHIPS IN STRAIT OF HORMUZ
(Mario Tama/Getty Images) (Mario Tama/Getty Images)
With Iran striking three commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz on Monday and Tuesday, Wright doubled down in urging citizens to not credit Iran for the U.S. military’s work to ensure oil shipments continue flowing through the strait.
“Look, the U.S. Military has been the key asset here,” he said. “They have assured the flow of oil and gas through the Strait of Hormuz throughout. Not at the beginning of this conflict, but through the last six weeks.”
Wright said the administration is closely monitoring global oil supplies as the tentative ceasefire with Iran seemingly came to come to a halt, with President Donald Trump telling Secretary-General Mark Rutte the call for peace with Iran is “over” at the NATO Summit in Turkey on Wednesday.
But, he pointed to the continued shipping through the Strait as evidence that markets should remain stable.
TRUMP SAYS IRAN CEASEFIRE IS ‘OVER’ AFTER IRANIAN ATTACKS TRIGGER MASSIVE US RESPONSE
President Donald Trump speaks at the White House on Tuesday, April 22. (AP/Alex Brandon)
“We’re of course constantly watching the supply of oil, the supply of refined products and what’s going on there,” Wright said. “And I think still all positive trends.”
Beyond geopolitical concerns, Wright also praised the new chain of discounted gas stations across Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Freedom Fuel, which promises customers prices below the national average.
The Trump administration, though not involved with the network, has heavily endorsed the new chain and its 25 locations.
“We love it,” Wright said when asked about Freedom Fuel. “I mean, look, any mechanism we can to lower energy costs for Americans of all kinds, we’re all in on.”
“With Freedom Fuels, they’re just lowering it down to their wholesale price of gasoline,” Wright said. “So they’re not making any money selling gasoline, but they’ve got convenience stores. That’s how most gas stations make money.”
NEWSOM UNDER FIRE AS CALIFORNIA GAS TAX HIKE SENDS PUMP PRICES EVEN HIGHER
Gasoline costs are a known concern for many Americans, and amid surging prices there has been a considerable increase in those opting to purchase electric vehicles to save money long-term at the pump — with Tesla dominating the market for these types of models.
Wright argued one of the benefits to living in America is having the option to choose what type of vehicle you drive.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“We just want people to buy what they would prefer,” he told Fox News Digital when asked his thoughts on increasing calls for support of the electrification of cars. “Consumer choice — you wanna buy an electric car, you wanna buy a gas powered car, diesel powered car, buy a big truck. That’s the choice.”
“That’s why you live in America. You get the choice of all those.”
Politics
Black mold and $1 wages: Settlement forces immigrant detention centers to protect workers
In 2023, California regulators levied more than $100,000 in fines against the private operator of a federal immigration facility, kicking off a three-year battle over whether detainees who do work at the facilities should be considered employees.
The question went beyond semantics: If considered employees, the detainees would be subject to state worker protection laws.
A legal settlement announced this week now affirms that private immigrant detention facilities are subject to California’s workplace safety and health requirements.
“Every worker deserves a safe and healthy workplace and should be able to report workplace hazards without fear of retaliation,” said Denisse Gómez, spokesperson for the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health or Cal/OSHA.
“Individuals who perform work in these facilities are entitled to workplace safety protections, and this settlement reinforces Cal/OSHA’s commitment to enforcing those protections and safeguarding vulnerable workers,” she added.
Under the settlement between California and the GEO Group, a Florida-based private prison company, the company recently withdrew its legal challenges and agreed to pay more than $100,000 in the fines.
The GEO Group did not respond to requests for comment.
Back in 2023, Cal/OSHA issued $104,510 in fines against the GEO Group. The agency had found six violations of state code by the company after detainees complained about a lack of protective equipment and proper training while cleaning the facility for $1 per day.
Detainees alleged they routinely wiped black mold off shower walls at the facility, saw black dust spew from air vents and used cleaning solutions that lacked instructions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The biggest fine levied against the GEO Group was for failure to establish and maintain “effective written procedures to reduce employee risk of exposure to aerosol transmissible disease.”
Advocates viewed Cal/OSHA’S recognition of the detainees as workers as a victory that could pave the way for future labor rights fights at other detention centers in the state.
But the GEO Group appealed, arguing that detainees participating in ICE’s voluntary work program make their own schedules and aren’t employees, so hazard exposure couldn’t be “as a result of assigned duties,” as California law states. Plus, the company argued, there wasn’t enough evidence that detainees were exposed to any hazard.
Early last year, the state’s Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board rejected the GEO Group’s argument and found that detainees should be considered “affected employees.”
The GEO Group sued, but three days before a California Superior Court hearing in May, the company and Cal/OSHA reached the settlement.
Along with paying the fines, the GEO Group agreed to draft plans for avoiding aerosol transmissions at 12 secure and reentry facilities in California, including five detention centers that hold immigrants.
“GEO ensures detainees are afforded the necessary tools, equipment, and personal protective equipment … to safely and effectively perform any necessary tasks,” the settlement states.
Gómez said the settlement also leaves intact the appeals board’s ruling that civil immigration detainees who participate in work programs can participate in proceedings anonymously, “acknowledging the potential for retaliation when individuals raise workplace safety concerns.”
But the question of whether detainees are employees and deserve certain protections isn’t entirely resolved — at least not for the federal government.
Last month, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released new standards for detention facilities across the country. The revised guidelines “emphasize that detainee volunteers participating in the voluntary work program are not considered facility and/or government employees” and thus not entitled to labor regulations.
Attorney Mariel Villarreal said the timing of the new detention standards made her question whether the GEO Group had asked ICE to specify in its standards that detainees are not workers in response to its battle with Cal/OSHA.
“To me, it’s a reaction to this very settlement,” she said. Villarreal works for the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, which filed the original complaint on behalf of detainees who said they worked in unsafe conditions.
Villarreal pointed to a Washington Post report that GEO Group executives privately asked ICE to specify that detainees are not employees of the facilities where they work. Two top Trump administration officials, border czar Tom Homan and acting ICE director David Venturella, previously worked for the GEO Group.
New versions of ICE detention standards take effect as contracts are established or modified, so this year’s rules won’t immediately apply to every facility.
An ICE spokesperson did not comment about the settlement. The spokesperson, who did not provide their name in an emailed statement Wednesday, said the agency has begun transitioning detention facilities to meet the 2026 standards, “building on its longstanding commitment to safe, secure, and professional detention operations.”
“ICE has consistently implemented many of these best practices independently, reinforcing its role as the leader in detention operations,” the spokesperson added.
The GEO Group and other immigrant detention center operators have faced other legal battles over workers’ rights, including lawsuits in Washington, Colorado and California over the $1-per-day payment.
Villarreal said she’s confident that the Cal/OSHA settlement would continue to hold even if California facilities incorporated the new standards. But she said she believes the statements are an attempt by the GEO Group to “sidestep responsibility” and avoid the possibility of being fined under similar circumstances in other states.
“These statements in the new standards are a way for them to try and preserve profits as much as possible,” she said. “GEO and ICE are so intertwined at this point that they have the same motives.”
-
Rhode Island4 minutes agoOur Favorite Write-Ins From the 2026 Best of Rhode Island Readers’ Poll – Rhode Island Monthly
-
South-Carolina11 minutes agoSouth Carolina National Guard lifts suspensions for pilots in July Fourth flyover
-
South Dakota14 minutes agoSouth Dakota T. rex could bring $30 million or more at auction
-
Tennessee19 minutes agoRescue teams pull kayakers and dog from Red River in Tennessee
-
Texas26 minutes agoFetus found deceased along Lewisville Lake shoreline was discarded intentionally, police say
-
Utah29 minutes agoTyler Robinson preliminary hearing expected to wrap up Friday – KSLNewsRadio
-
Washington34 minutes ago
Bengals 2026 Opponent Preview: Washington Commanders
-
Vermont34 minutes agoBeau Welling’s Stowe Country Club Revamp Signals New Vermont Golf Era