“No right is safe”: Liberal SCOTUS justices issue dire warnings after birthright citizenship decision
Blaise Malley
Fri, June 27, 2025
Blaise Malley
Fri, June 27, 2025
Salon.com
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 20: (L-R) U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor and U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson listen as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC.More
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Friday cleared the way for the federal government to potentially enforce an executive order restricting birthright citizenship. The court’s dissenters — the three liberal justices — said the decision, even though it did not address the legality of the executive order itself, not only undermines judicial authority but poses a broader threat to constitutional protections.
The 6–3 ruling in Trump v. CASA doesn’t determine whether former President Trump’s executive order, which sought to deny birthright citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants or those with temporary status, violates the 14th Amendment. Instead, it curtails the power of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions, which can block executive policies from taking effect while litigation proceeds.
In blistering dissents, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined in dissent by Elena Kagan, accused the court of abdicating its role as a check on unlawful government power.
“Few constitutional questions can be answered by resort to the text of the Constitution alone,” Sotomayor wrote, “but this is one.” Recalling that only once before—Dred Scott v. Sandford—had the federal government attempted to strip birthright citizenship from a category of people born in the United States, Sotomayor observed that the principle has since stood unchallenged for over a century. “There it has remained, accepted and respected by Congress, by the Executive, and by this Court. Until today.”
“With the stroke of a pen,” Sotomayor wrote, “the President has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution.”
Sotomayor accused the court of going along with a “shameful” request by the government to continue enforcing a policy that multiple lower courts have found likely unconstitutional. “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” she warned.
Justice Jackson offered a similarly stark warning: “Courts must have the power to order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop. To conclude otherwise is to endorse the creation of a zone of lawlessness … where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.”
“Stated simply,” Jackson wrote, “what it means to have a system of government that is bounded by law is that everyone is constrained by the law—no exceptions.” Allowing the executive to apply the law as it sees fit, so long as they are not party to a case against the government, she added, “carves out a huge exception … that could turn out to be a mortal wound.”
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 20: (L-R) U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor and U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson listen as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC.More
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Friday cleared the way for the federal government to potentially enforce an executive order restricting birthright citizenship. The court’s dissenters — the three liberal justices — said the decision, even though it did not address the legality of the executive order itself, not only undermines judicial authority but poses a broader threat to constitutional protections.
The 6–3 ruling in Trump v. CASA doesn’t determine whether former President Trump’s executive order, which sought to deny birthright citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants or those with temporary status, violates the 14th Amendment. Instead, it curtails the power of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions, which can block executive policies from taking effect while litigation proceeds.
In blistering dissents, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined in dissent by Elena Kagan, accused the court of abdicating its role as a check on unlawful government power.
“Few constitutional questions can be answered by resort to the text of the Constitution alone,” Sotomayor wrote, “but this is one.” Recalling that only once before—Dred Scott v. Sandford—had the federal government attempted to strip birthright citizenship from a category of people born in the United States, Sotomayor observed that the principle has since stood unchallenged for over a century. “There it has remained, accepted and respected by Congress, by the Executive, and by this Court. Until today.”
“With the stroke of a pen,” Sotomayor wrote, “the President has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution.”
Sotomayor accused the court of going along with a “shameful” request by the government to continue enforcing a policy that multiple lower courts have found likely unconstitutional. “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” she warned.
Justice Jackson offered a similarly stark warning: “Courts must have the power to order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop. To conclude otherwise is to endorse the creation of a zone of lawlessness … where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.”
“Stated simply,” Jackson wrote, “what it means to have a system of government that is bounded by law is that everyone is constrained by the law—no exceptions.” Allowing the executive to apply the law as it sees fit, so long as they are not party to a case against the government, she added, “carves out a huge exception … that could turn out to be a mortal wound.”
Opinion
Sotomayor Warns No One Is Safe After Birthright Citizenship Ruling
Robert McCoy
Fri, June 27, 2025
THE NEW REPUBLIC
In dissenting opinions, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson excoriated the Supreme Court’s Friday ruling on birthright citizenship, which restricts courts’ ability to keep the Trump White House from carrying out its lawless orders.
At issue was whether lower courts can issue “nationwide injunctions” halting Trump’s anti–birthright citizenship order from being enforced against anyone, and not just those challenging the order in court or living in a jurisdiction where it’s being challenged.
While not acknowledging the constitutionality of the executive order, which denies automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants and those with temporary status, the majority opinion stated that such injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.”
Justice Sotomayor had choice words for this ruling, which seemingly provides Trump powerful ammunition in his attacks on civil liberties. She was joined by Justices Elena Kagan as well as Jackson, who also wrote a dissenting opinion.
“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” Sotomayor’s dissent read. “Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from lawabiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”
Sotomayor used an analogy to illustrate the absurdity of granting the government’s request to strike down nationwide freezes on plainly unlawful orders: “Suppose an executive order barred women from receiving unemployment benefits or black citizens from voting. Is the Government irreparably harmed, and entitled to emergency relief, by a district court order universally enjoining such policies? The majority, apparently, would say yes.”
Sotomayor torched her conservative colleagues for caving to Trump: “With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution,” she wrote. “Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way. Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.”
Jackson began her dissent by noting she agrees “with every word of Justice Sotomayor’s dissent,” and decided to file hers to emphasize that the court’s ruling poses “an existential threat to the rule of law.”
Trump’s request to do away with universal injunctions, Jackson wrote, “is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior” and “to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution.”
In granting that wish, Jackson wrote, the majority has permitted Trump to act not unlike a monarch, giving “the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate.”
By placing “the onus on the victims to invoke the law’s protection,” the court has created circumstances in which “a Martian arriving here from another planet would … surely wonder: ‘what good is the Constitution, then?’”
The court’s decision marks “a sad day for America,” Jackson said, requiring judges, faced with Trump’s lawlessness, “to look the other way” and permit “unlawful conduct to continue unabated.”
Sotomayor Warns No One Is Safe After Birthright Citizenship Ruling
Robert McCoy
Fri, June 27, 2025
THE NEW REPUBLIC
In dissenting opinions, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson excoriated the Supreme Court’s Friday ruling on birthright citizenship, which restricts courts’ ability to keep the Trump White House from carrying out its lawless orders.
At issue was whether lower courts can issue “nationwide injunctions” halting Trump’s anti–birthright citizenship order from being enforced against anyone, and not just those challenging the order in court or living in a jurisdiction where it’s being challenged.
While not acknowledging the constitutionality of the executive order, which denies automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants and those with temporary status, the majority opinion stated that such injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.”
Justice Sotomayor had choice words for this ruling, which seemingly provides Trump powerful ammunition in his attacks on civil liberties. She was joined by Justices Elena Kagan as well as Jackson, who also wrote a dissenting opinion.
“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” Sotomayor’s dissent read. “Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from lawabiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”
Sotomayor used an analogy to illustrate the absurdity of granting the government’s request to strike down nationwide freezes on plainly unlawful orders: “Suppose an executive order barred women from receiving unemployment benefits or black citizens from voting. Is the Government irreparably harmed, and entitled to emergency relief, by a district court order universally enjoining such policies? The majority, apparently, would say yes.”
Sotomayor torched her conservative colleagues for caving to Trump: “With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution,” she wrote. “Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way. Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.”
Jackson began her dissent by noting she agrees “with every word of Justice Sotomayor’s dissent,” and decided to file hers to emphasize that the court’s ruling poses “an existential threat to the rule of law.”
Trump’s request to do away with universal injunctions, Jackson wrote, “is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior” and “to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution.”
In granting that wish, Jackson wrote, the majority has permitted Trump to act not unlike a monarch, giving “the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate.”
By placing “the onus on the victims to invoke the law’s protection,” the court has created circumstances in which “a Martian arriving here from another planet would … surely wonder: ‘what good is the Constitution, then?’”
The court’s decision marks “a sad day for America,” Jackson said, requiring judges, faced with Trump’s lawlessness, “to look the other way” and permit “unlawful conduct to continue unabated.”
Luis Barrucho
- BBC World Service
Fri, June 27, 2025
The US gives automatic citizenship to anyone born in the country, but this principle is not the norm globally
Fri, June 27, 2025
The US gives automatic citizenship to anyone born in the country, but this principle is not the norm globally
[Getty Images]
President Donald Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship has been allowed to proceed while lawsuits against it make their way through the courts.
A Supreme Court ruling on Friday has curbed the power of federal judges to block presidential orders, allowing for the birthright citizenship policy to start in 30 days.
For nearly 160 years, the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution has established the principle that anyone born in the country is a US citizen.
President Donald Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship has been allowed to proceed while lawsuits against it make their way through the courts.
A Supreme Court ruling on Friday has curbed the power of federal judges to block presidential orders, allowing for the birthright citizenship policy to start in 30 days.
For nearly 160 years, the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution has established the principle that anyone born in the country is a US citizen.
But as part of his crackdown on migration numbers, Trump is seeking to deny citizenship to children of migrants who are either in the country illegally or on temporary visas.
The move appears to have public backing. A January poll by Emerson College suggests many more Americans back Trump than oppose him on this.
But how does this compare to citizenship laws around the world?
Birthright citizenship worldwide
Birthright citizenship, or jus soli (right of the soil), is not the norm globally.
The US is one of about 30 countries - mostly in the Americas - that grant automatic citizenship to anyone born within their borders.
In contrast, many countries in Asia, Europe, and parts of Africa adhere to the jus sanguinis (right of blood) principle, where children inherit their nationality from their parents, regardless of their birthplace.
Other countries have a combination of both principles, also granting citizenship to children of permanent residents.
[BBC]
John Skrentny, a sociology professor at the University of California, San Diego, believes that, though birthright citizenship or jus soli is common throughout the Americas, "each nation-state had its own unique road to it".
"For example, some involved slaves and former slaves, some did not. History is complicated," he says. In the US, the 14th Amendment was adopted to address the legal status of freed slaves.
However, Mr Skrentny argues that what almost all had in common was "building a nation-state from a former colony".
"They had to be strategic about whom to include and whom to exclude, and how to make the nation-state governable," he explains. "For many, birthright citizenship, based on being born in the territory, made for their state-building goals.
"For some, it encouraged immigration from Europe; for others, it ensured that indigenous populations and former slaves, and their children, would be included as full members, and not left stateless. It was a particular strategy for a particular time, and that time may have passed."
Shifting policies and growing restrictions
In recent years, several countries have revised their citizenship laws, tightening or revoking birthright citizenship due to concerns over immigration, national identity, and so-called "birth tourism" where people visit a country in order to give birth.
India, for example, once granted automatic citizenship to anyone born on its soil. But over time, concerns over illegal immigration, particularly from Bangladesh, led to restrictions.
In recent years, several countries have revised their citizenship laws, tightening or revoking birthright citizenship due to concerns over immigration, national identity, and so-called "birth tourism" where people visit a country in order to give birth.
India, for example, once granted automatic citizenship to anyone born on its soil. But over time, concerns over illegal immigration, particularly from Bangladesh, led to restrictions.
Since December 2004, a child born in India is only a citizen if both parents are Indian, or if one parent is a citizen and the other is not considered an illegal migrant.
Many African nations, which historically followed jus soli under colonial-era legal systems, later abandoned it after gaining independence. Today, most require at least one parent to be a citizen or a permanent resident.
Citizenship is even more restrictive in most Asian countries, where it is primarily determined by descent, as seen in nations such as China, Malaysia, and Singapore.
Europe has also seen significant changes. Ireland was the last country in the region to allow unrestricted jus soli.
It abolished the policy after a June 2004 poll, when 79% of voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring at least one parent to be a citizen, permanent resident, or legal temporary resident.
The government said change was needed because foreign women were travelling to Ireland to give birth in order to get an EU passport for their babies.
Rights groups had feared a constitutional court ruling in the Dominican Republic would strip tens of thousands of citizenship, mostly of Haitian descent [Reuters]
One of the most severe changes occurred in the Dominican Republic, where, in 2010, a constitutional amendment redefined citizenship to exclude children of undocumented migrants.
A 2013 Supreme Court ruling made this retroactive to 1929, stripping tens of thousands - mostly of Haitian descent - of their Dominican nationality. Rights groups warned that this could leave many stateless, as they did not have Haitian papers either.
The move was widely condemned by international humanitarian organisations and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
As a result of the public outcry, the Dominican Republic passed a law in 2014 that established a system to grant citizenship to Dominican-born children of immigrants, particularly favouring those of Haitian descent.
Mr Skrentny sees the changes as part of a broader global trend. "We are now in an era of mass migration and easy transportation, even across oceans. Now, individuals also can be strategic about citizenship. That's why we are seeing this debate in the US now."
Legal challenges
Within hours of President Trump's order, various lawsuits were launched by Democratic-run states and cities, civil rights groups and individuals.
Three federal judges ruled against Trump, issuing nationwide injunctions to block the orders from taking effect.
Most legal scholars agree that President Trump cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order.
In a win for President Trump, though, on 27 June, the Supreme Court ruled against nationwide injunctions.
In the majority opinion delivered by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court said: "Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
Because of the ruling to limit injunctions, Trump's birthright citizenship order will be able to take effect 30 days after the court's opinion was filed, the court said.
It will apply to the 28 states that did not participate in the lawsuit.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the merits of the birthright citizenship order itself at some date in the future.
Most legal scholars believe it likely would be found unconstitutional.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that birthright citizenship is the "law of the land" and the order is "patently unconstitutional".
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling
TIM SULLIVAN and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER
Fri, June 27, 2025
AP
FILE - Mairelise Robinson, a U.S. citizen who is 6 months pregnant, attends a protest in support of birthright citizenship, outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, May 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The legal battle over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration's major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions.
Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent.
The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president's policy remains uncertain.
Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next.
What does birthright citizenship mean?
Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally.
The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” the amendment states.
Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents’ legal status.
It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats
Trump has long said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship
Trump's executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a “magnet for illegal immigration.”
Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” – saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally.
A series of federal judges have said that’s not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect.
“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom.
In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that “the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed” Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship.
Is Trump's order constitutional? The justices didn't say
The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters.
But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order.
“The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges’ decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,” said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor.
Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is “very confident” that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case.
Questions and uncertainty swirl around next steps
The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps.
The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump’s order.
But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor.
“It’s not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,” said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to “act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court’s prompt review" in cases “challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.”
Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief.
“Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. “By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.”
____
FILE - Mairelise Robinson, a U.S. citizen who is 6 months pregnant, attends a protest in support of birthright citizenship, outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, May 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The legal battle over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration's major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions.
Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent.
The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president's policy remains uncertain.
Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next.
What does birthright citizenship mean?
Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally.
The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” the amendment states.
Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents’ legal status.
It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats
Trump has long said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship
Trump's executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a “magnet for illegal immigration.”
Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” – saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally.
A series of federal judges have said that’s not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect.
“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom.
In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that “the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed” Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship.
Is Trump's order constitutional? The justices didn't say
The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters.
But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order.
“The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges’ decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,” said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor.
Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is “very confident” that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case.
Questions and uncertainty swirl around next steps
The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps.
The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump’s order.
But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor.
“It’s not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,” said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to “act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court’s prompt review" in cases “challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.”
Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief.
“Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. “By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.”
____
From Bruce Lee to Marco Rubio:
A (SHORT) list of celebrity birthright citizens
Christopher Cann,
Secretary of State Marco Rubio testifies in front of the Senate Committee on Appropriations – Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs to examine proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 2026 for the Department of State in Washington, D.C., on May 20, 2025.More
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, 54, is the son of Cuban immigrants who did not become naturalized U.S. citizens until 1975, years after their son was born.
Rubio has previously said he does not agree with repealing birthright citizenship
Actress Diane Guerrero from the TV series "Orange is the New Black" reacts as U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about immigration reform during a visit to Del Sol High School in Las Vegas, Nevada November 21, 2014.More
Actress Diane Guerrero, who starred in the hit television show "Orange is the New Black,” was born to undocumented immigrants from Columbia who were deported when she was 14, she told NPR in 2019.
In an interview with the outlet, she said, “This is a country of immigrants. People forget – they like to forget that their ancestors came here with the same dream, with the same hopes, with the same fears. And it's unfair to say that because people are coming later that they don't deserve to be here.”
Nikki Haley
Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor who ran for the Republican nomination for president in 2024, was born in South Carolina to immigrants from the Punjab region of India, according to her autobiography.
In 2015, she told The State news outlet that her parents were in the United States legally but did not become naturalized citizens until after her birth, and the non-partisan American Immigration Council considers her a U.S. citizen because of her place of birth.
Bruce Lee
Bruce Lee who stars in the Fists of Fury, is seen on a stamp to mark the 100th anniversary of Chinese file at a post office in Zhengzhou. Bruce Lee (R), who stared in the Fists of Fury, is seen on a stamp to mark the 100th anniversary of Chinese film at a post office in Zhengzhou, central China's Henan province, Sept. 1, 2005.More
Bruce Lee, the martial arts icon who starred in films such as "Enter the Dragon" and "Fists of Fury," was born in San Francisco while his parents were traveling with the Chinese Opera.
The National Archives notes that under birthright citizenship he was considered a citizen ‒ though he would not be under Trump's revision to the law. "Lee’s parents filed for a Return Certificate on his behalf … enabling him to return to the United States if he later wished to do so. Lee did return at the age of 18 and grew into the iconic martial artist and film star known across the world."
Kamala Harris
Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship may have been designed explicitly against his November rival for the presidency, former Vice President Kamala Harris.
David Bier, of the Libertarian Cato Institute, posted on X the day Trump signed the order: "As I predicted, Trump's birthright citizenship EO includes a Kamala Harris clause, specifically designed to deny the legitimacy of her US citizenship as the child of someone with a temporary status."
Trump's order specifies that someone wouldn't be entitled to birthright if their mother was on a temporary visa ‒ like the student visa Harris' mother was on at the time of her birth ‒ and their father wasn't a citizen, as hers wasn't.
Vivek Ramaswamy
Vivek Ramaswamy speaks during a rally for Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump at Madison Square Garden, in New York, U.S., Oct. 27, 2024.
Vivek Ramaswamy, the tech billionaire and 2024 Republican presidential candidate, told NBC News in 2023 that his father never became a U.S. citizen and his mother only naturalized after he was born.
Ramaswamy, who Trump endorsed in next year's Ohio gubernatorial race, has repeatedly called for an end to birthright citizenship.
Contributing: Maureen Groppe, Eduardo Cuevas, Sara Chernikoff, Ramon Padilla and Bart Jansen, USA TODAY
Opinion
As an immigrant, I don't expect shortcuts. Birthright citizenship is our right. | Opinion
Tanay Raje
Fri, June 27, 2025
Tanay Raje graduated from Pennsylvania State University in 2021 with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. He is now working as an engineer at a pharmaceutical company in Philadelphia. Tanay is also a member of Improve the Dream, one of the more than 250,000 children of long-term visa holders, raised and educated in America.More
My family immigrated to the United States when I was 5 years old on the H-1B visa. My father was invited to work here because of his skills in IT, and we eventually settled in Pittsburgh.
Like many immigrant families, we built a life here. I went to school, made friends and followed the typical American path. That path eventually led me to Pennsylvania State University, where I earned a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering.
But on my 21st birthday, I aged out of my parents’ immigration status because as far as immigration rules were concerned, I wasn’t a child anymore. In a cruel twist of fate, four months later my parents received their green cards. That small gap meant they would become permanent residents, while I was forced to start over from the back of a broken immigration system.
Opinion: I joked about getting deported. In Trump's America, it's not funny.
I first realized that I was different from my friends in high school when I wasn’t allowed to get a job and help support my family. In college, this realization became even more apparent when I had to switch to an F-1 student visa and had to legally prove that my “home” address was in India, not in Pittsburgh where I lived with my family.
Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.
Once I graduated and wanted to enter the workforce, I was denied most job opportunities ‒ not because I am unqualified, but because companies could not or would not sponsor immigrants. Every piece of paperwork I filed had to be absolutely perfect. Something as minor as a technical error on the immigration forms could have, and once nearly did, jeopardize my entire immigration status.
Because of that four-month gap, I will continue to be treated as a visitor in the only country I have ever known and called home.
Growing hostility toward immigrants
I share this to make a simple but important point: Despite what the headlines might suggest, legal immigration is anything but easy.
When the Biden administration announced in 2024 protections for Dreamers who as kids were brought to the United States illegally, I questioned the omission of children like me who continue to be left behind.
Trump’s executive order reinforces this message of exclusion by taking it even further and signaling that none of us belong here.
People rally outside the Supreme Court for birthright citizenship on May 15, 2025.
Although the executive order does not apply directly to me, because I was born in India, it could have changed everything for my younger brother, who was born in Detroit. If this executive order had been in effect when he was born, he would not have been granted citizenship and he would be just like me, stuck in limbo and questioning his sense of acceptance.
The executive order reflects the growing hostility toward all immigrants, regardless of how they arrived. Over the past decade, the national rhetoric has grown more cynical and suspicious of all foreigners. Immigrants are increasingly portrayed as threats, as job takers and outsiders, even when we are contributing to industries America depends on or are the only ones willing or capable of performing a job.
I do not expect a shortcut. I do not expect special treatment. But I do expect the country that I love to treat me and people like my brother as if we belong here.
Because this country was founded by immigrants, and her promise should still include all of us.
Tanay Raje graduated from Pennsylvania State University in 2021 with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. He is now working as an engineer at a sterile pharmaceutical company in Philadelphia. Tanay is also a member of Improve the Dream, one of the more than 250,000 children of long-term visa holders, raised and educated in America.
You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
Christopher Cann,
USA TODAY
Sat, June 28, 2025
Sat, June 28, 2025
The Secretary of State, several former presidential candidates and martial arts icon Bruce Lee all became American citizens at birth because of birthright citizenship, which the Supreme Court has now thrown into limbo.
On the first day back in office, President Donald Trump directed federal agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States to parents in the country temporarily or without legal authorization – a move several judges quickly blocked nationwide.
On June 27, the Supreme Court lifted temporary blocks preventing Trump's order from taking effect, but left it to lower courts to consider the constitutionality of Trump's executive order. Whether Trump will ultimately be able to repeal the longstanding legal precedent that grants citizenship to all children born on American soil is unclear.
Here are some well-known actors and politicians who would not have been American citizens when they were born if birthright had not existed.
On the first day back in office, President Donald Trump directed federal agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States to parents in the country temporarily or without legal authorization – a move several judges quickly blocked nationwide.
On June 27, the Supreme Court lifted temporary blocks preventing Trump's order from taking effect, but left it to lower courts to consider the constitutionality of Trump's executive order. Whether Trump will ultimately be able to repeal the longstanding legal precedent that grants citizenship to all children born on American soil is unclear.
Here are some well-known actors and politicians who would not have been American citizens when they were born if birthright had not existed.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio testifies in front of the Senate Committee on Appropriations – Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs to examine proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 2026 for the Department of State in Washington, D.C., on May 20, 2025.More
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, 54, is the son of Cuban immigrants who did not become naturalized U.S. citizens until 1975, years after their son was born.
Rubio has previously said he does not agree with repealing birthright citizenship
.
Diane Guerrero
Diane Guerrero
Actress Diane Guerrero from the TV series "Orange is the New Black" reacts as U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about immigration reform during a visit to Del Sol High School in Las Vegas, Nevada November 21, 2014.More
Actress Diane Guerrero, who starred in the hit television show "Orange is the New Black,” was born to undocumented immigrants from Columbia who were deported when she was 14, she told NPR in 2019.
In an interview with the outlet, she said, “This is a country of immigrants. People forget – they like to forget that their ancestors came here with the same dream, with the same hopes, with the same fears. And it's unfair to say that because people are coming later that they don't deserve to be here.”
Nikki Haley
Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor who ran for the Republican nomination for president in 2024, was born in South Carolina to immigrants from the Punjab region of India, according to her autobiography.
In 2015, she told The State news outlet that her parents were in the United States legally but did not become naturalized citizens until after her birth, and the non-partisan American Immigration Council considers her a U.S. citizen because of her place of birth.
Bruce Lee
Bruce Lee who stars in the Fists of Fury, is seen on a stamp to mark the 100th anniversary of Chinese file at a post office in Zhengzhou. Bruce Lee (R), who stared in the Fists of Fury, is seen on a stamp to mark the 100th anniversary of Chinese film at a post office in Zhengzhou, central China's Henan province, Sept. 1, 2005.More
Bruce Lee, the martial arts icon who starred in films such as "Enter the Dragon" and "Fists of Fury," was born in San Francisco while his parents were traveling with the Chinese Opera.
The National Archives notes that under birthright citizenship he was considered a citizen ‒ though he would not be under Trump's revision to the law. "Lee’s parents filed for a Return Certificate on his behalf … enabling him to return to the United States if he later wished to do so. Lee did return at the age of 18 and grew into the iconic martial artist and film star known across the world."
Kamala Harris
Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship may have been designed explicitly against his November rival for the presidency, former Vice President Kamala Harris.
David Bier, of the Libertarian Cato Institute, posted on X the day Trump signed the order: "As I predicted, Trump's birthright citizenship EO includes a Kamala Harris clause, specifically designed to deny the legitimacy of her US citizenship as the child of someone with a temporary status."
Trump's order specifies that someone wouldn't be entitled to birthright if their mother was on a temporary visa ‒ like the student visa Harris' mother was on at the time of her birth ‒ and their father wasn't a citizen, as hers wasn't.
Vivek Ramaswamy
Vivek Ramaswamy speaks during a rally for Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump at Madison Square Garden, in New York, U.S., Oct. 27, 2024.
Vivek Ramaswamy, the tech billionaire and 2024 Republican presidential candidate, told NBC News in 2023 that his father never became a U.S. citizen and his mother only naturalized after he was born.
Ramaswamy, who Trump endorsed in next year's Ohio gubernatorial race, has repeatedly called for an end to birthright citizenship.
Contributing: Maureen Groppe, Eduardo Cuevas, Sara Chernikoff, Ramon Padilla and Bart Jansen, USA TODAY
Opinion
As an immigrant, I don't expect shortcuts. Birthright citizenship is our right. | Opinion
Tanay Raje
Fri, June 27, 2025
“Welcome home.”
That’s what a border protection agent said to me after a recent vacation. His words struck a chord with me because he acknowledged that the United States was my home. The irony of the situation being that I am not a U.S. citizen, I am an immigrant.
As an immigrant, I often wonder whether I’m truly accepted in the country where I’ve spent the past 21 years of my life.
Now the decision by the Supreme Court on President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order makes me question that even more. Trump ordered an end to automatic citizenship for those born here ‒ unless at least one of the child's parents is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.
And while the court’s June 27 ruling didn't deal with the birthright citizenship question directly, their 6-3 decision lifted a temporary block on the president’s unjust order – allowing it to partially go into effect in 30 days.
Opinion: Supreme Court takes on birthright citizenship – but that's not the real case
That order was the latest attempt to alienate immigrants and erase the immigrant history that built this nation. It undermines the idea that any immigrant, legal or not, can ever truly belong in America.
When I immigrated to this country as a child, I was once welcomed with open arms and integrated into the culture. However, for years, it’s felt like my country has been slowly closing its doors to immigrants like me. While attacks on undocumented immigrants have often dominated the headlines, legal immigrants have been quietly targeted as well through backlogs, unnecessary barriers and, more recently, executive actions.
Aging out of legal immigration visa
That’s what a border protection agent said to me after a recent vacation. His words struck a chord with me because he acknowledged that the United States was my home. The irony of the situation being that I am not a U.S. citizen, I am an immigrant.
As an immigrant, I often wonder whether I’m truly accepted in the country where I’ve spent the past 21 years of my life.
Now the decision by the Supreme Court on President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order makes me question that even more. Trump ordered an end to automatic citizenship for those born here ‒ unless at least one of the child's parents is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.
And while the court’s June 27 ruling didn't deal with the birthright citizenship question directly, their 6-3 decision lifted a temporary block on the president’s unjust order – allowing it to partially go into effect in 30 days.
Opinion: Supreme Court takes on birthright citizenship – but that's not the real case
That order was the latest attempt to alienate immigrants and erase the immigrant history that built this nation. It undermines the idea that any immigrant, legal or not, can ever truly belong in America.
When I immigrated to this country as a child, I was once welcomed with open arms and integrated into the culture. However, for years, it’s felt like my country has been slowly closing its doors to immigrants like me. While attacks on undocumented immigrants have often dominated the headlines, legal immigrants have been quietly targeted as well through backlogs, unnecessary barriers and, more recently, executive actions.
Aging out of legal immigration visa
Tanay Raje graduated from Pennsylvania State University in 2021 with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. He is now working as an engineer at a pharmaceutical company in Philadelphia. Tanay is also a member of Improve the Dream, one of the more than 250,000 children of long-term visa holders, raised and educated in America.More
My family immigrated to the United States when I was 5 years old on the H-1B visa. My father was invited to work here because of his skills in IT, and we eventually settled in Pittsburgh.
Like many immigrant families, we built a life here. I went to school, made friends and followed the typical American path. That path eventually led me to Pennsylvania State University, where I earned a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering.
But on my 21st birthday, I aged out of my parents’ immigration status because as far as immigration rules were concerned, I wasn’t a child anymore. In a cruel twist of fate, four months later my parents received their green cards. That small gap meant they would become permanent residents, while I was forced to start over from the back of a broken immigration system.
Opinion: I joked about getting deported. In Trump's America, it's not funny.
I first realized that I was different from my friends in high school when I wasn’t allowed to get a job and help support my family. In college, this realization became even more apparent when I had to switch to an F-1 student visa and had to legally prove that my “home” address was in India, not in Pittsburgh where I lived with my family.
Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.
Once I graduated and wanted to enter the workforce, I was denied most job opportunities ‒ not because I am unqualified, but because companies could not or would not sponsor immigrants. Every piece of paperwork I filed had to be absolutely perfect. Something as minor as a technical error on the immigration forms could have, and once nearly did, jeopardize my entire immigration status.
Because of that four-month gap, I will continue to be treated as a visitor in the only country I have ever known and called home.
Growing hostility toward immigrants
I share this to make a simple but important point: Despite what the headlines might suggest, legal immigration is anything but easy.
When the Biden administration announced in 2024 protections for Dreamers who as kids were brought to the United States illegally, I questioned the omission of children like me who continue to be left behind.
Trump’s executive order reinforces this message of exclusion by taking it even further and signaling that none of us belong here.
People rally outside the Supreme Court for birthright citizenship on May 15, 2025.
Although the executive order does not apply directly to me, because I was born in India, it could have changed everything for my younger brother, who was born in Detroit. If this executive order had been in effect when he was born, he would not have been granted citizenship and he would be just like me, stuck in limbo and questioning his sense of acceptance.
The executive order reflects the growing hostility toward all immigrants, regardless of how they arrived. Over the past decade, the national rhetoric has grown more cynical and suspicious of all foreigners. Immigrants are increasingly portrayed as threats, as job takers and outsiders, even when we are contributing to industries America depends on or are the only ones willing or capable of performing a job.
I do not expect a shortcut. I do not expect special treatment. But I do expect the country that I love to treat me and people like my brother as if we belong here.
Because this country was founded by immigrants, and her promise should still include all of us.
Tanay Raje graduated from Pennsylvania State University in 2021 with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. He is now working as an engineer at a sterile pharmaceutical company in Philadelphia. Tanay is also a member of Improve the Dream, one of the more than 250,000 children of long-term visa holders, raised and educated in America.
You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
No comments:
Post a Comment