劉龍珠律師 (已有 9,277,830 人访问过博主空间)

https://www.backchina.com/u/359631

Trump Gets Legal Green Light from Supreme Court

作者:劉龍珠律師  于 2025-6-28 23:53 发表于 最热闹的华人社交网络--贝壳村

通用分类:移民生活

美国#美国华人#移民美国#移民#法律#律师#刘龙珠#刑事案件#民事案件#犯罪 刘龙珠律师事务所有律师、顾问律师、法律助理约20人,从人数上为美国华人拥有的最大规模律师楼。 防遣返热线电话:(626)664-9919 • 服务时间:洛杉矶时间上午9时至晚上6时(PST) 同时,为适应不同时区需求,热线提供24小时二维码扫描服务。通过扫描二维码,求助者可获取在线资源及相关信息,以便在紧急时刻寻求帮助。 地址:1163 Fairway Drive, Suite 105 City of Industry, CA 91789 电话:909-468-2165 微信:lawyerlongliu9

 

Supreme Court gives Trump more power after ‘birthright citizenship’ ruling curbs nationwide injunctions

 

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has stripped federal courts’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions that have blocked key parts of Donald Trump’s agenda.

Friday’s 6-3 ruling, written by Trump appointee Justice Amy Coney Barrett, states that federal judges went too far blocking his executive order that seeks to unilaterally redefine who gets to be a citizen. Those nationwide injunctions “exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to the federal courts,” according to the ruling.

The ruling opens the door for partial enforcement of Trump’s executive order, putting thousands of American-born children at risk of being denied their constitutional rights. Trump’s executive order will be blocked for another 30 days, however, allowing lower courts to revisit the scope of their injunctions and giving time for opponents to file new legal challenges.

Department of Justice attorneys will now “promptly file” legal challenges in cases where the president’s executive actions were temporarily blocked, Trump told reporters at the White House. Moments after the ruling, plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit that would protect citizenship rights for all newborn Americans, not just in the states that initially sued.

But the ruling does not definitively resolve challenges to birthright citizenship. A series of federal court rulings across the country earlier this year struck down the president’s attempt to block citizenship from newborn Americans who are born to certain immigrant parents. The government argued those decisions should only impact the individual states — and the unborn children of pregnant mothers in them — who sued him and won.

Opponents have warned that such a decision would open a backdoor to begin stripping away constitutional rights. In a blistering dissent, Justices Sonia Sotomayor called the court’s ruling “a travesty for the rule of law.”

Olga Urbina, left, and her 9-month-old son Ares Webster join demonstrations outside the Supreme Court on May 14 as justices grilled the Trump administration over challenges to birthright citizenship (Getty)

Allowing the president to unilaterally redefine who gets to be a U.S. citizen in states subject to Trump’s rewriting of the 14th Amendment would create a patchwork system of constitutional rights and citizenship benefits — including voting rights.

More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship every year under Trump’s order, according to the plaintiffs.

“Make no mistake: Today’s ruling allows the Executive to deny people rights that the Founders plainly wrote into our Constitution, so long as those individuals have not found a lawyer or asked a court in a particular manner to have their rights protected,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her dissent.

The court’s decision gifted Trump the “prerogative of sometimes disregarding the law” that opens the door to “put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy,” Jackson warned.

“It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,” she wrote. “Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more."

 

Trump, flanked by his former criminal defense attorney turned top Justice Department official Todd Blanche and Attorney General Pam Bondi, says the administration will now ‘promptly file’ legal challenges in every case where nationwide injunctions have blocked his executive orders (AFP via Getty Images)

In January, more than 20 states, immigrants’ advocacy groups and pregnant plaintiffs sued the administration to block the president’s executive order.

Three federal judges and appellate court panels argued his order is unconstitutional and blocked the measure from taking effect nationwide while legal challenges continue. During oral arguments, the Supreme Court’s liberal justices appeared shocked at the president’s “unlawful” measure.

A Pregnant Alabama Woman Says She And Her Trump-Supporting Husband Were "Blindsided" When ICE Detained Him

 

Lawmakers remove ‘revenge’ tax provision from Trump's big bill after Treasury Department request

Trump Praises Supreme Court for Fixing Birthright Citizenship ‘Scam’ Originally Meant for the ‘Babies of Slaves’

But the administration used the case not necessarily to argue over whether he can change the 14th Amendment but to target what has become a major obstacle to advancing Trump’s agenda: federal judges blocking aggressive executive actions.

The government asked the court to limit the authority of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have imperilled the bulk of the president’s agenda.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on Friday limits federal justices’ ability to temporarily pause Trump’s executive orders, marking a major victory for the administration (EPA)

In cases across the country, plaintiffs have pushed for injunctions as a tool for critical checks and balances against an administration that critics warn is mounting an ongoing assault against the rule of law.

More than half of the injunctions issued over the last 70 years were against the Trump administration, according to the Harvard Law Review, as Trump pushed the limits of his authority.

In arguments to the Supreme Court, Trump’s personal attorney John Sauer, who was appointed by the president to serve as U.S. solicitor general, called the “cascade of universal injunctions” against the administration a “bipartisan problem” that exceeds judicial authority.

Trump’s allies, however, have relied on nationwide injunctions to do the very same thing they commanded the Supreme Court to strike down. Critics have accused right-wing legal groups of “judge shopping” for ideologically like-minded venues where they can sue to strike down — through nationwide injunctions — policies with which they disagree.

After the government’s arguments fell flat in front of a mostly skeptical Supreme Court last month, Trump accused his political opponents of “playing the ref” through the courts to overturn his threat to the 14th Amendment.

 

Trump’s executive order seeks to redefine the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause to deny citizenship to children whose mother is undocumented or is temporarily legally in the country on a visa, and if the father isn’t a citizen or a lawful permanent resident (Getty)

The 14th Amendment plainly states that “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.”

For more than 100 years, the Supreme Court has upheld the definition to apply to all children born within the United States.

But under the terms of Trump’s order, children can be denied citizenship if a mother is undocumented or is temporarily legally in the country on a visa, and if the father isn’t a citizen or a lawful permanent resident.

The president’s attempt to redefine citizenship is central to his administration’s sweeping anti-immigration agenda.

His administration has also effectively ended entry for asylum seekers; declared the United States under “invasion” from foreign gangs to summarily remove alleged members; and stripped legal protections for more than 1 million people — radically expanding the pool of “undocumented” people now vulnerable for arrest and removal.

The administration “de-legalised” tens of thousands of immigrants, and thousands of people with pending immigration cases are being ordered to court each week only to have those cases dismissed, with federal agents waiting to arrest them on the other side of the courtroom doors.

The White House has also rolled back protections barring immigration arrests at sensitive locations like churches and bumped up the pace of immigration raids in the interior of the country.

To carry out the arrests, the administration has tapped resources from other state and local agencies while moving officers from federal agencies like the FBI and DEA to focus on immigration. There are more people in immigration detention centers today than in any other point in modern history.

 




高兴

感动

同情

搞笑

难过

拍砖

支持

鲜花

评论 (0 个评论)

facelist doodle 涂鸦板

您需要登录后才可以评论 登录 | 注册

劉龍珠律師最受欢迎的博文
  1. 刘龙珠律师法律评论:章莹颖家人狮子大开口要50万,涉嫌违法,可能坐牢20年! 文/刘龙 [2017/08]
  2. 刘强东心声:太他妈毒!要钱不给居然说我强奸! [2023/09]
  3. 校园枪击案每天都有,前加州副州长候选人杨承志有绝招 [2024/05]
  4. 白人警察杀人罪成立,拜登打电话慰问佛洛伊德家属 [2021/04]
  5. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:郭文貴的房產照片 [2017/04]
  6. 刘强东案女主微信聊天记录曝光:床单——东哥的救命稻草? [2018/09]
  7. 刘龙珠律师法律评论:王宝强、张纪中、张靓颖、何洁的美国房子大对比 [2016/12]
  8. 刘强东事件惊天大黑幕 [2021/06]
  9. 刘龙珠律师法律评论:没有结婚证这张纸,张靓颖能分到冯珂的豪宅吗? [2018/04]
  10. 华人再也不能上哈佛耶鲁了?! [2021/02]
  11. 飙——美国华女一枪毙命入室歹徒 老公捡回一条命 [2023/08]
  12. 防老婆像防贼 会死得很惨 [2023/06]
  13. 劉龍珠律师提醒: 全美移民检查站在哪里,被拦下来要如何处理 [2017/02]
  14. 孟晚舟凶多吉少!明天会被引渡 [2018/12]
  15. 热辣点评:华人大闹瑞典旅馆被丢墓地事件 [2018/09]
  16. 劉龍珠律師:梁案中Glock 19手槍很難走火 [2016/02]
  17. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:忠言逆耳,挺梁遊行可能害梁彼得、應給非裔受害人捐款 [2016/02]
  18. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:赴美產婦濫用福利、現在拿不到簽證 [2017/03]
  19. 孟晚舟会不会被引渡最权威分析 [2021/04]
  20. “一哭二闹三上吊” 中美皆违法 - 霸座男女 携手去瑞典 [2018/09]
  21. 如果网传事件记录属实,刘强东罪名会成立吗? [2018/09]
  22. 龙珠喷天下——开启一条龙服务的白人拜登总统 [2021/01]
  23. 刘龙珠律师法律评论:卖狗肉,中国罚款5万,美国坐牢40年,玉林狗肉节必须废止! [2018/02]
  24. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:梁彼得,為了種族和平,你應該主動要求坐牢 [2016/04]
  25. 劉龍珠律師法律評論:UCLA槍擊案的啟示——憲法第二修正案應廢除 [2016/06]
  26. 川普和普京又要度蜜月了,如果美国真的跟中国打起来,美国华人何去何从? [2025/02]
其它[移民生活]博文更多

关于本站 | 隐私政策 | 免责条款 | 版权声明 | 联络我们 | 刊登广告 | 转手机版 | APP下载

Copyright © 2001-2025 海外华人中文门户:倍可亲 (http://www.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系统基于 Discuz! X3.1 商业版 优化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc. 更新:GMT+8, 2025-6-29 08:22

倍可亲服务器位于美国圣何塞、西雅图和达拉斯顶级数据中心,为更好服务全球网友特统一使用京港台时间

返回顶部