Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Newsweek: Trump admin grapples with birthright citizenship dilemma

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration is seeking more time in federal court as it considers how to bring a challenge to birthright citizenship before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a consent motion filed on August 19 in the District of Maryland, government lawyers requested an additional 30 days to respond to an amended complaint in CASA Inc. v. Trump.

The case contests executive order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order denies citizenship at birth when the mother is unlawfully present (or lawfully but temporarily present) and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice for comment by email outside regular working hours on Wednesday.

Why It Matters

The case goes to the core of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which for more than a century has guaranteed citizenship to almost everyone born on U.S. soil.

A successful challenge could affect hundreds of thousands of children born each year to undocumented parents, while also testing the limits of presidential power to redefine constitutional rights through executive orders.

With the Trump administration signaling that it plans to seek a Supreme Court review, the litigation has the potential to reshape immigration law and the broader debate over American identity.

What To Know

The plaintiffs, a coalition of immigrant-rights organizations led by CASA, amended their complaint in June.

On July 18, the government’s deadline to respond was extended to August 22. The new motion seeks to push that date back to September 22.

According to the filing, the delay is tied to the administration’s broader legal strategy.

The Justice Department acknowledged that multiple lawsuits were pending against the executive order across different jurisdictions. To resolve the matter more definitively, the solicitor general is preparing to ask the Supreme Court to take up the issue in its next term.

“To that end, the Solicitor General of the United States plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Executive Order next Term, but he has not yet determined which case or combination of cases to take to the Court,” government attorneys wrote.

The administration emphasized that the extension request was not an attempt to stall the proceedings. “This request is not made for purposes of delay, and no party will be prejudiced by the relief requested herein, particularly because Plaintiffs consent to the same,” the motion said.

On August 7, the court in Maryland granted a classwide preliminary injunction, applying nationwide to members of the certified class.

Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

Executive order 14160 has drawn criticism from immigrant advocacy groups, which argue that birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

The constitutional provision says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The administration, however, has contended that the clause does not extend to the children of undocumented immigrants.

By moving toward a Supreme Court review, the administration appears to be seeking a definitive ruling on the scope of the citizenship clause. The outcome could have significant implications for immigration law and the legal status of U.S.-born children of noncitizen parents.

What People Are Saying

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticizing the administration’s approach in the Supreme Court, said on May 15: “Your argument … would turn our justice system into a ‘catch me if you can’ kind of regime, in which everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, emphasizing constitutional precedent, added: “So, as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents.”

What Happens Next

If the Trump administration’s request for more time is approved, the government’s deadline would move to September 22. For now, a nationwide injunction continues to block the order, leaving it unenforceable.

Justice Department lawyers say they are considering which case to present to the Supreme Court for review in the next term, a move that could bring arguments before the justices in 2026. Both sides have agreed to the extension, and the government emphasized that no party would be harmed by the delay. While the extension keeps the litigation on hold, the broader fight over birthright citizenship is poised to escalate.

On June 27, the court ruled on nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA but did not decide the merits of birthright citizenship. The administration now plans to seek a full review next term on the lawfulness of the executive order itself. If the court grants the review, it will put the question of the core citizenship clause before the justices in a way not seen since United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Trump admin grapples with birthright citizenship dilemma
The Trump administration is seeking a 30-day delay as the DOJ maps the Supreme Court’s path to test birthright citizenship.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-admin-grapples-birthright-citizenship-dilemma-2116126

Newsweek: Donald Trump suffers major immigration legal blow

Posted on by
Reply

Afederal judge in Illinois has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration that sought to block the state’s workplace privacy law on the grounds that it conflicted with federal immigration enforcement.

In a ruling issued on August 19, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois rejected the administration’s arguments, finding that the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act is not preempted by federal immigration law.

Why It Matters

The ruling matters because it draws a clearer boundary between federal immigration power and state authority over workplace regulation. By rejecting the Trump administration’s effort to use immigration law to override Illinois’ privacy protections, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman reaffirmed that states retain broad authority to govern employment relationships.

The decision safeguards workers’ procedural rights in the hiring process, could set a precedent for other states considering similar measures, and marks a significant check on the expansion of federal enforcement authority.

What To Know

The case centered on whether federal law—particularly the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)—supersedes state-level employment protections. The administration argued that provisions of Illinois’ law regulating the use of the federal E-Verify system and protecting employees during the employment verification process interfered with federal immigration authority.

Coleman disagreed, concluding that the state law “is not expressly preempted by IRCA and does not intrude upon the federal government’s constitutional powers in the space of immigration and foreign affairs.” She added that the government’s “broad interpretation of its power to regulate matters of immigration would swallow the historic powers of the states over employment-related issues”.

The Federal Government’s Argument

The Trump administration claimed that several provisions of Illinois’ privacy law—including penalties for violations related to E-Verify—constituted sanctions on employers of unauthorized workers and therefore fell under IRCA’s preemption clause. That provision bars states from imposing civil or criminal sanctions on employers who hire or recruit unauthorized workers/aliens.

The Justice Department also argued that Illinois’ law, by imposing notification requirements and other conditions on the use of E-Verify, conflicted with the federal goal of deterring unauthorized employment.

At oral argument, however, Coleman noted that government lawyers struggled to identify precisely which sections of Illinois law they believed were preempted. In her ruling, she wrote that the administration’s interpretation of IRCA’s preemption clause was “broad to the point of absurdity.”

Judge’s Reasoning

Coleman emphasized that employment regulation has historically been a power of the states. “States possess broad authority under their police powers to regulate the employment relationship to protect workers within the State,” she wrote, citing Supreme Court precedent.

The judge found that Illinois’ law does not penalize employers for hiring unauthorized workers but rather regulates how employers use verification systems and ensures employees’ rights are respected during that process. “A person’s immigration or work authorization status is irrelevant to determine whether an employer has violated any of the provisions of the act,” Coleman explained.

She further rejected the administration’s conflict preemption argument, which claimed that Illinois’ law undermined federal objectives. The government suggested that the state’s notification rules could encourage unauthorized workers to evade detection. Coleman dismissed this as “simply too speculative a basis on which to rest a finding of pre-emption.”

Broader Implications

The ruling represents a significant legal setback for Trump’s immigration agenda, which has frequently sought to expand federal authority over state and local policies. By upholding Illinois’ privacy protections, the court reaffirmed the principle that federal power over immigration does not automatically override state employment laws.

The decision may carry consequences beyond Illinois. Other states have enacted or considered similar laws governing the use of E-Verify and employee privacy. Coleman’s opinion suggests that such measures, when designed to regulate employment rather than immigration status, may withstand federal challenges.

Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice for comment via email outside of regular working hours on Wednesday.

What People Are Saying

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman wrote in her ruling that Illinois’ workplace privacy law “is not expressly preempted by IRCA and does not intrude upon the federal government’s constitutional powers in the space of immigration and foreign affairs.” She added that the administration’s interpretation of federal law was, “broad to the point of absurdity.”

Kyle Cheney of Politico wrote on X, August 20, 2025, “A federal judge in Illinois has thrown out the Trump administration’s lawsuit against the state that claims IL’s workforce privacy law conflicts with federal immigration enforcement.”

In a broader context, legal scholars and state officials have long debated the limits of federal power in immigration enforcement.

Ilya Somin, professor of law at George Mason University, told the Washington Post in 2017: “Trump and future presidents could use [the executive order] to seriously undermine constitutional federalism by forcing dissenting cities and states to obey presidential dictates, even without authorization from Congress. The circumvention of Congress makes the order a threat to separation of powers, as well.”

What Happens Next

The Trump administration is expected to appeal to the Seventh Circuit, with a possible path to the Supreme Court. For now, Illinois’ workplace privacy law remains in effect, and the ruling could inspire other states to adopt similar protections while intensifying debates over federal versus state authority.

Judge Coleman emphasized that federal immigration power “is not without limits,” and that preemption requires a clear conflict. By leaving Illinois’ law intact and denying an injunction, the ruling marks a notable legal setback for Trump’s immigration strategy.

Donald Trump suffers major immigration legal blow
Judge rejects Trump’s lawsuit, ruling Illinois’ workplace privacy law doesn’t clash with federal immigration power.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-immigration-legal-setback-illinois-workplace-privacy-2116468

Latin Times: Rubio’s Contradicting Arguments on Birthright Citizenship Resurface as Supreme Court Weighs Trump Order Looking to Restrict it

Posted on by
Reply

Rubio’s comments came amid a lawsuit challenging his eligibility to run for president on the grounds that, as the son of Cuban immigrants who became U.S. citizens only after his birth

A new report has revealed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued in a federal court filing in 2016 that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States regardless of their parents’ immigration status when he was a Republican senator running for president, a position that now stands in sharp contrast to the executive order issued by Trump in January which seeks to restrict birthright citizenship.

Rubio’s 2016 filing responded to a lawsuit challenging his eligibility to run for president on the grounds that, as the son of Cuban immigrants who became U.S. citizens only after his birth, he was not a “natural born citizen.”

As The New York Times points out, the court dismissed the case, but Rubio’s arguments went further than necessary, affirming that the 14th Amendment was designed to ensure that “all persons born in the United States, regardless of race, ancestry, previous servitude, etc., were citizens of the United States.”

Rubio went on to say that the amendment, the common law on which it was based and the leading Supreme Court precedent all confirmed that “persons born in the United States to foreign parents (who were not diplomats or hostile, occupying enemies) were citizens of the United States by virtue of their birth.”

Trump’s executive order, by contrast, states that children born in the U.S. are not automatically citizens if their mothers were either unlawfully present or only in the country on a temporary basis and if their fathers were neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents. The order has been blocked in lower courts, but the administration has asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue this fall.

Peter J. Spiro, a citizenship law expert at Temple University, told the NYT that Rubio’s earlier arguments remain significant and that “there’s no reason why the argument he put to work in 2016 couldn’t be put to work today against the Trump executive order.” Rubio, now secretary of state, oversees the implementation of immigration and passport laws.

Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesman, dismissed the focus on Rubio’s past filing, saying he is “100 percent aligned with President Trump’s agenda,” and claiming that “it’s absurd the NYT is even wasting time digging around for decade-old made-up stories.”

Rubio has faced backlash for his contrasting stances on issues affecting immigrants in the past few months, especially Latinos. A group called Keep Them Honest erected signs in May accusing him of betraying Venezuelans after supporting the administration’s move to end Temporary Protected Status. Rubio, once a leading Republican advocate for TPS, has recently called the designation harmful to U.S. interests and linked it to security threats.

Rubio’s Contradicting Arguments on Birthright Citizenship Resurface as Supreme Court Weighs Trump Order Looking to Restrict it
Rubio’s comments came amid a lawsuit challenging his eligibility to run for president on the grounds that, as the son of Cuban immigrants who became U.S. citizens only after his birth

https://www.latintimes.com/rubios-contradicting-arguments-birthright-citizenship-resurface-supreme-court-weighs-trump-order-588498

Kansas City Star: Supreme Court Asked to Review Marriage Ruling

Posted on by
Reply

Former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a civil judgment issued against her for refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Her actions, which took place shortly after the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015, have continued to spark legal debate. While plaintiffs and LGBTQ advocates have criticized the move as an attempt to undermine established rights, conservative activists have rallied behind Davis.

Davis argued that the First Amendment’s free exercise clause shielded her from personal liability while in office. She urged the Court to overturn Obergefell.

Attorney Mathew Staver wrote, “The mistake must be corrected.” Staver argued that Davis is “the first individual in the Republic’s history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it.”

Lower courts rejected her defenses and affirmed liability for state action in her role. A federal appeals panel concluded that she may not invoke the First Amendment against such claims.

Attorneys for David Ermold and David Moore have urged the Court to deny review. They noted that no appellate judge supported rehearing.

Attorney William Powell said, “Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis’s rehearing petition, and we are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis’s arguments do not merit further attention.”

The petition has arrived amid efforts in several states to limit recognition of same-sex marriages. Public support has remained high, but partisan divides have notably widened.

If the Supreme Court hears the case, it could revisit same-sex marriage precedents, though existing marriages remain protected under the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act.

Supreme Court Asked to Review Marriage Ruling
Former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a civil judgment issued against her for refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Her actions, which took place shortly after the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015, have continued to spark legal debate. While plaintiffs and LGBTQ advocatesContinue reading “Supreme Court Asked to Review Marriage Ruling”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-asked-to-review-marriage-ruling/ar-AA1KMc10

Politico: ‘We are arresting the mayor right now, per the deputy attorney general’

Posted on by
Reply

An account of bodycam footage, submitted in a recent court filling, provides new detail about a confrontation outside a New Jersey immigration facility.

The federal officer who arrested the mayor of New Jersey’s largest city outside an immigration detention center in May suggested that he was making the arrest at the direction of the Justice Department’s No. 2 official, Todd Blanche, according to law enforcement body camera footage described in a new court filing.

The filing, from Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), sheds new light on the chaotic scene on May 9 when Democratic lawmakers and Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, attempting to conduct an oversight visit, clashed with immigration agents. Baraka was arrested for trespassing, but that charge was dropped. McIver was later charged with assaulting federal agents; she is seeking to get the case dismissed.

According to McIver’s attorneys, a Department of Homeland Security special agent was on the phone as the events unfolded that day. Citing bodycam footage they obtained in the case, the attorneys wrote that the special agent, after hanging up the call, turned to a group of fellow agents and announced: “We are arresting the mayor right now, per the deputy attorney general of the United States. Anyone that gets in our way, I need you guys to give me a perimeter so I can cuff him.”

POLITICO has not reviewed the bodycam video. Although the footage was submitted as an exhibit in the case, it was not yet publicly available. A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment, and a response from the Department of Homeland Security did not address whether Blanche had ordered the agents to make the arrest.

The special agent’s apparent suggestion that he was acting at Blanche’s direction is the latest sign that top Justice Department officials are harnessing the power of law enforcement against Democrats and other perceived enemies of President Donald Trump. Trump’s DOJ has opened investigations into various figures Trump disdains, including Jack Smith, James Comey, former Homeland Security aides who criticized him and many others.

Federal law enforcement officials have also detained New York City Comptroller Brad Lander and handcuffed California Sen. Alex Padilla.

For months, Democrats have wondered if agents at the Newark immigration detention center had been instructed by a superior to arrest Baraka. Witness accounts and other video footage taken that day showed the mayor had been allowed inside a gated area by a guard, stood there peacefully for the better part of an hour and left the gated area when federal agents threatened him with arrest. That day, Rep. Rob Menendez (D-N.J.) told POLITICO that he’d witnessed an agent inside the gated area talking on the phone with someone who told the agent to arrest Baraka, who by the time of the call was outside the gate. McIver gave a similar account in a press conference at the time.

The description of the bodycam footage submitted in court last week by McIver’s attorneys bolsters that account. Quoting from the footage, her attorneys wrote that the special agent on the phone said of Baraka during the call: “Even though he stepped out, I am going to put him in cuffs.”

Then the agent made the comment about arresting the mayor “per the deputy attorney general.” Moments later, law enforcement officials came out of the gate and arrested Baraka, setting off a scrum involving the mayor and members of Congress. McIver is accused in a three-count indictment of slamming the special agent with her forearm, “forcibly” grabbing him and using her forearms to strike another agent. She has pleaded not guilty.

Less than two weeks later, federal prosecutors dropped a trespassing charge against Baraka. But a federal judge chided the effort to charge him in the first place. Magistrate Judge André M. Espinosa called it an “embarrassing retraction” that “suggests a failure to adequately investigate, to carefully gather facts and to thoughtfully consider the implications of your actions before wielding your immense power.”

Baraka is the progressive mayor of New Jersey’s largest city and at the time of his arrest was seeking the Democratic nomination for governor, an election he has since lost. Separately, he is suing the Trump administration for “malicious prosecution” in a lawsuit that names acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba and Ricky Patel, a special agent in charge for Homeland Security Investigations’ Newark Division.

According to a comparison of court documents filed in the Baraka and McIver cases, Patel is the special agent overheard on the bodycam footage referring to the deputy attorney general.

McIver tries to harness Trump immunity ruling

The new revelations about the episode came in legal briefs asking to have McIver’s own case thrown out.

As part of that effort, McIver asked the judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Judge Jamel Semper, to rule that lawmakers have the same kind of immunity from prosecutions that the Supreme Court gave Trump.

Her attorneys said McIver’s visit to the detention facility, known as Delaney Hall, was a legislative act she cannot be prosecuted for. They cited the Supreme Court ruling last summer that gave Trump immunity from criminal prosecution for some actions he took during his first presidential term while fighting to subvert the 2020 election.

McIver’s attorneys also argued that she is facing intimidation and that Habba’s office, which is prosecuting the case, is undermining the Constitution’s “Speech or Debate” Clause. That clause grants members of Congress a form of immunity that is mostly impenetrable in investigations relating to the official duties of lawmakers, their aides or other congressional officials.

The Department of Homeland Security said the argument is laughable.

“Suggesting that physically assaulting a federal law enforcement officer is ‘legitimate legislative activity’ covered by legislative immunity makes a joke of all three branches of government at once,” the Homeland Security Department’s assistant secretary, Tricia McLaughlin, said in a statement.

If lawmakers don’t continue to receive such protections, McIver’s legal team warns of dire consequences for the country.

“If these charges are allowed to move forward, they will send a chilling message to Congress on the risk it takes when it scrutinizes the Administration’s activities,” McIver’s defense team wrote. “The Speech or Debate Clause was designed to prevent that kind of message and intimidation.”

Former Sen. Bob Menendez — Rob Menendez’s father — has tried to use the speech or debate clause to shield himself from corruption charges. He is now serving an 11-year prison sentence and appealing the conviction. McIver’s attorneys cited a 3rd Circuit ruling against Menendez in 2016 — who was then facing different corruption charges that were later dropped — as making clear that members of Congress do have immunity for legislative actions but that the allegations against him were for things beyond the scope of that immunity. McIver’s team argued the Menendez case “could not be more different” from hers.

In another legal filing made last week, McIver also sought to dismiss the charges against her based on unconstitutional “selective” and “vindictive” prosecution, noting that the Justice Department walked away from prosecutions of hundreds of defendants from Jan. 6, 2021, despite clear video of many attacking police officers.

‘We are arresting the mayor right now, per the deputy attorney general’
An account of bodycam footage, submitted in a recent court filling, provides new detail about a confrontation outside a New Jersey immigration facility.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/18/newark-mayor-arrest-bodycam-footage-todd-blanche-00513734

America Uncovered: What Trump’s Proposal Could Mean for the 14th Amendment

Posted on by
Reply
What Trump’s Proposal Could Mean for the 14th Amendment
Former President Trump reignited the debate over birthright citizenship with a proposal that could challenge the 14th Amendment. This video explains what it means and why it matters.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-trump-s-proposal-could-mean-for-the-14th-amendment/vi-AA1HPtzp

Charlotte Observer: Trump Loses Lawsuit as Judge Sides with Defendants

Posted on by
Reply

A federal judge has dismissed President Donald Trump’s copyright lawsuit against Bob Woodward, Simon & Schuster, and Paramount Global, ruling that Trump’s claims of co-authorship for the audiobook The Trump Tapes are not credible. The judge noted that conflicting copyright registrations need independent resolution of ownership issues. District Judge Paul Gardephe, citing Supreme Court guidance under the Copyright Act, ruled that authorship belongs to the creator.

Gardephe found Trump’s claim of joint authorship with Woodward unsubstantiated, noting Woodward and Simon & Schuster had filed their own copyright in February.

Gardephe ruled, “Trump’s legal claim does not ‘plausibly allege’ that he was the joint author of The Trump Tapes or has a copyright interest in them.”

Gardephe wrote, “The Supreme Court has instructed, under the Copyright Act, ‘the author is the party who actually creates the work, that is, the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection.’”

Gardephe added, “While copyright registration may constitute prima facie evidence of ownership, where there are conflicting and adverse copyright registrations, the Copyright Office does not resolve the competing claims, and courts are called upon to make ‘an independent determination of copyright ownership.’”

Trump now has time to amend his complaint, though Gardephe doubts he can establish a valid copyright claim. Trump argued he holds rights to the recordings’ content despite not crafting the questions.

Paramount Global, the former owner of Simon & Schuster, is a defendant. Gardephe noted that it is “unlikely” Trump will be able to arrive at a different result.

Thos who stand up to this loser always seem to win! 🙂

Trump Loses Lawsuit as Judge Sides with Defendants
A federal judge has dismissed President Donald Trump’s copyright lawsuit against Bob Woodward, Simon & Schuster, and Paramount Global, ruling that Trump’s claims of co-authorship for the audiobook The Trump Tapes are not credible. The judge noted that conflicting copyright registrations need independent resolution of ownership issues. District Judge Paul Gardephe, citing Supreme Court guidanceContinue reading “Trump Loses Lawsuit as Judge Sides…

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-loses-lawsuit-as-judge-sides-with-defendants/ar-AA1KDMIy

Bradenton Herald: Supreme Court Ruling Backfires on Trump Admin

Posted on by
Reply

“… we reiterate our concerns that the Trump administration has not shared the details of a plan to redistribute the Department’s work in a way that does not cause significant disruption for America’s college students.”

The Department of Education is reportedly experiencing operational challenges due to staffing cuts and new regulatory requirements, now challenged with meeting demands with fewer resources.

Staffing cuts of over 50% have most notably impacted Federal Student Aid and Civil Rights divisions. The Supreme Court has allowed the staff reductions amid ongoing legal proceedings.

Department leaders claimed they’re prepared to enforce new rules, but educators doubt their capacity. Shutting down the department requires Congress, though both parties have resisted the move.

President Donald Trump has supported reducing the federal role in education, though the department still offers aid and enforces standards. The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act has changed student loan repayment programs, expanded Pell Grant eligibility, and tightened college accountability.

Deputy Press Secretary at the Department of Education Ellen Keast said, “Just within President Trump’s first six months, the Department has responsibly managed and streamlined key federal student aid features.”

Keast added, “We will continue to deliver meaningful and on time results while implementing President Trump’s OBBB (‘One Big Beautiful Bill’) to better serve students, families, and administrators.”

A new law limits new borrowers to two repayment options and sets a 2028 deadline to shift specific income-driven plans. American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Beth Akers said, “I do have significant concerns that the speed of the cuts will have left us with a department that is unable to effectively implement this legislation.”

Melanie Storey, President of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, said, “With significantly more work on the horizon to implement the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, we reiterate our concerns that the Trump administration has not shared the details of a plan to redistribute the Department’s work in a way that does not cause significant disruption for America’s college students.”

Pell Grants now cover short skill-based courses with departmental approval. A “do no harm” rule links federal aid to positive student outcomes, requiring collaboration with schools and agencies.

Supreme Court Ruling Backfires on Trump Admin
The Department of Education is reportedly experiencing operational challenges due to staffing cuts and new regulatory requirements, now challenged with meeting demands with fewer resources. Staffing cuts of over 50% have most notably impacted Federal Student Aid and Civil Rights divisions. The Supreme Court has allowed the staff reductions amid ongoing legal proceedings. Department leadersContinue reading “Supreme Court Ruling Backfires on Trump…

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-ruling-backfires-on-trump-admin/ar-AA1KEjSs

Newsweek: Trump supporter detained by ICE Agents regrets vote: “Were all brainwashed”

Posted on by
Reply

A California man who voted for President Donald Trump has spoken out after being detained by immigration agents.

Brian Gavidia, a 29-year-old American citizen from Montebello, joined a lawsuit challenging immigration enforcement tactics after federal agents detained him on June 12, NBC 4 Los Angeles reported.

“I truly believe I was targeted because of my race,” Gavidia told the outlet, adding elsewhere in the interview, “We were all brainwashed.”

“While conducting a lawful immigration enforcement operation in Montebello, CA, Brian Gavidia was arrested for assaulting a law enforcement officer and interfering with agents during their duties,” Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Newsweek.

“Javier Ramirez was detained on the street for investigation for interference and released after being confirmed to be a U.S. citizen with no outstanding warrants,” she added.

Why It Matters

Millions of Americans voted for Trump in support of his promise to carry out widespread deportations of migrants living in the U.S. illegally, particularly those with criminal records. As immigration enforcement efforts ramp up across the country, concerns are mounting that the Trump administration is not, as it pledged, targeting the “worst first.”

Newsweek has documented several cases of Trump supporters being affected by the immigration raids.

What To Know

Gavidia voted for Trump, believing that his administration’s immigration agenda would target criminals, not everyday citizens, NBC 4 Los Angeles reported.

He told the outlet that during an immigration enforcement operation in the San Gabriel Valley, a federal agent pushed him against a wall and demanded proof of citizenship, asking him the name of the hospital where he was born.

Footage circulating on social media shows Gavidia shouting, “I was born here in the states, East LA bro!”

The video shows agents, who are wearing vests with “Border Patrol Federal Agent” on them, holding Gavidia’s hands behind his back.

Agents allegedly confiscated his Real ID and phone. Gavidia was later released and recovered his phone, but he said he never received his ID.

Convinced he was targeted because of his Latino heritage, Gavidia now rejects his prior support for the president.

“I believe it was a mistake because he ran on lies,” Gavidia said. “He said criminals.”

“If this was going to happen, do you think we would have voted? We’re humans. We’re not going to destroy our community. We’re not going to destroy our people,” he continued.

“We were all manipulated. We were all brainwashed,” Gavidia told NBC 4 Los Angeles. “And now look at us. We are all suffering because of it, and I feel guilty 100 percent.”

Gavidia is among seven plaintiffs in an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit that resulted in a court order limiting when federal agents can initiate immigration enforcement.

The filing requested that the court prohibit raids conducted without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. It also said agents concentrated operations in places where Latino workers were often found, such as local car washes and outside Home Depot locations.

California has been a key battleground state for immigration enforcement operations after Trump ordered federal agents to ramp up arrests in Democratic cities.

On August 1, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a temporary restraining order, originally issued by a federal judge, that placed limits on how the federal government could carry out immigration enforcement operations in Southern California.

An attorney for the Trump administration argued before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, seeking a stay of the temporary restraining order while the case was appealed. The panel denied the request.

The decision upholds a July 11 ruling granting a restraining order sought by immigrant rights advocates to limit federal immigration enforcement in Los Angeles and other areas of Southern California. Under Judge Maame E. Frimpong’s directive, officers and agents may not detain individuals unless they have reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States in violation of immigration law.

What People Are Saying

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Newsweek: “Any allegations that individuals have been ‘targeted’ by law enforcement because of their skin color are FALSE. What makes someone a target is if they are in the United States illegally. These types of disgusting smears are designed to demonize and villainize our brave ICE law enforcement. This kind of garbage has led to a more than 1,000 percent increase in the assaults on ICE officers. Politicians and activists must turn the temperature down and tone down their rhetoric.

“DHS enforcement operations are highly targeted, and officers do their due diligence. We know who we are targeting ahead of time. If and when we do encounter individuals subject to arrest, our law enforcement is trained to ask a series of well-determined questions to determine status and removability.

“We will follow the President’s direction and continue to work to get the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens off of America’s streets.”

Brian Gavidia told NBC 4 Los Angeles: “I believe I was racially profiled. I believe I was attacked because I was walking while brown. Where is the freedom? Where is the justice? We live in America. This is why I’m fighting today. This is why I’m protecting the Constitution.”

What Happens Next

Despite the legal restrictions, immigration raids continue. The Trump administration has appealed the Ninth Circuit’s decision that upheld the temporary restraining order. The case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, which will decide whether to lift or uphold the restrictions limiting broad-based immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

Trump supporter detained by ICE Agents regrets vote: “Were all brainwashed”
“I truly believe I was targeted because of my race,” Brian Gavidia of Montebello, California, told NBC 4 Los Angeles.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-supporter-detained-ice-agents-immigration-2112676

Newsweek: Justice Department Issues Birthright Citizenship Update

Posted on by
Reply

The U.S. Department of Justice has released an update confirming that it plans to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump‘s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.

The announcement was disclosed in a joint status report filed Wednesday, August 6, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Why It Matters

The Justice Department’s plan to seek a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship—entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”—marks a critical juncture in the national debate over immigration and constitutional rights.

Signed on January 20, 2025, it directs the federal government to deny citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents.

At stake is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil. A ruling in favor of the order could reshape federal authority over citizenship, impact millions of U.S.-born children, and redefine the limits of executive power—making this one of the most consequential legal battles in recent memory.

What To Know

On February 6, 2025, the district court in Seattle issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of President Trump’s executive order.

The case under review, State of Washington v. Trump, was just one of several ongoing legal challenges in which lower courts have largely rejected the administration’s legal theory. District courts in Maryland (February 5), New Hampshire (February 10), and Massachusetts (February 13), have each upheld that the order conflicted with constitutional protections and halted its enforcement in their respective jurisdictions.

One of those judges, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who sits on the federal bench in Boston, granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, affirming that the constitutional guarantee of citizenship applies broadly, and finding the policy to be, “unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute.”

The government appealed the ruling and sought partial stays from the district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court denied a partial stay, the Ninth Circuit requested further briefing and, on July 23, upheld the injunction.

The new update came in a joint status report filed August 6, 2025, in which the DOJ stated that Solicitor General D. John Sauer intends to file a petition “expeditiously” for certiorari—a legal term that refers to the process by which a higher court (most commonly the U.S. Supreme Court), agrees to review a lower court’s decision—in order to place the case before the Court during its next term, which begins in October.

This means the Justice Department has now formally indicated it will seek a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order; though it has not yet chosen which specific case—or combination of ongoing cases—it will use as the basis for its appeal.

The parties plan to update the court further once those appellate steps are finalized.

Fourteenth Amendment At Stake

Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: “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.” Courts have consistently upheld this principle for more than a century, most notably in the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

However, the Trump administration argues that the amendment should not apply to children of parents who lack permanent legal status, a position that has been repeatedly rejected by lower courts.

What People Are Saying

President Trump, during an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, December 8, 2024, said: “Do you know if somebody sets a foot—just a foot, one foot, you don’t need two—on our land, ‘Congratulations you are now a citizen of the United States of America,’ … Yes, we’re going to end that, because it’s ridiculous.” Adding: “…we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it. … We’re the only country that has it, you know.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters in June 2025: “Birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court.”

DOJ attorneys wrote in the filing: “In light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, Defendants represent that the Solicitor General plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Citizenship Order next Term.”

Jessica Levinson, constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, said: “You can’t ‘executive order’ your way out of the Constitution. If you want to end birthright citizenship, you need to amend the Constitution, not issue an executive order.”

What Happens Next

The Justice Department must decide which case or combination of cases it will use to challenge lower court rulings and bring the birthright citizenship issue before the Supreme Court. Once it makes that decision, the DOJ will file a petition for certiorari.

The Court is not required to accept every petition, but because this involves a major constitutional question, it is likely to grant review. If that happens, the Court could hear arguments in 2026 and issue a ruling by June of that year.

For now, the Justice Department and attorneys representing plaintiff states—including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—have agreed to submit another update once the appellate process is clarified or if further proceedings in the district court are required. Until then, the order remains unenforceable, lower court rulings blocking Trump’s executive order remain in effect, and current birthright citizenship protections continue to apply.

What part of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is so hard to understand? Only a Totally Retarded Dumb-Assed Idiot (TRDAI) could miss the meaning of it:

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of TRDAIs in the Trump regime. 🙁

Justice Department Issues Birthright Citizenship Update
Fight over Trump’s order to deny birthright citizenship heads toward Supreme Court, with 14th Amendment protections at stake

https://www.newsweek.com/justice-department-issues-birthright-citizenship-update-2110176