Closing summary
Our live coverage is ending now. In the meantime, you can find all of our live US politics coverage here. Here is a summary of the key developments from today:
A Republican effort to advance President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax bill hit a setback today, as hardline conservatives demanded larger Medicaid cuts in exchange for their support in a procedural vote. House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington, a Republican from Texas, said that the vote, scheduled for Friday, could be delayed amid internal opposition.
The Trump administration is planning to drop routine Covid-19 vaccine recommendations for pregnant women, children, and teenagers, the Wall Street Journal reports. The Department of Health and Human Services, led by secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, is expected to make the change as it introduces a new vaccine approval framework. The timing of the announcement is unclear but could come within days.
Donald Trump announced deals totaling over $200bn between the United States and the United Arab Emirates, including a $14.5bn commitment between Boeing, GE Aerospace and Etihad Airways, the White House said. The White House said Boeing and GE had received a commitment from Etihad Airways to buy 28 American-made Boeing 787 and 777X aircraft powered by GE engines.
Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship found no traction today at the supreme court, with justices taking issue at the attempt to sidestep the constitution. However, the conservative majority seemed open to limiting district judges’ ability to issue broad injunctions against federal policies.
Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized Donald Trump for calling America “stupid” as she joined hundreds of protestors outside the supreme court. Trump had earlier called the US “stupid” for upholding the 14th amendment. Pelosi said: “No Mr President, America isn’t stupid. It’s the Constitution of the United States which all of us in elective office take an oath to protect and defend.” She added: “This is about birthright, it’s about citizenship, it’s about due process.”
Trump arrived in the UAE for day three of his Middle East tour aimed at drumming up investment in the US and securing lucrative economic deals with the Gulf nations. He finished the day walking out of the presidential palace in Abu Dhabi with UAE President Sheik Mohammed after dinner.
Trump said he will “probably” return to Washington on Friday after a tour of three Gulf countries, although he said his destination is unknown as of yet. Trump earlier had hinted that he could stop in Istanbul for talks on Ukraine.
His secretary of state Marco Rubio echoed Trump’s earlier remarks that the only way a breakthrough will happen in the efforts to end Russia’s war in Ukraine would be through direct talks between the US president and Vladimir Putin after Moscow sent a second-tier team to talks taking place in Turkey. Rubio said he would travel to Istanbul for meetings on Friday with Turkey’s foreign minister Hakan Fidan and a Ukrainian delegation, but said he did not have high expectations for the talks.
The Trump administration said it will audit some $15bn in grants to power grid and manufacturing supply chain projects awarded during the Biden administration.
Facebook parent company Meta Platforms asked a federal judge today to throw out the US Federal Trade Commission’s case accusing it of an illegal social media monopoly, saying the agency failed to prove its case at a high-stakes antitrust trial.
At the trial, which began on 14 April in Washington, the FTC has sought to show that Meta, then known as Facebook, illegally dominated the market for social media platforms used to share updates with friends and family through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
The FTC is seeking to unwind those deals, which occurred more than a decade ago.
If granted, Meta’s request for a ruling on the evidence so far would bring a quicker end to the case, though US District judge James Boasberg could decline to take it up.
Meta is now presenting its own evidence at the trial, which may run into June.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that federal law enforcement is investigating a social media post made by former FBI Director James Comey that she and other Republicans suggest is a call for violence against President Donald Trump.
In an Instagram post, Comey wrote “cool shell formation on my beach walk” under a picture of seashells that appeared to form the shapes for “86 47.”
Merriam-Webster says 86 is slang meaning “to throw out,” “to get rid of” or “to refuse service to.” It notes: “Among the most recent senses adopted is a logical extension of the previous ones, with the meaning of ‘to kill.’ We do not enter this sense, due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.”
”Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey just called for the assassination of @POTUS Trump,” Noem wrote on X. “DHS and Secret Service is investigating this threat and will respond appropriately.”
Numerous Trump administration officials, including Noem, said Comey was advocating for the assassination of Trump, the 47th president.
The post has since been deleted. Comey subsequently wrote, “I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message. I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence.
A group of voters is suing Elon Musk’s America Pac, alleging that they weren’t paid what they were promised for signing a petition during President Trump’s 2024 campaign.
Three plaintiffs from Pennsylvania, Nevada and Georgia filed the lawsuit last week on behalf of anyone who is in the same situation. The voters are suing the Super Pac of not paying them in full for their signatures or for referring other voters to sign.
The petition declared support for the first and second amendments to the constitution.
Tiffany Trump, the president’s youngest daughter, announced the birth of her first child on Thursday: Alexander Trump Boulus. The boy is Trump’s 11th grandchild.
“Welcome to the world our sweet baby boy, Alexander Trump Boulos. We love you beyond words. Thank you for coming into our lives!,” Tiffany posted on X.
Tiffany Trump is married to business executive Michael Boulos. His father, Massad Boulos, serves as Trump’s senior adviser for Africa.
Judge dismisses trespassing charges against people crossing US-Mexico border
A federal judge in New Mexico on Thursday dismissed trespassing charges against dozens of immigrants caught in a new military zone on the US-Mexico border, marking a setback for Trump administration efforts to raise penalties for unlawful crossings into the US.
Chief US magistrate judge Gregory Wormuth began filing the dismissals late on Wednesday, ruling that immigrants did not know they were entering the military zone in New Mexico and therefore could not be charged, according to court documents and a defense attorney.
Assistant federal public defender Amanda Skinner said Wormuth dismissed trespassing charges against all immigrants who made initial court appearances on Thursday. The immigrants still face charges accusing them of crossing the border illegally.
“Judge Wormuth found no probable cause,” Skinner said in an email.
The New Mexico US attorney Ryan Ellison, who filed the first trespassing charges against migrants on 28 April, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Read the full story here:
Military commanders will be told to send transgender troops to medical checks to oust them
Military commanders will be told to identify troops in their units who are transgender or have gender dysphoria, then send them to get medical checks in order to force them out of the service, officials said Thursday.
A senior defense official laid out what could be a complicated and lengthy new process aimed at fulfilling President Donald Trump’s directive to remove transgender service members from the US military.
“Commanders who are aware of service members in their units who meet the criteria of this policy will direct individualized medical record reviews,” a senior defense official told reporters Thursday. “Any individuals who meet the criteria of the policy and do not voluntarily identify themselves and go through the voluntary separation process will be processed involuntarily unless they are granted a waiver.”
The new order to commanders relies on routine annual health checks that service members are required to undergo. Another defense official said the Defense Department has scrapped — for now — plans to go through troops’ health records to identify those with gender dysphoria.
Updated
A Wisconsin judge who was arrested by the FBI last month on allegations that she helped an undocumented immigrant avoid federal authorities pleaded not guilty.
Milwaukee County circuit judge Hannah Dugan entered the plea during a brief arraignment in federal court. US magistrate judge Stephen Dries scheduled her trial to begin on July 21. Dugan’s attorney, Steven Biskupic, told the court the trial is expected to last about a week.
Dugan is charged with obstruction and concealing an individual to prevent arrest. Prosecutors allege that on 18 April, she escorted Eduardo Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out of her courtroom through a back door after learning US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were in the courthouse to detain him for being in the country illegally.
If convicted, she faces up to six years in prison.
Donald Trump announced deals totaling over $200bn between the United States and the United Arab Emirates, as we reported earlier, including a $14.5bn commitment between Boeing, GE Aerospace and Etihad Airways.
The White House said Boeing and GE had received a commitment from Etihad Airways to buy 28 American-made Boeing 787 and 777X aircraft powered by GE engines.
“With the inclusion of the next-generation 777X in its fleet plan, the investment deepens the longstanding commercial aviation partnership between the UAE and the United States, fueling American manufacturing, driving exports,” the White House said.
Etihad has a fleet of around 100 aircraft, Reuters reports. Etihad CEO Antonoaldo Neves said last month that Etihad planned to add 20 to 22 new planes this year, as it aims to expand its fleet to more than 170 planes by 2030 and boost Abu Dhabi’s economic diversification strategy.
A Palestinian activist and Columbia University student can attend his college graduation amid the Trump administration’s efforts to deport him, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
Mohsen Mahdawi will be allowed to go to Columbia’s commencement on May 21. The student was recently released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention after being arrested during his naturalization hearing in April.
“Mr. Mahdawi is permitted to travel to New York State on or about May 15, 2025, returning to Vermont on or about May 25, 2025, in order to attend his graduation ceremony at Columbia University and related events,” judge Geoffrey Crawford wrote.
Mahdawi is a green-card holder targeted over his on-campus activism at Columbia.
Trump's tax bill hits setback in US Congress amid internal opposition
A Republican effort to advance President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax bill hit a setback today, as hardline conservatives demanded larger Medicaid cuts in exchange for their support in a procedural vote.
House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington, a Republican from Texas, said that the vote, scheduled for Friday, could be delayed amid internal opposition.
“There are concerns about having to get more information, which would potentially delay this to next week,” Arrington said.
According to Reuters, at least four hardliners on the panel threatened to block the measure, which would be enough to stop it from advancing, given Republicans’ 21-16 majority.
House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson insisted that the legislation was still on track for a floor vote next week, while other Republican leaders said disagreements between warring Republican factions had dwindled to a handful of issues.
“This is always what happens when you have a big bill like this. There’s always final details to work out, all the way up until the last minute, so we’re going to keep working,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said.
The FBI is disbanding a Washington-based team that investigates fraud and public corruption involving members of Congress and other federal officials, anonymous sources told the Associated Press.
An FBI official described the move as part of a broader reorganization of the bureau’s Washington field office. The agency will continue investigating corruption cases, the official said, though it’s unclear where the disbanded squad’s agents will be reassigned.
Other squads within the same office remain focused on public corruption cases in Washington, DC, and Virginia.
The move comes amid a larger shift in how the Trump administration handles public corruption enforcement. That includes efforts to downsize a Justice Department unit tasked with prosecuting fraud and corruption involving public officials.
Senate Republicans have blocked a Democratic resolution to require more transparency from the Trump administration about deportations to El Salvador, the AP reports.
The vote today was the latest attempt by minority Democrats to force Senate votes disapproving of Trump administration policy. The Senate rejected, 45-50, the motion to discharge the resolution from committee and consider it immediately on the floor.
“This information is critical at a time when the Trump Administration has admitted to wrongfully deporting people to El Salvador, and after Trump has said he’s also looking for ways to deport American citizens to the same terrible prisons,” said Virginia senator Tim Kaine, the lead sponsor of the resolution.
The resolution blocked by Republicans would force administration officials to report to Congress about what steps it is taking to comply with courts that have ruled on the deportations. Democrats have highlighted the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to the Central American country and who a Maryland judge has said should be returned to the US.
Former Justice Department pardon attorney Liz Oyer filed a lawsuit today in the US District Court in Washington DC, accusing the DOJ of unlawfully withholding records related to her firing and to a request to restore actor Mel Gibson’s gun rights.
Oyer believes she was terminated earlier this year because she refused to support restoring Gibson’s gun rights. Gibson lost those rights after being sentenced to probation for domestic violence in 2011.
The lawsuit claims the DOJ failed to release documents about her dismissal, despite several requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act.
Oyer submitted two such requests after her firing to get more information related to the Gibson case and records about her termination. The DOJ acknowledged receiving the requests, but it did not meet the legal deadlines for disclosure.
The complaint asks the court to order the DOJ to immediately release the records.
A group of Senate Democrats introduced a resolution to block a $1.9 billion arms sale to Qatar amid concerns over a luxury jet offered to President Donald Trump.
The resolution is a direct response to Trump’s desire to accept a $400 million private aircraft from Qatar, which is reportedly intended for use as a new Air Force One.
“This isn’t a gift out of the goodness of their hearts – it’s an illegal bribe that the President of the United States is champing at the bit to accept. That’s unconstitutional and not how we conduct foreign policy. Unless Qatar rescinds their offer of a ‘palace in the sky’ or Trump turns it down, I will move to block this arms sale,” said Democratic senator Chris Murphy in a statement.
Trump’s comments about accepting the jet has drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle, including Republican senator Ted Cruz and several Democrats.
Acting Fema chief David Richardson reiterated the agency’s intention to “return primacy to the states” in the upcoming hurricane season, which begins in 17 days, asserting that “indeed we are to some degree, to a great degree, ready for disaster season ’25.”
The comments, delivered in an agency-wide town hall on Thursday, come at a tumultuous time for Fema. Richardson replaced acting chief Cameron Hamilton last week, one day after Hamilton told a congressional committee that he did not think Fema should be eliminated.
It has lost roughly 2,000 full-time staff since Trump took office, about one-third of its full-time workforce. The acting chief also said FEMA will begin a “mission analysis” as part of a longer-term transformation to ensure the agency is only doing tasks it is assigned by law.
“We will not be doing anything that isn’t in the statute,” Richardson said. “If we are, we are wasting the American people’s money.”
Richardson also said states would in the future bear half the costs for responding to natural disasters, up from 25% under current cost-sharing levels.
Richardson said he believed the agency would likely cut its financial outlay to half of what a state needs to respond to a disaster as part of future reforms.
Trump administration plans to stop routine Covid-19 vaccine recommendations for pregnant women, children, WSJ reports
The Trump administration is planning to drop routine Covid-19 vaccine recommendations for pregnant women, children, and teenagers, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The Department of Health and Human Services, led by secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, is expected to make the change as it introduces a new vaccine approval framework. The timing of the announcement is unclear but could come within days.
Currently, the CDC recommends Covid-19 vaccination for everyone aged six months and older, including pregnant women. It’s also unclear whether HHS intends to fully revoke these recommendations or simply advise patients to consult their doctors about the risks and benefits.
Kennedy has been a longtime opponent of Covid vaccines. In 2021, he petitioned the FDA to revoke their emergency-use authorization. Several Trump allies working with him have also opposed the vaccines, especially mRNA shots and those approved for children.
The Guardian’s fossil fuels and climate reporter, Dharna Noor, reported on a study that shows how a rollback of credits would increase energy expenses for Americans:
Republican push to cut green tax credits would raise utility bills, new data shows
As House Republicans propose taking a sledgehammer to the green tax credits in Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, new data shows the loss of those incentives could lower some Americans’ household income by more than $1,000 a year due to increased utility bills and job losses.
Though Donald Trump has called climate spending a “waste” of money, the data – published by the industry group Clean Energy Buyers Association (Ceba) on Thursday – provides evidence that rescinding them would actually increase expenses for ordinary Americans in red and blue districts alike.
The rollback would increase the price of electricity and gas, the report found. And it would lead to job losses and “economic slowdown”, it says.
“Americans voted to combat the cost-of-living crisis in the 2024 election,” said Rich Powell, CEO of Ceba. “Now is the time for Congress to incentivize private investment in more sources of low-cost, reliable energy that fuels economic growth and jobs, helps the United States secure energy dominance and independence, and decreases energy costs nationwide.”
The new figures, crunched for Ceba by the National Economic Research Associates consulting firm, focus specifically on credits 48E and 45Y, for clean energy investment and production respectively. In a reconciliation package draft this week, the House ways and means committee proposed phasing out these incentives after 2031, and placing many new restrictions on them in the meantime.
Read the full story here:
US President Donald Trump marked his last scheduled night in the Middle East today. He has no other events planned this evening.
He finished the day walking out of the presidential palace in Abu Dhabi with UAE President Sheik Mohammed after dinner. They shook hands, and then Trump stepped into his limousine, per the Associated Press.
Once seated, he pumped his fist a few times and pointed at the UAE leader. Then the motorcade pulled away.
Trump announces over $200bn in deals with UAE, according to White House
Donald Trump announced deals totaling over $200bn between the United States and the United Arab Emirates, including a $14.5bn commitment between Boeing, GE Aerospace and Etihad Airways, the White House said.
We’ll have more details as soon as we get them.
Updated
The day so far
Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship found no traction today at the supreme court, with justices taking issue at the attempt to sidestep the constitution … but the high court’s conservative majority did appear inclined to find ways to limit district judges from issuing blanket injunctions against federal policies, and to find other means for people to - in the short term - stop the policy. Doing that would allow the Trump administration to enforce the executive order in parts of the country where specific courts haven’t blocked it – which would in turn create a patchwork of different citizenship rules in different states while legal challenges continue. In the words of New Jersey solicitor general Jeremy Feigenbaum, who represented 22 states that sued, US citizenship could “turn on and off” across state lines.
Several of the conservative justices suggested that class-action lawsuits could replace the need for nationwide injunctions, while liberal justices said the two are conceptually different and argued that a class-action lawsuit wouldn’t protect people who hadn’t sued or couldn’t afford to from the order, as a universal injunction does. Justice Brown Jackson said allowing enforcement of the executive order would create a “‘catch me if you can’ kind of regime, where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights”.
In all, the liberal justices appeared firmly in support of the lower court rulings, while the conservatives appeared open to limiting nationwide injunctions, despite having questions about the practical implications of allowing Trump’s executive order to go into effect and whether the 30-day timeline in the EO makes sense for something as complicated as redefining citizenship.
The supreme court’s ruling, which will have profound implications for the Trump administration’s use of executive power to advance its agenda, extending well beyond immigration policy, is expected by the end of June or the beginning of July.
Also today:
Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized Donald Trump for calling America “stupid” as she joined hundreds of protestors outside the supreme court. Trump had earlier called the US “stupid” for upholding the 14th amendment. Pelosi said: “No Mr President, America isn’t stupid. It’s the Constitution of the United States which all of us in elective office take an oath to protect and defend.” She added: “This is about birthright, it’s about citizenship, it’s about due process.”
Trump arrived in the UAE for day three of his Middle East tour aimed at drumming up investment in the US and securing lucrative economic deals with the Gulf nations.
Trump said he will “probably” return to Washington on Friday after a tour of three Gulf countries, although he said his destination is unknown as of yet. Trump earlier had hinted that he could stop in Istanbul for talks on Ukraine.
His secretary of state Marco Rubio echoed Trump’s earlier remarks that the only way a breakthrough will happen in the efforts to end Russia’s war in Ukraine would be through direct talks between the US president and Vladimir Putin after Moscow sent a second-tier team to talks taking place in Turkey. Rubio said he would travel to Istanbul for meetings on Friday with Turkey’s foreign minister Hakan Fidan and a Ukrainian delegation, but said he did not have high expectations for the talks.
The Trump administration said it will audit some $15bn in grants to power grid and manufacturing supply chain projects awarded during the Biden administration.
Updated
Trump administration to audit billions in energy grants awarded under Biden
The Trump administration said it will audit some $15bn in grants to power grid and manufacturing supply chain projects awarded during the Biden administration, Reuters reports.
Donald Trump has championed domestic production of oil, natural gas and coal while halting construction of an offshore wind farm and taking steps to ease regulations on fossil fuels. The Republican Trump administration last week proposed cutting billions of dollars in funding for projects including renewable energy and electric car chargers.
The DOE “has been hard at work reviewing the billions of dollars that were rushed out the door, particularly in the final days of the Biden administration, and what we have found is concerning,” energy secretary Chris Wright said.
Democratic former president Joe Biden’s energy department awarded billions of dollars in grants from the offices of grid deployment and manufacturing and energy supply chains.
The DOE will review materials including information companies had submitted in award applications and will ask companies for further information.
“If it is determined that projects do not meet Standards, DOE may modify the project or, DOE in its discretion, may terminate the project based on the outcome of DOE’s evaluation, as allowed by law,” said a memorandum issued by Wright.
“Any reputable business would have a process in place for evaluating spending and investments before money goes out the door, and the American people deserve no less from their federal government,” Wright said.
Bridget Bartol, who was a DOE deputy chief of staff during the Biden administration, said the move was harmful to projects that will increase energy supply. She said it seems the administration is trying to find a legally justifiable way to cancel projects it disagrees with.
The fact is awarded projects are extremely well vetted on a financial and technical basis. The vast majority of projects likely under review are aimed at building a stronger US industrial base, increasing electrons and building secure infrastructure.
The Department of Energy said it has begun requesting additional information to review the awards and is prioritizing large-scale commercial projects. The audit is in its initial phase and the energy department said the process may extend to other DOE program offices, which could mean putting billions of dollars worth of grants for other projects up for review.
Here’s our write-up of the supreme court hearing on the birthright citizenship dispute, from my colleagues Joseph Gedeon, Kira Lerner and Robert Tait in Washington.
Politico has some notable details from the state dinner attended last night in Doha by Trump and key figures from his administration.
The Qataris pulled out all the stops to commemorate Trump’s historic visit — this being the first official state visit to Doha by a US president, and the first state dinner hosted by the emir in honor of a US president. One person present at the dinner described two standout moments from the evening. The first was a big “happy birthday” shoutout from the president to White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. The Qatari orchestra then played “Happy Birthday” for her. The second was a performance from a surprise guest: The Qataris arranged for Lee Greenwood, one of Trump’s favorite singers, to attend and sing “God Bless the USA.
Even by the lavish standards of the events thrown by each of the nations Trump has visited during his Mideast trip, the Qataris’ decision to bring in Greenwood was a special touch. For Trump, it’s not just about cutting deals, it’s about garnering these sorts of grand performances of respect.
Updated
Marco Rubio had earlier echoed Trump’s earlier remarks that the only way a breakthrough will happen in the efforts to end Russia’s war in Ukraine would be through direct talks between the US president and Vladimir Putin after Moscow sent a second-tier team to talks taking place in Turkey.
Rubio, who spoke to reporters in Antalya, said he would travel to Istanbul for meetings on Friday with Turkey’s foreign minister Hakan Fidan and a Ukrainian delegation, but said he did not have high expectations for the talks.
It’s my assessment that I don’t think we’re going to have a breakthrough here until the president [Trump] and president Putin interact directly on this topic.
Updated
Trump says he's 'probably' returning to Washington Friday but destination unknown
Donald Trump said earlier that he will “probably” return to Washington on Friday after a tour of three Gulf countries, although he said his destination is unknown as of yet, Reuters reports.
Trump earlier had hinted that he could stop in Istanbul for talks on Ukraine.
“We’ll be leaving tomorrow, as you know. Almost destination unknown - because they’ll be getting calls: ‘Could you be here? Could you be there?’ But probably going back to Washington DC tomorrow,” Trump said before signing the guest book at the royal palace in Abu Dhabi during his trip to the United Arab Emirates.
Updated
Supreme court justices divided on whether to allow Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions to take effect
The court’s liberal justices seemed firmly in support of the lower court rulings that found the changes to citizenship that Trump wants to make would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years, the Associated Press reports.
Birthright citizenship is an odd case to use to scale back nationwide injunctions, Justice Elena Kagan said. “Every court has ruled against you,” she told solicitor general D John Sauer.
But if the government wins, it could still enforce the order against people who haven’t sued, Kagan said. “All of those individuals are going to win. And the ones who can’t afford to go to court, they’re the ones who are going to lose,” she said.
Several conservative justices who might be open to limiting nationwide injunctions also wanted to know the practical effects of such a decision as well as how quickly the court could reach a final decision on the Trump executive order.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed Sauer with a series of questions about how the federal government might enforce Trump’s order. “What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?” he said.
Sauer said they wouldn’t necessarily do anything different, but the government might figure out ways to reject documentation with “the wrong designation of citizenship”.
Kavanaugh continued to press for clearer answers, pointing out that the executive order only gave the government about 30 days to develop a policy. “You think they can get it together in time?” he said.
The Trump administration has complained vehemently that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was among several justices who raised the confusing patchwork of rules that would result if the court orders were narrowed and new restrictions on citizenship could temporarily take effect in 27 states. Some children might be “stateless”, she said, because they’d be denied citizenship in the US as well as the countries their parents fled to avoid persecution.
New Jersey solicitor general Jeremy Feigenbaum, representing 22 states that sued, said citizenship could “turn on and off” for children crossing the Delaware River between New Jersey, where affected children would be citizens, and Philadelphia, where they wouldn’t be. (Pennsylvania is not part of the lawsuit).
One possible solution for the court might be to find a way to replace nationwide injunctions with certification of a class action, a lawsuit in which individuals serve as representatives of a much larger group of similarly situated people. Such a case could be filed and acted upon quickly and might even apply nationwide.
But under questioning from Justice Amy Coney Barrett and others, Sauer said the Trump administration could well oppose such a lawsuit or potentially try to slow down class actions.
Supreme court arguments over emergency appeals are rare. The justices almost always deal with the underlying substance of a dispute. But the administration didn’t ask the court to take on the larger issue now and, if the court sides with the administration over nationwide injunctions, it’s unclear how long inconsistent rules on citizenship would apply to children born in the United States.
Updated
When will the supreme court justices rule on birthright citizenship dispute?
The supreme court is expected to issue a ruling on the government’s request before its term ends for summer recess, which is usually at the end of June or the beginning of July.
Meanwhile, in the Middle East, the UAE is keen on continuing to work with the US to achieve peace and stability in the region, president Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan told Donald Trump during a meeting at Qasr Al Watan in Abu Dhabi.
Updated
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggests class action lawsuits could replace need for nationwide injunctions
CNN has more on Kavanaugh’s comments indicating he could be open to siding with the Trump administration.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that class certification would suffice for allowing the challengers to get broad relief from Trump’s executive order, and brushed away the arguments from a lawyer for those challengers that relying on class certification as a tool raises many of the same issues as nationwide injunctions.
Kavanaugh asked Kelsi Corkran, who was arguing on behalf of individual families facing loss of birthright citizenship:
Doesn’t class action solve the problem?
Corkran countered that, with that option, many of the concerns raised about nationwide injunctions – such as forum shopping and foisting emergency disputes on the supreme court, would still exist.
That point didn’t seem to sway Kavanaugh. While he didn’t disagree, he stressed that the class actions might be the technically appropriate way of approaching the dispute under existing court rules. “We care about technicalities,” he said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pushed back on the idea, touted especially by Kavanaugh, saying nationwide injunctions are doing a “conceptually different thing” than class actions.
Class actions give those covered within the class an enforceable right against the government, she said.
But such rights are not granted to people nationwide with nationwide injunctions, she said. Instead, those people are just benefiting from an order that requires the government to stop doing an unlawful thing, she added.
Updated
Vice-president JD Vance and secretary of state Marco Rubio to attend inaugural mass of Pope Leo XIV
Away from the supreme court hearing for a moment, it was announced earlier that JD Vance will lead a US delegation to Vatican City to attend the inaugural mass of Pope Leo XIV on Sunday.
The vice-president and second lady Usha Vance will be joined by secretary of state Marco Rubio and his wife Jeanette Rubio.
Updated
Trump's executive order would allow US citizenship 'to turn on and off' over state lines, says New Jersey solicitor general
Per the Associated Press, New Jersey’s solicitor general Jeremy Feigenbaum described how the administration’s stance - that the birthright citizenship order should only be blocked in the places that sued - is unworkable.
He noted that people move to New Jersey from other states all the time. If they were born in a state where Trump’s order deprives them of citizenship and then move to New Jersey, they’d be eligible for benefits available to citizens but wouldn’t have been given the social security number required to access them.
Feigenbaum warned that never before in history has the country allowed “people’s citizenship to turn on and off” when you cross state lines.
Updated
Kelsi Corkran, the final lawyer of the day who is arguing on behalf of individual families facing loss of birthright citizenship, opens by saying the Trump order is “blatantly unlawful”. She cites the 14th amendment, common law, a century of precedent — and every court that’s looked at the issue.
She also defends the nationwide injunction blocking the order. The government claims courts can’t grant relief beyond the named plaintiffs. Corkran says they can, especially when fundamental rights and widespread harm are at stake.
This, she argues, is about preserving the legal status quo — not rewriting it.
Nancy Pelosi criticizes Trump for calling the US 'stupid' as she joins protesters
Nancy Pelosi, the former House of Representatives’ speaker and one of several Democrats to address the rally, said Trump had called the US “stupid” in upholding the 14th amendment.
In response, she said:
No Mr President, America isn’t stupid. It’s the Constitution of the United States which all of us in elective office take an oath to protect and defend.
Quoting the constitution, she recited:
All persons born are naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction there are other citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside, no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of immunities, of immunities of citizens of the United States.
“This is important,” she continued, “because this is what’s going on in the court as well, or nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of the law, or deny any person within this jurisdiction the equal protections of the law. So this is about birthright, it’s about citizenship, it’s about due process.”
But she warned that members of Congress could only do so much to defend the constitution and called for a popular groundswell to express itself.
“The fact is that we can just do so much in the Congress, and [although] we are committed to do that, the outside mobilization is very, very important,” she said.
Updated
Justice Brown Jackson summarizes Trump administration's argument as 'catch me if you can'
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Sauer on whether his opposition to a universal injunction in the citizen birthright case could lead to requiring every individual to file their own lawsuit in the case. She said:
The real concern, I think, is that your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view at least, into a ‘catch me if you can’ kind of regime, where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights.
Sauer countered that Jackson’s“catch me if you can” system negatively impacts the administration, pushing them to battle every jurisdiction where cases could pop up. He said:
I think the ‘catch me if you can’ problem operates in the opposite direction, where we have the government racing from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, having to sort of clear the table in order to implement a new policy.
Justice Samuel Alito says district judges act like 'monarchs' in their courtrooms
Justice Samuel Alito questioned New Jersey’s solicitor general on the broader implications of allowing nationwide injunctions, painting district judges as “monarchs” in their courtrooms.
“There are 680 district court judges, and they are dedicated and they are scholarly... but sometimes they’re wrong,” Alito said, describing what he called an “occupational disease” among judges who believe: “I am right and I can do whatever I want.”
The justice outlined a scenario where a single judge blocks a presidential action nationwide, appellate courts uphold it, and the Supreme Court faces emergency applications without full briefing.
And just before, Justice Neil Gorsuch similarly asked: “How would you get the merits of this case to us promptly?”
In response, Jeremy Feigenbaum acknowledged the practical concerns but maintained states have “never believed... that [nationwide injunctions] were categorically off the table” regardless of which administration’s policies were affected.
“Sometimes you are going to have cases where it is impossible to remedy the state’s own injuries, and the alternatives are not practically or legally workable,” Feigenbaum argued.
Updated
New Jersey’s solicitor general Jeremy Feigenbaum has begun arguments defending the nationwide block on Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order, leaning on how hard it would be to get state-by-state implementation.
“This injunction was properly designed to ensure states would get relief for our own Article Three injuries,” Feigenbaum told the justices.
Feigenbaum argues the government’s approach “would require citizenship to vary based on the state in which you’re born, or even turn on or off when someone crosses state lines” – creating what he called “serious and unanswerable questions” for both federal and state authorities.
“Since the 14th amendment, our country has never allowed American citizenship to vary based on the state in which someone resides,” he said.
When questioned about the historical basis for nationwide injunctions, Feigenbaum acknowledged they should be “reserved for narrow circumstances” but insisted this case clearly meets that threshold.
Updated
Amy Coney Barrett might not side with conservative judges
During early questioning, conservative justices John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh indicated that they might possibly side with Donald Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship.
However, Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed by Trump in 2020, questioned solicitor general John Sauer on the practical implications of allowing Trump’s executive order to go into effect.
Updated
Solicitor General John Sauer, responding to justice Kavanaugh, argued that there has been a flurry of nationwide injunctions recently, claiming 40 such orders had been issued in just the past four months.
Harkening back to the New Deal era in the 1930s, Sauer noted that one policy then prompted lawsuits from more than 1,000 individual plaintiffs – suggesting an alternative to blanket nationwide blocks.
Kavanaugh did not appear to be buying it, and questioned whether the 30-day timeline in Donald Trump’s executive order made any sense for something as complicated as redefining citizenship.
Outside the court, demonstrators, chanting slogans in English and Spanish, held up placards saying: “Birthright Citizenship isn’t a conditional privilege.”
Here are some pictures of the scenes outside the supreme court:
About 45 minutes in of hearing arguments, justice Elena Kagan dismissed the government’s legal strategy on nationwide injunctions.
“In a case in which the government is losing constantly... it’s up to you whether to take this case to us,” Kagan said, adding: “If I were in your shoes, there’s no way I’d bring this case.”
Updated
Justice Thomas comes out against nationwide injuctions
Justice Clarence Thomas unsurprisingly came out against nationwide injunctions, suggesting they represent a relatively recent and unnecessary development in American law.
“The country survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions,” Thomas said.
He implied the judicial tool is not essential for a functioning legal system, which aligns with the conservative’s long-held opinions against nationwide injunctions. In Trump v. Hawaii during the president’s first term, Thomas called them “legally and historically dubious”.
Updated
Justice Kagan questions practicality of limiting court powers, asking if everyone affected should bring their own lawsuit?
Justice Elena Kagan pressed the administration on the practicality of limiting nationwide injunctions - getting into the concerns about citizenship rights becoming a logistical nightmare that could unfold across the country.
“Does every single person that is affected by this EO have to bring their own suit?” Kagan asked. “Are there alternatives? How long does it take?”
It highlighted a fundamental problem with narrowing injunctions in a case involving constitutional rights:
How do we get to the result that there is a single rule of citizenship that is the rule that we’ve historically applied rather than the rule the EO would have us do?
The justice is concerned that without nationwide injunctions, some newborns might be denied citizenship while others receive it, depending on where they’re born or whether their parents could afford legal representation.
Updated
Solicitor general calls nationwide injuctions a 'nuclear weapon' on executive power
Solicitor general D John Sauer arguing on behalf of the administration said that nationwide injunctions against presidential actions lack historical precedent and represent an unprecedented “nuclear weapon” on executive power.
Sauer claimed the original 1789 Judiciary Act, which established federal courts’ powers to hear “suits in equity”, never contemplated the sweeping judicial blocks now regularly issued against presidential actions.
“If freezing a likely insolvent debtor’s assets is ‘a nuclear weapon in the law,’” Sauer said. “I don’t know what this is where repeatedly—40 times in this administration—we’re being enjoined against the entire world.”
Updated
Flores said the supreme court had to carefully consider the impact of narrowing the effect of the district court’s injunction.
“Iif they decide to limit the injunction, then suddenly you will have children born who may be stateless, who may be undocumented, and that’s unprecedented,” she said. “There’s no system in place to then go back and retroactively make sure children born in this interim period would be citizens. it’s not a simple technical legal question, it’s it really could split our country in half.”
Andrea Flores, vice-president of immigration policy at Forward US, told the Guardian that the Trump administration’s attempt to strike down nationwide injunctions risked leaving the US with “a patchwork system” whereby birthright citizenship was accepted in some states but not others.
By limiting the effect of the district court’s nationwide injunction, she said, “it is possible that an unconstitutional order can go into effect in 28 states. And so that would create a different scheme, where, in one state, say, in South Carolina, if you’re the child of an immigrant, you’re not a citizen, but in North Carolina and you’re the child of an immigrant, you are a citizen. So it would create a patchwork citizenship process.”
She added: “There are pros and cons of a district court issuing a nationwide injunction, but this is a perfect case of when it would cause more chaos and more confusion and real human impact if they decided to limit it.”
The text of the 14th amendment is “clear and settled law,” she added, calling the legal underpinning of Trump’s executive order “a fringe theory.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor cites four supreme court precedents she says Trump's birthright citizenship executive order violates
Justice Sonia Sotomayor opened the challenge to the administration’s position against birthright citizenship by citing four supreme court precedents she believes Trump’s executive order violates.
“Because the argument here is that the president is violating ... not just one, but by my count, four established supreme court precedents,” Sotomayor said during oral arguments.
She listed the cases: one establishing that “fealty to a foreign sovereign doesn’t defeat your entitlement to citizenship as a child”, another confirming citizenship for children born to parents in the US illegally, a third establishing citizenship rights for children born on US territory even when parents were “stopped at the border”, and a fourth protecting citizenship for children even when “parents secured citizenship illegally”.
“You are claiming that not just the supreme court, that both the supreme court and no lower court can stop an executive from universally violating those holdings by this court,” Sotomayor said.
Updated
Hundreds of protesters gather outside supreme court
Hundreds of protesters are congregating outside the US supreme court for a rally spearheaded by immigration group Casa. One speaker, Andy Zee from Refuse Fascism, called for Donald Trump to be removed from the White House, saying: “Trump must go now. Too many people in this country think it can’t happen here, “ he said in a speech.
“The ability to hold rallies like this hangs in the balance. The rule of law really is under assault. Fascism means whole groups are being demonised.”
He said the Republican party had been captured by what he called “Trump Maga fascism.” Meanwhile, the Democrats were being too moderate by “upholding the norms that Trump is shredding” while hoping it could win back power in future elections.
“This is dangerous bullshit,” he said.” Do you think we are going to have a fair election in 2026, seriously? Not as long as Trump feels threatened. It won’t happen. What we need to do now is spread the message that Trump must go now.”
Updated
Supreme court oral arguments begin
The hearing is now underway, with justices hearing oral arguments about enforcement of the Trump administration’s birthright citizenship executive order.
The main question for the justices is whether lower courts should have the authority to block that order on a nationwide basis.
But while the Trump administration has framed this as an effort to limit the scope of such injunctions, ruling in its favor would allow the government to widely enforce its highly controversial birthright citizenship order which lower judges have ruled “blatantly unconstitutional”.
Updated
The Trump administration is not the first to complain about nationwide injunctions, with both Democratic and Republican presidents having seen their policies stymied by them. Per NPR:
But University of Notre Dame law professor Samuel Bray admits there is little wiggle room in terms of a principle that would weed out unjustified nationwide injunctions, and leave in place the ones that are needed to preserve the status quo and prevent the continuation of harm.
Still, he thinks nationwide injunctions, powered by overt judge shopping—in which partisans often bring cases before judges they think will agree with them—do more harm than good. And he contends that because Trump is so “flagrantly wrong” about birthright citizenship, the court could acknowledge that but use Thursday’s case to get rid of nationwide injunctions altogether.
There are three cases, which the court will hear consolidated as one today: Trump v CASA, filed by immigrants’ rights groups and several pregnant women in Maryland; Trump v Washington, filed in Seattle by a group of four states; and Trump v New Jersey, filed in Massachusetts by a group of 18 states, the District of Columbia and San Francisco.
Updated
Supreme court to hear historic arguments in birthright citizenship dispute
The supreme court will shortly hear oral arguments in the long-simmering issue of Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship through a radical interpretation of the US constitution’s 14th amendment – a once-fringe issue that is now taking centre stage in the nation’s highest court.
The arguments, however, will relate primarily to a different issue entirely – a legal question on the power of judges to rein in the power of the executive branch by blocking presidential policies across the country. The outcome will have profound implications for the Trump administration’s use of executive power to advance its agenda, extending well beyond immigration policy.
The supreme court – which has a 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump appointees – is focusing only on the question of whether lower-court judges have the authority to block nationwide the Trump administration’s policies, as has happened in three cases relating to birthright citizenship. On this, it is possible the president could secure a huge victory affecting many of the lawsuits against his administration, even if the court ultimately strikes down his underlying birthright citizenship executive order.
Arguments were due to start at 10am ET. You can listen along here.
Updated
What have the supreme court justices previously said about universal injuctions?
We’ll of course get a clearer sense of what the supreme court is likely to do once oral arguments get under way later, but several of the justices have in the past questioned the appropriateness of the power of individual judges to issue nationwide injunctions.
A caveat is that this doesn’t necessarily suggest that all justices who have voiced concerns are aligned with conservative calls to end universal injunctions, as some concerns are more constitutional while others are more pragmatic, but they are worth noting.
One case in which the court majority avoided the issue was the challenge to the Trump’s first-term travel ban targeting mostly majority Muslim countries. The supreme court ultimately upheld the policy, but in a concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative, warned that court might need to end the practice of nationwide injunctions more generally.
In a concurring opinion, he called universal injunctions “legally and historically dubious”. Moreover, he added, they are “beginning to take a toll on the federal court system – preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the executive branch”.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, another conservative, echoed the sentiment in another case, writing that the “routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable”. Joined by Thomas and another conservative justice, Samuel Alito, Gorsuch wrote an opinion concurring in the court’s order allowing Idaho to generally enforce its ban on gender-affirming care for minors. He called the justices’ decision to put the lower court’s order on hold “to the extent it applies to nonparties, which is to say it provides ‘universal’ relief” – “a welcome development”.
Per the Scotus blog: “In March of this year, Alito also weighed in, in a dissent from the court’s denial of the Trump administration’s request to lift an order by a federal judge requiring the state department and USAID to pay nearly $2bn in foreign-aid reimbursements for work that had already been done. He observed – in an opinion joined by Thomas, Gorsuch and conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh – that the government ‘has a strong argument that the district court’s order violates the principle that a federal court may not issue an equitable remedy that is “more burdensome than necessary to” redress the plaintiff’s injuries’. But in this case, Alito wrote, the district judge’s order ‘functions as a “universal injunction defying these foundational” limits on equitable jurisdiction’.
“And in a statement regarding the court’s rejection of Florida’s request to be allowed to enforce a state law that makes it a misdemeanor to allow children at drag performances, Kavanaugh (joined by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett) suggested that the power of district courts to enter a universal injunction ‘is an important question that could warrant our review in the future’.”
But there isn’t a simple liberal-conservative divide on this issue. Speaking at a university event in 2022, Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, addressed how nationwide injunctions – when coupled with forum shopping – were hamstringing administrations of both parties, asserting: “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”
And even on the court’s left wing, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson acknowledged in a 2024 opinion that universal injunctions raised “contested and difficult” questions, but stressed the answer was not “straightforward” and that the court should take its time in resolving it.
Updated
Here’s Trump’s full post:
Big case today in the United States Supreme Court. Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the ‘SUCKERS’ that we are! The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows – But the drug cartels love it! We are, for the sake of being politically correct, a STUPID Country but, in actuality, this is the exact opposite of being politically correct, and it is yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America. Birthright Citizenship is about the babies of slaves. As conclusive proof, the Civil War ended in 1865, the Bill went to Congress less than a year later, in 1866, and was passed shortly after that. It had nothing to do with Illegal Immigration for people wanting to SCAM our Country, from all parts of the World, which they have done for many years. It had to do with Civil War results, and the babies of slaves who our politicians felt, correctly, needed protection. Please explain this to the Supreme Court of the United States. Again, remember, the Civil War ended in 1865, and the Bill goes to Congress in 1866 – We didn’t have people pouring into our Country from all over South America, and the rest of the World. It wasn’t even a subject. What we had were the BABIES OF SLAVES. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Good luck with this very important case. GOD BLESS THE U.S.A.!
Updated
'We are a stupid country': Trump weighs in ahead of supreme court arguments on birthright citizenship
Despite being half a world away with a packed schedule, Donald Trump found the time to weigh in on the upcoming supreme court arguments, posting on his Truth Social platform that “Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the ‘SUCKERS’ that we are!”
He said the current policy makes the US “a stupid country”, adding: “The drug cartels love it!”
He went on to outline the argument his administration has been making since he signed his executive order trying to end birthright citizenship – that the 14th amendment was meant to grant citizenship to the children of enslaved people. “It had nothing to do with Illegal Immigration,” he wrote.
Updated
Donald Trump arrives in UAE on final leg of Middle East tour
Here are some pictures from when Donald Trump arrived in the United Arab Emirates a short while ago, where he was greeted by the UAE president, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, at the Abu Dhabi airport. It’s day three of Trump’s Middle East trip aimed at drumming up investment in the US and securing lucrative economic deals with the oil-rich Gulf nations.
Updated
Trump says 'nothing will happen' on Ukraine until he and Putin get together
Donald Trump said there won’t be movement on Ukraine peace talks until he and Russian president Vladimir Putin get together.
“Nothing’s going to happen until Putin and I get together,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One just before landing in Dubai on the third stop of his Middle East trip.
Russia’s failure to send a top-level delegation to the scheduled Ukraine talks in Turkey on Thursday has plunged prospects for the talks and reduced optimism that any deal could be reached quickly.
As the US prepares for what could be another record-breaking hot summer, Donald Trump and his pick to lead the nation’s workplace safety agency are expected to derail the creation of the nation’s first-ever federal labor protections from extreme heat.
Trump in February nominated David Keeling to lead the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha). Keeling formerly served as an executive at the United Parcel Service (UPS) and Amazon – both of which have faced citations from Osha for worker injuries and deaths amid heat exposure. The companies deny the deaths were heat-related.
Under Keeling, Osha is expected to thwart heat protections. After years of pressure from organized labor, the agency in 2021 began working to create a federal heat standard, and last year rolled out a draft rule aimed at requiring access to water, shade, breaks and training which the Biden administration estimated would protect 36 million workers.
What if the supreme court sides with Trump?
Depending on what the majority opinion eventually says, the supreme court could be flirting with disaster for families across the nation.
If, for example, the justices limit the current injunctions against Trump’s executive order to only apply to people and entities involved in the lawsuits challenging the policy, that could create significant logistical issues.
Babies born to immigrants at the same hospital may have different citizenship statuses, depending on whether their parents had the ability to engage an attorney and participate in litigation. Or a newborn in New Jersey could derive birthright citizenship, while one in Mississippi didn’t.
And the ensuing turmoil could render birth certificates essentially useless for proving US citizenship, even for children born to Americans.
Why is the supreme court involved now?
The justices are hearing arguments after three lower courts issued nationwide injunctions, pausing enforcement of Trump’s executive order.
So far, no newborns have had their right to US citizenship revoked by the policy change, thanks to these nationwide injunctions – which are viewed as controversial by some of the justices, from the conservative and liberal ends of the bench – that have been upheld on appeal. But Trump hopes to change that.
Updated
Could Trump actually end birthright citizenship?
Maybe – although probably not, and almost definitely not through executive order.
The Citizenship Clause is part of the US constitution, the nation’s founding document. Generally, legal scholars strongly suggest that neither executive action nor legislation should be able to supersede the constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship for those born on US soil.
According to the Harvard Law professor Gerald Neuman:
The president has no authority to change the citizenship rule at all. Congress can change the rule, but only to the extent of making it broader. Neither Congress nor the president can reduce it below the constitutional minimum.
However, because the legal precedent set by Wong Kim Ark well over a century ago is so fundamental to how birthright citizenship relates to the children of immigrants, the current court battles erupting from Trump’s executive order could – in the most extreme scenario – jeopardize the US’s understanding of birthright citizenship as we know it.
In fact, forcing the supreme court to reinterpret the 14th amendment is probably part of the long game that the Trump administration is playing with its executive order, although we are not there yet. And even with the White House raring for a fight, a complete overhaul of case law around birthright citizenship remains improbable.
The other way to override an existing part of the constitution would be to ratify another amendment, which would require a level of political support that is unlikely for such a fringe, rightwing issue.
Updated
Who is not a US citizen, even if they are born in the US?
There are exceedingly rare exceptions to the principle of jus soli, where people born in the US are not automatically granted US citizenship.
Until the enactment of a law in 1924, Indigenous peoples born in the US were excluded. In 2021, the supreme court decided that people born in American Samoa’s unincorporated territories are not automatically guaranteed birthright citizenship, unless Congress enacts legislation. And the children of foreign diplomats – or, in a more violent scenario, the children of enemy occupiers – also lack a right to US citizenship by birth.
Updated
What is the legal basis for birthright citizenship in the US?
As a concept, jus soli comes from English common law, which held centuries ago that people born in England were natural subjects.
But unrestricted birthright citizenship in the US that includes people of color – not just white Americans – derives from the US constitution. In 1857, the supreme court ruled that Black descendants of enslaved people could not be US citizens. To right this injustice, just over a decade later, the US ratified the 14th amendment.
The first line of the 14th amendment reads:
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.
Known as the Citizenship Clause, this phrase – alongside a number of related statutes and regulations – establishes the modern basis for birthright citizenship.
Updated
The US supreme court will hear arguments on Thursday in a dispute that could significantly expand presidential power despite ostensibly focusing on Donald Trump’s contentious executive order ending birthright citizenship.
The trio of cases before the court stem from the president’s January executive order that would deny US citizenship to babies born on American soil if their parents aren’t citizens or permanent residents. The plan is likely to be ultimately struck down, as it directly contradicts the 14th amendment, which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”.
But Trump’s legal team isn’t asking the supreme court to rule on whether his policy is constitutional. Instead, they are challenging whether lower court judges should be able to block presidential orders nationwide – a move that could overall weaken judicial checks on executive power.
Three federal judges have blocked the policy nationwide, including US district judge Deborah Boardman, who ruled that “no court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation.”
But the justice department argues these “nationwide injunctions” unfairly tie the president’s hands. “These injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the Trump Administration,” the department wrote in a March filing. The administration is asking for the scope of the injunctions to be narrowed, so they only apply to the people, organizations or states that sued.
If Trump prevails, his administration could potentially enforce his desired citizenship policy in parts of the country where specific courts haven’t blocked it – creating different citizenship rules in different states while legal challenges continue.
Supreme court to hear birthright citizenship dispute
Good morning and welcome to our blog covering US politics as the supreme court prepares to hear arguments over birthright citizenship in a case that could significantly expand Donald Trump’s power.
As part of a sweeping crackdown on both undocumented and legal immigrants, Trump signed an executive order on inauguration day that tried to end, for some, the right to US citizenship for children born in the United States.
The order was blocked as “blatantly unconstitutional”, in one judge’s opinion, after immediate legal challenges. Appeals failed and four months later the issue has made its way to the increasingly divided US supreme court as an emergency case.
But Trump’s legal team isn’t asking the supreme court to rule on whether his policy is constitutional. Instead, they are challenging whether lower court judges should be able to block presidential orders nationwide – a move that could overall weaken judicial checks on executive power.
If Trump prevails, his administration could enforce his desired citizenship policy in parts of the country where specific courts haven’t blocked it – creating different citizenship rules in different states while legal challenges continue.
You can read this useful backgrounder here:
We’ll be following all the developments here. And in other news:
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will not attend what may be the first direct peace talks between Moscow and Kyiv in three years, scheduled for Thursday, Reuters reports. Instead, the Kremlin will send a team of technocrats. A US official said the US president would not attend, despite earlier comments suggesting he was considering the trip.
Health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr described the downsizing of his department as necessary cost-cutting measures as he defended his spending plans under Donald Trump’s budget proposal. The plans include an $18bn cut to National Institutes of Health funding and $3.6bn from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Kennedy’s back-to-back testimonies before House and Senate committees were his first appearances before lawmakers since his confirmation in February.
Protesters interrupted Robert F Kennedy Jr’s opening remarks before the Senate health committee this afternoon, shouting: “RFK kills people with Aids!” The health secretary was visibly startled and jumped from his chair when protesters began shouting, before being removed by Capitol police.
Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence, has fired the two highest-ranking officials at the National Intelligence Council just weeks after the council released an assessment that contradicted Donald Trump’s justification for using the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members without due process. Mike Collins was serving as acting chair of the National Intelligence Council before he was dismissed alongside his deputy, Maria Langan-Riekhof. They each had more than 25 years of intelligence experience.
A Russian-born researcher at Harvard University who has been held for weeks in an immigration detention center in Louisiana has been criminally charged with attempting to smuggle frog embryo samples into the US. Federal prosecutors in Boston announced the smuggling charge against Kseniia Petrova, 31, hours after a federal judge in Vermont heard arguments in a lawsuit she filed that argues the Trump administration has been unlawfully detaining her.
The Trump administration’s commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, and his family have had extensive business interests linked to El Salvador, whose authoritarian leader Nayib Bukele has grown close to the White House and who has courted controversy by imprisoning people deported from the US in an aggressive immigration crackdown. El Salvador also plays host to a booming cryptocurrency and new media industry, which has numerous ties to Donald Trump allies who are seeking to make money from various ventures which have sometimes drawn the attention of authorities or ethics watchdogs.
Donald Trump has doubled down on why he wants to accept a luxury Boeing 747 from Qatar, a country where he traveled to today to negotiate business deals, with the US president portraying the $400m aircraft as an opportunity too valuable to refuse. “The plane that you’re on is almost 40 years old,” Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity during an Air Force One interview on the Middle East trip, where he is also visiting Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
