What’s next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court’s ruling

What’s next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court’s ruling
American President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the Oval Office of The White House in Washington, US. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 28 June 2025

What’s next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court’s ruling

What’s next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court’s ruling
  • US President Trump’s executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the US illegally or temporarily

WASHINGTON: The legal battle over President Donald Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration’s major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions.
Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent.
The high court’s ruling sends cases challenging the president’s birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president’s policy remains uncertain.
Here’s what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court’s ruling and what happens next.
What does birthright citizenship mean?
Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally.
The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” the amendment states.
Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the US to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the US after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the US, no matter their parents’ legal status.
It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of US law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the US to foreign diplomats.
Trump has long said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship
Trump’s executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the US illegally or temporarily. It’s part of the hard-line immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a “magnet for illegal immigration.”
Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” – saying it means the US can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally.
A series of federal judges have said that’s not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect.
“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” US District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom.
In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, US District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that “the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed” Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship.
Is Trump’s order constitutional? The justices didn’t say
The high court’s ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge’s authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president’s authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters.
But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump’s bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order.
“The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges’ decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,” said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor.
Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is “very confident” that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case.
Questions and uncertainty swirl around next steps
The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps.
The Supreme Court’s ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump’s order.
But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor.
“It’s not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,” said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court’s dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to “act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court’s prompt review” in cases “challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.”
Opponents of Trump’s order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief.
“Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. “By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.”


S. Africa protesters demand govt sever ties with Israel

S. Africa protesters demand govt sever ties with Israel
Updated 27 September 2025

S. Africa protesters demand govt sever ties with Israel

S. Africa protesters demand govt sever ties with Israel
  • Demonstration in Cape Town brings together several pro-Palestinian organizations, political parties, religious

CAPE TOWN: More than 3,000 people marched through Cape Town on Saturday, calling for South Africa to cut trade and diplomatic ties with Israel, including by shutting its embassy, over the war in Gaza.

Pretoria has been a leading critic of Israel’s actions in Gaza, bringing a case before the UN’s top court in December 2023 that argues Israel’s war in the Palestinian territory amounts to genocide, a charge Israel has denied.
Saturday’s demonstration brought together several pro-Palestinian organizations, political parties, and Muslim and Christian groups, marking one of the largest such turnouts in months.

The government has to take action on the kicking out of Israel’s ambassador and embassy from South Africa now.

Usuf Chikte, Campaign coordinator

Waving Palestinian flags and slogans such as “Don’t just feel bad, do something,” the procession handed over a petition of demands at parliament.
South Africa must “boycott, divest and sanction Israel, the same way as the world did for us,” said Palestine Solidarity Campaign coordinator, Usuf Chikte, referring to international measures used to pressure South Africa’s apartheid regime.
The government has to take action on the “kicking out of Israel’s ambassador and embassy from South Africa now,” and the country should be excluded from international sporting bodies such as FIFA, he told the crowd.
The petition also demanded that the government suspend its exports of coal to Israel and prosecute any South Africans who enlist in the Israeli military.
The war in Gaza broke out after militants attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Israel’s retaliatory military offensive has since killed at least 65,926 people.
Hamas said a mass walkout of delegations before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at the UN showed Israel’s “isolation” as a result of the Gaza war.
“Boycotting Netanyahu’s speech is one manifestation of Israel’s isolation and the consequences of the war of extermination,” Taher Al-Nunu, the media adviser to the head of Hamas’s political bureau, said in a statement.

 


Palestine Action prisoners say they face restrictions after group’s ban

Palestine Action prisoners say they face restrictions after group’s ban
Updated 27 September 2025

Palestine Action prisoners say they face restrictions after group’s ban

Palestine Action prisoners say they face restrictions after group’s ban
  • Those held on remand say they have been banned from wearing the keffiyeh

LONDON: Prisoners awaiting trial for alleged offenses linked to Palestine Action claim they have faced new restrictions since the group was proscribed earlier this year in the UK, a report in .

Those held on remand say they have been banned from wearing the keffiyeh, prevented from taking certain prison jobs, and in some cases had personal contacts removed from their call lists.

The restrictions have been applied despite the fact that none of the prisoners have been charged under terrorism legislation.

The UK’s Crown Prosecution Service has said, however, that their cases carry a “terrorism connection.”

Palestine Action, which has targeted sites of the Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems in the UK, was banned in July under the Terrorism Act.

The government said the decision was based on intelligence assessments, including one that cited “the use or threat of action involving serious damage to property.”

Teuta Hoxha, who is charged with criminal damage, aggravated burglary and violent disorder in relation to an action at Elbit Systems in Filton, near Bristol, said she was removed from her prison library job at HMP Peterborough following the proscription.

In a letter she received, the prison’s head of female services wrote: “In July 2025, the home secretary proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. The offences you are held on remand for are linked to Palestine Action and impact roles that are considered appropriate for you. The library orderly role is not considered appropriate.”

Hoxha, who recently staged a four-week hunger strike, said she also had a scarf she had knitted in the colours of the Palestinian flag confiscated.

She added that her sister had been taken off her call list because of her political views, after she and two other inmates connected to the Filton protest were categorized as terrorists by a joint extremism unit.

Audrey Corno, who is on bail awaiting two trials for alleged Palestine Action protests before the proscription, said: “She (Hoxha) was arrested in November 2024, way before proscription, so it’s completely banal for them to apply this retrospectively, and it’s completely punitive the way that they’re using this.”

Another defendant, Zoe Rogers, awaiting trial in the same case, said she was told a keffiyeh sent to her at HMP Bronzefield had been withheld “because it features branding associated with the Palestine Action Group.”

Supporters of Palestine Action say measures are being applied unfairly and retrospectively.

Sodexo, which runs HMP Peterborough, said it did not comment on individual cases but added: “We take our duty to ensure the safety of our prisons very seriously and will always act in line with national security guidance.”

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice added that all prisoners were subject to the same rules, saying: “Flags, symbols and other items that might threaten safety, order or security can be confiscated.”


18 dead, dozens missing in Nigeria mine collapse: local sources

18 dead, dozens missing in Nigeria mine collapse: local sources
Updated 27 September 2025

18 dead, dozens missing in Nigeria mine collapse: local sources

18 dead, dozens missing in Nigeria mine collapse: local sources
  • “We have managed to pull out 18 dead bodies from the pit,” Lawwali said
  • A dozen other miners were still trapped inside

GUSAU, Nigeria: Rescuers in Nigeria are searching for dozens of people missing after a boulder crashed onto an illegal mine during heavy rains, killing at least 18 people, local sources told AFP on Saturday.
The rock came crashing down on Thursday on the mine in the northern Zamfara state outside the Kadauri village in the Maru district, they said.
“We have managed to pull out 18 dead bodies from the pit and five other survivors who sustained various degrees of injuries,” Sani Lawwali, a miner who works in unauthorized pits, said from Kadauri.
A dozen other miners were still trapped inside and their fate remained unknown, said Lawwali, who took part in the rescue effort.
“The process is slow and laborious as we use our bare hands to chisel the end of the boulder to make holes for limited access into the pit,” he said.
Rescuers have asked for a bulldozer being used at a nearby road construction site to be brought in to help, but had not yet received a response from the company using it, Lawwali added.
Abubakar Nabube, a local community leader, confirmed the death toll of 18. He said that 15 of those killed came from the nearby Maikwanugga and Damaga villages.
“If no help comes from emergency agencies soon, none of those trapped would come out alive,” he said.
Zayyanu Ibrahim, a resident of Kadauri village said the collapse occurred at one of several newly dug sites in the recently established mining site.
“Dozens of miners were working in the pit while it heavily rained outside. A huge boulder at the mouth of the pit collapsed and buried miners inside,” said Ibrahim, who also confirmed the toll.
Sani Abdullahi, a councillor in the area, said it was difficult to say how many people there were in the pit at the time of the accident.
Officials from the Nigerian emergency agency NEMA did not respond to an AFP enquiry about the accident.
Zamfara, a poor agrarian state, is rich in gold deposits where illegal artisanal mining thrives in the countryside, despite several attempts by authorities to stop the practice.
The authorities have blamed illegal mining for the worsening of bandit violence, with criminal gangs getting money from protection fees they extort from miners.


Russian foreign minister: Any aggression against our country will be met with a ‘decisive response’

Russian foreign minister: Any aggression against our country will be met with a ‘decisive response’
Updated 27 September 2025

Russian foreign minister: Any aggression against our country will be met with a ‘decisive response’

Russian foreign minister: Any aggression against our country will be met with a ‘decisive response’
  • “Russia has never had and does not have any such intentions” of attacking European or NATO countries, Lavrov said
  • “Russia and the US bear a special responsibility for the state of affairs in the world, and for avoiding risks that could plunge humanity into a new war”

UNITED NATIONS: As new tensions rise between Russia and NATO powers, Moscow’s top diplomat insisted to world leaders Saturday that his nation doesn’t intend to attack Europe but will mount a “decisive response” to any aggression.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke at the UN General Assembly after weeks in which unauthorized flights into NATO’s airspace — intrusions the alliance blames on Russia — have raised alarm around Europe, particularly after NATO jets downed drones over Poland and Estonia said Russian fighter jets flew into its territory and lingered for 12 minutes.
Russia has denied that its planes entered Estonian airspace and has said the drones didn’t target Poland, with Moscow’s ally Belarus maintaining that Ukrainian signal-jamming sent the devices off course.
But European leaders see the incidents as intentional, provocative moves meant to rattle NATO and to suss how the alliance will respond. The alliance warned Russia this week that NATO would use all means to defend against any further breaches of its airspace.
At the UN, Lavrov maintained it’s Russia that’s facing threats.
“Russia has never had and does not have any such intentions” of attacking European or NATO countries, he said. “However, any aggression against my country will be met with a decisive response. There should be no doubt about this among those in NATO and the EU.”
Speaking three years into the Ukraine war
Lavrov spoke three years into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a war that the international community has broadly deplored.
US President Donald Trump said this week that he believed Ukraine can win back all the territory it has lost to Russia. It was a notable tone shift from a US leader who had previously suggested Ukraine would need to make some concessions and could never reclaim all the areas Russia has occupied since seizing the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and launching a full-scale invasion in 2022.
Just three weeks earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country and the US had a “mutual understanding” and that Trump’s administration “is listening to us.” Trump and Putin held a summit in Alaska in early August but left without a deal to end the war.
Sounding a notably open note from a country that has often lambasted the West, Lavrov noted the summit and said Russia had “some hopes” to keep talking with the United States.
“In the approaches of the current US administration, we see a desire not only to contribute to ways to realistically resolve the Ukrainian crisis, but also a desire to develop pragmatic cooperation without adopting an ideological stance,” the diplomat said, portraying the powers as counterparts of sorts: “Russia and the US bear a special responsibility for the state of affairs in the world, and for avoiding risks that could plunge humanity into a new war.”
To be sure, Lavrov still had sharp words for NATO, an alliance that includes the US, and for the West in general and the European Union.
Trump’s emerging view of Ukraine is part of the equation
Trump’s new view of Ukraine’s prospects came after he met with its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, on the sidelines of General Assembly on Tuesday — seven months after a televised blow-up between the two in the Oval Office. This time, the doors were closed, and the tenor was evidently different — “a good meeting,” as Zelensky described it in his assembly speech the next day.
For the fourth year in a row, Zelensky appealed to the gathering of presidents, prime ministers and other top officials to get Russia out of his country — and warned that inaction would put other countries at risk.
“Ukraine is only the first,” he said.
Russia has offered various explanations for the Ukraine war, among them ensuring Russia’s its own security after NATO expanded eastward over the years and drew closer with Ukraine after Russia’s move into Crimea. Russia also has said its offensive was meant to protect Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine.
Ukraine and the West have denounced Russia’s invasion as an unprovoked act of aggression.
Addressing the devastating war in Gaza, Lavrov condemned Hamas militants’ surprise attack in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, but said “there is no justification” for Israel’s killing of Palestinian civilians, including children.
The Hamas attack killed about 1,200 people in Israel; 251 were taken hostage. Israel’s sweeping offensive has killed more than 65,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. It does not give a breakdown of civilian and combatant deaths but says around half of those killed were women and children.
Lavrov also said there is no basis for any potential Israeli annexation of the West Bank, which Palestinians consider a key part of their future state, along with Gaza and east Jerusalem.
Israel hasn’t announced such a move, but several leading members in Netanyahu’s government have advocated doing so. Officials recently approved a controversial settlement project that would effectively cut the West Bank in two, a move critics say could doom chances for a Palestinian state.
Between the Gaza war and the situation in the West Bank, “we are essentially dealing with an attempt at a kind of coup d’etat aimed at burying UN decisions on the creation of a Palestinian state,” Lavrov said.
The international community has long embraced a “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejects the idea of a Palestinian state, saying it would reward Hamas — a position he reiterated Friday at the General Assembly.


Trump asks Supreme Court to uphold restrictions he wants to impose on birthright citizenship

Trump asks Supreme Court to uphold restrictions he wants to impose on birthright citizenship
Updated 27 September 2025

Trump asks Supreme Court to uphold restrictions he wants to impose on birthright citizenship

Trump asks Supreme Court to uphold restrictions he wants to impose on birthright citizenship
  • The Justice Department’s petition has been shared with lawyers for parties challenging the order, but is not yet docketed at the Supreme Court
  • Any decision on whether to take up the case probably is months away and arguments probably would not take place until the late winter or early spring

WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump ‘s administration is asking the Supreme Court to uphold his birthright citizenship order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.
The appeal, shared with The Associated Press on Saturday, sets in motion a process at the high court that could lead to a definitive ruling from the justices by early summer on whether the citizenship restrictions are constitutional.
Lower-court judges have so far blocked them from taking effect anywhere. The Republican administration is not asking the court to let the restrictions take effect before it rules.
The Justice Department’s petition has been shared with lawyers for parties challenging the order, but is not yet docketed at the Supreme Court.
Any decision on whether to take up the case probably is months away and arguments probably would not take place until the late winter or early spring.
“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”
Cody Wofsy, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said the administration’s plan is plainly unconstitutional.
“This executive order is illegal, full stop, and no amount of maneuvering from the administration is going to change that. We will continue to ensure that no baby’s citizenship is ever stripped away by this cruel and senseless order,” Wofsy said in an email.
Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term in the White House that would upend more than 125 years of understanding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.
In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down the executive order as unconstitutional, or likely so, even after a Supreme Court ruling in late June that limited judges’ use of nationwide injunctions.
While the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions, it did not rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The justices did not decide at that time whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.
But every lower court that has looked at the issue has concluded that Trump’s order violates or likely violates the 14th Amendment, which was intended to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship.
The administration is appealing two cases.
The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled in July that a group of states that sued over the order needed a nationwide injunction to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship being in effect in some states and not others.
Also in July, a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the citizenship order in a class-action lawsuit including all children who would be affected.
Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers who are in the country illegally, under long-standing rules. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.
The administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.