The conference's opposition to stripping folks of birthright citizenship "is motivated by their firmly held belief that each person is endowed by God with an inherent dignity that confers certain universal, inviolable, and inalienable rights."
Justice Department Struggles Under Weight of Immigration Crackdown; Current and former prosecutors say they can relate to the government lawyer who told judge she was overwhelmed": Sadie Gurman and Hannah Critchfield of The Wall Street Journal have this report.
As the Supreme Court has finally moved toward looking at the merits of President Donald Trump's attempts to end birthright citizenship, the famous Wong Kim Ark case of 1868 has loomed particularly large. While that precedent certainly bolsters the case for striking down Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, there is an often-ignored series of cases from much more recently that speak even more directly to the issues in this case.
Discussions of race are everywhere and nowhere in 2025. On one hand, President Donald Trump is openly insulting Somali immigrants, describing entire nations as "shithole" countries, and insisting that the most persecuted class of humans are white South Africans. On the other, none of this is actually registering as anything other than Trump being Trump, and so when the Supreme Court agrees to revisit a foundational doctrine like birthright citizenship, too many of us shrug it off.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dropped a legal smackdown on President Donald Trump's efforts to revoke birthright citizenship, eviscerating the administration's arguments in a 100-page opinion. One of the first executive orders Trump signed to kick off his second term was one that purported to end birthright citizenship. It was swiftly challenged in court by multiple plaintiffs in multiple states and by several blue state governments as well.
The president attempted for the first time since the Civil War to rewrite the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution in a way that said babies born on U.S. soil were not in fact entitled to the rights and privileges of United States citizenship.
The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree.
U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Laplante has granted class action status to immigrant mothers affected by Trump's birthright citizenship executive order, covering all current and future babies born to undocumented mothers.
Judge LaPlante's class action ruling encompasses over 150,000 infants annually facing the critical question of birthright citizenship, emphasizing rights protection against Trump's policy.
The Trump administration pressed five African presidents to take in migrants from other countries when they are deported by the US, according to two officials.
The Executive Order threatens these newborns' identity as United States citizens and interferes with their enjoyment of the full privileges, rights, and benefits that come with U.S. citizenship.
You can't require some states to issue birth certificates to birthright citizens and prohibit other states from doing so. The idea that a baby may or may not be a citizen depending on where she or he is born is cruel and nonsensical.
