Supreme Court grapples with nationwide orders blocking birthright citizenship ban
The Supreme Court appeared divided Thursday about whether to scale back nationwide orders that have blocked President Donald Trump's ban on birthright citizenship, in a case with implications for judicial power and what it means to be an American.
After more than two hours of oral argument, it was unclear how the high court would resolve the issue, with liberal justices asserting that Trump's order to deny automatic citizenship for U.S.-born babies is at odds with more than a hundred years of Supreme Court precedent.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Boston Globe
5 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump says his administration is working with Harvard on ‘mindbogglingly HISTORIC' possible deal
'Many people have been asking what is going on with Harvard University and their largescale improprieties that we have been addressing, looking for a solution,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'We have been working closely with Harvard, and it is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so.' Advertisement 'If a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be 'mindbogglingly' HISTORIC, and very good for our Country. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' Trump added. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up A Harvard spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday afternoon. Trump's post came roughly an hour aftera federal judge in Boston In May, Harvard filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security after the agency revoked the university's certification to enroll international students and process their visa documents. The university argued the move was unlawful retaliation for refusing to implement the administration's changes to its policies on campus protests, admissions, and hiring. Within hours of the lawsuit, a judge issued a temporary order blocking the agency's action. Advertisement Citing broad concerns with university leadership and the climate on campus at the nation's most prestigious university, the Trump administration has escalated pressure on Harvard over the last few months, opening several federal investigations, freezing billions in funding, pushing to strip the university of its tax-exempt status, and attempting to bar it from enrolling international students. Alyssa Vega can be reached at


Chicago Tribune
5 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Senate parliamentarian deals blow to GOP plan to gut consumer bureau in tax bill
WASHINGTON — Republicans suffered a sizable setback Friday on one key aspect of President Donald Trump's big bill after their plans to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other provisions from the Senate Banking Committee ran into procedural violations with the Senate parliamentarian. Republicans in the Senate proposed zeroing-out funding for the CFPB, the landmark agency set up in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, to save $6.4 billion. The bureau had been designed as a way to better protect Americans from financial fraud, but has been opposed by many GOP lawmakers since its inception. The Trump administration has targeted the CFPB as an example of government over-regulation and overreach. The findings by the Senate parliamentarian's office, which is working overtime scrubbing Trump's overall bill to ensure it aligns with the chamber's strict 'Byrd Rule' processes, signal a tough road ahead. The most daunting questions are still to come, as GOP leadership rushes to muscle Trump's signature package to floor for votes by his Fourth of July deadline. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., the chairman of the Banking Committee that drafted the provisions in question, said in a statement, 'My colleagues and I remain committed to cutting wasteful spending at the CFPB and will continue working with the Senate parliamentarian on the Committee's provisions.' For Democrats, who have been fighting Trump's 1,000-page package at every step, the parliamentarian's advisory amounted to a significant win. 'Democrats fought back, and we will keep fighting back against this ugly bill,' said Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Banking Committee, who engineered the creation of the CFPB before she was elected to Congress. Warren said that GOP proposals 'are a reckless, dangerous attack on consumers and would lead to more Americans being tricked and trapped by giant financial institutions and put the stability of our entire financial system at risk–all to hand out tax breaks to billionaires.' The parliamentarian's rulings, while advisory, are rarely, if ever ignored. With the majority in Congress, Republicans have been drafting a sweeping package that extends some $4.5 trillion tax cuts Trump approved during his first term, in 2017, that otherwise expire at the end of the year. It adds $350 billion to national security, including billions for Trump's mass deportation agenda. And it slashes some $1 trillion from Medicaid, food stamps and other government programs. All told, the package is estimated to add at least $2.4 trillion to the nation's deficits over the decade, and leave 10.9 million more people without health care coverage, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's review of the House-passed package, which is now undergoing revisions in the Senate. The parliamentarian's office is responsible for determining if the package adheres to the Byrd Rule, named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who was considered one of the masters of Senate procedure. The rule essentially bars policy matters from being addressed in the budget reconciliation process. Senate GOP leaders are using the budget reconciliation process, which is increasingly how big bills move through the Congress, because it allows passage on a simple majority vote, rather than face a filibuster with the higher 60-vote threshold. But if any of the bill's provisions violate the Byrd Rule, that means they can be challenged at the tougher 60-vote threshold, which is a tall order in the 53-47 Senate. Leaders are often forced to strip those proposals from the package, even though doing so risks losing support from lawmakers who championed those provisions. One of the biggest questions ahead for the parliamentarian will be over the Senate GOP's proposal to use 'current policy' as opposed to 'current law' to determine the baseline budget and whether the overall package adds significantly to deficits. Already the Senate parliamentarian's office has waded through several titles of Trump's big bill, including those from the Senate Armed Services Committee and Senate Energy & Public Works Committee. The Banking panel offered a modest bill, just eight pages, and much of it was deemed out of compliance. The parliamentarian found that in addition to gutting the CFPB, other provisions aimed at rolling back entities put in place after the 2008 financial crisis would violate the Byrd Rule. Those include a GOP provision to limit the Financial Research Fund, which was set up to conduct analysis, saving nearly $300 million; and another to shift the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which conducts oversight of accounting firms, to the Securities and Exchange Commission and terminate positions, saving $773 million. The GOP plan to change the pay schedule for employees at the Federal Reserve, saving $1.4 billion, was also determined to be in violation of the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian's office also raised Byrd Rule violations over GOP proposals to repeal certain aspects of the Inflation Reduction Act, including on emission standards for some model year 2027 light-duty and medium-duty vehicles.


CBS News
5 minutes ago
- CBS News
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson vetoes "snap curfew" ordinance passed by city council
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has officially vetoed the "snap curfew" ordinance narrowly passed by the city council earlier this week. The controversial ordinance aimed to allow Chicago police to declare a curfew on as little as 30 minutes' notice in an effort to curb teen takeovers. The measure was approved by a 27-22 vote in the council after months of debate on how the city should try to curb the large youth gatherings that have sometimes turned violence. Supporters would need 34 votes to override the mayor's veto. In his veto letter to the city clerk, Johnson wrote, "At a time when violent crime continues to trend down in the City of Chicago, it is critical that we continue our investments in community safety strategies that have a proven track record of success. In two short years, we have seen a measurable, sustained decline in crime and violence in our city." The letter goes on to say that the mayor's administration will continue to partner with community organizations, businesses and philanthropists to invest in youth jobs, safe spaces and menta health care along with effective policing. The letter will be read at the July 16 council meeting. Before the council vote,18 members of the Progressive Caucus urged the mayor to veto the ordinance, all but guaranteeing Johnson will have to votes to uphold his veto. Please note: The above video is from a previous report.