Trump asks Supreme Court to intervene on blocks to his birthright citizenship order
Photo by Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s administration has asked the Supreme Court to significantly narrow nationwide injunctions issued by three different federal judges blocking his executive order redefining birthright citizenship in the U.S.
The emergency applications ask the justices to take a “modest” step and roll back the judges’ restrictions on Trump’s Day 1 order, allowing federal agencies to move forward with developing guidance and preparing for implementation if, at the end of litigation, the president prevails.
“At a minimum, the Court should stay the injunctions to the extent they prohibit agencies from developing and issuing public guidance regarding the implementation of the Order. Only this Court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in the application.
Trump’s executive order would deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to unlawful immigrants or those on a temporary immigrant status. The administration’s claimed in court proceedings birthright citizenship creates a strong incentive for illegal immigration.
Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state, in their rulings, have said such a move would appear plainly contrary to the text of the 14th Amendment and legal precedent.
The 14th Amendment states that 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.”
The Trump administration, in its appeals to the Supreme Court, railed against the use of nationwide injunctions and said they should be limited to the plaintiffs involved in the legal challenges.
“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” the acting solicitor general wrote. “The Court should stay the district courts’ preliminary injunctions except as to the individual plaintiffs and the identified members of the organizational plaintiffs (and, if the Court concludes that States are proper litigants, as to individuals who are born or reside in those States).”
“At a minimum, the Court should stay the injunctions to the extent they prohibit agencies from developing and issuing public guidance regarding the implementation of the Order. Only this Court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable.”
Far-right activist Laura Loomer; Photo credit: Jacob M. Langston for The Washington Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The White House has fired a handful of National Security Council staffers following a Wednesday meeting with far-right political activist Laura Loomer, who made recommendations to President Donald Trump about who he should fire, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.
Loomer met with Trump Wednesday, shortly before his tariff announcement in the Rose Garden, the sources said. Trump’s chief of staff Susie Wiles, Vice President JD Vance and the head of personnel Sergio Gor were involved in the meeting. Rep. Scott Perry was also present, but he was scheduled to meet with Trump about a variety of different topics, the sources added.
“NSC doesn’t comment on personnel matters,” NSC spokesman Brian Hughes said in a statement.
The New York Times was first to report on Trump’s meeting with Loomer.
“Out of respect for President Trump and the privacy of the Oval Office, I’m going to decline on divulging any details about my Oval Office meeting with President Trump. It was an honor to meet with President Trump and present him with my research findings, I will continue working hard to support his agenda, and I will continue reiterating the importance of strong vetting, for the sake of protecting the President and our national security,” Loomer told ABC News in a statement.
Loomer has frequently spread misinformation. In July, she falsely claimed in a social media post that President Joe Biden had a medical emergency after landing at Joint Base Andrews — a claim for which there was no evidence.
She had also started unsubstantiated claims about family members of Judge Juan Merchan in Trump’s New York hush money case, including that his daughter posted a fake photo of Trump in jail on social media, which the court has denied. It prompted Trump to share Loomer’s posts and spread the rumors.
Loomer accompanied Trump to several campaign events last fall — a move that prompted criticism from some Republicans at the time.
While it’s not clear whether any of the recent firings are directly related to national security adviser Mike Waltz and his staff’s use of the messaging app, Signal to communicate about sensitive topics, it comes as Waltz has had to privately defend himself and his staff to the president and other senior White House staffers.
The day after the inauguration, the Trump administration purged more than 150 NSC staffers because the new administration wanted to make sure the the goals of the NSC aligned with Trump’s agenda. Firing the nonpolitical staffers, who typically serve two-year stints on the council, has left the NSC severely understaffed and lacking subject matter experts from across government.
(WASHINGTON) — In the nearly three months since President Donald Trump’s inauguration, lawyers challenging his actions in court have alleged that his administration has violated court orders on a half dozen occasions, according to court records reviewed by ABC News.
From unilaterally freezing federal funding to the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport noncitizens, the clashes have raised concerns about the separation of powers and the potential for a constitutional crisis.
Plaintiffs suing the Trump administration have alleged the government violated or ignored court orders on at least six different occasions, but no judge so far has held a member of the Trump administration in contempt of court. On at least four occasions, judges have expressed concerns about the Trump administration’s compliance with court orders.
Lawyers with the Justice Department have vigorously defended the actions of the Trump administration and argued that federal officials have strictly complied with lawful court orders, while also questioning the legality of some orders. Each of the cases are ongoing or being appealed, so the district court orders may be vacated as higher courts weigh in.
Trump has repeatedly vowed to respect a court order even if a judge rules against parts of his agenda, though he has attempted to cast doubt on the authority of some judges.
“Well, I always abide by the courts and then I’ll have to appeal it,” Trump told ABC’s Rachel Scott in February, referencing cases involving Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. In those cases, Trump suggested a judge’s order “slowed down the momentum, and it gives crooked people more time to cover up the books. You know, if a person’s crooked and they get caught, other people see that and all of a sudden it becomes harder later on.”
The Trump Administration now faces arguably its most high-profile legal battle, as it attempts to keep Kilmar Abrego Garcia in Salvadoran custody despite the Supreme Court ordering his administration to facilitate his release.
Using the Alien Enemies Act to remove alleged members of Tren de Aragua
Last month, the Trump administration removed more than 100 alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua to a Salvadoran prison under the Alien Enemies Act despite a federal judge ordering they be returned to the U.S.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a directive that two planes carrying the men to El Salvador be returned to the United States on March 15. Despite both planes still being in the air at the time of the order, the planes landed in Honduras before flying to El Salvador.
Lawyers representing the Venezuelan men have argued that the Trump administration violated the court order, and Judge James Boasberg remarked that the government “acted in bad faith” when it rushed the deportation flights.
The Supreme Court vacated his order blocking any future removals under the Alien Enemies Act because the plaintiffs lacked jurisdiction to bring a case in D.C. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, Judge Boasberg was considering beginning contempt proceedings.
Trump defended his use of the Alien Enemies Act – telling reporters last month that he has the authority to remove noncitizens under the law – and has repeatedly criticized Judge Boasberg for blocking the removals.
“[Secretary of State Marco Rubio has] the authority to get bad people out of our country. And you can’t stop that with a judge sitting behind a bench that has no idea what goes on, who happens to be a radical left lunatic,” Trump told ABC’s Karen Travers.
Removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia
After the Trump administration acknowledged it had deported a Salvadoran native who was living in Maryland under protected legal status due to an “administrative error,” a federal judge ordered the government to facilitate his return to the United States.
After the Trump administration appealed the decision, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Judge Paula Xinis “properly” required that the U.S. facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from Salvadoran custody; however, the high court ordered Judge Xinis determine what “deference” Trump is owed related to his conduct of foreign affairs.
Since the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Trump administration has doubled down on its allegation that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13 — without providing any evidence — and claimed it lacks the authority to return him to the U.S. During a meeting with Trump in the Oval Office on Monday, Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele told reporters that he lacks the power to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.
“The question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?” Bukele said.
Benjamin Osorio, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, told ABC News that he believes the Trump administration is defying the court’s order and that a contempt order might be the only thing to prompt the U.S. government to return his client from El Salvador.
Before his meeting with Bukele, Trump told reporters that he would respect an order from the Supreme Court to return Abrego Garcia.
“If the Supreme Court said bring somebody back, I would do that. I respect the Supreme Court,” Trump said.
Removal of migrants to third countries
During a hearing last week, a federal judge gave lawyers with the Justice Department two weeks to provide more information about three recent removals of noncitizens to El Salvador that took place two days after he issued a temporary order blocking similar deportations to countries other than their place of origin without a hearing to raise concerns about their safety.
Judge Brian Murphy described the “potential violations of the temporary restraining order” as “concerning” and set an April 28 hearing to learn more about the deportations.
“This is something that is concerning to me,” Judge Murphy said. “I do think it’s something that we need to address.”
Lawyers with the Justice Department agreed to provide more information about the removals and defended the administration’s conduct.
Judge Murphy is considering extending his court order that prevents the Trump administration from removing noncitizens to countries other than their place of origin without allowing the noncitizens to raise concerns about their safety.
Two days after Judge Murphy temporarily blocked the deportations, the Trump administration announced that it had removed 17 alleged members of Tren de Aragua and MS-13 to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison. According to the plaintiffs, some of the men on those flights had final orders of removal to Venezuela and were never given the right to challenge their removal to El Salvador.
Unilaterally freezing funding to states
In February, U.S. District Judge John McConnell said that a group of state attorneys general presented evidence that the Trump administration “continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds” to states despite a “clear and unambiguous” order barring them from blocking the funding.
He ordered the government to “immediately restore frozen funding” though the state attorneys general later provided evidence that the Trump administration continued to pause funding from FEMA. Many of the funding streams were restored in the months following Judge McConnell’s order.
Lawyers representing the Trump administration have argued the limiting of funds was a lawful way to identify and limit alleged fraud.
Blocking FEMA grants
Two months after Judge McConnell ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze funding to states, he determined that the government “covertly” paused millions of dollars in FEMA funding in direct violation of a court order.
Judge McConnell ordered the Trump Administration to “immediately cease” its efforts to impede the disbursement of federal funds, finding the government directly violated his order.
Last month, a coalition of 22 attorneys general asked Judge McConnell to stop the freeze after they presented evidence that FEMA continued to restrict more than 215 federal grants despite a court order blocking Trump’s unilateral funding freeze.
Lawyers with the DOJ pushed back on the request, arguing that FEMA was “merely implementing a manual review process” of each grant.
Judge McConnell disagreed, finding that the states presented “undisputed evidence” that FEMA “essentially [imposed] an indefinite categorical pause on payments” in direct violation of his preliminary injunction. He said the manual review process cited by the Trump administration “violates” a preliminary injunction issued in the case.
Freezing billions in foreign aid
A federal judge in February determined that the Trump administration was improperly withholding nearly $2 billion in foreign aid despite an order to restore the funding.
U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali blocked the Trump administration from imposing a blanket freeze on funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, yet the freeze continued for weeks, according to lawyers representing the foreign aid nonprofits. Lawyers representing the Trump administration have argued the funding freeze was necessary to identify and block potential fraud.
In an order, Judge Ali wrote that the Trump administration justified the freeze by advancing “an unbridled view of Executive power that the Supreme Court has consistently rejected—a view that flouts multiple statutes.”
After the Trump administration appealed the order, a divided U.S. Supreme Court denied the request to block the order, though the justices ordered the lower court to clarify its original order.
(WASHINGTON) — Two law firms — Jenner and Block and WilmerHale — filed suit against the Trump administration on Friday to block executive orders signed by President Donald Trump last week that targeted their attorneys’ security clearances and bring to a halt any interactions they may have with the federal government.
“The Order threatens not only Jenner, but also its clients and the legal system itself,” Jenner and Block said Friday in its lawsuit. “Our Constitution, top to bottom, forbids attempts by the government to punish citizens and lawyers based on the clients they represent, the positions they advocate, the opinions they voice, and the people with whom they associate.”
Jenner and Block and WilmerHale are the latest firms seeking to counter what has been a rapid onslaught by the White House seeking to target individual firms that have hired or otherwise represented Trump’s political enemies.
“The President’s sweeping attack on WilmerHale (and other firms) is unprecedented and unconstitutional,” the lawsuit said. “The First Amendment protects the rights of WilmerHale, its employees, and its clients to speak freely, petition the courts and other government institutions, and associate with the counsel of their choice without facing retaliation and discrimination by federal officials.”
The firms’ legal challenges against what they have described as blatantly “unconstitutional” executive orders come on the heels of successful effort by the law firm Perkins Coie, which earlier this month secured a court order blocking similar executive action signed by Trump.
The lawsuits, filed in federal court in D.C. on Friday, accuse Trump of engaging in a sweeping campaign to intimidate major law firms who have represented plaintiffs currently suing the administration, or who have represented or at one point employed those he dislikes.
“These orders send a clear message to the legal profession: Cease certain representations adverse to the government and renounce the Administration’s critics — or suffer the consequences,” the Jenner and Block suit said. “The orders also attempt to pressure businesses and individuals to question or even abandon their associations with their chosen counsel, and to chill bringing legal challenges at all.”
Both lawsuits were initially assigned Friday to D.C. District judge Beryl Howell, who previously enjoined the Trump administration from enforcing its executive order against the law firm Perkins Coie — and described it as very likely unconstitutional. But on Friday afternoon, Howell ordered them to be randomly reassigned to a different judge — noting they raise separate factual and legal questions than the Perkins Coie case.
Earlier this week, Howell rejected an effort from the Trump administration to have her removed from overseeing the Perkins Coie lawsuit after they argued she showed clear bias against Trump.
