|
|
|
Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship - BLOG
Court Feed News |
2025/01/26 16:46
|
In a significant legal development, a federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship. This executive order sought to redefine the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which grants citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil. The order specifically targeted children born to undocumented immigrants and those on temporary visas.
On January 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, appointed by President Reagan, issued a temporary restraining order, labeling the executive action as "blatantly unconstitutional." This decision came in response to lawsuits filed by several states and civil rights organizations, which argued that the order violated the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment clearly states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Legal experts have long interpreted this to mean that anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status, is automatically granted citizenship. The Supreme Court reinforced this interpretation in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, affirming that the Constitution grants birthright citizenship to almost all children born in the United States.
In response to the ruling, President Trump has indicated his intention to appeal, setting the stage for a potentially prolonged legal battle that could escalate to the Supreme Court. This development underscores the ongoing tensions surrounding immigration policy and constitutional rights in the United States. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOCUS - President Trump proposes 'getting rid of FEMA' - UPDATE
Court Feed News |
2025/01/25 00:48
|
President Trump, during recent visits to disaster-stricken areas in California and North Carolina, has proposed the possibility of dismantling the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). He criticized FEMA as being overly bureaucratic and slow, suggesting that individual states should manage their own disaster responses, with the federal government providing financial assistance directly to them. This proposal has raised concerns among experts and lawmakers, particularly in disaster-prone states like Florida, where officials warn that without FEMA's support, handling the aftermath of powerful storms could be financially overwhelming. It's important to note that eliminating FEMA would require congressional approval, as the agency was established by an executive order under President Jimmy Carter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court allows small business registration rule to take effect
U.S. Legal News |
2025/01/24 00:48
|
The Supreme Court Revives Corporate Transparency Act, Mandating Small Business Registration The Supreme Court has reinstated a key provision of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), requiring owners of over 32.6 million small businesses to register personal information with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). This act, designed to combat money laundering and the misuse of anonymous shell companies, was previously blocked by a federal judge in Texas and held by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. [Image credit: Pexel]Key Details of the Ruling:- What is Required: Small business owners must provide personal information, including photo IDs and home addresses, to FinCEN.
- Purpose: To deter financial crimes and increase transparency in corporate ownership.
- Legal Challenges: Opposed by Republican-led states, conservative groups, and business associations, the law was initially struck down on grounds that Congress overstepped its authority.
Reactions:- Supporters: Labor, environmental, and progressive groups applaud the decision as a win for transparency.
- Opponents: Business organizations express concerns about compliance challenges and legal uncertainty. The National Small Business Association and Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council have called for clarity and leniency for late filers.
Next Steps:- The Supreme Court’s decision allows enforcement to proceed while the Texas case continues.
- Advocates for repeal, including business leaders, urge Congress to reassess the mandate.
This decision marks a significant step in the federal government’s efforts to curb illicit financial activities, though its future enforcement and impact remain subjects of heated debate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Korea’s Yoon defends his martial law decree - BLOG
Attorneys News |
2025/01/23 00:49
|
[Image credit: Wikipedia]
In a significant legal development, a federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship. This executive order sought to redefine the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which grants citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil. The order specifically targeted children born to undocumented immigrants and those on temporary visas.
On January 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, appointed by President Reagan, issued a temporary restraining order, labeling the executive action as "blatantly unconstitutional." This decision came in response to lawsuits filed by several states and civil rights organizations, which argued that the order violated the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment clearly states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Legal experts have long interpreted this to mean that anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status, is automatically granted citizenship. The Supreme Court reinforced this interpretation in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, affirming that the Constitution grants birthright citizenship to almost all children born in the United States.
In response to the ruling, President Trump has indicated his intention to appeal, setting the stage for a potentially prolonged legal battle that could escalate to the Supreme Court. This development underscores the ongoing tensions surrounding immigration policy and constitutional rights in the United States. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breaking Legal News Legal Business Law Center Court Watch Antitrust Bankruptcy Business Civil Rights Class Action Consumer Rights Corporate Governance Criminal Law Entertainment Environmental Fami..
U.S. Legal News |
2025/01/22 00:50
|
In a significant policy shift, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order temporarily suspending all U.S. foreign assistance programs for 90 days. This suspension is intended to allow for a comprehensive review to ensure that these programs align with American interests and values.
AP News
The executive order mandates that all departments and agencies responsible for U.S. foreign development assistance immediately pause new obligations and disbursements of funds to foreign countries, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, and contractors. This pause will remain in effect pending reviews of such programs for efficiency and consistency with U.S. foreign policy.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized the administration's approach during his confirmation hearing, stating, "Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?"
Consequently, Trump declared that “no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States.”
[Image credit: Pexel]
Secretary of State Marco Rubio told members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during his confirmation hearing last week that “every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions:
Trump's Foreign Aid Suspension Raises Global Concerns  Reuters US refugee group funding suspended under Trump aid pause
Reuters Flights halted for Afghans approved for special US visas, advocate and official say
 theguardian.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court declines to hear from gas companies trying to block climate change lawsuits
Class Action News |
2025/01/22 00:49
|
The Supreme Court said Monday it won’t hear an appeal from oil and gas companies trying to block lawsuits seeking to hold the industry liable for billions of dollars in damage linked to climate change.
The order allows the city of Honolulu’s lawsuit against oil and gas companies to proceed. The city’s chief resilience officer, Ben Sullivan, said it’s a significant decision that will protect “taxpayers and communities from the immense costs and consequences of the climate crisis caused by the defendants’ misconduct.”
[Image credit: Wikipedia] The oil and gas industry is grappling with a growing number of lawsuits claiming the sector misled the public about its role in climate change. States like California, Colorado, and New Jersey are suing for billions in damages linked to wildfires, sea-level rise, and severe weather. This legal wave reflects an increasing use of courts to drive climate action globally.
Hawaii's Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit filed by Honolulu against major companies, including Sunoco, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and BP, to proceed. These corporations, many based in Texas, argue that emissions are a national issue requiring federal jurisdiction, where they have historically succeeded in dismissing such cases. Their Supreme Court appeal was declined, leaving the matter in state court.
The companies’ legal team emphasized the case's high stakes, warning that these lawsuits could undermine a critical national industry. The American Enterprise Institute echoed these concerns, suggesting the cases might empower activists to act as de facto energy regulators.
The Biden administration supported the lawsuit remaining in state court, though it noted that companies might ultimately prevail. In contrast, the incoming Trump administration is expected to adopt policies favoring the fossil fuel industry and opposing stringent environmental laws.
Honolulu claims the companies engaged in deceptive marketing under state laws, a matter the city argues falls within state jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's track record on environmental regulations under its conservative majority includes limiting the EPA’s authority in cases like the regulation of power plant emissions.
Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the appeal, likely due to his financial ties to the companies involved. This marks another high-profile climate case amidst increasing scrutiny of corporate responsibility for environmental impacts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
