Connect with us

Top Stories

Birthright citizenship: Federal judge issues new nationwide block against Trump’s executive order

Published

on



Concord, New Hampshire
CNN
 — 

A federal judge agreed Thursday to issue a new nationwide block against President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.

The ruling from US District Judge Joseph Laplante is significant because the Supreme Court last month curbed the power of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, while keeping intact the ability of plaintiffs to seek a widespread block of the order through class action lawsuits, which is what happened Thursday in New Hampshire.

Ruling from the bench, Laplante granted a request from immigration rights attorneys to certify a nationwide class that “will be comprised only of those deprived of citizenship” and issued a preliminary injunction indefinitely blocking Trump’s Day One order from being enforced against born and unborn babies who would be impacted by the policy.

“The preliminary injunction is just not a close call to the court,” Laplante said during a hearing. “The deprivation of US citizenship and an abrupt change of policy that was longstanding … that’s irreparable harm.”

US citizenship, the judge added, “is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”

The judge, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said he would pause his order for several days to give the Trump administration time to appeal his decision.

Laplante’s ruling could prove to be a critical bulwark against Trump’s policy as other courts scramble to take a second look at their decisions in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

In February, Laplante indefinitely blocked the Trump administration from enforcing the order only against members of several nonprofit groups who would have been impacted by it.

“I’m the judge who wasn’t comfortable with issuing a nationwide injunction. Class action is different,” the judge said at one point during Thursday’s hearing. “The Supreme Court suggested class action is a better option.”

In his ruling earlier this year, Laplante said Trump’s order “contradicts the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the century-old untouched precedent that interprets it.”

Several other judges similarly ruled that Trump’s order was unconstitutional, but their injunctions applied nationwide and prompted the administration to mount the series of appeals that eventually landed before the Supreme Court.

Thursday’s proceeding focused largely on the request from immigration rights attorneys who brought the legal challenge for Laplante to certify a class of individuals that would include “all current and future children” who would be affected by Trump’s order, and their parents. The judge’s ruling Thursday did not include the parents in the class.

The judge appeared sympathetic to arguments pushed by the Justice Department that certifying a class including the parents might run up against the federal rules regarding class certification if those adults each had immigration situations that were significantly different from another adult in the class.

DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton had wanted the judge to allow for discovery so more information could be gathered on the adults who are part of the legal challenge, but the judge, aware of the urgency of the litigation, noted that such court-ordered fact-finding wouldn’t be feasible.

“You’re right, (ordinarily) we’d conduct discovery before granting class certification,” Laplante said. “There’s no time for discovery.”

“No court in the country has agreed with the administration on the underlying constitutional question. Every court has said that this order is unconstitutional, and so we expect to prevail on that question,” said Cody Wofsy, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who helped bring the pair of New Hampshire cases. “The issue before the court on Thursday is ultimately just: procedurally, how are we going to ensure that every single child is protected?”

Class action lawsuits require “class representatives,” or individuals who, if the class is certified, will represent the class members.

In this case, those proposed representatives had included a Honduran asylum-seeker – referred to in court papers as “Barbara” – who is living in New Hampshire and expecting a baby in October, and a Brazilian man – referred to as “Mark” – who is attempting to get lawful permanent status. Mark’s wife – who is not in the US lawfully – gave birth in March.

“If the Order is left in place,” the lawyers wrote, “those children will face numerous obstacles to life in the United States, including stigma and potential statelessness; loss of their right to vote, serve on federal juries and in many elected offices, and work in various federal jobs; ineligibility for various federal programs; and potential arrest, detention, and deportation to countries they may have never even seen.”

Signed by Trump on January 20, the executive order, titled “PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP,” said that the federal government will not “issue documents recognizing United States citizenship” to any children born on American soil to parents who were in the country unlawfully or were in the states lawfully but temporarily.

The Supreme Court said in its June 27 ruling that the administration cannot begin enforcing the order for 30 days, though the government is allowed to begin developing guidance on how the policy will be implemented.

In the other challenges to Trump’s order, lower courts around the country have asked the parties to submit written legal arguments addressing how the Supreme Court’s ruling could impact the nationwide injunctions issued in those cases, and more court proceedings are expected in the coming days and weeks.

But that process will take time and it’s unclear whether any of those courts will narrow their injunctions ahead of when Trump is permitted to enforce the birthright policy.

“I feel like we’re the only people who rushed around here,” Laplante quipped during Thursday’s hearing.

This story and headline have been updated with additional developments.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Top Stories

Amanda Anisimova stuns Wimbledon favorite Aryna Sabalenka to reach first Grand Slam final

Published

on


CENTRE COURT, THE ALL ENGLAND CLUB — Amanda Anisimova has arrived.

The former teen sensation, who spent several years in the tennis wilderness following the sudden death of her father and coach when she was 17, upset the world No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka 6-4, 4-6, 6-4 under a broiling sun on Centre Court Thursday to make her first Grand Slam final at Wimbledon. She also becomes the first American finalist at Wimbledon since Serena Williams in 2019.

In a duel of power, periods of inconsistency and tight games at important times, Anisimova kept her nerve when the match was on the line to keep Sabalenka from making the only major final she has never played. She came alive with just enough belief, just when Sabalenka looked to be clawing her way back— as she had done so many times during this tournament and during this match.

“I knew that I was going to really have to go for it,” Anisimova said when it was over. “Her level just kept increasing and getting better and better throughout the match. So to be able to come on top, I knew that I wasn’t just going to win off of her mistakes.”

For Sabalenka, it was another tough upset loss at the hands of an American seizing an opportunity in the final stages of a Grand Slam. She has played three Grand Slams since becoming the world No. 1 for a second time last fall, having spent two months at the top of the sport in 2023.

She now finds herself in a curious position. Her consistency at majors — 11 semifinal-or-better finishes at her past 12 — is remarkable. But her record when things get tight in those late stages is unspooling. She is now 3-9 in deciding sets of semifinals and finals at the Grand Slams.

She lost to Madison Keys in the Australian Open final, and to Coco Gauff last month in the French Open final. She looked across the net Thursday and saw another talented American woman — there are loads of them these days. Sabaleka came up just short once more.

This one was different than a month ago, when she blew up on the court, yelling at herself and her box as the match against Gauff slipped away. Then she exploded in her post-match news conference, arguing that Gauff had not won the match. She had lost it, in part because of the windy conditions. She said Iga Świątek, the player she had beaten in the semifinal, would have beaten Gauff that day.

On Centre Court Thursday, as Anisimova got closer to the win, Sabalenka mostly kept her cool.

“We all can lose control over our emotions, it’s absolutely normal,” Sabalenka said in her news conference.

“Every time when I was really that close in that match today to completely lose it and start… I don’t know… yelling, screaming, smashing the rackets, I keep reminding myself that’s not an option, and it’s not going to help me to stay in the match and to fight for my dream.”

She hugged Anisimova at the net and was magnanimous in her comments about her after. She did admit that Anisimova had “pissed her off,” when she reacted to the chair umpire telling her she had celebrated a shot too early by saying that she was doing what Sabalenka does “all the time” by extending her grunt through the ball.

“She was more brave today,” Sabalenka said.

“When I was just, like, trying to stay in the point, she was playing more aggressive.

“Sometimes I was just stopping my arms, making mistakes which I shouldn’t be making. I think I should have been a little bit more brave today and remember that I’m on the top of the ranking, and I can do that. I think at some point at the match I forgot about that.”


For the third major in a row, Aryna Sabalenka lost a tight match in the final stages to an American. (Henry Nicholls / AFP via Getty Images)

When she did, Anisimova was there to become the protagonist in a stirring narrative that is still unfolding.

For the 23-year-old Floridian, the win was the next high watermark in a remarkable journey over the past year. Last June, as she muddled through her comeback from nearly a year of battling injuries and burnout, Anisimova fell in the final round of Wimbledon qualifying.

During the next year, each time she achieved an encouraging result, playing deep into tournaments in Washington, D.C. and Canada and even winning in Doha in February for her first WTA 1,000 title, just below the level of a Grand Slam, her body would abandon her. She struggled with injuries to her back and hip that prevented her from practicing, training and competing as much as she liked.

In April, she hired a physiotherapist named Shadi Soleymani to take charge of her health and fitness, and she has been on the upswing ever since.

For a few minutes, it appeared that Sabalenka had turned the match. She drew even as Anisimova finally faltered on serve at 3-3 in the second set, missing two forehands and double-faulting to give Sabalenka her first service break of the afternoon. Anisimova made a gallant effort to get back in the set as Sabalenka tried to serve it out. However, Sabalenka snuffed out those efforts with a couple of massive serves, the last one clanking off Anisimova’s strings and frame.

On to a third set they went, with Sabalenka starting it just as she had finished the last, breaking a faltering Anisimova at love. And then, seemingly out of nowhere, Sabalenka went off the boil, her forehands going wide and long at the absolute worst time. One let Anisimova break right back for 1-1. With a sitter at the net, she pounded another just long, and all of a sudden Anisimova had a 3-1 lead.

The American had kept her opponent’s variety out of the contest for most of the match, with Sabalenka playing just nine points at the net through three sets when it was done. However, the world No. 1 brought it to the party at the end, trying to bring Anisimova to the net as she had done in Paris at the last major. Then, she fileted Anisimova in the front of the court. Here, Anisimova responded in kind, hitting drop shots of her own, refusing to let Sabalenka draw her into a battle she thought she would win easily.

From there, destiny seemed to take over. As Anisimova tried to survive a tight game at 4-2, she cracked a forehand down the line that might have missed. It ticked the net and dropped into the front of the court for the game. She pumped her fist, foregoing the usual apology for good luck. It was that kind of match, with Sabalenka having complained about an early celebration from Anisimova on a winner.

On her first match point, Anisimova missed on her vaunted backhand on a ball right in her slot. She missed again on the same shot to allow Sabalenka a last chance to do what she has done all year and retrieve a seemingly lost position. Instead, the world No. 1 gave her three opportunities to win, one earned by a stunning Anisimova short slice — the kind Sabalenka would so normally put into play.

Sabalenka played two without fear, but Anisimova returned the favor on the third, blasting a forehand to the postage stamp on the most high-stakes point of her career to date.

She turned to her box with a look of disbelief, though really, this is where she was supposed to be all along.

In tennis though, as in most sports, there is no “supposed to” or “destiny” without hard work and smart decisions.

When her father and main tennis guru, Konstantin, died of a sudden heart attack at 52 in 2019, Anisimova took a brief break, but she largely played through her grief. She spent the next two seasons tumbling down the rankings, before she climbed back to the top 30 in 2022.

By early in 2023, tennis had became too much.

That’s when she made the smart decision to take a break, to figure out whether she wanted to play any more. She took college courses. She pursued her interests in art, as she put the rackets away and stopped doing the main thing she had done since she was a small girl, one of countless young Russians whose parents had emigrated to America and watched Maria Sharapova’s father turn her into a champion and millionaire many times over. Anisimova even looked a bit like her, nearly six-feet tall with a long blond ponytail flowing behind her visor.

By 2024, she was ready to give tennis a go again. The comeback happened in fits and starts, often stalled by that series of recurring injuries. She worked with a coach and a trainer, but until she found Soleymani earlier this year, she never had someone keeping watch over her nutrition, her sleep habits, and searching for the reasons she kept getting injured.

First Soleymani helped her get healthy, increasing her strength and flexebility down her problematic left side that seemed to be at the root of her back and hip problems. Then she was able to train hard enough to get fitter and stronger. Then the wins began to pile up, and the confidence that she could play long matches day after day returned.

All of that has been on display this week. She survived a three-set battle against Londa Nosková in the fourth round. She overcame her jitters and a resurgent Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova to prevail in a marathon second-set tiebreak in the quarterfinal.

Then, on Thursday, she played some of her best tennis at the end, as the match stretched past the two-hour mark on a day that felt far more like Florida than London and had multiple fans requiring medical attention in the sun-splashed seats of Centre Court.

She stayed cool enough to find a way into her first Grand Slam final, in this case, the biggest one of all. As each match point slipped away, her nerves rose. Then she saw the forehand in her strike zone and thumped it.

Now she gets Swiatek on Saturday, a five-time Grand Slam champion also playing in her first Wimbledon final.

“Obviously I haven’t been in a Grand Slam final before, but I’ve experienced a lot of moments similar and a lot of high-stakes matches,” Anisimova said of what lies ahead.

“I always tell myself ahead of the game to enjoy every moment, not really concentrate on the finish line or the outcome, and just to really stay in the present. So I’ll just keep telling myself that.”

Another good decision.

(Photo: Julian Finney / Getty Images)



Source link

Continue Reading

Top Stories

The White House just took its most aggressive stance yet against Jerome Powell

Published

on




CNN
 — 

The Trump administration’s intensifying campaign against Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell hit a boiling point Thursday.

Just two weeks after President Donald Trump sent a handwritten letter to Powell demanding lower interest rates, Russell Vought, Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), accused Powell of breaking the law by failing to comply with government oversight regulations and lying to Congress about details of an approximately $2.5 billion planned renovation of the Fed’s headquarters.

“The President is extremely troubled by your management of the Federal Reserve System,” Vought wrote in a letter he posted to social media Thursday. “Instead of attempting to right the Fed’s fiscal ship, you have plowed ahead with an ostentatious overhaul of your Washington D.C. headquarters.”

For months, Trump has berated Powell, whom he appointed during his first term, and called him insulting names. The president has lately taken to calling Powell by the nickname “Too Late” for failing to recognize the 2022 inflation crisis fast enough and failing to slash interest rates as inflation has cooled down. Earlier this month, Trump suggested that Powell should resign in a social media post.

While some central banks, such as the European Central Bank and the Bank of Mexico, have lowered their benchmark lending rate a few times this year, the Fed has not. One big reason for that is the major policy shifts since Trump took office. Officials have said they want to see how those changes affect the economy first before considering further rate cuts.

Powell for his part has avoided responding to Trump’s harsh criticism, noting that the Fed is only focused on successfully taming inflation and preserving the labor market’s health.

CNN has reached out to the Federal Reserve for comment.

The latest criticism about the rising costs of the Fed’s headquarters may signal the administration is laying the groundwork to justify firing Powell, said Ed Mills, a policy analyst at Raymond James.

“The Supreme Court has made it very clear in their rulings that they would not support the president firing Powell,” Mills said. “So they can either find a reason to fire him for cause, or you create enough of a negative environment that Powell says, ‘it’s no longer worth it, I’m out.’”

However, firing Powell could send financial markets reeling: Mills warned that markets would not respond well to any indication that Powell, or another Fed chair, had lost their independence and was under the control of the president.

“I do think this could have the opposite impact of what they think it could,” Mills said. “If markets lose faith in the independence of the Fed, rates don’t go lower, they go higher.”

So the latest missive may instead be an effort to undermine Powell and turn sentiment against him.

Vought isn’t the only Trump administration official to slam Powell recently. In the past two weeks, Peter Navarro, the senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, wrote an op-ed calling Powell one of the worst Fed chairs in history; and Bill Pulte, head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, called on Congress to investigate Powell.

“They are trying to pressure him in every way they can to resign,” said Alan Blinder, a former Fed vice chair, of Powell. “I don’t believe he will and I don’t believe he should.”

A White House official told CNN that the president’s frequent attacks on Powell are Trump’s way of venting his frustrations about the Fed chair. The official also said OMB’s decision to open an investigation is not a way to lay the groundwork for Powell’s firing.

“I am not aware of a broader scheme to use that as a way to push Powell out,” the official said.

Powell’s critics have increasingly raised concerns about a planned renovation of the central bank’s office buildings and Powell’s recent testimony to Congress about the construction work.

The cost estimate for those projects swelled to $2.5 billion this year, compared to earlier plans that said it would cost $1.9 billion. A 2023 Fed budget document attributed some of the additional cost to “significant increases in raw materials… higher labor costs, and changes in construction schedule expectations which lengthen use of leased space.”

While testifying before the Senate in June, Powell pushed back on criticism that the remodeling was excessive, saying, “there’s no VIP dining room, there’s no new marble… there are no special elevators, just old elevators that have been there.”

Vought accused Powell of lying in his testimony and said the Fed’s renovation did not comply with federal oversight regulations. However, the Federal Reserve has its own budget and set of rules, separate from the federal government’s.

President Trump has made it clear that he prefers a Fed chair who will lower interest rates, but the Fed hasn’t voted to cut rates since December.

Trump and his allies have said the Fed’s decision to keep rates steady is politically motivated, but Powell has signaled Trump’s tariff policy – and its potential to stoke inflation – have played a role.

When asked earlier this month whether the Fed would have cut rates by now if it weren’t for significant policy changes by the Trump administration, Powell responded, “I do think that’s right.”

However, Powell also noted that a majority of Fed officials to expect they will reduce rates later this year.

That may not be soon enough for Trump. Last month, Trump said he may announce his pick to succeed Powell, whose term ends in May 2026, “very soon.”

Even without firing Powell outright, such a move could undermine the markets’ confidence in the Fed, said Blinder, especially if the incoming chair pledges to lower interest rates.

“One obvious effect is it could raise inflationary expectations, meaning the market will raise interest rates,” Blinder said. “I think it could be a way for the president of the United States to push monetary policy.”

CNN’s Phil Mattingly, Matt Egan, Alayna Treene and Bryan Mena contributed to reporting.

This story has been updated with additional context and developments.



Source link

Continue Reading

Top Stories

Julian McMahon Cause Of Death Revealed

Published

on


The cause of death for actor Julian McMahon has been revealed.

McMahon, known for his starring roles in Nip/Tuck, Charmed, FBI: Most Wanted and the 2000s Fantastic Four movies, died from lung metastasis as a result of head and neck metastatic cancer, according to a Cremation Approval Summary Report from the Pinellas County Medical Examiner’s Office in Florida, obtained by People.

The report revealed the manner of death was ruled as natural.

McMahon died July 2 in Clearwater, Florida, his wife Kelly McMahon announced July 4 in a statement to Deadline.

“With an open heart, I wish to share with the world that my beloved husband, Julian McMahon, died peacefully this week after a valiant effort to overcome cancer,” she said. “Julian loved life. He loved his family. He loved his friends. He loved his work, and he loved his fans. His deepest wish was to bring joy into as many lives as possible. We ask for support during this time to allow our family to grieve in privacy. And we wish for all of those to whom Julian brought joy, to continue to find joy in life. We are grateful for the memories.”

McMahon began acting career in his native Australia, on the short-lived 1989 Aussie daytime soap The Power, the Passion. He segued to Australia’s long-running Home and Away, where he appeared from 1990-91 before making his feature acting debut as a lead opposite Elliott Gould in the 1992 Australian-American movie Wet and Wild Summer! 

He then moved to Hollywood, where he was cast in NBC’s Another World in 1993. He went on to primetime as a series regular on the network’s crime drama Profiler for its four-season run. His then joined WB’s popular supernatural drama Charmed. His first series lead came in Ryan Murphy’s hit plastic surgery drama Nip/Tuck, which ran on FX for six seasons and earned him a Golden Globe nomination. More recently he starred in CBS’ FBI: Most Wanted as team leader Jess LaCroix from the FBI’s Most Wanted Unit for three seasons before his surprise March 2022 exit.

In features, he is best known for his starring role as Dr. Doom in Tim Story’s two Fantastic Four movies, the 2005 Fantastic Four and the 2007 sequel Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. 

His final role was on Netflix’s murder mystery series The Residence.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending