D.C. Memo: SCOTUS hears Minnesota challenge to Trump’s end to birthright citizenship; Steve Simon pans GOP bill as ‘threat to freedom’ 

WASHINGTON The U S Supreme Court on Thursday heard the first lawsuit Minnesota has filed against President Donald Trump and appeared split on whether a court could issue a nationwide injunction to stop the president s attempt to end birthright citizenship Minnesota was one of Democratic states that sued to stop Trump from stripping U S citizenship from children born in the United States of undocumented mothers Considering suits filed by the states and immigrant advocacy groups federal courts in Maryland Massachusetts and Washington issued temporary injunctions that stopped the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for those children of immigrants The Trump administration appealed those rulings and the U S Supreme Court decided to hear their matter The high court is not expected to decide whether ending birthright citizenship is constitutional but whether a court can issue what are known as universal injunctions to block Trump s executive orders nationwide The Trump administration which has been blocked by a large number of such injunctions in up-to-date months argues the practice is unconstitutional If the Supreme Court sides with the administration temporary injunctions would only be legally binding in the states that have sued to stop Trump s executive orders That means birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented settlers would only be shielded in Minnesota and the other states that have sued Justice Elena Kagan warned that a ruling in favor of the administration could development in making particular states magnets for pregnant transients The end of nationwide injunctions would also impact cases aimed at stopping Trump s efforts to dramatically shrink the size of the regime workforce halt federal spending and end diversity programs While the appeal is limited Chief Justice John Roberts explained the Supreme Court can fast take up the underlying issue of whether Trump s order banning birthright citizenship is constitutional The Supreme Court upheld the right of birthright citizenship in when it decided a child born in the United States Wong Kim Ark was a citizen even though his parents were subjects of the Emperor of China For more than years the Supreme Court has clearly interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment of the U S Constitution to eliminate any doubt or confusion that anyone born in the U S is automatically a U S citizen revealed Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison when he joined the other states in January to sue Trump over birthright citizenship The Trump administration however argues that the children of undocumented parents have no right to U S citizenship because they are in the country illegally and therefore are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U S cabinet even though they are subject to criminal prosecutions and deportations On Thursday the justices appeared divided over whether nationwide injunctions are constitutional But they seemed to pose tougher questions to the Trump administration s lawyers than to lawyers for the Democratic states and the immigrants rights advocates challenging Trump s executive order Minnesota s Democratic lawmakers Reps Betty McCollum Ilhan Omar and Kelly Morrison joined other Democratic House members in an amicus brief that mentioned that regardless of whether the Supreme Court believes Trump s birthright executive order is unconstitutional Trump cannot violate the Immigration and Nationality Act of which confers all children born in the United States have U S citizenship The President must participate in the political process and adhere to our constitutional structure not completely ignore them the lawmakers disclosed in their suit And unless and until Congress changes the laws the president must follow them Here however rather than trying to persuade Congress to exercise its authority to amend or repeal the INA the President seeks to evade that well-established process with an unconstitutional power grab That cannot stand One of the greatest threats to freedom As the minority party in the U S House and U S Senate Democrats can t hold official hearings but Sen Alex Padilla D-Calif held an unofficial one this week anyway and invited Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon to testify The issue was a bill approved by the GOP-led U S House known as the SAVE Act which would require that anyone registering to vote or changing their registration appear in person at an polling office with original or certified documents proving not only identity but also citizenship status For largest part Americans that would mean showing a passport or birth certificate Supporters say the new requirements to be able to register to vote are needed to combat fraud and prohibit those ineligible by which they chiefly mean undocumented immigrants from voting Simon testified the provision poses one of the greatest threats to the freedom to vote in our lifetime Simon disclosed the statute was based on the totally false assumption that huge numbers of non-citizens are voting There is no evidence of that Simon testified In fact the research shows the opposite is true Simon also noted the law would prove a nightmare for state electoral process officers because it would change electoral contest administration in this country overnight and impose the menace of criminal prosecution for local ballot workers left trying to sort out how these new federal requirements impact their responsibilities In addition poor Americans who might not own a passport or have access to a birth certificate would be disenfranchised under the regulation The provision is expected to stumble in the U S Senate But in March President Donald Trump issued an executive order that bypassed Congress and would enact a section of the SAVE Act a requirement that an independent agency change the national mail voter registration form to require documentary proof of citizenship That executive order was temporarily halted by a court s injunction But the GOP s push to place new requirements on voting are expected to continue At his hearing Padilla solicited Nicole Meek an Air Force spouse who has moved five times and lived in three different states over the past years if it is reasonable to expect military members to be able to leave their bases and register to vote during balloting office hours It would be very arduous for that to happen Meek revealed She also testified that it would also be demanding for military families to have the tools or ability to comply with the SAVE Act s requirements for documentation Given the fact that the greater part military families move on average every two to three years and are often stationed far away from their home state any requirement for documents to be submitted in person would be a logistical nightmare and in multiple cases impossible Meek explained In other news Winter Keefer wrote that thanks largely to funding from former President Biden s American Rescue Plan homelessness is continuing to decrease in Hennepin County But that money has been spent and the state is not helping the county make up for the shortfall While there ve been high-profile fraud cases in Minnesota the establishment of a watchdog has met a lot of resistance Matthew Blake explains why it s so laborious to establish an inspector general He also writes that legalizing sports betting didn t move forward this session As House Republicans rushed this week to finish work on Trump s big beautiful bill that would cut federal spending and extend tax cuts the president implemented in his first term we have stories on the impact of two controversial items on Minnesota a billion cut to Medicaid and a billion cut to food stamps Your questions and comments A reader reacted to the House Potential and Commerce bill that would cut Medicaid by implementing work requirements and imposing new restrictions on the physical condition plan for the poor Republicans claim to hate regulations but seem to be redesigning the application process to be more intricate to discourage people from getting coverage the reader wrote It seems the only reason it is being done is to punish poor people by new cost sharing to reduce access to services and put the poor deeper in debt to deny care or drive them to payday loan companies the legal equivalent of loan sharks Please keep your comments and any questions coming I ll try my best to respond Please contact me at aradelat minnpost com The post D C Memo SCOTUS hears Minnesota challenge to Trump s end to birthright citizenship Steve Simon pans GOP bill as threat to freedom appeared first on MinnPost