Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, strikes down Trump executive order — On June 1, 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to strike down President Trump's executive order denying citizenship to children born in the US to parents without legal status or on temporary visas. Five justices found the order unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment; Justice Kavanaugh concurred only that it violated federal law. Three conservative justices dissented, lending credibility to fringe legal theories challenging longstanding birthright citizenship doctrine. The ruling averted a crisis affecting 250,000+ children annually.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court weakens Voting Rights Act; states initiate emergency redistricting — On Wednesday, April 28, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that severely weakened the landmark Voting Rights Act, eliminating key protections against racial discrimination in voting maps. In immediate response, Louisiana postponed its May primaries, and multiple southern states—Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee—initiated or announced special legislative sessions to redraw congressional districts. Florida's Republican-controlled legislature passed new maps delivering four additional seats to Republicans. Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee announced plans to follow suit, with governors and Republican officials explicitly targeting majority-Black districts for dilution.
• Supreme Court decision weakened Voting Rights Act Section 2 protections — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Louisiana v. Callais that weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as a tool for challenging racially discriminatory congressional maps. Within days of the ruling, several Republican-controlled states moved to redraw or revisit congressional maps, including Tennessee, which signed a new map, and Alabama, which asked the Supreme Court to revisit a court order requiring a map with two largely Black districts.
• Supreme Court narrowed Section 2 of Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais ruling — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Louisiana v. Callais that Louisiana's second majority-Black congressional district (represented by Congressman Cleo Fields) constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The majority, written by Justice Samuel Alito, held that the Voting Rights Act did not require the state to create the district, eliminating a compelling reason to consider race in redistricting. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent warned the ruling renders Section 2 "all but a dead letter" and permits states to "systematically dilute minority citizens' voting power" without legal consequence. The decision shifts the legal standard from results-based to intent-based scrutiny, requiring plaintiffs to prove discriminatory motive rather than demonstrating discriminatory effect.
• Supreme Court ruling weakens Voting Rights Act Section 2 protections — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Louisiana v. Callais that significantly weakened how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be used to protect voters of color in redistricting cases. For decades, Section 2 has been a central tool for communities to challenge maps and election systems that dilute minority voting power. The Court's ruling gave Republican-led states new grounds to attack majority-Black districts before the midterms.
• Supreme Court weakens Voting Rights Act Section 2 in Louisiana v. Callais decision — On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais that significantly narrowed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as a tool for challenging racially discriminatory congressional maps. Justice Kagan's dissent warned the ruling "renders Section 2 all but a dead letter." The decision prompted immediate action by Republican-controlled states to redraw maps, including Louisiana suspending House primaries, Tennessee redrawing its map to eliminate its only majority-Black district, and Alabama petitioning the Court to reconsider a prior order requiring two majority-Black districts.
• Supreme Court weakens Voting Rights Act Section 2 protections in Louisiana v. Callais — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais holding that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require states to create majority-minority congressional districts. The decision makes it substantially harder for voters of color to challenge electoral maps that dilute their political power. Within days, Louisiana's governor suspended the state's primary election to redraw congressional maps, and Alabama filed to reinstate maps a lower court had previously struck down for diluting Black votes.
• Supreme Court weakens Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v Callais ruling — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v Callais on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, holding that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require states to draw majority-minority congressional districts. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito affirmed that Louisiana's maps violated the equal protection clause but rejected the use of Section 2 to mandate such districts. The ruling opens the door for Republicans to eliminate majority-minority districts across the South, immediately threatening Black lawmakers Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures in Alabama, who may lose their seats after redistricting in 2028.
• US Supreme Court guts Voting Rights Act Section 2 in Louisiana redistricting case — The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais that effectively neutralizes Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the last major provision preventing racial discrimination in voting. The majority, led by Justice Samuel Alito, rewrote the legal test for Section 2 claims to require proof of intentional racial discrimination—a nearly impossible standard—and added new restrictions preventing consideration of race in alternative redistricting maps. The decision permits states to draw districts that dilute minority voting power under the guise of partisan goals.
• US Supreme Court ruling in Callais v. Landry weakens Voting Rights Act Section 2 — The US Supreme Court issued the Callais v. Landry decision, which substantially weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by requiring litigants to prove racial motivations in redistricting rather than allowing challenges based on discriminatory effect. The ruling permits Republican-controlled state legislatures to use partisan gerrymandering as cover for racial vote dilution, particularly targeting concentrated Black voters in urban areas. The decision eliminates protections that had enabled Congress to achieve record racial and ethnic diversity, and threatens to reverse decades of voting-rights gains.
• Supreme Court gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais — On April 29, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6–3 to declare Louisiana's majority-minority congressional district unconstitutional under the Fifteenth Amendment, ruling it an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The decision overturned decades of precedent recognizing that states could create majority-minority districts to remedy historical exclusion of Black voters and ensure Black representation. The ruling eliminated a key enforcement mechanism of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
• Supreme Court gutted voting rights protections for Black-majority districts — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that eliminated protections for Black-majority districts established under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The decision reversed years of congressional effort to safeguard minority voting power. Following the ruling, Republican-dominated southern state legislatures began redrawing district lines to dilute the votes of Black Democrats, effectively weakening the electoral power of Black communities.
• Supreme Court issues decision in Callais v. Louisiana — The Supreme Court issued a decision in the case Callais v. Louisiana on April 29, 2026. The article indicates this ruling is significant enough to warrant substantial analysis but does not provide details of the holding, reasoning, or outcome within the text provided.
• Supreme Court makes Louisiana v. Callais decision immediately effective — The U.S. Supreme Court made its April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais immediately effective, rather than waiting the standard 32 days for finalization. The decision struck down Louisiana's creation of a second congressional district designed to enable Black voters to elect a representative of their choice under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, finding the race-conscious district creation unconstitutional. The immediate effectiveness allowed Louisiana to redraw maps before its primary election, which was already underway.
• Supreme Court rejected majority-minority district interpretation in Louisiana v. Callais — On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais rejecting the longstanding interpretation that states may create majority-minority districts to guarantee Black representation in government. The right-wing justices in the majority declared Louisiana's construction of a majority-minority district unconstitutional under the Fifteenth Amendment, characterizing it as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The ruling continues the Court's dismantling of voting rights protections.
• Supreme Court Decision on Voting Rights Act — The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that significantly weakens the Voting Rights Act, allowing for increased gerrymandering practices that could disproportionately affect minority voters. This ruling is expected to lead to widespread changes in how electoral districts are drawn, potentially impacting the fairness and representation in future elections across the United States.
• Supreme Court weakened Voting Rights Act provision — The Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling effectively weakening a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that has prohibited racial discrimination in voting for six decades. The decision will allow Republicans to redraw congressional maps in the South, potentially netting the GOP 19 additional House seats compared to 2024 maps and potentially causing the largest drop in Black representation in Congress ever. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent warned the decision renders the provision "all but a dead letter" with "far-reaching and grave" consequences.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport (24-781) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport. Docket number(s): 24-781.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Louisiana v. Callais (24-109) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Louisiana v. Callais. Docket number(s): 24-109.
• Supreme Court guts Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais — The Supreme Court issued a decision in Louisiana v. Callais that substantially weakened the Voting Rights Act, enabling Republican-controlled states to pursue aggressive gerrymandering of congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The ruling removes a key federal constraint on partisan map-drawing and follows the Court's 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, which barred federal courts from reviewing partisan gerrymandering claims. Together, these decisions have eliminated judicial oversight of extreme partisan maps.
• Supreme Court gutted Voting Rights Act Section 2 — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on Wednesday, April 30, 2026, that effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act, particularly Section 2, which had allowed plaintiffs to challenge electoral maps drawn in racially discriminatory ways. The ruling eviscerated protections codified during the civil rights era. Voting rights advocates, including Ashley K Shelton of Power Coalition for Equality and Justice and Anneshia Hardy of Alabama Values, responded by pledging to shift their strategy toward state-level litigation, grassroots organizing, and coalition-building across state lines to restore voting protections.
• Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v Callais eviscerates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — The U.S. Supreme Court, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, ruled that Louisiana's attempt to create a second electoral district giving African American voters proportionate representation constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The decision, authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, dismantles a 40-year-old tool used to prevent dilution of minority voting power. The ruling overturns Congressional intent expressed in the original 1965 statute and subsequent reauthorizations, marking the culmination of decades of legal assault on voting rights protections by Roberts and Alito.
• US Supreme Court rules race-based redistricting unconstitutional in Louisiana v Callais — The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v Callais on April 30, 2026, prohibiting states from using race-conscious redistricting to protect minority voting power. The ruling effectively dismantles Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by requiring proof of intentional racial discrimination rather than discriminatory effect. Multiple southern states, including Louisiana, have already begun redrawing congressional maps to reduce Black voter representation ahead of the November midterm elections.
• Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana v. Callais that race-based redistricting claims require proof of intentional racial discrimination — The Supreme Court's six Republican-appointed justices ruled in Louisiana v. Callais that plaintiffs challenging district lines as racially discriminatory must prove that lawmakers intentionally based their decisions on race rather than partisanship. The decision effectively removed federal court oversight of partisan gerrymandering and opened the door for southern states to redraw maps to shift 10–15 seats from Democrats to Republicans by targeting minority voting power.
• Supreme Court struck down Louisiana congressional map with majority-Black district — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais invalidating Louisiana's congressional redistricting map that included a second majority-Black district. Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act did not require the state to create the district. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent characterized the decision as demolishing the Voting Rights Act and rendering Section 2 a dead letter. Within hours, a request was filed to expedite the judgment to allow the state legislature to redraw lines before the 2026 midterms.
• Supreme Court decision in Callais v. Louisiana gutting Voting Rights Act Section 2 — The Supreme Court issued a decision Wednesday striking down core protections of the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2. The ruling established that Section 2 violations now require a "strong inference" of intentional discrimination rather than evidence of discriminatory impact on minority voters. The decision immediately triggered chaos across voting rights litigation nationwide, with courts pausing proceedings, state officials moving to dismiss cases, and election administration disrupted as the legal standard for challenging discriminatory maps and election rules became substantially harder to meet.
• Supreme Court Decision in Louisiana v Callais — On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in the case of Louisiana v Callais, effectively weakening the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The ruling, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, declared a new 2024 electoral map unconstitutional because it diluted the voting power of white Republican voters, despite previous lower court rulings that supported the creation of a second majority-Black district in Louisiana. This decision has been criticized for undermining protections for Black voters and is seen as a significant step back for racial equality in electoral opportunities.
• US Supreme Court strikes down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v Callais — The US Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana v Callais, effectively dismantling Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which had been used to ensure minority voters receive fair treatment in district drawing. The decision weakens Black voters' power to elect their own representatives and triggers renewed state-level efforts to enact voting rights protections. Nine states already have state voting rights acts; eleven others have introduced bills to create their own versions in response.
• Supreme Court gutted Voting Rights Act in 6-3 ruling — The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act, eliminating federal protections for voting rights that Congress had established. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, arguing that the decision "will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity."

Supporting reports

• Trump administration argues before Supreme Court to overturn birthright citizenship via executive order — The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday regarding Trump's February 2025 executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship by reinterpreting the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that "domicile" (permanent residence) should be required for citizenship, excluding children born to undocumented or temporarily present parents. A majority of justices appeared skeptical of the government's position. The case challenges 125+ years of precedent established in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. A decision is expected in summer 2026.
• Trump’s Executive Order on Citizenship — On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which asserts that individuals born in the U.S. are not citizens if their parents do not have legal permanent status. This order contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship.
• ACLU Represents Families Against Trump’s Order — The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing three families in a lawsuit against the Trump administration's executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship. The case, Trump v. Barbara, includes an asylum applicant from Honduras whose child is due after the order's implementation.
• President Trump Attends Supreme Court Oral Arguments — On April 1, 2026, President Donald J. Trump attended oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court for the case Trump v. Barbara, which seeks to end birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This marked the first time a sitting president has attended such proceedings. The case stems from Trump's executive order issued on January 20, 2025, which declared that individuals born in the U.S. are not citizens if their parents lack legal permanent status. The ACLU represents families challenging this order.

Supporting reports

• Trump attended Supreme Court oral arguments in birthright citizenship case — President Donald J. Trump attended oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court on April 1, 2026, in Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Trump sat in the front row alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. The case arose from Trump's January 20, 2025 executive order declaring that individuals born in the United States are not citizens if their parents lack legal permanent status. Three families, represented by the ACLU, sued to challenge the order. Trump departed after approximately ninety minutes, before the ACLU's oral argument began.
• Trump attended Supreme Court oral arguments on birthright citizenship case — On April 1, 2026, President Trump attended oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the birthright citizenship case, breaking precedent by sitting in the front row of public seating alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. He left after an hour and a half, before the ACLU lawyer began her argument. Lower court judges had already called the executive order "blatantly unconstitutional."
• Trump Attends Supreme Court Oral Arguments — On April 1, 2026, President Donald J. Trump attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court regarding the legality of his executive order on birthright citizenship. This marked the first time a sitting president attended such proceedings, raising concerns about potential intimidation of the justices. Trump was present alongside his attorney general and commerce secretary but left before the plaintiffs' attorney began speaking.
• Supreme Court hears birthright citizenship arguments; justices skeptical of Trump position — The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. Justice Kagan stated directly that the text of the 14th Amendment does not support Trump's position and that the administration was relying on "pretty obscure sources." Justice Kavanaugh acknowledged that other countries lack birthright citizenship but questioned its constitutional relevance. Justice Gorsuch raised the landmark precedent Wong Kim Ark in a manner unfavorable to the government's argument.
• Trump attends Supreme Court oral argument and leaves early — Trump became the first sitting president in history to attend a Supreme Court oral argument. He sat in the front row of the public gallery during the birthright citizenship case but left before the arguments concluded, apparently finding the proceedings not to his liking.
• ACLU Represents Families Against Trump’s Order — The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing three families in a lawsuit against the Trump administration's executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship. The case, Trump v. Barbara, includes an asylum applicant from Honduras whose child is due after the order's implementation.
• President Trump Attends Supreme Court Oral Arguments — On April 1, 2026, President Donald J. Trump attended oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court for the case Trump v. Barbara, which seeks to end birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This marked the first time a sitting president has attended such proceedings. The case stems from Trump's executive order issued on January 20, 2025, which declared that individuals born in the U.S. are not citizens if their parents lack legal permanent status. The ACLU represents families challenging this order.
• Trump’s Historical Precedent at the Supreme Court — President Trump’s attendance at the Supreme Court oral arguments on April 1, 2026, breaks historical precedent, as no sitting president has previously attended such proceedings. His presence is seen as an attempt to influence the court's decision on a case that could significantly alter the interpretation of citizenship in the U.S.

Supporting reports

• Trump attacked the Supreme Court on birthright citizenship case — Trump publicly attacked the Supreme Court, calling it "stupid" and "dumb" as he attempted to pre-spin a potential and likely loss in a case on birthright citizenship. The attack on the judiciary reflects contempt for the court and an attempt to delegitimize an unfavorable ruling before it is issued.
• Trump posted criticism of Supreme Court justices ahead of birthright citizenship oral arguments — Two days before Trump administration lawyers were scheduled to argue the birthright citizenship case before SCOTUS, Trump posted on social media that the justices are "dumb," stating: "Birthright Citizenship is not about rich people from China, and the rest of the World, who want their children, FOR PAY, to ridiculously become citizens of the US. It is about the BABIES OF SLAVES! The World is laughing at how STUPID our US Court System has become (TARIFFS!). Dumb Judges and Justices will not a great Country make!"

Supporting reports

• Federal court rejects administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship as unconstitutional — A second federal court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship, ruling that such action would be unconstitutional. This represents judicial rejection of a major administration policy initiative targeting the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to those born in the United States.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court limits judicial power to block presidential policies nationwide — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision curbing the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings that impede presidential policies, while leaving unresolved the question of whether the president can limit birthright citizenship. The decision, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, rejected arguments that courts must protect citizens from government overreach. Trump held a White House press conference celebrating the ruling as a "monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law" and indicated plans to pursue policies on birthright citizenship, sanctuary city funding, and refugee resettlement.
• US Supreme Court rules on nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship case, declines to address constitutionality of Trump's executive order — On Friday, June 28, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case challenging Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. The Court did not rule on whether the president has constitutional authority to end the 14th Amendment right. Instead, it addressed whether individual district court judges can block federal policies nationwide. The Court held that lower courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions except in narrow circumstances, requiring challengers to pursue class-action litigation instead. The ruling creates a 30-day pause on the executive order's enforcement.
• Supreme Court limits federal judges' power in Trump v. CASA — The Supreme Court decided the case of Trump v. CASA, which limits the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. President Donald Trump claimed this decision would allow him to end birthright citizenship, asserting that the principle of citizenship for those born in the U.S. is based on a historical myth. This ruling could have significant implications for immigration policy and citizenship rights.
• Trump executive order limiting birthright citizenship challenged in Supreme Court — One day after Trump's inauguration, five pregnant immigrant women, led by an asylum seeker from Venezuela, sued over the president's executive order limiting automatic birthright citizenship, fearing their unborn children would be left stateless. The case reached the Supreme Court, which on Friday sided with the Trump administration by restricting the ability of federal judges to block the order in a 6-3 vote. The ruling does not address the constitutionality of the order itself but opens the door for partial enforcement.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge halts Trump's birthright citizenship order — A federal judge, Deborah Boardman, issued a temporary injunction against Donald Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants. This decision follows a similar ruling by another judge in Washington state. The order, which interprets the 14th Amendment in a way that no court has previously endorsed, has faced lawsuits from 22 states and various advocacy groups. The injunction prevents the order from taking effect while legal challenges proceed.
• Case update — Casa v. Donald Trump (D. Md.) 8:25-cv-00201 — Judge Deborah Boardman issued an opinion granting Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary nationwide injunction blocking implementation of the birthright citizenship Executive Order.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order — A federal judge in Washington issued a 14-day restraining order blocking an executive order by Trump that aimed to end birthright citizenship. The lawsuit claims Trump's order violates the 14th Amendment and previous court decisions. This temporary block prevents the order from taking effect while the legal challenge proceeds.
• Trump ordered end to birthright citizenship — President Trump issued an order to end birthright citizenship, which was temporarily blocked by a federal district judge in Seattle, John Coughenour. The judge described the order as blatantly unconstitutional. The Trump administration expressed its intention to fight the legal challenge up to the Supreme Court if necessary.
• California sues Trump administration over birthright citizenship order — The state of California, along with a coalition of other states and the city of San Francisco, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in response to an executive order that seeks to deny automatic citizenship to certain children born in the United States. The lawsuit, filed in the US district court for Massachusetts, argues that the order violates the US Constitution by attempting to reinterpret the 14th Amendment. A federal judge in Washington has temporarily blocked the order from taking effect.
• Federal judge rules against Trump's birthright citizenship order — A federal judge ruled against an executive order signed by Donald Trump on his first day back in power, which sought to end the right to citizenship for all children born on American soil and subject to US jurisdiction. The judge described the order as "blatantly unconstitutional," highlighting its conflict with the 14th Amendment, which has guaranteed birthright citizenship since 1868. This ruling represents a significant legal challenge to Trump's immigration policy and could potentially reach the US Supreme Court for further adjudication.
• Temporary restraining order ruling — State of Washington et al v. Donald J. Trump et al (W.D. Wash.) 2:25-cv-00127 — Judge John Coughenour of the Western District of Washington issued a temporary restraining order against the Executive Order.
• Federal judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship executive order — A federal judge has blocked the enforcement of Trump's executive order that aimed to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to visa holders and illegal immigrants. This judicial action temporarily halts the implementation of the order, pending further legal challenges and potential Supreme Court review. The order had sparked significant legal and public opposition due to its constitutional implications.
• Federal judge blocks end of birthright citizenship — On January 23, 2025, a federal judge appointed by Ronald Reagan temporarily blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship, calling it "blatantly unconstitutional." This ruling is a significant legal setback for the administration's immigration policy and upholds the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for those born in the U.S.
• Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order — U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued a temporary restraining order against President Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship established by the Fourteenth Amendment. The order was challenged by 22 states and two cities, with Coughenour stating the executive order is blatantly unconstitutional. A hearing for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for February 6.
• Judge blocks Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship — U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued a temporary restraining order against Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship established by the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit from 22 states and two cities, with Coughenour labeling the order as blatantly unconstitutional.