-
Far-right victory in Germany draws protesters in Berlin
-
Zheng shocks Swiatek in another incredible US Open comeback
-
CapTLX Launches Institutional Gateway to U.S. Private Markets, Expanding Access to Structured Investment Opportunities
-
Andreeva survives in three sets against Potapova
-
Africa's richest man eyes continent's largest IPO
-
Alleged killers of Australian, US surfers go on trial in Mexico
-
Macron, SKorea leader warn at film summit of AI risks to creativity
-
King Charles classes Harry and Meghan as 'private citizens'
-
'Impressive' Alcaraz has Shelton in sights in US Open quarter-final
-
Bowling coach Noffke says Pakistan's off-field issues are nothing new
-
Noosha Aubel a krize v Postupimi: Jak dlouho je ještě možné tolerovat toto selhání vedení?
-
Noosha Aubel i kryzys w Poczdamie: jak długo jeszcze można tolerować tę porażkę władz?
-
Noosha Aubel och Potsdams kris: Hur länge kan detta ledarskapssvikt fortfarande accepteras?
-
Η Noosha Aubel και η κρίση του Πότσνταμ: Για πόσο ακόμα είναι ανεκτή αυτή η διαχειριστική αποτυχία;
-
ヌーシャ・オーベルとポツダムの危機:この指導力の欠如は、いつまで容認され続けるのか?
-
नूशा ऑबेल और पॉट्सडैम का संकट: नेतृत्व की इस विफलता को और कितना सहन किया जा सकता है?
-
努莎·奧貝爾與波茨坦的危機:這種領導失職還能容忍多久?
-
نوشا أوبيل وأزمة بوتسدام: إلى متى سيظل هذا الفشل القيادي مقبولاً؟
-
Нуша Аубель і криза в Потсдамі: як довго ще можна миритися з цією неспроможністю керівництва?
-
누샤 아우벨과 포츠담의 위기: 이러한 리더십 부재는 얼마나 더 용인될 수 있는가?
-
Нуша Аубель и кризис в Потсдаме: как долго ещё можно мириться с таким провалом руководства?
-
Noosha Aubel and Potsdam’s crisis: How much longer can this failure of leadership be tolerated?
-
England quick Archer in 'good place' after injuries
-
US envoy sees 'movement' toward three-way talks with Russia, Ukraine
-
Robots protest rampant AI in Poland
-
Thousands bid farewell to Bosnian Serb war criminal in Belgrade
-
Rare woman director in Venice sees industry backsliding on gender
-
EU chief announces 200-mn-euro investment package for Greenland
-
France, SKorea warn at film summit of AI risks to creativity
-
Lebanon says Israel conducts wave of deadly strikes
-
Z Traders Introduces New Funding Model Designed to Expand Opportunities in Trading
-
Cipheras Group - Apex AI Fund Deploys 290-Billion-Parameter Proprietary Large Language Model
-
Lebanon says 12 killed in strikes as Israel vows to 'remove threats'
-
Germany's Merz 'shocked' by far-right state win but vows to stay course
-
Volkswagen plant to be converted for Israeli defence group
-
UK finance minister Healey pledges strict fiscal discipline as budget looms
-
Israeli rubble-clearing in Gaza could erase 'atrocity crimes' evidence: UN expert
-
Mbappe embraces Ballon d'Or talk after historic World Cup exploits
-
Scorching summer pushes French wine harvest to new historic low
-
Tech firms rally, with eyes on US inflation update
-
Pietersen joins England coaching team ahead of World Cup
-
Jaguar Land Rover to cut 4,000 jobs as European car sector hits skids
-
Germany's triumphant far-right AfD aims fire at Merz
-
US average diesel price rises to record $5.90 a gallon: AAA
-
Fury claims Joshua bout is off, calls for Usyk trilogy
-
Dukascopy Bank Unveils AI-Powered Trading, 25,000+ Stock CFDs and a New Flagship E-Banking App
-
British family bids to row back against suicide taboo
-
Tech firms rally but Asian markets mixed, with eyes on US inflation
-
China's teenage 223cm basketball player 'just a little girl'
-
Nepal holds day of mourning as families pray missing still alive
US Supreme Court curtails power of individual judges to block Trump
A divided US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory on Friday by curbing the power of lone federal judges to block executive actions.
In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by district court judges "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts."
The top court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on American soil.
But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings removes a big roadblock to Trump's often highly controversial policy agenda and has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump or future American presidents.
Trump celebrated by telling reporters he had "a whole list" of policies he could now proceed on without opposition in the courts.
Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of a number of his moves that have been blocked by judges around the country -- both Democratic and Republican appointees – since he took office in January.
Courts have, for example, blocked or slowed down his hardline immigration crackdown, firing of federal employees, efforts to end diversity programs and punitive actions against law firms and universities.
Past presidents have also complained about national injunctions shackling their agenda, but such orders have sharply risen under Trump, who saw more in his first two months than Democrat Joe Biden did during his first three years in office.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee who authored the majority opinion joined by the other five conservative justices, said "the universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation's history."
"Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch," Barrett wrote.
"When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too," she said.
The three liberal justices dissented with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying "no right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates."
"The Court's decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution," Sotomayor said.
"The Executive Branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals' constitutional rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully," she said.
- 'GIANT WIN' -
Trump, in a post on Truth Social, welcomed the ruling as a "GIANT WIN."
The case was ostensibly about Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, which was deemed unconstitutional by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state.
But it actually focused on whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction.
The issue has become a rallying cry for Trump and his Republican allies, who accuse the judiciary of impeding his agenda against the will of voters.
Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, said the court's ruling "sharply undermines the power of federal courts to rein-in lawless actions by the government."
"The ruling will likely create a patchwork of birthright citizenship rights," Schwinn told AFP, where it is recognized in some locations for people who have successfully sued and not recognized for people who have not sued.
"This patchwork approach to individual rights is inconsistent with our history and tradition of federal rights in the United States and is inconsistent with the rule of law," he said.
The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to restrict the application of a district court's injunction solely to the parties who brought the case and the district where the judge presides.
Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens.
The three lower courts ruled that to be a violation of the 14th Amendment, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
W.Mansour--SF-PST