Our Time PressThe Local Paper with the Global View

By Mary Alice Miller
From 1619 in Virginia and 1626 in New Amsterdam until the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, the legal status of African Americans in the United States was continually in flux. An African American could be enslaved in one state and travel to a free state where they gained citizenship rights, then be kidnapped back to a slave state where they “had no rights a white person was bound to respect.”

It took a bloody Civil War and the enactment of the 14th Amendment to establish that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” also known as birthright citizenship.
Donald Trump, a third-generation immigrant himself, is currently married to an immigrant, has an odd fixation with immigration.

During his first term as president, he enacted a so-called Muslim Ban, established the child separation policy, and revoked Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and others.

Birthright Citizenship
On his first day of his second term, Trump ramped up his anti-immigrant policies. He issued an Executive Order that prevents automatic United States citizenship to persons born in the United States “1) when that person’s mother is unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or 2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”

Several pregnant mothers sued the Trump administration on behalf of their unborn children.
Trump complained that individual judges should not be allowed to hinder his agenda. However, the lower courts used nationwide injunctions to stop Biden’s agenda on immigration and student loans.

Trump is testing the limits of his presidential powers. The courts have been the only ones able to limit or slow down his perceived unconstitutional executive actions.
By a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court decided district court judges likely exceed the authority Congress gave to the courts to impose nationwide universal injunctions.
The Supreme Court did not decide on the merits of birthright citizenship, rather the decision limits court’s ability to check executive power.

The ruling could mean that someone could be born not a citizen in one state then move to another state where they are a citizen then move to a third state where they are once again not a citizen.

States can continue to sue for nationwide injunctions, as can class actions. But the Supreme Court has steadily limited the grounds under which class actions can be formed.
As it stands, an individual can sue, but an affirmative ruling for the individual would not apply to others in the same situation. This will overwhelm the courts.

In addition, the Trump administration made deals with law firms to conduct pro bono work for itself, limiting their capacity to take pro bono cases for individuals or states
Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent called the 6-3 decision an “existential threat to the rule of law.”

Jackson, a former federal District Court judge, wrote, “It is important to recognize that the Executive’s bid to vanquish so-called ‘universal injunctions’ is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior.

When the Government says ‘do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,’ what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution – please allow this.”

“By limiting the federal judiciary’s ability to issue nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration’s extremist and authoritarian policies, the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court is once again bending the law to serve President Trump instead of defending the Constitution and the American people,” said Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette D. Clarke and members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

“While this ruling makes it harder for courts to fully block the unlawful policies of the trump Administration, the judicial fight to protect birthright citizenship and our fundamental rights will continue,” said Clarke and members of the CBC.

The Supreme Court retains its right to rule on the merits of birthright citizenship.
Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order cannot take place for another 30 days, providing time for further arguments.

Christian Religious Liberty in Public Schools
The Supreme Court sided with parents who want to opt their children out of classroom discussions of LGBT themes. Religious schools are an option, but they are expensive. Therefore religious parents want the right to opt out of certain classroom lessons, putting the responsibility on public schools.

ObamaCare Preventative Care Mandate
The Supreme Court upheld an Affordable care Act requirement that insurance companies must cover certain preventative care.
A Texas small business objected to a recommendation that pre-exposure prophylasis (PreP) for HIV be included as a preventative care service.

The business argued that covering PreP would violate their religious beliefs and would “encourage homosexual behavior, intravenous drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.”

Ironically, the Trump administration defended the law, despite many vows to abolish the Affordable Care Act. However, Trump’s Health and Human Services under the leadership of anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. may change which preventative services are covered.
Age Verification for Online Porn

Texas’s age verification law for porn websites was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Obviously, no one want minors under the age of 18 to access sexually explicit online content. But the Free Speech Coalition, an adult content trade association, argued that the law violates the First Amendment by creating barriers for adults to access the content by mandating age verification in the form of credit cards or government issued identification like a driver’s license.

Adults may not want to be identified as accessing porn from the mild to the bizarre, protecting their online privacy. But states have an interest in protecting minors from things that can harm them and their development, like alcohol or driving motor vehicles.

Subsidized Internet Access for Rural Areas
The Communications Act of 1996, passed by Congress, included a subsidy program that would ensure high quality telephone access in rural areas. That program, known as the Universal Service Fund administered under the Federal Communications Commission, has been expanded to subsidize service for low-income and underserved groups.

A conservative group, Consumer’s Research, challenged the law, arguing that the Universal Service Fund is a tax and that only Congress can levy taxes.

The Supreme Court decided that Congress acted within its authority when it created a program that subsidized free and low cost internet access for rural areas and underserved groups throughout the country.