To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Olga Urbina (L) of Baltimore and her 9-month-old son Ares Webster participate in a protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court on May 14, 2025 in Washington, D.C.
"Any effort to narrow or lift the nationwide injunction on this case would lead to chaos, allowing birthright citizenship to be denied in some states but not others," one campaigner warned.
As President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship got a "frosty" reception at the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, opponents of the Republican's executive order renewed criticism of both that and his broader anti-migrant agenda.
"The Constitution is crystal clear: All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. As was reaffirmed in court this morning, birthright citizenship is a foundational American principle that has strengthened our communities, our families, and our whole country for generations," FWD.us president Todd Schulte said in a statement after oral arguments.
"Any effort to narrow or lift the nationwide injunction on this case would lead to chaos, allowing birthright citizenship to be denied in some states but not others," he continued. "If the Supreme Court sides with the government, the country will be split in half, with some states granting citizenship to newborn babies and the others denying it. The human cost of siding with the government cannot be overstated."
Schulte warned that "children born in the United States could be denied healthcare, nutrition, Social Security numbers, and other essential services that Congress has made available to all citizens. Children could be subject to deportation even though their parents (for example, someone with a lawful work visa) could not be legally deported."
"It is not a stretch to believe that an administration that is paying other countries to indefinitely detain immigrants will leverage the threats to deport this new undocumented class of children to force whole families here legally to leave the U.S.," he added. "The Supreme Court should be as clear as the Constitution, and rule that ending birthright citizenship, even partially or temporarily, is wrong, unlawful, and should not be allowed."
According toPolitico:
Trump's executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship found no traction Thursday at the Supreme Court, but the justices sounded inclined to rein in a legal remedy judges have used to halt many of Trump's early policy moves, from restricting immigration to cutting federal spending to ending anti-diversity initiatives.
Three district judges have deployed that tool—known as a nationwide injunction—to block Trump from implementing his birthright citizenship order. None of the justices spoke up in defense of the order's legality during more than two hours of oral arguments, and several suggested that the order is almost surely unconstitutional.
The Associated Pressreported that Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices Thursday that judges have issued 40 nationwide injunctions since Trump returned to office for a second term in January.
The high court—which has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees—is expected to rule by June. A decision limiting the power of federal judges could impact various other ongoing cases.
As the ACLU said on social media: "Today, the Supreme Court considered judges' power to block unlawful actions by the Trump administration. While this wasn't our case, we're united in mission to protect our civil liberties."
If the President is arguing to strip federal judges of the power to stop him from flagrantly violating the 14th Amendment citizenship rights of Americans - literally rendering some children stateless persons - that context is germane to argument about the legitimate use of the federal court’s power.
[image or embed]
— Sherrilyn Ifill (@sifill.bsky.social) May 15, 2025 at 5:58 PM
Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), a daughter of immigrants and citizen by birthright, responded to Trump's order by introducing federal legislation on Thursday that would block his attack on the core constitutional right: the Born in the USA Act.
"Trump has posed the question of who gets to be an American. The fact is that every citizen not naturalized in this country is a citizen by birthright. And it is important to remember that our nation's history would not be complete without the children of immigrants who, like me, are citizens by birthright and pride themselves on being AMERICANS," Ramirez said in a statement.
"I am both a daughter of immigrants and the daughter of America; a proud Chapina and an American by birthright," she highlighted. "It is my honor to lead 109 members of Congress to ensure not a single dollar goes to Trump's illegal, unconstitutional attempt to undermine our Constitution, our rights, our liberties, and the soul of our nation."
Although Ramirez's bill is unlikely to advance, given that Republicans control not only the White House but also both chambers of Congress, its supporters include Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).
The companion bill, introduced by Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) in February, has support from 14 other members of the Senate Democratic Caucus. The legislation is also backed by several local and national groups, including the ACLU, National Immigration Law Center, FWD.us, Haitian Bridge Alliance, Immigration Hub, UndocuBlack, and more.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
As President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship got a "frosty" reception at the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, opponents of the Republican's executive order renewed criticism of both that and his broader anti-migrant agenda.
"The Constitution is crystal clear: All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. As was reaffirmed in court this morning, birthright citizenship is a foundational American principle that has strengthened our communities, our families, and our whole country for generations," FWD.us president Todd Schulte said in a statement after oral arguments.
"Any effort to narrow or lift the nationwide injunction on this case would lead to chaos, allowing birthright citizenship to be denied in some states but not others," he continued. "If the Supreme Court sides with the government, the country will be split in half, with some states granting citizenship to newborn babies and the others denying it. The human cost of siding with the government cannot be overstated."
Schulte warned that "children born in the United States could be denied healthcare, nutrition, Social Security numbers, and other essential services that Congress has made available to all citizens. Children could be subject to deportation even though their parents (for example, someone with a lawful work visa) could not be legally deported."
"It is not a stretch to believe that an administration that is paying other countries to indefinitely detain immigrants will leverage the threats to deport this new undocumented class of children to force whole families here legally to leave the U.S.," he added. "The Supreme Court should be as clear as the Constitution, and rule that ending birthright citizenship, even partially or temporarily, is wrong, unlawful, and should not be allowed."
According toPolitico:
Trump's executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship found no traction Thursday at the Supreme Court, but the justices sounded inclined to rein in a legal remedy judges have used to halt many of Trump's early policy moves, from restricting immigration to cutting federal spending to ending anti-diversity initiatives.
Three district judges have deployed that tool—known as a nationwide injunction—to block Trump from implementing his birthright citizenship order. None of the justices spoke up in defense of the order's legality during more than two hours of oral arguments, and several suggested that the order is almost surely unconstitutional.
The Associated Pressreported that Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices Thursday that judges have issued 40 nationwide injunctions since Trump returned to office for a second term in January.
The high court—which has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees—is expected to rule by June. A decision limiting the power of federal judges could impact various other ongoing cases.
As the ACLU said on social media: "Today, the Supreme Court considered judges' power to block unlawful actions by the Trump administration. While this wasn't our case, we're united in mission to protect our civil liberties."
If the President is arguing to strip federal judges of the power to stop him from flagrantly violating the 14th Amendment citizenship rights of Americans - literally rendering some children stateless persons - that context is germane to argument about the legitimate use of the federal court’s power.
[image or embed]
— Sherrilyn Ifill (@sifill.bsky.social) May 15, 2025 at 5:58 PM
Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), a daughter of immigrants and citizen by birthright, responded to Trump's order by introducing federal legislation on Thursday that would block his attack on the core constitutional right: the Born in the USA Act.
"Trump has posed the question of who gets to be an American. The fact is that every citizen not naturalized in this country is a citizen by birthright. And it is important to remember that our nation's history would not be complete without the children of immigrants who, like me, are citizens by birthright and pride themselves on being AMERICANS," Ramirez said in a statement.
"I am both a daughter of immigrants and the daughter of America; a proud Chapina and an American by birthright," she highlighted. "It is my honor to lead 109 members of Congress to ensure not a single dollar goes to Trump's illegal, unconstitutional attempt to undermine our Constitution, our rights, our liberties, and the soul of our nation."
Although Ramirez's bill is unlikely to advance, given that Republicans control not only the White House but also both chambers of Congress, its supporters include Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).
The companion bill, introduced by Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) in February, has support from 14 other members of the Senate Democratic Caucus. The legislation is also backed by several local and national groups, including the ACLU, National Immigration Law Center, FWD.us, Haitian Bridge Alliance, Immigration Hub, UndocuBlack, and more.
As President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship got a "frosty" reception at the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, opponents of the Republican's executive order renewed criticism of both that and his broader anti-migrant agenda.
"The Constitution is crystal clear: All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. As was reaffirmed in court this morning, birthright citizenship is a foundational American principle that has strengthened our communities, our families, and our whole country for generations," FWD.us president Todd Schulte said in a statement after oral arguments.
"Any effort to narrow or lift the nationwide injunction on this case would lead to chaos, allowing birthright citizenship to be denied in some states but not others," he continued. "If the Supreme Court sides with the government, the country will be split in half, with some states granting citizenship to newborn babies and the others denying it. The human cost of siding with the government cannot be overstated."
Schulte warned that "children born in the United States could be denied healthcare, nutrition, Social Security numbers, and other essential services that Congress has made available to all citizens. Children could be subject to deportation even though their parents (for example, someone with a lawful work visa) could not be legally deported."
"It is not a stretch to believe that an administration that is paying other countries to indefinitely detain immigrants will leverage the threats to deport this new undocumented class of children to force whole families here legally to leave the U.S.," he added. "The Supreme Court should be as clear as the Constitution, and rule that ending birthright citizenship, even partially or temporarily, is wrong, unlawful, and should not be allowed."
According toPolitico:
Trump's executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship found no traction Thursday at the Supreme Court, but the justices sounded inclined to rein in a legal remedy judges have used to halt many of Trump's early policy moves, from restricting immigration to cutting federal spending to ending anti-diversity initiatives.
Three district judges have deployed that tool—known as a nationwide injunction—to block Trump from implementing his birthright citizenship order. None of the justices spoke up in defense of the order's legality during more than two hours of oral arguments, and several suggested that the order is almost surely unconstitutional.
The Associated Pressreported that Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices Thursday that judges have issued 40 nationwide injunctions since Trump returned to office for a second term in January.
The high court—which has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees—is expected to rule by June. A decision limiting the power of federal judges could impact various other ongoing cases.
As the ACLU said on social media: "Today, the Supreme Court considered judges' power to block unlawful actions by the Trump administration. While this wasn't our case, we're united in mission to protect our civil liberties."
If the President is arguing to strip federal judges of the power to stop him from flagrantly violating the 14th Amendment citizenship rights of Americans - literally rendering some children stateless persons - that context is germane to argument about the legitimate use of the federal court’s power.
[image or embed]
— Sherrilyn Ifill (@sifill.bsky.social) May 15, 2025 at 5:58 PM
Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), a daughter of immigrants and citizen by birthright, responded to Trump's order by introducing federal legislation on Thursday that would block his attack on the core constitutional right: the Born in the USA Act.
"Trump has posed the question of who gets to be an American. The fact is that every citizen not naturalized in this country is a citizen by birthright. And it is important to remember that our nation's history would not be complete without the children of immigrants who, like me, are citizens by birthright and pride themselves on being AMERICANS," Ramirez said in a statement.
"I am both a daughter of immigrants and the daughter of America; a proud Chapina and an American by birthright," she highlighted. "It is my honor to lead 109 members of Congress to ensure not a single dollar goes to Trump's illegal, unconstitutional attempt to undermine our Constitution, our rights, our liberties, and the soul of our nation."
Although Ramirez's bill is unlikely to advance, given that Republicans control not only the White House but also both chambers of Congress, its supporters include Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).
The companion bill, introduced by Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) in February, has support from 14 other members of the Senate Democratic Caucus. The legislation is also backed by several local and national groups, including the ACLU, National Immigration Law Center, FWD.us, Haitian Bridge Alliance, Immigration Hub, UndocuBlack, and more.
