birthright citizenship scotus

Supreme Court takes up birthright citizenship case

Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments early next year in the challenge to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship to ...

· 8h

Supreme Court Agrees to Review Trump Order Restricting Birthright Citizenship

· 9h

Supreme Court to decide on birthright citizenship. What is it?

· 19h

Supreme Court to weigh Trump's firing of FTC member in test of presidential power

WASHINGTON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court next week weighs the legality of Donald Trump 's firing of a Federal Trade Commission member in a major test of presidential power over agencies se...

· 6h

Justices to Review Trump’s Order Restricting Birthright Citizenship

· 6h

Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship will depend on its interpretation of one phrase

· 11h

Supreme Court Says It Will Hear Trump’s Bid To End Birthright Citizenship

Since signing it, Trump’s bid to unwind a century of settled law has seen major blowback within the nation’s lower courts, where it has repeatedly been found unconstitutional or likely to be.

· 11h

The Supreme Court will decide whether Trump's birthright citizenship order violates the Constitution

· 10h

The Supreme Court Is Doing Everything in Its Power to Save Trump in the Midterms

58m

SCOTUS to take up birthright citizenship challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to revisit birthright citizenship. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is one of 23 state attorneys general asking the Justice Department to reinterpret the 14th Amendment.

18h

Supreme Court to Weigh Trump's Firing of FTC Member in Test of Presidential Power

The U.S. Supreme Court next week weighs the legality of Donald Trump's firing of a Federal Trade Commission member in a major test of presidential power over agencies set up by Congress to be insulated from White House control in a case that could imperil a 90-year-old legal precedent.