Trump Seeks “Loyalty” from Supreme Court While Awaiting Birthright Citizenship Decision
President Donald Trump is saying in posts on social media that the Supreme Court should demonstrate more “loyalty” to his policies as it prepares to announce a critical ruling on birthright citizenship.
Trump wants to end automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal immigrants.
Lower courts cited the 14th Amendment in blocking his executive order abolishing birthright citizenship.
The 14th Amendment’s “citizenship clause” guarantees that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Trump’s Feb. 19, 2025 executive order said birthright citizenship does not apply to children of non-citizens who lack legal status in the United States. A stated goal of the order was to discourage "irregular migration" and challenge the "birth tourism" industry.
Trump called out Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett in a post last week on Truth Social. He appointed them but they recently voted against his tariff policies, which he interpreted as a sign of ingratitude.
He’s concerned they will do it again.
“They were appointed by me, and yet have hurt our Country so badly!” Trump wrote.
Trump said he hoped the court would “do the right thing” by supporting what he described as a needed correction to a misinterpretation of the Constitution. He suggested that a ruling against birthright citizenship would help to restore national sovereignty.
A ruling against birthright citizenship would overturn a more than century-old Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The court held in the 1898 case that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a U.S. citizen by birth.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on the issue April 1 in the case of Trump v. Barbara.
Several justices expressed concerns about the constitutional foundation for Trump administration arguments. They also asked about the difficulty of implementing the executive order.
Challengers to Trump’s executive order, led by the American Civil Liberties Union and several states, argued that the amendment’s plain text establishes that nearly everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, except children of diplomats and invading armies.
The Supreme Court is expected to release a decision before the end of June.
Trump predicted a loss for his administration.
He wrote that the Supreme Court “will be ruling against us on Birthright Citizenship, making us the only Country in the World that practices this unsustainable, unsafe, and incredibly costly DISASTER.”
He added, “A negative ruling on Birthright Citizenship, on top of the recent Supreme Court Tariff catastrophe, is not Economically sustainable for the United States of America!”
Cecillia Wang, the ACLU attorney who argued the Trump v. Barbara case before the Supreme Court last month, predicted a victory for opponents of the president’s executive order.
“I left the courtroom thinking about my parents and so many families who came here seeking refuge, opportunity, and the American way of life,” Wang said in a statement. “We couldn’t be more confident that this unlawful, un-American executive order will be struck down.”
The case is Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365, before the U.S. Supreme Court.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
U.S. Trade Court Strikes Down Trump’s 10 Percent Global Tariffs as "Unlawful"
The Justice Department is appealing a U.S. Court of International Trade ruling last week that the 10 percent global tariffs President Donald Trump announced in February are illegal.
Trump imposed the tariffs on most imports under authority of the Trade Act of 1974.
Section 122 of the Trade Act allows the president to temporarily charge surcharges of up to 15 percent on imports to address "large and serious balance-of-payments deficits." The trade court said the conditions were not met.
"Nowhere [does the president’s tariff proclamation] identify balance-of-payments deficits within the meaning of Section 122 as it was enacted in 1974," the court’s 2-to-1 decision says.
Allowing the president to redefine ordinary trade deficits as "crises" to trigger Section 122 authority would effectively seize the power of taxation the Constitution reserves for Congress, the court said.
The court allowed the tariffs to remain while the Trump administration appeals to higher courts. The Justice Department’s notice of appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The tariffs were set to expire July 24. The Trade Act allows them to stand for 150 days unless Congress extends them.
The decision marked the second major legal setback for Trump’s tariff agenda this year after the Supreme Court in February invalidated many of his previous tariffs imposed under emergency powers statutes.
Trump said shortly after his second inauguration that his “Liberation Day” tariffs were authorized by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. After the Supreme Court said there was no emergency to allow them, Trump then chose the global tariffs listed under the Trade Act.
The trade court issued a permanent injunction against Trump’s tariffs and ordered refunds for the plaintiffs in the case.
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit included toy maker Basic Fun!, spice importer Burlap & Barrel and the state of Washington.
Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement, "This is a win for both affordability and the rule of law. It's American consumers and businesses that have ultimately paid for the president's illegal tariff campaign.”
Small companies that were plaintiffs in the case said the tariffs could drive some of them out of business.
"This ruling is a major victory for small businesses like ours that depend on fair and predictable trade policy,” a Burlap & Barrel statement said. “These tariffs created real challenges for our company and for the farmers we partner with around the world."
The advocacy group We Pay the Tariffs said U.S. businesses paid about $8 billion in March in duties tied to Trump’s global tariffs.
Trump criticized the ruling, accusing the judges of political bias and vowing to pursue other aggressive trade measures. He said the case was decided by “two radical left judges.”
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in an interview on Fox Business Network that the administration expects to prevail on appeal, calling the decision “flawed.” He argued that Section 122 was intended to give presidents flexibility in responding to trade imbalances.
The trade court’s majority judges "are apparently just hell-bent on importing from China," Greer said.
The Trump administration is pursuing another strategy to maintain tariffs under a different section of the Trade Act. Section 301 allows the president to bypass the World Trade Organization to impose unilateral sanctions on other countries after investigations show their trade practices are "unfair" or "discriminatory" to American commerce.
The sanctions most commonly mean tariffs.
The dissent in the trade court’s decision came from Judge Timothy C. Stanceu. He said the court should have given more deference to the administration's economic data.
The cases are State of Oregon et al. v. Trump et al. and Burlap & Barrel Inc. et al. v. Trump et al. in the U.S. Court of International Trade.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Historic Preservationists Sue to Stop Renovation of Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool
The Trump administration is accused in a new lawsuit of violating federal law on historic sites by painting the reflecting pool in front of the Lincoln Memorial blue.
The lawsuit filed last week by the Cultural Landscape Foundation says the project violates the National Historic Preservation Act.
The federal law requires the Interior Department to await mandatory federal reviews and to seek public comments before altering historic landmarks.
President Donald Trump ordered the bottom of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool to be painted what he called “American flag blue” in time for the 250th anniversary celebration of the United States in July.
He said the original gray cement of the pool’s basin was “filthy dirty and it leaked like a sieve.”
The no-bid contract went to Virginia-based pool contractor Atlantic Industrial Coatings. The renovation is about 30 percent completed.
They also are installing an "ozone nanobubbler filtration system" to keep the water clear of algae and debris.
The Cultural Landscape Foundation seeks a court order to halt the project and to require the Trump administration to restore the historic appearance of the pool. It is one of the most recognizable features of the National Capital Mall.
“The design intent, to create a reflective surface that is subordinate, is fundamental to the solemn and hallowed visual and spatial connection between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial,” Charles A. Birnbaum, president of the foundation, said in a statement. “A blue-tinted basin is more appropriate to a resort or theme park.”
Trump says the reflecting pool had become unsightly. Last week, his motorcade drove across the drained pool so he could inspect the work in person. He got out of his car to greet the work crew.
Trump defended the project at a White House event Monday by saying the renovation was more than cosmetic. “This is not paint,” he said. “This is highly sophisticated stuff.”
The Interior Department, which is overseeing the project, said in a statement, “The choice of American Flag Blue will enhance the visitor experience by making the pool reflect the grand Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument.”
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia adds to similar legal opposition to Trump's architectural remake of the nation's capital.
Other projects either being built or planned include a huge White House ballroom, a triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery and a 250-statute Garden of Heroes.
“This latest desecration of the reflecting pool is part of a pattern – epitomized most notably by the rush to destroy the East Wing of the White – in which this Administration willfully disregards legal limits established by Congress,” the Cultural Landscape Foundation lawsuit says.
It also questions whether the claims of better reflection from the blue tint is true. The reflecting pool was built in 1922 with a dark gray bottom that was designed to create the pool’s mirror-like reflection between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument.
The resurfaced reflecting pool will give it an appearance more like a swimming pool with chlorinated water, according to Trump. He said he was inspired to make the changes after a friend visiting from Germany remarked that the reflecting pool looked dilapidated.
Earlier this month, Trump posted an AI-generated image on Truth Social of himself floating in the reflecting pool with Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum along with an unidentified woman.
He said when he announced the renovation last month that it would cost $1.8 million.
Interior Department records tell a different story. Atlantic Industrial Coatings was awarded a contract for $13.1 million.
The Interior Department said the inflated cost resulted from the short timeline to complete the renovation before the July 4 national celebration.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Shipping Company in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Indicted on Criminal Charges
Prosecutors in Baltimore are pursuing criminal charges against the owners and operators of a ship that crashed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in March 2024.
The crash of the container ship Dali into a pylon collapsed the bridge, temporarily shut down a major shipping lane and killed six workers.
The indictment announced last week names Singapore-based Grace Ocean Private Ltd. and Synergy Marine Group, along with Radhakrishnan Karthik Nair, a technical superintendent for the Dali.
Prosecutors allege the defendants knowingly ignored hazardous conditions aboard the vessel and later obstructed the federal investigation into the disaster. They say the company cut corners on safety to avoid higher maintenance costs.
"When companies prioritize schedule and profit over basic maritime safety, the consequences are measured in human lives," a statement from the U.S. attorney’s office says.
The companies say prosecutors are mischaracterizing an accident as a crime.
The Dali lost power twice while departing the Port of Baltimore on March 26, 2024, before crashing into a support column of the bridge. The six construction workers who were killed in the collapse were repairing potholes on the span overnight.
The disaster temporarily shut down one of the nation’s busiest shipping channels. When transportation delays and related shipping problems are added to the cost, federal authorities estimate the economic damage from the collapse exceeded $5 billion.
According to the Justice Department, investigators found that company officials failed to report known electrical and mechanical problems aboard the vessel.
Before the collapse, technicians modified the fuel pump. The ship also endured recurring power failures and blackouts.
Prosecutors allege the crew and their company falsified records and made misleading statements to Coast Guard and federal investigators.
The indictment filed in U.S. District Court in Baltimore suggests that the ship’s power distribution system was improperly configured, preventing the backup systems from engaging in time to avoid the collision. It alleges the companies were "grossly negligent" and acted with "reckless disregard" for safety standards.
Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche called the bridge collapse a “preventable tragedy of enormous consequence.” He blamed the disaster on “critical decisions” made by the ship’s operators and supervisors.
The charges include conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, failure to report hazardous conditions, and making false statements. Synergy Marine also was cited for environmental violations from pollution the disaster released into the Patapsco River.
If convicted, the companies could face billions of dollars in penalties.
Attorneys for Synergy Marine denied wrongdoing. The company said it cooperated fully with investigators and disputed allegations that management decisions directly caused the blackout that disabled the ship.
The criminal case follows civil lawsuits filed by the federal government, the state of Maryland, and victims’ families.
The defendants tried to limit their liability in court filings by invoking the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851. It is a maritime law that could have capped their financial responsibility at roughly $43.7 million.
Their legal defense met with minimal success in court, allowing Maryland officials to recently win a multibillion-dollar settlement with the ship’s owner and operator for reconstruction costs and economic losses.
The criminal charges further challenge the defendants’ legal strategy. Evidence of "privity or knowledge" of the ship's defects by the owners can void liability limitations, according to prosecutors.
The bridge's reconstruction remains ongoing. A projected completion date is years away.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
U.S. Attorney Threatens to Prosecute Parents Whose Children Violate D.C.’s Youth Curfew
Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro has ignited a fierce legal debate by announcing that parents of minors who violate Washington’s youth curfew could face criminal prosecution.
She said the prosecutions could be necessary to address a wave of disorder caused by groups of teenagers in nightlife districts across the city.
Pirro said last week that her office intends to use existing District law to pursue cases against parents or guardians who “knowingly permit, or by insufficient control allow” children to remain in public during curfew hours.
The citywide curfew for anyone under 18 years old generally runs from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. during June through September and midnight to 6 a.m. during the rest of the year.
The law allows for penalties including fines, court-ordered parenting classes and, in some circumstances, jail time. Pirro argued that curfew enforcement will be ineffective unless adults are held accountable as well.
The announcement is part of a “summer surge” of law enforcement to reduce juvenile crime. Hundreds of National Guard troops are being added to patrol crime-ridden locations.
The “teen takeovers” in the Navy Yard, NoMa and the U Street corridor neighborhoods occasionally have led to fights, robberies and property damage.
Critics condemned the proposal, saying it unfairly criminalizes struggling families and could worsen instability in households already facing economic and social pressures.
Defense attorney Mark Goldstone said prosecuting parents for their children’s curfew violations was “an extraordinary overreach.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia said criminalizing parents raises serious constitutional due process and fairness concerns.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.