Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of Trump birthright citizenship order unclear
Washington, Jun 27 (AP): A divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship.
The outcome was a victory for the Republican president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda.
But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to US-born children of people who are in the country illegally.
Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States vs Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive US citizenship upon being born on US soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the US during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes.
The US is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.
Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called “a priceless and profound gift” in the executive order he signed on his first day in office.
The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.
But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment's adoption.
Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration.
The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings.
The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump's plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case.
As a further fallback, the administration asked “at a minimum” to be allowed to make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Cow has unique status, its slaughter can have repercussions on peace: Punjab and Haryana HC
Chandigarh (PTI): The cow is a pious animal and "certain acts" can severely impact peace when they offend beliefs of a "significant population group", the Punjab and Haryana High Court has said while dismissing the anticipatory bail given to a Nuh resident accused of transporting cows for slaughter.
Asif was booked along with two others in April this year under the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, and the Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960, for allegedly transporting cows to Rajasthan for slaughter.
"The present offence, apart from its legal implications, is laden with emotional and cultural undertones, given the unique status of the cow in Indian society," Justice Sandeep Moudgil said in an order earlier this month. It was made public on Monday.
"This court cannot remain oblivious to the fact that in a pluralistic society like ours, certain acts, while otherwise private, can have severe repercussions on public peace when they offend the deeply held beliefs of a significant population group," the court said.
The cow is not only a pious animal but also an integral part of India's agrarian economy, the judge said.
According to the state counsel, the petitioner was actively involved in the alleged offence of cow slaughter. Therefore, his custodial interrogation was imperative for a fair and effective investigation, he submitted.
The court said the Constitution does not merely protect rights in abstraction but seeks to build a just, compassionate, and cohesive society.
"Article 51A(g) Constitution of India enjoins every citizen to show compassion to all living creatures. It is in this context that the alleged act of cow slaughter committed repeatedly, deliberately, and provocatively strikes at the core of constitutional morality and social order," said the order.
The court observed that the offence alleged in the present FIR deals with the allegation of slaughtering a cow in conscious defiance of existing law and in utter disregard to the sentiments of the community at large.
'It is evident from the material placed on record that the petitioner is not a first time offender. He is alleged to have previously been involved in three other FIRs pertaining to similar offences.
"In those cases, the petitioner was granted the benefit of bail as a gesture of judicial trust, which appears to have been misused, rather than respected," said the court order.
Anticipatory bail, it said, is a discretionary relief, intended to protect innocent individuals from motivated or arbitrary arrest, not to provide sanctuary to those who repeatedly violate the law with impunity.
Protection of pre-arrest bail should not be granted when the applicant has been shown to be a habitual offender or where his custodial interrogation is necessary for fair investigation, it said.
The court also cited the Supreme Court verdict in the 2005 State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat case that upheld the constitutional validity of cow slaughter prohibitory laws and recognised the constitutional directive under Article 48 of the Constitution as reflecting the moral and economic ethos of society.
While dismissing the anticipatory bail plea, Justice Moudgil also observed that the court is conscious of the need to safeguard individual liberty.
"But where such liberty is demonstrably misused, and where the petitioner's conduct is indicative of recidivism, the law must respond with firmness. The right to bail is not to be confused with the right to impunity," according to the order.
"Considering the serious nature of the allegations involving offences of moral turpitude, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender with a likelihood of reoffending, this court is of the opinion that no grounds are made out for grant of anticipatory bail," it said.
