Microsoft Backs Anthropic in Legal Fight Against Pentagon's AI Blacklist 
Russia-Iran Military Alliance Deepens With Drone Shipments Amid Middle East Tensions 
Will a new border deal with the US open a backdoor into Kiwis’ personal data? 
Russia Strikes Kharkiv and Izmail as Cross-Border Drone War Escalates 
Russia Accused of Helping Iran Target U.S. Forces, European Powers Tell G7 
China Opens Door to Stronger U.S. Trade Ties Amid Rising Tensions 
Estée Lauder Sues Jo Malone Over Trademark Dispute Involving Zara 
SMIC Allegedly Supplies Chipmaking Tools to Iran's Military, U.S. Officials Warn 
FEMA Reinstates $1 Billion Disaster Prevention Grant Program After Court Order 
UBS Seeks Legal Protection Over Credit Suisse's Nazi-Era Banking Activities 
ICE Arrests Colombian Journalist in Tennessee, Trump Administration Says She Will Receive Due Process 
G7 Foreign Ministers Gather in France Amid Global Tensions and U.S. Policy Uncertainty 
California Renames Cesar Chavez Day to Farmworkers Day Following Sexual Abuse Allegations 
Stellantis Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit Dismissed by U.S. Judge 
Taiwan Arms Deal on Track Despite U.S.-China Summit Uncertainty 
What does China’s host bid mean for the High Seas Treaty? 
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to examine the legality of President Donald Trump’s directive aimed at restricting birthright citizenship, a move that could redefine a long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The decision to hear the case follows a Justice Department appeal challenging a lower court ruling that blocked Trump’s order, which instructed federal agencies not to recognize citizenship for children born in the United States unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The lower court concluded that the directive violated both the 14th Amendment and federal law, prompting a class-action lawsuit from affected families. The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments this term, with a ruling anticipated by June. The executive order, signed on Trump’s first day of his second term, reflects his continued efforts to tighten both legal and illegal immigration—policies that have repeatedly sparked national debate and accusations of discrimination.
For more than a century, the 14th Amendment has been widely interpreted to guarantee citizenship to nearly all babies born on U.S. soil. However, the Trump administration contends that this protection should not extend to children of undocumented immigrants or individuals in the country temporarily, such as students or workers on visas. Supporters of the policy argue it addresses issues like illegal immigration and so-called “birth tourism,” while critics maintain that no president has the authority to alter constitutional guarantees.
Challengers emphasize that the Supreme Court settled the matter in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, affirming that children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents are citizens. They also cite federal laws that codify this longstanding interpretation. The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case before lower appeals courts weighed in underscores its national importance.
This ruling could significantly impact immigration law, federal authority, and the future of birthright citizenship in America.
