Zhao, a fearless, attacking left-hander, showed few nerves in a match which World Snooker Tour officials estimated was being watched by a potential audience of 150-200 million live streams in China and a cumulative audience of 50-150 million on China’s CCTV5.
“The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.In dissent, Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote that Wong could not be a citizen because his parents still owed their allegiance to the Chinese emperor and could not be fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Justice John Marshall Harlan joined the dissent.
“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing in his Seattle courtroom.In his written order, Coughenour said, “The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the order violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment ... Indeed, the court need only look to its text. The Citizenship Clause is clear: ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ In other words, any individual who is born in the territorial United States or properly naturalized according to federal procedures is a citizen of this country.“The government for its part relies on the provision of the Citizenship Clause that conditions citizenship upon being ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States. That is, the government argues that ‘children born in the United States of illegal aliens or temporary visitors’ are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ and therefore cannot be considered birthright citizens ... But the government accords more meaning to the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ than those words or precedent support.”
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston said the Wong Kim Ark decision resolved the current case. “The rule and reasoning from that decision were reiterated and applied in later decisions, adopted by Congress as a matter of federal statutory law in 1940, and followed consistently by the Executive Branch for the past 100 years, at least. A single district judge would be bound to apply that settled interpretation, even if a party were to present persuasive arguments that the long-established understanding is erroneous. The defendants, however, have offered no such arguments here. “The loss of birthright citizenship — even if temporary, and later restored at the conclusion of litigation — has cascading effects that would cut across a young child’s life (and the life of that child’s family), very likely leaving permanent scars. The record before the court establishes that children born without a recognized or lawful status face barriers to accessing critical healthcare, among other services, along with the threat of removal to countries they have never lived in and possible family separation. That is irreparable harm.”In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that “the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed” Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship.
The children targeted by Trump’s order don’t fit into any of the exceptions the high court recognized in 1898, Indian tribes, foreign diplomats or occupying forces. “They are children whose citizenship by birth has been recognized in this country since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. When the children described in the Executive Order are born, they will be United States citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment and long-standing Supreme Court precedent. The President does not have the authority to strip them of their constitutional right to citizenship by birth,” she wrote.
Boardman also explained why she issued a nationwide injunction. One of the groups that sued, ASAP, has more than 680,000 members. “Because ASAP’s members reside in every state and hundreds of them expect to give birth soon, a nationwide injunction is the only way ‘to provide complete relief’ to them,” she wrote. “It also is necessary because the policy concerns citizenship—a national concern that demands a uniform policy.”The refugee in India said most of those returned were registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in India and were detained by Indian authorities under the pretext of collecting their biometric data. He also shared with the AP pictures of his brother while he was detained by Indian authorities and taken in a police vehicle.
AP also reviewed a recording of another phone call made by a refugee to his brother in New Delhi. The man who made the call is heard saying some people from the group were beaten by Indian navy authorities.It was not possible to independently verify these claims.
A Rohingya refugee who has not been identified due to safety concerns, shows his conversation details on WhatsApp with his family members in Myanmar as he talks to The Associated Press in New Delhi, India, Friday, May 16, 2025. (AP Photo/Manish Swarup)A Rohingya refugee who has not been identified due to safety concerns, shows his conversation details on WhatsApp with his family members in Myanmar as he talks to The Associated Press in New Delhi, India, Friday, May 16, 2025. (AP Photo/Manish Swarup)