News India Times

www.newsindiatimes.com – that’s all you need to know Disclaimer:The views and opinions expressed on this page are those of the authors and Parikh Worldwide Media does not officially endorse, and is not responsible or liable for them. News India Times (April 4, 2026 - April 10, 2026) April 10, 2026 4 Opinion O n his first day in office last year, President Trump signed Ex- ecutive Order 14,160. That Order attempted to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents without per- manent immigration status. Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case challenging the constitutional- ity of that order. And Cato has filed an amicus brief in support of the Order’s challengers, explaining how and why the Order contravenes the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court should affirm the lower court’s holding that the Order is unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment com- mands, “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.” The key debate in this case hinges on the meaning of the middle portion of that sentence: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The government argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment requires that newborn children be subject to America’s political jurisdiction, not just regulatory jurisdiction. Political jurisdic- tion, in the government’s view, demands allegiance to the United States—and therefore domicile—for citizenship. The government argues that children of parents without permanent immigration status cannot be domiciled in the United States, so they are not born citizens. But as our brief explains, this argument does not comport with the original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Contemporaneous definitions, writings of the time, and court precedent show that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” only required that children be born under the United States’ authority (that is, be bound to follow US law). Because children of par- ents without permanent immigration sta- tus are under the authority of the United States and born in the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment grants them citizenship. The ordinary public meaning of the text is corroborated by the Fourteenth Amendment’s purpose. In the past, the Court improperly limited this purpose in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873) and excluded those the Fourteenth Amend- ment meant to protect. We argue that this Court should avoid making that mistake again and affirm the broad pur- pose of the Fourteenth Amendment: to protect “all persons.” And the set of “all persons” includes the children of parents without permanent immigration status. Our brief concludes with a rebut- tal of another amicus brief in this case. Professor IlanWurman’s amicus brief provides an account of the common law of birthright citizenship and a purported application of originalism that pays in- sufficient attention to the Constitution’s original public meaning. We argue that a more faithful deployment of original- ism cannot support ProfessorWurman’s conclusions. In the end, the Fourteenth Amend- ment guarantees citizenship to nearly all persons born in the United States, with exceptions far narrower than the Execu- tive Order’s scope. The president cannot ignore, rewrite, or abandon that promise by executive order. The Supreme Court should affirm the judgment below and issue a judgment that respects the right of birthright citizenship that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed. By Thomas A. Berry, Dan Greenberg, and Kimberly Coleman, Cato Institute The Supreme Court Should AffirmBirthright Citizenship PHOTO:COURTESY CATO.ORG Copy of 14th Amendment signed in 1866. US Affairs I ndian American candidate for the Georgia House of Representatives from District 97, is getting some significant endorsements for his campaign for the Democratic primary scheduled almost two months from now on May 19, 2026. He is pitted against fellow Democrat Jacques Laurent. “My team and I have been all over our district meet- ing voters, connecting with local groups, and sharing our vision for the future of Gwinnett County, Singh said in his weekly newsletter. “I’m proud to announce our recent slate of endorse- ments! It’s an honor to have the support of members of Congress Hank Johnson and Jonathan Jackson, as well as State Representatives Long Tran and Eric Bell – all dedi- cated leaders who understand the challenges working families are facing in Georgia. We’re building a coalition that’ll fight for affordable healthcare, quality education, and real opportunities to get ahead,” Singh said. He also received the endorsement of the GeorgiaWork- ing Families Party. “TheWFP has spent years doing the hard and often thankless work of organizing working families across Georgia, and the fact that they believe in our grassroots campaign means everything,” Singh declared. On his campaign website singhforga, the candidate’s rallying cry is “The Time Is Now” and under that banner, Singh gives his rationalefor running and his vision: “I’m running for State House because the people of District 97 are ready to shine. We are a district of high-tech innovation in Peachtree Corners, small-business immigrant hustle in Duluth, and deep working-class roots in Norcross. We don’t need leadership that just “holds the line” in government. We need leadership that understands GCo—the unique spirit of resilience and community that defines Gwinnett. I am running to be a bridge between the grassroots and government, ensuring that as Gwinnett grows, it grows for all of us.” Singh is a graduate of Yale University. Jyot Singh, Candidate For Georgia House Of Representatives Wracks Up Endorsements By a StaffWriter Endorsements for Jyot Singh poster. PHOTO :PROVIDED IN CAMPAIGN NEWSLETTER