window.__IS_SSR__=true
window.__INITIAL_STATE__={
"attachmentsReducer": {
"audio_0": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_0",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background0.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_1": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_1",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background1.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_2": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_2",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background2.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_3": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_3",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background3.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_4": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_4",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background4.jpg"
}
}
},
"placeholder": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "placeholder",
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-768x512.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 512,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xxsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"small": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xlarge": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 32,
"height": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-50": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 50,
"height": 50,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 64,
"height": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 96,
"height": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 128,
"height": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
}
},
"news_12078405": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12078405",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12078405",
"found": true
},
"title": "US-POLITICS-TRUMP-SCOTUS-CITIZENSHIP",
"publishDate": 1775079746,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12078171,
"modified": 1775079793,
"caption": "Demonstrators rally in support of birthright citizenship outside the U.S. Supreme Court as President Donald Trump attends oral arguments in Washington, D.C. on April 1, 2026. Despite 128 years of precedent dating back to a landmark case out of San Francisco, justices heard arguments in a case with massive implications for birthright citizenship.",
"credit": "Kent Nishimura/AFP via Getty Images",
"altTag": null,
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/04/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty4-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/04/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty4-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/04/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty4-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/04/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty4-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"npr-cds-wide": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/04/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty4-1200x675.jpg",
"width": 1200,
"height": 675,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"npr-cds-square": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/04/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty4-600x600.jpg",
"width": 600,
"height": 600,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/04/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty4.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12078178": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12078178",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12078178",
"found": true
},
"title": "Mother holding her baby in her arms",
"publishDate": 1774980967,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12078161,
"modified": 1774981014,
"caption": "A mother looking out the window while holding the baby in her arms.",
"credit": "Rawl Stock/Getty Images",
"altTag": null,
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"npr-cds-wide": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty1-1200x675.jpg",
"width": 1200,
"height": 675,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"npr-cds-square": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty1-600x600.jpg",
"width": 600,
"height": 600,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty1.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12051941": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12051941",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12051941",
"found": true
},
"title": "250812-YICK-WO-ARCHIVAL-06-KQED",
"publishDate": 1755034610,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12050233,
"modified": 1756488162,
"caption": "Photograph of Yick Wo Laundry, In re Wo Lee, case file 3947 (NAID 348094304); Civil and Appellate Case Files, 1863–1911 (NAID 295935); U.S. Circuit Court, Ninth Circuit, Northern District of California, San Francisco (USCC San Francisco); RG 21, NARA San Francisco. ",
"credit": "Courtesy of the National Archives at San Francisco",
"altTag": null,
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250812-YICK-WO-ARCHIVAL-06-KQED-160x127.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 127,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250812-YICK-WO-ARCHIVAL-06-KQED-1536x1219.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1219,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250812-YICK-WO-ARCHIVAL-06-KQED-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250812-YICK-WO-ARCHIVAL-06-KQED-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250812-YICK-WO-ARCHIVAL-06-KQED.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1587
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12033529": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12033529",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12033529",
"found": true
},
"title": "npr.brightspotcdn copy",
"publishDate": 1743186464,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12033527,
"modified": 1743186488,
"caption": "The US Supreme Court is shown March 17, 2025 in Washington, DC.",
"credit": "Win McNamee/Getty Images",
"altTag": null,
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/npr.brightspotcdn-copy-13-800x534.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 534,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/npr.brightspotcdn-copy-13-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/npr.brightspotcdn-copy-13-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/npr.brightspotcdn-copy-13-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/npr.brightspotcdn-copy-13-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/npr.brightspotcdn-copy-13-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/npr.brightspotcdn-copy-13.jpg",
"width": 1600,
"height": 1067
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12023242": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12023242",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12023242",
"found": true
},
"title": "Presser_IMG_5746",
"publishDate": 1737484475,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12023126,
"modified": 1751065818,
"caption": "Attorney General Rob Bonta (second from right), City Attorney David Chiu (center), Gabriel Medina from La Raza immigration services and others, at a press conference on Tuesday, Jan 21, 2025, to announce a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order.",
"credit": "Gilare Zada/KQED",
"altTag": null,
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/Presser_IMG_5746-800x600.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 600,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/Presser_IMG_5746-1020x765.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 765,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/Presser_IMG_5746-160x120.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 120,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/Presser_IMG_5746-1536x1152.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1152,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/Presser_IMG_5746-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/Presser_IMG_5746-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/Presser_IMG_5746-1920x1440.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1440,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/Presser_IMG_5746.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1500
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12046267": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12046267",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12046267",
"found": true
},
"title": "Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Block Order To Return Mistakenly Deported Man",
"publishDate": 1751036305,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12046266,
"modified": 1772572584,
"caption": "The U.S. Supreme Court on April 7, 2025, in Washington, D.C.",
"credit": "Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images",
"altTag": "The U.S. Supreme Court",
"description": "The U.S. Supreme Court is seen on April 07, 2025 in Washington, D.C.",
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/gettyimages-2209056030-4-2000x1334.jpeg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1334,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/gettyimages-2209056030-4-2000x1334.jpeg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1334,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/gettyimages-2209056030-4-160x107.jpeg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/gettyimages-2209056030-4-1536x1025.jpeg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1025,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"2048x2048": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/gettyimages-2209056030-4-2048x1366.jpeg",
"width": 2048,
"height": 1366,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/gettyimages-2209056030-4-672x372.jpeg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/gettyimages-2209056030-4-1038x576.jpeg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/gettyimages-2209056030-4-2000x1334.jpeg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1334,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/gettyimages-2209056030-4-scaled-e1772572598710.jpeg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1334
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11712245": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11712245",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11712245",
"found": true
},
"title": "The Association of Legal Aid Attorneys along with dozens of unions, immigrant rights organizations, and community groups held a rally on December 7, 2017 at Brooklyn Borough Hall to call on the Office of Court Administration and Chief Judge Janet DiFiore to prohibit Immigration & Customs Enforcement agents from entering state courthouses, and to end coordination with ICE.",
"publishDate": 1544730613,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 11712244,
"modified": 1748046862,
"caption": "The Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, along with dozens of unions, immigrant rights organizations and community groups, held a rally on Dec. 7, 2017, at Brooklyn Borough Hall.",
"credit": "Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images",
"altTag": null,
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/12/gettyimages-888870656-e9acdd0cdcb80ec5cd16b8a05023e4e5664f30fb-160x120.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 120,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/12/gettyimages-888870656-e9acdd0cdcb80ec5cd16b8a05023e4e5664f30fb-800x600.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 600,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/12/gettyimages-888870656-e9acdd0cdcb80ec5cd16b8a05023e4e5664f30fb-1020x765.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 765,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"complete_open_graph": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/12/gettyimages-888870656-e9acdd0cdcb80ec5cd16b8a05023e4e5664f30fb-1200x900.jpg",
"width": 1200,
"height": 900,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/12/gettyimages-888870656-e9acdd0cdcb80ec5cd16b8a05023e4e5664f30fb-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/12/gettyimages-888870656-e9acdd0cdcb80ec5cd16b8a05023e4e5664f30fb-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/12/gettyimages-888870656-e9acdd0cdcb80ec5cd16b8a05023e4e5664f30fb-1920x1440.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1440,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/12/gettyimages-888870656-e9acdd0cdcb80ec5cd16b8a05023e4e5664f30fb-32x32.jpg",
"width": 32,
"height": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-50": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/12/gettyimages-888870656-e9acdd0cdcb80ec5cd16b8a05023e4e5664f30fb-50x50.jpg",
"width": 50,
"height": 50,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/12/gettyimages-888870656-e9acdd0cdcb80ec5cd16b8a05023e4e5664f30fb-64x64.jpg",
"width": 64,
"height": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/12/gettyimages-888870656-e9acdd0cdcb80ec5cd16b8a05023e4e5664f30fb-96x96.jpg",
"width": 96,
"height": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/12/gettyimages-888870656-e9acdd0cdcb80ec5cd16b8a05023e4e5664f30fb-128x128.jpg",
"width": 128,
"height": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/12/gettyimages-888870656-e9acdd0cdcb80ec5cd16b8a05023e4e5664f30fb-150x150.jpg",
"width": 150,
"height": 150,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/12/gettyimages-888870656-e9acdd0cdcb80ec5cd16b8a05023e4e5664f30fb-e1748037342663.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1500
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12040331": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12040331",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12040331",
"found": true
},
"title": "Supreme Court Issues Opinions",
"publishDate": 1747332410,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12040330,
"modified": 1775005046,
"caption": "The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday in a case challenging the Trump administration's effort to limit who gets birthright citizenship.",
"credit": "Andrew Harnik/Getty Images",
"altTag": null,
"description": "WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 20: An exterior view of the Supreme Court on June 20, 2024 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court is about to issue rulings on a variety of high profile cases dealing with abortion rights, gun rights, and former President Donald Trump's immunity claim, putting the court at the center of many hot political topics during an election year. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)",
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/05/gettyimages-2157829281-11-800x533.jpeg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/05/gettyimages-2157829281-11-1020x680.jpeg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/05/gettyimages-2157829281-11-160x107.jpeg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/05/gettyimages-2157829281-11-1536x1024.jpeg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"2048x2048": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/05/gettyimages-2157829281-11-2048x1365.jpeg",
"width": 2048,
"height": 1365,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/05/gettyimages-2157829281-11-672x372.jpeg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/05/gettyimages-2157829281-11-1038x576.jpeg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/05/gettyimages-2157829281-11-1920x1280.jpeg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/05/gettyimages-2157829281-11-scaled-e1775001710822.jpeg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1334
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12032980": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12032980",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12032980",
"found": true
},
"title": "250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed",
"publishDate": 1742934572,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12078171,
"modified": 1775080239,
"caption": "Norman Wong, the great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark, stands in front of a mural featuring his great-grandfather in San Francisco’s Chinatown on March 24, 2025, where Wong Kim Ark was born.",
"credit": "Beth LaBerge/KQED",
"altTag": null,
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12031870": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12031870",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12031870",
"found": true
},
"title": "US-FRAUD-AUTOMOBILE-INTERNET-MUSK-TWITTER",
"publishDate": 1742324979,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12081802,
"modified": 1777579953,
"caption": "The exterior of the Phillip Burton Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco, California, on Jan. 20, 2019. ",
"credit": "Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images",
"altTag": null,
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/GettyImages-1246387515-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/GettyImages-1246387515-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/GettyImages-1246387515-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/GettyImages-1246387515-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"2048x2048": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/GettyImages-1246387515-2048x1365.jpg",
"width": 2048,
"height": 1365,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/GettyImages-1246387515-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/GettyImages-1246387515-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/GettyImages-1246387515-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/GettyImages-1246387515-scaled-e1742325160899.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1334
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11890060": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11890060",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11890060",
"found": true
},
"title": "US-POLITICS-IMMIGRATION-COURT",
"publishDate": 1632779004,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 11890039,
"modified": 1779125894,
"caption": "People hold signs during a rally in support of the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in San Diego, California, June 18, 2020.",
"credit": "Sandy Huffaker/AFP via Getty Images",
"altTag": "Protesters hold signs saying, \"We are here to stay!\" \"Black Lives Matter\" and \"Education, Not Deportation.\"",
"description": "People hold signs during a rally in support of the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, in San Diego, California June 18, 2020.",
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2021/09/GettyImages-1221069312-800x534.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 534,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2021/09/GettyImages-1221069312-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2021/09/GettyImages-1221069312-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2021/09/GettyImages-1221069312-1536x1025.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1025,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"2048x2048": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2021/09/GettyImages-1221069312-2048x1366.jpg",
"width": 2048,
"height": 1366,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2021/09/GettyImages-1221069312-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2021/09/GettyImages-1221069312-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2021/09/GettyImages-1221069312-1920x1281.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1281,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2021/09/GettyImages-1221069312-scaled-e1740595603543.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1334
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12025343": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12025343",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12025343",
"found": true
},
"title": "lady with child in arms",
"publishDate": 1738552505,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12025342,
"modified": 1738552559,
"caption": "La orden ejecutiva de Trump establece que solo se verán afectados los bebés nacidos «dentro de Estados Unidos después de 30 días de la fecha de esta orden», por lo que el 19 de febrero de 2025 sería la fecha oficial de inicio de la política. Sin embargo, un juez federal ha paralizado la orden, que el Departamento de Justicia probablemente recurrirá.",
"credit": "John Moore/Getty Images",
"altTag": null,
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/lady-with-child-in-arms-800x541.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 541,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/lady-with-child-in-arms-160x108.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 108,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/lady-with-child-in-arms-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/lady-with-child-in-arms-1020x576.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/lady-with-child-in-arms.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 690
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
}
},
"audioPlayerReducer": {
"postId": "stream_live",
"isPaused": true,
"isPlaying": false,
"pfsActive": false,
"pledgeModalIsOpen": true,
"playerDrawerIsOpen": false,
"liveAudioPlayStartedAt": 0,
"liveAudioPlayContext": ""
},
"authorsReducer": {
"byline_news_12044886": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "byline_news_12044886",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"slug": "byline_news_12044886",
"name": "Nina Totenberg, NPR",
"isLoading": false
},
"byline_news_12040330": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "byline_news_12040330",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"slug": "byline_news_12040330",
"name": "Nina Totenberg, NPR",
"isLoading": false
},
"tychehendricks": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "259",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "259",
"found": true
},
"name": "Tyche Hendricks",
"firstName": "Tyche",
"lastName": "Hendricks",
"slug": "tychehendricks",
"email": "thendricks@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Senior Editor, Immigration",
"bio": "Tyche Hendricks is KQED’s senior editor for immigration, leading coverage of the policy and politics that affect California’s immigrant communities. Her work for KQED’s radio and online audiences is also carried on NPR and other national outlets. She has been recognized with awards from the Radio and Television News Directors Association, the Society for Professional Journalists; the Education Writers Association; the Best of the West and the National Federation of Community Broadcasters. Before joining KQED in 2010, Tyche spent more than a dozen years as a newspaper reporter, notably at the \u003ci>San Francisco Chronicle\u003c/i>. At different times she has covered criminal justice, government and politics and urban planning. Tyche has taught in the MFA Creative Writing program at the University of San Francisco and at UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism, where she was co-director of a national immigration symposium for professional journalists. She is the author of \u003ci>The Wind Doesn't Need a Passport: Stories from the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands\u003c/i> (University of California Press). ",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2a0bd7f2418d4be9198f23bf99a161f3f7a98fb9bf6d3820763d49b5c5f8fc81?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "tychehendricks",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Tyche Hendricks | KQED",
"description": "KQED Senior Editor, Immigration",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2a0bd7f2418d4be9198f23bf99a161f3f7a98fb9bf6d3820763d49b5c5f8fc81?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2a0bd7f2418d4be9198f23bf99a161f3f7a98fb9bf6d3820763d49b5c5f8fc81?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/tychehendricks"
},
"mlagos": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "3239",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "3239",
"found": true
},
"name": "Marisa Lagos",
"firstName": "Marisa",
"lastName": "Lagos",
"slug": "mlagos",
"email": "mlagos@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Marisa Lagos is a correspondent for KQED’s California Politics and Government Desk and co-hosts the award-winning show and podcast, Political Breakdown. At KQED, Lagos also conducts reporting, analysis and investigations into state, local and national politics for radio, TV, online and onstage. In 2022, she and co-host, Scott Shafer, moderated the only gubernatorial debate in California. In 2020, the \u003ci>Washington Post\u003c/i> named her one of the top political journalists in California; she was nominated for a Peabody and won several other awards for her work investigating the 2017 California wildfires. She has worked at the \u003ci>San Francisco Chronicle\u003c/i>, \u003ci>San Francisco Examiner\u003c/i> and \u003ci>Los Angeles Times\u003c/i>. A UC Santa Barbara graduate, she lives in San Francisco with her two sons and husband.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a261a0d3696fc066871ef96b85b5e7d2?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "@mlagos",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Marisa Lagos | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a261a0d3696fc066871ef96b85b5e7d2?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a261a0d3696fc066871ef96b85b5e7d2?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/mlagos"
},
"clei": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "8617",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "8617",
"found": true
},
"name": "Cecilia Lei",
"firstName": "Cecilia",
"lastName": "Lei",
"slug": "clei",
"email": "clei@KQED.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Cecilia Lei is an on-call host and producer for KQED News and Podcasts. Previously, she was the executive producer and host of the San Francisco Chronicle's daily news podcast, 'Fifth and Mission'. Cecilia is a graduate of UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism and the former president of the Asian American Journalists Association San Francisco Bay Area chapter.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3a76b2dc2f3909307069a6040ca5baa74612590c1d837c8bff44fbe2294ed41?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"read_private_posts",
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "about",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Cecilia Lei | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3a76b2dc2f3909307069a6040ca5baa74612590c1d837c8bff44fbe2294ed41?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e3a76b2dc2f3909307069a6040ca5baa74612590c1d837c8bff44fbe2294ed41?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/clei"
},
"ccabreralomeli": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11708",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11708",
"found": true
},
"name": "Carlos Cabrera-Lomelí",
"firstName": "Carlos",
"lastName": "Cabrera-Lomelí",
"slug": "ccabreralomeli",
"email": "ccabreralomeli@KQED.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "Community Reporter",
"bio": "Carlos Cabrera-Lomelí is a community reporter with KQED's digital engagement team. He also reports and co-produces for KQED's bilingual news hub KQED en Español. He grew up in San Francisco's Mission District and has previously worked with Univision, 48 Hills and REFORMA in Mexico City.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c309be9665e484f887b818c89e273ecc673004f426f36b24d00a4d813a2e0518?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "@LomeliCabrera",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "about",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "perspectives",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "elections",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Carlos Cabrera-Lomelí | KQED",
"description": "Community Reporter",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c309be9665e484f887b818c89e273ecc673004f426f36b24d00a4d813a2e0518?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c309be9665e484f887b818c89e273ecc673004f426f36b24d00a4d813a2e0518?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/ccabreralomeli"
},
"nkhan": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11867",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11867",
"found": true
},
"name": "Nisa Khan",
"firstName": "Nisa",
"lastName": "Khan",
"slug": "nkhan",
"email": "nkhan@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Nisa Khan is a reporter for KQED's Audience News Desk. She was formerly a data reporter at Michigan Radio. She earned a Bachelor of Science in Information from the University of Michigan and a Master of Arts in Communication from Stanford University.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8720459eef081ff64582b3506b124d58523e80e120704a0cbd9892533c914991?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "mnisakhan",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor",
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Nisa Khan | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8720459eef081ff64582b3506b124d58523e80e120704a0cbd9892533c914991?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8720459eef081ff64582b3506b124d58523e80e120704a0cbd9892533c914991?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/nkhan"
},
"kdebenedetti": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11913",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11913",
"found": true
},
"name": "Katie DeBenedetti",
"firstName": "Katie",
"lastName": "DeBenedetti",
"slug": "kdebenedetti",
"email": "kdebenedetti@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news",
"science"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Katie DeBenedetti is a digital reporter covering daily news for the Express Desk. Prior to joining KQED as a culture reporting intern in January 2024, she covered education and city government for the Napa Valley Register.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/6e31073cb8f7e4214ab03f42771d0f45?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Katie DeBenedetti | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/6e31073cb8f7e4214ab03f42771d0f45?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/6e31073cb8f7e4214ab03f42771d0f45?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/kdebenedetti"
},
"slim": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11920",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11920",
"found": true
},
"name": "Samantha Lim",
"firstName": "Samantha",
"lastName": "Lim",
"slug": "slim",
"email": "slim@KQED.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/82e592e6c15fe1a04d385e8ad0fb0b4e?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": []
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Samantha Lim | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/82e592e6c15fe1a04d385e8ad0fb0b4e?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/82e592e6c15fe1a04d385e8ad0fb0b4e?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/slim"
}
},
"pagesReducer": {
"news_tag_birthright-citizenship": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34903",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34903",
"score": 10.4075165
},
"name": "birthright citizenship",
"slug": "birthright-citizenship",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "birthright citizenship | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 34920,
"isLoading": false,
"title": "birthright citizenship",
"pageMeta": {
"site": "news",
"WpPageTemplate": "page-topic-editorial",
"currentPage": 2
},
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "kqed/post-list",
"attrs": {
"layout": "cardArticle2",
"query": "posts/news?tag=birthright-citizenship",
"seeMore": false,
"paginated": true,
"page": 2
}
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad"
}
]
}
},
"pfsSessionReducer": {},
"postsReducer": {
"stream_live": {
"type": "live",
"id": "stream_live",
"audioUrl": "https://hls.kqed.org/hls/kqed_app/playlist.m3u8",
"title": "Live Stream",
"excerpt": "Live Stream information currently unavailable.",
"link": "/radio",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "KQED Live",
"link": "/"
}
},
"stream_kqedNewscast": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "stream_kqedNewscast",
"audioUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/radio/RDnews/newscast.mp3?_=1",
"title": "KQED Newscast",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "88.5 FM",
"link": "/"
}
},
"news_12078171": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12078171",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12078171",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1775044805000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "as-supreme-court-weighs-birthright-citizenship-sf-advocates-are-ready-to-stand-up",
"title": "Supreme Court Justices Skeptical of Trump’s Challenge to Birthright Citizenship",
"publishDate": 1775044805,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "Supreme Court Justices Skeptical of Trump’s Challenge to Birthright Citizenship | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>Justices appeared to lean toward rejecting the Trump administration’s challenge to \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12078161/trump-executive-order-ending-birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-ruling-who-is-affected-can-citizen-be-revoked\">birthright citizenship\u003c/a> during Wednesday’s oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court, where advocates from San Francisco showed up to defend the long-standing principle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Despite 128 years of Supreme Court precedent holding that babies born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status — dating back to a \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship\">case out of San Francisco\u003c/a> — the justices agreed to hear arguments in Trump v. Barbara. The Trump administration is seeking to defend a January 2025 \u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/\">executive order\u003c/a> from the president stating that, unless a child has a parent who’s a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, they are not a U.S. citizen by birth.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Every lower court that has weighed in, including the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-trump-judges-immigration-be729b836581858a118ca92a0d083336?user_email=2a0bd7f2418d4be9198f23bf99a161f3f7a98fb9bf6d3820763d49b5c5f8fc81&utm_medium=Afternoon_Wire&utm_source=Sailthru_AP&utm_campaign=AfternoonWire_Mon_March30_2026&utm_term=Afternoon%20Wire\">has ruled\u003c/a> Trump’s order unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>During oral arguments Wednesday morning in Washington, conservative justices, whose votes will be key, \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-birthright-citizenship-immigrants-4dca3a4e06f58d4378412ed711fab3a8?user_email=2a0bd7f2418d4be9198f23bf99a161f3f7a98fb9bf6d3820763d49b5c5f8fc81&utm_medium=Afternoon_Wire&utm_source=Sailthru_AP&utm_campaign=AfternoonWire_Wed_Apr1_2026&utm_term=Afternoon%20Wire\">posed difficult questions\u003c/a> to Solicitor General John Sauer, the federal government’s representative in the Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The administration argued the amendment was ratified specifically to grant citizenship to former slaves born in the U.S., rather than children of immigrants, regardless of their legal status, but Coney Barrett pointed out that that isn’t in the amendment text.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that Sauer’s argument relied on outlier exceptions to the 14th Amendment to argue against broader birthright citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12055174\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-12055174 size-full\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/09/Brett-Kavanaugh-Getty.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/09/Brett-Kavanaugh-Getty.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/09/Brett-Kavanaugh-Getty-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/09/Brett-Kavanaugh-Getty-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Left to right: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and retired Justice Anthony Kennedy attend U.S. President Donald Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 04, 2025, in Washington, D.C. \u003ccite>(Win McNamee/Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>“I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples,” Roberts said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The precedent behind birthright citizenship goes back to an 1898 ruling in the case brought by San Francisco-born Wong Kim Ark, who was barred from reentry under the Chinese Exclusion Act after a trip to visit family in China, even though he carried paperwork attesting to his U.S. birth.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justices ruled in Wong’s favor, pointing to the 14th Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1868 after the abolition of slavery, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Trump administration’s current argument seeking to restrict birthright citizenship hinges on the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which Sauer has asserted promises citizenship only to people who are “completely subject” to the U.S. and owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the government.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In legal filings, Sauer said the Wong Kim Ark decision has been read too generously and does not apply to the children of undocumented immigrants and people in the U.S. temporarily because that “degrades the meaning and value of American citizenship.” He wrote that that interpretation has “incentivized” illegal immigration and “birth tourism” by people who want to gain a toehold to a life in the U.S.[aside postID=news_12078161 hero='https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty1.jpg']Among those outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday was Norman Wong. An East Bay resident and retired carpenter, Wong, 76, is the great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Wong was born in San Francisco but didn’t grow up knowing the story of his ancestor or the role he played in U.S. history. He says when he first learned about Wong Kim Ark’s case 25 years ago, he thought it was “a curiosity of history” because birthright citizenship was settled law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I grew up knowing that I was American. All the kids that I ran around with, they knew they were American. Why? They were born here,” he told KQED ahead of the hearing. “It’s like assuming every time you breathe in and out, you get air. It was part of your whole being. We were proud to be American.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After the Supreme Court hearing, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said birthright citizenship is foundational to American democracy and promises equality under law to all children, regardless of race, class or parental background.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It’s a guarantee that every child born here has a personal stake in the American dream,” Bonta said. “It tells you something that President Trump willfully chose to start his second term by trying to knock down this fundamental and long-standing right. Fortunately, I believe he will fail.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Speaking outside the courtroom, Cecillia Wang, who argued on behalf of the ACLU, said the case was “nerve-wracking,” but appeared hopeful.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We could not be more confident that despite the policy preferences of the current administration, that this attack on what it means to be American in the most fundamental way … will be turned down,” she said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-12078174 size-full\" style=\"font-weight: bold; background-color: transparent; color: #767676;\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/SCOTUSBirthrightCitizenshipGetty.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/SCOTUSBirthrightCitizenshipGetty.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/SCOTUSBirthrightCitizenshipGetty-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/SCOTUSBirthrightCitizenshipGetty-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>People wait in line outside the Supreme Court Justice building to attend oral arguments on birthright citizenship, a day before the court is scheduled to address the case, on March 31, 2026, in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court is set to convene on April 1 to consider the legality of President Trump’s executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Overturning the principle of birthright citizenship would create a bureaucratic nightmare and threaten the very fabric of American society, according to Winnie Kao, senior counsel with San Francisco’s Asian Law Caucus, who is an attorney of record on the Barbara case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It would be a radical departure from over 120 years of precedent and understanding,” said Kao, whose organization had attorneys in court Wednesday alongside the ACLU and others. “It would be really hard for the public to understand and, I think, to accept.”[aside postID=news_12015449 hero='https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/11/20241119_BirthrightCitizenshipExplainer_GC-16_qed-1020x680.jpg']Since Trump’s executive order, Kao said her office has been fielding “powerful and upsetting” questions from people who are either undocumented or in the U.S. on temporary work or student visas.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“How do you prove citizenship for your newborn when it’s not based on a birth certificate anymore?” she said. “Parents are calling us, wondering if their baby’s going to be subject to deportation … and what will statelessness mean for my baby?”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But some in California believe the executive order would impose a useful limit on birthright citizenship. Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Elk Grove, said the increased number of migrants who entered the U.S. during the Biden administration was justification for that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It … brought to a head the fundamental question of whether any person in the world can break into our country, have a baby at taxpayer expense, have that baby declared an American citizen and then use that as a pretext to remain,” McClintock wrote in a Washington Times op-ed. “President Trump has issued an executive order challenging that notion for all future births.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After Trump’s executive order, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12023126/california-leaders-to-sue-trump-over-birthright-citizenship-border-policies\">California immediately filed suit\u003c/a> along with 23 other states, the city of San Francisco and the District of Columbia. While that case was not before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Bonta has \u003ca href=\"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-continues-fight-defend-birthright-citizenship-us-supreme\">filed a “friend of the court” brief\u003c/a> in the Barbara case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He’s said that California stands to lose federal funding for key health and education programs if nearly 25,000 babies born in the state each year lose the right to citizenship because of their parentage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12032980\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12032980\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Norman Wong, the great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark, stands in front of a mural featuring his great-grandfather in San Francisco’s Chinatown on March 24, 2025, where Wong Kim Ark was born. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The effort to repeal birthright citizenship is part of a broader campaign by the Trump administration to restrict immigration and the rights of immigrants, including increasing arrests and deportations, halting refugee admissions, stripping temporary legal status from people fleeing war and instability, and invoking a travel ban against 39 countries.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Wong, whose great-grandfather’s case established the bedrock principle, said he considers Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship a first step in a larger effort to chip away at civil rights and the rule of law in this country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We have to stop it,” he said. “We need to be a principled people — with clear laws and clear ideas of who we are.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Wong said he’s watched that erosion accelerate over the past 15 months, culminating in the shooting deaths this winter of two Minneapolis protesters by immigration agents. He sees parallels between the bravery of his ancestors facing down anti-Chinese bigotry in the 19th century and Renee Good and Alex Pretti standing up for immigrants today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“They weren’t violent. They didn’t do anything that deserved their lives. … We all should stand up, because two people died for all of us,” Wong said. “Are we just going to let it happen? Or are we going to stand up? Wong Kim Ark, he stood up.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "Despite 128 years of precedent dating back to a landmark case out of San Francisco, justices heard arguments in a case with massive implications for birthright citizenship.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1775086962,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 33,
"wordCount": 1636
},
"headData": {
"title": "Supreme Court Justices Skeptical of Trump’s Challenge to Birthright Citizenship | KQED",
"description": "Despite 128 years of precedent dating back to a landmark case out of San Francisco, justices heard arguments in a case with massive implications for birthright citizenship.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Supreme Court Justices Skeptical of Trump’s Challenge to Birthright Citizenship",
"datePublished": "2026-04-01T05:00:05-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-04-01T16:42:42-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 1169,
"slug": "immigration",
"name": "Immigration"
},
"audioUrl": "https://traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/0af137ef-751e-4b19-a055-aaef00d2d578/ffca7e9f-6831-41c5-bcaf-aaef00f5a073/e58fafba-8aa4-4b18-944b-b41f01127db9/audio.mp3",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12078171",
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12078171/as-supreme-court-weighs-birthright-citizenship-sf-advocates-are-ready-to-stand-up",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Justices appeared to lean toward rejecting the Trump administration’s challenge to \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12078161/trump-executive-order-ending-birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-ruling-who-is-affected-can-citizen-be-revoked\">birthright citizenship\u003c/a> during Wednesday’s oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court, where advocates from San Francisco showed up to defend the long-standing principle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Despite 128 years of Supreme Court precedent holding that babies born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status — dating back to a \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship\">case out of San Francisco\u003c/a> — the justices agreed to hear arguments in Trump v. Barbara. The Trump administration is seeking to defend a January 2025 \u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/\">executive order\u003c/a> from the president stating that, unless a child has a parent who’s a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, they are not a U.S. citizen by birth.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Every lower court that has weighed in, including the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-trump-judges-immigration-be729b836581858a118ca92a0d083336?user_email=2a0bd7f2418d4be9198f23bf99a161f3f7a98fb9bf6d3820763d49b5c5f8fc81&utm_medium=Afternoon_Wire&utm_source=Sailthru_AP&utm_campaign=AfternoonWire_Mon_March30_2026&utm_term=Afternoon%20Wire\">has ruled\u003c/a> Trump’s order unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>During oral arguments Wednesday morning in Washington, conservative justices, whose votes will be key, \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-birthright-citizenship-immigrants-4dca3a4e06f58d4378412ed711fab3a8?user_email=2a0bd7f2418d4be9198f23bf99a161f3f7a98fb9bf6d3820763d49b5c5f8fc81&utm_medium=Afternoon_Wire&utm_source=Sailthru_AP&utm_campaign=AfternoonWire_Wed_Apr1_2026&utm_term=Afternoon%20Wire\">posed difficult questions\u003c/a> to Solicitor General John Sauer, the federal government’s representative in the Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The administration argued the amendment was ratified specifically to grant citizenship to former slaves born in the U.S., rather than children of immigrants, regardless of their legal status, but Coney Barrett pointed out that that isn’t in the amendment text.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that Sauer’s argument relied on outlier exceptions to the 14th Amendment to argue against broader birthright citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12055174\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-12055174 size-full\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/09/Brett-Kavanaugh-Getty.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/09/Brett-Kavanaugh-Getty.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/09/Brett-Kavanaugh-Getty-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/09/Brett-Kavanaugh-Getty-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Left to right: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and retired Justice Anthony Kennedy attend U.S. President Donald Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 04, 2025, in Washington, D.C. \u003ccite>(Win McNamee/Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>“I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples,” Roberts said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The precedent behind birthright citizenship goes back to an 1898 ruling in the case brought by San Francisco-born Wong Kim Ark, who was barred from reentry under the Chinese Exclusion Act after a trip to visit family in China, even though he carried paperwork attesting to his U.S. birth.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justices ruled in Wong’s favor, pointing to the 14th Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1868 after the abolition of slavery, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Trump administration’s current argument seeking to restrict birthright citizenship hinges on the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which Sauer has asserted promises citizenship only to people who are “completely subject” to the U.S. and owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the government.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In legal filings, Sauer said the Wong Kim Ark decision has been read too generously and does not apply to the children of undocumented immigrants and people in the U.S. temporarily because that “degrades the meaning and value of American citizenship.” He wrote that that interpretation has “incentivized” illegal immigration and “birth tourism” by people who want to gain a toehold to a life in the U.S.\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_12078161",
"hero": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty1.jpg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>Among those outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday was Norman Wong. An East Bay resident and retired carpenter, Wong, 76, is the great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Wong was born in San Francisco but didn’t grow up knowing the story of his ancestor or the role he played in U.S. history. He says when he first learned about Wong Kim Ark’s case 25 years ago, he thought it was “a curiosity of history” because birthright citizenship was settled law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I grew up knowing that I was American. All the kids that I ran around with, they knew they were American. Why? They were born here,” he told KQED ahead of the hearing. “It’s like assuming every time you breathe in and out, you get air. It was part of your whole being. We were proud to be American.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After the Supreme Court hearing, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said birthright citizenship is foundational to American democracy and promises equality under law to all children, regardless of race, class or parental background.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It’s a guarantee that every child born here has a personal stake in the American dream,” Bonta said. “It tells you something that President Trump willfully chose to start his second term by trying to knock down this fundamental and long-standing right. Fortunately, I believe he will fail.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Speaking outside the courtroom, Cecillia Wang, who argued on behalf of the ACLU, said the case was “nerve-wracking,” but appeared hopeful.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We could not be more confident that despite the policy preferences of the current administration, that this attack on what it means to be American in the most fundamental way … will be turned down,” she said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-12078174 size-full\" style=\"font-weight: bold; background-color: transparent; color: #767676;\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/SCOTUSBirthrightCitizenshipGetty.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/SCOTUSBirthrightCitizenshipGetty.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/SCOTUSBirthrightCitizenshipGetty-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/SCOTUSBirthrightCitizenshipGetty-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>People wait in line outside the Supreme Court Justice building to attend oral arguments on birthright citizenship, a day before the court is scheduled to address the case, on March 31, 2026, in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court is set to convene on April 1 to consider the legality of President Trump’s executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Overturning the principle of birthright citizenship would create a bureaucratic nightmare and threaten the very fabric of American society, according to Winnie Kao, senior counsel with San Francisco’s Asian Law Caucus, who is an attorney of record on the Barbara case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It would be a radical departure from over 120 years of precedent and understanding,” said Kao, whose organization had attorneys in court Wednesday alongside the ACLU and others. “It would be really hard for the public to understand and, I think, to accept.”\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_12015449",
"hero": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/11/20241119_BirthrightCitizenshipExplainer_GC-16_qed-1020x680.jpg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>Since Trump’s executive order, Kao said her office has been fielding “powerful and upsetting” questions from people who are either undocumented or in the U.S. on temporary work or student visas.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“How do you prove citizenship for your newborn when it’s not based on a birth certificate anymore?” she said. “Parents are calling us, wondering if their baby’s going to be subject to deportation … and what will statelessness mean for my baby?”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But some in California believe the executive order would impose a useful limit on birthright citizenship. Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Elk Grove, said the increased number of migrants who entered the U.S. during the Biden administration was justification for that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It … brought to a head the fundamental question of whether any person in the world can break into our country, have a baby at taxpayer expense, have that baby declared an American citizen and then use that as a pretext to remain,” McClintock wrote in a Washington Times op-ed. “President Trump has issued an executive order challenging that notion for all future births.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After Trump’s executive order, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12023126/california-leaders-to-sue-trump-over-birthright-citizenship-border-policies\">California immediately filed suit\u003c/a> along with 23 other states, the city of San Francisco and the District of Columbia. While that case was not before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Bonta has \u003ca href=\"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-continues-fight-defend-birthright-citizenship-us-supreme\">filed a “friend of the court” brief\u003c/a> in the Barbara case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He’s said that California stands to lose federal funding for key health and education programs if nearly 25,000 babies born in the state each year lose the right to citizenship because of their parentage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12032980\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12032980\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Norman Wong, the great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark, stands in front of a mural featuring his great-grandfather in San Francisco’s Chinatown on March 24, 2025, where Wong Kim Ark was born. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The effort to repeal birthright citizenship is part of a broader campaign by the Trump administration to restrict immigration and the rights of immigrants, including increasing arrests and deportations, halting refugee admissions, stripping temporary legal status from people fleeing war and instability, and invoking a travel ban against 39 countries.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Wong, whose great-grandfather’s case established the bedrock principle, said he considers Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship a first step in a larger effort to chip away at civil rights and the rule of law in this country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We have to stop it,” he said. “We need to be a principled people — with clear laws and clear ideas of who we are.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Wong said he’s watched that erosion accelerate over the past 15 months, culminating in the shooting deaths this winter of two Minneapolis protesters by immigration agents. He sees parallels between the bravery of his ancestors facing down anti-Chinese bigotry in the 19th century and Renee Good and Alex Pretti standing up for immigrants today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“They weren’t violent. They didn’t do anything that deserved their lives. … We all should stand up, because two people died for all of us,” Wong said. “Are we just going to let it happen? Or are we going to stand up? Wong Kim Ark, he stood up.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12078171/as-supreme-court-weighs-birthright-citizenship-sf-advocates-are-ready-to-stand-up",
"authors": [
"259",
"11913"
],
"categories": [
"news_1169",
"news_8",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_34903",
"news_4750",
"news_27626",
"news_686",
"news_20579",
"news_17708",
"news_20202",
"news_17968",
"news_201"
],
"featImg": "news_12078405",
"label": "news"
},
"news_12078161": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12078161",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12078161",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1775041216000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "trump-executive-order-ending-birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-ruling-who-is-affected-can-citizen-be-revoked",
"title": "Birthright Citizenship at the Supreme Court: Who Could Be Affected by Trump’s Order?",
"publishDate": 1775041216,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "Birthright Citizenship at the Supreme Court: Who Could Be Affected by Trump’s Order? | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>On the same day he returned to the White House in 2025, President \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/tag/donald-trump\">Donald Trump\u003c/a> signed \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12046217/what-the-supreme-courts-latest-ruling-means-for-birthright-citizenship%5C\">an executive order\u003c/a> that would severely limit birthright citizenship in the United States.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This week, a lawsuit challenging this policy has reached the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the justices will hear arguments in \u003cem>Trump v. Barbara\u003c/em> and decide if the president’s order — which would deny American citizenship to babies born in the country to parents who aren’t U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents— is in line with the Constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>What’s at stake in \u003cem>Trump v. Barbara\u003c/em>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Several lower courts have already ruled against the Trump administration and blocked the executive order from being enforced in the last 14 months. If the Supreme Court strikes down the order, that would confirm the \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship\">longstanding interpretation\u003c/a> of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jump straight to: \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"#CouldTrumpsexecutiveorderrevokeanyonesAmericancitizenship\">Could Trump’s executive order revoke anyone’s American citizenship?\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"#ImhavingababysoonCouldmyfamilybeaffected\">I’m having a baby soon. Could my family be affected?\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>The White House, however, \u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/\">argues\u003c/a> that unless a child has a parent who’s a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, they should not be a U.S. citizen by birth.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If both parents are immigrants with no permanent legal status — a category that includes parents with no immigration documents, but also those with a student visa or temporary work permit — Trump’s executive order would deny those children U.S. citizenship at birth.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11954996\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11954996\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/230705-SUPREME-COURT-SCOTUS-AP-JM-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"The ornate columned facade of the US Supreme Court.\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/230705-SUPREME-COURT-SCOTUS-AP-JM-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/230705-SUPREME-COURT-SCOTUS-AP-JM-KQED-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/230705-SUPREME-COURT-SCOTUS-AP-JM-KQED-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/230705-SUPREME-COURT-SCOTUS-AP-JM-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/230705-SUPREME-COURT-SCOTUS-AP-JM-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/230705-SUPREME-COURT-SCOTUS-AP-JM-KQED-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The Supreme Court in Washington on April 19, 2023. \u003ccite>(Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>In 2023, around 300,000 babies were born to undocumented parents, \u003ca href=\"https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/08/21/u-s-unauthorized-immigrant-population-reached-a-record-14-million-in-2023/\">according to the Pew Research Center\u003c/a>. According to Trump’s order, these babies are “not subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. government and therefore do not qualify for citizenship. But the federal government has not provided clear information on what legal status would be provided to children born in this situation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Our community members would be stateless,” said Roslyne Shiao, co-executive director for AAPI New Jersey, an advocacy group for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders that has also organized a rally at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in defense of birthright citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court is expected to deliver its ruling sometime between June and July. As the country waits for this decision, KQED will be responding to questions from audience members about what’s at stake in this legal battle and what families need to know about the potential impacts of this Supreme Court ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>What does Trump’s birthright citizenship order say?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>On Jan. 20, Trump signed \u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/\">an executive order\u003c/a> declaring that the federal government would no longer grant documents that confirm citizenship, like a Social Security Number or passport, to children born on or after Feb. 19, 2025, who are in the following situations:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>At the time of birth, the baby’s biological mother was “unlawfully present” (with no legal status) in the U.S., and the biological father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>At the time of birth, the baby’s biological mother was in the U.S. with a temporary visa or permit, and the biological father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12074482\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12074482\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/02/GettyImages-2262729717-scaled-e1773182284895.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1413\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">President Donald Trump speaks during a press briefing at the White House on Feb. 20, 2026, in Washington, D.C. \u003ccite>(Chen Mengtong/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The text of the executive order, while written in legal language that is often opaque to the general public, suggests that the following families could be affected by Trump’s order:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Families where both parents have no legal immigration documents at the time of their baby’s birth\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Families where both parents only have a \u003cem>temporary \u003c/em>legal status, which could include: Temporary Protected Status (TPS), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), H1-B holders, a student J-1 visa or an H-2A visa for agricultural workers, another temporary visa or humanitarian parole\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>If one parent has no legal status and the other only has a temporary legal status, which could include: TPS, DACA, H1-B holders, a student J-1 visa or an H-2A visa for agricultural workers, another temporary visa or humanitarian parole.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>If the executive order is allowed to take effect, babies born to families in the above situations would not have birthright citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Is the federal government enforcing this order right now?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>No. The Trump administration currently cannot enforce the executive order due to a nationwide injunction \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2025/07/11/nx-s1-5463808/new-hampshire-judge-blocks-trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-nationwide\">issued last summer\u003c/a> by a federal judge in New Hampshire.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The order remains frozen until the Supreme Court makes a final decision over its legality. In the meantime, U.S. citizenship is still guaranteed to babies born to immigrant parents without permanent legal status.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Who is behind \u003cem>Trump v. Barbara\u003c/em>?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>From the moment that Trump signed his executive order in 2025, different groups have sought to stop this policy in the courtroom.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Twenty-two states — including California — announced a lawsuit the day after, and soon were able to obtain multiple nationwide injunctions from federal district judges. However, the Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12044886/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-ruling-limits-nationwide-injunctions\">overturned these injunctions\u003c/a> last summer and ruled that lower courts had exceeded their authority.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12078180\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12078180\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty2.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1296\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty2.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty2-160x104.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty2-1536x995.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Nine-month-old Tyler Colt enjoys a ride on his grandfather, Keith Kennedy’s, shoulders on June 30, 2016, in League City. \u003ccite>(Steve Gonzales/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>But the court still allows for nationwide injunctions in class-action cases. So in response, a coalition of civil rights groups presented the \u003ca href=\"https://www.asianlawcaucus.org/news-resources/news/brief-birthright-citizenship-scotus\">class-action \u003cem>Trump v. Barbara\u003c/em>\u003c/a> on behalf of newborn babies affected by the executive order.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One of those groups is the San Francisco-based Asian Law Caucus, whose legal team is arguing that the question of birthright citizenship was established a long time ago — \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship\">128 years ago\u003c/a>, specifically, in the landmark case \u003cem>United States v. Wong Kim Ark\u003c/em>.[aside postID=news_12015449 hero='https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/11/20241119_BirthrightCitizenshipExplainer_GC-16_qed-1020x680.jpg']Born in San Francisco in the 1870s to Chinese immigrants, Wong Kim Ark sued the federal government when he was denied reentry into the U.S. after a trip to China.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Officials said that Wong was not a U.S. citizen but rather a Chinese national: a population that at the time was restricted from entering the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Wong’s case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where the federal government asserted that Wong could not be a citizen because his parents were not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government at the time of his birth — a very similar claim to the one the Trump administration has used to defend its executive order.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices did not accept this argument and \u003ca href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649\">sided with Wong\u003c/a> in 1898. In its ruling, the court declared that the Fourteenth Amendment — initially written to defend the rights of formerly enslaved African Americans and their children — also “includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This legal battle is about defending the legacy of Wong Kim Ark and the Bay Area’s Chinese-American community that stood by him, said Winnie Kao, senior counsel for Asian Law Caucus.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“In the 120-plus years since, the decision has been understood to affirm that U.S.-born children are citizens, regardless of their parents’ immigration status,” Kao said. “All three branches of government — Republican and Democratic — have relied upon that understanding since.”\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003ca id=\"CouldTrumpsexecutiveorderrevokeanyonesAmericancitizenship\">\u003c/a>Would Trump’s executive order take away anyone’s American citizenship?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Trump’s executive order said nothing about rescinding the citizenship of people born in the U.S. before Feb. 19, 2025, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>I’m worried: Is my newborn baby still a U.S. citizen?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Trump’s executive order is still blocked nationwide as the Supreme Court makes a final decision, which isn’t expected until late June or early July.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At this moment, if your baby was born on or after Feb. 19, 2025, the federal government will still recognize them as a U.S. citizen, regardless of your own immigration status or what state the child was born in.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Trump administration, what will happen to babies excluded from U.S. citizenship?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>This remains unclear. The White House did not directly answer KQED’s question regarding what legal status would be available for affected babies if the Supreme Court rules in its favor.[aside postID=news_12078171 hero='https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/05/gettyimages-2157829281-11-1020x680.jpeg']Instead, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson wrote in an email to KQED that “[t]he Supreme Court has the opportunity to review the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and restore the meaning of citizenship in the United States to its original public meaning.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Officials also did not provide information on how children excluded from U.S. citizenship at birth would be able to attain this status in the future.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Birthright citizenship is this really powerful idea that if you’re born in this country, you belong,” said Asian Law Caucus’s Kao. “You start as a full member of this democracy, regardless of your parents’ status or circumstances.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While some children could seek the citizenship of their parents’ home countries, that’s not guaranteed. Some nations — like \u003ca href=\"https://consulmex.sre.gob.mx/losangeles/index.php/es/regcivil-podnotariales-menu2020/registro-de-nacimiento-de-hijos-de-mexicanos-nacidos-en-el-extranjero\">Mexico\u003c/a> or \u003ca href=\"https://www.gov.br/pt-br/servicos/registrar-nascimento-no-exterior\">Brazil\u003c/a> — do make it possible for parents to register their baby for citizenship at a consulate in the U.S.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But other nations, including \u003ca href=\"https://en.nia.gov.cn/n147418/n147458/c155976/content.html\">China\u003c/a>, prevent someone from seeking that country’s citizenship if that person lives elsewhere. And traveling abroad would be almost impossible for U.S.-born babies affected by the order, as they would lack a passport from any country.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003ca id=\"ImhavingababysoonCouldmyfamilybeaffected\">\u003c/a>I’m currently expecting a baby, and my family could be affected by this executive order. Should I do anything to prepare?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Some legal scholars told KQED that they’d be surprised if the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration. One major reason they point out: every lower-ranking judge involved in this legal battle has said that the executive order goes against established law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Just three days after Trump signed the executive order in January 2025, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour blocked the policy. “I have been on the bench for over four decades,” Coughenour said. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12078279\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12078279\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty3.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty3.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty3-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty3-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A student carries her baby at Lincoln Park High School, a school for pregnant students and young mothers, in Brownsville, Texas, on Nov. 1, 2023. \u003ccite>(Veronica G. Cardenas/AFP via Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>However, the possibility still exists that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court could hand Trump an unexpected victory and overturn historical precedent — as happened \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11917776/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade\">in 2022\u003c/a> when the justices struck down \u003cem>Roe. v Wade\u003c/em>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Kao from Asian Law Caucus said that even if the Supreme Court upholds the executive order, families could nonetheless anticipate an “implementation period” before the order took effect.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But to anyone expecting a baby very soon, Kao said, talk with an immigration lawyer as soon as possible. “Get a passport [for the baby] immediately,” she said. “Don’t sit and wait.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "For more than a year, the Trump administration has fought a legal battle to enforce an executive order that will severely limit who can be a U.S. citizen at birth. Now, the Supreme Court must make a final, binding decision on the legality of this order.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1775064695,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 38,
"wordCount": 1979
},
"headData": {
"title": "Birthright Citizenship at the Supreme Court: Who Could Be Affected by Trump’s Order? | KQED",
"description": "For more than a year, the Trump administration has fought a legal battle to enforce an executive order that will severely limit who can be a U.S. citizen at birth. Now, the Supreme Court must make a final, binding decision on the legality of this order.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Birthright Citizenship at the Supreme Court: Who Could Be Affected by Trump’s Order?",
"datePublished": "2026-04-01T04:00:16-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-04-01T10:31:35-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 34168,
"slug": "guides-and-explainers",
"name": "Guides and Explainers"
},
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12078161",
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12078161/trump-executive-order-ending-birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-ruling-who-is-affected-can-citizen-be-revoked",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>On the same day he returned to the White House in 2025, President \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/tag/donald-trump\">Donald Trump\u003c/a> signed \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12046217/what-the-supreme-courts-latest-ruling-means-for-birthright-citizenship%5C\">an executive order\u003c/a> that would severely limit birthright citizenship in the United States.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This week, a lawsuit challenging this policy has reached the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the justices will hear arguments in \u003cem>Trump v. Barbara\u003c/em> and decide if the president’s order — which would deny American citizenship to babies born in the country to parents who aren’t U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents— is in line with the Constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>What’s at stake in \u003cem>Trump v. Barbara\u003c/em>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Several lower courts have already ruled against the Trump administration and blocked the executive order from being enforced in the last 14 months. If the Supreme Court strikes down the order, that would confirm the \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship\">longstanding interpretation\u003c/a> of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jump straight to: \u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"#CouldTrumpsexecutiveorderrevokeanyonesAmericancitizenship\">Could Trump’s executive order revoke anyone’s American citizenship?\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"#ImhavingababysoonCouldmyfamilybeaffected\">I’m having a baby soon. Could my family be affected?\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>The White House, however, \u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/\">argues\u003c/a> that unless a child has a parent who’s a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, they should not be a U.S. citizen by birth.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If both parents are immigrants with no permanent legal status — a category that includes parents with no immigration documents, but also those with a student visa or temporary work permit — Trump’s executive order would deny those children U.S. citizenship at birth.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11954996\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11954996\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/230705-SUPREME-COURT-SCOTUS-AP-JM-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"The ornate columned facade of the US Supreme Court.\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/230705-SUPREME-COURT-SCOTUS-AP-JM-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/230705-SUPREME-COURT-SCOTUS-AP-JM-KQED-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/230705-SUPREME-COURT-SCOTUS-AP-JM-KQED-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/230705-SUPREME-COURT-SCOTUS-AP-JM-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/230705-SUPREME-COURT-SCOTUS-AP-JM-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2023/07/230705-SUPREME-COURT-SCOTUS-AP-JM-KQED-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The Supreme Court in Washington on April 19, 2023. \u003ccite>(Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>In 2023, around 300,000 babies were born to undocumented parents, \u003ca href=\"https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/08/21/u-s-unauthorized-immigrant-population-reached-a-record-14-million-in-2023/\">according to the Pew Research Center\u003c/a>. According to Trump’s order, these babies are “not subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. government and therefore do not qualify for citizenship. But the federal government has not provided clear information on what legal status would be provided to children born in this situation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Our community members would be stateless,” said Roslyne Shiao, co-executive director for AAPI New Jersey, an advocacy group for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders that has also organized a rally at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in defense of birthright citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court is expected to deliver its ruling sometime between June and July. As the country waits for this decision, KQED will be responding to questions from audience members about what’s at stake in this legal battle and what families need to know about the potential impacts of this Supreme Court ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>What does Trump’s birthright citizenship order say?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>On Jan. 20, Trump signed \u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/\">an executive order\u003c/a> declaring that the federal government would no longer grant documents that confirm citizenship, like a Social Security Number or passport, to children born on or after Feb. 19, 2025, who are in the following situations:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>At the time of birth, the baby’s biological mother was “unlawfully present” (with no legal status) in the U.S., and the biological father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>At the time of birth, the baby’s biological mother was in the U.S. with a temporary visa or permit, and the biological father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12074482\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12074482\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/02/GettyImages-2262729717-scaled-e1773182284895.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1413\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">President Donald Trump speaks during a press briefing at the White House on Feb. 20, 2026, in Washington, D.C. \u003ccite>(Chen Mengtong/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The text of the executive order, while written in legal language that is often opaque to the general public, suggests that the following families could be affected by Trump’s order:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Families where both parents have no legal immigration documents at the time of their baby’s birth\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Families where both parents only have a \u003cem>temporary \u003c/em>legal status, which could include: Temporary Protected Status (TPS), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), H1-B holders, a student J-1 visa or an H-2A visa for agricultural workers, another temporary visa or humanitarian parole\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>If one parent has no legal status and the other only has a temporary legal status, which could include: TPS, DACA, H1-B holders, a student J-1 visa or an H-2A visa for agricultural workers, another temporary visa or humanitarian parole.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>If the executive order is allowed to take effect, babies born to families in the above situations would not have birthright citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Is the federal government enforcing this order right now?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>No. The Trump administration currently cannot enforce the executive order due to a nationwide injunction \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2025/07/11/nx-s1-5463808/new-hampshire-judge-blocks-trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-nationwide\">issued last summer\u003c/a> by a federal judge in New Hampshire.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The order remains frozen until the Supreme Court makes a final decision over its legality. In the meantime, U.S. citizenship is still guaranteed to babies born to immigrant parents without permanent legal status.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Who is behind \u003cem>Trump v. Barbara\u003c/em>?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>From the moment that Trump signed his executive order in 2025, different groups have sought to stop this policy in the courtroom.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Twenty-two states — including California — announced a lawsuit the day after, and soon were able to obtain multiple nationwide injunctions from federal district judges. However, the Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12044886/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-ruling-limits-nationwide-injunctions\">overturned these injunctions\u003c/a> last summer and ruled that lower courts had exceeded their authority.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12078180\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12078180\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty2.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1296\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty2.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty2-160x104.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty2-1536x995.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Nine-month-old Tyler Colt enjoys a ride on his grandfather, Keith Kennedy’s, shoulders on June 30, 2016, in League City. \u003ccite>(Steve Gonzales/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>But the court still allows for nationwide injunctions in class-action cases. So in response, a coalition of civil rights groups presented the \u003ca href=\"https://www.asianlawcaucus.org/news-resources/news/brief-birthright-citizenship-scotus\">class-action \u003cem>Trump v. Barbara\u003c/em>\u003c/a> on behalf of newborn babies affected by the executive order.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One of those groups is the San Francisco-based Asian Law Caucus, whose legal team is arguing that the question of birthright citizenship was established a long time ago — \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship\">128 years ago\u003c/a>, specifically, in the landmark case \u003cem>United States v. Wong Kim Ark\u003c/em>.\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_12015449",
"hero": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/11/20241119_BirthrightCitizenshipExplainer_GC-16_qed-1020x680.jpg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>Born in San Francisco in the 1870s to Chinese immigrants, Wong Kim Ark sued the federal government when he was denied reentry into the U.S. after a trip to China.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Officials said that Wong was not a U.S. citizen but rather a Chinese national: a population that at the time was restricted from entering the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Wong’s case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where the federal government asserted that Wong could not be a citizen because his parents were not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government at the time of his birth — a very similar claim to the one the Trump administration has used to defend its executive order.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices did not accept this argument and \u003ca href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649\">sided with Wong\u003c/a> in 1898. In its ruling, the court declared that the Fourteenth Amendment — initially written to defend the rights of formerly enslaved African Americans and their children — also “includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This legal battle is about defending the legacy of Wong Kim Ark and the Bay Area’s Chinese-American community that stood by him, said Winnie Kao, senior counsel for Asian Law Caucus.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“In the 120-plus years since, the decision has been understood to affirm that U.S.-born children are citizens, regardless of their parents’ immigration status,” Kao said. “All three branches of government — Republican and Democratic — have relied upon that understanding since.”\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003ca id=\"CouldTrumpsexecutiveorderrevokeanyonesAmericancitizenship\">\u003c/a>Would Trump’s executive order take away anyone’s American citizenship?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Trump’s executive order said nothing about rescinding the citizenship of people born in the U.S. before Feb. 19, 2025, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>I’m worried: Is my newborn baby still a U.S. citizen?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Trump’s executive order is still blocked nationwide as the Supreme Court makes a final decision, which isn’t expected until late June or early July.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At this moment, if your baby was born on or after Feb. 19, 2025, the federal government will still recognize them as a U.S. citizen, regardless of your own immigration status or what state the child was born in.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Trump administration, what will happen to babies excluded from U.S. citizenship?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>This remains unclear. The White House did not directly answer KQED’s question regarding what legal status would be available for affected babies if the Supreme Court rules in its favor.\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_12078171",
"hero": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/05/gettyimages-2157829281-11-1020x680.jpeg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>Instead, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson wrote in an email to KQED that “[t]he Supreme Court has the opportunity to review the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and restore the meaning of citizenship in the United States to its original public meaning.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Officials also did not provide information on how children excluded from U.S. citizenship at birth would be able to attain this status in the future.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Birthright citizenship is this really powerful idea that if you’re born in this country, you belong,” said Asian Law Caucus’s Kao. “You start as a full member of this democracy, regardless of your parents’ status or circumstances.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While some children could seek the citizenship of their parents’ home countries, that’s not guaranteed. Some nations — like \u003ca href=\"https://consulmex.sre.gob.mx/losangeles/index.php/es/regcivil-podnotariales-menu2020/registro-de-nacimiento-de-hijos-de-mexicanos-nacidos-en-el-extranjero\">Mexico\u003c/a> or \u003ca href=\"https://www.gov.br/pt-br/servicos/registrar-nascimento-no-exterior\">Brazil\u003c/a> — do make it possible for parents to register their baby for citizenship at a consulate in the U.S.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But other nations, including \u003ca href=\"https://en.nia.gov.cn/n147418/n147458/c155976/content.html\">China\u003c/a>, prevent someone from seeking that country’s citizenship if that person lives elsewhere. And traveling abroad would be almost impossible for U.S.-born babies affected by the order, as they would lack a passport from any country.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003ca id=\"ImhavingababysoonCouldmyfamilybeaffected\">\u003c/a>I’m currently expecting a baby, and my family could be affected by this executive order. Should I do anything to prepare?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Some legal scholars told KQED that they’d be surprised if the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration. One major reason they point out: every lower-ranking judge involved in this legal battle has said that the executive order goes against established law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Just three days after Trump signed the executive order in January 2025, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour blocked the policy. “I have been on the bench for over four decades,” Coughenour said. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12078279\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12078279\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty3.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty3.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty3-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2026/03/BirthrightCitizenshipGetty3-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A student carries her baby at Lincoln Park High School, a school for pregnant students and young mothers, in Brownsville, Texas, on Nov. 1, 2023. \u003ccite>(Veronica G. Cardenas/AFP via Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>However, the possibility still exists that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court could hand Trump an unexpected victory and overturn historical precedent — as happened \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11917776/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade\">in 2022\u003c/a> when the justices struck down \u003cem>Roe. v Wade\u003c/em>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Kao from Asian Law Caucus said that even if the Supreme Court upholds the executive order, families could nonetheless anticipate an “implementation period” before the order took effect.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But to anyone expecting a baby very soon, Kao said, talk with an immigration lawyer as soon as possible. “Get a passport [for the baby] immediately,” she said. “Don’t sit and wait.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12078161/trump-executive-order-ending-birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-ruling-who-is-affected-can-citizen-be-revoked",
"authors": [
"11708"
],
"categories": [
"news_34168",
"news_1169",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_32707",
"news_34903",
"news_4750",
"news_35888",
"news_27626",
"news_686",
"news_20579",
"news_20202",
"news_17968",
"news_201"
],
"featImg": "news_12078178",
"label": "news"
},
"news_12050233": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12050233",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12050233",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1756821647000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "how-a-chinese-laundryman-shaped-us-civil-rights-from-san-francisco",
"title": "How a Chinese Laundryman Shaped US Civil Rights From San Francisco",
"publishDate": 1756821647,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "How a Chinese Laundryman Shaped US Civil Rights From San Francisco | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>The evening commute rush hour was starting to take shape on a recent late afternoon in \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/tag/san-francisco\">San Francisco\u003c/a>’s SOMA district, at the corner of Third and Harrison streets.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Downtown office workers, wearing backpacks and headphones, wordlessly passed one another on their way to nearby train stations. Muni buses groaned and sighed as they pulled up to a bus stop near an unremarkable half-acre concrete parking lot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If you believe in civil rights, if you believe all Americans should have civil rights, it started right here,” said David Lei, pointing to the nearly full concrete parking lot that would soon begin emptying. He added: “And this was [the location of] the case that says noncitizens have rights as well … but we forgot. Most people have forgotten.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The de facto local expert on Chinese American history believes a plaque should be installed here to commemorate Yick Wo, a Chinese-owned laundry business that operated at 349 Third St. from 1864 to 1886.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It became the focal point of a consequential U.S. Supreme Court case, \u003ca href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/356/\">\u003cem>Yick Wo v. Hopkins\u003c/em>\u003c/a>, when the laundry’s owner, a Chinese immigrant named Lee Yick, and another laundry owner, Wo Lee, resisted an unfair San Francisco laundry business permit ordinance — one emblematic of the targeted anti-Chinese hostility pervasive in the city at the time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Yick was an individual, a nobody, but the community supported him and organized,” Lei said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12050750\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12050750\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-05-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-05-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-05-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-05-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">David Lei stands near Third and Harrison streets in San Francisco on July 29, 2025, the former site of Yick Wo Laundry, which operated at 349 Third St. and was central to the landmark 1886 Supreme Court case on equal protection. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>When most people consider the contributions of America’s earliest Chinese immigrants, they often think of \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/forum/201509070900/stanford-project-unearths-personal-histories-of-chinese-railroad-workers\">the Transcontinental Railroad\u003c/a>. Lei, who is not related to the author, believes that’s a profound minimization of their influence — even among Chinese Americans themselves.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Chinese immigrants filed more than 10,000 lawsuits at the local, state and federal levels to challenge discriminatory laws and systemic \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/10413670/draft-boomtown-history-2a\">racism\u003c/a>. Dozens of those cases reached the U.S. Supreme Court, including one brought by \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship\">Wong Kim Ark\u003c/a>, a case recently spotlighted as the Trump administration continues an attempt to dismantle birthright citizenship, despite \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12046217/what-the-supreme-courts-latest-ruling-means-for-birthright-citizenship\">multiple court rulings\u003c/a> to block the executive order.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Through the legal maneuvering of early Chinese community leaders, \u003cem>Yick Wo \u003c/em>established that \u003ca href=\"https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/\">the 14th Amendment\u003c/a>’s equal protection and due process clauses apply to “all persons” — including noncitizens in the U.S. These same rights are being tested today as the Trump administration’s \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12044748/mass-deportations-would-take-a-major-toll-on-california-economy-report-finds\">immigration crackdown intensifies\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Yick Wo\u003c/em> is just one way early Chinese immigrants helped shape constitutional principles that remain foundational to American democracy. Community leaders and immigrant advocates like Lei say the case is more relevant today than ever, serving as a powerful rebuttal to anti-immigrant rhetoric and a reminder that constitutional protections have long applied to noncitizens.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Echoes of the past in today’s immigration fight\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Though \u003cem>Yick Wo v. Hopkins \u003c/em>is a staple of constitutional law courses, it remains largely unknown outside the legal community. In 1984, an \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12008873/san-francisco-school-closures-will-hurt-chinese-immigrant-communities-city-leaders-say\">elementary school\u003c/a> in San Francisco was named after the case, but its website offers only a cursory summary of its historical significance.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Legal experts herald Yick’s victory as extraordinary, given the anti-immigrant environment Chinese immigrants endured in the 19th century — attitudes that echo today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since returning to the White House, Trump has made good on his promise of a massive deportation campaign by aggressively targeting, detaining and deporting immigrants nationwide. High-profile Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12042836/community-outrage-continues-over-ice-raid-at-san-diego-restaurant\">in Southern California \u003c/a>captured national attention in June, as videos of militarized arrests circulated on social media and fueled \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12043653/hundreds-rally-in-oakland-to-protest-ice-raids-support-immigrant-communities\">protests locally\u003c/a> and across the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12050752\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12050752\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250731-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-02-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250731-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-02-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250731-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-02-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250731-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-02-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The exhibit Challenging a White-Washed History at the Chinese Historical Society of America Museum in San Francisco on July 31, 2025. The exhibition explores the history of Chinese laundries and their role in resisting discrimination and shaping immigrant labor in the U.S. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The administration continues to portray undocumented immigrants as criminal invaders and threats to national security. Officials \u003ca href=\"https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/06/30/dhs-debunks-fake-news-media-narratives-june\">claim\u003c/a> they target “the worst of the worst, including gang members, murderers, and rapists,” but most people detained by ICE have \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12038087/california-sent-investigators-ice-facilities-found-more-detainees-health-care-gaps\">no criminal convictions\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Recently, in the Bay Area, ICE arrests have occurred \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12028303/ice-arrest-left-bay-area-man-hospitalized-struggling-breathe-attorney-says\">outside of homes\u003c/a> and courthouses \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12044592/bay-area-lawmaker-demands-answers-after-ice-arrests-at-immigration-courts\">in Concord\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12043596/protesters-swarm-sf-immigration-court-after-more-ice-arrests\">San Francisco\u003c/a>, where plainclothes agents detained asylum seekers attending routine court hearings.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, began her role just before Trump’s second term. She oversees a department of about 200 attorneys and paralegals and calls this “the most consequential time in U.S. history.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In late July, Republicans approved a spending bill that \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101910650/ices-budget-just-tripled-whats-next\">tripled ICE’s budget\u003c/a>. The removal of immigrants from the country has accelerated through a variety of tactics: The Trump administration has broadened expedited removal, selectively enforced policies in sanctuary jurisdictions, targeted certain migrant groups and fast-tracked deportations — often without full hearings.[aside postID=news_12021919 hero='https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/20250115_JapaneseAmericanActivism_GC-47-1020x680.jpg']But because of \u003cem>Yick Wo\u003c/em>, constitutional protections should apply to everyone on U.S. soil, regardless of citizenship status. That’s why immigration attorneys and advocates are especially vigilant.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It’s a responsibility that I think is particularly heavy at this moment in time, with a president and administration that has so little respect for civil rights and civil liberties…and so little respect for all the fundamental pillars of U.S. democracy,” Wang said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A San Francisco resident, Wang has worked for the ACLU in various roles for over two decades. The organization has filed more than 60 lawsuits challenging Trump’s second-term policies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Wang, who first studied \u003cem>Yick Wo\u003c/em> as an undergraduate at UC Berkeley, feels personally connected to the case as an Asian American. She has cited it throughout her career as a civil rights lawyer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“One of the lessons of \u003cem>Yick Wo \u003c/em>that I think is really resonant for me right now is that someone who seemed politically powerless, under-resourced and invisible by all accounts was able to bring his claim up through the federal court system to the Supreme Court of the United States,” Wang said.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Redefining constitutional rights in the U.S.\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>When one considers the odds stacked against Chinese laundry owners as Yick brought his claim forward, the case becomes especially remarkable.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Though initially welcomed during the Gold Rush, Chinese immigrants eventually became targets as their population and industrial workforce roles expanded. They took jobs as miners and railroad laborers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>They were also entrepreneurial. Early Chinese immigrants filled a specific need that no one else seemed eager to do: laundry service. Chinese immigrants eventually dominated the industry, which would continue for the rest of the 19th century.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12051938\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12051938\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250812-YICK-WO-ARCHIVAL-03_KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1545\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250812-YICK-WO-ARCHIVAL-03_KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250812-YICK-WO-ARCHIVAL-03_KQED-160x124.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250812-YICK-WO-ARCHIVAL-03_KQED-1536x1187.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">A Chinese laundry at 924 Howard St. in San Francisco \u003c/span>is shown in a historical photograph dated Jan. 22, 1886. \u003ccite>(Courtesy of the National Archives at San Francisco)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>By 1860, about one in 10 California residents was Chinese. Their prominence alarmed white leaders, including then-California governor Henry Huntly Haight.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“An additional influx of Chinese to compete with white laboring men in all industrial departments ought to be discouraged by all lawful means. For the sake of some supposed advantage of cheap labor, such influx would inflict a curse upon posterity for all time,” he said during his \u003ca href=\"https://governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/10-haight.html\">1867 inaugural address\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Widespread violence soon followed. By the 1870s, anti-Chinese sentiment escalated across the West Coast, with Chinese immigrants subjected to \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101886267/california-cities-apologize-for-historical-wrongs-against-chinese-community\">mob-led destruction\u003c/a>, including mass lynchings.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>According to \u003cem>In Search of Equality: The Chinese Struggle Against Discrimination in Nineteenth-Century America\u003c/em>, a seminal book on Chinese American history by former UC Berkeley professor Charles McClain, there were about 2,600 Chinese laundrymen in California by 1870 — half of them in San Francisco.[aside postID=news_12033789 hero='https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-1020x680.jpg']Chinese laundry owners faced a flurry of discriminatory city ordinances. One imposed high license fees on those without horse-drawn carriages. Another required written approval from 12 citizens and taxpayers on the block where the business was located.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 1880, the city passed a notorious law requiring permits for laundries not made of brick or stone. At the time, nearly all of San Francisco’s laundries, especially those owned by Chinese immigrants, were wooden structures. Of about 200 applicants, all were denied permits, while their white counterparts were not.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 1885, Yick Wo’s owner refused to stop operating and was arrested by Sheriff Peter Hopkins. Rather than serve the sentence, Lee and other laundrymen fought back with support from the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, also known as the Chinese Six Companies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Six Companies — a powerful coalition of family and district associations that functioned as both mutual aid organizations and political advocates for the Chinese immigrant community — \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship\">coordinated legal strategies\u003c/a>, raised sizable funds by taxing Chinese immigrants and, importantly, helped them navigate a hostile legal system.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This was the GoFundMe of Chinatown from 1850,” Lei told KQED from inside CCBA’s ornately designed Stockton Street headquarters, where family association leaders and San Francisco politicians still meet.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Together with Tung Hing Tong, a 19th-century Chinese laundry association, substantial resources were pooled to fight San Francisco’s unfair permitting ordinance.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12050748\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12050748\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-01-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-01-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-01-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-01-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">David Lei stands on Spofford Street in San Francisco’s Chinatown on July 29, 2025, the historical site of the Chinese Laundry Association, once located at 33 Spofford St. A longtime resident and community historian, Lei has worked to preserve Chinatown’s cultural and educational legacy. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>“They taxed themselves, raised $20,000 — equivalent to more than half a million dollars today — and hired the best lawyer money could buy to win this case,” Lei said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That lawyer was Hall McAllister, a federal judge and founder of the California Bar Association, who became one of the key members of the Six Companies’ legal team as they filed lawsuits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When asked why these powerful white lawyers would go against the popular grain to argue on behalf of Chinese immigrants, Lei said Chinese immigrants often paid up to about double of what other clients would pay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The strategy worked.[aside postID=news_12015449 hero='https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/11/20241119_BirthrightCitizenshipExplainer_GC-16_qed-1020x680.jpg']In 1886, the U.S. Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/356/\">ruled unanimously for Yick\u003c/a>, declaring that even if a law appears to be race-neutral, “if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand,” then it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Crucially, the court emphasized that its protections “extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The keyword here is “persons,” not “citizens.” \u003cem>Yick Wo\u003c/em> marked the first time the Supreme Court extended constitutional protections under the 14th Amendment — including due process rights — to noncitizens.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Wang said \u003cem>Yick Wo \u003c/em>“reverberates in almost every civil rights case that’s been brought under the Equal Protection Clause.” It laid the foundation for challenges involving interracial marriage, school desegregation, housing discrimination, voting rights, gender and disability discrimination and same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Critically, \u003cem>Yick Wo\u003c/em> provided a legal foundation to challenge discriminatory enforcement of laws — a central feature of Jim Crow. During the civil rights era, attorneys revived their principles in landmark cases, including \u003ca href=\"https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/brown-v-board-of-education\">\u003cem>Brown v. Board of Education\u003c/em>\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While \u003cem>Yick Wo \u003c/em>didn’t end anti-Chinese sentiment, it established a constitutional principle that still underpins civil rights protections for both citizens and immigrants today.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Why due process is critical now\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>In early July, a \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ_YGzfaQLM&t=1s\">viral video\u003c/a> showed ICE agents clashing with protesters during an arrest in San Francisco. One protester jumped onto an ICE van’s hood before falling as it drove off.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Other similarly viral videos show community members confronting ICE agents, demanding to see arrest warrants and reminding immigrants of their due process rights.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For longtime immigrant advocates like Lisa Knox, legal director of the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, ICE’s actions aren’t surprising.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12050751\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12050751\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-09-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-09-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-09-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-09-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A statue of Hall McAllister stands near San Francisco City Hall on July 29, 2025. As a federal judge, McAllister ruled in favor of Yick Wo in the landmark civil rights case that affirmed equal protection under the 14th Amendment for Chinese immigrants. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>“ICE has always been a rogue agency,” she said. “Yes, we are seeing some new tactics … but I would emphasize that this isn’t a complete departure for this agency. [ICE] has a long history of these abusive tactics, of doing things that violate the law.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Formed after Trump’s first election in 2016, CCIJ offers legal help to detained immigrants in Northern and Central California and plays a central coordinating role in the state’s \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12049326/as-ice-operations-expand-how-are-immigrant-allies-responding\">rapid response organizing\u003c/a>, including activating attorneys and mobilizing volunteers during ICE activity. They also raise awareness of the \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12043004/in-recorded-calls-reports-of-overcrowding-and-lack-of-food-at-ice-detention-centers\">inhumane living conditions\u003c/a> inside detention centers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Knox said the Bay Area is well organized when it comes to defending immigrant rights. She believes that may have helped prevent mass raids and more severe rights violations in the region, compared to other parts of the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But what is striking to Knox is the mainstream attention around the constitutional rights of immigrants.[aside postID=news_12025613 hero='https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250130-JSeiHome-JY-1927-1020x680.jpg']“There has never been a conversation about due process in my lifetime [like this],” said Knox, who also teaches an immigration and citizenship class at UC Berkeley. “Law is influenced by politics. The fact that people are taking an interest in these decisions and wanting to defend these fundamental rights is really important and really key.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Attorneys like Jordan Wells, a senior staff attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, have defended immigrants in court, including a legal permanent resident targeted for participating in a pro-Palestine rally at Columbia University. Another lawsuit challenges ICE courthouse arrests as violations of the Due Process Clause.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>According to Wells, due process has always provided a counterbalance to any presidential administration’s attempts to test the limits of constitutional protections. He said it is especially critical now as the Trump administration has tried to block immigrants from legal counsel and coerce deportation agreements.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We are seeing all manner of attempts to prevent people from communicating with counsel about their immigration status,” Wells said. “They have tried to get people to concede to their removability from the country, no matter how long they’ve been here, and just get them shipped out as quickly as possible.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12050754\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12050754\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250731-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-06-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250731-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-06-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250731-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-06-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250731-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-06-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Spofford Street in San Francisco’s Chinatown neighborhood on July 31, 2025. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>For Knox, public education is critical, as demonstrated by local grassroots efforts to form rapid response networks during Trump’s first term.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“That first 24-hour period is really crucial for the person to be informed of their rights and options, and to exercise them so that they’re not just deported without the chance to access the process that is their right,” Knox said. “As lawyers, a lot of the time we show up after somebody has already been placed in detention … but if people can be educated and know their rights and assert them before that happens, often they can prevent their detention or they can have more options.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>She emphasizes that drawing connections between communities is also a powerful way to build collective strength.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If we allow the government to take away immigrants’ rights to due process, then we’re all at risk,” Knox said. “We are building and exercising our power, so that’s our focus. We say over and over: power, not panic.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Knox said \u003cem>Yick Wo\u003c/em> is more than a legal decision — it’s a historical reminder.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We’ve been here before, and some of these questions have come up,” she said. “Who gets to enjoy the rights of citizenship? What rights should be afforded to anyone, regardless of legal status, because they’re part of this community?”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Wang is grateful that early Chinese immigrants asked these questions, forcing the U.S. to follow its own constitutional laws: “The fundamental promise of the 14th Amendment was only as good as the writing until people like [Lee Yick and Wo Lee] took their fights and fleshed out those words on paper… and made it a lived reality for people.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12050749\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12050749\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-03-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-03-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-03-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-03-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">David Lei walks along Spofford Street in San Francisco’s Chinatown on July 29, 2025, the historical site of the Chinese Laundry Association, once located at 33 Spofford St. A longtime resident and community historian, Lei has worked to preserve Chinatown’s cultural and educational legacy. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Wang said it took the mobilization of an entire community to defend the Chinese laundries — with people contributing in both small and large ways — and said a similar collective effort is needed today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I have family members in my Chinese American family who probably agree more with President Trump than they agree with me on issues of immigration,” she said. “What I try to do with my community … is not only point out the history, but to really draw some intersectional lines so that [they] can understand how we must all stand or fall together.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Back at the parking lot on Third and Harrison, Lei reflects on the mountain of overlooked legal battles waged by early Chinese immigrants — cases that shaped modern protections such as Miranda rights, public education access and political asylum.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At 75, he said, “The clock is ticking,” estimating he has about five more years left in him to keep telling these stories. He shook his head, thinking about how much more there is to share.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Then he chuckled.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We’re branded as very quiet, that we don’t cause trouble — model citizens, model minority, all these things,” he said. “But the Chinese were very hard to manage … We have to organize. That’s what our ancestors did, and they were successful, so this is what we need to do now.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "A Supreme Court case born in San Francisco’s Chinatown secured equal protection rights for noncitizens and set the foundation for future civil rights battles.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1757095254,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 67,
"wordCount": 3177
},
"headData": {
"title": "How a Chinese Laundryman Shaped US Civil Rights From San Francisco | KQED",
"description": "A Supreme Court case born in San Francisco’s Chinatown secured equal protection rights for noncitizens and set the foundation for future civil rights battles.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "How a Chinese Laundryman Shaped US Civil Rights From San Francisco",
"datePublished": "2025-09-02T07:00:47-07:00",
"dateModified": "2025-09-05T11:00:54-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 8,
"slug": "news",
"name": "News"
},
"audioUrl": "https://traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/0af137ef-751e-4b19-a055-aaef00d2d578/ffca7e9f-6831-41c5-bcaf-aaef00f5a073/79f89467-c36b-43eb-8f0a-b34c010ea8be/audio.mp3",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12050233",
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12050233/how-a-chinese-laundryman-shaped-us-civil-rights-from-san-francisco",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The evening commute rush hour was starting to take shape on a recent late afternoon in \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/tag/san-francisco\">San Francisco\u003c/a>’s SOMA district, at the corner of Third and Harrison streets.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Downtown office workers, wearing backpacks and headphones, wordlessly passed one another on their way to nearby train stations. Muni buses groaned and sighed as they pulled up to a bus stop near an unremarkable half-acre concrete parking lot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If you believe in civil rights, if you believe all Americans should have civil rights, it started right here,” said David Lei, pointing to the nearly full concrete parking lot that would soon begin emptying. He added: “And this was [the location of] the case that says noncitizens have rights as well … but we forgot. Most people have forgotten.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The de facto local expert on Chinese American history believes a plaque should be installed here to commemorate Yick Wo, a Chinese-owned laundry business that operated at 349 Third St. from 1864 to 1886.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It became the focal point of a consequential U.S. Supreme Court case, \u003ca href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/356/\">\u003cem>Yick Wo v. Hopkins\u003c/em>\u003c/a>, when the laundry’s owner, a Chinese immigrant named Lee Yick, and another laundry owner, Wo Lee, resisted an unfair San Francisco laundry business permit ordinance — one emblematic of the targeted anti-Chinese hostility pervasive in the city at the time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Yick was an individual, a nobody, but the community supported him and organized,” Lei said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12050750\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12050750\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-05-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-05-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-05-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-05-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">David Lei stands near Third and Harrison streets in San Francisco on July 29, 2025, the former site of Yick Wo Laundry, which operated at 349 Third St. and was central to the landmark 1886 Supreme Court case on equal protection. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>When most people consider the contributions of America’s earliest Chinese immigrants, they often think of \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/forum/201509070900/stanford-project-unearths-personal-histories-of-chinese-railroad-workers\">the Transcontinental Railroad\u003c/a>. Lei, who is not related to the author, believes that’s a profound minimization of their influence — even among Chinese Americans themselves.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Chinese immigrants filed more than 10,000 lawsuits at the local, state and federal levels to challenge discriminatory laws and systemic \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/10413670/draft-boomtown-history-2a\">racism\u003c/a>. Dozens of those cases reached the U.S. Supreme Court, including one brought by \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship\">Wong Kim Ark\u003c/a>, a case recently spotlighted as the Trump administration continues an attempt to dismantle birthright citizenship, despite \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12046217/what-the-supreme-courts-latest-ruling-means-for-birthright-citizenship\">multiple court rulings\u003c/a> to block the executive order.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Through the legal maneuvering of early Chinese community leaders, \u003cem>Yick Wo \u003c/em>established that \u003ca href=\"https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/\">the 14th Amendment\u003c/a>’s equal protection and due process clauses apply to “all persons” — including noncitizens in the U.S. These same rights are being tested today as the Trump administration’s \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12044748/mass-deportations-would-take-a-major-toll-on-california-economy-report-finds\">immigration crackdown intensifies\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Yick Wo\u003c/em> is just one way early Chinese immigrants helped shape constitutional principles that remain foundational to American democracy. Community leaders and immigrant advocates like Lei say the case is more relevant today than ever, serving as a powerful rebuttal to anti-immigrant rhetoric and a reminder that constitutional protections have long applied to noncitizens.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Echoes of the past in today’s immigration fight\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Though \u003cem>Yick Wo v. Hopkins \u003c/em>is a staple of constitutional law courses, it remains largely unknown outside the legal community. In 1984, an \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12008873/san-francisco-school-closures-will-hurt-chinese-immigrant-communities-city-leaders-say\">elementary school\u003c/a> in San Francisco was named after the case, but its website offers only a cursory summary of its historical significance.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Legal experts herald Yick’s victory as extraordinary, given the anti-immigrant environment Chinese immigrants endured in the 19th century — attitudes that echo today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since returning to the White House, Trump has made good on his promise of a massive deportation campaign by aggressively targeting, detaining and deporting immigrants nationwide. High-profile Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12042836/community-outrage-continues-over-ice-raid-at-san-diego-restaurant\">in Southern California \u003c/a>captured national attention in June, as videos of militarized arrests circulated on social media and fueled \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12043653/hundreds-rally-in-oakland-to-protest-ice-raids-support-immigrant-communities\">protests locally\u003c/a> and across the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12050752\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12050752\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250731-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-02-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250731-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-02-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250731-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-02-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250731-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-02-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The exhibit Challenging a White-Washed History at the Chinese Historical Society of America Museum in San Francisco on July 31, 2025. The exhibition explores the history of Chinese laundries and their role in resisting discrimination and shaping immigrant labor in the U.S. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The administration continues to portray undocumented immigrants as criminal invaders and threats to national security. Officials \u003ca href=\"https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/06/30/dhs-debunks-fake-news-media-narratives-june\">claim\u003c/a> they target “the worst of the worst, including gang members, murderers, and rapists,” but most people detained by ICE have \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12038087/california-sent-investigators-ice-facilities-found-more-detainees-health-care-gaps\">no criminal convictions\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Recently, in the Bay Area, ICE arrests have occurred \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12028303/ice-arrest-left-bay-area-man-hospitalized-struggling-breathe-attorney-says\">outside of homes\u003c/a> and courthouses \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12044592/bay-area-lawmaker-demands-answers-after-ice-arrests-at-immigration-courts\">in Concord\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12043596/protesters-swarm-sf-immigration-court-after-more-ice-arrests\">San Francisco\u003c/a>, where plainclothes agents detained asylum seekers attending routine court hearings.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, began her role just before Trump’s second term. She oversees a department of about 200 attorneys and paralegals and calls this “the most consequential time in U.S. history.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In late July, Republicans approved a spending bill that \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101910650/ices-budget-just-tripled-whats-next\">tripled ICE’s budget\u003c/a>. The removal of immigrants from the country has accelerated through a variety of tactics: The Trump administration has broadened expedited removal, selectively enforced policies in sanctuary jurisdictions, targeted certain migrant groups and fast-tracked deportations — often without full hearings.\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_12021919",
"hero": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/20250115_JapaneseAmericanActivism_GC-47-1020x680.jpg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>But because of \u003cem>Yick Wo\u003c/em>, constitutional protections should apply to everyone on U.S. soil, regardless of citizenship status. That’s why immigration attorneys and advocates are especially vigilant.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It’s a responsibility that I think is particularly heavy at this moment in time, with a president and administration that has so little respect for civil rights and civil liberties…and so little respect for all the fundamental pillars of U.S. democracy,” Wang said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A San Francisco resident, Wang has worked for the ACLU in various roles for over two decades. The organization has filed more than 60 lawsuits challenging Trump’s second-term policies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Wang, who first studied \u003cem>Yick Wo\u003c/em> as an undergraduate at UC Berkeley, feels personally connected to the case as an Asian American. She has cited it throughout her career as a civil rights lawyer.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“One of the lessons of \u003cem>Yick Wo \u003c/em>that I think is really resonant for me right now is that someone who seemed politically powerless, under-resourced and invisible by all accounts was able to bring his claim up through the federal court system to the Supreme Court of the United States,” Wang said.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Redefining constitutional rights in the U.S.\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>When one considers the odds stacked against Chinese laundry owners as Yick brought his claim forward, the case becomes especially remarkable.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Though initially welcomed during the Gold Rush, Chinese immigrants eventually became targets as their population and industrial workforce roles expanded. They took jobs as miners and railroad laborers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>They were also entrepreneurial. Early Chinese immigrants filled a specific need that no one else seemed eager to do: laundry service. Chinese immigrants eventually dominated the industry, which would continue for the rest of the 19th century.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12051938\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12051938\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250812-YICK-WO-ARCHIVAL-03_KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1545\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250812-YICK-WO-ARCHIVAL-03_KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250812-YICK-WO-ARCHIVAL-03_KQED-160x124.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250812-YICK-WO-ARCHIVAL-03_KQED-1536x1187.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">A Chinese laundry at 924 Howard St. in San Francisco \u003c/span>is shown in a historical photograph dated Jan. 22, 1886. \u003ccite>(Courtesy of the National Archives at San Francisco)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>By 1860, about one in 10 California residents was Chinese. Their prominence alarmed white leaders, including then-California governor Henry Huntly Haight.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“An additional influx of Chinese to compete with white laboring men in all industrial departments ought to be discouraged by all lawful means. For the sake of some supposed advantage of cheap labor, such influx would inflict a curse upon posterity for all time,” he said during his \u003ca href=\"https://governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/10-haight.html\">1867 inaugural address\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Widespread violence soon followed. By the 1870s, anti-Chinese sentiment escalated across the West Coast, with Chinese immigrants subjected to \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101886267/california-cities-apologize-for-historical-wrongs-against-chinese-community\">mob-led destruction\u003c/a>, including mass lynchings.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>According to \u003cem>In Search of Equality: The Chinese Struggle Against Discrimination in Nineteenth-Century America\u003c/em>, a seminal book on Chinese American history by former UC Berkeley professor Charles McClain, there were about 2,600 Chinese laundrymen in California by 1870 — half of them in San Francisco.\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_12033789",
"hero": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250324-WongKimArk-02-BL_qed-1020x680.jpg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>Chinese laundry owners faced a flurry of discriminatory city ordinances. One imposed high license fees on those without horse-drawn carriages. Another required written approval from 12 citizens and taxpayers on the block where the business was located.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 1880, the city passed a notorious law requiring permits for laundries not made of brick or stone. At the time, nearly all of San Francisco’s laundries, especially those owned by Chinese immigrants, were wooden structures. Of about 200 applicants, all were denied permits, while their white counterparts were not.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 1885, Yick Wo’s owner refused to stop operating and was arrested by Sheriff Peter Hopkins. Rather than serve the sentence, Lee and other laundrymen fought back with support from the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, also known as the Chinese Six Companies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Six Companies — a powerful coalition of family and district associations that functioned as both mutual aid organizations and political advocates for the Chinese immigrant community — \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship\">coordinated legal strategies\u003c/a>, raised sizable funds by taxing Chinese immigrants and, importantly, helped them navigate a hostile legal system.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“This was the GoFundMe of Chinatown from 1850,” Lei told KQED from inside CCBA’s ornately designed Stockton Street headquarters, where family association leaders and San Francisco politicians still meet.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Together with Tung Hing Tong, a 19th-century Chinese laundry association, substantial resources were pooled to fight San Francisco’s unfair permitting ordinance.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12050748\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12050748\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-01-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-01-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-01-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-01-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">David Lei stands on Spofford Street in San Francisco’s Chinatown on July 29, 2025, the historical site of the Chinese Laundry Association, once located at 33 Spofford St. A longtime resident and community historian, Lei has worked to preserve Chinatown’s cultural and educational legacy. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>“They taxed themselves, raised $20,000 — equivalent to more than half a million dollars today — and hired the best lawyer money could buy to win this case,” Lei said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That lawyer was Hall McAllister, a federal judge and founder of the California Bar Association, who became one of the key members of the Six Companies’ legal team as they filed lawsuits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When asked why these powerful white lawyers would go against the popular grain to argue on behalf of Chinese immigrants, Lei said Chinese immigrants often paid up to about double of what other clients would pay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The strategy worked.\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_12015449",
"hero": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/11/20241119_BirthrightCitizenshipExplainer_GC-16_qed-1020x680.jpg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>In 1886, the U.S. Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/356/\">ruled unanimously for Yick\u003c/a>, declaring that even if a law appears to be race-neutral, “if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand,” then it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Crucially, the court emphasized that its protections “extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The keyword here is “persons,” not “citizens.” \u003cem>Yick Wo\u003c/em> marked the first time the Supreme Court extended constitutional protections under the 14th Amendment — including due process rights — to noncitizens.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Wang said \u003cem>Yick Wo \u003c/em>“reverberates in almost every civil rights case that’s been brought under the Equal Protection Clause.” It laid the foundation for challenges involving interracial marriage, school desegregation, housing discrimination, voting rights, gender and disability discrimination and same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Critically, \u003cem>Yick Wo\u003c/em> provided a legal foundation to challenge discriminatory enforcement of laws — a central feature of Jim Crow. During the civil rights era, attorneys revived their principles in landmark cases, including \u003ca href=\"https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/brown-v-board-of-education\">\u003cem>Brown v. Board of Education\u003c/em>\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While \u003cem>Yick Wo \u003c/em>didn’t end anti-Chinese sentiment, it established a constitutional principle that still underpins civil rights protections for both citizens and immigrants today.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>Why due process is critical now\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>In early July, a \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ_YGzfaQLM&t=1s\">viral video\u003c/a> showed ICE agents clashing with protesters during an arrest in San Francisco. One protester jumped onto an ICE van’s hood before falling as it drove off.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Other similarly viral videos show community members confronting ICE agents, demanding to see arrest warrants and reminding immigrants of their due process rights.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For longtime immigrant advocates like Lisa Knox, legal director of the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, ICE’s actions aren’t surprising.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12050751\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12050751\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-09-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-09-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-09-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-09-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A statue of Hall McAllister stands near San Francisco City Hall on July 29, 2025. As a federal judge, McAllister ruled in favor of Yick Wo in the landmark civil rights case that affirmed equal protection under the 14th Amendment for Chinese immigrants. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>“ICE has always been a rogue agency,” she said. “Yes, we are seeing some new tactics … but I would emphasize that this isn’t a complete departure for this agency. [ICE] has a long history of these abusive tactics, of doing things that violate the law.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Formed after Trump’s first election in 2016, CCIJ offers legal help to detained immigrants in Northern and Central California and plays a central coordinating role in the state’s \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12049326/as-ice-operations-expand-how-are-immigrant-allies-responding\">rapid response organizing\u003c/a>, including activating attorneys and mobilizing volunteers during ICE activity. They also raise awareness of the \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12043004/in-recorded-calls-reports-of-overcrowding-and-lack-of-food-at-ice-detention-centers\">inhumane living conditions\u003c/a> inside detention centers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Knox said the Bay Area is well organized when it comes to defending immigrant rights. She believes that may have helped prevent mass raids and more severe rights violations in the region, compared to other parts of the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But what is striking to Knox is the mainstream attention around the constitutional rights of immigrants.\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_12025613",
"hero": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250130-JSeiHome-JY-1927-1020x680.jpg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>“There has never been a conversation about due process in my lifetime [like this],” said Knox, who also teaches an immigration and citizenship class at UC Berkeley. “Law is influenced by politics. The fact that people are taking an interest in these decisions and wanting to defend these fundamental rights is really important and really key.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Attorneys like Jordan Wells, a senior staff attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, have defended immigrants in court, including a legal permanent resident targeted for participating in a pro-Palestine rally at Columbia University. Another lawsuit challenges ICE courthouse arrests as violations of the Due Process Clause.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>According to Wells, due process has always provided a counterbalance to any presidential administration’s attempts to test the limits of constitutional protections. He said it is especially critical now as the Trump administration has tried to block immigrants from legal counsel and coerce deportation agreements.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We are seeing all manner of attempts to prevent people from communicating with counsel about their immigration status,” Wells said. “They have tried to get people to concede to their removability from the country, no matter how long they’ve been here, and just get them shipped out as quickly as possible.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12050754\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12050754\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250731-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-06-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250731-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-06-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250731-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-06-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250731-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-06-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Spofford Street in San Francisco’s Chinatown neighborhood on July 31, 2025. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>For Knox, public education is critical, as demonstrated by local grassroots efforts to form rapid response networks during Trump’s first term.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“That first 24-hour period is really crucial for the person to be informed of their rights and options, and to exercise them so that they’re not just deported without the chance to access the process that is their right,” Knox said. “As lawyers, a lot of the time we show up after somebody has already been placed in detention … but if people can be educated and know their rights and assert them before that happens, often they can prevent their detention or they can have more options.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>She emphasizes that drawing connections between communities is also a powerful way to build collective strength.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If we allow the government to take away immigrants’ rights to due process, then we’re all at risk,” Knox said. “We are building and exercising our power, so that’s our focus. We say over and over: power, not panic.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Knox said \u003cem>Yick Wo\u003c/em> is more than a legal decision — it’s a historical reminder.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We’ve been here before, and some of these questions have come up,” she said. “Who gets to enjoy the rights of citizenship? What rights should be afforded to anyone, regardless of legal status, because they’re part of this community?”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Wang is grateful that early Chinese immigrants asked these questions, forcing the U.S. to follow its own constitutional laws: “The fundamental promise of the 14th Amendment was only as good as the writing until people like [Lee Yick and Wo Lee] took their fights and fleshed out those words on paper… and made it a lived reality for people.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12050749\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12050749\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-03-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-03-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-03-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/08/250729-YICKWOCIVILRIGHTS-03-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">David Lei walks along Spofford Street in San Francisco’s Chinatown on July 29, 2025, the historical site of the Chinese Laundry Association, once located at 33 Spofford St. A longtime resident and community historian, Lei has worked to preserve Chinatown’s cultural and educational legacy. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Wang said it took the mobilization of an entire community to defend the Chinese laundries — with people contributing in both small and large ways — and said a similar collective effort is needed today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I have family members in my Chinese American family who probably agree more with President Trump than they agree with me on issues of immigration,” she said. “What I try to do with my community … is not only point out the history, but to really draw some intersectional lines so that [they] can understand how we must all stand or fall together.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Back at the parking lot on Third and Harrison, Lei reflects on the mountain of overlooked legal battles waged by early Chinese immigrants — cases that shaped modern protections such as Miranda rights, public education access and political asylum.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At 75, he said, “The clock is ticking,” estimating he has about five more years left in him to keep telling these stories. He shook his head, thinking about how much more there is to share.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Then he chuckled.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We’re branded as very quiet, that we don’t cause trouble — model citizens, model minority, all these things,” he said. “But the Chinese were very hard to manage … We have to organize. That’s what our ancestors did, and they were successful, so this is what we need to do now.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12050233/how-a-chinese-laundryman-shaped-us-civil-rights-from-san-francisco",
"authors": [
"8617"
],
"categories": [
"news_31795",
"news_1169",
"news_8",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_1386",
"news_34903",
"news_18538",
"news_23078",
"news_23152",
"news_22883",
"news_4750",
"news_1323",
"news_27626",
"news_34377",
"news_17708",
"news_20202",
"news_2672",
"news_17968",
"news_244"
],
"featImg": "news_12051941",
"label": "news"
},
"news_12046217": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12046217",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12046217",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1752278445000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "what-the-supreme-courts-latest-ruling-means-for-birthright-citizenship",
"title": "What Are the Rules for U.S. Birthright Citizenship Right Now?",
"publishDate": 1752278445,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "What Are the Rules for U.S. Birthright Citizenship Right Now? | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship is once again frozen by a federal judge’s nationwide injunction, preventing the administration from enforcing the policy in any of the 50 states.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court had \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12044886/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-ruling-limits-nationwide-injunctions\">previously ruled\u003c/a> that the federal government could only enforce the order in the 28 states that have not challenged it in court, while it remains blocked in the other 22 states.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Thursday’s decision from the U.S. District Court for New Hampshire allows civil rights groups to move forward \u003ca href=\"https://www.aclu.org/cases/barbara-v-donald-j-trump?document=PI-Order\">with a class-action lawsuit\u003c/a> on behalf of newborn babies affected by executive order. While the Supreme Court has limited the power of district judges to stop executive orders nationwide, it still allows this type of injunction in class action cases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"#parents\">\u003cstrong>Jump to: Expecting a baby? What you should know now\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>“Having a patchwork system of birthright citizenship would be totally unworkable,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director of the San Francisco-based Asian Law Caucus, one of the organizations that presented the lawsuit. “It would turn doctors and nurses into immigration agents. It would be really expensive to administer. It would create a lot of confusion and fear.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Trump’s executive order would deny U.S. citizenship to babies born in the country to parents without permanent legal status, but the Supreme Court’s June 27 ruling created a split: a baby born to undocumented parents in California — \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12023126/california-leaders-to-sue-trump-over-birthright-citizenship-border-policies\">which sued the federal government over the policy\u003c/a> — would be entitled to citizenship, while a baby born to a family with similar circumstances in Texas — which has not challenged the executive order — could be denied citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But this latest injunction blocks the executive order from taking effect in any state, guaranteeing birthright citizenship for now to babies born to immigrant parents without permanent legal status.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“What parents need to know is that they are protected for now,” said Kohli, who added that she expects another legal battle that could end up in the Supreme Court. “We’re in this for the long haul.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Keep reading to understand the latest rules on U.S. birthright citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003cstrong>Who does Trump’s birthright citizenship order affect now?\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>On Jan. 20, Trump signed \u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/\">an executive order\u003c/a> declaring that the federal government will no longer grant documents that confirm citizenship, like a Social Security Number or passport, to children born on or after Feb. 19, 2025, who are in the following situations:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>At the time of birth, the baby’s biological mother is “unlawfully present” (with no legal status) in the U.S. and the biological father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>At the time of birth, the baby’s biological mother was in the U.S. with a temporary visa or permit, and the biological father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>The text of the executive order is written in legal language that can be difficult for the general public to understand. But based on the circumstances the order describes, these are families that could be affected by Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Families where both parents have no legal immigration documents at the time of their baby’s birth.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Families where both parents only have a temporary legal status, which could include: Temporary Protected Status (TPS), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), H1-B holders, a student J-1 visa or an H-2A visa for agricultural workers, another temporary visa or humanitarian parole. Their baby would not have birthright citizenship.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>If one parent has no legal status and the other only has a temporary legal status, which could include: TPS, DACA, H1-B holders, a student J-1 visa or an H-2A visa for agricultural workers, another temporary visa or humanitarian parole. Their baby would not have birthright citizenship.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>On June 27, the Supreme Court ruled the executive order cannot be enforced in the following 22 states, along with the District of Columbia:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>California\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Arizona\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Colorado\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Connecticut\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Delaware\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Hawaii\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Illinois\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Maine\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Massachusetts\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Maryland\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Michigan\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Minnesota\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Nevada\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>New Jersey\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>New Mexico\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>New York\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>North Carolina\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Oregon\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Rhode Island\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Vermont\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Washington\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Wisconsin\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>While in the remaining 28 states, the new birthright citizenship rules were set to begin on July 27. How a patchwork system like this would actually look like in practice has puzzled both legal scholars and future parents.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“There’d be a lot of chaos with government agencies, businesses and individuals not even being sure how to comply with the law, even if they want to comply in good faith,” said Ming H. Chen, professor at UC Law San Francisco and faculty-director of the school’s Center for Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[aside postID=news_12015449 hero='https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/11/20241119_BirthrightCitizenshipExplainer_GC-16_qed-1020x680.jpg']\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Parents were so concerned, especially in the 28 states that were not party to a lawsuit on birthright citizenship,” said Asian Law Caucus’ Kohli. “People in those states were asking questions like, ‘Should we move in order to ensure that their child is a U.S. citizen?’\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the July 10 ruling from the New Hampshire federal district court blocks the executive order from being enforced anywhere in the country until the class-action lawsuit is resolved.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003ca id=\"parents\">\u003c/a>\u003cstrong>I’m worried: Is my baby still a US citizen?\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court’s June 27 ruling allowed the federal government to enforce the policy in 28 states startingJuly 27. The order is now blocked nationwide as the case moves through the judicial system, with legal experts predicting the fight will make it to the Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At this moment, the federal government will still recognize your baby as a U.S. citizen, regardless of your immigration status or what state the child was born.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003cstrong>Would anyone be stripped of their existing American citizenship with this order?\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Trump’s executive order says nothing about taking away the citizenship of people born in the U.S. before Feb. 19, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003cstrong>I’m currently expecting a baby. Will they still become a US citizen automatically?\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>This one’s complicated, as this depends on the future of the class-action lawsuit brought by civil rights groups on behalf of babies impacted by the executive order. Thanks to the July 10 ruling from the New Hampshire district court, the Trump administration must continue to recognize the U.S. citizenship of babies born to immigrant parents without a permanent legal status, regardless of their state of residence.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Once the White House challenges the ruling, the case would next go to a federal appeals court and, potentially, to the Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the same time, there are still multiple lawsuits against the government over the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order that are making their way through the judicial system. Once those cases reach the Supreme Court, the justices will have the final word on whether the executive order is overturned entirely or enforced nationwide.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Keep in mind, however, that the Supreme Court is currently in recess and will resume hearing cases in October. The July 10 injunction blocking the order nationwide remains in place in the meantime.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>A version of this story originally published on June 27, 2025.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship — previously set to begin July 27 in 28 states — has once again been frozen nationwide by a federal judge.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1752278476,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 27,
"wordCount": 1252
},
"headData": {
"title": "What Are the Rules for U.S. Birthright Citizenship Right Now? | KQED",
"description": "President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship — previously set to begin July 27 in 28 states — has once again been frozen nationwide by a federal judge.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "What Are the Rules for U.S. Birthright Citizenship Right Now?",
"datePublished": "2025-07-11T17:00:45-07:00",
"dateModified": "2025-07-11T17:01:16-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 8,
"slug": "news",
"name": "News"
},
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12046217",
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12046217/what-the-supreme-courts-latest-ruling-means-for-birthright-citizenship",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship is once again frozen by a federal judge’s nationwide injunction, preventing the administration from enforcing the policy in any of the 50 states.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court had \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12044886/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-ruling-limits-nationwide-injunctions\">previously ruled\u003c/a> that the federal government could only enforce the order in the 28 states that have not challenged it in court, while it remains blocked in the other 22 states.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Thursday’s decision from the U.S. District Court for New Hampshire allows civil rights groups to move forward \u003ca href=\"https://www.aclu.org/cases/barbara-v-donald-j-trump?document=PI-Order\">with a class-action lawsuit\u003c/a> on behalf of newborn babies affected by executive order. While the Supreme Court has limited the power of district judges to stop executive orders nationwide, it still allows this type of injunction in class action cases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"#parents\">\u003cstrong>Jump to: Expecting a baby? What you should know now\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>“Having a patchwork system of birthright citizenship would be totally unworkable,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director of the San Francisco-based Asian Law Caucus, one of the organizations that presented the lawsuit. “It would turn doctors and nurses into immigration agents. It would be really expensive to administer. It would create a lot of confusion and fear.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Trump’s executive order would deny U.S. citizenship to babies born in the country to parents without permanent legal status, but the Supreme Court’s June 27 ruling created a split: a baby born to undocumented parents in California — \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12023126/california-leaders-to-sue-trump-over-birthright-citizenship-border-policies\">which sued the federal government over the policy\u003c/a> — would be entitled to citizenship, while a baby born to a family with similar circumstances in Texas — which has not challenged the executive order — could be denied citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But this latest injunction blocks the executive order from taking effect in any state, guaranteeing birthright citizenship for now to babies born to immigrant parents without permanent legal status.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“What parents need to know is that they are protected for now,” said Kohli, who added that she expects another legal battle that could end up in the Supreme Court. “We’re in this for the long haul.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Keep reading to understand the latest rules on U.S. birthright citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003cstrong>Who does Trump’s birthright citizenship order affect now?\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>On Jan. 20, Trump signed \u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/\">an executive order\u003c/a> declaring that the federal government will no longer grant documents that confirm citizenship, like a Social Security Number or passport, to children born on or after Feb. 19, 2025, who are in the following situations:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>At the time of birth, the baby’s biological mother is “unlawfully present” (with no legal status) in the U.S. and the biological father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>At the time of birth, the baby’s biological mother was in the U.S. with a temporary visa or permit, and the biological father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>The text of the executive order is written in legal language that can be difficult for the general public to understand. But based on the circumstances the order describes, these are families that could be affected by Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Families where both parents have no legal immigration documents at the time of their baby’s birth.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Families where both parents only have a temporary legal status, which could include: Temporary Protected Status (TPS), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), H1-B holders, a student J-1 visa or an H-2A visa for agricultural workers, another temporary visa or humanitarian parole. Their baby would not have birthright citizenship.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>If one parent has no legal status and the other only has a temporary legal status, which could include: TPS, DACA, H1-B holders, a student J-1 visa or an H-2A visa for agricultural workers, another temporary visa or humanitarian parole. Their baby would not have birthright citizenship.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>On June 27, the Supreme Court ruled the executive order cannot be enforced in the following 22 states, along with the District of Columbia:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>California\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Arizona\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Colorado\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Connecticut\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Delaware\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Hawaii\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Illinois\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Maine\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Massachusetts\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Maryland\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Michigan\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Minnesota\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Nevada\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>New Jersey\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>New Mexico\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>New York\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>North Carolina\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Oregon\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Rhode Island\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Vermont\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Washington\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Wisconsin\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>While in the remaining 28 states, the new birthright citizenship rules were set to begin on July 27. How a patchwork system like this would actually look like in practice has puzzled both legal scholars and future parents.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“There’d be a lot of chaos with government agencies, businesses and individuals not even being sure how to comply with the law, even if they want to comply in good faith,” said Ming H. Chen, professor at UC Law San Francisco and faculty-director of the school’s Center for Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_12015449",
"hero": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/11/20241119_BirthrightCitizenshipExplainer_GC-16_qed-1020x680.jpg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Parents were so concerned, especially in the 28 states that were not party to a lawsuit on birthright citizenship,” said Asian Law Caucus’ Kohli. “People in those states were asking questions like, ‘Should we move in order to ensure that their child is a U.S. citizen?’\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the July 10 ruling from the New Hampshire federal district court blocks the executive order from being enforced anywhere in the country until the class-action lawsuit is resolved.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003ca id=\"parents\">\u003c/a>\u003cstrong>I’m worried: Is my baby still a US citizen?\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court’s June 27 ruling allowed the federal government to enforce the policy in 28 states startingJuly 27. The order is now blocked nationwide as the case moves through the judicial system, with legal experts predicting the fight will make it to the Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At this moment, the federal government will still recognize your baby as a U.S. citizen, regardless of your immigration status or what state the child was born.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003cstrong>Would anyone be stripped of their existing American citizenship with this order?\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Trump’s executive order says nothing about taking away the citizenship of people born in the U.S. before Feb. 19, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003cstrong>I’m currently expecting a baby. Will they still become a US citizen automatically?\u003c/strong>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>This one’s complicated, as this depends on the future of the class-action lawsuit brought by civil rights groups on behalf of babies impacted by the executive order. Thanks to the July 10 ruling from the New Hampshire district court, the Trump administration must continue to recognize the U.S. citizenship of babies born to immigrant parents without a permanent legal status, regardless of their state of residence.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Once the White House challenges the ruling, the case would next go to a federal appeals court and, potentially, to the Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the same time, there are still multiple lawsuits against the government over the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order that are making their way through the judicial system. Once those cases reach the Supreme Court, the justices will have the final word on whether the executive order is overturned entirely or enforced nationwide.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Keep in mind, however, that the Supreme Court is currently in recess and will resume hearing cases in October. The July 10 injunction blocking the order nationwide remains in place in the meantime.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>A version of this story originally published on June 27, 2025.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12046217/what-the-supreme-courts-latest-ruling-means-for-birthright-citizenship",
"authors": [
"11708"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_8",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_32707",
"news_34903",
"news_27626",
"news_1172"
],
"featImg": "news_12033529",
"label": "news"
},
"news_12044974": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12044974",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12044974",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1751062931000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "california-pushes-back-after-supreme-court-ruling-on-trump-citizenship-order",
"title": "California Pushes Back After Supreme Court Ruling on Trump Citizenship Order",
"publishDate": 1751062931,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "California Pushes Back After Supreme Court Ruling on Trump Citizenship Order | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>California officials voiced alarm on Friday after the Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12046217/what-the-supreme-courts-latest-ruling-means-for-birthright-citizenship\">threw out nationwide injunctions\u003c/a> blocking President Donald Trump’s effort to reverse the country’s long-standing principle that children born on U.S. soil are citizens.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Federal court judges were directed to issue more limited stays to temporarily block Trump’s executive order while legal challenges proceed. State leaders expressed disappointment but emphasized the ruling does not mean the end of birthright citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Because 22 states — \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12023126/california-leaders-to-sue-trump-over-birthright-citizenship-border-policies\">including California\u003c/a> — and the District of Columbia successfully challenged the order earlier this year, the policy remains blocked in those places.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The Supreme Court’s decision today is not what we hoped for, but you can be sure the fight is far from over,” state Attorney General Rob Bonta said. “We believe our case is clear because the law is clear. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act are clear. Birthright citizenship is foundational to our history and has already been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The majority opinion issued by the justices did not explicitly address whether Trump’s \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12024082/qa-what-to-know-about-birthright-citizenship\">executive order on birthright citizenship\u003c/a> is unconstitutional. Instead, the court — split along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority — ruled that federal judges likely overstepped their powers by issuing nationwide injunctions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court also placed a 30-day stay on Trump’s birthright citizenship order to give opponents time to challenge in court, according to the majority opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[aside postID=news_12046217 hero='https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/npr.brightspotcdn-copy-13-1020x680.jpg']\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Bonta noted that the court ruling does not completely eliminate the possibility of future nationwide injunctions. If it is found that a sweeping stay is needed to provide complete relief to plaintiffs involved in cases against Trump’s executive order, one may be reintroduced.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the dissenting opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, she argued that the decision to limit nationwide injunctions goes against “basic principles of equity as well as the long history of injunctive relief granted to nonparties.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>David Chiu, city attorney of San Francisco, said birthright citizenship is one instance where a court’s ability to decide on the nation’s behalf is critical. Without a universal injunction, determining each person’s citizenship and status based on where they’re born or move would be logistically difficult and unfair, he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“You can’t require some states to issue birth certificates to birthright citizens and prohibit other states from doing so,” Chiu said. “The idea that a baby may or may not be a citizen depending on where she or he is born is cruel and nonsensical.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As it stands, the court’s decision did not question the merits of birthright citizenship and its constitutionality, Chiu said. Rather, he is more concerned that the ruling could dramatically reduce the injunctionary powers of the judiciary more broadly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We can no longer expect to benefit from other parties when they win court challenges,” he said. “We have to be in the fight ourselves to ensure that we can vindicate the interests of San Francisco.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>According to Kevin Johnson, a law professor at UC Davis, the Supreme Court’s ruling has less to do with immigration and legal status than it does with limiting the powers of the judicial branch and federal courts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Both Democratic and Republican administrations in the past have had issues with courts ordering injunctions that interfere with executive directives, Johnson noted, adding that the question of whether lower courts should have the discretion to issue sweeping injunctions has been long debated by conservatives and liberals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The Supreme Court has expressed a concern with all the injunctions coming before it on various matters, including immigration,” he said. “The court has … lost its patience with all these lawsuits, all these injunctions, all of these efforts to limit the prerogative of the president.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Johnson said it’s likely that the rule of birthright citizenship will continue to be enforced as federal judges release more limited injunctions. There’s also a chance that pushback from the Trump administration may eventually result in the issue being returned to the Supreme Court, he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In response to the court’s decision, Trump said on Truth Social that the ruling was a “giant win” and a hard hit on birthright citizenship, which he described as a scam on the United States’ immigration process.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, Trump issued an order barring citizenship to U.S.-born children whose parents are not citizens or legal permanent residents. It was one of nearly a dozen sweeping executive orders aimed at rewriting the rules on immigration and redefining who gets to be an American.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California and 21 other states \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12023126/california-leaders-to-sue-trump-over-birthright-citizenship-border-policies\">immediately sued\u003c/a>. They were also joined by San Francisco and several immigrant rights groups, as well as individuals who stand to be affected by the directive. Federal judges quickly blocked the order from taking effect while the cases went forward, and three separate appeals courts refused to lift the injunctions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>San Francisco’s Asian Law Caucus and the ACLU are \u003ca href=\"https://www.asianlawcaucus.org/news-resources/news/birthright-citizenship-executive-order\">litigating another lawsuit\u003c/a> against Trump’s birthright citizenship order, \u003ca href=\"https://www.aclu.org/cases/new-hampshire-indonesian-community-support-v-donald-j-trump?document=Complaint\">filed\u003c/a> in federal court in New Hampshire. In February, that judge also issued \u003ca href=\"https://www.aclu.org/documents/nh-indonesian-community-support-preliminary-injunction\">an injunction\u003c/a> — not a nationwide one — and the Trump administration is appealing the stay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“To any pregnant woman out there, please do not worry and stress about this,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus. “We are here. We are fighting very hard. There’s a large community of legal experts who really believe that this executive order has no teeth and that we will find a way to persevere.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>KQED’s \u003c/em>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/author/jlara\">\u003cem>Juan Carlos Lara\u003c/em>\u003c/a>\u003cem> contributed to this report.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "California leaders blasted the Supreme Court's ruling narrowing federal court power to block Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1751066812,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 25,
"wordCount": 1011
},
"headData": {
"title": "California Pushes Back After Supreme Court Ruling on Trump Citizenship Order | KQED",
"description": "California leaders blasted the Supreme Court's ruling narrowing federal court power to block Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "California Pushes Back After Supreme Court Ruling on Trump Citizenship Order",
"datePublished": "2025-06-27T15:22:11-07:00",
"dateModified": "2025-06-27T16:26:52-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 8,
"slug": "news",
"name": "News"
},
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12044974",
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12044974/california-pushes-back-after-supreme-court-ruling-on-trump-citizenship-order",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>California officials voiced alarm on Friday after the Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12046217/what-the-supreme-courts-latest-ruling-means-for-birthright-citizenship\">threw out nationwide injunctions\u003c/a> blocking President Donald Trump’s effort to reverse the country’s long-standing principle that children born on U.S. soil are citizens.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Federal court judges were directed to issue more limited stays to temporarily block Trump’s executive order while legal challenges proceed. State leaders expressed disappointment but emphasized the ruling does not mean the end of birthright citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Because 22 states — \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12023126/california-leaders-to-sue-trump-over-birthright-citizenship-border-policies\">including California\u003c/a> — and the District of Columbia successfully challenged the order earlier this year, the policy remains blocked in those places.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The Supreme Court’s decision today is not what we hoped for, but you can be sure the fight is far from over,” state Attorney General Rob Bonta said. “We believe our case is clear because the law is clear. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act are clear. Birthright citizenship is foundational to our history and has already been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The majority opinion issued by the justices did not explicitly address whether Trump’s \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12024082/qa-what-to-know-about-birthright-citizenship\">executive order on birthright citizenship\u003c/a> is unconstitutional. Instead, the court — split along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority — ruled that federal judges likely overstepped their powers by issuing nationwide injunctions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court also placed a 30-day stay on Trump’s birthright citizenship order to give opponents time to challenge in court, according to the majority opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_12046217",
"hero": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/npr.brightspotcdn-copy-13-1020x680.jpg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Bonta noted that the court ruling does not completely eliminate the possibility of future nationwide injunctions. If it is found that a sweeping stay is needed to provide complete relief to plaintiffs involved in cases against Trump’s executive order, one may be reintroduced.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the dissenting opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, she argued that the decision to limit nationwide injunctions goes against “basic principles of equity as well as the long history of injunctive relief granted to nonparties.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>David Chiu, city attorney of San Francisco, said birthright citizenship is one instance where a court’s ability to decide on the nation’s behalf is critical. Without a universal injunction, determining each person’s citizenship and status based on where they’re born or move would be logistically difficult and unfair, he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“You can’t require some states to issue birth certificates to birthright citizens and prohibit other states from doing so,” Chiu said. “The idea that a baby may or may not be a citizen depending on where she or he is born is cruel and nonsensical.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As it stands, the court’s decision did not question the merits of birthright citizenship and its constitutionality, Chiu said. Rather, he is more concerned that the ruling could dramatically reduce the injunctionary powers of the judiciary more broadly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We can no longer expect to benefit from other parties when they win court challenges,” he said. “We have to be in the fight ourselves to ensure that we can vindicate the interests of San Francisco.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>According to Kevin Johnson, a law professor at UC Davis, the Supreme Court’s ruling has less to do with immigration and legal status than it does with limiting the powers of the judicial branch and federal courts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Both Democratic and Republican administrations in the past have had issues with courts ordering injunctions that interfere with executive directives, Johnson noted, adding that the question of whether lower courts should have the discretion to issue sweeping injunctions has been long debated by conservatives and liberals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The Supreme Court has expressed a concern with all the injunctions coming before it on various matters, including immigration,” he said. “The court has … lost its patience with all these lawsuits, all these injunctions, all of these efforts to limit the prerogative of the president.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Johnson said it’s likely that the rule of birthright citizenship will continue to be enforced as federal judges release more limited injunctions. There’s also a chance that pushback from the Trump administration may eventually result in the issue being returned to the Supreme Court, he said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In response to the court’s decision, Trump said on Truth Social that the ruling was a “giant win” and a hard hit on birthright citizenship, which he described as a scam on the United States’ immigration process.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, Trump issued an order barring citizenship to U.S.-born children whose parents are not citizens or legal permanent residents. It was one of nearly a dozen sweeping executive orders aimed at rewriting the rules on immigration and redefining who gets to be an American.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>California and 21 other states \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12023126/california-leaders-to-sue-trump-over-birthright-citizenship-border-policies\">immediately sued\u003c/a>. They were also joined by San Francisco and several immigrant rights groups, as well as individuals who stand to be affected by the directive. Federal judges quickly blocked the order from taking effect while the cases went forward, and three separate appeals courts refused to lift the injunctions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>San Francisco’s Asian Law Caucus and the ACLU are \u003ca href=\"https://www.asianlawcaucus.org/news-resources/news/birthright-citizenship-executive-order\">litigating another lawsuit\u003c/a> against Trump’s birthright citizenship order, \u003ca href=\"https://www.aclu.org/cases/new-hampshire-indonesian-community-support-v-donald-j-trump?document=Complaint\">filed\u003c/a> in federal court in New Hampshire. In February, that judge also issued \u003ca href=\"https://www.aclu.org/documents/nh-indonesian-community-support-preliminary-injunction\">an injunction\u003c/a> — not a nationwide one — and the Trump administration is appealing the stay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“To any pregnant woman out there, please do not worry and stress about this,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus. “We are here. We are fighting very hard. There’s a large community of legal experts who really believe that this executive order has no teeth and that we will find a way to persevere.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>KQED’s \u003c/em>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/author/jlara\">\u003cem>Juan Carlos Lara\u003c/em>\u003c/a>\u003cem> contributed to this report.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12044974/california-pushes-back-after-supreme-court-ruling-on-trump-citizenship-order",
"authors": [
"11920",
"259"
],
"categories": [
"news_1169",
"news_8",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_34903",
"news_18538",
"news_20226",
"news_167",
"news_1323",
"news_27626",
"news_34377",
"news_20202",
"news_17968",
"news_3674",
"news_20445",
"news_20529",
"news_244"
],
"featImg": "news_12023242",
"label": "news"
},
"news_12044886": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12044886",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12044886",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1751037000000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-ruling-limits-nationwide-injunctions",
"title": "Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions in Ruling on Birthright Citizenship Order",
"publishDate": 1751037000,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions in Ruling on Birthright Citizenship Order | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 253,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cem>Updated 9:25 a.m. Friday\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines on Friday, sided with the Trump administration’s request to limit universal injunctions issued by federal courts. The opinion in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/tag/birthright-citizenship\">birthright citizenship\u003c/a> case was highly anticipated.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At issue was \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2025/05/15/nx-s1-5395840/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court\">how the lower courts should handle\u003c/a> President Trump’s \u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/\">executive order\u003c/a>, which declared that the children of parents who enter the U.S. illegally or on a temporary visa are not entitled to automatic citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, didn’t rule on whether President Trump’s executive order violates the 14th Amendment or the Nationality Act. Instead, it focused on whether federal courts have the power to issue nationwide blocks.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts,” the conservative majority said. “The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Friday’s opinion asked the lower courts to reconsider their broad rulings in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion and otherwise “with principles of equity.” However, the opinion also said Trump’s birthright citizenship order can’t take effect for 30 days from Friday’s opinion, giving more time for legal challenges.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12045683\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2560px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12045683\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/GettyImages-2220642625-scaled.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2560\" height=\"1707\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/GettyImages-2220642625-scaled.jpg 2560w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/GettyImages-2220642625-2000x1333.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/GettyImages-2220642625-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/GettyImages-2220642625-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/GettyImages-2220642625-2048x1365.jpg 2048w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">President Donald Trump addresses the nation, alongside Vice President JD Vance (left), Secretary of State Marco Rubio (second, right) and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (right), from the White House in Washington, D.C. on June 21, 2025. \u003ccite>(Carlos Barria/Pool/AFP via Getty Images )\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Dissenting from Friday’s decision were the court’s three liberal justices. Writing for the three of them, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the government’s rush to limit nationwide injunctions “disregards basic principles of equity as well as the long history of injunctive relief granted to nonparties.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Immigrant rights groups and 22 states had sued over Trump’s birthright citizenship order, and three different federal district court judges invalidated Trump’s order, issuing what are called universal injunctions barring the administration from enforcing the Trump policy anywhere in the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When the courts of appeal refused to intervene while the litigation proceeded, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block universal injunctions altogether.[aside postID=news_12046217 hero='https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2030/01/GettyImages-1314541146.jpg']While Friday’s decision is procedural, the issue at the center of the case is \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2025/01/23/nx-s1-5270572/birthright-citizenship-trump-executive-order\">Trump’s long-held, but fringe view\u003c/a> that there is no such thing as automatic citizenship for people born in the U.S. On his first day in office this year, he signed an executive order declaring that babies born in the U.S. may not be citizens if their parents were not here legally or if the parents were here legally but on a temporary basis like a work visa. Trump’s view, however, is directly contradicted by a Supreme Court ruling 127 years ago — a decision that has never been disturbed, and is based on the text of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” It was enacted in 1866 after the Civil War and aimed at reversing the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision, which had declared that Black people, enslaved or free, could not be citizens. It has always been applied to anyone born in the U.S. And the Supreme Court on Friday did nothing to change that 150-year understanding.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>President Trump \u003ca href=\"https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114755893176827573\">responded to the decision on Truth Social\u003c/a>, calling it a “giant win.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He implied that immigrants were trying to scam the process to get U.S. citizenship and that the 14th Amendment was only meant to give citizenship to “babies of slaves (same year!)”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "At issue was how the lower courts should handle President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, which limited citizenship only to children born of parents with permanent status to be in the U.S.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1751041750,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 14,
"wordCount": 702
},
"headData": {
"title": "Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions in Ruling on Birthright Citizenship Order | KQED",
"description": "At issue was how the lower courts should handle President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, which limited citizenship only to children born of parents with permanent status to be in the U.S.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions in Ruling on Birthright Citizenship Order",
"datePublished": "2025-06-27T08:10:00-07:00",
"dateModified": "2025-06-27T09:29:10-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 8,
"slug": "news",
"name": "News"
},
"sticky": false,
"nprByline": "Nina Totenberg, NPR",
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12044886",
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"showOnAuthorArchivePages": "No",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12044886/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-ruling-limits-nationwide-injunctions",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cem>Updated 9:25 a.m. Friday\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines on Friday, sided with the Trump administration’s request to limit universal injunctions issued by federal courts. The opinion in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/tag/birthright-citizenship\">birthright citizenship\u003c/a> case was highly anticipated.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At issue was \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2025/05/15/nx-s1-5395840/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court\">how the lower courts should handle\u003c/a> President Trump’s \u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/\">executive order\u003c/a>, which declared that the children of parents who enter the U.S. illegally or on a temporary visa are not entitled to automatic citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, didn’t rule on whether President Trump’s executive order violates the 14th Amendment or the Nationality Act. Instead, it focused on whether federal courts have the power to issue nationwide blocks.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts,” the conservative majority said. “The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Friday’s opinion asked the lower courts to reconsider their broad rulings in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion and otherwise “with principles of equity.” However, the opinion also said Trump’s birthright citizenship order can’t take effect for 30 days from Friday’s opinion, giving more time for legal challenges.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12045683\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2560px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12045683\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/GettyImages-2220642625-scaled.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2560\" height=\"1707\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/GettyImages-2220642625-scaled.jpg 2560w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/GettyImages-2220642625-2000x1333.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/GettyImages-2220642625-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/GettyImages-2220642625-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/06/GettyImages-2220642625-2048x1365.jpg 2048w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">President Donald Trump addresses the nation, alongside Vice President JD Vance (left), Secretary of State Marco Rubio (second, right) and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (right), from the White House in Washington, D.C. on June 21, 2025. \u003ccite>(Carlos Barria/Pool/AFP via Getty Images )\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Dissenting from Friday’s decision were the court’s three liberal justices. Writing for the three of them, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the government’s rush to limit nationwide injunctions “disregards basic principles of equity as well as the long history of injunctive relief granted to nonparties.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Immigrant rights groups and 22 states had sued over Trump’s birthright citizenship order, and three different federal district court judges invalidated Trump’s order, issuing what are called universal injunctions barring the administration from enforcing the Trump policy anywhere in the country.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When the courts of appeal refused to intervene while the litigation proceeded, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block universal injunctions altogether.\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_12046217",
"hero": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2030/01/GettyImages-1314541146.jpg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>While Friday’s decision is procedural, the issue at the center of the case is \u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/2025/01/23/nx-s1-5270572/birthright-citizenship-trump-executive-order\">Trump’s long-held, but fringe view\u003c/a> that there is no such thing as automatic citizenship for people born in the U.S. On his first day in office this year, he signed an executive order declaring that babies born in the U.S. may not be citizens if their parents were not here legally or if the parents were here legally but on a temporary basis like a work visa. Trump’s view, however, is directly contradicted by a Supreme Court ruling 127 years ago — a decision that has never been disturbed, and is based on the text of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” It was enacted in 1866 after the Civil War and aimed at reversing the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision, which had declared that Black people, enslaved or free, could not be citizens. It has always been applied to anyone born in the U.S. And the Supreme Court on Friday did nothing to change that 150-year understanding.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>President Trump \u003ca href=\"https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114755893176827573\">responded to the decision on Truth Social\u003c/a>, calling it a “giant win.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He implied that immigrants were trying to scam the process to get U.S. citizenship and that the 14th Amendment was only meant to give citizenship to “babies of slaves (same year!)”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12044886/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-ruling-limits-nationwide-injunctions",
"authors": [
"byline_news_12044886"
],
"categories": [
"news_31795",
"news_1169",
"news_8",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_34903",
"news_18538",
"news_1323",
"news_20202"
],
"affiliates": [
"news_253"
],
"featImg": "news_12046267",
"label": "news_253"
},
"news_12041473": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12041473",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12041473",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1748091621000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "unprecedented-ice-officers-operating-inside-bay-area-immigration-courts-lawyers-say",
"title": "‘Unprecedented’: ICE Officers Operating Inside Bay Area Immigration Courts, Lawyers Say",
"publishDate": 1748091621,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "‘Unprecedented’: ICE Officers Operating Inside Bay Area Immigration Courts, Lawyers Say | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>In a move Bay Area immigrant advocates say is a first, federal immigration agents are conducting enforcement operations inside \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11975904/new-bay-area-immigration-court-opens-aims-to-tackle-deportation-backlog\">immigration courthouses\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers showed up in the halls and waiting rooms of immigration courts in San Francisco, Concord and Sacramento this week, according to attorneys and others at the courts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Advocates reported just one local arrest — of a man at the Concord court. But multiple \u003ca href=\"https://www.kpbs.org/news/border-immigration/2025/05/22/ice-agents-swarm-san-diego-immigration-court-arresting-people-after-their-hearings\">arrests have occurred in San Diego\u003c/a>, Phoenix and elsewhere.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It’s outrageous and unprecedented,” said Sean McMahon, a senior attorney with the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice. “People have the right to apply for asylum. They have the right to be heard if the government’s asserting that they’re deportable. And ICE is scaring people away from doing that.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If an immigrant fails to appear for a hearing, they automatically lose their case and are ordered deported in absentia.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>McMahon said ICE officers were at the San Francisco courthouse every day this week, questioning people entering or leaving courtrooms, and appeared at the Sacramento and Concord courts on at least one day.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Attorneys say they’ve observed ICE prosecutors moving to dismiss charges against immigrants who could be subject to a fast-track removal process. McMahon said they believe the prosecutors are coordinating with ICE officers in the corridors to conduct arrests as people leave the courtrooms.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>ICE officials acknowledged the courthouse operations in a statement that read, in part: “Secretary Noem is reversing Biden’s catch and release policy that allowed millions of unvetted illegal aliens to be let loose on American streets. This Administration is once again implementing the rule of law.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>ICE went on to say that it considers immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally within the past two years to be subject to the fast-track deportation process — called \u003ca href=\"https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11357\">expedited removal\u003c/a> — that does not require an immigration court hearing. Since expedited removal was enacted by Congress in 1996, it has been primarily applied to people at the border or who recently entered the country and are encountered within 100 miles of the border. The Trump administration has \u003ca href=\"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/24/2025-01720/designating-aliens-for-expedited-removal\">expanded its interpretation of the law\u003c/a> to cover people anywhere in the U.S. who can’t prove they’ve been here for at least two years.[aside postID=news_12039137 hero='https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/04/TravisAirForceBaseGetty2-1020x680.jpg']ICE said it will screen people it arrests under the statute for a “credible fear” of persecution in their home country, which would allow them to apply for asylum here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If no valid claim is found, aliens will be subject to a swift deportation,” the statement said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>President Donald Trump pledged “mass deportations” of at least a million people in the first year of his term. In an effort to carry that out, the administration has stripped away a variety of due process protections, and the Republican-controlled House of\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Representatives just approved a \u003ca href=\"https://www.wola.org/analysis/160-billion-to-detain-and-deport-congresss-reconciliation-bill-is-a-betrayal-of-priorities-and-will-harm-the-most-vulnerable/\">massive budget increase\u003c/a> for immigration enforcement.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In January, the Department of Homeland Security \u003ca href=\"https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/ero/protected-areas\">revoked\u003c/a> a \u003ca href=\"https://www.dhs.gov/archive/news/2021/04/27/dhs-announces-new-guidance-limit-ice-and-cbp-civil-enforcement-actions-or-near\">Biden-era policy\u003c/a> limiting ICE enforcement in or near courthouses, as well as other “sensitive areas,” such as schools, hospitals and places of worship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For ICE officers to be in the courthouses, advocates say they must receive permission from the Executive Office of Immigration Review, as the immigration court system is formally known.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“They’re certainly allowing it,” McMahon said. “There’s not just an awareness, but basically a tolerance of ICE’s presence at the court currently.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He said that when volunteers who witnessed the arrest at the Concord immigration court on Wednesday began informing people of their legal rights, the court’s private security guards asked them to leave the facility.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When asked about ICE enforcement inside courthouses, EOIR spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly declined to comment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Sergio Lopez, a volunteer coordinator with the Contra Costa Immigrant Rights Alliance, was at the Concord court on Wednesday and observed the arrest. He said ICE agents in plain clothes approached him and asked for identification.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“They were kind of aggressive,” he said. “It is a tactic to terrify people. I’ve been receiving texts and calls from a lot of people asking questions about if it’s safe to go to the court. ‘Is it OK, or I could be arrested?’”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Lopez said his organization plans to deploy legal observers to monitor ICE’s actions at the Concord courthouse.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Advocates also called on elected officials to speak up for immigrants’ due process rights and to increase funding for legal services.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "Attorneys have seen US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in the halls and waiting rooms of several California courthouses. Advocates reported the arrest of one man at a Concord court. ",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1748370648,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 23,
"wordCount": 799
},
"headData": {
"title": "‘Unprecedented’: ICE Officers Operating Inside Bay Area Immigration Courts, Lawyers Say | KQED",
"description": "Attorneys have seen US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in the halls and waiting rooms of several California courthouses. Advocates reported the arrest of one man at a Concord court. ",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "‘Unprecedented’: ICE Officers Operating Inside Bay Area Immigration Courts, Lawyers Say",
"datePublished": "2025-05-24T06:00:21-07:00",
"dateModified": "2025-05-27T11:30:48-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"audioUrl": "https://traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/0af137ef-751e-4b19-a055-aaef00d2d578/ffca7e9f-6831-4[…]f-aaef00f5a073/9f0e7b97-3462-4af8-ab09-b2ea0127bc5a/audio.mp3",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12041473",
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12041473/unprecedented-ice-officers-operating-inside-bay-area-immigration-courts-lawyers-say",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>In a move Bay Area immigrant advocates say is a first, federal immigration agents are conducting enforcement operations inside \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11975904/new-bay-area-immigration-court-opens-aims-to-tackle-deportation-backlog\">immigration courthouses\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers showed up in the halls and waiting rooms of immigration courts in San Francisco, Concord and Sacramento this week, according to attorneys and others at the courts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Advocates reported just one local arrest — of a man at the Concord court. But multiple \u003ca href=\"https://www.kpbs.org/news/border-immigration/2025/05/22/ice-agents-swarm-san-diego-immigration-court-arresting-people-after-their-hearings\">arrests have occurred in San Diego\u003c/a>, Phoenix and elsewhere.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It’s outrageous and unprecedented,” said Sean McMahon, a senior attorney with the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice. “People have the right to apply for asylum. They have the right to be heard if the government’s asserting that they’re deportable. And ICE is scaring people away from doing that.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If an immigrant fails to appear for a hearing, they automatically lose their case and are ordered deported in absentia.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>McMahon said ICE officers were at the San Francisco courthouse every day this week, questioning people entering or leaving courtrooms, and appeared at the Sacramento and Concord courts on at least one day.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Attorneys say they’ve observed ICE prosecutors moving to dismiss charges against immigrants who could be subject to a fast-track removal process. McMahon said they believe the prosecutors are coordinating with ICE officers in the corridors to conduct arrests as people leave the courtrooms.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>ICE officials acknowledged the courthouse operations in a statement that read, in part: “Secretary Noem is reversing Biden’s catch and release policy that allowed millions of unvetted illegal aliens to be let loose on American streets. This Administration is once again implementing the rule of law.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>ICE went on to say that it considers immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally within the past two years to be subject to the fast-track deportation process — called \u003ca href=\"https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11357\">expedited removal\u003c/a> — that does not require an immigration court hearing. Since expedited removal was enacted by Congress in 1996, it has been primarily applied to people at the border or who recently entered the country and are encountered within 100 miles of the border. The Trump administration has \u003ca href=\"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/24/2025-01720/designating-aliens-for-expedited-removal\">expanded its interpretation of the law\u003c/a> to cover people anywhere in the U.S. who can’t prove they’ve been here for at least two years.\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_12039137",
"hero": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/04/TravisAirForceBaseGetty2-1020x680.jpg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>ICE said it will screen people it arrests under the statute for a “credible fear” of persecution in their home country, which would allow them to apply for asylum here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If no valid claim is found, aliens will be subject to a swift deportation,” the statement said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>President Donald Trump pledged “mass deportations” of at least a million people in the first year of his term. In an effort to carry that out, the administration has stripped away a variety of due process protections, and the Republican-controlled House of\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Representatives just approved a \u003ca href=\"https://www.wola.org/analysis/160-billion-to-detain-and-deport-congresss-reconciliation-bill-is-a-betrayal-of-priorities-and-will-harm-the-most-vulnerable/\">massive budget increase\u003c/a> for immigration enforcement.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In January, the Department of Homeland Security \u003ca href=\"https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/ero/protected-areas\">revoked\u003c/a> a \u003ca href=\"https://www.dhs.gov/archive/news/2021/04/27/dhs-announces-new-guidance-limit-ice-and-cbp-civil-enforcement-actions-or-near\">Biden-era policy\u003c/a> limiting ICE enforcement in or near courthouses, as well as other “sensitive areas,” such as schools, hospitals and places of worship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For ICE officers to be in the courthouses, advocates say they must receive permission from the Executive Office of Immigration Review, as the immigration court system is formally known.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“They’re certainly allowing it,” McMahon said. “There’s not just an awareness, but basically a tolerance of ICE’s presence at the court currently.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He said that when volunteers who witnessed the arrest at the Concord immigration court on Wednesday began informing people of their legal rights, the court’s private security guards asked them to leave the facility.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When asked about ICE enforcement inside courthouses, EOIR spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly declined to comment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Sergio Lopez, a volunteer coordinator with the Contra Costa Immigrant Rights Alliance, was at the Concord court on Wednesday and observed the arrest. He said ICE agents in plain clothes approached him and asked for identification.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“They were kind of aggressive,” he said. “It is a tactic to terrify people. I’ve been receiving texts and calls from a lot of people asking questions about if it’s safe to go to the court. ‘Is it OK, or I could be arrested?’”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Lopez said his organization plans to deploy legal observers to monitor ICE’s actions at the Concord courthouse.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Advocates also called on elected officials to speak up for immigrants’ due process rights and to increase funding for legal services.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12041473/unprecedented-ice-officers-operating-inside-bay-area-immigration-courts-lawyers-say",
"authors": [
"259"
],
"categories": [
"news_1169",
"news_8",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_34903",
"news_1323",
"news_20466",
"news_34377",
"news_22215",
"news_20579",
"news_17708",
"news_20202",
"news_6883",
"news_17968",
"news_20529"
],
"featImg": "news_11712245",
"label": "news"
},
"news_12040330": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12040330",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12040330",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1747334220000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "supreme-court-weighs-whether-birthright-citizenship-can-remain-law-in-america",
"title": "Supreme Court Weighs Whether Birthright Citizenship Can Remain Law in America",
"publishDate": 1747334220,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "Supreme Court Weighs Whether Birthright Citizenship Can Remain Law in America | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 253,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>At the \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12033789/lets-fight-back-127-years-after-momentous-supreme-court-ruling-san-francisco-honors-wong-kim-ark\">U.S. Supreme Court\u003c/a> Thursday, the justices heard a case that challenges the constitutional provision guaranteeing automatic \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12023126/california-leaders-to-sue-trump-over-birthright-citizenship-border-policies\">citizenship to all babies\u003c/a> born in the United States, but the arguments focused on a separate question: Can federal district court judges rule against the administration on a nationwide basis.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices appeared divided on the issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Several seemed skeptical of the Trump administration’s argument that lower courts should not have the right to issue nationwide injunctions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the government’s lawyer, about how the federal government would enforce Trump’s order.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Brown Jackson was more pointed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view at least, into a catch me if you can kind of regime … where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights,” she said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Justice Clarence Thomas seemed more receptive to Sauer’s argument, noting the U.S. had “survived” without nationwide injunctions until the 1960s.[aside postID=news_12024082 hero='https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2030/01/GettyImages-1314541146-1020x690.jpg']New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, who represented the 22 states suing the government, told the court that nationwide injunctions should be available in “narrow circumstances” — like this case involving birthright citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Kelsi Corkran, who represented pregnant women and immigrant rights groups in the case, suggested allowing nationwide injunctions only when the government action is deemed by plaintiffs to be violating the Constitution. She argued that an injunction limited to only the parties in the case would not be “administratively workable.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>President Trump has long maintained that the Constitution does \u003cem>not \u003c/em>guarantee \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship\">birthright citizenship\u003c/a>. So, on Day One of his second presidential term, \u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">he issued an executive order\u003c/a> barring automatic citizenship for any baby born in the U.S. whose parents entered the country illegally, or who were here legally but on a temporary visa.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On Thursday, \u003ca href=\"https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/114511762010659631\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">he posted on Truth social\u003c/a> that “it all started right after the Civil War ended, it had nothing to do with current day Immigration Policy!” — and \u003ca href=\"https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/114511710554568353\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">repeated\u003c/a> incorrect \u003ca href=\"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c983g6zpz28o\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">claims\u003c/a> that the U.S. is the only country with birthright citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12036845/she-grew-up-believing-she-was-a-us-citizen-then-she-applied-for-a-passport\">Immigrant rights groups\u003c/a> and 22 states promptly challenged the Trump order in court. Since then, three federal judges, conservative and liberal, have ruled that the Trump executive order is, as one put it, “blatantly unconstitutional.” And three separate appeals courts have refused to unblock those orders while appeals are ongoing. Meanwhile, Trump’s legal claim has few supporters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Nonetheless, the Trump administration took its case to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis. But instead of asking the court to rule on the legality of Trump’s executive order, the administration focused its argument on the power of federal district court judges to do what they did here — rule against the administration on a nationwide basis.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "The arguments focused on whether federal district court judges can rule against the administration on a nationwide basis.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1747334220,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 14,
"wordCount": 529
},
"headData": {
"title": "Supreme Court Weighs Whether Birthright Citizenship Can Remain Law in America | KQED",
"description": "The arguments focused on whether federal district court judges can rule against the administration on a nationwide basis.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Supreme Court Weighs Whether Birthright Citizenship Can Remain Law in America",
"datePublished": "2025-05-15T11:37:00-07:00",
"dateModified": "2025-05-15T11:37:00-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"sticky": false,
"nprByline": "Nina Totenberg, NPR",
"nprStoryId": "nx-s1-5398025",
"nprHtmlLink": "https://www.npr.org/2025/05/15/nx-s1-5398025/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship",
"nprRetrievedStory": "1",
"nprPubDate": "2025-05-15T12:38:51.076-04:00",
"nprStoryDate": "2025-05-15T12:38:51.076-04:00",
"nprLastModifiedDate": "2025-05-15T14:06:31.075-04:00",
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"showOnAuthorArchivePages": "No",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12040330/supreme-court-weighs-whether-birthright-citizenship-can-remain-law-in-america",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>At the \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12033789/lets-fight-back-127-years-after-momentous-supreme-court-ruling-san-francisco-honors-wong-kim-ark\">U.S. Supreme Court\u003c/a> Thursday, the justices heard a case that challenges the constitutional provision guaranteeing automatic \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12023126/california-leaders-to-sue-trump-over-birthright-citizenship-border-policies\">citizenship to all babies\u003c/a> born in the United States, but the arguments focused on a separate question: Can federal district court judges rule against the administration on a nationwide basis.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices appeared divided on the issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Several seemed skeptical of the Trump administration’s argument that lower courts should not have the right to issue nationwide injunctions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the government’s lawyer, about how the federal government would enforce Trump’s order.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Brown Jackson was more pointed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view at least, into a catch me if you can kind of regime … where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights,” she said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Justice Clarence Thomas seemed more receptive to Sauer’s argument, noting the U.S. had “survived” without nationwide injunctions until the 1960s.\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_12024082",
"hero": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2030/01/GettyImages-1314541146-1020x690.jpg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, who represented the 22 states suing the government, told the court that nationwide injunctions should be available in “narrow circumstances” — like this case involving birthright citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Kelsi Corkran, who represented pregnant women and immigrant rights groups in the case, suggested allowing nationwide injunctions only when the government action is deemed by plaintiffs to be violating the Constitution. She argued that an injunction limited to only the parties in the case would not be “administratively workable.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>President Trump has long maintained that the Constitution does \u003cem>not \u003c/em>guarantee \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship\">birthright citizenship\u003c/a>. So, on Day One of his second presidential term, \u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">he issued an executive order\u003c/a> barring automatic citizenship for any baby born in the U.S. whose parents entered the country illegally, or who were here legally but on a temporary visa.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On Thursday, \u003ca href=\"https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/114511762010659631\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">he posted on Truth social\u003c/a> that “it all started right after the Civil War ended, it had nothing to do with current day Immigration Policy!” — and \u003ca href=\"https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/114511710554568353\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">repeated\u003c/a> incorrect \u003ca href=\"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c983g6zpz28o\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">claims\u003c/a> that the U.S. is the only country with birthright citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12036845/she-grew-up-believing-she-was-a-us-citizen-then-she-applied-for-a-passport\">Immigrant rights groups\u003c/a> and 22 states promptly challenged the Trump order in court. Since then, three federal judges, conservative and liberal, have ruled that the Trump executive order is, as one put it, “blatantly unconstitutional.” And three separate appeals courts have refused to unblock those orders while appeals are ongoing. Meanwhile, Trump’s legal claim has few supporters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Nonetheless, the Trump administration took its case to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis. But instead of asking the court to rule on the legality of Trump’s executive order, the administration focused its argument on the power of federal district court judges to do what they did here — rule against the administration on a nationwide basis.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12040330/supreme-court-weighs-whether-birthright-citizenship-can-remain-law-in-america",
"authors": [
"byline_news_12040330"
],
"categories": [
"news_1169",
"news_8",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_34903",
"news_18538",
"news_1323",
"news_20202",
"news_17968",
"news_932",
"news_244"
],
"affiliates": [
"news_253"
],
"featImg": "news_12040331",
"label": "news_253"
},
"news_12033789": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12033789",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12033789",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1743516024000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "lets-fight-back-127-years-after-momentous-supreme-court-ruling-san-francisco-honors-wong-kim-ark",
"title": "'Let’s Fight Back': 127 Years After Momentous Supreme Court Ruling, San Francisco Honors Wong Kim Ark",
"publishDate": 1743516024,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "‘Let’s Fight Back’: 127 Years After Momentous Supreme Court Ruling, San Francisco Honors Wong Kim Ark | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>On Friday, the corner of Grant Avenue and Sacramento Street in San Francisco’s Chinatown — usually packed with tourists and residents moving through the narrow sidewalks — saw a different crowd: organizers, lawmakers and historians gathered to honor the 127th anniversary of \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship\">\u003cem>United States v. Wong Kim Ark\u003c/em>\u003c/a>, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that set the precedent for birthright citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Friday’s event was the culmination of a week of programming titled “\u003ca href=\"https://caasf.org/2025/03/born-in-the-usa-wong-kim-ark-and-the-fight-for-citizenship/\">Born in the USA: Wong Kim Ark & The Fight for Citizenship\u003c/a>,” organized by the nonprofit Chinese for Affirmative Action. As the Trump administration continues its fights in the courts to limit who gets to be a \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12023740/federal-judge-temporarily-blocks-trumps-executive-order-ending-birthright-citizenship\">U.S. citizen at birth\u003c/a>, Chinese and Chinese American organizers and lawmakers in San Francisco are stepping up to honor the legacy of Wong Kim Ark by mobilizing to defend birthright citizenship on the national stage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Attacks on our constitutional rights are only meant to divide us further in an already fractured world,” Norman Wong, Wong Kim Ark’s great-grandson, said on Friday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Next to him stood officials from across the state, including San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, who has filed multiple lawsuits for the city against the federal government, \u003ca href=\"https://www.sfcityattorney.org/2025/01/21/san-francisco-city-attorney-and-attorneys-general-file-suit-to-protect-birthright-citizenship/\">including one over birthright citizenship\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Wong Kim Ark was born right on that same block on Sacramento Street in the 1870s to Chinese immigrants. In 1894, he traveled to China to visit his family. During his trip, he \u003ca href=\"https://theamericanscholar.org/birthright-citizens-and-paper-sons/\">married a woman and had a child with her\u003c/a>. On his way back to the U.S., he was detained in San Francisco. Customs officials claimed that he was not a U.S. citizen but rather a Chinese national through his parents, blocking him from entering the country due to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12033800\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003ca href=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00062-KQED.jpg\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12033800\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00062-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00062-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00062-KQED-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00062-KQED-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00062-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00062-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00062-KQED-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A press conference marking the conclusion of Wong Kim Ark week in San Francisco’s Chinatown on the corner of Grant Avenue and Sacramento Street, at the birthplace of Wong Kim Ark, March 28, 2025. Honoring his legacy and the fight for birthright citizenship, this event featured a plaque rendering of Wong Kim Ark celebrating his enduring impact on birthright citizenship and the ongoing efforts to protect this fundamental right. \u003ccite>(David M Barreda/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Wong Kim Ark sued the U.S. government in order to be recognized as an American citizen. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which affirmed that the Constitution \u003ca href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649\">recognized Wong as a U.S. citizen\u003c/a> because he was born on American soil. The ruling established birthright citizenship as a constitutional principle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Wong Kim Ark was not a hero alone,” said Norman Wong, noting that his great-grandfather had the financial and legal support of San Francisco’s Chinese community. “Now we need each of us to find the hero inside to make our world right.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Wong Kim Ark’s case is what could stop President Donald Trump from fulfilling one of his biggest campaign promises: ending birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On his first day back in the White House, Trump \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12024082/qa-what-to-know-about-birthright-citizenship\">signed an executive order\u003c/a> that would radically transform who gets to be a U.S. citizen at birth. The order goes further than what Trump \u003ca href=\"https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1663537082633953282\">promised on the campaign trail\u003c/a>: It denies birthright citizenship to babies born on or after Feb. 19, 2025, who don’t have at least one parent who is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>However, multiple federal judges have already \u003ca href=\"https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-future-trumps-order-blocking-birthright-citizenship/story?id=118460936\">issued injunctions against the executive order\u003c/a>, blocking the federal government from moving forward with Trump’s plans.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Last month, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to lift the pause on his policy in some \u003ca href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/13/us/politics/trump-birthright-citizenship-supreme-court.html\">parts of the country\u003c/a>. During a March 24 event dedicated to Wong Kim Ark, Chiu described this idea as chaotic.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[aside postID=news_12015449 hero='https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/11/20241119_BirthrightCitizenshipExplainer_GC-16_qed-1020x680.jpg']\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We could have an entire generation of babies, newborns, kids, who were born here in the United States who are literally classless,” Chiu said. “It would create a permanent generation of folks who have never lived anywhere else but are considered undocumented. And we’re talking about kids who would not be able to naturalize or obtain citizenship elsewhere because they’re born here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We’re talking about casting an entire underclass of babies to lifelong immigration purgatory.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie proclaimed March 28, 2025, as Wong Kim Ark Day in the city, while California Attorney General Rob Bonta mentioned Wong multiple times when he announced that the state \u003ca href=\"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-sues-trump-administration-over-unconstitutional\">would sue the federal government over Trump’s birthright executive order\u003c/a>. And earlier in March, state legislators — including Bay Area Reps. Alex Lee, Matt Haney and Ash Kalra — introduced a joint Assembly resolution which, if passed, would reinforce California’s “commitment to birthright citizenship” in honor of Wong Kim Ark’s legal battle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Annie Lee, managing director of policy at Chinese for Affirmative Action, said getting the resolution passed is an important step to protect California’s immigrant communities. “For those of us who were born citizens, we take for granted what it means to be a citizen,” she said. “But there is so much tied to citizenship.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Similar to Wong Kim Ark, Lee was born in San Francisco and grew up traveling between the U.S. and China to visit family. Having American citizenship allowed her to seek more financial aid for her education and express her beliefs via the ballot box.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The important thing about Wong Kim Ark’s case is not that it happened 127 years ago — it’s that it matters today,” she said. “It matters today because every child born in the United States is a citizen, and we cannot allow that fundamental constitutional right to change.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12033798\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003ca href=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00021-KQED.jpg\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12033798\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00021-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00021-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00021-KQED-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00021-KQED-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00021-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00021-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00021-KQED-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A plaque rendering of Wong Kim Ark is unveiled at the conclusion of Wong Kim Ark week in San Francisco’s Chinatown on the corner of Grant Avenue and Sacramento Street on March 28, 2025. \u003ccite>(David M Barreda/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>When Wong Kim Ark took the federal government to court, his legal argument was based on \u003ca href=\"https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/\">the Fourteenth Amendment\u003c/a>, which protects rights like birthright citizenship, due process and equal protection. Congress originally passed the Fourteenth Amendment in response to the laws many Southern states instituted after the Civil War that severely restricted the rights of formerly enslaved Black Americans and their children.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I’m so proud of this community, the Chinatown community, because Asian Americans have been in the fight for civil rights for a really long time,” Lee said. “And we don’t just do it for ourselves, we do it in collaboration with other communities of color.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For Norman Wong, a San Francisco native like his great-grandfather, defending birthright citizenship is also about his father and \u003ca href=\"https://theamericanscholar.org/birthright-citizens-and-paper-sons/\">the family’s complex history\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Late into his life, Norman Wong’s father was interviewed by local press and even taken to events on Angel Island where Wong Kim Ark was detained. His father started taking pride in the Wong Kim Ark story.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“He did these things without our knowledge,” Wong said. “I was well into my adulthood, probably middle-aged, before I ever heard the name Wong Kim Ark. My father didn’t talk about his past. It’s because my father had a very painful childhood when he came over [from China.]”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[aside postID=news_12021919 hero='https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/20250115_JapaneseAmericanActivism_GC-47-1020x680.jpg']\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>His father began sharing more with him and his wife, pulling out articles and talking about the reporters who visited him.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Parents of our generation, it was different. You did what you were told, and you didn’t really ask questions,” Wong said. “Now, we have all these young people that wanna bring up these questions. I’d like to be part of this, [for] my grandchildren … I think it’s really important to know who your ancestors are.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I want my children and my grandchildren and their children to have a better life … I don’t see them having a better life in this country if everything turns draconian.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the story equally involves his mother’s side. The Trump administration recently invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-el-salvador-immigration-dd4f61999f85c4dd8bcaba7d4fc7c9af\">detain and deport hundreds of immigrants\u003c/a> to El Salvador. The last time the act was used was 84 years ago, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It led to the detention of Japanese, German and Italian nationals and was the precursor to the incarceration of over 120,000 people with Japanese ancestry during World War II, including Wong’s mother.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Threats to birthright citizenship will only divide us,” Norman Wong said during the March 24 event. “We need to come together to continue the impact of my great-grandfather and to remember the history of my mother.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Let’s fight back.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "One hundred and twenty-seven years ago, the Supreme Court case of San Francisco resident Wong Kim Ark set the precedent for birthright citizenship — and last week, the city honored his legacy.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1743523532,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 32,
"wordCount": 1558
},
"headData": {
"title": "'Let’s Fight Back': 127 Years After Momentous Supreme Court Ruling, San Francisco Honors Wong Kim Ark | KQED",
"description": "One hundred and twenty-seven years ago, the Supreme Court case of San Francisco resident Wong Kim Ark set the precedent for birthright citizenship — and last week, the city honored his legacy.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "'Let’s Fight Back': 127 Years After Momentous Supreme Court Ruling, San Francisco Honors Wong Kim Ark",
"datePublished": "2025-04-01T07:00:24-07:00",
"dateModified": "2025-04-01T09:05:32-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12033789",
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12033789/lets-fight-back-127-years-after-momentous-supreme-court-ruling-san-francisco-honors-wong-kim-ark",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>On Friday, the corner of Grant Avenue and Sacramento Street in San Francisco’s Chinatown — usually packed with tourists and residents moving through the narrow sidewalks — saw a different crowd: organizers, lawmakers and historians gathered to honor the 127th anniversary of \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship\">\u003cem>United States v. Wong Kim Ark\u003c/em>\u003c/a>, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that set the precedent for birthright citizenship.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Friday’s event was the culmination of a week of programming titled “\u003ca href=\"https://caasf.org/2025/03/born-in-the-usa-wong-kim-ark-and-the-fight-for-citizenship/\">Born in the USA: Wong Kim Ark & The Fight for Citizenship\u003c/a>,” organized by the nonprofit Chinese for Affirmative Action. As the Trump administration continues its fights in the courts to limit who gets to be a \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12023740/federal-judge-temporarily-blocks-trumps-executive-order-ending-birthright-citizenship\">U.S. citizen at birth\u003c/a>, Chinese and Chinese American organizers and lawmakers in San Francisco are stepping up to honor the legacy of Wong Kim Ark by mobilizing to defend birthright citizenship on the national stage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Attacks on our constitutional rights are only meant to divide us further in an already fractured world,” Norman Wong, Wong Kim Ark’s great-grandson, said on Friday.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Next to him stood officials from across the state, including San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, who has filed multiple lawsuits for the city against the federal government, \u003ca href=\"https://www.sfcityattorney.org/2025/01/21/san-francisco-city-attorney-and-attorneys-general-file-suit-to-protect-birthright-citizenship/\">including one over birthright citizenship\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Wong Kim Ark was born right on that same block on Sacramento Street in the 1870s to Chinese immigrants. In 1894, he traveled to China to visit his family. During his trip, he \u003ca href=\"https://theamericanscholar.org/birthright-citizens-and-paper-sons/\">married a woman and had a child with her\u003c/a>. On his way back to the U.S., he was detained in San Francisco. Customs officials claimed that he was not a U.S. citizen but rather a Chinese national through his parents, blocking him from entering the country due to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12033800\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003ca href=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00062-KQED.jpg\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12033800\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00062-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00062-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00062-KQED-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00062-KQED-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00062-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00062-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00062-KQED-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A press conference marking the conclusion of Wong Kim Ark week in San Francisco’s Chinatown on the corner of Grant Avenue and Sacramento Street, at the birthplace of Wong Kim Ark, March 28, 2025. Honoring his legacy and the fight for birthright citizenship, this event featured a plaque rendering of Wong Kim Ark celebrating his enduring impact on birthright citizenship and the ongoing efforts to protect this fundamental right. \u003ccite>(David M Barreda/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Wong Kim Ark sued the U.S. government in order to be recognized as an American citizen. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which affirmed that the Constitution \u003ca href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649\">recognized Wong as a U.S. citizen\u003c/a> because he was born on American soil. The ruling established birthright citizenship as a constitutional principle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Wong Kim Ark was not a hero alone,” said Norman Wong, noting that his great-grandfather had the financial and legal support of San Francisco’s Chinese community. “Now we need each of us to find the hero inside to make our world right.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Wong Kim Ark’s case is what could stop President Donald Trump from fulfilling one of his biggest campaign promises: ending birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On his first day back in the White House, Trump \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12024082/qa-what-to-know-about-birthright-citizenship\">signed an executive order\u003c/a> that would radically transform who gets to be a U.S. citizen at birth. The order goes further than what Trump \u003ca href=\"https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1663537082633953282\">promised on the campaign trail\u003c/a>: It denies birthright citizenship to babies born on or after Feb. 19, 2025, who don’t have at least one parent who is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>However, multiple federal judges have already \u003ca href=\"https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-future-trumps-order-blocking-birthright-citizenship/story?id=118460936\">issued injunctions against the executive order\u003c/a>, blocking the federal government from moving forward with Trump’s plans.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Last month, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to lift the pause on his policy in some \u003ca href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/13/us/politics/trump-birthright-citizenship-supreme-court.html\">parts of the country\u003c/a>. During a March 24 event dedicated to Wong Kim Ark, Chiu described this idea as chaotic.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_12015449",
"hero": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/11/20241119_BirthrightCitizenshipExplainer_GC-16_qed-1020x680.jpg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We could have an entire generation of babies, newborns, kids, who were born here in the United States who are literally classless,” Chiu said. “It would create a permanent generation of folks who have never lived anywhere else but are considered undocumented. And we’re talking about kids who would not be able to naturalize or obtain citizenship elsewhere because they’re born here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We’re talking about casting an entire underclass of babies to lifelong immigration purgatory.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie proclaimed March 28, 2025, as Wong Kim Ark Day in the city, while California Attorney General Rob Bonta mentioned Wong multiple times when he announced that the state \u003ca href=\"https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-sues-trump-administration-over-unconstitutional\">would sue the federal government over Trump’s birthright executive order\u003c/a>. And earlier in March, state legislators — including Bay Area Reps. Alex Lee, Matt Haney and Ash Kalra — introduced a joint Assembly resolution which, if passed, would reinforce California’s “commitment to birthright citizenship” in honor of Wong Kim Ark’s legal battle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Annie Lee, managing director of policy at Chinese for Affirmative Action, said getting the resolution passed is an important step to protect California’s immigrant communities. “For those of us who were born citizens, we take for granted what it means to be a citizen,” she said. “But there is so much tied to citizenship.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Similar to Wong Kim Ark, Lee was born in San Francisco and grew up traveling between the U.S. and China to visit family. Having American citizenship allowed her to seek more financial aid for her education and express her beliefs via the ballot box.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The important thing about Wong Kim Ark’s case is not that it happened 127 years ago — it’s that it matters today,” she said. “It matters today because every child born in the United States is a citizen, and we cannot allow that fundamental constitutional right to change.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12033798\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003ca href=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00021-KQED.jpg\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12033798\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00021-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00021-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00021-KQED-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00021-KQED-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00021-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00021-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/20250328_WONG-KIM-ARK_DB_00021-KQED-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A plaque rendering of Wong Kim Ark is unveiled at the conclusion of Wong Kim Ark week in San Francisco’s Chinatown on the corner of Grant Avenue and Sacramento Street on March 28, 2025. \u003ccite>(David M Barreda/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>When Wong Kim Ark took the federal government to court, his legal argument was based on \u003ca href=\"https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/\">the Fourteenth Amendment\u003c/a>, which protects rights like birthright citizenship, due process and equal protection. Congress originally passed the Fourteenth Amendment in response to the laws many Southern states instituted after the Civil War that severely restricted the rights of formerly enslaved Black Americans and their children.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I’m so proud of this community, the Chinatown community, because Asian Americans have been in the fight for civil rights for a really long time,” Lee said. “And we don’t just do it for ourselves, we do it in collaboration with other communities of color.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For Norman Wong, a San Francisco native like his great-grandfather, defending birthright citizenship is also about his father and \u003ca href=\"https://theamericanscholar.org/birthright-citizens-and-paper-sons/\">the family’s complex history\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Late into his life, Norman Wong’s father was interviewed by local press and even taken to events on Angel Island where Wong Kim Ark was detained. His father started taking pride in the Wong Kim Ark story.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“He did these things without our knowledge,” Wong said. “I was well into my adulthood, probably middle-aged, before I ever heard the name Wong Kim Ark. My father didn’t talk about his past. It’s because my father had a very painful childhood when he came over [from China.]”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_12021919",
"hero": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/20250115_JapaneseAmericanActivism_GC-47-1020x680.jpg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>His father began sharing more with him and his wife, pulling out articles and talking about the reporters who visited him.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Parents of our generation, it was different. You did what you were told, and you didn’t really ask questions,” Wong said. “Now, we have all these young people that wanna bring up these questions. I’d like to be part of this, [for] my grandchildren … I think it’s really important to know who your ancestors are.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“I want my children and my grandchildren and their children to have a better life … I don’t see them having a better life in this country if everything turns draconian.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the story equally involves his mother’s side. The Trump administration recently invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-el-salvador-immigration-dd4f61999f85c4dd8bcaba7d4fc7c9af\">detain and deport hundreds of immigrants\u003c/a> to El Salvador. The last time the act was used was 84 years ago, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It led to the detention of Japanese, German and Italian nationals and was the precursor to the incarceration of over 120,000 people with Japanese ancestry during World War II, including Wong’s mother.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Threats to birthright citizenship will only divide us,” Norman Wong said during the March 24 event. “We need to come together to continue the impact of my great-grandfather and to remember the history of my mother.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Let’s fight back.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12033789/lets-fight-back-127-years-after-momentous-supreme-court-ruling-san-francisco-honors-wong-kim-ark",
"authors": [
"11708",
"11867"
],
"categories": [
"news_223",
"news_31795",
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_21077",
"news_20075",
"news_32707",
"news_34903",
"news_30652",
"news_1323",
"news_20466",
"news_27626",
"news_34377",
"news_20202",
"news_17968",
"news_38",
"news_30076"
],
"featImg": "news_12032980",
"label": "news"
},
"news_12031821": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12031821",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12031821",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1742468441000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "legal-showdown-over-sanctuary-laws-tests-federal-vs-state-power-again",
"title": "Legal Showdown Over Sanctuary Laws Tests Federal vs. State Power Again",
"publishDate": 1742468441,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "Legal Showdown Over Sanctuary Laws Tests Federal vs. State Power Again | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/tag/donald-trump\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">President Donald Trump\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> has made no secret of his disdain for sanctuary laws, but the first time he was president, his administration repeatedly ended up on the losing side of legal cases over whether states, cities and counties can be forced to participate in immigration enforcement.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">In 2017, courts of appeals \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/21/565678707/enter-title\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">sided\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> with San Francisco and Santa Clara counties, as well as the city of Chicago, in two cases challenging Trump’s attempts to withhold federal law enforcement funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. An appeals court also \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/court-turns-down-governments-sanctuary-state-petition/\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">ruled\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> that California’s statewide sanctuary law was legal in a suit brought by the Trump administration. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">However, none of the cases went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Eight years later, the legal battle is being reprised. San Francisco and Santa Clara counties, along with 14 other jurisdictions, \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12026179/san-francisco-leads-lawsuit-against-trumps-threats-to-punish-sanctuary-cities\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">are suing again\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> over Trump’s expanded order to strip sanctuary jurisdictions of all federal funding, not just law enforcement grants. The Trump administration has filed two lawsuits — one against the state of Illinois and one against the state of New York — over laws limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement officials.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Trump and the Department of Justice are also threatening to investigate and prosecute state and local officials who impede or interfere with the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Defenders of sanctuary laws argue that they do not obstruct immigration enforcement but simply prevent local police from carrying out the federal government’s responsibilities.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">“This is the federal government coercing local officials to bend to their will or face defunding or prosecution and that is illegal,” San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu said as he introduced the latest San Francisco lawsuit last month. “Last I checked, we still live in a democracy under the rule of law.”\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12024429\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12024429\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-05-BL.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-05-BL.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-05-BL-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-05-BL-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-05-BL-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-05-BL-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-05-BL-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu speaks during a press conference with elected and public safety officials and labor leaders in front of City Hall in San Francisco on Jan. 28, 2025, to reaffirm San Francisco’s commitment to being a Sanctuary City. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">At issue are decades-old policies that supporters say encourage immigrant communities to cooperate with police, as well as fundamental disagreements over the separation of powers between federal and state governments.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Backers of sanctuary laws say they exist to enhance public safety and they point to \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014673117\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">studies\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> showing no negative effects on crime rates. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">“We are striving to create a culture of trust and security within our communities so that our residents know that they can come to the county when they are in need,” Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti said. “That includes feeling safe, coming to local law enforcement to report crimes or to participate in investigations without fearing that they or their loved ones face deportation.”\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">LoPresti and other local officials argue that immigration enforcement is the purview of the federal government and that state and local officials cannot be forced or coerced into doing that job. Chiu said the purpose of sanctuary laws is not to interfere with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12024430\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12024430\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-08-BL.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-08-BL.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-08-BL-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-08-BL-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-08-BL-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-08-BL-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-08-BL-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A group of elected and public safety officials, labor leaders, and community members fill the steps in front of City Hall in San Francisco on Jan. 28, 2025, during a press conference to reaffirm San Francisco’s commitment to being a Sanctuary City. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">“ICE agents can come to all of our cities and states and enforce immigration law lawfully,” Chiu said. “What we are saying is under the Constitution, under the law, immigration enforcement is squarely a responsibility of the federal government, not a responsibility of state and local government … and we have a right to use our scarce law enforcement resources to actually solve crimes and promote public safety, not to be forced to have our law enforcement officers commandeered as ICE agents.”\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Critics maintain sanctuary laws make people less safe.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">“The main objection that I have to sanctuary policies is that they undermine public safety because they inevitably result in criminal aliens that ICE is trying to take custody of for removal being released back into the community,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for less immigration into the U.S.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[aside postID=news_12030930 hero='https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250312-RICHMOND-CITY-HALL-MD-02-KQED-1-1020x680.jpg']\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Vaughan was referring to the limits sanctuary policies place on prison and jail officials’ ability to communicate with ICE about people in their custody. While federal officials are automatically notified about every inmate booked into a jail or prison and sent their fingerprints, many sanctuary policies prohibit local and state officials from cooperating further, such as by providing a release date or holding someone in custody beyond that release date for ICE.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">“ICE isn’t asking [local officials] to enforce immigration laws,” Vaughan said. “They’re asking them to give the kind of cooperation that these local agencies would give to any other — and every other — law enforcement agency.” \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Vaughan rejects the argument that immigration communities will be scared to come forward and report crimes in the absence of sanctuary policies, saying federal surveys of victims show immigrants are actually \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"https://cis.org/Report/Are-Immigrants-Less-Willing-Report-Crime\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">more likely than citizens\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> to report crimes. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">However, the legal cases do not focus on public safety; they largely center on how much power the federal government has to compel state and local governments to act — or to punish them for refusing to comply.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Liberal and conservative scholars agree that the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, which divides power between the federal and state governments, offers sanctuary jurisdictions some legal protection.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12024757\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-12024757 size-full\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/20250125_Immigration-Forum_DB_00985.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/20250125_Immigration-Forum_DB_00985.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/20250125_Immigration-Forum_DB_00985-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/20250125_Immigration-Forum_DB_00985-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/20250125_Immigration-Forum_DB_00985-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/20250125_Immigration-Forum_DB_00985-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/20250125_Immigration-Forum_DB_00985-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">People wait in line to register and enter an informational session about immigration services at Willow Cove Elementary in Pittsburg, California, on Jan. 29, 2025. More than 300 people attended the event organized by Stand Together Contra Costa and the Pittsburg Unified School District, which offered free, private consultation with immigration attorneys, medical services and a resource fair. \u003ccite>(David M. Barreda/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">“The federal government can’t force the states to enforce immigration law,” said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston. “That’s called commandeering.”\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Blackman, an adjunct scholar at the conservative Cato Institute, said that the constitutional principle — that the federal government cannot force state and local governments to use their resources for federal purposes — was the basis of court rulings in favor of sanctuary jurisdictions during Trump’s first term.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Trump’s first administration tried to cut off law enforcement grant funding, but the courts found that cooperation with immigration enforcement was not a condition Congress had placed on the grants. Trump’s recent executive order goes even further, threatening to cut off all federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">The broadness of the executive order is giving some sanctuary supporters hope that they will prevail again. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12024505\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12024505\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/05162019_Trump_qed.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1316\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/05162019_Trump_qed.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/05162019_Trump_qed-800x526.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/05162019_Trump_qed-1020x671.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/05162019_Trump_qed-160x105.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/05162019_Trump_qed-1536x1011.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/05162019_Trump_qed-1920x1263.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">U.S. President Donald Trump gestures as he delivers remarks on immigration at the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, D.C. on May 16, 2019. \u003ccite>(Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Fred Tsao, senior policy counsel with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrants and Refugee Rights, said even if Congress were to pass a law similar to the executive order, “they’re still going to run afoul of the 10th Amendment issue.”\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Tsao noted that the current Supreme Court precedent on federal overreach was established through a lawsuit brought by Republican-led states challenging the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to expand Medicaid or risk losing funding. The court ruled in favor of the states.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Tsao helped write the Illinois and Chicago sanctuary laws, which the Trump administration is suing to overturn. He said the suit relies on another constitutional principle: the Supremacy Clause, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law if the two conflict. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">But UCLA School of Law professor Hiroshi Motomura\u003c/span> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">said it’s not clear that sanctuary laws actually conflict with federal immigration laws because they’ve been narrowly crafted to specify only what local officials cannot do.[aside postID=news_12026179 hero='https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/250128-SFImmigration-04-BL_qed-1020x680.jpg']\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Motomura, a scholar of immigration and citizenship, argued that the Trump administration’s goal in pursuing litigation likely goes beyond just winning the legal case: The suits are forcing sanctuary cities, counties and states to use their resources to mount costly legal battles.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">UC Berkeley’s Caitlin Patler agreed, noting that the lawsuits send a message to other local and state officials who may be considering enacting their own sanctuary laws. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">“I think there is some element of the federal government right now trying to put pressure on local governments,” said Patler, an associate professor at the Goldman School of Public Policy. “Litigation is costly. Litigation is time-consuming. Litigation can be politically detrimental for, say, an elected sheriff. And so, it could have a chilling effect on other jurisdictions.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">“It’s bullying.”\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Vaughan said litigation and funding threats may be the only tools at the federal government’s disposal to push local officials to change policies she believes “cross a line and undermine public safety.”\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">“We didn’t get any real (legal) impact on the sanctuary cities in the last administration,” Blackman said. “I think to the extent you have a different story now, it might actually be political more than legal.”\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">There have been several unsuccessful attempts in Chicago to repeal that city’s sanctuary laws. And in California, Republican lawmakers recently introduced legislation to \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12028147/republicans-seek-to-weaken-californias-sanctuary-law\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">weaken the state’s sanctuary law\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">The bill has not yet received a hearing. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "The Trump administration is threatening to investigate and prosecute state and local officials who impede the enforcement of federal immigration laws. California cities and counties are in the crosshairs.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1742495450,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 34,
"wordCount": 1683
},
"headData": {
"title": "Legal Showdown Over Sanctuary Laws Tests Federal vs. State Power Again | KQED",
"description": "The Trump administration is threatening to investigate and prosecute state and local officials who impede the enforcement of federal immigration laws. California cities and counties are in the crosshairs.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Legal Showdown Over Sanctuary Laws Tests Federal vs. State Power Again",
"datePublished": "2025-03-20T04:00:41-07:00",
"dateModified": "2025-03-20T11:30:50-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"audioUrl": "https://traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/0af137ef-751e-4b19-a055-aaef00d2d578/ffca7e9f-6831-41c5-bcaf-aaef00f5a073/dbbac2c9-4bd8-4252-b541-b2a301057c64/audio.mp3",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12031821",
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12031821/legal-showdown-over-sanctuary-laws-tests-federal-vs-state-power-again",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/tag/donald-trump\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">President Donald Trump\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> has made no secret of his disdain for sanctuary laws, but the first time he was president, his administration repeatedly ended up on the losing side of legal cases over whether states, cities and counties can be forced to participate in immigration enforcement.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">In 2017, courts of appeals \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/21/565678707/enter-title\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">sided\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> with San Francisco and Santa Clara counties, as well as the city of Chicago, in two cases challenging Trump’s attempts to withhold federal law enforcement funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. An appeals court also \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/court-turns-down-governments-sanctuary-state-petition/\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">ruled\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> that California’s statewide sanctuary law was legal in a suit brought by the Trump administration. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">However, none of the cases went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Eight years later, the legal battle is being reprised. San Francisco and Santa Clara counties, along with 14 other jurisdictions, \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12026179/san-francisco-leads-lawsuit-against-trumps-threats-to-punish-sanctuary-cities\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">are suing again\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> over Trump’s expanded order to strip sanctuary jurisdictions of all federal funding, not just law enforcement grants. The Trump administration has filed two lawsuits — one against the state of Illinois and one against the state of New York — over laws limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement officials.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Trump and the Department of Justice are also threatening to investigate and prosecute state and local officials who impede or interfere with the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Defenders of sanctuary laws argue that they do not obstruct immigration enforcement but simply prevent local police from carrying out the federal government’s responsibilities.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">“This is the federal government coercing local officials to bend to their will or face defunding or prosecution and that is illegal,” San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu said as he introduced the latest San Francisco lawsuit last month. “Last I checked, we still live in a democracy under the rule of law.”\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12024429\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12024429\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-05-BL.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-05-BL.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-05-BL-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-05-BL-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-05-BL-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-05-BL-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-05-BL-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu speaks during a press conference with elected and public safety officials and labor leaders in front of City Hall in San Francisco on Jan. 28, 2025, to reaffirm San Francisco’s commitment to being a Sanctuary City. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">At issue are decades-old policies that supporters say encourage immigrant communities to cooperate with police, as well as fundamental disagreements over the separation of powers between federal and state governments.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Backers of sanctuary laws say they exist to enhance public safety and they point to \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014673117\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">studies\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> showing no negative effects on crime rates. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">“We are striving to create a culture of trust and security within our communities so that our residents know that they can come to the county when they are in need,” Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti said. “That includes feeling safe, coming to local law enforcement to report crimes or to participate in investigations without fearing that they or their loved ones face deportation.”\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">LoPresti and other local officials argue that immigration enforcement is the purview of the federal government and that state and local officials cannot be forced or coerced into doing that job. Chiu said the purpose of sanctuary laws is not to interfere with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12024430\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12024430\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-08-BL.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-08-BL.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-08-BL-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-08-BL-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-08-BL-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-08-BL-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/250128-SFImmigration-08-BL-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A group of elected and public safety officials, labor leaders, and community members fill the steps in front of City Hall in San Francisco on Jan. 28, 2025, during a press conference to reaffirm San Francisco’s commitment to being a Sanctuary City. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">“ICE agents can come to all of our cities and states and enforce immigration law lawfully,” Chiu said. “What we are saying is under the Constitution, under the law, immigration enforcement is squarely a responsibility of the federal government, not a responsibility of state and local government … and we have a right to use our scarce law enforcement resources to actually solve crimes and promote public safety, not to be forced to have our law enforcement officers commandeered as ICE agents.”\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Critics maintain sanctuary laws make people less safe.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">“The main objection that I have to sanctuary policies is that they undermine public safety because they inevitably result in criminal aliens that ICE is trying to take custody of for removal being released back into the community,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for less immigration into the U.S.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_12030930",
"hero": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/03/250312-RICHMOND-CITY-HALL-MD-02-KQED-1-1020x680.jpg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Vaughan was referring to the limits sanctuary policies place on prison and jail officials’ ability to communicate with ICE about people in their custody. While federal officials are automatically notified about every inmate booked into a jail or prison and sent their fingerprints, many sanctuary policies prohibit local and state officials from cooperating further, such as by providing a release date or holding someone in custody beyond that release date for ICE.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">“ICE isn’t asking [local officials] to enforce immigration laws,” Vaughan said. “They’re asking them to give the kind of cooperation that these local agencies would give to any other — and every other — law enforcement agency.” \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Vaughan rejects the argument that immigration communities will be scared to come forward and report crimes in the absence of sanctuary policies, saying federal surveys of victims show immigrants are actually \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"https://cis.org/Report/Are-Immigrants-Less-Willing-Report-Crime\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">more likely than citizens\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> to report crimes. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">However, the legal cases do not focus on public safety; they largely center on how much power the federal government has to compel state and local governments to act — or to punish them for refusing to comply.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Liberal and conservative scholars agree that the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, which divides power between the federal and state governments, offers sanctuary jurisdictions some legal protection.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12024757\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-12024757 size-full\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/20250125_Immigration-Forum_DB_00985.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/20250125_Immigration-Forum_DB_00985.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/20250125_Immigration-Forum_DB_00985-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/20250125_Immigration-Forum_DB_00985-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/20250125_Immigration-Forum_DB_00985-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/20250125_Immigration-Forum_DB_00985-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/20250125_Immigration-Forum_DB_00985-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">People wait in line to register and enter an informational session about immigration services at Willow Cove Elementary in Pittsburg, California, on Jan. 29, 2025. More than 300 people attended the event organized by Stand Together Contra Costa and the Pittsburg Unified School District, which offered free, private consultation with immigration attorneys, medical services and a resource fair. \u003ccite>(David M. Barreda/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">“The federal government can’t force the states to enforce immigration law,” said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston. “That’s called commandeering.”\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Blackman, an adjunct scholar at the conservative Cato Institute, said that the constitutional principle — that the federal government cannot force state and local governments to use their resources for federal purposes — was the basis of court rulings in favor of sanctuary jurisdictions during Trump’s first term.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Trump’s first administration tried to cut off law enforcement grant funding, but the courts found that cooperation with immigration enforcement was not a condition Congress had placed on the grants. Trump’s recent executive order goes even further, threatening to cut off all federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">The broadness of the executive order is giving some sanctuary supporters hope that they will prevail again. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12024505\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12024505\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/05162019_Trump_qed.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1316\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/05162019_Trump_qed.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/05162019_Trump_qed-800x526.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/05162019_Trump_qed-1020x671.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/05162019_Trump_qed-160x105.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/05162019_Trump_qed-1536x1011.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/01/05162019_Trump_qed-1920x1263.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">U.S. President Donald Trump gestures as he delivers remarks on immigration at the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, D.C. on May 16, 2019. \u003ccite>(Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Fred Tsao, senior policy counsel with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrants and Refugee Rights, said even if Congress were to pass a law similar to the executive order, “they’re still going to run afoul of the 10th Amendment issue.”\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Tsao noted that the current Supreme Court precedent on federal overreach was established through a lawsuit brought by Republican-led states challenging the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to expand Medicaid or risk losing funding. The court ruled in favor of the states.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Tsao helped write the Illinois and Chicago sanctuary laws, which the Trump administration is suing to overturn. He said the suit relies on another constitutional principle: the Supremacy Clause, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law if the two conflict. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">But UCLA School of Law professor Hiroshi Motomura\u003c/span> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">said it’s not clear that sanctuary laws actually conflict with federal immigration laws because they’ve been narrowly crafted to specify only what local officials cannot do.\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_12026179",
"hero": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/250128-SFImmigration-04-BL_qed-1020x680.jpg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Motomura, a scholar of immigration and citizenship, argued that the Trump administration’s goal in pursuing litigation likely goes beyond just winning the legal case: The suits are forcing sanctuary cities, counties and states to use their resources to mount costly legal battles.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">UC Berkeley’s Caitlin Patler agreed, noting that the lawsuits send a message to other local and state officials who may be considering enacting their own sanctuary laws. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">“I think there is some element of the federal government right now trying to put pressure on local governments,” said Patler, an associate professor at the Goldman School of Public Policy. “Litigation is costly. Litigation is time-consuming. Litigation can be politically detrimental for, say, an elected sheriff. And so, it could have a chilling effect on other jurisdictions.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">“It’s bullying.”\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Vaughan said litigation and funding threats may be the only tools at the federal government’s disposal to push local officials to change policies she believes “cross a line and undermine public safety.”\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">“We didn’t get any real (legal) impact on the sanctuary cities in the last administration,” Blackman said. “I think to the extent you have a different story now, it might actually be political more than legal.”\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">There have been several unsuccessful attempts in Chicago to repeal that city’s sanctuary laws. And in California, Republican lawmakers recently introduced legislation to \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12028147/republicans-seek-to-weaken-californias-sanctuary-law\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">weaken the state’s sanctuary law\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">The bill has not yet received a hearing. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12031821/legal-showdown-over-sanctuary-laws-tests-federal-vs-state-power-again",
"authors": [
"3239"
],
"categories": [
"news_31795",
"news_8",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_34903",
"news_18538",
"news_1323",
"news_20466",
"news_34377",
"news_16",
"news_20202",
"news_17968",
"news_38",
"news_20445",
"news_18188"
],
"featImg": "news_12031870",
"label": "news"
},
"news_12028728": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12028728",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12028728",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1740613731000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "california-democrats-help-reintroduce-bill-give-dreamers-path-citizenship",
"title": "California Democrats Help Reintroduce Bill to Give ‘Dreamers’ a Path to Citizenship",
"publishDate": 1740613731,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "California Democrats Help Reintroduce Bill to Give ‘Dreamers’ a Path to Citizenship | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>California Democrats were among 201 members of Congress to reintroduce a bill on Wednesday that would provide a path to citizenship for an estimated 2.7 million undocumented immigrants — most of them so-called Dreamers, who were \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11917125/bay-area-daca-recipients-have-mixed-emotions-on-10-year-anniversary\">brought to the U.S. as children\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"https://sylviagarcia.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/sylviagarcia.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/garctx_001_xml.pdf\">American Dream and Promise Act\u003c/a> would also offer that path to roughly 400,000 people with Temporary Protected Status who have been in the U.S. since 2017. The bill would exclude TPS holders who arrived more recently.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At a press conference on Wednesday on Capitol Hill, Rep. Pete Aguilar (D–Redlands) said the successes of the 800,000 Dreamers who have been able to work legally under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program are evidence that immigrants who’ve come of age in the U.S. deserve the security of becoming fully American.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“They’re our friends, our neighbors. They’re teachers, doctors, nurses, essential workers, business owners, service members in our military and much more,” said Aguilar, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus. “They pay taxes, some of them own homes. And they have contributed $108 billion in our local economy. And yet, these are the same individuals who live in fear.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is overwhelming public support for establishing a path to citizenship for people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, but despite \u003ca href=\"https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/dream-act-overview\">bipartisan backing\u003c/a>, several versions of such a bill have failed to become law over the last two decades since the original Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act was introduced in 2001.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12026832\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12026832\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/GettyImages-2197914000-scaled-e1740613370625.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1334\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A protester waves the national flags of Mexico during a demonstration for immigrants’ rights outside of Los Angeles City Hall on Feb. 5, 2025. \u003ccite>(Qian Weizhong/VCG via Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>A \u003ca href=\"https://news.gallup.com/poll/647123/sharply-americans-curb-immigration.aspx\">July 2024 Gallup poll\u003c/a> found that 55% of Americans wanted to curb immigration overall, a sharp increase from the year before. But the same poll showed that 70% favored allowing immigrants who entered the country illegally a chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time — and that figure jumped to 81% for those who were brought as children.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D–Texas), who introduced the current bill, said she anticipated being questioned about why she would do so when President Donald Trump and Republicans have been attacking immigrants as threats to the country and vowing mass deportations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Well, why not now? Now is the time to double down,” she said, adding that Trump is on record saying he supports Dreamers. “So Congress must act now and deliver this bill to the president’s desk.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[aside postID=news_12028303 hero='https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2021/02/ap20085537395007_custom-ecee50ce392cd8fa5d32a2063cb73d5bd1c02722-1020x679.jpg']\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In a \u003ca href=\"https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-interview-meet-press-kristen-welker-election-president-rcna182857\">December interview\u003c/a> with NBC “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker, Trump said he wanted to allow Dreamers to stay in the U.S.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We have to do something about the Dreamers because these are people that have been brought here at a very young age,” he told Welker. “I want to be able to work something out. … I think we can work with the Democrats and work something out.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The bill currently has 201 cosponsors, comprising the vast majority of House Democrats — including the San Francisco Bay Area’s delegation — plus one Republican, Florida Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://immigrationforum.org/article/american-dream-and-promise-act-of-2023-bill-summary/\">In 2023, the same bill had four Republican cosponsors\u003c/a>, but Republican leadership didn’t allow the bill to go to a vote. In 2021, the bill passed the House 228 to 197, with nine Republicans voting for it, including one Californian, Central Valley Rep. David Valadao.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Valadao’s office did not respond to a request for comment by press time on whether he currently supports the bill.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"https://theimmigrationhub.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Fact-Sheet-Dream-and-Promise-Act.pdf\">current bill\u003c/a> would create a “conditional permanent resident” status for eligible Dreamers who have not been convicted of certain crimes. While they have that, they would need to show they’ve completed at least two years of higher education or military service or have worked for at least three years. From there, they could obtain a green card as lawful permanent residents, which would make them eligible to apply for citizenship after five years.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12015403\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12015403\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/11/AP24319624163000-scaled-e1738263690738.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The U.S. Capitol, including the House of Representatives, left, are seen on Thursday, Nov. 14, 2024, in Washington. \u003ccite>(AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The bill would also cover TPS holders who can show they’ve been continuously in the country for three years and were eligible for or had TPS in 2017 and meet other requirements.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the press conference for the bill outside the Capitol building, Orange County Rep. Lou Correa said he believes his district has more Dreamers than any other.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Let me tell you who they are,” he said. “The local police department has police officers that are Dreamers. Does it make sense to deport them? Absolutely not.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As supporters of the bill chanted “Si, se puede,” Garcia told the crowd that Dreamers should not be penalized for being in the country without lawful status because they came as children.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>“\u003c/strong>Like any other child, they lived where their parents told them to live. Many of them were just 6 years old. Six-year-old children do not violate laws,” she said. “If an adult is pulled over for speeding, we don’t turn around and give the adult a ticket and then give a ticket to the child in the back seat. Doesn’t work that way.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The bill is likely to be referred to the immigration subcommittee in the House Judiciary Committee. The subcommittee’s chair is California Rep. Tom McClintock, a Republican who voted against the bill in 2021. His office did not respond by press time as to whether he would allow the bill to go to a vote.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "The bill, sponsored by 201 members of Congress, would also offer that path to certain people with Temporary Protected Status.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1740690609,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 23,
"wordCount": 1008
},
"headData": {
"title": "California Democrats Help Reintroduce Bill to Give ‘Dreamers’ a Path to Citizenship | KQED",
"description": "The bill, sponsored by 201 members of Congress, would also offer that path to certain people with Temporary Protected Status.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "California Democrats Help Reintroduce Bill to Give ‘Dreamers’ a Path to Citizenship",
"datePublished": "2025-02-26T15:48:51-08:00",
"dateModified": "2025-02-27T13:10:09-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"audioUrl": "https://traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/0af137ef-751e-4b19-a055-aaef00d2d578/ffca7e9f-6831-41c5-bcaf-aaef00f5a073/0f23685d-738b-4704-9800-b291014485fe/audio.mp3",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12028728",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12028728/california-democrats-help-reintroduce-bill-give-dreamers-path-citizenship",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>California Democrats were among 201 members of Congress to reintroduce a bill on Wednesday that would provide a path to citizenship for an estimated 2.7 million undocumented immigrants — most of them so-called Dreamers, who were \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11917125/bay-area-daca-recipients-have-mixed-emotions-on-10-year-anniversary\">brought to the U.S. as children\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"https://sylviagarcia.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/sylviagarcia.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/garctx_001_xml.pdf\">American Dream and Promise Act\u003c/a> would also offer that path to roughly 400,000 people with Temporary Protected Status who have been in the U.S. since 2017. The bill would exclude TPS holders who arrived more recently.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At a press conference on Wednesday on Capitol Hill, Rep. Pete Aguilar (D–Redlands) said the successes of the 800,000 Dreamers who have been able to work legally under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program are evidence that immigrants who’ve come of age in the U.S. deserve the security of becoming fully American.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“They’re our friends, our neighbors. They’re teachers, doctors, nurses, essential workers, business owners, service members in our military and much more,” said Aguilar, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus. “They pay taxes, some of them own homes. And they have contributed $108 billion in our local economy. And yet, these are the same individuals who live in fear.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is overwhelming public support for establishing a path to citizenship for people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, but despite \u003ca href=\"https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/dream-act-overview\">bipartisan backing\u003c/a>, several versions of such a bill have failed to become law over the last two decades since the original Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act was introduced in 2001.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12026832\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12026832\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/GettyImages-2197914000-scaled-e1740613370625.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1334\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">A protester waves the national flags of Mexico during a demonstration for immigrants’ rights outside of Los Angeles City Hall on Feb. 5, 2025. \u003ccite>(Qian Weizhong/VCG via Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>A \u003ca href=\"https://news.gallup.com/poll/647123/sharply-americans-curb-immigration.aspx\">July 2024 Gallup poll\u003c/a> found that 55% of Americans wanted to curb immigration overall, a sharp increase from the year before. But the same poll showed that 70% favored allowing immigrants who entered the country illegally a chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time — and that figure jumped to 81% for those who were brought as children.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D–Texas), who introduced the current bill, said she anticipated being questioned about why she would do so when President Donald Trump and Republicans have been attacking immigrants as threats to the country and vowing mass deportations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Well, why not now? Now is the time to double down,” she said, adding that Trump is on record saying he supports Dreamers. “So Congress must act now and deliver this bill to the president’s desk.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_12028303",
"hero": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2021/02/ap20085537395007_custom-ecee50ce392cd8fa5d32a2063cb73d5bd1c02722-1020x679.jpg",
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In a \u003ca href=\"https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-interview-meet-press-kristen-welker-election-president-rcna182857\">December interview\u003c/a> with NBC “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker, Trump said he wanted to allow Dreamers to stay in the U.S.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“We have to do something about the Dreamers because these are people that have been brought here at a very young age,” he told Welker. “I want to be able to work something out. … I think we can work with the Democrats and work something out.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The bill currently has 201 cosponsors, comprising the vast majority of House Democrats — including the San Francisco Bay Area’s delegation — plus one Republican, Florida Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://immigrationforum.org/article/american-dream-and-promise-act-of-2023-bill-summary/\">In 2023, the same bill had four Republican cosponsors\u003c/a>, but Republican leadership didn’t allow the bill to go to a vote. In 2021, the bill passed the House 228 to 197, with nine Republicans voting for it, including one Californian, Central Valley Rep. David Valadao.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Valadao’s office did not respond to a request for comment by press time on whether he currently supports the bill.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"https://theimmigrationhub.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Fact-Sheet-Dream-and-Promise-Act.pdf\">current bill\u003c/a> would create a “conditional permanent resident” status for eligible Dreamers who have not been convicted of certain crimes. While they have that, they would need to show they’ve completed at least two years of higher education or military service or have worked for at least three years. From there, they could obtain a green card as lawful permanent residents, which would make them eligible to apply for citizenship after five years.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12015403\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12015403\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/11/AP24319624163000-scaled-e1738263690738.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The U.S. Capitol, including the House of Representatives, left, are seen on Thursday, Nov. 14, 2024, in Washington. \u003ccite>(AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The bill would also cover TPS holders who can show they’ve been continuously in the country for three years and were eligible for or had TPS in 2017 and meet other requirements.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the press conference for the bill outside the Capitol building, Orange County Rep. Lou Correa said he believes his district has more Dreamers than any other.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Let me tell you who they are,” he said. “The local police department has police officers that are Dreamers. Does it make sense to deport them? Absolutely not.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As supporters of the bill chanted “Si, se puede,” Garcia told the crowd that Dreamers should not be penalized for being in the country without lawful status because they came as children.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>“\u003c/strong>Like any other child, they lived where their parents told them to live. Many of them were just 6 years old. Six-year-old children do not violate laws,” she said. “If an adult is pulled over for speeding, we don’t turn around and give the adult a ticket and then give a ticket to the child in the back seat. Doesn’t work that way.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The bill is likely to be referred to the immigration subcommittee in the House Judiciary Committee. The subcommittee’s chair is California Rep. Tom McClintock, a Republican who voted against the bill in 2021. His office did not respond by press time as to whether he would allow the bill to go to a vote.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12028728/california-democrats-help-reintroduce-bill-give-dreamers-path-citizenship",
"authors": [
"259"
],
"categories": [
"news_31795",
"news_1169",
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_34903",
"news_18538",
"news_22883",
"news_1323",
"news_20466",
"news_34377",
"news_20579",
"news_20202",
"news_17968",
"news_34896"
],
"featImg": "news_11890060",
"label": "news"
},
"news_12025342": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12025342",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12025342",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1738618236000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "ciudadania-por-nacimiento-trump",
"title": "Ciudadanía por nacimiento: ¿puede Trump cambiarla?",
"publishDate": 1738618236,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "Ciudadanía por nacimiento: ¿puede Trump cambiarla? | KQED",
"labelTerm": {},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12024082/qa-what-to-know-about-birthright-citizenship\">Read in English\u003c/a>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>En su primer día de regreso a la Casa Blanca, el presidente Donald Trump firmó una orden ejecutiva que pretende \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12023126/california-leaders-to-sue-trump-over-birthright-citizenship-border-policies\">cambiar quién obtiene la ciudadanía estadounidense por nacimiento\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Durante su campaña electoral en 2024, Trump \u003ca href=\"https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1663537082633953282\">prometió poner fin a la ciudadanía por nacimiento para los niños nacidos en Estados Unidos de padres indocumentados.\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Pero su \u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/\">orden ejecutiva del 20 de enero\u003c/a>\u003ca href=\"https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1663537082633953282\"> va más allá: Niega la ciudadanía por nacimiento a los bebés nacidos a partir del 19 de febrero de 2025 que no tengan al menos un padre que sea ciudadano o residente legal permanente.\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>En menos de 24 horas del anuncio de Trump, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12023126/california-leaders-to-sue-trump-over-birthright-citizenship-border-policies\">22 estados — incluyendo a California — presentaron demandas\u003c/a> contra el gobierno federal \u003ca href=\"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/2025%200121%20Complaint.pdf\">con el objetivo de anular la orden\u003c/a>. El 23 de enero, un juez federal del estado de Washington declaró que la orden va en contra de la Constitución “de manera descarada” e impidió al gobierno federal seguir adelante con sus planes por un período de 14 días.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ir directamente a:\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"#nacimiento\">\u003cstrong>¿Qué es la ciudadanía por nacimiento?\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"#Trump\">\u003cstrong>¿A quién afecta la orden ejecutiva de Trump?\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"#estadounidense\">\u003cstrong>¿Despojará esta orden a alguien de su actual ciudadanía estadounidense?\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"#espera\">\u003cstrong>Estoy en espera de un bebé. ¿Qué debo saber?\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>Esta orden ejecutiva ha creado una gran confusión e incluso pánico, especialmente entre los padres que se preocupan si sus hijos y futuros hijos perderán su derecho a la ciudadanía.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Siga leyendo para saber qué significa realmente la ciudadanía por nacimiento, quién se vería realmente afectado por esta orden ejecutiva y lo más reciente sobre la batalla legal que podría poner fin a los planes de Trump.\u003cbr>\n[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003ca id=\"nacimiento\">\u003c/a>¿Qué es la ciudadanía por nacimiento?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Si ha escuchado el término “ciudadanía por nacimiento” repetido una y otra vez en las noticias y no tiene claro qué en verdad significa este término, aquí se lo explicamos: Según la ley y la Constitución de EE.UU., \u003ca href=\"https://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10214/2\">las personas nacidas en suelo estadounidense son reconocidas automáticamente como ciudadanos estadounidenses en el momento de su nacimiento\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>La 14ª Enmienda de la Constitución, un documento cuyo poder es mayor que el de cualquier funcionario, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship\">estableció la ciudadanía por nacimiento en 1868. La primera cláusula de la enmienda establece:\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Toda persona nacida o naturalizada en los Estados Unidos, y sujeta a su jurisdicción, es ciudadana de los Estados Unidos y del estado en que resida.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>El Congreso propuso por primera vez la 14ª Enmienda después de la Guerra Civil de 1861, para proteger los derechos de las personas afroamericanas que anteriormente fueron esclavizadas.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Y aunque los legisladores que redactaron la enmienda lo hicieron para responder a la discriminación que enfrentaba la población,, la Corte Suprema, que tiene la responsabilidad de interpretar lo que realmente significa la Constitución, declaró en 1898 que la ciudadanía por nacimiento \u003ca href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649\">también incluye a los hijos de padres inmigrantes que no son ciudadanos de EE.UU.\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>La Corte Suprema estableció este precedente en el caso histórico EE.UU. contra Wong Kim Ark, llamado así por un hombre nacido en San Francisco en la década de 1870 de padres inmigrantes chinos. A Wong se le negó la entrada a los EE.UU. después de viajar a China para visitar a su familia. Las autoridades insistieron en que no era ciudadano estadounidense, sino un nacional chino, un grupo al que se le prohibía entrar en el país debido a la Ley de Exclusión China.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>El gobierno argumentó que la ciudadanía de Wong no dependía de dónde había nacido, sino de la nacionalidad de sus padres. Pero la Corte Suprema no aceptó esa premisa y dictaminó que Wong era ciudadano debido a que había nacido en San Francisco, y añadió que la 14ª Enmienda “en palabras claras y con intención manifiesta, incluye a los niños nacidos en el territorio de los EE.UU. de todas las demás personas, de cualquier raza o color, domiciliadas en los EE.UU.” \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship\">Lea más sobre este caso histórico de ciudadanía por nacimiento\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003cb>¿Existen excepciones a la ciudadanía por nacimiento?\u003c/b>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Sí, pero solo se aplican en circunstancias muy específicas.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Desde el caso \u003ci>Wong Kim Ark\u003c/i>, la Corte Suprema \u003ca href=\"http://https//efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/LSB10214.pdf\">ha establecido tres excepciones a la 14.ª Enmienda\u003c/a>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Si, en el momento de su nacimiento, sus padres se encuentran en EE.UU. como diplomáticos extranjeros de alto rango sujetos a la jurisdicción de los EE.UU. Esto podría incluir al embajador de un país extranjero que goza de inmunidad diplomática y está exento de cumplir ciertas leyes e impuestos estadounidenses.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Si, en el momento de su nacimiento, sus padres se encuentran en EE.UU. como parte de un ejército invasor.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Los niños nacidos en tribus indígenas de EE.UU. con una autonomía específica del gobierno federal, pero esta excepción se eliminó más tarde cuando el Congreso aprobó \u003ca href=\"https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/june-02/#:~:text=to%20this%20page-,Indian%20Citizenship%20Act,barred%20Native%20Americans%20from%20voting.\">la Ley de Ciudadanía India de 1924, que concede la ciudadanía a todas personas que pertenecen a una tribu dentro de los EE.UU\u003c/a>.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>A lo largo del siglo XX, el Congreso aprobó una serie de leyes que también concedían la ciudadanía por nacimiento a las personas nacidas en determinados territorios de EE.UU., como \u003ca href=\"https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS97/rpt/olr/htm/97-R-0359.htm#:~:text=The%20Nationality%20Act%20of%201940,1187%2C%201139).\">Puerto Rico\u003c/a> y \u003ca href=\"https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title48/chapter8A&edition=prelim\">Guam\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12025344\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1020px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12025344\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/trump-with-executive-order.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1020\" height=\"680\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/trump-with-executive-order.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/trump-with-executive-order-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/trump-with-executive-order-160x107.jpg 160w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1020px) 100vw, 1020px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office on Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington, DC. \u003ccite>(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003ch2>\u003ca id=\"Trum\">\u003c/a>¿A quién afecta la orden de ciudadanía por nacimiento de Trump?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>La orden declara que la ciudadanía estadounidense “\u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/\">es un regalo profundo e invaluable\u003c/a>” y luego insiste que la 14.ª Enmienda “nunca ha sido interpretadada para extender la ciudadanía universalmente a todos quienes nacen dentro de los Estados Unidos”.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Según la orden, a partir del 19 de febrero de 2025, el gobierno federal dejará de conceder documentos que confirmen la ciudadanía, como el número de la Seguridad Social o el pasaporte, a los niños nacidos a partir del 19 de febrero, que se encuentren en las siguientes situaciones:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>En el momento del nacimiento, la madre biológica del bebé se encontraba presente en el país “de manera ilegal” (sin estatus migratorio) en EE. UU. y el padre biológico no era ciudadano estadounidense ni residente permanente legal.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>En el momento del nacimiento, la madre biológica del bebé se encontraba en EE.UU. con un visado o permiso temporal, y el padre biológico no era ciudadano estadounidense ni residente permanente legal.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>Si un gobierno estatal o local proporciona documentos que afirman que un niño en esta situación es ciudadano estadounidense, el gobierno federal no reconocerá esa documentación\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>El texto de la orden ejecutiva puede resultar confuso para muchos, ya que está diseñado principalmente para ser leído por funcionarios y abogados. Pero, según las circunstancias que describe la orden, estas son las familias que podrían verse afectadas por la orden ejecutiva de ciudadanía por nacimiento de Trump:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Familias en las que ninguno de los padres tiene documentos legales de inmigración en el momento que nació su bebé.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Familias en las que ambos padres sólo tienen un estatus legal temporal, que podría incluir: \u003ca href=\"https://www.uscis.gov/es/programas-humanitarios/estatus-de-proteccion-temporal\">Estatus de Protección Temporal (TPS)\u003c/a>, \u003ca href=\"https://www.uscis.gov/es/DACA\">Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA)\u003c/a>, titulares de H1-B, una visa J-1 de estudiante o una visa H-2A para trabajadores agrícolas, u otra visa temporal o permiso humanitario. En estos casos, su bebé no tendría la ciudadanía por nacimiento.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Si uno de los padres no tiene estatus legal y el otro sólo tiene un estatus legal temporal, que podría incluir: \u003ca href=\"https://www.uscis.gov/es/programas-humanitarios/estatus-de-proteccion-temporal\">Estatus de Protección Temporal (TPS)\u003c/a>, \u003ca href=\"https://www.uscis.gov/es/DACA\">Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA)\u003c/a>, titulares de visados H1-B, un visado J-1 de estudiante o un visado H-2A para trabajadores agrícolas, u otro visado temporal o permiso humanitario. En estos casos, su bebé no tendría la ciudadanía por nacimiento.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>Pero es muy importante recordar que, a partir del 23 de enero, esta orden ejecutiva sobre la ciudadanía por nacimiento ha sido congelada por un juez federal y su destino será ahora decidido por el sistema judicial. Hasta que los tribunales no hayan tomado una decisión final, lo que podría ocurrir en la Corte Suprema o en un tribunal federal de apelaciones, no sabremos si esta orden realmente se implementará.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003cb>Estoy preocupado: ¿mi bebé sigue siendo ciudadano estadounidense?\u003c/b>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Según la orden ejecutiva, sólo se verán afectados los bebés nacidos “en Estados Unidos después de 30 días a partir de la fecha de esta orden”, lo que haría que el 19 de febrero de 2025 fuera la fecha oficial de inicio de esta política.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Si su bebé nace en cualquier momento antes de esa fecha, el gobierno federal seguirá reconociéndolo como ciudadano estadounidense, sin importar el estatus migratorio de los padres.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003cb>He visto que la orden ejecutiva de Trump “eliminó la 14.ª Enmienda”. ¿Es eso cierto?\u003c/b>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>No, la orden ejecutiva de Trump no eliminó la 14.ª Enmienda, ya que hacerlo requeriría un proceso complicado en el Congreso y que al menos 37 de los 50 estados votaran a favor del cambio.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003ca id=\"estadounidense\">\u003c/a>¿Se despojaría a alguien de su ciudadanía estadounidense actual con esta orden?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>La orden ejecutiva de Trump sólo seguirá adelante si los tribunales terminan fallando a su favor. Si eso sucediera, y la orden se hace cumplir el 19 de febrero, nadie nacido antes de esa fecha perderá su ciudadanía estadounidense.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>La orden ejecutiva no dice nada sobre quitar la ciudadanía a las personas que ya nacieron en EE.UU. antes del 19 de febrero, independientemente del estatus migratorio de sus padres.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003ca id=\"espera\">\u003c/a>Estoy en espera de un bebé que podría nacer después del 19 de febrero. ¿Seguirán siendo ciudadanos estadounidenses automáticamente?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Esto es una cuestión complicada, ya que depende totalmente de lo que decidan los tribunales.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>En su decisión del 23 de enero, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12023740/federal-judge-temporarily-blocks-trumps-executive-order-ending-birthright-citizenship\">el juez de distrito de EE.UU. John Coughenour, del estado de Washington, congeló la orden ejecutiva solo durante 14 días, hasta el 6 de febrero\u003c/a>. Este caso fue interpuesto por los estados de Washington, Arizona, Illinois y Oregón, pero hay otras cuatro demandas importantes contra el gobierno federal (incluida la de California) que buscan revocar permanentemente la orden ejecutiva.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Un juez federal diferente podría emitir otra moratoria que vaya más allá del 6 de febrero, o anular la orden por completo. Sin embargo, el Departamento de Justicia, que representa al gobierno federal, dijo en un comunicado que \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/birthright-citizenship-donald-trump-lawsuit-immigration-9ac27b234c854a68a9b9f8c0d6cd8a1c\">“defenderá enérgicamente” la orden de Trump\u003c/a>, y se espera que apele cualquier decisión que intente detener la orden. Un caso tendría que pasar por los diferentes niveles del sistema judicial antes de llegar a la Corte Suprema, que luego tomaría una decisión definitiva.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Sin embargo, no está claro si el caso llegará al expediente de la Corte Suprema antes del 19 de febrero. Actualizaremos esta sección para incluir la información más reciente de los tribunales.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Este artículo fue traducido por la periodista \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/author/mpena/\">María Peña\u003c/a> y esa traducción fue editada por el periodista \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/author/ccabreralomeli\">Carlos Cabrera-Lomelí\u003c/a>.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "¿Es usted inmigrante con hijos ciudadanos de Estados Unidos y se preocupa si su familia será afectada por la orden ejecutiva de Trump que propone limitar la ciudadanía por nacimiento? Le explicamos qué está pasando.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1749136496,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 35,
"wordCount": 2188
},
"headData": {
"title": "Trump busca limitar la ciudadanía por nacimiento | KQED",
"description": "La orden de Trump genera dudas entre padres. Entienda si su hijo sería ciudadano y cómo avanza la batalla legal en EE.UU.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"socialTitle": "Trump busca limitar la ciudadanía por nacimiento | KQED",
"socialDescription": "La orden de Trump genera dudas entre padres. Entienda si su hijo sería ciudadano y cómo avanza la batalla legal en EE.UU.",
"translatedArticles": [
{
"path": "/news/12024082/qa-what-to-know-about-birthright-citizenship#D",
"lang": "en"
},
{
"path": "/news/12025342/ciudadania-por-nacimiento-trump",
"lang": "es"
}
],
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Ciudadanía por nacimiento: ¿puede Trump cambiarla?",
"datePublished": "2025-02-03T13:30:36-08:00",
"dateModified": "2025-06-05T08:14:56-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"source": "KQED en Español",
"sourceUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/kqedenespanol",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12025342",
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12025342/ciudadania-por-nacimiento-trump",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12024082/qa-what-to-know-about-birthright-citizenship\">Read in English\u003c/a>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>En su primer día de regreso a la Casa Blanca, el presidente Donald Trump firmó una orden ejecutiva que pretende \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12023126/california-leaders-to-sue-trump-over-birthright-citizenship-border-policies\">cambiar quién obtiene la ciudadanía estadounidense por nacimiento\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Durante su campaña electoral en 2024, Trump \u003ca href=\"https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1663537082633953282\">prometió poner fin a la ciudadanía por nacimiento para los niños nacidos en Estados Unidos de padres indocumentados.\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Pero su \u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/\">orden ejecutiva del 20 de enero\u003c/a>\u003ca href=\"https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1663537082633953282\"> va más allá: Niega la ciudadanía por nacimiento a los bebés nacidos a partir del 19 de febrero de 2025 que no tengan al menos un padre que sea ciudadano o residente legal permanente.\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>En menos de 24 horas del anuncio de Trump, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12023126/california-leaders-to-sue-trump-over-birthright-citizenship-border-policies\">22 estados — incluyendo a California — presentaron demandas\u003c/a> contra el gobierno federal \u003ca href=\"https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/2025%200121%20Complaint.pdf\">con el objetivo de anular la orden\u003c/a>. El 23 de enero, un juez federal del estado de Washington declaró que la orden va en contra de la Constitución “de manera descarada” e impidió al gobierno federal seguir adelante con sus planes por un período de 14 días.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ir directamente a:\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"#nacimiento\">\u003cstrong>¿Qué es la ciudadanía por nacimiento?\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"#Trump\">\u003cstrong>¿A quién afecta la orden ejecutiva de Trump?\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"#estadounidense\">\u003cstrong>¿Despojará esta orden a alguien de su actual ciudadanía estadounidense?\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"#espera\">\u003cstrong>Estoy en espera de un bebé. ¿Qué debo saber?\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>Esta orden ejecutiva ha creado una gran confusión e incluso pánico, especialmente entre los padres que se preocupan si sus hijos y futuros hijos perderán su derecho a la ciudadanía.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Siga leyendo para saber qué significa realmente la ciudadanía por nacimiento, quién se vería realmente afectado por esta orden ejecutiva y lo más reciente sobre la batalla legal que podría poner fin a los planes de Trump.\u003cbr>\n\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003ca id=\"nacimiento\">\u003c/a>¿Qué es la ciudadanía por nacimiento?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Si ha escuchado el término “ciudadanía por nacimiento” repetido una y otra vez en las noticias y no tiene claro qué en verdad significa este término, aquí se lo explicamos: Según la ley y la Constitución de EE.UU., \u003ca href=\"https://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10214/2\">las personas nacidas en suelo estadounidense son reconocidas automáticamente como ciudadanos estadounidenses en el momento de su nacimiento\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>La 14ª Enmienda de la Constitución, un documento cuyo poder es mayor que el de cualquier funcionario, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship\">estableció la ciudadanía por nacimiento en 1868. La primera cláusula de la enmienda establece:\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Toda persona nacida o naturalizada en los Estados Unidos, y sujeta a su jurisdicción, es ciudadana de los Estados Unidos y del estado en que resida.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>El Congreso propuso por primera vez la 14ª Enmienda después de la Guerra Civil de 1861, para proteger los derechos de las personas afroamericanas que anteriormente fueron esclavizadas.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Y aunque los legisladores que redactaron la enmienda lo hicieron para responder a la discriminación que enfrentaba la población,, la Corte Suprema, que tiene la responsabilidad de interpretar lo que realmente significa la Constitución, declaró en 1898 que la ciudadanía por nacimiento \u003ca href=\"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649\">también incluye a los hijos de padres inmigrantes que no son ciudadanos de EE.UU.\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>La Corte Suprema estableció este precedente en el caso histórico EE.UU. contra Wong Kim Ark, llamado así por un hombre nacido en San Francisco en la década de 1870 de padres inmigrantes chinos. A Wong se le negó la entrada a los EE.UU. después de viajar a China para visitar a su familia. Las autoridades insistieron en que no era ciudadano estadounidense, sino un nacional chino, un grupo al que se le prohibía entrar en el país debido a la Ley de Exclusión China.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>El gobierno argumentó que la ciudadanía de Wong no dependía de dónde había nacido, sino de la nacionalidad de sus padres. Pero la Corte Suprema no aceptó esa premisa y dictaminó que Wong era ciudadano debido a que había nacido en San Francisco, y añadió que la 14ª Enmienda “en palabras claras y con intención manifiesta, incluye a los niños nacidos en el territorio de los EE.UU. de todas las demás personas, de cualquier raza o color, domiciliadas en los EE.UU.” \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12015449/a-129-year-old-san-francisco-lawsuit-could-stop-trump-from-ending-birthright-citizenship\">Lea más sobre este caso histórico de ciudadanía por nacimiento\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003cb>¿Existen excepciones a la ciudadanía por nacimiento?\u003c/b>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Sí, pero solo se aplican en circunstancias muy específicas.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Desde el caso \u003ci>Wong Kim Ark\u003c/i>, la Corte Suprema \u003ca href=\"http://https//efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/LSB10214.pdf\">ha establecido tres excepciones a la 14.ª Enmienda\u003c/a>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Si, en el momento de su nacimiento, sus padres se encuentran en EE.UU. como diplomáticos extranjeros de alto rango sujetos a la jurisdicción de los EE.UU. Esto podría incluir al embajador de un país extranjero que goza de inmunidad diplomática y está exento de cumplir ciertas leyes e impuestos estadounidenses.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Si, en el momento de su nacimiento, sus padres se encuentran en EE.UU. como parte de un ejército invasor.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Los niños nacidos en tribus indígenas de EE.UU. con una autonomía específica del gobierno federal, pero esta excepción se eliminó más tarde cuando el Congreso aprobó \u003ca href=\"https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/june-02/#:~:text=to%20this%20page-,Indian%20Citizenship%20Act,barred%20Native%20Americans%20from%20voting.\">la Ley de Ciudadanía India de 1924, que concede la ciudadanía a todas personas que pertenecen a una tribu dentro de los EE.UU\u003c/a>.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>A lo largo del siglo XX, el Congreso aprobó una serie de leyes que también concedían la ciudadanía por nacimiento a las personas nacidas en determinados territorios de EE.UU., como \u003ca href=\"https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS97/rpt/olr/htm/97-R-0359.htm#:~:text=The%20Nationality%20Act%20of%201940,1187%2C%201139).\">Puerto Rico\u003c/a> y \u003ca href=\"https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title48/chapter8A&edition=prelim\">Guam\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12025344\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1020px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12025344\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/trump-with-executive-order.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1020\" height=\"680\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/trump-with-executive-order.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/trump-with-executive-order-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2025/02/trump-with-executive-order-160x107.jpg 160w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1020px) 100vw, 1020px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office on Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington, DC. \u003ccite>(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003ch2>\u003ca id=\"Trum\">\u003c/a>¿A quién afecta la orden de ciudadanía por nacimiento de Trump?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>La orden declara que la ciudadanía estadounidense “\u003ca href=\"https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/\">es un regalo profundo e invaluable\u003c/a>” y luego insiste que la 14.ª Enmienda “nunca ha sido interpretadada para extender la ciudadanía universalmente a todos quienes nacen dentro de los Estados Unidos”.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Según la orden, a partir del 19 de febrero de 2025, el gobierno federal dejará de conceder documentos que confirmen la ciudadanía, como el número de la Seguridad Social o el pasaporte, a los niños nacidos a partir del 19 de febrero, que se encuentren en las siguientes situaciones:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>En el momento del nacimiento, la madre biológica del bebé se encontraba presente en el país “de manera ilegal” (sin estatus migratorio) en EE. UU. y el padre biológico no era ciudadano estadounidense ni residente permanente legal.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>En el momento del nacimiento, la madre biológica del bebé se encontraba en EE.UU. con un visado o permiso temporal, y el padre biológico no era ciudadano estadounidense ni residente permanente legal.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>Si un gobierno estatal o local proporciona documentos que afirman que un niño en esta situación es ciudadano estadounidense, el gobierno federal no reconocerá esa documentación\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>El texto de la orden ejecutiva puede resultar confuso para muchos, ya que está diseñado principalmente para ser leído por funcionarios y abogados. Pero, según las circunstancias que describe la orden, estas son las familias que podrían verse afectadas por la orden ejecutiva de ciudadanía por nacimiento de Trump:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Familias en las que ninguno de los padres tiene documentos legales de inmigración en el momento que nació su bebé.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Familias en las que ambos padres sólo tienen un estatus legal temporal, que podría incluir: \u003ca href=\"https://www.uscis.gov/es/programas-humanitarios/estatus-de-proteccion-temporal\">Estatus de Protección Temporal (TPS)\u003c/a>, \u003ca href=\"https://www.uscis.gov/es/DACA\">Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA)\u003c/a>, titulares de H1-B, una visa J-1 de estudiante o una visa H-2A para trabajadores agrícolas, u otra visa temporal o permiso humanitario. En estos casos, su bebé no tendría la ciudadanía por nacimiento.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Si uno de los padres no tiene estatus legal y el otro sólo tiene un estatus legal temporal, que podría incluir: \u003ca href=\"https://www.uscis.gov/es/programas-humanitarios/estatus-de-proteccion-temporal\">Estatus de Protección Temporal (TPS)\u003c/a>, \u003ca href=\"https://www.uscis.gov/es/DACA\">Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA)\u003c/a>, titulares de visados H1-B, un visado J-1 de estudiante o un visado H-2A para trabajadores agrícolas, u otro visado temporal o permiso humanitario. En estos casos, su bebé no tendría la ciudadanía por nacimiento.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>Pero es muy importante recordar que, a partir del 23 de enero, esta orden ejecutiva sobre la ciudadanía por nacimiento ha sido congelada por un juez federal y su destino será ahora decidido por el sistema judicial. Hasta que los tribunales no hayan tomado una decisión final, lo que podría ocurrir en la Corte Suprema o en un tribunal federal de apelaciones, no sabremos si esta orden realmente se implementará.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003cb>Estoy preocupado: ¿mi bebé sigue siendo ciudadano estadounidense?\u003c/b>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Según la orden ejecutiva, sólo se verán afectados los bebés nacidos “en Estados Unidos después de 30 días a partir de la fecha de esta orden”, lo que haría que el 19 de febrero de 2025 fuera la fecha oficial de inicio de esta política.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Si su bebé nace en cualquier momento antes de esa fecha, el gobierno federal seguirá reconociéndolo como ciudadano estadounidense, sin importar el estatus migratorio de los padres.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003cb>He visto que la orden ejecutiva de Trump “eliminó la 14.ª Enmienda”. ¿Es eso cierto?\u003c/b>\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>No, la orden ejecutiva de Trump no eliminó la 14.ª Enmienda, ya que hacerlo requeriría un proceso complicado en el Congreso y que al menos 37 de los 50 estados votaran a favor del cambio.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003ca id=\"estadounidense\">\u003c/a>¿Se despojaría a alguien de su ciudadanía estadounidense actual con esta orden?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>La orden ejecutiva de Trump sólo seguirá adelante si los tribunales terminan fallando a su favor. Si eso sucediera, y la orden se hace cumplir el 19 de febrero, nadie nacido antes de esa fecha perderá su ciudadanía estadounidense.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>La orden ejecutiva no dice nada sobre quitar la ciudadanía a las personas que ya nacieron en EE.UU. antes del 19 de febrero, independientemente del estatus migratorio de sus padres.\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>\u003ca id=\"espera\">\u003c/a>Estoy en espera de un bebé que podría nacer después del 19 de febrero. ¿Seguirán siendo ciudadanos estadounidenses automáticamente?\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Esto es una cuestión complicada, ya que depende totalmente de lo que decidan los tribunales.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>En su decisión del 23 de enero, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12023740/federal-judge-temporarily-blocks-trumps-executive-order-ending-birthright-citizenship\">el juez de distrito de EE.UU. John Coughenour, del estado de Washington, congeló la orden ejecutiva solo durante 14 días, hasta el 6 de febrero\u003c/a>. Este caso fue interpuesto por los estados de Washington, Arizona, Illinois y Oregón, pero hay otras cuatro demandas importantes contra el gobierno federal (incluida la de California) que buscan revocar permanentemente la orden ejecutiva.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Un juez federal diferente podría emitir otra moratoria que vaya más allá del 6 de febrero, o anular la orden por completo. Sin embargo, el Departamento de Justicia, que representa al gobierno federal, dijo en un comunicado que \u003ca href=\"https://apnews.com/article/birthright-citizenship-donald-trump-lawsuit-immigration-9ac27b234c854a68a9b9f8c0d6cd8a1c\">“defenderá enérgicamente” la orden de Trump\u003c/a>, y se espera que apele cualquier decisión que intente detener la orden. Un caso tendría que pasar por los diferentes niveles del sistema judicial antes de llegar a la Corte Suprema, que luego tomaría una decisión definitiva.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Sin embargo, no está claro si el caso llegará al expediente de la Corte Suprema antes del 19 de febrero. Actualizaremos esta sección para incluir la información más reciente de los tribunales.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Este artículo fue traducido por la periodista \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/author/mpena/\">María Peña\u003c/a> y esa traducción fue editada por el periodista \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/author/ccabreralomeli\">Carlos Cabrera-Lomelí\u003c/a>.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12025342/ciudadania-por-nacimiento-trump",
"authors": [
"11708"
],
"series": [
"news_28487"
],
"categories": [
"news_31795",
"news_1169",
"news_28523",
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_32707",
"news_34903",
"news_28586",
"news_20202",
"news_27775",
"news_28444"
],
"featImg": "news_12025343",
"label": "source_news_12025342"
}
},
"podcastsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"podcasts": {}
},
"radioProgramsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"radioPrograms": {}
},
"radioSearchSegmentsReducer": {},
"programsReducer": {
"all-things-considered": {
"id": "all-things-considered",
"title": "All Things Considered",
"info": "Every weekday, \u003cem>All Things Considered\u003c/em> hosts Robert Siegel, Audie Cornish, Ari Shapiro, and Kelly McEvers present the program's trademark mix of news, interviews, commentaries, reviews, and offbeat features. Michel Martin hosts on the weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 1pm-2pm, 4:30pm-6:30pm\u003cbr />SAT-SUN 5pm-6pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/All-Things-Considered-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/all-things-considered"
},
"american-suburb-podcast": {
"id": "american-suburb-podcast",
"title": "American Suburb: The Podcast",
"tagline": "The flip side of gentrification, told through one town",
"info": "Gentrification is changing cities across America, forcing people from neighborhoods they have long called home. Call them the displaced. Now those priced out of the Bay Area are looking for a better life in an unlikely place. American Suburb follows this migration to one California town along the Delta, 45 miles from San Francisco. But is this once sleepy suburb ready for them?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/American-Suburb-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 19
},
"link": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/RBrW",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=1287748328",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/American-Suburb-p1086805/",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/feed/podcast",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMzMDExODgxNjA5"
}
},
"baycurious": {
"id": "baycurious",
"title": "Bay Curious",
"tagline": "Exploring the Bay Area, one question at a time",
"info": "KQED’s new podcast, Bay Curious, gets to the bottom of the mysteries — both profound and peculiar — that give the Bay Area its unique identity. And we’ll do it with your help! You ask the questions. You decide what Bay Curious investigates. And you join us on the journey to find the answers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Bay-Curious-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Bay Curious",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/baycurious",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 3
},
"link": "/podcasts/baycurious",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bay-curious/id1172473406",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/500557090/bay-curious",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/category/bay-curious-podcast/feed/podcast",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9a90d476-aa04-455d-9a4c-0871ed6216d4/bay-curious",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/bay-curious",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6O76IdmhixfijmhTZLIJ8k"
}
},
"bbc-world-service": {
"id": "bbc-world-service",
"title": "BBC World Service",
"info": "The day's top stories from BBC News compiled twice daily in the week, once at weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9pm-10pm, TUE-FRI 1am-2am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/BBC-World-Service-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_world_service",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "BBC World Service"
},
"link": "/radio/program/bbc-world-service",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/global-news-podcast/id135067274?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/BBC-World-Service-p455581/",
"rss": "https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/p02nq0gn.rss"
}
},
"californiareport": {
"id": "californiareport",
"title": "The California Report",
"tagline": "California, day by day",
"info": "KQED’s statewide radio news program providing daily coverage of issues, trends and public policy decisions.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareport",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 8
},
"link": "/californiareport",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-the-california-report/id79681292",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/26099305-72af-4542-9dde-ac1807fe36d5/kqed-s-the-california-report",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432285393/the-california-report",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-the-california-report-podcast-8838",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcram/feed/podcast"
}
},
"californiareportmagazine": {
"id": "californiareportmagazine",
"title": "The California Report Magazine",
"tagline": "Your state, your stories",
"info": "Every week, The California Report Magazine takes you on a road trip for the ears: to visit the places and meet the people who make California unique. The in-depth storytelling podcast from the California Report.",
"airtime": "FRI 4:30pm-5pm, 6:30pm-7pm, 11pm-11:30pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Magazine-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report Magazine",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareportmagazine",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 10
},
"link": "/californiareportmagazine",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-california-report-magazine/id1314750545",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM3NjkwNjk1OTAz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/564733126/the-california-report-magazine",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-california-report-magazine",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcrmag/feed/podcast"
}
},
"city-arts": {
"id": "city-arts",
"title": "City Arts & Lectures",
"info": "A one-hour radio program to hear celebrated writers, artists and thinkers address contemporary ideas and values, often discussing the creative process. Please note: tapes or transcripts are not available",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/cityartsandlecture-300x300.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.cityarts.net/",
"airtime": "SUN 1pm-2pm, TUE 10pm, WED 1am",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "City Arts & Lectures"
},
"link": "https://www.cityarts.net",
"subscribe": {
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/City-Arts-and-Lectures-p692/",
"rss": "https://www.cityarts.net/feed/"
}
},
"closealltabs": {
"id": "closealltabs",
"title": "Close All Tabs",
"tagline": "Your irreverent guide to the trends redefining our world",
"info": "Close All Tabs breaks down how digital culture shapes our world through thoughtful insights and irreverent humor.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAT_2_Tile-scaled.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Close All Tabs",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 1
},
"link": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/close-all-tabs/id214663465",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC6993880386",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/92d9d4ac-67a3-4eed-b10a-fb45d45b1ef2/close-all-tabs",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6LAJFHnGK1pYXYzv6SIol6?si=deb0cae19813417c"
}
},
"code-switch-life-kit": {
"id": "code-switch-life-kit",
"title": "Code Switch / Life Kit",
"info": "\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em>, which listeners will hear in the first part of the hour, has fearless and much-needed conversations about race. Hosted by journalists of color, the show tackles the subject of race head-on, exploring how it impacts every part of society — from politics and pop culture to history, sports and more.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em>, which will be in the second part of the hour, guides you through spaces and feelings no one prepares you for — from finances to mental health, from workplace microaggressions to imposter syndrome, from relationships to parenting. The show features experts with real world experience and shares their knowledge. Because everyone needs a little help being human.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510312/codeswitch\">\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/lifekit\">\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />",
"airtime": "SUN 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Code-Switch-Life-Kit-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/code-switch-life-kit",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/1112190608?mt=2&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2FzdC5waHA_aWQ9NTEwMzEy",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3bExJ9JQpkwNhoHvaIIuyV",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510312/podcast.xml"
}
},
"commonwealth-club": {
"id": "commonwealth-club",
"title": "Commonwealth Club of California Podcast",
"info": "The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum. As a non-partisan forum, The Club brings to the public airwaves diverse viewpoints on important topics. The Club's weekly radio broadcast - the oldest in the U.S., dating back to 1924 - is carried across the nation on public radio stations and is now podcasting. Our website archive features audio of our recent programs, as well as selected speeches from our long and distinguished history. This podcast feed is usually updated twice a week and is always un-edited.",
"airtime": "THU 10pm, FRI 1am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Commonwealth-Club-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.commonwealthclub.org/podcasts",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Commonwealth Club of California"
},
"link": "/radio/program/commonwealth-club",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/commonwealth-club-of-california-podcast/id976334034?mt=2",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jb21tb253ZWFsdGhjbHViLm9yZy9hdWRpby9wb2RjYXN0L3dlZWtseS54bWw",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Commonwealth-Club-of-California-p1060/"
}
},
"forum": {
"id": "forum",
"title": "Forum",
"tagline": "The conversation starts here",
"info": "KQED’s live call-in program discussing local, state, national and international issues, as well as in-depth interviews.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9am-11am, 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Forum-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Forum with Mina Kim and Alexis Madrigal",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/forum",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 9
},
"link": "/forum",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-forum/id73329719",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM5NTU3MzgxNjMz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432307980/forum",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-forum-podcast",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9557381633"
}
},
"freakonomics-radio": {
"id": "freakonomics-radio",
"title": "Freakonomics Radio",
"info": "Freakonomics Radio is a one-hour award-winning podcast and public-radio project hosted by Stephen Dubner, with co-author Steve Levitt as a regular guest. It is produced in partnership with WNYC.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/freakonomicsRadio.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://freakonomics.com/",
"airtime": "SUN 1am-2am, SAT 3pm-4pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/freakonomics-radio",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/freakonomics-radio/id354668519",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/Freakonomics-Radio-p272293/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/freakonomicsradio"
}
},
"fresh-air": {
"id": "fresh-air",
"title": "Fresh Air",
"info": "Hosted by Terry Gross, \u003cem>Fresh Air from WHYY\u003c/em> is the Peabody Award-winning weekday magazine of contemporary arts and issues. One of public radio's most popular programs, Fresh Air features intimate conversations with today's biggest luminaries.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fresh-Air-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/fresh-air",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=214089682&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Fresh-Air-p17/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/381444908/podcast.xml"
}
},
"here-and-now": {
"id": "here-and-now",
"title": "Here & Now",
"info": "A live production of NPR and WBUR Boston, in collaboration with stations across the country, Here & Now reflects the fluid world of news as it's happening in the middle of the day, with timely, in-depth news, interviews and conversation. Hosted by Robin Young, Jeremy Hobson and Tonya Mosley.",
"airtime": "MON-THU 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Here-And-Now-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/here-and-now",
"subsdcribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=426698661",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Here--Now-p211/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510051/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hidden-brain": {
"id": "hidden-brain",
"title": "Hidden Brain",
"info": "Shankar Vedantam uses science and storytelling to reveal the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior, shape our choices and direct our relationships.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/hiddenbrain.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain",
"airtime": "SUN 7pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "NPR"
},
"link": "/radio/program/hidden-brain",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-brain/id1028908750?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Science-Podcasts/Hidden-Brain-p787503/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510308/podcast.xml"
}
},
"how-i-built-this": {
"id": "how-i-built-this",
"title": "How I Built This with Guy Raz",
"info": "Guy Raz dives into the stories behind some of the world's best known companies. How I Built This weaves a narrative journey about innovators, entrepreneurs and idealists—and the movements they built.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/howIBuiltThis.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this",
"airtime": "SUN 7:30pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/how-i-built-this",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/3zxy",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-i-built-this-with-guy-raz/id1150510297?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Arts--Culture-Podcasts/How-I-Built-This-p910896/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510313/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hyphenacion": {
"id": "hyphenacion",
"title": "Hyphenación",
"tagline": "Where conversation and cultura meet",
"info": "What kind of no sabo word is Hyphenación? For us, it’s about living within a hyphenation. Like being a third-gen Mexican-American from the Texas border now living that Bay Area Chicano life. Like Xorje! Each week we bring together a couple of hyphenated Latinos to talk all about personal life choices: family, careers, relationships, belonging … everything is on the table. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Hyphenacion_FinalAssets_PodcastTile.png",
"imageAlt": "KQED Hyphenación",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 15
},
"link": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hyphenaci%C3%B3n/id1191591838",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/2p3Fifq96nw9BPcmFdIq0o?si=39209f7b25774f38",
"youtube": "https://www.youtube.com/c/kqedarts",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/6c3dd23c-93fb-4aab-97ba-1725fa6315f1/hyphenaci%C3%B3n",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC2275451163"
}
},
"jerrybrown": {
"id": "jerrybrown",
"title": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"tagline": "Lessons from a lifetime in politics",
"info": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown brings listeners the wisdom of the former Governor, Mayor, and presidential candidate. Scott Shafer interviewed Brown for more than 40 hours, covering the former governor's life and half-century in the political game – and Brown has some lessons he'd like to share. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Political-Mind-of-Jerry-Brown-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 18
},
"link": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/790253322/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1492194549",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/jerrybrown/feed/podcast/",
"tuneIn": "http://tun.in/pjGcK",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/54C1dmuyFyKMFttY6X2j6r?si=K8SgRCoISNK6ZbjpXrX5-w",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/44420f75-3b0e-4301-ab3b-16da6b09e543/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown"
}
},
"latino-usa": {
"id": "latino-usa",
"title": "Latino USA",
"airtime": "MON 1am-2am, SUN 6pm-7pm",
"info": "Latino USA, the radio journal of news and culture, is the only national, English-language radio program produced from a Latino perspective.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/latinoUsa.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://latinousa.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/latino-usa",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/xtTd",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=79681317&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Latino-USA-p621/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510016/podcast.xml"
}
},
"marketplace": {
"id": "marketplace",
"title": "Marketplace",
"info": "Our flagship program, helmed by Kai Ryssdal, examines what the day in money delivered, through stories, conversations, newsworthy numbers and more. Updated Monday through Friday at about 3:30 p.m. PT.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 4pm-4:30pm, MON-WED 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Marketplace-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.marketplace.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "American Public Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/marketplace",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201853034&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/APM-Marketplace-p88/",
"rss": "https://feeds.publicradio.org/public_feeds/marketplace-pm/rss/rss"
}
},
"masters-of-scale": {
"id": "masters-of-scale",
"title": "Masters of Scale",
"info": "Masters of Scale is an original podcast in which LinkedIn co-founder and Greylock Partner Reid Hoffman sets out to describe and prove theories that explain how great entrepreneurs take their companies from zero to a gazillion in ingenious fashion.",
"airtime": "Every other Wednesday June 12 through October 16 at 8pm (repeats Thursdays at 2am)",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Masters-of-Scale-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://mastersofscale.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WaitWhat"
},
"link": "/radio/program/masters-of-scale",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "http://mastersofscale.app.link/",
"rss": "https://rss.art19.com/masters-of-scale"
}
},
"mindshift": {
"id": "mindshift",
"title": "MindShift",
"tagline": "A podcast about the future of learning and how we raise our kids",
"info": "The MindShift podcast explores the innovations in education that are shaping how kids learn. Hosts Ki Sung and Katrina Schwartz introduce listeners to educators, researchers, parents and students who are developing effective ways to improve how kids learn. We cover topics like how fed-up administrators are developing surprising tactics to deal with classroom disruptions; how listening to podcasts are helping kids develop reading skills; the consequences of overparenting; and why interdisciplinary learning can engage students on all ends of the traditional achievement spectrum. This podcast is part of the MindShift education site, a division of KQED News. KQED is an NPR/PBS member station based in San Francisco. You can also visit the MindShift website for episodes and supplemental blog posts or tweet us \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/MindShiftKQED\">@MindShiftKQED\u003c/a> or visit us at \u003ca href=\"/mindshift\">MindShift.KQED.org\u003c/a>",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Mindshift-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED MindShift: How We Will Learn",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/mindshift/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 12
},
"link": "/podcasts/mindshift",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mindshift-podcast/id1078765985",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM1NzY0NjAwNDI5",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/464615685/mind-shift-podcast",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/stories-teachers-share",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0MxSpNYZKNprFLCl7eEtyx"
}
},
"morning-edition": {
"id": "morning-edition",
"title": "Morning Edition",
"info": "\u003cem>Morning Edition\u003c/em> takes listeners around the country and the world with multi-faceted stories and commentaries every weekday. Hosts Steve Inskeep, David Greene and Rachel Martin bring you the latest breaking news and features to prepare you for the day.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3am-9am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Morning-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/morning-edition/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/morning-edition"
},
"onourwatch": {
"id": "onourwatch",
"title": "On Our Watch",
"tagline": "Deeply-reported investigative journalism",
"info": "For decades, the process for how police police themselves has been inconsistent – if not opaque. In some states, like California, these proceedings were completely hidden. After a new police transparency law unsealed scores of internal affairs files, our reporters set out to examine these cases and the shadow world of police discipline. On Our Watch brings listeners into the rooms where officers are questioned and witnesses are interrogated to find out who this system is really protecting. Is it the officers, or the public they've sworn to serve?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/On-Our-Watch-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "On Our Watch from NPR and KQED",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 11
},
"link": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1567098962",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDM2MC9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbD9zYz1nb29nbGVwb2RjYXN0cw",
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/onourwatch",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0OLWoyizopu6tY1XiuX70x",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-Our-Watch-p1436229/",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/show/on-our-watch",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510360/podcast.xml"
}
},
"on-the-media": {
"id": "on-the-media",
"title": "On The Media",
"info": "Our weekly podcast explores how the media 'sausage' is made, casts an incisive eye on fluctuations in the marketplace of ideas, and examines threats to the freedom of information and expression in America and abroad. For one hour a week, the show tries to lift the veil from the process of \"making media,\" especially news media, because it's through that lens that we see the world and the world sees us",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm-3pm, MON 12am-1am",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/onTheMedia.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/otm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wnyc"
},
"link": "/radio/program/on-the-media",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-the-Media-p69/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/onthemedia"
}
},
"pbs-newshour": {
"id": "pbs-newshour",
"title": "PBS NewsHour",
"info": "Analysis, background reports and updates from the PBS NewsHour putting today's news in context.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/PBS-News-Hour-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "pbs"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pbs-newshour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pbs-newshour-full-show/id394432287?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/PBS-NewsHour---Full-Show-p425698/",
"rss": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/show"
}
},
"perspectives": {
"id": "perspectives",
"title": "Perspectives",
"tagline": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991",
"info": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Perspectives_Tile_Final.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Perspectives",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/perspectives/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 14
},
"link": "/perspectives",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id73801135",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432309616/perspectives",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/perspectives/category/perspectives/feed/",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvcGVyc3BlY3RpdmVzL2NhdGVnb3J5L3BlcnNwZWN0aXZlcy9mZWVkLw"
}
},
"planet-money": {
"id": "planet-money",
"title": "Planet Money",
"info": "The economy explained. Imagine you could call up a friend and say, Meet me at the bar and tell me what's going on with the economy. Now imagine that's actually a fun evening.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/planetmoney.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/sections/money/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/planet-money",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/M4f5",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/planet-money/id290783428?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Business--Economics-Podcasts/Planet-Money-p164680/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510289/podcast.xml"
}
},
"politicalbreakdown": {
"id": "politicalbreakdown",
"title": "Political Breakdown",
"tagline": "Politics from a personal perspective",
"info": "Political Breakdown is a new series that explores the political intersection of California and the nation. Each week hosts Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos are joined with a new special guest to unpack politics -- with personality — and offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics happens.",
"airtime": "THU 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Political-Breakdown-2024-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Political Breakdown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 5
},
"link": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/political-breakdown/id1327641087",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/e0c2d153-ad36-4c8d-901d-f1da6a724824/political-breakdown",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/572155894/political-breakdown",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/political-breakdown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/07RVyIjIdk2WDuVehvBMoN",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/political-breakdown/feed/podcast"
}
},
"possible": {
"id": "possible",
"title": "Possible",
"info": "Possible is hosted by entrepreneur Reid Hoffman and writer Aria Finger. Together in Possible, Hoffman and Finger lead enlightening discussions about building a brighter collective future. The show features interviews with visionary guests like Trevor Noah, Sam Altman and Janette Sadik-Khan. Possible paints an optimistic portrait of the world we can create through science, policy, business, art and our shared humanity. It asks: What if everything goes right for once? How can we get there? Each episode also includes a short fiction story generated by advanced AI GPT-4, serving as a thought-provoking springboard to speculate how humanity could leverage technology for good.",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Possible-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.possible.fm/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Possible"
},
"link": "/radio/program/possible",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/possible/id1677184070",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/730YpdUSNlMyPQwNnyjp4k"
}
},
"pri-the-world": {
"id": "pri-the-world",
"title": "PRI's The World: Latest Edition",
"info": "Each weekday, host Marco Werman and his team of producers bring you the world's most interesting stories in an hour of radio that reminds us just how small our planet really is.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-World-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pri.org/programs/the-world",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "PRI"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pri-the-world",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pris-the-world-latest-edition/id278196007?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/PRIs-The-World-p24/",
"rss": "http://feeds.feedburner.com/pri/theworld"
}
},
"radiolab": {
"id": "radiolab",
"title": "Radiolab",
"info": "A two-time Peabody Award-winner, Radiolab is an investigation told through sounds and stories, and centered around one big idea. In the Radiolab world, information sounds like music and science and culture collide. Hosted by Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich, the show is designed for listeners who demand skepticism, but appreciate wonder. WNYC Studios is the producer of other leading podcasts including Freakonomics Radio, Death, Sex & Money, On the Media and many more.",
"airtime": "SUN 12am-1am, SAT 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/radiolab1400.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/radiolab/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/radiolab",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/radiolab/id152249110?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/RadioLab-p68032/",
"rss": "https://feeds.wnyc.org/radiolab"
}
},
"reveal": {
"id": "reveal",
"title": "Reveal",
"info": "Created by The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, Reveal is public radios first one-hour weekly radio show and podcast dedicated to investigative reporting. Credible, fact based and without a partisan agenda, Reveal combines the power and artistry of driveway moment storytelling with data-rich reporting on critically important issues. The result is stories that inform and inspire, arming our listeners with information to right injustices, hold the powerful accountable and improve lives.Reveal is hosted by Al Letson and showcases the award-winning work of CIR and newsrooms large and small across the nation. In a radio and podcast market crowded with choices, Reveal focuses on important and often surprising stories that illuminate the world for our listeners.",
"airtime": "SAT 4pm-5pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/reveal300px.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/reveal",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reveal/id886009669",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Reveal-p679597/",
"rss": "http://feeds.revealradio.org/revealpodcast"
}
},
"rightnowish": {
"id": "rightnowish",
"title": "Rightnowish",
"tagline": "Art is where you find it",
"info": "Rightnowish digs into life in the Bay Area right now… ish. Journalist Pendarvis Harshaw takes us to galleries painted on the sides of liquor stores in West Oakland. We'll dance in warehouses in the Bayview, make smoothies with kids in South Berkeley, and listen to classical music in a 1984 Cutlass Supreme in Richmond. Every week, Pen talks to movers and shakers about how the Bay Area shapes what they create, and how they shape the place we call home.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Rightnowish-Podcast-Tile-500x500-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Rightnowish with Pendarvis Harshaw",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 16
},
"link": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/721590300/rightnowish",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/programs/rightnowish/feed/podcast",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rightnowish/id1482187648",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/rightnowish",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMxMjU5MTY3NDc4",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/7kEJuafTzTVan7B78ttz1I"
}
},
"science-friday": {
"id": "science-friday",
"title": "Science Friday",
"info": "Science Friday is a weekly science talk show, broadcast live over public radio stations nationwide. Each week, the show focuses on science topics that are in the news and tries to bring an educated, balanced discussion to bear on the scientific issues at hand. Panels of expert guests join host Ira Flatow, a veteran science journalist, to discuss science and to take questions from listeners during the call-in portion of the program.",
"airtime": "FRI 11am-1pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Science-Friday-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/science-friday",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/science-friday",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=73329284&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Science-Friday-p394/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/science-friday"
}
},
"snap-judgment": {
"id": "snap-judgment",
"title": "Snap Judgment",
"tagline": "Real stories with killer beats",
"info": "The Snap Judgment radio show and podcast mixes real stories with killer beats to produce cinematic, dramatic radio. Snap's musical brand of storytelling dares listeners to see the world through the eyes of another. This is storytelling... with a BEAT!! Snap first aired on public radio stations nationwide in July 2010. Today, Snap Judgment airs on over 450 public radio stations and is brought to the airwaves by KQED & PRX.",
"airtime": "SAT 1pm-2pm, 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Snap-Judgment-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Snap Judgment",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 4
},
"link": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/snap-judgment/id283657561",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/449018144/snap-judgment",
"stitcher": "https://www.pandora.com/podcast/snap-judgment/PC:241?source=stitcher-sunset",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3Cct7ZWmxHNAtLgBTqjC5v",
"rss": "https://snap.feed.snapjudgment.org/"
}
},
"soldout": {
"id": "soldout",
"title": "SOLD OUT: Rethinking Housing in America",
"tagline": "A new future for housing",
"info": "Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Sold-Out-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/soldout",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 13
},
"link": "/podcasts/soldout",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/911586047/s-o-l-d-o-u-t-a-new-future-for-housing",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/introducing-sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america/id1531354937",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/soldout",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/38dTBSk2ISFoPiyYNoKn1X",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america",
"tunein": "https://tunein.com/radio/SOLD-OUT-Rethinking-Housing-in-America-p1365871/"
}
},
"spooked": {
"id": "spooked",
"title": "Spooked",
"tagline": "True-life supernatural stories",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Spooked-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Spooked",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 7
},
"link": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spooked/id1279361017",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/549547848/snap-judgment-presents-spooked",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/76571Rfl3m7PLJQZKQIGCT",
"rss": "https://feeds.simplecast.com/TBotaapn"
}
},
"tech-nation": {
"id": "tech-nation",
"title": "Tech Nation Radio Podcast",
"info": "Tech Nation is a weekly public radio program, hosted by Dr. Moira Gunn. Founded in 1993, it has grown from a simple interview show to a multi-faceted production, featuring conversations with noted technology and science leaders, and a weekly science and technology-related commentary.",
"airtime": "FRI 10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Tech-Nation-Radio-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://technation.podomatic.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "Tech Nation Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tech-nation",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://technation.podomatic.com/rss2.xml"
}
},
"ted-radio-hour": {
"id": "ted-radio-hour",
"title": "TED Radio Hour",
"info": "The TED Radio Hour is a journey through fascinating ideas, astonishing inventions, fresh approaches to old problems, and new ways to think and create.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm, SAT 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/tedRadioHour.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/?showDate=2018-06-22",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/ted-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/8vsS",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=523121474&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/TED-Radio-Hour-p418021/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510298/podcast.xml"
}
},
"thebay": {
"id": "thebay",
"title": "The Bay",
"tagline": "Local news to keep you rooted",
"info": "Host Devin Katayama walks you through the biggest story of the day with reporters and newsmakers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Bay-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Bay",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/thebay",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 2
},
"link": "/podcasts/thebay",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bay/id1350043452",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/d800ea4c-7a2c-42f2-b861-edaf78a5db0b/the-bay",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/586725995/the-bay",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-bay",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/4BIKBKIujizLHlIlBNaAqQ",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC8259786327"
}
},
"thelatest": {
"id": "thelatest",
"title": "The Latest",
"tagline": "Trusted local news in real time",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-Latest-2025-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Latest",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/thelatest",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 6
},
"link": "/thelatest",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-latest-from-kqed/id1197721799",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/1257949365/the-latest-from-k-q-e-d",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/5KIIXMgM9GTi5AepwOYvIZ?si=bd3053fec7244dba",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9137121918"
}
},
"theleap": {
"id": "theleap",
"title": "The Leap",
"tagline": "What if you closed your eyes, and jumped?",
"info": "Stories about people making dramatic, risky changes, told by award-winning public radio reporter Judy Campbell.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Leap-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Leap",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/theleap",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 17
},
"link": "/podcasts/theleap",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-leap/id1046668171",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/447248267/the-leap",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-leap",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3sSlVHHzU0ytLwuGs1SD1U",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/programs/the-leap/feed/podcast"
}
},
"the-moth-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-moth-radio-hour",
"title": "The Moth Radio Hour",
"info": "Since its launch in 1997, The Moth has presented thousands of true stories, told live and without notes, to standing-room-only crowds worldwide. Moth storytellers stand alone, under a spotlight, with only a microphone and a roomful of strangers. The storyteller and the audience embark on a high-wire act of shared experience which is both terrifying and exhilarating. Since 2008, The Moth podcast has featured many of our favorite stories told live on Moth stages around the country. For information on all of our programs and live events, visit themoth.org.",
"airtime": "SAT 8pm-9pm and SUN 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/theMoth.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://themoth.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "prx"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-moth-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-moth-podcast/id275699983?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/The-Moth-p273888/",
"rss": "http://feeds.themoth.org/themothpodcast"
}
},
"the-new-yorker-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"title": "The New Yorker Radio Hour",
"info": "The New Yorker Radio Hour is a weekly program presented by the magazine's editor, David Remnick, and produced by WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Each episode features a diverse mix of interviews, profiles, storytelling, and an occasional burst of humor inspired by the magazine, and shaped by its writers, artists, and editors. This isn't a radio version of a magazine, but something all its own, reflecting the rich possibilities of audio storytelling and conversation. Theme music for the show was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of tUnE-YArDs.",
"airtime": "SAT 10am-11am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-New-Yorker-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/tnyradiohour",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1050430296",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/New-Yorker-Radio-Hour-p803804/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/newyorkerradiohour"
}
},
"the-sam-sanders-show": {
"id": "the-sam-sanders-show",
"title": "The Sam Sanders Show",
"info": "One of public radio's most dynamic voices, Sam Sanders helped launch The NPR Politics Podcast and hosted NPR's hit show It's Been A Minute. Now, the award-winning host returns with something brand new, The Sam Sanders Show. Every week, Sam Sanders and friends dig into the culture that shapes our lives: what's driving the biggest trends, how artists really think, and even the memes you can't stop scrolling past. Sam is beloved for his way of unpacking the world and bringing you up close to fresh currents and engaging conversations. The Sam Sanders Show is smart, funny and always a good time.",
"airtime": "FRI 12-1pm AND SAT 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Sam-Sanders-Show-Podcast-Tile-400x400-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "KCRW"
},
"link": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feed.cdnstream1.com/zjb/feed/download/ac/28/59/ac28594c-e1d0-4231-8728-61865cdc80e8.xml"
}
},
"the-splendid-table": {
"id": "the-splendid-table",
"title": "The Splendid Table",
"info": "\u003cem>The Splendid Table\u003c/em> hosts our nation's conversations about cooking, sustainability and food culture.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Splendid-Table-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.splendidtable.org/",
"airtime": "SUN 10-11 pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-splendid-table"
},
"this-american-life": {
"id": "this-american-life",
"title": "This American Life",
"info": "This American Life is a weekly public radio show, heard by 2.2 million people on more than 500 stations. Another 2.5 million people download the weekly podcast. It is hosted by Ira Glass, produced in collaboration with Chicago Public Media, delivered to stations by PRX The Public Radio Exchange, and has won all of the major broadcasting awards.",
"airtime": "SAT 12pm-1pm, 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/thisAmericanLife.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wbez"
},
"link": "/radio/program/this-american-life",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201671138&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"rss": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/rss.xml"
}
},
"tinydeskradio": {
"id": "tinydeskradio",
"title": "Tiny Desk Radio",
"info": "We're bringing the best of Tiny Desk to the airwaves, only on public radio.",
"airtime": "SUN 8pm and SAT 9pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/300x300-For-Member-Station-Logo-Tiny-Desk-Radio-@2x.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/g-s1-52030/tiny-desk-radio",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tinydeskradio",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/g-s1-52030/rss.xml"
}
},
"wait-wait-dont-tell-me": {
"id": "wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"title": "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!",
"info": "Peter Sagal and Bill Kurtis host the weekly NPR News quiz show alongside some of the best and brightest news and entertainment personalities.",
"airtime": "SUN 10am-11am, SAT 11am-12pm, SAT 6pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Wait-Wait-Podcast-Tile-300x300-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/Xogv",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=121493804&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Wait-Wait-Dont-Tell-Me-p46/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/344098539/podcast.xml"
}
},
"weekend-edition-saturday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-saturday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Saturday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Saturday wraps up the week's news and offers a mix of analysis and features on a wide range of topics, including arts, sports, entertainment, and human interest stories. The two-hour program is hosted by NPR's Peabody Award-winning Scott Simon.",
"airtime": "SAT 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-saturday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-saturday"
},
"weekend-edition-sunday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-sunday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Sunday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Sunday features interviews with newsmakers, artists, scientists, politicians, musicians, writers, theologians and historians. The program has covered news events from Nelson Mandela's 1990 release from a South African prison to the capture of Saddam Hussein.",
"airtime": "SUN 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-sunday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-sunday"
}
},
"racesReducer": {},
"racesGenElectionReducer": {},
"racesGenElection2026Reducer": {},
"racesGeneralEl2026Reducer": {},
"radioSchedulesReducer": {},
"listsReducer": {
"posts/news?tag=birthright-citizenship": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 12,
"size": 12
},
"vitalsOnly": false,
"totalRequested": 12,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 26,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"news_12078171",
"news_12078161",
"news_12050233",
"news_12046217",
"news_12044974",
"news_12044886",
"news_12041473",
"news_12040330",
"news_12033789",
"news_12031821",
"news_12028728",
"news_12025342"
],
"complete": true
}
},
"recallGuideReducer": {
"intros": {},
"policy": {},
"candidates": {}
},
"savedArticleReducer": {
"articles": [],
"status": {}
},
"newslettersReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"newsletters": {},
"isSubscribing": false,
"isUnsubscribing": false,
"subscribedNewsletters": {}
},
"termsReducer": {
"about": {
"name": "About",
"type": "terms",
"id": "about",
"slug": "about",
"link": "/about",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"arts": {
"name": "Arts & Culture",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"description": "KQED Arts provides daily in-depth coverage of the Bay Area's music, art, film, performing arts, literature and arts news, as well as cultural commentary and criticism.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "arts",
"slug": "arts",
"link": "/arts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"artschool": {
"name": "Art School",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "artschool",
"slug": "artschool",
"link": "/artschool",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareabites": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareabites",
"slug": "bayareabites",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareahiphop": {
"name": "Bay Area Hiphop",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareahiphop",
"slug": "bayareahiphop",
"link": "/bayareahiphop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"campaign21": {
"name": "Campaign 21",
"type": "terms",
"id": "campaign21",
"slug": "campaign21",
"link": "/campaign21",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"careers": {
"name": "Careers",
"type": "terms",
"id": "careers",
"slug": "careers",
"link": "/careers",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"checkplease": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "checkplease",
"slug": "checkplease",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"education": {
"name": "Education",
"grouping": [
"education"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "education",
"slug": "education",
"link": "/education",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"elections": {
"name": "Elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "elections",
"slug": "elections",
"link": "/elections",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"events": {
"name": "Events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "events",
"slug": "events",
"link": "/events",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"event": {
"name": "Event",
"alias": "events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "event",
"slug": "event",
"link": "/event",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"filmschoolshorts": {
"name": "Film School Shorts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "filmschoolshorts",
"slug": "filmschoolshorts",
"link": "/filmschoolshorts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"food": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "food",
"slug": "food",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"forum": {
"name": "Forum",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/forum?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum",
"slug": "forum",
"link": "/forum",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"futureofyou": {
"name": "Future of You",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "futureofyou",
"slug": "futureofyou",
"link": "/futureofyou",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"jpepinheart": {
"name": "KQED food",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/food,bayareabites,checkplease",
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "jpepinheart",
"slug": "jpepinheart",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"liveblog": {
"name": "Live Blog",
"type": "terms",
"id": "liveblog",
"slug": "liveblog",
"link": "/liveblog",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"livetv": {
"name": "Live TV",
"parent": "tv",
"type": "terms",
"id": "livetv",
"slug": "livetv",
"link": "/livetv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"lowdown": {
"name": "The Lowdown",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/lowdown?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "lowdown",
"slug": "lowdown",
"link": "/lowdown",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"mindshift": {
"name": "Mindshift",
"parent": "news",
"description": "MindShift explores the future of education by highlighting the innovative – and sometimes counterintuitive – ways educators and parents are helping all children succeed.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "mindshift",
"slug": "mindshift",
"link": "/mindshift",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news": {
"name": "News",
"grouping": [
"news",
"forum"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "news",
"slug": "news",
"link": "/news",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"newsletters": {
"name": "newsletters",
"type": "terms",
"id": "newsletters",
"slug": "newsletters",
"link": "/newsletters",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"perspectives": {
"name": "Perspectives",
"parent": "radio",
"type": "terms",
"id": "perspectives",
"slug": "perspectives",
"link": "/perspectives",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"podcasts": {
"name": "Podcasts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "podcasts",
"slug": "podcasts",
"link": "/podcasts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pop": {
"name": "Pop",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pop",
"slug": "pop",
"link": "/pop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pressroom": {
"name": "Pressroom",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pressroom",
"slug": "pressroom",
"link": "/pressroom",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"quest": {
"name": "Quest",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "quest",
"slug": "quest",
"link": "/quest",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"radio": {
"name": "Radio",
"grouping": [
"forum",
"perspectives"
],
"description": "Listen to KQED Public Radio – home of Forum and The California Report – on 88.5 FM in San Francisco, 89.3 FM in Sacramento, 88.3 FM in Santa Rosa and 88.1 FM in Martinez.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "radio",
"slug": "radio",
"link": "/radio",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"root": {
"name": "KQED",
"image": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"imageWidth": 1200,
"imageHeight": 630,
"headData": {
"title": "KQED | News, Radio, Podcasts, TV | Public Media for Northern California",
"description": "KQED provides public radio, television, and independent reporting on issues that matter to the Bay Area. We’re the NPR and PBS member station for Northern California."
},
"type": "terms",
"id": "root",
"slug": "root",
"link": "/root",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"science": {
"name": "Science",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"description": "KQED Science brings you award-winning science and environment coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "science",
"slug": "science",
"link": "/science",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"stateofhealth": {
"name": "State of Health",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "stateofhealth",
"slug": "stateofhealth",
"link": "/stateofhealth",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"support": {
"name": "Support",
"type": "terms",
"id": "support",
"slug": "support",
"link": "/support",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"thedolist": {
"name": "The Do List",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "thedolist",
"slug": "thedolist",
"link": "/thedolist",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"trulyca": {
"name": "Truly CA",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "trulyca",
"slug": "trulyca",
"link": "/trulyca",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"tv": {
"name": "TV",
"type": "terms",
"id": "tv",
"slug": "tv",
"link": "/tv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"voterguide": {
"name": "Voter Guide",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "voterguide",
"slug": "voterguide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"guiaelectoral": {
"name": "Guia Electoral",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "guiaelectoral",
"slug": "guiaelectoral",
"link": "/guiaelectoral",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news_tag_birthright-citizenship": {
"isLoading": true
},
"news_34903": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34903",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34903",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "birthright citizenship",
"slug": "birthright-citizenship",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "birthright citizenship | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 34920,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/birthright-citizenship"
},
"source_news_12025342": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_12025342",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "KQED en Español",
"link": "https://www.kqed.org/kqedenespanol",
"isLoading": false
},
"news_1169": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1169",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1169",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Immigration",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Immigration Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1180,
"slug": "immigration",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/immigration"
},
"news_8": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_8",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "8",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "News",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "News Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 8,
"slug": "news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/news"
},
"news_13": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_13",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "13",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Politics",
"slug": "politics",
"taxonomy": "category",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Politics | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 13,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/politics"
},
"news_4750": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_4750",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "4750",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "civil rights",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "civil rights Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 4769,
"slug": "civil-rights",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/civil-rights"
},
"news_27626": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_27626",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "27626",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "featured-news",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "featured-news Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 27643,
"slug": "featured-news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/featured-news"
},
"news_686": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_686",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "686",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Human Rights",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Human Rights Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 695,
"slug": "human-rights",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/human-rights"
},
"news_20579": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20579",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20579",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "immigrant rights",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "immigrant rights Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20596,
"slug": "immigrant-rights",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/immigrant-rights"
},
"news_17708": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_17708",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "17708",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "immigrants",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "immigrants Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 17742,
"slug": "immigrants",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/immigrants"
},
"news_20202": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20202",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20202",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "immigration",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "immigration Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20219,
"slug": "immigration",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/immigration"
},
"news_17968": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_17968",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "17968",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Politics",
"slug": "politics",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Politics | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 18002,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/politics"
},
"news_201": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_201",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "201",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "SCOTUS",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "SCOTUS Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 209,
"slug": "scotus",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/scotus"
},
"news_33748": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33748",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33748",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Immigration",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Immigration Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33765,
"slug": "immigration",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/immigration"
},
"news_33734": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33734",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33734",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Local Politics",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Local Politics Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33751,
"slug": "local-politics",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/local-politics"
},
"news_33733": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33733",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33733",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "News",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "News Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33750,
"slug": "news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/news"
},
"news_34168": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34168",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34168",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Guides and Explainers",
"slug": "guides-and-explainers",
"taxonomy": "category",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Guides and Explainers Archives | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 34185,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/guides-and-explainers"
},
"news_32707": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_32707",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "32707",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "audience-news",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "audience-news Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 32724,
"slug": "audience-news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/audience-news"
},
"news_35888": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_35888",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "35888",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "featured-audience-news",
"slug": "featured-audience-news",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "featured-audience-news | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 35905,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/featured-audience-news"
},
"news_31795": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_31795",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "31795",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 31812,
"slug": "california",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/california"
},
"news_1386": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1386",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1386",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Bay Area",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Bay Area Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1398,
"slug": "bay-area",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/bay-area"
},
"news_18538": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_18538",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18538",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 31,
"slug": "california",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/california"
},
"news_23078": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_23078",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "23078",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Chinese Americans",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Chinese Americans Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 23095,
"slug": "chinese-americans",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/chinese-americans"
},
"news_23152": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_23152",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "23152",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Chinese immigrants",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Chinese immigrants Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 23169,
"slug": "chinese-immigrants",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/chinese-immigrants"
},
"news_22883": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_22883",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "22883",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "citizenship",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "citizenship Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 22900,
"slug": "citizenship",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/citizenship"
},
"news_1323": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1323",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1323",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Donald Trump",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Donald Trump Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1335,
"slug": "donald-trump",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/donald-trump"
},
"news_34377": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34377",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34377",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "featured-politics",
"slug": "featured-politics",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "featured-politics Archives | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 34394,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/featured-politics"
},
"news_2672": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2672",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2672",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Photography",
"description": "Witness the Bay Area through captivating images and compelling narratives. Explore the latest visually-driven storytelling by KQED and immerse yourself in the heart of our community.",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "Witness the Bay Area through captivating images and compelling narratives. Explore the latest visually-driven storytelling by KQED and immerse yourself in the heart of our community.",
"title": "Photography Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2689,
"slug": "photography",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/photography"
},
"news_244": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_244",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "244",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "undocumented immigrants",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "undocumented immigrants Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 252,
"slug": "undocumented-immigrants",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/undocumented-immigrants"
},
"news_33729": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33729",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33729",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "San Francisco",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "San Francisco Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33746,
"slug": "san-francisco",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/san-francisco"
},
"news_6188": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6188",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6188",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Law and Justice",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Law and Justice Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6212,
"slug": "law-and-justice",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/law-and-justice"
},
"news_1172": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1172",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1172",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "U.S. Supreme Court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1183,
"slug": "u-s-supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/u-s-supreme-court"
},
"news_33738": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33738",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33738",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33755,
"slug": "california",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/california"
},
"news_20226": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20226",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20226",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "DACA",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "DACA Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20243,
"slug": "daca",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/daca"
},
"news_167": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_167",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "167",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "David Chiu",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "David Chiu Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 174,
"slug": "david-chiu",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/david-chiu"
},
"news_3674": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_3674",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "3674",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Rob Bonta",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Rob Bonta Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 3692,
"slug": "rob-bonta",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/rob-bonta"
},
"news_20445": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20445",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20445",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Sanctuary Cities",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Sanctuary Cities Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20462,
"slug": "sanctuary-cities",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/sanctuary-cities"
},
"news_20529": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20529",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20529",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20546,
"slug": "u-s-immigration-and-customs-enforcement",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/u-s-immigration-and-customs-enforcement"
},
"news_253": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_253",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "253",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "NPR",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "affiliate",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "KQED is the NPR station for the Bay Area, providing award-winning news, programming, and community engagement.",
"title": "NPR Archives - Get the Latest News and Reports from California | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 7083,
"slug": "npr",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/affiliate/npr"
},
"news_20466": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20466",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20466",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Executive Order",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Executive Order Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20483,
"slug": "executive-order",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/executive-order"
},
"news_22215": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_22215",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "22215",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "immigrant detention centers",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "immigrant detention centers Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 22232,
"slug": "immigrant-detention-centers",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/immigrant-detention-centers"
},
"news_6883": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6883",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6883",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "immigration courts",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "immigration courts Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6907,
"slug": "immigration-courts",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/immigration-courts"
},
"news_932": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_932",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "932",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "supreme court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "supreme court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 942,
"slug": "supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/supreme-court"
},
"news_223": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_223",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "223",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Arts and Culture",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Arts and Culture Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 231,
"slug": "arts-and-culture",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/arts-and-culture"
},
"news_21077": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_21077",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "21077",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "activism",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "activism Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 21094,
"slug": "activism",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/activism"
},
"news_20075": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20075",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20075",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "asian americans",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "asian americans Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20092,
"slug": "asian-americans",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/asian-americans"
},
"news_30652": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_30652",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "30652",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "california-reparations",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "california-reparations Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 30669,
"slug": "california-reparations",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/california-reparations"
},
"news_38": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_38",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "38",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "San Francisco",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "San Francisco Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 58,
"slug": "san-francisco",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/san-francisco"
},
"news_30076": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_30076",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "30076",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "San Francisco Chinatown",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "San Francisco Chinatown Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 30093,
"slug": "san-francisco-chinatown",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/san-francisco-chinatown"
},
"news_33736": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33736",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33736",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Arts and Culture",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Arts and Culture Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33753,
"slug": "arts-and-culture",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/arts-and-culture"
},
"news_16": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_16",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "16",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Gavin Newsom",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Gavin Newsom Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 16,
"slug": "gavin-newsom",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/gavin-newsom"
},
"news_18188": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_18188",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18188",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Santa Clara County",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Santa Clara County Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 18222,
"slug": "santa-clara-county",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/santa-clara-county"
},
"news_34896": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34896",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34896",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "right to citizenship",
"slug": "right-to-citizenship",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "right to citizenship | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 34913,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/right-to-citizenship"
},
"news_28487": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_28487",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "28487",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "KQED en Espanol",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "series",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "KQED en Espanol Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 28504,
"slug": "kqed-en-espanol",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/series/kqed-en-espanol"
},
"news_28523": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_28523",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "28523",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "KQED en Español",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "KQED en Español Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 28540,
"slug": "kqed-en-espanol",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/kqed-en-espanol"
},
"news_28586": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_28586",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "28586",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "en español",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "en español Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 28603,
"slug": "en-espanol",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/en-espanol"
},
"news_27775": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_27775",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "27775",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "kqed en español",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "kqed en español Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 27792,
"slug": "kqed-en-espanol",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/kqed-en-espanol"
},
"news_28444": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_28444",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "28444",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "kqedenespanol",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "kqedenespanol Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 28461,
"slug": "kqedenespanol",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/kqedenespanol"
}
},
"userPermissionsReducer": {
"wpLoggedIn": false
},
"eventsReducer": {},
"fssReducer": {},
"tvDailyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvWeeklyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvPrimetimeScheduleReducer": {},
"tvMonthlyScheduleReducer": {},
"userAccountReducer": {
"user": {
"email": null,
"emailStatus": "EMAIL_UNVALIDATED",
"loggedStatus": "LOGGED_OUT",
"loggingChecked": false,
"articles": [],
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"phoneNumber": null,
"fetchingMembership": false,
"membershipError": false,
"memberships": [
{
"id": null,
"startDate": null,
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"familyNumber": null,
"memberNumber": null,
"memberSince": null,
"expirationDate": null,
"pfsEligible": false,
"isSustaining": false,
"membershipLevel": "Prospect",
"membershipStatus": "Non Member",
"lastGiftDate": null,
"renewalDate": null,
"lastDonationAmount": null
}
]
},
"authModal": {
"isOpen": false,
"view": "LANDING_VIEW"
},
"error": null
},
"youthMediaReducer": {},
"checkPleaseReducer": {
"filterData": {
"region": {
"key": "Restaurant Region",
"filters": [
"Any Region"
]
},
"cuisine": {
"key": "Restaurant Cuisine",
"filters": [
"Any Cuisine"
]
}
},
"restaurantDataById": {},
"restaurantIdsSorted": [],
"error": null
},
"userAgentReducer": {
"userAgent": "Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)",
"isBot": true
},
"requestOutcomesReducer": {
"notFound": []
},
"navPromosReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": true,
"promos": {
"news": {},
"podcasts-radio": {},
"video-tv": {},
"events": {},
"support": {}
}
}
}
