Born in the U.S.A.: Protecting the right of birthright citizenship
The article discusses the legal concept of birthright citizenship in the United States, as outlined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. It states that anyone born in the U.S., except for children of diplomats or invading forces, is automatically a citizen. Professor Amanda Frost explains that the wording of the amendment leaves little room for interpretation. However, public opinion remains split, with roughly half of Americans supporting granting citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and the other half opposing it. In January 2025, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order attempting to reinterpret the 14th Amendment to exclude most children of undocumented immigrants from automatic citizenship, but this was blocked by a lower court and is currently under review by the Supreme Court. The article references historical cases such as Dred Scott v. Sandford, where the Supreme Court ruled that Black individuals could not be citizens, leading to the creation of the 14th Amendment. Another landmark case, Wong Kim Ark v. United States, affirmed birthright citizenship for those born in the U.S., including children of immigrants.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently delivered a significant ruling regarding the powers of the presidency, specifically concerning the authority of the president to fire heads of independent regulatory agencies. This decision came amid a broader term where the court addressed several high-profile cases involving President Donald Trump. While Trump did not achieve all of his desired outcomes—such as restricting birthright citizenship or implementing sweeping tariff policies—he saw an expansion of his influence over federal regulatory bodies. The court’s ruling effectively granted the president the power to remove agency heads without needing to establish specific grounds such as negligence, thereby challenging long-standing legal precedents designed to preserve the independence of these agencies.
This landmark decision, which overturned a 90-year-old precedent, has raised concerns about the potential reshaping of federal regulatory structures originally intended to function autonomously from the executive branch. The implications extend beyond just the removal of agency heads, potentially affecting the stability of the federal workforce protected under the civil service system. However, one notable exception exists: the Federal Reserve. Despite the court’s general support for expanding presidential power, it explicitly stated that the Federal Reserve’s leadership cannot be removed at will. This distinction allows Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor, to retain her position while she contests Trump’s attempt to remove her based on alleged mortgage fraud, which she denies.
The ruling has sparked renewed political activity aimed at influencing the Federal Reserve’s composition. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump intensified his efforts to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve board. He expressed frustration with the court’s decision, noting that it sent the case back to a lower court on a procedural basis. Trump’s continued insistence on removing Cook reflects a broader strategy among his allies to reshape the Federal Reserve to align more closely with his economic policies. These efforts involve exploring various avenues to replace current Fed officials with individuals more aligned with Trump’s vision for monetary policy.
The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision extends beyond the immediate issue of agency head removals. It has also contributed to the erosion of the Voting Rights Act, a cornerstone of the Civil Rights Movement. Since 2013, the court has progressively weakened the act’s effectiveness, making it increasingly difficult for minority voters to challenge discriminatory voting practices. Recent rulings have further complicated the ability of minority communities to contest changes to electoral districts, unless they can demonstrate intentional racial discrimination. This trend aligns with Trump’s advocacy for gerrymandering to maintain Republican dominance in congressional elections, resulting in states like Alabama, Louisiana, and Tennessee eliminating predominantly Black districts following the court’s decisions.
Immigration policy remained a focal point of Trump’s agenda throughout the term. The Supreme Court supported several key aspects of his immigration crackdown, including the termination of deportation protections for Venezuelan and Haitian immigrants and the implementation of restrictions on asylum seekers at the southern border. Additionally, the court permitted border agents greater discretion in handling cases involving green-card holders accused of crimes. Although Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship via an executive order faced opposition, four justices endorsed a narrower interpretation of the 14th Amendment that could allow for the denial of citizenship to children born to undocumented parents.
As the political landscape continues to evolve, the Supreme Court’s recent rulings have set the stage for ongoing debates over the balance of power between the executive branch and independent regulatory agencies. The outcome of Lisa Cook’s case remains uncertain, with the possibility of future legal challenges that could determine whether Trump retains the authority to remove her from the Federal Reserve. Meanwhile, the broader implications of the court’s decisions on regulatory independence, voting rights, and immigration policy will likely shape the trajectory of American governance for years to come.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
left
center
right
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.
Three-time U.S. Olympian David Hearn has been indicted on a felony charge of damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, according to federal prosecutors. Hearn allegedly removed a portion of the pool's sealant during a visit to the National Mall, which authorities claim caused over $1,000 in damage. He denies the allegations, stating he only touched a loose piece of sealant and did not cause any damage. Federal prosecutors argue that surveillance footage and witness accounts show Hearn forcibly removed the material. This incident comes amid ongoing concerns about the pool's condition, including prior reports of damage and algae growth. Hearn's legal team has criticized the charges as unjust and indicative of government overreach.
Bias read (Right): The article frames the incident through a lens emphasizing government overreach and criticizes the charges as 'outrageous,' aligning with conservative rhetoric often seen in The Daily Wire. It highlights the defendant's denial and portrays the prosecution as using excessive force against an ordinary
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 95): The article provides a detailed and accurate account of the indictment of David Hearn. It presents both the prosecution's claims and Hearn's denial without taking sides.
CBS News (US)IndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 902 days ago
Former U.S. Olympian David Hearn has been indicted on a felony charge for allegedly damaging approximately two feet of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. The incident occurred last month and coincided with ongoing issues related to algae blooms and political tensions surrounding the president's $16 million renovation project. The indictment was announced by authorities, though specific details about the circumstances of the alleged damage remain unclear. The case highlights the intersection of personal actions with broader environmental and political concerns associated with the national monument.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the indictment as a factual report without overtly emphasizing any particular political perspective. While the event occurs within a politically sensitive environment (related to the president's renovation), the focus remains on the legal action against an individual rather than
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): The article provides a factual report on the indictment of a former Olympian for alleged vandalism. Factuality is high with direct sourcing. Objectivity is strong with neutral language and focus on the legal proceedings.
Democracy Now!IndependentLeftFactual 95Objective 904 days ago
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to reject President Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or non-residents. The decision upheld the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship for those born on U.S. soil, rejecting Trump's attempt to redefine citizenship based on parental status. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the constitutional promise of equal rights, while dissenting justices warned of potential 'birth tourism' abuses. Trump criticized the ruling on social media, vowing to pursue legislative action to end birthright citizenship, though no such legislation has yet been introduced.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the ruling as a defense of constitutional principles and civil rights, emphasizing the importance of birthright citizenship as a foundational democratic value. While it presents both majority and dissenting opinions, the emphasis on the Supreme Court's rejection of Trump's policy,
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): High factual accuracy with clear reporting of the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling and constitutional basis. Objectivity is strong as it presents both sides of the legal argument without overt bias.
The HillIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 904 days ago
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that nearly all individuals born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship, effectively rejecting a Trump administration initiative aimed at altering birthright citizenship rules. This decision marks a significant setback for former President Donald Trump, who had consistently criticized the concept of birthright citizenship and advocated for stricter immigration policies. The ruling reaffirmed the longstanding legal principle established in the 1898 case of Wong Kim Ark, which held that most U.S.-born individuals are citizens. While Trump expressed disappointment through sarcastic remarks, several Republican senators, including Eric Schmitt, condemned the ruling as 'wrong, dangerous, and disastrous.' Public opinion polls indicate growing disapproval of Trump's immigration policies, with a majority of Americans now disapproving of his approach.
Bias read (Center): While the article highlights opposition to the ruling from conservative figures like Trump and Senator Schmitt, it also presents the Supreme Court's legal reasoning and broader implications of the decision. The narrative remains balanced between the political reaction and the constitutional argument
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): Accurate reporting of the Supreme Court's decision and legal reasoning. Maintains neutrality by presenting facts without editorializing, showing strong objectivity.
AxiosIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 905 days ago
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two significant rulings regarding the independence of federal agencies. In one, the Court upheld the Federal Reserve's independence by allowing Governor Lisa Cook to remain in her position despite President Trump's attempt to fire her, citing alleged misstatements in her mortgage applications. The Court emphasized that removing Fed governors requires legal justification and procedural fairness. In another ruling, the Court overturned a longstanding precedent that protected leaders of independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission from being removed by the president without cause, giving future presidents broader authority to appoint and remove agency heads.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both rulings neutrally, emphasizing the legal reasoning provided by the Supreme Court without overtly favoring either side. It highlights the implications of the decisions without using biased language or selectively presenting information.
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): This article provides detailed and accurate information about both rulings, including the 5-4 split in the Fed case and the 6-3 decision regarding the FTC. It quotes directly from the Court's reasoning and presents multiple perspectives without taking sides. The tone remains neutral and informative
Breitbart NewsIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 905 days ago
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Monday that President Trump's attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook was blocked because he failed to follow proper legal procedures. The decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson, stated that Trump did not provide Cook with adequate notice or an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. The Court emphasized that the president must ensure procedural fairness, even if the underlying claims of mortgage fraud remain unresolved. While the ruling does not determine whether Trump's reasons meet the 'for cause' standard for removal, it leaves open the possibility that lower courts could later assess the validity of the allegations. The case highlights ongoing tensions between executive authority and judicial oversight in matters involving federal officials.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the Supreme Court's decision without overt ideological slant, focusing on the legal arguments and procedural requirements rather than taking a partisan stance. The framing remains neutral, emphasizing the Court's interpretation of the law and the implications for executive power
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): The article accurately summarizes the Supreme Court's decision regarding Lisa Cook, presenting the legal reasoning without bias. It maintains a neutral tone throughout.
The Daily WireIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 906 days ago
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that President Donald Trump could not fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook based on mortgage fraud allegations. In a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court held that Congress had properly restricted the president’s ability to remove Fed governors, emphasizing that such changes must originate from Congress, not the courts. Roberts argued that allowing immediate removal without cause would effectively transform for-cause protections into at-will employment. The ruling contrasts with previous decisions where the court permitted presidential removals of officials from other regulatory agencies. Cook, appointed by President Joe Biden, is set to remain on the Fed board until 2038. The decision leaves open the question of whether Trump can remove Cook for cause, pending further legal proceedings.
Bias read (Center): While the ruling involves a politically charged issue related to executive power and the judiciary, the article presents the decision as a balanced legal interpretation rather than taking a partisan stance. It includes perspectives from both the majority and dissenting justices, and does not overtly
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): The article accurately reports the Supreme Court's decision blocking Trump from firing Lisa Cook. It includes relevant legal quotes and context, maintaining a neutral and informative tone.
AxiosIndependentRightFactual 95Objective 909 days ago
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration's policy allowing border authorities to turn away asylum seekers who have not yet physically entered U.S. territory. The decision, in the case Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, clarified that individuals must cross the border to be considered 'in the United States' for asylum purposes. The ruling resolved a long-standing legal dispute over the 'metering' policy, which limits asylum processing when border facilities are overwhelmed. This policy was initially implemented under President Obama in 2016 and later expanded under President Trump. It allows asylum seekers to wait in Mexico until processing capacity increases. The Biden administration previously overturned the policy, but the Supreme Court's decision reinstates it. Legal representatives for Al Otro Lado, a nonprofit aiding migrants, argued that immigration law requires processing all asylum seekers at ports of entry, but the court rejected this argument.
Bias read (Right): The article frames the Supreme Court's decision as upholding a policy associated with the Trump administration, emphasizing the legal interpretation that aligns with conservative judicial philosophy. The language highlights the court's role in 'vindicating' the administration's stance, suggesting a右
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): The article accurately details the Supreme Court's decision on asylum policies and presents the legal arguments fairly without evident bias.
The NationIndependentLeftFactual 95Objective 909 days ago
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in favor of the Trump administration's decision to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian and Syrian immigrants, allowing immediate deportations. The ruling, in the case Mullin v. Doe, was authored by Justice Samuel Alito, who claimed the administration's action was 'unreviewable' and that affected individuals were 'unlikely to succeed' on equal protection claims. Critics argue the decision protects racially motivated policies and ignores the dire conditions in Haiti, including lack of governance and safety concerns. The ruling has sparked controversy over judicial oversight and the treatment of immigrant communities.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the Supreme Court's ruling as an endorsement of racism and white supremacy, emphasizing the racial undertones of the administration's actions and criticizing the court's failure to uphold constitutional protections. The language used suggests a left-leaning perspective, focusing批判
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): Accurately reports the Supreme Court's ruling on the marijuana user's Second Amendment rights. Maintains neutrality in reporting the legal outcome without overt bias.
CBS News (US)IndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 909 days ago
A federal judge in Boston blocked the Trump administration from enforcing an executive order aimed at imposing stricter mail-in voting rules and creating a federal list of eligible voters in every state. The order, signed by President Trump in March, required the Homeland Security Secretary to compile a list of U.S. citizens eligible to vote using data from the Social Security Administration and directed the U.S. Postal Service to send absentee ballots only to individuals on these lists. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that the executive and legislative branches lacked authority over voter rolls, stating that Congress had left the responsibility of managing voter eligibility to the states. The decision supported twenty-three states and the District of Columbia, which had sued to block the order. The judge emphasized that no federal law authorizes the creation of a national voting database and warned that the executive order could intimidate local election officials.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the court's ruling against the Trump administration's executive order on mail-in voting in a balanced manner, citing the judge's reasoning and the opposing parties' arguments without overtly favoring either side. The framing remains neutral, focusing on the legal arguments and a
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): Factuality is high as it provides specific information from the National Park Service about the cause of the damage. Objectivity is strong as it reports the findings without editorializing.
The New York Times (US)Independent🔒CenterFactual 95Objective 9012 days ago
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to issue over a dozen major rulings in the coming weeks, with decisions expected on significant issues such as birthright citizenship, the Federal Reserve, and policies related to transgender athletes. These cases represent ongoing legal challenges to former President Donald Trump's policies and could have wide-reaching implications for American law and governance. The court's decisions will likely influence various aspects of federal policy and constitutional interpretation. As the rulings are released, they will be closely watched by legal experts, policymakers, and the public.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a neutral overview of upcoming Supreme Court decisions without overtly favoring any side. It mentions topics that are politically charged but does not include biased language, one-sided sourcing, or editorializing. The focus is on the procedural aspect of the court's schedule,而非
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): The article provides a factual overview of upcoming Supreme Court decisions without taking sides or using biased language.
ReasonParty-alignedCenterFactual 95Objective 9012 days ago
The article provides a compendium of writings by the author regarding the legal and constitutional issues surrounding birthright citizenship in the United States. It highlights ongoing litigation related to former President Donald Trump's executive order attempting to restrict birthright citizenship, including court decisions blocking the order and analyses of the legal arguments for and against it. The author has written extensively on the topic since 2018, discussing both the constitutional implications and the broader social and policy considerations of birthright citizenship.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a collection of the author's prior writings on a highly contested political issue—birthright citizenship—which has significant implications for immigration policy and constitutional law. However, the content is a compilation of previous analyses and does not present new biased立场
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): The article provides detailed and accurate information about birthright citizenship and the relevant constitutional amendment. It remains neutral and informative.
The HillIndependentRightFactual 95Objective 9013 days ago
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced that her office will prosecute individuals caught vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, which underwent significant renovations under the Trump administration. The Trump administration invested nearly $15 million in restoring the pool, including repainting its surface and fixing leaks, though issues such as algae blooms and peeling paint have emerged. President Trump indicated that the pool might need to be drained for further repairs. Pirro emphasized that those damaging federal property would face legal consequences, including potential felony charges if harmful substances were involved. Trump previously claimed that vandalism, including the carving of '86 47' near the pool, was an attempt to undermine his beautification efforts in Washington, D.C.
Bias read (Right): The article emphasizes the Trump administration's focus on beautifying D.C., quotes Trump directly about vandalism being an attack on their work, and highlights Pirro's strong stance against vandals, aligning with the administration's narrative. It does not provide balanced counterpoints or critical
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): Factuality is very high as the article clearly states the Supreme Court's ruling on mail-in ballots. Objectivity remains strong with neutral language and factual reporting without apparent bias.
ReasonParty-alignedCenterFactual 95Objective 9015 days ago
The article is a compilation of links to various writings discussing Juneteenth, the federal holiday commemorating the abolition of slavery in the United States. It highlights how the author views Juneteenth as a celebration of the greatest triumph of freedom in American history. The pieces included explore topics such as the connection between Juneteenth and the universalist principles of the American Revolution, reflections on the cultural debates surrounding the holiday, and discussions on Frederick Douglass's speeches regarding slavery and the Fourth of July. Additionally, the article references an analysis of the relationship between the abolition of slavery and the Birthright Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as an examination of George Mason's stance on slavery.
Bias read (Center): The article compiles multiple perspectives and analyses on Juneteenth and related historical issues, presenting a balanced view by referencing different viewpoints and avoiding overtly biased language. While it discusses politically charged subjects like slavery and the American Revolution, the tone
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): High factual accuracy as the article compiles references to prior writings on Juneteenth and its historical significance. The content aligns with cross-source consensus on Juneteenth being a federal holiday commemorating the abolition of slavery. Objectivity is strong, though the author's perspectiv
The HillIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 9016 days ago
The cost of a federal contract for repairs to the Lincoln Memorial's Reflecting Pool has increased to $14.7 million, according to federal records. The contract was awarded to Atlantic Industrial.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on the increasing costs of a federal contract without taking a stance or using biased language. It presents factual information based on federal records and does not emphasize any particular political perspective.
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): The article provides specific figures regarding the costs of the Lincoln Memorial project, drawing from federal records. It is factual and neutral in tone.
ReasonParty-alignedCenterFactual 95Objective 9016 days ago
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the government cannot strip individuals of their Second Amendment rights or prosecute them for illegal gun possession solely based on their status as marijuana users. The decision, made in the case United States v. Hemani, emphasized that such policies do not align with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, as outlined in the 2022 Bruen decision. The ruling highlights the flaws in the Trump administration's argument, which relied on an outdated comparison to the historical treatment of habitual drunkards. The decision also critiques 1
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual summary of the Supreme Court's unanimous decision without overtly favoring any political side. It critiques the legal reasoning behind the Trump administration's stance but does so in a balanced manner, focusing on the legal arguments rather than taking a clear pro or反
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): The article accurately reports the Supreme Court's unanimous decision on the Second Amendment and drug use. The legal reasoning is clearly presented and aligns with cross-source consensus. The tone remains neutral and analytical, maintaining a high level of objectivity.
The Daily WireIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 9016 days ago
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the federal government unconstitutionally applied a gun restriction law to a Texas man who regularly used marijuana. This decision limits the application of the same federal statute used in the prosecution of Hunter Biden. The ruling, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, clarifies that the decision does not eliminate the government's ability to disarm dangerous individuals, addicts, or those actively under the influence. The case involved Ali Hemani, a 27-year-old man who admitted to using marijuana occasionally and was found with a handgun at his home
Bias read (Center): The article presents the court's unanimous decision without overtly favoring any political side. It includes direct quotes from the justices and provides context about both the legal arguments and implications of the ruling. The framing remains neutral, focusing on the legal reasoning rather than a
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): The article accurately reports the unanimous ruling on the gun law case and maintains a balanced perspective throughout.
NPR NewsIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 9016 days ago
The Supreme Court ruled that a law used to prosecute a marijuana user violated his Second Amendment rights and is unconstitutionally vague.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual summary of the Supreme Court ruling without apparent ideological framing. It does not include commentary, loaded language, or selective sourcing that would indicate a particular political leaning.
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): Reports accurately on the Supreme Court's decision regarding voting rights protections. Maintains neutrality in describing the legal ruling without taking a political stance.
The Washington TimesParty-alignedCenterFactual 95Objective 9017 days ago
Georgia Republicans have declined Governor Brian Kemp's request to redistrict ahead of the 2028 election cycle. They cited the recent Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which limited the use of the Voting Rights Act for creating minority-majority districts, as a reason for delaying the process. GOP House Speaker Jon Burns and other leaders emphasized the need for sufficient time for public input and adherence to constitutional requirements.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both the governor's request and the Republican legislature's response without overtly favoring either side. It includes direct quotes from both parties involved and explains the legal and procedural considerations without apparent bias.
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): The article accurately reports Georgia Republicans' rejection of redistricting requests tied to the Supreme Court's decision on the Voting Rights Act. The information aligns with cross-source consensus. The tone remains neutral and factual, maintaining a high level of objectivity.
ReasonParty-alignedCenterFactual 95Objective 9018 days ago
The article discusses a legal case involving Wesley Hyland, the former coroner of Boone County, Illinois, who retained several skulls, including that of Louise Betts, as trophies. The Betts family later sued the county under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the county is not liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services because state law mandates that coroners return bodily remains to families, and Hyland's actions did not establish an 'official policy.'
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual summary of a legal case without overtly favoring any side. It reports on judicial reasoning and does not include biased language, one-sided sourcing, or editorializing.
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): The article accurately summarizes the Seventh Circuit's ruling on the coroner's conduct and the legal implications for the county. The factual claims are well-supported and align with cross-source consensus. The tone is neutral and analytical, maintaining a high level of objectivity.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
United States
