New York Paralegal Blog

Donald Trump's campaign has consistently challenged birthright citizenship, a fundamental principle enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. His administration has pursued policies, including an Executive Order, aimed at limiting birthright citizenship, particularly for children born in the U.S. to parents who are not lawful permanent residents or citizens. These actions have been met with legal challenges, with courts largely affirming the existing interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment and its Roots To understand why birthright citizenship is so deeply embedded in American law, we need to look back to a pivotal moment in U.S. history: the aftermath of the Civil War. Before the war, the infamous 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision by the Supreme Court declared that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could never be citizens of the United States. This ruling denied them any rights or protections under the Constitution and was...

Ever heard of "checks and balances" in our government? It's the idea that no single part of our government – the President, Congress, or the Courts – gets too powerful. Each one has ways to "check" the others. Recently, the Supreme Court made a big decision about something called "universal injunctions." This might sound like a super technical legal term, but it really affects how our country runs and how much power the President has. So, What's a Universal Injunction? Think of it this way: Imagine the President issues a new rule (called an executive order) that affects people all over the country. Before this Supreme Court decision, if just one federal judge decided that rule was illegal or unconstitutional, they could issue a "universal injunction." This meant that President's rule would be stopped nationwide, for everyone, even if the case only involved a few specific people. It was like a single referee blowing the whi...

MILBURN, N.J. -- The U.S. Department of Labor has ordered The Charles Schwab Corp. to reinstate and pay back pay and damages to two employees who were fired in violation of the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The whistleblower complaint was filed with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on June 15, 2007, naming The Charles Schwab Corp., Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., Charles Schwab Bank and three individuals as defendants. The complaint alleged that the two employees were terminated because they objected to and refused to participate in a scheme at a branch office to falsify entries in Schwab's database system. An investigation conducted by OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program determined that there was merit to the allegations. "This case sends a clear message that OSHA will not tolerate retaliation against corporate whistleblowers," said Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York. "While OSHA i...