Supreme Court limits ability of judges to stop Trump
Devan Cole Dan Berman
By John Fritze, Devan Cole and Dan Berman, CNN
Updated 4:48 PM EDT, Fri June 27, 2025
See Trump's reaction to big win at Supreme Court
00:46
What we're covering
• Supreme Court ruling: The Supreme Court ruled to limit the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide orders that temporarily stop the government from enforcing a policy. These orders have hampered President Donald Trump’s agenda for months.
• Trump touts “giant win”: The president celebrated the court’s decision, saying that a “whole list” of his administration’s policies can now move forward. Trump has claimed courts overstepped their power by handing down such nationwide orders. One of his temporarily blocked policies is his controversial plan to effectively end birthright citizenship.
• Birthright citizenship: The ruling leaves the future of birthright citizenship unclear, but signaled the president’s controversial plan to effectively end it may never be enforced.
• Other cases: The Supreme Court also handed down opinions for other major cases, including backing a group of religious parents who want to opt out their children from reading LGBTQ books in classrooms, rejecting the latest legal challenge related to Obamacare and punting Louisiana’s long-contested congressional map to the fall.
All
Catch Up
40 Posts
1 hr 19 min ago
Trump says he can now move forward on policies stopped by injunctions. What to know about the ruling
From CNN’s Dan Berman, John Fritze, Devan Cole, Samantha Waldenberg, Kevin Liptak and Elise Hammond
In the final day of its term, the Supreme Court left the constitutionality of the Trump administration’s moves to effectively end birthright citizenship unclear — but it did back the president’s effort to curtail lower court orders that have hampered his agenda for months.
It was a significant win for President Donald Trump at the high court that could have lasting implications not only on the remainder of his administration but also for future presidents of both parties.
Here’s what to know:
Limiting ability of judges to stop Trump: The Supreme Court limited the ability of plaintiffs to seek nationwide orders that temporarily halt the government from enforcing a policy. However, the court did leave intact the ability of plaintiffs to get broad relief through class action lawsuits or if it was required to address their harm. The court also signaled that the president’s plan to effectively end birthright citizenship may never be enforced.
What this means: For Trump, this means his opponents will have to jump through additional hoops to try to shut down policies on a nationwide basis. While the court handed off the issue of birthright citizenship to lower courts to assess, its ruling may be beneficial to Trump on other policies, by making it harder for individuals to seek a temporary pause when they feel their rights have been violated.
Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion: In the opinion, Barrett wrote federal courts “do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.”
Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent: She said the court’s majority had “shamefully” played along with the administration’s “gamesmanship” in the case, which she described as an attempt to enforce a “patently unconstitutional” policy by not asking the justices to bless the policy, but instead to limit the power of federal judges around the country.
Ketanji Brown Jackson’s solo dissent: The appointee of former President Joe Biden accused her conservative colleagues of creating “an existential threat to the rule of law” by allowing Trump to “violate the Constitution.”
Trump celebrates: From the White House, Trump said it was an “amazing decision, one that we’re very happy about.” He said the ruling was a “victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law,” and that it struck down “the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch.” Trump also argued there’s a “whole list” of policies that can now move forward.
Other reactions: Vice President JD Vance hailed the decision as a “huge ruling” and wrote in a post on X that “under our system, everyone has to follow the law–including judges.” Attorney General Pam Bondi also said the ruling was a “huge win” and the administration is “very confident” the high court would eventually rule in its favor on the merits of Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship.
1 hr 18 min ago
SCOTUS weighed in on several other cases on the last day of its term. Here's what they are
From CNN’s Dan Berman, John Fritze, Devan Cole, Samantha Waldenberg, Kevin Liptak and Elise Hammond
In addition to a ruling backing President Donald Trump’s effort to curtail lower court orders that have hampered his agenda for months, the Supreme Court also decided on several other consequential cases.
Here’s what to know about them:
Obamacare preventative care: The court upheld a task force that recommends preventive health care services that insurers must cover at no cost under the Affordable Care Act. It also ruled that members of the panel are “inferior” officers, meaning they do not need to be appointed by the president.
Rural broadband: The Supreme Court let stand a series of decades-old government programs that reduce the price of broadband internet and telephone services for poor and rural communities, rejecting an argument from a conservative group that claimed the way Congress set up the program violated separation-of-powers principles.
LGBTQ books: Additionally, the court backed a group of religious parents who want to opt their elementary school children out of engaging with LGBTQ books in the classroom. It ruled a suburban school district near Washington, DC, burdened parents’ First Amendment rights by refusing to allow them to pull their children from the classroom when the books are used.
Porn sites: In one of the most closely watched First Amendment cases to arrive at the high court in years, the Supreme Court upheld a Texas law that requires age verification for pornographic websites.
Louisiana’s congressional map: The court took the unusual step of holding the case over for a second term. It means the sprawling district that added a second Black and Democratic lawmaker to the state’s overwhelmingly Republican delegation will remain in place
1 hr 50 min ago
“Not the country I love”: Immigrants' rights groups slam Supreme Court’s ruling
From CNN's Angélica Franganillo Díaz
Immigrants’ rights groups and several of the people who sued over President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order lamented Friday’s Supreme Court’s decision limiting the power of courts to act as a check on the government.
“Today is a sad day,” said Conchita Cruz, cofounder and co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project.
Liza, one of the individual plaintiffs, told reporters Friday that the ruling left her disheartened, but also more determined. The plaintiffs were introduced using pseudonyms at a press conference due to their undocumented status. “I’m sad about what happened today,” she said. “That’s why I’m staying in this fight and joining the case as part of the class action.”
Shortly after the high court’s ruling, the groups and their legal teams said they are now pursuing relief through a different path the court left intact: class-action certification. Attorneys representing advocacy groups and pregnant plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, asking the district court to certify a nationwide class that includes all children born — or expected to be born — after February 19, 2025, when President Donald Trump issued the birthright executive order.
“This is not the country I love,” said Juana, another plaintiff in the case. CNN translated her remarks from Spanish. “But it’s the only country my son has ever known.”
William Powell, senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, emphasized his organization is prepared for next steps.
“This is a moment we are ready for,” added George Escobar, chief of programs and services at CASA, an immigrants’ rights groups. “Our legal strategy has always anticipated challenges, and we’re prepared to move forward.”
2 hr 7 min ago
SCOTUS' "strong opinion" will apply to all presidents in the future, former Trump official says
From CNN's Elise Hammond
Ken Cuccinelli, the former deputy secretary of Homeland Security under President Donald Trump in his first term, called the Supreme Court’s ruling today a “strong opinion,” but noted “it’s not complete on the entire subject of stopping cases en route.”
While the court said district court judges’ rulings cannot block a president’s order nationwide, it did leave intact the ability of plaintiffs to get broad relief through class action lawsuits.
“This is a big win, not just for President Trump, for the presidency because this is a procedural rule. They didn’t decide on birthright citizenship, they decided on the process by which that dispute will be handled and that will apply to all presidents in the future,” Cuccinelli told CNN.
Cuccinelli said Trump’s moves to effectively end birthright citizenship will eventually be resolved.
“I believe it will be decided by the Supreme Court in the next year or two,” he said.
6 min ago
Supreme Court ruling "fundamentally shifted the balance of powers" to the president, analyst says
From CNN's Elise Hammond
Max Rego runs out of the US Supreme Court building carrying a ruling during the last day of the court's term on June 27, in Washington, DC.
Max Rego runs out of the US Supreme Court building carrying a ruling during the last day of the court's term on June 27, in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The Supreme Court’s decision to back President Donald Trump’s effort to curtail lower court orders has “fundamentally shifted the balance of powers away from the courts to the president,” CNN senior legal analyst said.
Elie Honig, a former state and federal prosecutor, said it is now “more burdensome” for plaintiffs looking to challenge the Trump administrations policies.
“The bottom line takeaway from today is, right now, the presidency — forget about Donald Trump — the presidency is far more powerful it was at 9:55 a.m. this morning,” before the ruling came down, Honig said.
In the ruling, the court focused on eliminating a tool that both conservative and liberal groups have used to pause policies from presidents of both parties: the nationwide, or universal, injunction. In short, Honig said, this largely means district court judges “cannot individually block a president’s orders across the country.”
But the court left intact the ability of plaintiffs to get broad relief through class-action lawsuits.
“This was a practice that bothered and upset and got in the way of presidential initiatives of Joe Biden, of Barack Obama, of George W. Bush, to an extent,” Honig said.
4 hr 16 min ago
Trump calls Supreme Court LGBTQ+ book decision a "tremendous ruling for parents"
From CNN’s Betsy Klein
President Donald Trump celebrated what he described as a “tremendous ruling for parents” after the Supreme Court on Friday backed a group of religious parents who want to opt their elementary school children out of engaging with LGBTQ books in the classroom.
The ruling marked another major legal win for religious interests at the conservative high court and underscored Trump’s campaign-era promise to, in his words, return “common sense” and dismantle protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.
“I think it’s a great ruling for parents. It’s really a ruling for parents. They lost control of the schools, they lost control of their child, and this is a tremendous victory for parents. And I’m not surprised by it, but I am surprised that it went this far,” Trump said in remarks in the White House briefing room Friday.
Trump cast his administration’s efforts – and the court’s ruling – as “(bringing) life back to normal.”
“I kept saying, ‘We will give you back your parental rights.’ They were taken away, and this is a tremendous victory for parents,” the president said.
4 hr 20 min ago
Challengers to Trump’s birthright citizenship order quickly press federal court to certify nationwide class
From CNN's Devan Cole
Shortly after the Supreme Court limited the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, some of the immigrant rights groups and individuals challenging President Donald Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship quickly pressed a federal judge who previously blocked the policy to do so again through a different legal avenue the high court left available for litigants to use.
The preliminary injunction issued by US District Judge Deborah Boardman in February was one of several nationwide injunctions issued earlier this year by judges around the country that indefinitely blocked Trump’s executive order.
The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority on Friday limited the ability of plaintiffs to obtain such nationwide relief in cases like the one Boardman is handling. But the court left intact the ability of plaintiffs to get broad relief through class action lawsuits.
Lawyers for two immigrant rights groups and pregnant women who could be impacted by Trump’s order asked Boardman to certify a nationwide class that would include any children who have been born or would be born after February 19, 2025 and would be affected by Trump’s order.
They filed an updated lawsuit that would challenge Trump’s order on behalf of all of those potential class members.
“Plaintiffs seek to litigate this case for themselves, for their children and future children, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated,” the new lawsuit reads.
Boardman, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, has not yet responded to the new request.
The challengers also asked Boardman for an emergency court order that would temporarily block Trump’s order from applying to members of a putative class that would be impacted by the president’s policy.
“The Court should grant relief to this putative class and may do so before certifying the class,” they wrote in court papers. “Consistent with the Supreme Court’s most recent instructions, the Court can protect all members of the putative class from irreparable harm that the unlawful Executive Order threatens to inflict.”
4 hr 28 min ago
Trump argues “whole list” of policies can proceed following decision on injunctions
From CNN's Samantha Waldenberg
President Donald Trump speaks on recent Supreme Court rulings in the briefing room at the White House on June 27, 2025 in Washington, DC.
President Donald Trump speaks on recent Supreme Court rulings in the briefing room at the White House on June 27 in Washington, DC. Joe Raedle/Getty Images
President Donald Trump said Friday that a “whole list” of his administration’s policies can now move forward following the Supreme Court’s decision on injunctions.
“Thanks to this decision, we can now probably file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries and numerous other priorities of the American people. We have so many of them. I have a whole list,” the president said in the briefing room on Friday.
3 hr 57 min ago
Bondi "very confident" Supreme Court will rule in administration’s favor on merits of birthright citizenship
From CNN's Kevin Liptak
Attorney General Pam Bondi said the administration was “very confident” the Supreme Court would eventually rule in its favor on the merits of President Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship.
“Birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court,” Bondi said at the White House.
Today’s Supreme Court decision avoided addressing the constitutional merits of the order. But Bondi nonetheless said the ruling was a “huge win.”
“We’re very confident in the Supreme Court. But again, it’s pending litigation, and that will directly be determined in October,” she said.
However, there’s no active case on birthright citizenship before the Supreme Court, and cases are rarely decided in October, which is the start of the court’s term.
4 hr 38 min ago
Trump praises Justice Amy Coney Barrett after privately complaining about her
From CNN's Betsy Klein
President Donald Trump praised Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett following today’s Supreme Court decisions — a notable and public show of support after he privately griped about Barrett and other justices he appointed during his first term.
“I just have great respect for her. I always have. And her decision was brilliantly written today — from all accounts,” the president told reporters when asked about criticism of her from some of his supporters.
Barrett today wrote the majority opinion for a major ruling in Trump’s favor in a case challenging his executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.
“Justice Barrett correctly holds that the district court lacks authority to enter nationwide or universal injunctions,” Trump said during his remarks in the White House briefing room.
He continued, “I want to thank Justice Barrett, who wrote the opinion brilliantly, as well as Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas — great people.”
Some context: The show of thanks comes as CNN reported earlier this month that Trump has privately complained Barrett has not sufficiently stood behind his agenda, according to multiple sources familiar with the conversations. Some of Trump’s allies have told him that Barrett is “weak” and that her rulings have not been in line with how she presented herself in an interview before he nominated her to the bench in 2020, according to sources.
CNN’s Kristen Holmes and John Fritze contributed to this post.
4 hr 47 min ago
SCOTUS decision for Trump will ease his agenda
From CNN's John Fritze
The Supreme Court’s ruling today curtailing nationwide injunctions will have far-reaching consequences for President Donald Trump’s second term, even if his birthright order is never enforced.
All along, the issue of birthright citizenship was intertwined with Trump’s executive order in the court’s appeal. But the case also raised fundamental questions about the power of courts to pause the president’s agenda while they consider challenges to his policies.
The Supreme Court’s majority largely glossed over the issue of birthright citizenship, handing that off to lower courts to assess. What it focused on instead was eliminating a tool that both conservative and liberal groups have used to pause policies from presidents of both parties: the nationwide, or universal injunction. For Trump, this means his opponents will have to jump through additional hoops to try to shut down policies on a nationwide basis.
It won’t be impossible to do so, but it will prove more difficult.
The court was careful to say that parties could still seek nationwide relief to pause a policy if that was is required to address their harm. That is precisely the argument nearly two dozen Democratic states made challenging the birthright policy — and while the court didn’t directly address it, it left wide room for states to make that claim again. The states had argued they needed a nationwide block on Trump’s birthright citizenship policy because it was too easy for people to cross state borders to have a baby in, for example, New Jersey — where that child would be a citizen — rather than staying in Pennsylvania, where it might not.
And so, under the court’s opinion, states are likely to have easy time shutting down the birthright policy again.
But on other policies — from trade to other immigration enforcement issues — the Supreme Court’s decision may be beneficial to the president (and other future presidents) by making it harder for individuals to seek a temporary pause of a policy when they feel their rights have been violated.
4 hr 57 min ago
Trump hails the "big one" as he takes Supreme Court victory lap
From CNN's Kevin Liptak
President Donald Trump speaks to the media on June 27 in the briefing room of the White House in Washington, DC.
President Donald Trump speaks to the media on June 27 in the briefing room of the White House in Washington, DC. Jacquelyn Martin/AP
President Donald Trump has begun his briefing room victory lap after a major Supreme Court win.
“Big one, wasn’t it? This was a big decision,” Trump said from the White House, calling the birthright citizenship ruling an “amazing decision, one that we’re very happy about.”
The president, who is joined by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, said the ruling was a “victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law.”
He said it struck down “the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch.”
5 hr 5 min ago
NOW: Trump makes remarks from White House
President Donald Trump is speaking now from the White House, after the Supreme Court backed his effort to curtail lower court orders that have hampered his agenda for months.
Trump earlier called it a “GIANT WIN.”
5 hr 2 min ago
Inside the courtroom as the opinions were read
From CNN's Hannah Rabinowitz
Divisions between the justices were on full display as they read aloud some of the most controversial cases of the terms, particularly in the case involving birthright citizenship.
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, she pointedly called the opinion striking down the use of universal injunctions “shameful.” As she read the line aloud, several members of the court who signed on to the majority opinion looked at her directly and then quickly looked away.
As Sotomayor read her dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative member of the court, repeatedly raised his eyebrows and pursed his lips. In a few instances, most notably as Sotomayor warned that “no right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates,” Alito appeared to roll his eyes, lean back in his chair and stare at the ceiling.
As Alito read aloud another opinion that backed a group of religious parents who want to opt their elementary school children out of engaging with LGBTQ books in the classroom, Justice Elena Kagan, a senior liberal judge on the high court, shook her head.
And when Sotomayor again read her dissent, Alito in turn appeared to chuckle as she questioned whether the ruling would undermine the country’s public school system.
Justice Neil Gorsuch was not on the bench when the final opinions of the term were read aloud. The court did not immediately respond to an inquiry about his absence.
5 hr 6 min ago
Court punts Louisiana’s long-contested congressional map to the fall
From CNN's John Fritze
The Supreme Court punted on Friday in a major legal challenge to Louisiana’s long-litigated congressional map, taking the unusual step of holding the case over for a second term.
The decision means the sprawling district that added a second Black and Democratic lawmaker to the state’s overwhelmingly Republican delegation will remain in place, at least for the time being. The court said it will hear another set of arguments about the questions raised in the case in the term that begins this fall.
Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative, dissented from the decision to hold the appeal over until next term.
Louisiana filed the appeal, arguing that it was caught in an impossible position: At first, a federal court ruled that the state had likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six.
When the state sought to comply with that decision by drawing a second majority Black district, a group of self-described “non-Black voters” sued, alleging the state violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court’s demands.
“Congress requires this court to exercise jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to congressional redistricting, and we accordingly have an obligation to resolve such challenges promptly,” Thomas wrote in his dissent.
Thomas wrote that he would have held that the provision of the Voting Rights Act at issue in the case is unconstitutional.
5 hr 11 min ago
Here's why this ruling is a "big win" for Trump
CNN’s chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid breaks down what this Supreme Court ruling means for President Donald Trump’s agenda.
Watch here:
5 hr 16 min ago
State challenging birthright citizenship order confident it can still win in court
From CNN's Devan Cole
One of the states challenging President Donald Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship lamented the Supreme Court’s decision Friday that makes it harder to block government policies nationwide but nonetheless appeared confident that it could still prevail in stymying Trump’s effort.
New Jersey Democratic Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who was among several state attorneys general challenging Trump’s executive order, said in a statement that “we are glad the Court recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm—which is true, and has always been true, in our case.”
“We are confident that his flagrantly unconstitutional order will remain enjoined by the courts. And in the meantime, our fight continues: we will keep challenging President Trump’s flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War, and we look forward to a decision in the coming months that holds this disgraceful order unlawful for good,” he said.
While the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority limited the power of plaintiffs to seek nationwide orders that temporarily halt the government from enforcing a policy, it left unresolved what will happen with Trump’s birthright citizenship order, sending a set of cases over it back to lower courts for further review. Those lower courts could halt the policy on a broad basis again through other legal mechanisms, like class action lawsuits.
5 hr 28 min ago
Vance hails Supreme Court decision on nationwide injunctions as a “huge ruling”
From CNN's Samantha Waldenberg
Vice President JD Vance in Arlington, Virginia, on May 26.
Vice President JD Vance in Arlington, Virginia, on May 26. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
Vice President JD Vance is hailing the Supreme Court decision limiting the ability of judges to stop President Donald Trump’s policies from taking effect as a “huge ruling.”
“A huge ruling by the Supreme Court, smacking down the ridiculous process of nationwide injunctions. Under our system, everyone has to follow the law–including judges,” Vance wrote in a post on X.
The Supreme Court on Friday backed President Donald Trump’s effort to curtail lower court orders that have hampered his agenda for months. However, it also signaled that the president’s controversial plan to effectively end birthright citizenship may never be enforced.
5 hr 36 min ago
Supreme Court says states can require age verification for online porn
From CNN's John Fritze
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law that requires age verification for pornographic websites in one of the most closely watched First Amendment cases to arrive at the high court in years.
The adult entertainment industry had challenged the Texas law as violating the Constitution because it restricted the ability of adults to access protected online speech.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for a 6-3 court divided along ideological grounds with the court’s three liberals dissenting.
“The statute advances the state’s important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit content,” Thomas wrote. “And, it is appropriately tailored because it permits users to verify their ages through the established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data.”
5 hr 34 min ago
Justice Jackson warns that court’s birthright ruling will enable "our collective demise"
From CNN's Devan Cole
In this February 13 photo, US Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks to the 2025 Supreme Court Fellows Program at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC.
In this February 13 photo, US Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks to the 2025 Supreme Court Fellows Program at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC. Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/Getty Images
In a scathing solo dissent penned by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the appointee of former President Joe Biden accused her conservative colleagues of creating “an existential threat to the rule of law” by allowing Trump to “violate the Constitution.”
She warned that the “executive lawlessness will flourish” if lower-court judges are now required to let a president “act unlawfully.”
“Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more,” Jackson wrote.
She continued: “Perhaps the degradation of our rule-of-law regime would happen anyway. But this Court’s complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise.”
5 hr 50 min ago
Trump touts “giant win” at SCOTUS, announces 11:30 event at White House
From CNN's Samantha Waldenberg
President Donald Trump on Friday called the Supreme Court decision curtailing nationwide injunctions a “giant win.”
“GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.”
He also announced a press availability at the White House at 11:30 a.m.
1 hr 12 min ago
Supreme Court says school policy barring opt-outs for LGBTQ books violates religious rights
From CNN's John Fritze
A selection of books featuring LGBTQ characters that are part of a Supreme Court case are seen in Washington, DC, on April 15.
A selection of books featuring LGBTQ characters that are part of a Supreme Court case are seen in Washington, DC, on April 15. Associated Press
The Supreme Court on Friday backed a group of religious parents who want to opt their elementary school children out of engaging with LGBTQ books in the classroom, another major legal win for religious interests at the conservative high court.
In the latest decision blurring the line that once clearly separated secular education from religious belief, the court said that a suburban school district near Washington, DC, burdened parents’ First Amendment rights by refusing to allow them to pull their children from the classroom when the books are used.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for the 6-3 conservative majority.
“The board’s introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’ rights to the free exercise of their religion,” Alito wrote for the majority. “The parents have therefore shown that they are likely to succeed in their free exercise claims.”
6 hr 3 min ago
Barrett's majority opinion came after Trump privately griped about her
From CNN's Kevin Liptak
Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett greet President Donald Trump after his address to a joint session of Congress at the US Capitol on March 4.
Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett greet President Donald Trump after his address to a joint session of Congress at the US Capitol on March 4. Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images
For months, President Donald Trump has griped in private about some of the Supreme Court justices he appointed during his first term, believing they were not sufficiently standing behind his agenda.
But on Friday, all of his appointees — including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the one who’s earned his particular ire — ruled in his favor in a case challenging his executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, with Barrett writing the majority opinion.
The ruling was a decisive win for a president who has long railed against unelected judges blocking some of his executive actions. The decision limits lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, which have stymied some of the president’s executive actions.
It could help improve the president’s view of Barrett in particular.
In private, some of Trump’s allies have told him that Barrett is “weak” and that her rulings have not been in line with how she presented herself in an interview before he nominated her to the bench in 2020, according to sources.
Many conservatives were apoplectic in March when Barrett voted to reject Trump’s plan to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid.
“It’s not just one ruling. It’s been a few different events he’s complained about privately,” a senior administration official told CNN in June.
Now, however, Barrett — along with the court’s other five conservatives — handed Trump a win in the most prominent case of the term.
6 hr 11 min ago
Supreme Court upholds programs that deliver broadband access to rural and poor communities
From CNN's John Fritze
The Supreme Court on Friday let stand a series of decades-old government programs that reduce the price of broadband internet and telephone services for poor and rural communities, rejecting an argument from a conservative group that claimed the way Congress set up the program violated separation-of-powers principles.
The ruling was a rare win for a federal agency at the conservative high court, which in recent years has tended to side with groups challenging executive branch power. In this case, both the Biden and Trump administrations had supported the Federal Communications Commission’s effort to expand access to high-speed internet through fees on phone bills paid by millions of Americans.
Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the court’s liberal wing, wrote the opinion for a 6-3 court. Three of the court’s conservatives – Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – dissented.
6 hr 15 min ago
Supreme Court rejects challenge to panel that under Obamacare recommends no-cost preventive care
From CNN's John Fritze
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a task force that recommends preventive health care services that insurers must cover at no cost, turning away the latest legal challenge to Obamacare to reach the high court.
Though the appeal never threatened to take down the Affordable Care Act, it could have had a sweeping impact on millions of Americans and their access to preventive services. Keeping preventive care cost free makes it more likely that people will get screenings and other services that are aimed at detecting disease at an earlier stage.
The Supreme Court ruled that members of the panel are “inferior” officers, meaning they do not need to be appointed by the president. The ruling confirms HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and his predecessor in the Biden administration, had the ability to name the experts who sit on the panel.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for the court.
6 hr 9 min ago
Here's what CNN's SCOTUS expert says about the court's ruling on nationwide injunctions
From CNN Staff
“Today’s ruling nominally allows the Trump administration to put the birthright citizenship order into effect across most of the country, but it’s almost certainly going to be more important with regard to the president’s other policy initiatives,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
“That’s because lower courts will still be able to (quickly) prevent the birthright citizenship order from being enforced — whether by meeting the higher standard the Court articulated today for a nationwide injunction or by certifying a nationwide class action,” he added.
“The bigger issue is that this is going to make it much harder for litigants to bring challenges to Trump policies in general—because many cases won’t present as clear a justification for nationwide relief or a nationwide class as this one does.”
6 hr 18 min ago
Sotomayor's dissent: "No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates"
From CNN's Devan Cole
Writing in dissent for the court’s three liberal members, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority had “shamefully” played along with the administration’s “gamesmanship” in the case, which she described as an attempt to enforce a “patently unconstitutional” policy by not asking the justices to bless the policy, but instead to limit the power of federal judges around the country.
She warned that under the ruling, “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.”
“Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship,” Sotomayor wrote. “The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.”
The court’s senior liberal member took the rare step of reading parts of her dissent from the bench on Friday.
“With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution. Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way. Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent,” she wrote.
6 hr 27 min ago
Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrates ruling
By CNN's Fadel Allassan
US Attorney General Pam Bondi responded to the court’s ruling Friday backing President Donald Trump’s effort to curtail lower court orders that have hampered his agenda for months.
“Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump. This would not have been possible without tireless work from our excellent lawyers @TheJusticeDept and our Solicitor General John Sauer,” Bondi wrote on X. “This Department of Justice will continue to zealously defend @POTUS’s policies and his authority to implement them.”
6 hr 23 min ago
Amy Coney Barrett delivers majority opinion
From CNN's Dan Berman
Justice Amy Coney Barrett at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on March 4.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on March 4. Win McNamee/AFP/Getty Images
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s last Supreme Court nominee, wrote the dramatic opinion.
“(F)ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,” Barrett wrote for the majority. “When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
6 hr 37 min ago
Here's why this is a lasting win for presidential power
From CNN's John Fritze
The court gave Trump a significant part of what he wanted: It limited the ability of plaintiffs to seek nationwide orders that temporarily halt the government from enforcing a policy. Those court orders are at the center of the president’s monthslong battle with the federal judiciary over his attempts to unilaterally redefine the nation’s immigration policies, slash government spending and take over independent agencies.
In that sense, the decision was a significant win for Trump at the high court and it could have lasting implications not only on the remainder of his administration but also for future presidents of both parties.
6 hr 22 min ago
Supreme Court limits ability of judges to stop Trump
From CNN's John Fritze
The Supreme Court on Friday backed President Donald Trump’s effort to curtail lower court orders that have hampered his agenda for months.
However, it signaled that the president’s controversial plan to effectively end birthright citizenship may never be enforced.
7 hr 17 min ago
Justices to rule on opt-out policy for LGBTQ books in schools
From CNN's John Fritze
"Prince & Knight" on display with other LGBTQ genre books in Ridgeland, Mississippi at the city's library, on January 27, 2022.
"Prince & Knight" on display with other LGBTQ genre books in Ridgeland, Mississippi at the city's library, on January 27, 2022. Rogelio V. Solis/AP/File
The latest religious appeal to land at the Supreme Court came from a group of parents in Maryland who were denied an opportunity to opt their children out of reading LGBTQ books in elementary school.
As part of its English curriculum, the Montgomery County Public Schools district approved a handful of books in 2022. One, “Prince & Knight,” tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, “filling the king and queen with joy,” according to the school’s summary.
The appeal arrived at the Supreme Court at a moment when conservatives, including President Donald Trump, have sought to roll back political and cultural gains made by LGBTQ Americans. Parents and schools, meanwhile, have been engaged in a tense struggle since the Covid-19 pandemic over how much sway families should have over public-school instruction.
But the case really has more to do with an effort by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority to rebalance the tension between the freedom of religious exercise and the First Amendment’s admonishment against government “establishment of religion.” Several of the justices have made clear in public statements and in opinions that they feel the government has gone so far in attempting to honor the principle of separating church and state that they have effectively wound up discriminating against religion.
The Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals cited the lack of clarity in siding with the schools 2-1 last year. But during the Supreme Court’s arguments in April, most of the conservative justices focused instead on the idea that parents are permitted to pull students out of all sorts of other discussions, such as sex education.
The Montgomery County Public Schools argued that an earlier effort to allow opt-outs when the books were in use was disruptive. And they say a win for the parents would create a slippery slope, allowing families that object to any number of classroom discussions to opt out of a wide range of curriculum they find offensive.
7 hr 17 min ago
Supreme Court to weigh in on free preventive services under Obamacare
From CNN's John Fritze
The Supreme Court on Friday will weigh in on a popular provision of Obamacare that requires insurers to cover many preventive services – like cancer screenings and statin medications – for free.
The weedy legal issue involved in the case is whether a volunteer task force that recommends which services should be covered for free was legally appointed. A Texas business argued that the 16-member panel should have been appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
If the Supreme Court agrees, that will put at risk the recommendations the panel made between 2010, when the Affordable Care Act was enacted, and 2023.
The recommendations include lung cancer screenings for certain adults, hepatitis screenings and colorectal cancer screenings for younger adults, according to a brief submitted in the case by Public Citizen and several public health groups. Also at risk would be physical therapy for certain older adults to help prevent falls and counseling to help pregnant women maintain healthy body weights, among other services.
The task force structure was challenged by the Texas business, Braidwood Management, that objected on religious grounds to covering certain preventive services, including the PrEP medications, which vastly reduce a person’s risk of getting HIV from sex or injection drug use.
7 hr 17 min ago
Agency power, rural internet and a FDR-era legal theory at stake
From CNN's John Fritze
For years, the conservative Supreme Court has whittled away at the power of federal agencies to take action without approval from Congress. The court will have another opportunity to do so on Friday in a case involving the Federal Communications Commission.
Most Americans pay a small fee on their phone bills that goes to the Universal Service Fund. That fund, created in 1996, is used to pay for efforts to expand broadband and phone service in rural and low-income urban parts of the country. A conservative consumer group is challenging that fee by arguing that only Congress should be able to levy that fee under its taxing power, not the FCC.
The consumer group is relying on legal doctrine that the Supreme Court has not invoked since the 1930s, the nondelegation doctrine. That’s the idea that Congress cannot delegate its authority – in this case, its taxing authority – to a federal agency.
The doctrine took on prominence in several cases during the Great Depression, as the court sought to clamp down on New Deal powers asserted by Franklin Roosevelt’s administration. Since then, the Supreme Court has avoided that doctrine and has instead relied on a far more lenient standard that allows such delegations in many circumstances.
7 hr 22 min ago
Can states require IDs for porn sites?
From CNN's John Fritze
Everyone agrees that minors shouldn’t have access to porn.
The question for the Supreme Court in a key First Amendment case to be decided Friday is what happens when government regulations to protect young people wind up also making it harder for adults to access the material.
Texas enacted a law in 2023 that requires any website that publishes a substantial amount of content that is “harmful to minors” to verify the age of users. Groups representing the adult entertainment industry say the law forces adults to identify themselves – such as by providing an ID – before accessing pornography, which they say “chills” free speech rights.
Texas’ law is similar to more than a dozen others across the country that require users to submit some proof of adulthood.
During oral arguments in January, several of the justices signaled they might send the case back to the 5th Circuit to have the appeals court revisit it. But others made clear they ultimately supported Texas’ effort.
7 hr 22 min ago
How Louisiana’s congressional map could have nationwide implications
From CNN's John Fritze
Black Louisiana voters and civil rights advocates call on SCOTUS to uphold a fair and representative congressional map in Louisiana v. Callais at Supreme Court of the United States on March 24, in Washington, DC.
Black Louisiana voters and civil rights advocates call on SCOTUS to uphold a fair and representative congressional map in Louisiana v. Callais at Supreme Court of the United States on March 24, in Washington, DC. Jemal Countess/Getty Images/File
Louisiana has been in court over its congressional map for years. Now, the Supreme Court will decide if state lawmakers violated the Constitution by creating a second Black-majority district.
Federal courts initially ruled that the state had likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. After the state legislature tried to correct that problem by drawing a second Black majority district, a group of White voters sued arguing that the state violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court’s demands.
There’s an inherent tension between the Voting Rights Act, the landmark civil rights law that prohibits states from curbing the power of minority voters, and the equal protection clause, which essentially bars states from considering race when they draw district boundaries. The question for the Supreme Court is how to strike that balance.
The high court’s conservative majority has grown increasingly skeptical of policies of any kind that, in the court’s words, pick “winners and losers” based on race. The Supreme Court has also in recent years chipped away at the power of the Voting Rights Act, including with a 2013 decision that ended the practice of requiring states with a history of racist policies to preclear changes to their voting rights laws with the Justice Department.
The district lawmakers drew slashes diagonally for some 250 miles from Shreveport in the northwest of the state to Baton Rouge in the southeast to create a district where Black residents make up some 54% of voters – up from about 24% under the old lines. Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat, won the seat in last year’s election – adding a second Democrat to the state’s delegation.
7 hr 36 min ago
Supreme Court tees up blockbuster final day of term
From CNN's John Fritze
The Supreme Court is seen on Monday, June 16, 2025, in Washington, DC.
The Supreme Court is seen on Monday, June 16, 2025, in Washington, DC. Mariam Zuhaib/AP
It’s a blockbuster last day at the Supreme Court in which the justices will hand down six opinions in some of the biggest cases of the year, including those dealing with Trump’s birthright citizenship order.
Also on the docket: A challenge from religious parents who want to opt their children out of reading LGBTQ books in school and a First Amendment suit over a Texas law that requires people to verify their age before accessing porn online.
The court will also decide the fate of a government task force that recommends which preventive health care services must be covered at no cost under Obamacare.
And it will decide a challenge over Louisiana’s congressional districts that questions how far states may go in considering race when they draw maps to fix a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
7 hr 24 min ago
What to know about birthright citizenship, in charts
From CNN's Rachel Wilson
The US is among dozens of countries, mostly in the Americas, that grant unconditional birthright citizenship to anyone born in its territory under a legal principle known as jus soli, Latin for “right of the soil.”
More than 20 states, mostly led by Democrats, previously filed lawsuits in two different federal courts arguing that the president has no authority to change or override a constitutional amendment. Civil rights groups and expectant parents have brought similar legal action.
7 hr 41 min ago
What is the birthright citizenship case about?
From CNN Staff
President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court in March to allow him to move forward with plans to end birthright citizenship, elevating a fringe legal theory that several lower courts have resoundingly rejected.
For more than a century, courts have understood the text of the 14th Amendment to guarantee “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” to be US citizens, no matter the immigration status of their parents.
In a series of emergency appeals, the Trump administration argued that lower courts had gone too far in handing down nationwide injunctions blocking the controversial policy, and it asked the justices to limit the impact of those orders.
A federal judge in January described his executive order as “blatantly unconstitutional” and blocked its implementation. Days later, a judge in Maryland said that Trump’s plan “runs counter to our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth.”
Several conservative justices seemed open to backing the president on the issue of the nationwide orders, saying lower courts have gone too far. But they also didn’t seem ready to endorse a departure from the longstanding precedent upholding birthright citizenship.
7 hr 41 min ago
All about the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship
From CNN staff
The 14th Amendment clearly states that American citizenship is a birthright for all people who are born on American soil.
Its first section reads:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Before the Civil War, states didn’t necessarily have to follow the provisions stated in the Bill of Rights; only Congress had to. The 14th Amendment changed that.
“Citizenship was a central question left open by the original Constitution,” says Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center. “At the time it was written, the Constitution assumed citizenship, but it didn’t provide any rules for it. In the infamous Dred Scott decision, the Chief Justice said African Americans can’t be citizens of the US and ‘had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.’”
The 14th Amendment was passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868.
The 14th Amendment was passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868. National Archives
The US Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case, named for a slave who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom, has since been widely condemned.
“The 14th Amendment was designed to overturn this decision and define citizenship once and for all, and it was based on birthright,” Rosen says. “It is really important that it’s a vision of citizenship based on land rather than blood. It is an idea that anyone can be an American if they commit themselves to our Constitutional values.”
Read more about the protections outlined in the amendment here.
No comments:
Post a Comment