Trump wins again. Conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett again. Supreme Court takeaways
WASHINGTON − For the second year in a row, the Supreme Court ended its term with a big win for President Donald Trump.
This time, the conservative court − which includes three justices appointed by Trump in his first term − limited the ability of judges to block the president's policies as they're being challenged in court.
Last year, the court said formers presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, a decision that helped Trump avoid being tried for trying to overturn the 2020 election.
And Trump has also been on a winning streak on emergency appeals that the justices decide relatively quickly, without oral arguments.
Those emergency actions will continue over the summer, while the court is in recess.
But June 27 was the final day for decisions on cases the justices have been considering for months.
In addition to ruling on the holds judges put on Trump's changes to birthright citizenship, they handed down opinions about LGBTQ+ schoolbooks, online porn, Obamacare and internet subsidies.
Here are the highlights.
Justices halt nationwide blocks on Trump policies from lower courts
Rather than deal directly with birthright citizenship, the high court instead ordered lower courts to review nationwide blocks on Trump policies.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the 6-3 majority that nationwide orders 'likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.' Judges have 30 days to review their rulings.
'These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump said. 'This was a colossal abuse of power.'
Attorney General Pam Bondi, who complained that 35 of 40 national blocks on Trump policies came from five jurisdictions, said the decision would stop regional judges from becoming 'emperors."
But states and immigration advocates had warned such a decision would leave a patchwork where newborns are recognized as citizens in nearly half the states where judges have blocked Trump's order but not in other jurisdictions. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit to halt Trump's birthright order in the wake of the high court's decision.
'Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,' said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project.
Varu Chilakamarri, a partner at K&L Gates, said the decision could result in more class-action lawsuits or fast-tracking litigation to get decisions from the Supreme Court faster.
'The Supreme Court's sweeping rejection of nationwide injunctions sharply limits the power of lower courts to block controversial executive actions,' Chilakarmarri said. 'But all of those paths will inevitably take longer to unfold – making it harder to stop the broad implementation of highly contested policies.'
The high court didn't consider the constitutionality of whether Trump's order limiting birthright citizenship for the children of parents in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. Bondi said that decision could come in the court's next session starting in October.
Conservaties like Amy Coney Barrett again
Maybe Justice Amy Coney Barrett will stop being vilified by Trump supporters.
Some of the president's loudest supporters called her diversity, equity and inclusion hire after Barrett (and Chief Justice John Roberts) sided with the court's three liberal justices in a March decision that the Trump administration has to pay foreign aid organizations for work they already did for the government.
But Barrett authored the big win for Trump.
Conservative commentator Sean Davis said on social media that in Barrett's opinion 'nuking universal injunctions,' she also 'juked' the dissent written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
'I want to thank Justice Barrett who wrote the opinion brilliantly,' Trump told reporters at the White House.
Trump said he wasn't familiar with conservative criticism of Barrett as a 'squishy' or 'rattled' law professor.
'I don't know about that. I just have great respect for her. I always have,' Trump said. 'Her decision was brilliantly written today, from all accounts.'
Liberals said conservatives gave in to Trump's 'mockery' of the Constitution
While the justices like to emphasize how many of the decisions they hand down are unanimous, the ones that split along ideological lines are more common at the end of the term.
In three of the five full opinions handed down on June 27, the court's six conservatives were on one side and the three liberals were on the other.
In the decision, limiting how judges can block Trump's policies, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the president "has made a `solemn mockery' of our Constitution."
'Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way,' she wrote in her dissent.
In response to the majority upholding Texas' age verification law for pornographic websites, Justice Elena Kagan said the court should've pushed Texas on whether there's a way to stop minors from seeing sexually explicit content with less of a burden on the First Amendment rights of adults to view the content.
In the third decision, Sotomayor said requiring schools to let parents remove their children from class when books with LGBTQ+ characters are being read "threatens the very essence of public education.'
Conservatives joined with liberals to reject conservative cases
Two more decisions also broke 6-3, but for a different reason.
Three of the court's conservatives – Roberts, Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh – joined the three liberals in rejecting conservative challenges to Obamacare and to an internet subsidy program.
The court's other three conservatives – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch – dissented.
In the latest challenge to the 2010 Affordable Care Act – commonly known as Obamacare – the majority turned aside an attack on free access to cancer screenings, drugs that prevent HIV, cholesterol-lowering medication and other preventive health care services.
And in a case rooted in a longstanding conservative complaint about Congress delegating too much authority to agencies, the majority said Congress didn't do that when it created a program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans.
In a surprise, the court punted on a racial gerrymandering challenge
The court was supposed to announce whether Louisiana could keep its congressional map, a decision that would potentially affect the 2026 elections and states' ability to consider race when drawing legislative boundaries.
Instead, the court said it wants to hear more arguments first. Why? They didn't say. When? They didn't say that either, except that they will be laying out a timeline 'in due course.'
The case tests the balancing act states must strike when complying with a civil rights law that protects the voting power of a racial minority while not discriminating against other voters.
A group of non-Black voters challenged the map as unconstitutional, arguing it relied too heavily on race to sort voters.
The state says it drew the lines to protect powerful incumbents like House Speaker Mike Johnson and to comply with a court's decision that it could reasonably create a second majority-Black district.
Democrats have the advantage in that district, which could be a factor when voters decide in 2026 which party will control the closely divided House.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
28 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Supreme Court Curbs Judges in Birthright Case as Trump Touts Win
A divided SCOTUS left unresolved a fight over President Trump's restrictions on automatic birthright citizenship. The 6-3 ruling said Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship at a minimum won't take effect for 30 days. Erik Larson explains. (Source: Bloomberg)
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US inflation edges up as Trump renews criticism of Fed chief
The US Federal Reserve's preferred inflation measure logged a mild uptick Friday while spending weakened, triggering another tirade by President Donald Trump against the central bank chair for not cutting interest rates sooner. "We have a guy that's just a stubborn mule and a stupid person," Trump told an event at the White House, referring to Fed Chair Jerome Powell. "He's making a mistake." With Powell's term as Fed chief coming to an end next year, Trump hinted at his choice of successor: "I'm going to put somebody that wants to cut rates." The president's remarks came after government data showed the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index climbing 2.3 percent last month from a year ago in May. This was in line with analyst expectations and a slight acceleration from April's 2.2 percent increase, but still a relatively mild uptick. Excluding the volatile food and energy sectors, the PCE price index was up 2.7 percent, rising from April's 2.6 percent uptick, the Commerce Department's report showed. But consumer spending declined, after Trump's fresh tariffs in April dragged on consumer sentiment. PCE dropped by 0.1 percent from the preceding month, reversing an earlier rise. While Trump has imposed sweeping tariffs on most US trading partners since returning to the White House in January -- alongside higher rates on imports of steel, aluminum and autos -- these have had a muted effect so far on inflation. This is in part because he held off or postponed some of his harshest salvos, while businesses are still running through inventory they stockpiled in anticipation of the levies. But central bank officials have not rushed to slash interest rates, saying they can afford to wait and learn more about the impact of Trump's recent duties. They expect to learn more about the tariffs' effects over the summer. - 'Clear weakening' - "The experience of the limited range of tariffs introduced in 2018 suggests that pass-through to consumer prices is intense three-to-six months after their implementation," warned economists Samuel Tombs and Oliver Allen of Pantheon Macroeconomics in a note. They flagged weakness in consumer spending, in part due to a pullback in autos after buyers rushed to get ahead of levies. And spending on services was tepid even after excluding volatile components, they said. "There has also been a clear weakening in discretionary services spending, notably in travel and hospitality," said Michael Pearce, deputy chief US economist at Oxford Economics, in a note. This reflects "the chilling effect of the plunge in consumer sentiment," he added. Between April and May, the PCE price index was up 0.1 percent, the Commerce Department report showed. As a July deadline approaches for higher tariff rates to kick in on dozens of economies, all eyes are also on whether countries can reach lasting trade deals with Washington to ease the effects of tariffs. For now, despite the slowing in economic growth, Pearce said risks that inflation could increase will keep the Fed on hold with interest rates "until much later in the year." bys/jgc Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hill
33 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump helped these African countries sign a peace deal. Here's what we know
DAKAR, Senegal (AP) — A deal signed in Washington on Friday has been touted as a major step toward peace in Congo following decades of conflict that has killed millions, including thousands this year. The U.S.-mediated agreement is between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has been battered by fighting with more than 100 armed groups. The most potent is backed by neighboring Rwanda, and it is not clear if it will abide by the deal as the group wasn't part of the negotiations. President Donald Trump says the deal gives the United States 'a lot of the mineral rights' from Congo. His administration has pushed to gain access to minerals key to much of the world's technology and is seeking to counter China, a key player in the region where the U.S. presence and influence have eroded. Both the Congolese and Rwandan presidents are expected in Washington in a few weeks to 'finalize the complete protocol and agreement,' U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said. Here's a look at what we know about the agreement: The agreement details general expectations but is short on how it will be implemented, particularly in getting the key actors of the conflict — the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels — to lay down their arms, according to a copy seen by The Associated Press. The deal emphasizes the two neighboring countries' sovereignty, territorial integrity and peaceful coexistence, with a commitment to halt all hostilities and any support for armed groups. Although it denies supporting the M23 rebels, Rwanda has said it is protecting its border and going after the ethnic Hutus, whom it accuses of participating in the 1994 Rwandan genocide and now working with Congolese forces after fleeing to the neighboring country. Armed gangs involved in the conflict may be reintegrated into Congolese security forces only after individual vetting based on loyalty, fitness and human rights records, the deal says. In what the U.N. has called 'one of the most protracted, complex, serious humanitarian crises on Earth,' the deal includes a commitment to protect and facilitate humanitarian access for displaced people in Congo, estimated to be more than 7 million. The two countries also commit to creating an economic framework 'to expand foreign trade and investment derived from regional critical mineral supply chains,' including ones that 'link both countries, in partnership, as appropriate, with the U.S. government and U.S. investors.' Analysts say it is going to be difficult for the M23 rebels to withdraw from the cities they seized during their major advance this year and that such withdrawal may either take a long time or another round of fighting. Rwanda is estimated to have thousands of troops supporting the M23 rebels in eastern Congo. Even if Rwanda ends its support for the rebels, the M23 has been consolidating its grip in the cities it has seized, setting up local administrative offices and enforcing a new governing structure. A team of U.N. experts said in a report in December that Rwanda was benefitting from minerals 'fraudulently' exported from areas in the region under the control of the M23. Rwanda has denied involvement. The rebels were not directly involved in the U.S.-facilitated negotiations and have not spoken publicly about the deal. And Corneille Nangaa, leader of the Congo River Alliance, which includes the M23, told the AP in March that 'anything regarding us which are done without us, it's against us.' Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe pointed to separate talks happening in Qatar that are meant to get both Congo and the M23 rebels to agree among themselves how they will end the fighting. He also said Rwanda agreed to lift its 'defensive measures.' It was not clear if he meant withdrawing the troops that Rwanda has said are defending its territorial interests. Of five people that the AP spoke to in the conflict-battered region, none of them was convinced the deal would quickly end the fighting. They called for caution in granting the U.S. access to the region's minerals — resources that even late Pope Francis had reprimanded developed countries for exploiting to the detriment of the Congolese. 'We draw the attention of the Congolese government not to give in completely or to sell the Congo to the Americans just because the United States has supported us in restoring peace,' said Hangi Muhindo, a resident of Goma, the city at the center of the conflict. 'The commitments to the United States must not jeopardize the future of our people,' he added. Some also felt the agreement is only a part of the solution and called for more dialogue and justice. 'We want peace now, but we don't want the therapy to be worse than the disease,' said Prince Epenge, spokesperson for the local opposition political coalition. ___ Justin Kabumba and Saleh Mwanamilongo in Congo contributed to this report.
