US Supreme Court ending term with birthright, porn, voting rights
The court is scheduled to issue opinions on Thursday and these are the major outstanding cases:
Birthright citizenship
The case is ostensibly about Donald Trump's bid to scrap birthright citizenship but it actually turns on whether federal judges have the right to issue nationwide blocks to presidential decrees.
It is perhaps the most significant of the remaining cases since it could have far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump or future US presidents.
Trump's executive order ending automatic citizenship for children born on American soil has been paused by district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington that deemed it unconstitutional.
But the question before the Supreme Court is whether a single district court can freeze an executive branch move with a universal injunction.
The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to restrict the application of a district court's injunction solely to the parties who brought the case and the district where the judge presides.
Whatever the nine justices decide, the actual question of whether Trump can legally end birthright citizenship is expected to be back in front of the top court before long.
Porn site age verification
The case -- Free Speech Coalition vs Paxton -- involves a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify visitors' ages, part of a growing effort to limit access by minors to online sexual content.
Texas is one of nearly 20 states to institute such a requirement, which critics argue violates First Amendment free speech rights.
A district court sided with a challenge by an adult entertainment industry trade group, the Free Speech Coalition, saying the law restricted access by adults to constitutionally protected content.
But a conservative-dominated appeals court upheld the age verification requirement, prompting the trade group to take its case to the Supreme Court, where conservatives have a 6-3 supermajority.
Students and LGBTQ-themed content
This religious rights case examines whether parents have the right to pull their children from public school classes when books containing LGBTQ-related content are read or discussed.
The schools, in a Maryland county, had offered parents the chance to opt out of classes featuring books aimed at combating prejudice and discussing gender identity and homosexuality, but later retracted the option.
Parents are suing because the opt-outs were canceled. They say the schools' inclusive curriculum choices infringe on their Christian and Muslim faiths and First Amendment rights.
Court precedent has generally established that exposing students to ideas contrary to religion does not constitute coercion.
Planned Parenthood funding
South Carolina's Republican governor, Henry McMaster, issued an executive order in 2018 cutting off reimbursements to the two Planned Parenthood clinics in the state for services the reproductive health organization provided to low-income Americans under the government Medicaid program.
The Medicaid reimbursements were not for abortion-related services, but McMaster said providing any funding to Planned Parenthood amounts to a taxpayer 'subsidy of abortion,' which is banned in South Carolina for women who are more than six weeks pregnant.
Planned Parenthood, which provides a range of health services, filed suit against the state arguing that Medicaid patients have the right to receive care from any qualified provider.
An appeals court ruled that Planned Parenthood cannot be excluded from the state's Medicaid program and South Carolina appealed to the Supreme Court.
Voting rights
This case is a challenge by a group of white voters to a congressional map adopted last year by the state legislature of Louisiana creating a second Black majority district.
Black people make up one-third of the population of Louisiana, which has six congressional districts, and generally vote Democratic.
Opponents of the redrawn map argue that using race to design congressional maps is racial gerrymandering prohibited by the Constitution.
The eventual Supreme Court ruling could have an impact on whether Democrats or Republicans control the House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm elections.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
US-Vietnam trade deal sows new China uncertainty
HANOI: Vietnam's trade deal with the United States averts the most punishing of Donald Trump's "reciprocal" levies, but analysts warned it could provoke a fresh standoff between Washington and Beijing. The Southeast Asian nation has the third-biggest trade surplus with the United States of any country after China and Mexico, and was targeted with one of the highest rates in the US president's "Liberation Day" tariff blitz on April 2. The deal announced Wednesday is the first full pact Trump has sealed with an Asian nation, and analysts say it may give a glimpse of the template Washington will use with other countries still scrambling for accords. The 46 per cent rate due to take effect next week has been averted, with Vietnam set to face a minimum 20 per cent tariff in return for opening its market to US products including cars. But a 40 per cent tariff will hit goods passing through the country to circumvent steeper trade barriers — a practice called "transshipping". Washington has accused Hanoi of relabelling Chinese goods to skirt its tariffs, but raw materials from the world's number two economy are the lifeblood of Vietnam's manufacturing industries. "From a global perspective, perhaps the most interesting point is that this deal again seems in large part to be about China," said Capital Economics. It said the terms on transshipment "will be seen as a provocation in Beijing, particularly if similar conditions are included in any other deals agreed over coming days". Shares in clothing companies and sports equipment manufacturers — which have a large footprint in Vietnam — rose on news of the deal in New York. But they later declined sharply as details were released. "This is a much better outcome than a flat 46 per cent tariff, but I wouldn't celebrate just yet," said Hanoi-based Dan Martin of Asian business advisory firm Dezan Shira & Associates. "Everything now depends on how the US decides to interpret and enforce the idea of transshipment," he added. "If the US takes a broader view and starts questioning products that use foreign parts, even when value is genuinely added in Vietnam, it could end up affecting a lot of companies that are playing by the rules." Vietnam's government said in a statement late on Wednesday that under the deal the country had promised "preferential market access for US goods, including large-engine cars". But the statement gave scant detail about the transshipment arrangements in the deal, which Trump announced on his Truth Social platform. Bloomberg Economics forecast Vietnam could lose a quarter of its exports to the United States in the medium term, endangering more than two per cent of its gross domestic product as a result of the agreement. Uncertainty over how transshipping will be "defined or enforced" is likely to have diplomatic repercussions, said Bloomberg Economics expert Rana Sajedi. "The looming question now is how China will respond," she said. "Beijing has made clear that it would respond to deals that came at the expense of Chinese interests." "The decision to agree to a higher tariff on goods deemed to be 'transshipped' through Vietnam may fall in that category," added Sajedi.
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Hong Kong proposes legal recognition for same-sex couples registered overseas
HONG KONG: The Hong Kong government is proposing to establish a registration system for same-sex couples who are married or registered overseas to receive legal recognition, according to an official document released on Wednesday (July 2). The proposal - detailed in a government paper to be discussed in Hong Kong's legislative council on Thursday - comes after Hong Kong's top court in September 2023 partially approved a landmark appeal by an LGBTQ activist for recognition of same-sex marriages. The judges dismissed activist Jimmy Sham's (pic) appeal that he had a constitutional right to a same-sex marriage in Hong Kong, but gave the government two years to ensure that rights such as access to hospitals and inheritance could be protected for same-sex couples. Responding to the judgment, the government document proposed the new registration system to essentially allow a same-sex couple's partnership to be legally recognised. It stipulates that both partners must be of the same sex and at least 18 years old, with at least one being a Hong Kong resident. They would have rights related to medical matters concerning their partner, including hospital visits, access to medical information and organ donations, as well as the right to handle a partner's post-death affairs, including applying for a death certificate, claiming the body and arranging funeral matters. Same-sex couples applying for legal recognition under the proposed mechanism must have registered a valid same-sex marriage, civil partnership or civil union overseas. In Asia, only a few places including Taiwan, Nepal and Thailand currently allow same-sex unions, as the region's largely conservative values still dominate politics and society. The Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau wrote in the paper that the proposed new system - which requires legislative approval - had taken into account Hong Kong's current social system and traditional values while seeking to avoid social divisions. "It is essential to establish appropriate registration requirements under an alternative framework that aligns with practical realities and public expectations, while safeguarding registrants' rights and preventing abuse," the bureau wrote. But Sham, who first challenged the government in court, said the proposal offered a minimal level of protection, especially the stipulation that couples needed to be married abroad. "(This) doesn't seem to meet the conditions of equality in registration," Sham told Reuters. "I doubt it fully complies with what the judge required." - Reuters
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
Trump tax bill stalled by Republican rebellion in Congress
WASHINGTON: Donald Trump's signature tax and spending bill was in limbo early Thursday as Republican leaders in the US Congress scrambled to win over a group of rebels threatening to torpedo the centerpiece of the president's domestic agenda. Trump is seeking final approval in the House of Representatives for his Senate-passed 'One Big Beautiful Bill' -- but faces opposition on all sides of his fractious party over provisions set to balloon the national debt while launching a historic assault on the social safety net. As midnight (0400 GMT) struck, House Speaker Mike Johnson was still holding open a key procedural vote -- the bill's last hurdle before it can advance to be considered for final approval -- more than two hours after it was first called. With no clear sign of the stalemate breaking, his lieutenants huddled in tense meetings behind the scenes with the rebels who had either voted no or had yet to come to the House floor. 'We're going to get there tonight. We're working on it and very, very positive about our progress,' Johnson told reporters at the Capitol, according to Politico. Originally approved by the House in May, Trump's sprawling legislation squeezed through the Senate on Tuesday by a solitary vote but had to return to the lower chamber Wednesday for a rubber stamp of the Senate's revisions. The package honors many of Trump's campaign promises, boosting military spending, funding a mass migrant deportation drive and committing $4.5 trillion to extend his first-term tax relief. But it is expected to pile an extra $3.4 trillion over a decade onto the country's fast-growing deficits, while forcing through the largest cuts to the Medicaid health insurance program since its 1960s launch. While moderates in the House are anxious that the cuts will damage their prospects of reelection, fiscal hawks are chafing over savings that they say fall short of what they were promised by hundreds of billions of dollars. Johnson has to negotiate incredibly tight margins, and can likely only lose three lawmakers among more than two dozen who have declared themselves open to rejecting Trump's bill. Abomination Republican leaders had been hoping to spend just a few hours on Wednesday afternoon green-lighting the package, although they have a cushion of two days before Trump's self-imposed July 4 deadline. The 887-page text only passed in the Senate after a flurry of tweaks that pulled the House-passed text further to the right. Republicans lost one conservative who was angry about adding to the country's $37 trillion debt burden and two moderates worried about almost $1 trillion in health care cuts. Some estimates put the total number of recipients set to lose their health insurance at 17 million, while scores of rural hospitals are expected to close. Legislation in the House has to go through multiple 'test' votes before it can come up for final approval, and a majority must wave it through at each of these stages. There were warning signs early in the day as the package stumbled at one of the first steps, with a straightforward vote that ought to have taken minutes remaining open for seven hours and 31 minutes -- making it the longest House vote in history. Johnson had made clear that he was banking on Trump leaning on waverers, as he has in the past to turn around contentious House votes that were headed for failure. The president has spent weeks cajoling Republicans torn between angering welfare recipients at home and incurring his wrath. Trump pressured House Republicans to get the bill over the line in a private White House meeting with several holdouts on Wednesday. 'What are the Republicans waiting for?,' he posted on his Truth Social platform just after midnight. 'What are you trying to prove??? MAGA IS NOT HAPPY, AND IT'S COSTING YOU VOTES!!!' House Democrats have signaled that they plan to campaign on the bill to flip the chamber in the 2026 midterm elections, pointing to analyses showing that it represents a historic redistribution of wealth from the poorest Americans to the richest. 'Shame on Senate Republicans for passing this disgusting abomination,' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters.
