US Senate rejects bid to curb Trump's Iran war powers
The Republican-led US Senate has rejected a Democratic-led bid to block President Donald Trump from using further military force against Iran, hours after the president said he would consider more bombing.
The Senate vote was 53 to 47 against a war powers resolution that would have required congressional approval for more hostilities against Iran.
The vote was along party lines, except Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman voted no, with Republicans, and Kentucky Republican Rand Paul voted yes, with Democrats.
Senator Tim Kaine, chief sponsor of the resolution, has tried for years to wrest back Congress' authority to declare war from both Republican and Democratic presidents.
Kaine said his latest effort underscored that the US Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the sole power to declare war and requires that any hostility with Iran be explicitly authorised by a declaration of war or specific authorisation for the use of military force.
"If you think the president should have to come to Congress, whether you are for or against a war in Iran, you'll support Senate Joint Resolution 59, you'll support the Constitution that has stood the test of time," Kaine said in a speech before Friday's vote.
Lawmakers have been pushing for more information about weekend US strikes on Iran, and the fate of Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium.
Earlier on Friday, Trump sharply criticised Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran, and said he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels.
"Sure, without question, absolutely," the president said at a White House news conference.
He was reacting to Khamenei's first remarks after a 12-day conflict with Israel that ended when the United States launched bombing raids against Iranian nuclear sites.
Members of Trump's national security team held classified briefings on the strikes for the Senate and House of Representatives on Thursday and Friday. Many Democratic lawmakers left the briefings saying they had not been convinced that Iran's nuclear facilities had been "obliterated," as Trump announced shortly after the raid.
Opponents of the resolution said the strike on Iran was a single, limited operation within Trump's rights as commander-in-chief, not the start of sustained hostilities.
Senator Bill Hagerty, a Tennessee Republican who served as ambassador to Japan during Trump's first term, said the measure could prevent any president from acting quickly against a country that has been a long-term adversary.
"We must not shackle our president in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line," Hagerty said before the vote.
Trump has rejected any suggestion that damage to Iran's nuclear program was not as profound as he has said. Iran says its nuclear research is for civilian energy production.
Under US law, Senate war powers resolutions are privileged, meaning that the chamber had to promptly consider and vote on the measure, which Kaine introduced this month.
But to be enacted, the resolution would have had to pass the Senate as well as the House of Representatives, where Speaker Mike Johnson, a close Trump ally, said this week he did not think it was the right time for such an effort.
During Trump's first term, in 2020, Kaine introduced a similar resolution to rein in the Republican president's ability to wage war against Iran.
The Republican-led US Senate has rejected a Democratic-led bid to block President Donald Trump from using further military force against Iran, hours after the president said he would consider more bombing.
The Senate vote was 53 to 47 against a war powers resolution that would have required congressional approval for more hostilities against Iran.
The vote was along party lines, except Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman voted no, with Republicans, and Kentucky Republican Rand Paul voted yes, with Democrats.
Senator Tim Kaine, chief sponsor of the resolution, has tried for years to wrest back Congress' authority to declare war from both Republican and Democratic presidents.
Kaine said his latest effort underscored that the US Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the sole power to declare war and requires that any hostility with Iran be explicitly authorised by a declaration of war or specific authorisation for the use of military force.
"If you think the president should have to come to Congress, whether you are for or against a war in Iran, you'll support Senate Joint Resolution 59, you'll support the Constitution that has stood the test of time," Kaine said in a speech before Friday's vote.
Lawmakers have been pushing for more information about weekend US strikes on Iran, and the fate of Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium.
Earlier on Friday, Trump sharply criticised Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran, and said he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels.
"Sure, without question, absolutely," the president said at a White House news conference.
He was reacting to Khamenei's first remarks after a 12-day conflict with Israel that ended when the United States launched bombing raids against Iranian nuclear sites.
Members of Trump's national security team held classified briefings on the strikes for the Senate and House of Representatives on Thursday and Friday. Many Democratic lawmakers left the briefings saying they had not been convinced that Iran's nuclear facilities had been "obliterated," as Trump announced shortly after the raid.
Opponents of the resolution said the strike on Iran was a single, limited operation within Trump's rights as commander-in-chief, not the start of sustained hostilities.
Senator Bill Hagerty, a Tennessee Republican who served as ambassador to Japan during Trump's first term, said the measure could prevent any president from acting quickly against a country that has been a long-term adversary.
"We must not shackle our president in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line," Hagerty said before the vote.
Trump has rejected any suggestion that damage to Iran's nuclear program was not as profound as he has said. Iran says its nuclear research is for civilian energy production.
Under US law, Senate war powers resolutions are privileged, meaning that the chamber had to promptly consider and vote on the measure, which Kaine introduced this month.
But to be enacted, the resolution would have had to pass the Senate as well as the House of Representatives, where Speaker Mike Johnson, a close Trump ally, said this week he did not think it was the right time for such an effort.
During Trump's first term, in 2020, Kaine introduced a similar resolution to rein in the Republican president's ability to wage war against Iran.
The Republican-led US Senate has rejected a Democratic-led bid to block President Donald Trump from using further military force against Iran, hours after the president said he would consider more bombing.
The Senate vote was 53 to 47 against a war powers resolution that would have required congressional approval for more hostilities against Iran.
The vote was along party lines, except Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman voted no, with Republicans, and Kentucky Republican Rand Paul voted yes, with Democrats.
Senator Tim Kaine, chief sponsor of the resolution, has tried for years to wrest back Congress' authority to declare war from both Republican and Democratic presidents.
Kaine said his latest effort underscored that the US Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the sole power to declare war and requires that any hostility with Iran be explicitly authorised by a declaration of war or specific authorisation for the use of military force.
"If you think the president should have to come to Congress, whether you are for or against a war in Iran, you'll support Senate Joint Resolution 59, you'll support the Constitution that has stood the test of time," Kaine said in a speech before Friday's vote.
Lawmakers have been pushing for more information about weekend US strikes on Iran, and the fate of Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium.
Earlier on Friday, Trump sharply criticised Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran, and said he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels.
"Sure, without question, absolutely," the president said at a White House news conference.
He was reacting to Khamenei's first remarks after a 12-day conflict with Israel that ended when the United States launched bombing raids against Iranian nuclear sites.
Members of Trump's national security team held classified briefings on the strikes for the Senate and House of Representatives on Thursday and Friday. Many Democratic lawmakers left the briefings saying they had not been convinced that Iran's nuclear facilities had been "obliterated," as Trump announced shortly after the raid.
Opponents of the resolution said the strike on Iran was a single, limited operation within Trump's rights as commander-in-chief, not the start of sustained hostilities.
Senator Bill Hagerty, a Tennessee Republican who served as ambassador to Japan during Trump's first term, said the measure could prevent any president from acting quickly against a country that has been a long-term adversary.
"We must not shackle our president in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line," Hagerty said before the vote.
Trump has rejected any suggestion that damage to Iran's nuclear program was not as profound as he has said. Iran says its nuclear research is for civilian energy production.
Under US law, Senate war powers resolutions are privileged, meaning that the chamber had to promptly consider and vote on the measure, which Kaine introduced this month.
But to be enacted, the resolution would have had to pass the Senate as well as the House of Representatives, where Speaker Mike Johnson, a close Trump ally, said this week he did not think it was the right time for such an effort.
During Trump's first term, in 2020, Kaine introduced a similar resolution to rein in the Republican president's ability to wage war against Iran.
The Republican-led US Senate has rejected a Democratic-led bid to block President Donald Trump from using further military force against Iran, hours after the president said he would consider more bombing.
The Senate vote was 53 to 47 against a war powers resolution that would have required congressional approval for more hostilities against Iran.
The vote was along party lines, except Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman voted no, with Republicans, and Kentucky Republican Rand Paul voted yes, with Democrats.
Senator Tim Kaine, chief sponsor of the resolution, has tried for years to wrest back Congress' authority to declare war from both Republican and Democratic presidents.
Kaine said his latest effort underscored that the US Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the sole power to declare war and requires that any hostility with Iran be explicitly authorised by a declaration of war or specific authorisation for the use of military force.
"If you think the president should have to come to Congress, whether you are for or against a war in Iran, you'll support Senate Joint Resolution 59, you'll support the Constitution that has stood the test of time," Kaine said in a speech before Friday's vote.
Lawmakers have been pushing for more information about weekend US strikes on Iran, and the fate of Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium.
Earlier on Friday, Trump sharply criticised Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran, and said he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels.
"Sure, without question, absolutely," the president said at a White House news conference.
He was reacting to Khamenei's first remarks after a 12-day conflict with Israel that ended when the United States launched bombing raids against Iranian nuclear sites.
Members of Trump's national security team held classified briefings on the strikes for the Senate and House of Representatives on Thursday and Friday. Many Democratic lawmakers left the briefings saying they had not been convinced that Iran's nuclear facilities had been "obliterated," as Trump announced shortly after the raid.
Opponents of the resolution said the strike on Iran was a single, limited operation within Trump's rights as commander-in-chief, not the start of sustained hostilities.
Senator Bill Hagerty, a Tennessee Republican who served as ambassador to Japan during Trump's first term, said the measure could prevent any president from acting quickly against a country that has been a long-term adversary.
"We must not shackle our president in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line," Hagerty said before the vote.
Trump has rejected any suggestion that damage to Iran's nuclear program was not as profound as he has said. Iran says its nuclear research is for civilian energy production.
Under US law, Senate war powers resolutions are privileged, meaning that the chamber had to promptly consider and vote on the measure, which Kaine introduced this month.
But to be enacted, the resolution would have had to pass the Senate as well as the House of Representatives, where Speaker Mike Johnson, a close Trump ally, said this week he did not think it was the right time for such an effort.
During Trump's first term, in 2020, Kaine introduced a similar resolution to rein in the Republican president's ability to wage war against Iran.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Iran warns Donald Trump not to inflame relationship in wake of social media post claiming he saved Khamenei's life
Tehran has issued a furious response to the United States after President Donald Trump said he saved the life of Iran's Supreme Leader. A ceasefire between Israel and Iran was introduced this week after it was brokered by the US, but there are fears it is fragile. The deal was brokered after the US struck three Iranian nuclear facilities in a targeted military operation known as Midnight Hammer. So far, the ceasefire has stood firm, despite a scare when Trump had to order Israel to turn back fighter jets from a planned attack after accusing Iran of launching a missile at the Jewish state after the deadline had passed. But President Trump's social media presence has rubbed Iran the wrong way after a post about their Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, where he claimed he saved his life. "I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered," Trump posted to Truth Social. "I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH, and he does not have to say, 'THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP!'" Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi shared a post on X in response, warning the President to be careful with how he speaks about Iran's Supreme Leader. "If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt followers," he said. Mr Araghchi did not stop there, as he made reference to off the cuff comments made by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte where he described Trump as "daddy" when referring to how he handled the conflict in the Middle East. "The Great and Powerful Iranian People, who showed the world that the Israeli regime had NO CHOICE but to RUN to 'Daddy' to avoid being flattened by our Missiles, do not take kindly to Threats and Insults. "If Illusions lead to worse mistakes, Iran will not hesitate to unveil its Real Capabilities, which will certainly END any Delusion about the Power of Iran." The chilling message comes after Khamenei delivered his first public comments since the ceasefire, warning Iran won't hesitate to target American military bases in the Middle East if the US launches any future attacks. The 86-year-old said Iran "delivered a slap to America's face" when an Iranian missile attack struck a US base in Qatar, in retaliation to the US strikes on its nuclear facilities "The US President Trump unveiled the truth and made it clear that Americans won't be satisfied with anything less than an event will never happen," he said. "The fact that the Islamic Republic has access to important American centres in the region and can take action against them whenever it deems necessary is not a small incident, it is a major incident, and this incident can be repeated in the future if an attack is made."
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
US President Donald Trump riding high after historic immigration Supreme Court victory, finalises rare earth minerals deal with China
US President Donald Trump has secured a litany of significant wins, including the Supreme Court limiting the power of judges to block presidential policies and expediating a rare earth export agreement with China as part of a finalised trade deal. The Trump administration has been touting a string of recent accomplishments, including brokering a ceasefire deal between Israel and Iran after it struck three Iranian nuclear facilities in a targeted military operation known as Midnight Hammer. The US President also managed to increase the defence contributions of NATO states, with members agreeing to bolster annual defence spending to five per cent of GDP by 2035. The President's widely anticipated 'big, beautiful bill' is also progressing with haste, with Senate Majority Leader John Thune telling Senate Republicans he expected to see the legislative text of the budget reconciliation package on Friday evening. The US Supreme Court handed President Trump a historic win on Friday by curbing the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, changing the balance between the federal judiciary and the executive branch. The 6-3 ruling, authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's directive restricting birthright citizenship go into effect immediately and directed lower courts that blocked it to reconsider the scope of their orders. The ruling also did not address the legality of the policy, part of Trump's hardline approach toward immigration. The Republican President lauded the ruling and said his administration could now try to move forward with numerous policies such as his birthright executive order that he said, 'have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.' Trump called the ruling a "monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law." "We have so many of them. I have a whole list," Trump told reporters at the White House. The court granted the administration's request to narrow the scope of three so-called "universal" injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive nationwide while litigation challenging the policy played out. The court's conservative justices were in the majority and its liberal members dissented. The ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. The ruling raises the prospect of Trump's order eventually applying in some parts of the country. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The ruling was issued on the final day of decisions on cases argued before the Supreme Court during its nine-month term that began in October. The court also issued rulings on Friday backing a Texas law regarding online pornography, letting parents opt children out of classes when storybooks when LGBT are read and preserving Obamacare's provision on health insurers covering preventive care among others. The US President also abruptly cut off trade talks with Canada on Friday over its tax targeting U.S. technology firms, saying that it was a "blatant attack" and that he would set a new tariff rate on Canadian goods within the next week. The move plunges US-Canada relations back into chaos after a period of relative calm that included a cordial G7 meeting in mid-June where Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney agreed to wrap up a new economic agreement within 30 days. It also came just hours after U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent struck an upbeat tone on trade, touting progress had been made with China on reviving the flow of critical minerals for the U.S. manufacturing sector and in other key tariff negotiations. During US-China trade talks in May in Geneva, Beijing committed to removing the measures imposed since April 2, but those critical materials were not moving as fast as agreed, Bessent said in an interview with Fox Business Network, so the US put countermeasures in place. "I am confident now that we, as agreed, the magnets will flow," Bessent said. - With Reuters
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court closes term
The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that might make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion", said Paul Rosenzweig, a lawyer who served in Republican President George W Bush's administration. Friday's ruling said that judges generally could grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021. Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. "President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. "Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. "It recognises that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform." Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favour of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence", Luther said. The cases involving Trump administration policies came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found it was likely unconstitutional. "One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said. In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive health care and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination. The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBTQI characters are read. In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. "The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress's problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues'," Levinson said. This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favour of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time the court recognised any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called "third countries". Recent rulings "have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court", Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said. The court's jurisprudence reflected a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they had the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said. The court's conservative majority, Kreis said, "is probably feeling more emboldened to act". The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that might make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion", said Paul Rosenzweig, a lawyer who served in Republican President George W Bush's administration. Friday's ruling said that judges generally could grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021. Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. "President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. "Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. "It recognises that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform." Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favour of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence", Luther said. The cases involving Trump administration policies came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found it was likely unconstitutional. "One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said. In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive health care and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination. The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBTQI characters are read. In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. "The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress's problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues'," Levinson said. This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favour of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time the court recognised any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called "third countries". Recent rulings "have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court", Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said. The court's jurisprudence reflected a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they had the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said. The court's conservative majority, Kreis said, "is probably feeling more emboldened to act". The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that might make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion", said Paul Rosenzweig, a lawyer who served in Republican President George W Bush's administration. Friday's ruling said that judges generally could grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021. Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. "President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. "Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. "It recognises that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform." Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favour of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence", Luther said. The cases involving Trump administration policies came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found it was likely unconstitutional. "One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said. In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive health care and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination. The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBTQI characters are read. In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. "The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress's problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues'," Levinson said. This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favour of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time the court recognised any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called "third countries". Recent rulings "have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court", Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said. The court's jurisprudence reflected a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they had the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said. The court's conservative majority, Kreis said, "is probably feeling more emboldened to act". The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that might make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion", said Paul Rosenzweig, a lawyer who served in Republican President George W Bush's administration. Friday's ruling said that judges generally could grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021. Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. "President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. "Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. "It recognises that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform." Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favour of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence", Luther said. The cases involving Trump administration policies came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found it was likely unconstitutional. "One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said. In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive health care and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination. The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBTQI characters are read. In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. "The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress's problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues'," Levinson said. This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favour of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time the court recognised any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called "third countries". Recent rulings "have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court", Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said. The court's jurisprudence reflected a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they had the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said. The court's conservative majority, Kreis said, "is probably feeling more emboldened to act".
