Latest news with #GOP-led
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
At Supreme Court, steady wins for conservative states and Trump's claims of executive power
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court term that ended Friday will not be remembered for blockbuster rulings like those recent years that struck down the right to abortion and college affirmative action. The justices scaled back their docket this year and spent much of their energy focused on deciding fast-track appeals from President Trump. His administration's lawyers complained too many judges were standing in the way of Trump's agenda. On Friday, the court's conservatives agreed to rein in district judges, a procedural victory for Trump. What's been missing so far, however, is a clear ruling on whether the president has abided by the law or overstepped his authority in the U.S. Constitution. On the final two days of term, the court's conservative majority provided big wins for Republican-leaning states, religious parents and Trump. The justices gave states more authority to prohibit medical treatments for transgender teens, to deny Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood clinics and to enforce age-verification laws for online porn sites. Each came with the familiar 6-3 split, with the Republican appointees siding with the GOP-led states, while the Democratic appointees dissented. These rulings, while significant, were something short of nationwide landmark decisions — celebrated victories for the Republican half of the nation but having no direct or immediate effect on Democratic-led states. California lawmakers are not likely to pass measures to restrict gender-affirming care or to prohibit women on Medicaid from obtaining birth control, pregnancy testing or medical screenings at a Planned Parenthood clinic. The new decisions echoed the Dobbs ruling three years ago that struck down Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion. As the conservative justices noted, the decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health did not outlaw abortion nationwide. However, it did allow conservative states to do so. Since then, 17 Republican-led states in the South and Midwest have adopted new laws to prohibit most or all abortions. On this front, the court's decisions reflect a 'federalism,' or states-rights style of conservatism, that was dominant in decades past under President Reagan and two of the court's conservative leaders, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Both were Arizona Republicans (and in O'Connor's case, a former state legislator) who came to the court with that view that Washington holds too much power and wields too much control over states and local governments. With the nation sharply divided along partisan lines, today's conservative court could be praised or defended for freeing states to make different choices on the 'culture wars.' The other big winner so far this year has been Trump and his broad claims of executive power. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has asserted he has total authority to run federal agencies, cut their spending and fire most of their employees, all without the approval of Congress, which created and funded the agencies. He has also claimed the authority to impose tariffs of any amount on any country and also change his mind a few days later. He has dispatched National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles against the wishes of the governor and the mayor. He has asserted he can punish universities and law firms. He has claimed he can revise by executive order the 14th Amendment and its birthright citizenship clause. So far, the Supreme Court has not ruled squarely on Trump's broad assertions of power. But the justices have granted a series of emergency appeals from Trump's lawyers and set aside lower court orders that blocked his initiatives from taking effect. The theme has been that judges are out of line, not the president. Friday's ruling limiting nationwide injunctions set out that view in a 26-page opinion. The conservatives agreed that some judges have overstepped their authority by ruling broadly based on a single lawsuit. The justices have yet to rule on whether the president has overstepped his power. Justice Amy Coney Barrett summed up the dispute in a revealing comment responding to a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' she wrote. Missing from all this is the earlier strain of conservatism that opposed concentrated power in Washington — and in this instance, in one person. Last year offered a hint of what was to come. A year ago, the court ended its term by declaring the president is immune from being prosecuted for his official acts while in the White House. That decision, in Trump vs. United States, shielded the former and soon-to-be president from the criminal law. The Constitution does not mention any such immunity for ex-presidents charged with crimes, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said a shield of immunity was necessary to 'enable the the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.' Since returning to the White House, Trump has not been accused of exercising 'undue caution.' Instead, he appears to have viewed the court's opinion as confirming his unchecked power as the nation's chief executive. Trump advisors say that because the president was elected, he has a mandate and the authority to put his priorities and policies into effect. But the Supreme Court's conservatives did not take that view when President Biden took office promising to take action on climate change and to reduce the burden of student loan debt. In both areas, the Roberts court ruled that the Biden administration had exceeded its authority under the laws passed by Congress. Away from Washington, the most significant decision from this term may be Friday's ruling empowering parents. The six justices on the right ruled parents have a right to remove their children from certain public school classes that offend their religious beliefs. They objected to new storybooks and lessons for young children with LGBTQ+ themes. In recent years, the court, led by Roberts, has championed the 'free exercise' of religion that is protected by the 1st Amendment. In a series of decisions, the court has exempted Catholic schools and charities from laws or regulations on, for example, providing contraceptives to employees. Friday's ruling in a Maryland case extended that religious liberty right into the schools and ruled for Muslim and Catholic parents who objected to new LGBTQ+-themed storybooks. At first, the school board said parents could have their young children 'opt out' of those classes. But when too many parents took the offer, the school board rescinded it. The clash between progressive educators and conservative parents reached the court when the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed on behalf of the parents. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the parents believed the books and stories offended their religious beliefs, and he ordered school authorities to 'to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question is to be used ... and allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.' This decision may have a broader impact than any from this term because it empowers parents nationwide. But it too has limits. It does not require the schools to change their curriculum and their lessons or remove any books from the shelves. The conservatives fell one vote short in a case that could have brought about a far-reaching change in American schools. Split 4 to 4, the justices could not rule to uphold the nation's first publicly funded, church-run charter school. In the past, Roberts had voted to allow students to use state tuition grants in religious schools, but he appeared uncertain about using tax money to operate a church-run school. But that question is almost certain to return to the court. Barrett stepped aside from the Oklahoma case heard in April because friends and former colleagues at the Notre Dame Law School had filed the appeal. But in a future case, she could participate and cast a deciding vote.
Buzz Feed
a day ago
- Politics
- Buzz Feed
SCOTUS Backs Parents In Religious LGBTQ+ Book Case
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday that a group of religious parents can opt their children out of elementary school curriculum that involves books with LGBTQ+ themes. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, a group of parents of a number of religions, including Catholics and Muslims, sued the Montgomery County, Maryland, public school board after the district removed a policy that allowed those with religious objections to pull their children out of class whenever a book with LGBTQ+ characters would be used for teaching. The parents argued the new policy violated their religious freedom to teach their own values to their children. In an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court ruled that the parents were entitled to a preliminary injunction against the policy. 'The parents are likely to succeed on their claim that the Board's policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise,' the majority wrote. 'The Court has long recognized the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children.' The court also said the lower court's finding that the parents' arguments were 'threadbare' was incorrect. In a fiery dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that for poorer school districts, it may be too costly to engage in lawsuits over opt-outs or spend funds tracking student absences. 'Schools may instead censor their curricula, stripping material that risks generating religious objections,' she wrote. 'The Court's ruling, in effect, thus hands a subset of parents the right to veto curricular choices long left to locally elected school boards.' 'In a time of ever-increasing polarization in our country, exemptions that would require schools to allow children to refuse exposure to materials and curriculum about people from various backgrounds is divisive and harmful,' Deborah Jeon, the legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland said in April before the court heard oral arguments. The conservative justices didn't see it that way. 'They're not asking you to change what's taught in the classroom,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh said during arguments. 'They're only seeking to be able to walk out … so the parents don't have their children exposed to these things that are contrary to their own beliefs.' The decision is likely to have reverberations throughout the country. The Supreme Court has, in recent years, sided with plaintiffs who allege that antidiscrimination statutes are violations of their religious freedom, including a high school football coach who was fired for praying on the field and a website designer who didn't want to be forced to make wedding websites for same-sex couples. GOP-led states have been fighting to bring Christianity into public school classrooms by introducing bills to require displaying the Ten Commandments in classrooms and pushing Bible-based curricula for students as well. It's also another victory for right-wing culture warriors who, for the past several years, have been leading the movement to remove books from classrooms and reshape what and how schoolchildren are learning. Under the guise of parental rights, Republicans and conservative activists have pushed laws that ban books that deal with LGBTQ+ themes and censor what teachers can say about sexual orientation and gender identity. HuffPost.
The Hill
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Seven Democrats vote for GOP resolution condemning LA protests
Seven House Democrats on Friday voted in favor of a GOP-led resolution to condemn anti-immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles, siding with Republicans on demonstrations that became a flashpoint in President Trump's immigration crackdown. The seven defectors are all moderate Democrats in swing districts. They include two California Democrats, Reps. Jim Costa and Adam Gray, who are both located in the agricultural Central Valley. Reps. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Donald Davis (D-N.C.), Laura Gillen (D-N.Y.), and Jared Golden (D-Maine) also voted for the resolution. Cuellar, who represents a district on the southern border, has also been notably outspoken in urging Democrats to respond to immigration issues. Gray, who won election in November by fewer than 200 votes, told The Sacramento Bee that the resolution was 'far from perfect.' 'Messaging bills like this have no real force of law and simply express the sentiments of Congress— including the sentiment included in today's resolution that Congress is grateful for the first responders and public safety officers who keep us safe day in and day out,' he said. He also condemned Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in California as 'terror-inducing.' The resolution was introduced and cosponsored by nine California Republicans representing districts across the state. It described the protests as escalating into 'violent riots' with 'acts of arson, widespread looting, property destruction, and vandalism' and condemned acts of violence against law enforcement. The resolution also castigated local leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), for failing to control what it called the 'rapidly escalating disorder.' Protests in Los Angeles began earlier this month in response to federal immigration raids on a series of local businesses. Trump responded by calling in the National Guard, and later Marines, to the Southern California city to restore order. The mobilization prompted condemnation from Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D), and other local officials, who said that they had a handle on the situation. Newsom and Bass have charged that Trump's move only served to inflame protests. The Los Angeles Police Department made over 500 arrests over the course of the demonstrations, which were largely confined to a few blocks near federal buildings downtown. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) urged her members to vote against the measure Friday morning, calling it a 'partisan resolution to score political points.'
USA Today
a day ago
- Business
- USA Today
Senate official rules against gun silencer language in Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'
The Senate parliamentarian has ruled numerous aspects of President Donald Trump's priority bill don't comply with special rules. A Senate official continues to pick apart President Donald Trump's priority bill, ruling against including gun silencer deregulation and other measures in the legislation as GOP leaders struggle to push it across the finish line. Trump wants to pass his signature legislative proposal – which centers around tax and spending cuts – by July 4, and Senate leadership is working to get the bill finalized and up for a vote soon. Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has complicated those plans, ruling numerous aspects of it don't comply with the special rules senators are using to advance the bill with a simple majority vote to avoid a potential filibuster. Trump's legislation – which he has dubbed the 'big, beautiful, bill' – has been shrinking as it moves through the Senate. What to know: Why Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is shrinking in the Senate The parliamentarian earlier ruled against GOP-led efforts to curb environmental regulations, attempts to restrict federal judges' powers, plans to bulk up immigration enforcement and to cut funding from the federal agency launched to protect American consumers after the 2008 financial crisis. The parliamentarian recently ruled that a key Medicaid provision in the bill doesn't comply with the rules, forcing Senate leaders to recalibrate. Republicans are proposing cuts to Medicaid to help offset lost revenue from tax cuts. 'It's a setback. We're gonna have to regroup,' Sen. John Kennedy, R-Louisiana, said June 26 after the ruling. The Medicaid issue has been a thorny one for the GOP, dividing the party. The parliamentarian's decision further complicates the debate, prompting some Republicans to lash out and call for her to be overruled. The parliamentarian's latest ruling came on June 26, when she determined that the legislation can't include language on gun silencers, private school vouchers, exempting certain private colleges from a tax on endowments and other measures, according to Sen. Jeff Merkley, the Senate Budget Committee's top Democrat. Lawmakers wanted to eliminate a $200 tax on gun silencers and remove a requirement for gun owners to register their silencers. Rep. Greg Steube, R-Florida, criticized the parliamentarian after the Medicaid ruling. "The Senate Parliamentarian is not elected," Steube wrote on social media. "She is not accountable to the American people. Yet she holds veto power over legislation supported by millions of voters." Sen. Lindsey Graham said the legislation is still on track. 'We're going to pass this bill and I think get it on the president's desk before July the 4th,' Graham said. 'We're doing some workarounds with the parliamentarian rulings. Some of them we can fix, some of them we can't, but we're going to press on.' Trump held an event at the White House June 26 to push for the bill's passage. The president complained about GOP lawmakers who have threatened to vote against the legislation. "I shouldn't say this, but we don't want to have grandstanders where one or two people raise their hand, 'we'll vote no.' And they do it to grandstand,' he said. 'Not good people. They know who I'm talking about. We don't need grandstanders.' Contributing: Savannah Kuchar, Riley Beggin
The Hill
2 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
House GOP advances bill ‘gutting' government watchdog
House Republicans advanced legislation on Thursday that seeks to cut funding for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) by roughly 50 percent for fiscal year 2026, prompting outcry from Democrats who say the move is counterproductive to GOP efforts to root out waste in government. The GOP-led House Appropriations Committee voted along party lines on Thursday to advance the legislation, with Democrats rising in sharp opposition to the plan. The annual legislative branch funding bill, one of 12 full-year appropriations bills the committee aims to greenlight before the August recess, includes funding for House of Representatives operations, the Library of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), U.S. Capitol Police, and other agencies. Compared to current levels, the bill calls for $5 billion for fiscal 2026, or a 5 percent drop from current levels, when not accounting for Senate items. The total discretionary allocation rises to $6.7 billion, however, when considering those items. 'While we had to make a number of tough choices in this bill, we believe that as the legislative branch, it is our responsibility to lead by example and make responsible funding decreases where appropriate,' Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.), head of the subcommittee that crafted the plan, said in remarks on Thursday. The largest proposed cut outlined by appropriators in the bill amounts to a nearly 49 percent decrease in funding for the GAO, allocating $415 million for the agency in the fiscal 2026 budget. Democrats have also criticized a provision in the plan that they say would block the agency from bringing civil actions against other agencies for not complying with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. 'This is about the GAO having nearly 40 open investigations into whether the White House is illegally withholding money that we, as a committee, previously appropriate supporting the administration's actions that contravene the rule of law means the committee compromises,' Rep. Adriano Espaillat (N.Y.), top Democrat on the legislative branch appropriations subcommittee, said at the start of the markup session. 'With this, 2,200 jobs will be lost. In addition, Congress will forgo tens of billions in cost savings that result from GAO work each year,' he continued. The cuts come as GAO officials have made clear that they have a string of probes into the Trump administration's efforts to freeze federal funds. At the same time, Trump officials have raised scrutiny over the agency in recent months, with White House budget chief Russell Vought accusing the office of 'improperly calling programmatic review impoundments' in a Senate hearing earlier this week. 'We're going through a programmatic review. We will look at our options under the law with regard to that funding. Each set of funding is different, as you know, and we will be continuing to evaluate that program,' he also said before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday. Democrats have accused the Trump administration of undertaking a sweeping, illegal funding freeze, blocking hundreds of billions of dollars in federal dollars previously approved by Congress. During the committee markup on Thursday, Democrats also singled out a proposal to cut funding for the Library of Congress by 10 percent for fiscal 2026. At the same time, the plan calls for increases to the U.S. Capitol Police, the CBO, the Architect of the Capitol, with a boost for salaries and expenses for House officers and employees, committees operations, as well as an increase for the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights. With the bill's passage on Thursday, the House Appropriations Committee has passed almost half of its annual funding bills for fiscal 2026. The House also passed its first fiscal 2026 appropriations bill, which lays out the party's vision for the Department of Veterans' Affairs full-year funding, earlier this week.
