Latest news with #HIV-preventive
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court hands down wins for Trump and Obamacare: Live updates on the rulings
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court voted to lift temporary blocks on President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. The court ruled 6-3 that district court rulings temporarily blocking Trump's order "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." It did not decide whether the order is constitutional − a question that is being argued in lower federal courts. "This was a big decision, one that we're very happy about," Trump said later on June 27. 'The Constitution has been brought back." More: Trump wins again. Conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett again. Supreme Court takeaways More: In win for Trump, Supreme Court orders courts to reconsider limits on birthright citizenship and other policies In other decisions on the last day of the court's term, the justices ruled against a challenge to an Obamacare provision that forces health insurers to cover certain medicines and services, like HIV-preventive medication and cholesterol-lowering drugs; allowed parents to remove young school children from classes where the books include gay characters; and upheld a Texas law requiring age verification for users of pornographic web content. More: Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to Obamacare health coverage Appearing alongside Trump at the White House, Attorney General Pam Bondi took aim at what she called "imperial judges" who have tried to block the Trump administration's policies. She singled out federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, California, Washington and the District of Columbia who ordered 35 of 40 nationwide blocks against Trump's policies, and noted the high court halted that practice. 'Americans are finally getting what they voted for,' Bondi said. 'No longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation.' A group fighting Trump's birthright citizenship order shifted gears to block the president's restrictions after the Supreme Court struck down nationwide holds by several district judges. CASA Inc. refiled its lawsuit over the policy as a class action case. Class actions are still subject to nationwide injuctions, the Supreme Court ruled June 27. CASA asked a federal judge in Maryland to "immediately, without awaiting furtherbriefing, enter a temporary restraining order" against enforcement of Trump's birthright restrictions, protecting 'all children who have been born or will be born in the United States on or after February 19, 2025, who are designated by ExecutiveOrder 14,160 to be ineligible for birthright citizenship...' President Donald Trump and his top aides are declaring victory over federal judges who have blocked the Republican administration's policies at unprecedented rates, after the Supreme Court said nationwide decisions from regional judges likely exceed their authority. "This was a big decision, one that we're very happy about," Trump told reporters in a previously-unscheduled White House press conference on June 27. Later, he added, 'The Constitution has been brought back." The Supreme Court earlier in the day ordered U.S. district court judges to review their orders temporarily blocking Trump policies, in a case about the second-term president's executive order limiting birthright citizenship for children whose parents were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. More: Live: Trump calls news conference after Supreme Court win on judges blocking his policies Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has been targeted by some MAGA activists for siding against President Trump, but he had nothing but praises for her after a key decision. Barrett wrote the majority opinion in a 6-3 decision limiting the use of nationwide injunctions by federal courts, something the Trump administration has railed against. 'I have great respect for her, I always have, and her decision was brilliantly written today,' Trump said June 27 during a press conference celebrating the ruling. Barrett earlier had ruled against the Trump administration's efforts to freeze foreign aid funding, drawing criticism from the right. -Zac Anderson The Supreme Court upheld a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify their users are at least 18. The case pitted concerns about protecting minors against worries about violating the First Amendment rights of adults. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the 6-3 majority that the law survived 'because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults.' Eighteen other, largely conservative states have enacted similar laws in recent years as access to a growing cache of online pornography has exploded and the material has become more graphic. -Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen More: Supreme Court upholds Texas' age verification law for porn sites The Supreme Court sided with a group of parents who want to withdraw their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. In a 6-3 decision that divided along ideological lines, the court said a Maryland public school district's refusal to allow opt-outs likely burdens parents' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. They said the school must allow opt-outs while the legal challenge continues. Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed with the ruling, saying children of all faiths and backgrounds deserve an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society. "That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality," Sotomayor said. "Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs." Their decision continues a recent trend of high court rulings backing claims of religious discrimination, sometimes at the expense of other values like gay rights. -Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen The Supreme Court on June 27 upheld an $8 billion federal program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans, rejecting a conservative argument that the program is funded by an unconstitutional tax. The case was decided by a 6-3 majority, with Justice Elena Kagan writing the opinion. The court endorsed the way the Federal Communications Commission funds its multi-billion dollar program to expand phone and broadband internet access to low-income and rural Americans and other beneficiaries. The decision overturned a lower-court ruling that the FCC's funding mechanism employing mandatory contributions from telecommunications companies had effectively levied a "misbegotten tax" on consumers in violation of the Constitution. The case raised questions about how much Congress can 'delegate' its legislative authority to a federal agency and whether the Supreme Court should tighten that standard. -Maureen Groppe, Bart Jansen The court ruled against a challenge to an Obamacare board that determines which preventative care must be covered by insurance companies. The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration's appointment of a Department of Health and Human Services task force is constitutional. The decision upheld a key part of Obamacare that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive care such as cancer screenings at no cost to patients. Individuals and small businesses had challenged the structure of the task force that makes recommendations about preventive services that insurers would be required to cover at no additional cost to patients. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the 6-3 majority that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. can remove task force members at will and can review their recommendations before they take effect. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch disagreed. -Bart Jansen The Supreme Court decided to lift nationwide blocks on President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. More: Trump wants to end birthright citizenship. How many people would that impact? The court ruled 6-3 that District Court rulings that temporarily blocked Trump's order "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority that the lower courts should review their temporary blocks on Trump's policy. She explicitly said the court wasn't deciding whether Trump's order was constitutional. -Bart Jansen Several important Supreme Court decisions will be announced after 10 a.m. Eastern time on June 27. These will be the final rulings of court's current term. The opinions will be announced in order of the author, with the most junior justice going first. The justice who wrote the opinion will read a summary of the decision, which usually takes several minutes. If there's a dissenting opinion, that may also be summarized but is usually done only in major cases. That's happened only once so far this term. Justice Sonia Sotomayor read parts of her dissent from the majority's opinion upholding Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors. -Maureen Groppe One of the most hotly anticipated Supreme Court decisions of the year deals with President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship for the children parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. But how the justices will resolve case is anyone's guess. The Justice Department asked the high court to ignore for now the constitutionality of Trump's executive order. Instead, the department asked the justices to allow his order signed his first day back in office to go into effect while the case is litigated. But states and immigration advocates contend the order is clearly unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Lower courts in three states temporarily halted Trump's order while the cases are argued. The justices could lift the pause on those lower-court rulings – or not. Or fully decide Trump's order is constitutional – or not. Or ask for more arguments for the next court session beginning in October. Or maybe something else. -Bart Jansen Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy warned 'freedom is at risk' as he expressed concern about the "tone of our political discourse" as he defended the role judges play. More: How Trump's clash with the courts is brewing into an 'all-out war' Kennedy made his comments during an online forum June 26 called 'Speak Up for Justice,' which featured judges from other countries warning about how attacks on courts can threaten democracies. "And if they see a hostile, fractious discourse, if they see a discourse that uses identity politics rather than to talk about issues, democracy is at risk," Kennedy said. "Freedom is at risk. Kennedy, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan and retired during President Donald Trump's first term, stressed that the rest of the world looks 'to the United States to see what democracy is, to see what democracy ought to be." -Reuters The latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act takes aim at 2010 law's popular requirement that insurers cover without extra costs preventive care such as cancer screenings, cholesterol-lowering medication and diabetes tests. Two Christian-owned businesses and some people in Texas argue that the volunteer group of experts that recommends the services health insurance must cover is so powerful that, under the Constitution, its members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Supreme Court decided only three cases out of more than 60 decisions along strict ideological lines during the current year-long term ending June 27. The three cases so far decided on votes of the six justices appointed by Republicans and opposed by three justices appointed by Democrats were: A decision June 18 upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. A ruling June 26 siding with South Carolina's effort to deprive Planned Parenthood of public funding, A case about unsolicited faxes. -Bart Jansen The Supreme Court has nine justices: John G. Roberts Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch Brett Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barrett Ketanji Brown Jackson Six of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents and three by Democrats. But their rulings often do not split along strictly ideological lines, other than in political cases or those involving thorny cultural issues. -Bart Jansen and Anna Kaufman The Supreme Court still has to decide the last of three cases brought this year by religious groups. The justices will say if parents should be allowed to remove their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court decisions recap: Latest on big wins for Trump, Obamacare
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Live updates on Supreme Court decisions: Latest news, reaction to bombshell rulings
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court voted to lift temporary blocks on President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. The court ruled 6-3 that District Court rulings temporarily blocking Trump's order "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." It did not decide whether the order is constitutional - a question that is being argued in lower federal courts. More: In win for Trump, Supreme Court orders courts to reconsider limits on birthright citizenship and other policies In other decisions on the last day of the court's term, the justices ruled against a challenge to an Obamacare provision that forces health insurers to cover certain medicines and services, like HIV-preventive medication and cholesterol-lowering drugs; allowed parents to remove their elementary school children from classes where the books include gay characters; and upheld a Texas law requiring age verification for users of pornographic web content. More: Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to Obamacare health coverage Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has been targeted by some MAGA activists for siding against President Trump, but he had nothing but praises for her after a key decision. Barrett wrote the majority opinion in a 6-3 decision limiting the use of nationwide injunctions by federal courts, something the Trump administration has railed against. 'I have great respect for her, I always have, and her decision was brilliantly written today,' Trump said June 27 during a press conference celebrating the ruling. Barrett earlier had ruled against the Trump administration's efforts to freeze foreign aid funding, drawing criticism from the right. -Zac Anderson The Supreme Court upheld a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify their users are at least 18. The case pitted concerns about protecting minors against worries about violating the First Amendment rights of adults. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the 6-3 majority that the law survived 'because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults.' Eighteen other, largely conservative states have enacted similar laws in recent years as access to a growing cache of online pornography has exploded and the material has become more graphic. -Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen More: Supreme Court upholds Texas' age verification law for porn sites The Supreme Court sided with a group of parents who want to withdraw their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. In a 6-3 decision that divided along ideological lines, the court said a Maryland public school district's refusal to allow opt-outs likely burdens parents' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. They said the school must allow opt-outs while the legal challenge continues. Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed with the ruling, saying children of all faiths and backgrounds deserve an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society. "That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality," Sotomayor said. "Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs." Their decision continues a recent trend of high court rulings backing claims of religious discrimination, sometimes at the expense of other values like gay rights. -Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen The Supreme Court on June 27 upheld an $8 billion federal program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans, rejecting a conservative argument that the program is funded by an unconstitutional tax. The case was decided by a 6-3 majority, with Justice Elena Kagan writing the opinion. The court endorsed the way the Federal Communications Commission funds its multi-billion dollar program to expand phone and broadband internet access to low-income and rural Americans and other beneficiaries. The decision overturned a lower-court ruling that the FCC's funding mechanism employing mandatory contributions from telecommunications companies had effectively levied a "misbegotten tax" on consumers in violation of the Constitution. The case raised questions about how much Congress can 'delegate' its legislative authority to a federal agency and whether the Supreme Court should tighten that standard. -Maureen Groppe, Bart Jansen The court ruled against a challenge to an Obamacare board that determines which preventative care must be covered by insurance companies. The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration's appointment of a Department of Health and Human Services task force is constitutional. The decision upheld a key part of Obamacare that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive care such as cancer screenings at no cost to patients. Individuals and small businesses had challenged the structure of the task force that makes recommendations about preventive services that insurers would be required to cover at no additional cost to patients. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the 6-3 majority that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. can remove task force members at will and can review their recommendations before they take effect. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch disagreed. -Bart Jansen The Supreme Court decided to lift nationwide blocks on President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. More: Trump wants to end birthright citizenship. How many people would that impact? The court ruled 6-3 that District Court rulings that temporarily blocked Trump's order "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority that the lower courts should review their temporary blocks on Trump's policy. She explicitly said the court wasn't deciding whether Trump's order was constitutional. -Bart Jansen Several important Supreme Court decisions will be announced after 10 a.m. Eastern time on June 27. These will be the final rulings of court's current term. The opinions will be announced in order of the author, with the most junior justice going first. The justice who wrote the opinion will read a summary of the decision, which usually takes several minutes. If there's a dissenting opinion, that may also be summarized but is usually done only in major cases. That's happened only once so far this term. Justice Sonia Sotomayor read parts of her dissent from the majority's opinion upholding Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors. -Maureen Groppe One of the most hotly anticipated Supreme Court decisions of the year deals with President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship for the children parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. But how the justices will resolve case is anyone's guess. The Justice Department asked the high court to ignore for now the constitutionality of Trump's executive order. Instead, the department asked the justices to allow his order signed his first day back in office to go into effect while the case is litigated. But states and immigration advocates contend the order is clearly unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Lower courts in three states temporarily halted Trump's order while the cases are argued. The justices could lift the pause on those lower-court rulings – or not. Or fully decide Trump's order is constitutional – or not. Or ask for more arguments for the next court session beginning in October. Or maybe something else. -Bart Jansen Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy warned 'freedom is at risk' as he expressed concern about the "tone of our political discourse" as he defended the role judges play. More: How Trump's clash with the courts is brewing into an 'all-out war' Kennedy made his comments during an online forum June 26 called 'Speak Up for Justice,' which featured judges from other countries warning about how attacks on courts can threaten democracies. "And if they see a hostile, fractious discourse, if they see a discourse that uses identity politics rather than to talk about issues, democracy is at risk," Kennedy said. "Freedom is at risk. Kennedy, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan and retired during President Donald Trump's first term, stressed that the rest of the world looks 'to the United States to see what democracy is, to see what democracy ought to be." -Reuters The latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act takes aim at 2010 law's popular requirement that insurers cover without extra costs preventive care such as cancer screenings, cholesterol-lowering medication and diabetes tests. Two Christian-owned businesses and some people in Texas argue that the volunteer group of experts that recommends the services health insurance must cover is so powerful that, under the Constitution, its members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Supreme Court decided only three cases out of more than 60 decisions along strict ideological lines during the current year-long term ending June 27. The three cases so far decided on votes of the six justices appointed by Republicans and opposed by three justices appointed by Democrats were: A decision June 18 upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. A ruling June 26 siding with South Carolina's effort to deprive Planned Parenthood of public funding, A case about unsolicited faxes. -Bart Jansen The Supreme Court has nine justices: John G. Roberts Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch Brett Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barrett Ketanji Brown Jackson Six of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents and three by Democrats. But their rulings often do not split along strictly ideological lines, other than in political cases or those involving thorny cultural issues. -Bart Jansen and Anna Kaufman The Supreme Court still has to decide the last of three cases brought this year by religious groups. The justices will say if parents should be allowed to remove their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court decisions live updates: Latest news on bombshell rulings
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Live updates on Supreme Court decisions: Latest news, reaction to bombshell rulings
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court voted to lift temporary blocks on President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. The court ruled 6-3 that District Court rulings temporarily blocking Trump's order "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." It did not decide whether the order is constitutional - a question that is being argued in lower federal courts. In other decisions on the last day of the court's term, the justices ruled against a challenge to an Obamacare provision that forces health insurers to cover certain medicines and services, like HIV-preventive medication and cholesterol-lowering drugs, and allowed parents to remove their elementary school children from classes where the books include gay characters. More: Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to Obamacare health coverage The Supreme Court sided with a group of parents who want to withdraw their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. In a 6-3 decision that divided along ideological lines, the court said a Maryland public school district's refusal to allow opt-outs likely burdens parents' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. They said the school must allow opt-outs while the legal challenge continues. Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed with the ruling, saying children of all faiths and backgrounds deserve an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society. "That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality," Sotomayor said. "Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs." Their decision continues a recent trend of high court rulings backing claims of religious discrimination, sometimes at the expense of other values like gay rights. -Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen The court ruled against a challenge to an Obamacare board that determines which preventative care must be covered by insurance companies. The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration's appointment of a Department of Health and Human Services task force is constitutional. The decision upheld a key part of Obamacare that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive care such as cancer screenings at no cost to patients. Individuals and small businesses had challenged the structure of the task force that makes recommendations about preventive services that insurers would be required to cover at no additional cost to patients. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the 6-3 majority that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. can remove task force members at will and can review their recommendations before they take effect. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch disagreed. -Bart Jansen The Supreme Court decided to lift nationwide blocks on President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. More: Trump wants to end birthright citizenship. How many people would that impact? The court ruled 6-3 that District Court rulings that temporarily blocked Trump's order "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority that the lower courts should review their temporary blocks on Trump's policy. She explicitly said the court wasn't deciding whether Trump's order was constitutional. -Bart Jansen Several important Supreme Court decisions will be announced after 10 a.m. Eastern time on June 27. These will be the final rulings of court's current term. The opinions will be announced in order of the author, with the most junior justice going first. The justice who wrote the opinion will read a summary of the decision, which usually takes several minutes. If there's a dissenting opinion, that may also be summarized but is usually done only in major cases. That's happened only once so far this term. Justice Sonia Sotomayor read parts of her dissent from the majority's opinion upholding Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors. -Maureen Groppe One of the most hotly anticipated Supreme Court decisions of the year deals with President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship for the children parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. But how the justices will resolve case is anyone's guess. The Justice Department asked the high court to ignore for now the constitutionality of Trump's executive order. Instead, the department asked the justices to allow his order signed his first day back in office to go into effect while the case is litigated. But states and immigration advocates contend the order is clearly unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Lower courts in three states temporarily halted Trump's order while the cases are argued. The justices could lift the pause on those lower-court rulings – or not. Or fully decide Trump's order is constitutional – or not. Or ask for more arguments for the next court session beginning in October. Or maybe something else. -Bart Jansen Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy warned 'freedom is at risk' as he expressed concern about the "tone of our political discourse" as he defended the role judges play. More: How Trump's clash with the courts is brewing into an 'all-out war' Kennedy made his comments during an online forum June 26 called 'Speak Up for Justice,' which featured judges from other countries warning about how attacks on courts can threaten democracies. "And if they see a hostile, fractious discourse, if they see a discourse that uses identity politics rather than to talk about issues, democracy is at risk," Kennedy said. "Freedom is at risk. Kennedy, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan and retired during President Donald Trump's first term, stressed that the rest of the world looks 'to the United States to see what democracy is, to see what democracy ought to be." -Reuters The latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act takes aim at 2010 law's popular requirement that insurers cover without extra costs preventive care such as cancer screenings, cholesterol-lowering medication and diabetes tests. Two Christian-owned businesses and some people in Texas argue that the volunteer group of experts that recommends the services health insurance must cover is so powerful that, under the Constitution, its members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Supreme Court decided only three cases out of more than 60 decisions along strict ideological lines during the current year-long term ending June 27. The three cases so far decided on votes of the six justices appointed by Republicans and opposed by three justices appointed by Democrats were: A decision June 18 upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. A ruling June 26 siding with South Carolina's effort to deprive Planned Parenthood of public funding, A case about unsolicited faxes. -Bart Jansen The Supreme Court has nine justices: John G. Roberts Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch Brett Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barrett Ketanji Brown Jackson Six of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents and three by Democrats. But their rulings often do not split along strictly ideological lines, other than in political cases or those involving thorny cultural issues. -Bart Jansen and Anna Kaufman The Supreme Court still has to decide the last of three cases brought this year by religious groups. The justices will say if parents should be allowed to remove their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court decisions live updates: Latest news on bombshell rulings
USA Today
5 days ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court bombshell decisions are looming: Live updates on court rulings
The most anticipated decision: Whether the court will let President Trump to enforce changes to birthright citizenship amid a legal challenge. WASHINGTON − The final day of the Supreme Court term is going to be a big one. Six major rulings related to President Donald Trump and birthright citizenship, LGBTQ+ schoolbooks and online porn will be released in one final decision drop on June 27. Most anticipated is whether the court will allow Trump to enforce his changes to birthright citizenship while his new policy is being litigated. The ruling could make it harder for judges to block any of the president's policies. Other decisions will determine if health insurers have to cover certain medicines and services, like HIV-preventive medication and cholesterol-lowering drugs, and whether a federal program that subsidizes phone and internet services through carrier fees is constitutional. Birthright citizenship Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship has been put on hold by judges across the country who ruled it's probably unconstitutional. During the May 15 oral arguments, none of the Supreme Court justices voiced support for the Trump administration's theory on the matter. The administration says Trump's order is consistent with the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause and past Supreme Court decisions about that provision. But several of the justices have expressed concern about the ability of one judge to block a law or presidential order from going into effect anywhere in the country while it's being challenged. It was unclear from the oral arguments how the court might find a way to limit nationwide – or 'universal' – court orders and what that would mean for birthright citizenship and the many other Trump policies being challenged in court. Religious case focuses on LGBTQ+ books The Supreme Court still has to decide the last of three cases brought this year by religious groups. The justices will say if parents should be allowed to remove their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read.
The Herald Scotland
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court is dropping the rest of its decisions in one final swoop
Most anticipated is whether the court will allow Trump to enforce his changes to birthright citizenship while his new policy is being litigated. The ruling could make it harder for judges to block any of the president's policies. Other decisions will determine if health insurers have to cover certain medicines and services, like HIV-preventive medication and cholesterol-lowering drugs, and whether a federal program that subsidizes phone and internet services through carrier fees is constitutional. The Supreme Court still has to decide the last of three cases brought this year by religious groups. The justices will say if parents should be allowed to remove their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. The court's pending opinion on Louisiana's congressional districts could impact the 2026 elections as well as affect states' ability to consider race when drawing legislative boundaries. The court has already issued major rulings on guns, treatments for transgender minors, "reverse discrimination," South Carolina's effort to defund Planned Parenthood, and how the Americans with Disabilities Act does or doesn't protect retirees and help students who need specialized learning plans. Here's a look at what's still to come: Birthright citizenship: limiting challenges to Trump's powers Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship has been put on hold by judges across the country who ruled it's probably unconstitutional. During the May 15 oral arguments, none of the Supreme Court justices voiced support for the Trump administration's theory on the matter. The administration says Trump's order is consistent with the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause and past Supreme Court decisions about that provision. But several of the justices have expressed concern about the ability of one judge to block a law or presidential order from going into effect anywhere in the country while it's being challenged. It was unclear from the oral arguments how the court might find a way to limit nationwide - or "universal" - court orders and what that would mean for birthright citizenship and the many other Trump policies being challenged in court. Preventing students from reading LGBTQ+ books and minors from viewing porn The court's conservative majority sounded sympathetic in April to Maryland parents who raised religious objections to having their elementary school children read books with LGBTQ+ characters. And in a case about Texas' requirement that websites verify users are 18 or over, one justice expressed her own parental frustration over trying to control what her children see on the internet. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has seven children, said she knows from personal experience how difficult it is to keep up with the content-blocking devices that those challenging Texas' law offered as a better alternative. But while the justices were sympathetic to the purpose of Texas' law, they may decide a lower court didn't sufficiently review whether it violates the First Amendment rights of adults, so it must be reconsidered. Conservative challenges to Obamacare and internet subsidies The court is considering conservative challenges to Obamacare and to an $8 billion federal program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans. The justices seemed likely to reject an argument that the telecommunications program is funded by an unconstitutional tax, a case that raised questions about how much Congress can "delegate" its legislative authority to a federal agency. The latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act takes aim at 2010 law's popular requirement that insurers cover without extra costs preventive care such as cancer screenings, cholesterol-lowering medication and diabetes tests. Two Christian-owned businesses and some people in Texas argue that the volunteer group of experts that recommends the services health insurance must cover is so powerful that, under the Constitution, its members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Racial gerrymandering versus Black voting power A challenge to Louisiana's congressional map by non-Black voters tests the balancing act states must strike, complying with a civil rights law that protects the voting power of a racial minority while not discriminating against other voters. The outcome will also determine if the state can keep a map that gave Democrats an advantage in the disputed district, a decision that could make a difference in what could be a close battle for control of the House in the 2026 midterm elections.
