Latest news with #SCOTUS
Bloomberg
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Supreme Court Curbs Judges in Birthright Case as Trump Touts Win
A divided SCOTUS left unresolved a fight over President Trump's restrictions on automatic birthright citizenship. The 6-3 ruling said Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship at a minimum won't take effect for 30 days. Erik Larson explains. (Source: Bloomberg)
Black America Web
8 hours ago
- Health
- Black America Web
SCOTUS Medicaid Decision Could Defund Planned Parenthood
Source: Kevin Hagen / Getty A new decision from the ultraconservative SCOTUS majority involving Medicaid dealt another blow to reproductive rights in a decision that could set the stage for states to defund Planned Parenthood. In Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic , the Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that the federal law at issue does not allow Medicaid recipients the right to sue to enforce their choice of provider. According to the ultraconservative majority, Medicaid recipients do have a right under federal law to choose their own provider. But they cannot sue to enforce that right even where a state takes the decision away from them, as is the case in South Carolina. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, joined by patient Julie Edwards, challenged a 2018 South Carolina executive order that banned access to federal Medicaid funding for non-abortion health care if a clinic also provided abortions. Edwards reportedly joined the litigation as an impacted patient who had found supportive doctors and care at Planned Parenthood. The decision also comes just days after the third anniversary of the devastating SCOTUS decision in Dobbs. Emboldened by the win, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster defended the policy in a statement issued shortly after the Court's decision, focusing on abortion and not the people who would lose access to necessary healthcare provided by Planned Parenthood. Medicaid already cannot pay for abortions except in very limited circumstances. Writing a stern dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called out her colleagues in the majority for disregarding existing Supreme Court precedent and 'enforceable right' created by the Medicaid Act's free-choice-of-provider provision. Drawing on history and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Jackson explained why and how Congress gave private citizens the right to sue to enforce rights made available by the Constitution and other federal laws. In this case, she said that the 'provision states that every Medicaid plan 'must… provide that… any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required,'' Jackson wrote. 'And Congress reinforced its rights-creating intent by making the provision mandatory—it specifically inserted the word 'must' into the statute—to make clear that the obligation imposed on the States was binding. If Congress did not want to protect Medicaid recipients' freedom to choose their own providers, it would have likely avoided using a combination of classically compulsory language and explicit individual-centric terminology.' In many ways, the decision leaves Medicaid recipients without recourse in states with leadership fixated on defunding Planned Parenthood or otherwise instituting political litmus tests for healthcare. Responding to the decision, South Carolina State Senators Margie Bright Matthews and Tameika Isaas Devine called the ruling a 'gut punch' to those who rely on Planned Parenthood for basic healthcare. 'By allowing the state to block a qualified provider from the Medicaid program, the Court has put politics ahead of public health,' the senators wrote. 'The real price of this decision will be paid by patients, especially Black, Brown, and rural women who now face fewer options and greater barriers to care.' In a statement posted to Instagram, Planned Parenthood called the decision an 'injustice.' 'SCOTUS's decision in Medina v. PPSAT today is a blow to Medicaid patients' freedom to access health care at their chosen provider,' the statement read. 'It also effectively may allow lawmakers to deny people the care they need and trust. Public officials should not decide where or how you get the quality, affordable health care you need.' As noted in a May 2025 policy brief from KFF, defunding Planned Parenthood has been a major aim of anti-abortion groups and policymakers for many years. Nationally, 1 in 3 women reported receiving care at a Planned Parenthood Clinic. According to KFF, an estimated 36% of South Carolina women aged 19 to 64 received Medicaid in 2023. Now, nearly 60 years after Congress established Medicaid, Congressional Republicans propose deep cuts to Medicaid and reproductive health more broadly. The impact of limiting support for reproductive healthcare could have dire implications for Black women and their families. South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Christale Spain called out the denial of healthcare based on an anti-abortion agenda. She noted the increased barrier to treatment for people seeking cancer screenings, STI treatment, contraception, and other preventative care services. 'This case was never about fiscal responsibility; it was about targeting a trusted healthcare provider for purely ideological, partisan reasons,' Spain said. 'Let's call this what it is: an effort to control people's bodies, silence their choices, and limit their options. South Carolinians deserve better.' SEE ALSO: Kendrick Sampson's BLD PWR Teams Up With SisterSong And GBEF For Houston Juneteenth Event Adriana Smith's Family Says Goodbye, Asks For Prayers For Newborn Son SEE ALSO SCOTUS Medicaid Decision Could Defund Planned Parenthood was originally published on
USA Today
9 hours ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Migrant groups left shocked, scared over Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship
DENVER ‒ The Supreme Court's reticence to stop President Donald Trump from revoking automatic birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States has set off shockwaves among migrant communities. The court's June 27 ruling does not change the status of anyone subject to birthright citizenship, and gives lower courts 30 days to further consider the issue. Advocates immediately filed a class-action lawsuit to block Trump's plan, which would end automatic citizenship for babies born in the United States unless their parents were also citizens or legal, permanent residents. The measure is not retroactive, meaning it would only apply to babies born after it takes effect, if allowed by the courts. Among those suing to stop Trump's plan is "Liza," a Texas-based Russian-born graduate student who gave birth after the president issued his executive order. Liza, who has been granted anonymity by the federal courts in recognition of her immigration status, said she fears going to the Russian embassy to register their child's birth because her husband has applied for asylum in the United States after fleeing their homeland. Liza's baby is currently protected from losing U.S. citizenship due to a preliminary injunction issued by a lower court, which will now consider the merit's of Trump's plan. Liza said she was "sick with worry" that the courts would rule before her baby was born. "Thankfully our baby was born health and happy … we remain worried even now that one day the government would one day take away our baby's citizenship," she said during a press conference following the June 27 Supreme Court ruling. "I'm sad about what today's decision means for all the parents whose children are not protected by the current preliminary injunction and who are now even more scared about their children's future." SCOTUS ruling on birthright citizenship changes nothing immediately In Denver, the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition was hurriedly trying to reassure pregnant women that the court's decision in the Trump v. CASA Inc. case changes nothing immediately. "It is really scary for people who are having children right now … that someone would want to take away this fundamental right," said spokeswoman Raquel Lane-Arellano. "I don't see a reality where birthright citizenship gets revoked, (but) for people watching the news, that might not be clear." Birthright citizenship ‒ explicitly granted by the 14th Amendment ‒ says that virtually anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen. The only current exception is children of foreign diplomats, a position the Supreme Court has previously upheld. But the possibility that Trump could end the right granted by the 14th Amendment has raised alarm among groups that had hoped the Supreme Court would outright block his initiative. The Supreme Court's decision sets the stage for lower courts to consider the president's plan over the next month. "Today is a sad day for all of those who care about the U.S. Constitution and the constitutional rights of children born in the United States each and every day," said Conchita Cruz, the co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project. "It is a confusing moment for immigrant families as they see the news and are not necessarily sure what it means or how it could it impact them." What does ending birthright citizenship mean Trump in one of his first actions upon returning to the White House issued an executive order declaring that children born to parents visiting on tourist, student or work visas, or who are illegally present, are not automatically citizens. His order would not affect children born to U.S. citizens or people with legal permanent residency. Migrant-rights groups had hoped the Supreme Court would have reaffirmed its previous ruling in favor of birthright citizenship, and were shocked when the court instead ordered lower courts to consider the legal merits of the president's plan. If ended, the policy could affect about 255,000 babies born in the United States annually, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Experts warn that Trump's order could create "stateless" people who are born in the United States but who have no connection to the birth country of their own parents. New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said he was glad that the High Court recognized that nationwide judicial orders can be appropriate to protect plaintiffs from harm and vowed to continue to fight for birthright citizenship on its merits. 'We welcome the opportunity to continue making our case before the district court particularly because the Executive Order will not take immediate effect, to show that the President's approach to birthright citizenship is a recipe for chaos on the ground and harm to the States,' Platkin said on X. 'We are confident that his flagrantly unconstitutional order will remain enjoined by the courts." Trump ran for office on a platform of strict immigration control, and repeatedly said he would attempt to revoke birthright citizenship. Many countries have ended their birthright citizenship, including the United Kingdom and most of Europe. Trump has promised to deport 1 million people annually, and ending birthright citizenship would make it easier for federal officials to remove entire families. Historically, parents of U.S. citizen babies have often been allowed to remain in the country even if they entered illegally themselves.
Android Authority
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Android Authority
You may soon be scanning your ID just to access websites, and you've the SCOTUS to blame
Edgar Cervantes / Android Authority TL;DR Texas House Bill 1181 requires age verification for users trying to access websites offering adult content. After lower courts ruled it unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has upheld the bill in a 6–3 ruling. States are now free to force websites to demand a copy of your ID, raising substantial privacy concerns. Being asked to prove who you are is just an everyday part of going online: select all the bicycles if you're not a robot; click this box affirming you're 21 before you browse these bongs for sale. But the vast majority of the time, all that info is offered up on the honor system, without any kind of meaningful checks to do hard verification. If you'd prefer that not change, and don't like the idea of sharing a copy of your ID with all these websites, we've got some bad news for you, and you've the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to blame. The issue at hand concerns Texas House Bill 1181, which required that websites offering a substantial amount of content harmful to minors verify the identity of visitors to establish they're of a suitable age (via TechCrunch). The Free Speech Coalition sued in response, characterizing the law as unconstitutional restriction on free speech — an argument that had been used successfully in the past. And indeed, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. Texas pushed back, leading to SCOTUS taking up the case, and in a 6–3 verdict today, the conservative-stacked court has ruled in support of H.B. 1181. The opinions cited in the court's ruling reflect exactly the kind of pearl-clutching use of protecting the interests of minors to justify restricting speech that earlier courts had rejected. But in 2025's carefully crafted judicial landscape, conservative interests finally managed to shove their agenda through. Beyond Texas, roughly half the states in the US either already have similar age-verification laws of their own, or will soon have them going into effect. With this SCOTUS ruling on the books, we can almost guarantee that more states will feel empowered to follow, and in all likelihood we can expect further 'won't someone think of the children' laws to target additional forms of adult content online. So far, when faced with age verification laws, sites like Pornhub have simply blocked access in areas with these rules rather than comply, shutting out millions upon millions of users. But we could rapidly be reaching a tipping point there, and it feels like a future where more sites give in and demand ID scans to access them could be right around the corner. Between the obvious desire for anonymity when consuming adult content, and concerns over potential data breaches with any age-check providers, that does not sound like a great direction the internet is headed. Got a tip? Talk to us! Email our staff at Email our staff at news@ . You can stay anonymous or get credit for the info, it's your choice.
Irish Daily Star
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Irish Daily Star
Donald Trump lists five terrifying next steps after Supreme Court victory
After a divided Supreme Court ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, Trump held a press conference to celebrate his 'win.' During the conference, Trump said that the 'win' opens the Supreme Court up to next steps including ending birthright citizenship outright, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, "freezing unnecessary funding," and no tax dollars for transgender surgeries. The decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump 's restrictions on birthright citizenship. The court issued decisions on Friday on the final six cases remaining on its docket for the summer, including emergency appeals related to Trump's agenda . Read More Related Articles Donald Trump dementia fears as 'catheter' spotted in his trousers Read More Related Articles Iran unleashes cyber attack on Trump's Truth Social as experts warn of chilling escalation Trump held a press conference on his SCOTUS 'win' as the court made a difficult decision on Birthright citizenship (Image: AP) "This decision," Trump began, "we can now promptly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous other priorities of the American people," he bragged at the press conference. "We have so many of them. I have a whole list. I'm not going to bore you, and I'm going to have Pam get up and say a few words, but there's really, she can talk as long as she wants because this is a very important decision," Trump further said." "This is a decision that covers a tremendous amount of territory, but I want to just thank again the Supreme Court for this ruling. It's a giant, it's a giant, and they should be very proud and our country should be very proud of the Supreme Court today," Trump continued before inviting Attorney General Pam Bondi on stage. Bondi said Americans are finally getting what they voted for . 'These lawless injunctions gave relief to everyone in the world instead of the parties before the court,' she said. The second-highest-ranking Justice Department official joined Bondi and Trump at the White House to praise the new limits on nationwide injunctions. SCOTUS now created a situation where Trump's birthright citizenship ban may go forward in some states (Image: AFP via Getty Images) Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche accused local district judges of issuing rulings 'contrary to the law just because they don't like' Trump's policies, adding that Justice Department lawyers have been working nonstop to fight such rulings. 'They should be doing the work that the president and this administration demands and has a right to demand and not fighting these local judges who don't make decisions based on the law,' Blanche said. The Supreme Court's decision on birthright citizenship is a victory for Trump, but the push to advance restrictions on birthright citizenship could put him on a collision course with mainstream public opinion. A January AP-NORC poll found that only about 3 in 10 U.S. adults were 'somewhat' or 'strongly' in favor of changing the Constitution so that children born in the U.S. are not automatically granted citizenship if their parents are born here illegally, while about half were 'somewhat' or 'strongly' opposed and about 2 in 10 were neutral.
