Heavy snow and difficult travel expected again, heaviest snow in southern Minnesota

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

the final six cases that were left on its docket

 for the summer, including emergency appeals relating to President Donald Trump’s agenda.

 ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President 

 ’s restrictions on birthright citizenship.

The court sided with Maryland parents with 

religious objections to school book material

 requirement, upheld a law aimed at blocking kids from seeing pornography online and preserved a fee 

Advocacy group warns of possible Social Security number impacts after court’s ruling

Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, an advocacy group for the preservation of Social Security benefits, said the court’s ruling could open the door to the agency ending its enumeration at birth program.

Virtually all babies born in the U.S. are automatically given a Social Security number.

“If there are new injunctions or in the unlikely event that injunctions get lifted, SSA has to change its procedures,” she said, referring to the Social Security Administration.

It could mean the SSA puts an end to its enumeration at birth program, she said, or “costing a huge amount of money, causing huge inconvenience and swamping already overwhelmed field offices.”

ACLU criticizes court’s age verification decision

“The Supreme Court has departed from decades of settled precedents that ensured that sweeping laws purportedly for the benefit of minors do not limit adults’ access to First Amendment-protected materials,” national legal director of the ACLU Cecillia Wang said in a statement Friday.

“The legislature claims to be protecting children from sexually explicit materials, but the law will do little to block their access, and instead deters adults from viewing vast amounts of First Amendment-protected content,” she added.

Advocates say a class action lawsuit is next

William Powell, an attorney for the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, said Trump’s birthright citizenship order requires a change in procedural approach and that challengers to it are now pursuing a class action suit.

“That’s all the babies who have already been born, and all the babies who will be born in the future, as well as the parents of the babies who have been born and the expecting parents,” Powell said.

Conchita Cruz, co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, one of the plaintiffs seeking to block the order, said the Supreme Court’s opinion means the order is blocked for 30 days.

“That means that for the next 30 days, babies born to immigrant parents will continue to be recognized as U.S. citizens,” she said.

National Latino organizations criticize Supreme Court ruling

Leaders from LULAC, Voto Latino, Unidos US, and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials denounced the court’s ruling, concerned about the effect it may have on birthright citizenship.

“This ruling betrays our most fundamental promise: that every child born on U.S. soil is an American, period,” said Roman Palomares, LULAC National President and Chairman of the Board said in a statement. “The Supreme Court may have chosen procedure over principle today, but LULAC will not stand by while babies born under our flag are stripped of their rightful place in our nation.”

Similarly, Voto Latino President and Co-Founder María Teresa Kumar said the decision gives the Trump administration more power to further its “extreme political agenda.”

Digital rights group says ruling could upend First Amendment access

Samir Jain, vice president of policy at the nonprofit Center for Democracy & Technology, said the court’s decision on age verification “does far more than uphold an incidental burden on adults’ speech. It overturns decades of precedent and has the potential to upend access to First Amendment-protected speech on the internet for everyone, children and adults alike.”

“Age verification requirements still raise serious privacy and free expression concerns,” Jain added. “If states are to go forward with these burdensome laws, age verification tools must be accurate and limit collection, sharing, and retention of personal information, particularly sensitive information like birthdate and biometric data.”

“We’ve had a big week. We’ve had a lot of victories this week,” the president said.

He thanked Bondi for her work on the Supreme Court case that limited the power of individual judges to block his agenda, saying, “She’s going to go down as a great attorney general.”

“We’ve had tremendous wins,” he said. “But this was a tremendous win today.”

Christian legal advocacy group calls LGBTQ+ books case ruling a ‘monumental victory’

Alliance Defending Freedom praised the decision allowing Maryland parents who have religious objections to pull their children from public school lessons that use 

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision is a monumental victory for parents and their fundamental right to make decisions consistent with their religious beliefs about the upbringing and education of their children,” John Bursch, Alliance Defending Freedom’s senior counsel and vice president of appellate advocacy, said in an emailed statement.

“Government officials can’t force parents to give up that right or violate their religious beliefs in exchange for a public education,” he added.

Trump says he will ‘promptly file’ to push policies after court’s decision

Speaking from the White House, Trump said he would try to advance restrictions on birthright citizenship and other policies that had been blocked by district courts.

Trump calls court ruling a ‘monumental victory’

The president, making a rare appearance to hold a news conference in the White House briefing room, said Friday that the decision from the Supreme Court was “amazing” and a “monumental victory for the Constitution,” the separation of powers and the rule of law.

Vance praises court ruling on ‘ridiculous process’ of injunctions

“Under our system, everyone has to follow the law—including judges!” the vice president wrote on the social platform X.

Nationwide injunctions have become a key brake on Trump’s efforts to dramatically reshape the government, frustrating him and his allies.

Options remain ‘for individuals to obtain relief from the courts,’ legal group says

Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of the nonprofit Democracy Forward, called the court’s birthright citizenship decision “another obstacle” to the protection of constitutional rights, but added that “a number of pathways remain for individuals to obtain relief from the courts.”

winning injunctions against the administration

“Lawyers in this nation will find a way or make one in the work to achieve what our Constitution mandates and our nation promises,” Perryman said in a statement.

Immigrant advocates say the court has ‘invited chaos, inequality’ with ruling

The Supreme Court ruling “opens the door to a dangerous patchwork of rights in this country, where a child’s citizenship may now depend on the judicial district in which they’re born,” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit group that supports refugees and migrants entering the U.S. “This is a deeply troubling moment not only for immigrant families, but for the legal uniformity that underpins our Constitution.”

“Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,” he said in a statement. “By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear,” Vignarajah continued.

Law aimed at blocking kids from seeing pornography online upheld

The ruling came in a case over a Texas law that was challenged by an adult-entertainment industry trade group called the Free Speech Coalition.

The group said the law puts an unfair free speech burden on adults by requiring them to submit personal information that could be vulnerable to hacking or tracking. It agreed, though, that children under 18 shouldn’t be seeing porn.

 as smartphones and other devices make it easier to access 

Vice President JD Vance hails ‘huge’ Supreme Court decision

Vance said the justices were “smacking down the ridiculous process of nationwide injunctions.”

He also shared a post from conservative commentator Sean Davis, who said the court was “nuking universal injunctions,” which liberals have sought from district judges to slow down Trump’s agenda.

Birthright citizenship case ruling will cause ‘chaos and confusion,’ group says

Lupe Rodríguez, executive director of National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, said the decision “opens the door to discrimination, statelessness, and a fundamental erosion of rights for those born on American soil.”

“By lifting the injunction on this cruel and unconstitutional executive order, there will be chaos and confusion for families across the country as citizenship may depend on the state you were born in,” Rodríguez said in a statement.

The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling. The conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide.

New York AG calls Supreme Court ruling a profound setback

The ruling, which said individual judges don’t have the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, left unclear the fate of Trump’s birthright citizenship order, which would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally.

“While I am confident that our case defending birthright citizenship will ultimately prevail, my heart breaks for the families whose lives may be upended by the uncertainty of this decision,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement.

‘The lives of thousands of Americans will be upended’

Common Cause President and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said the Supreme Court decision limiting the scope of injunctions issued by federal judges leaves thousands of people vulnerable.

“The lives of thousands of Americans will be upended, and many will be wrongfully deported. The ruling undermines the ability of the federal courts to protect the Constitution from a president with no respect for the rule of law and a dislike for people who don’t look like him,” Solomón said in a statement.

Solomón predicted the Trump administration would use the ruling to “illegally deport citizens in violation of the 14th Amendment.”

“Ultimately, the courts will rule against this blatantly unconstitutional act by the president. But the ruling today prevents lower courts from stopping unconstitutional acts nationwide before they do serious harm,” she said.

Many justices have raised concerns about nationwide injunctions

In the past, at least five of the Supreme Court’s conservative justices have raised concerns about the orders, but it hasn’t just been conservatives.

Speaking at the Northwestern University School of Law in 2022, Kagan warned of “forum shopping,” when litigants file suit in courts they hope will be receptive to them.

“In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas,” she said. “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”

Trump plans news conference to celebrate Supreme Court ruling

The president posted on his Truth Social media network that the ruling was a “GIANT WIN.”

“Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process,” Trump said in the post.

He announced he plans to have a news conference at 11:30 a.m. at the White House.

Court sides with Maryland parents over LGBTQ+ storybooks

The justice ruled that the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material.

The decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents would win in the end.

The school district introduced the storybooks, including “Prince & Knight” and “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” in 2022 to better reflect the district’s diversity. In “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” a niece worries that her uncle won’t have as much time for her after he gets married to another man.

Supreme Court OKs fee subsidizing phone and internet services

The justices, by a 6-3 vote, reversed an appeals court ruling that had struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the charge that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years.

At arguments in March, liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concerns about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund, which has benefited tens of millions of Americans.

The fee provides billions of dollars a year in 

 collects the money from telecommunications providers, which pass the cost on to their customers.

The ruling crossed ideological lines, with Kagan writing for the majority in an opinion that included several conservative justices.

Key part of Obamacare coverage requirements preserved

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge from Christian employers to a key part of the Affordable Care Act’s preventive health care coverage requirements, which affects some 150 million Americans.

The 6-3 ruling comes in a lawsuit over how the government decides which health care medications and services must be fully covered by private insurance under former President Barack Obama’s signature law, often referred to as Obamacare.

The Trump administration defended the mandate before the court, though the Republican president has been critical of his Democratic predecessor’s law.

Nationwide injunctions have become a favored judicial tool during Trump presidency

A Supreme Court opinion limiting the use of nationwide injunctions takes aim at a judicial maneuver that has soared in popularity during the first several months of Trump’s second term.

A Congressional Research Service report identified 25 cases between Jan. 20 and April 29 in which a district court judge issued a nationwide injunction. Those include cases on topics ranging from federal funding to diversity, equity and inclusion considerations to birthright citizenship, the subject at issue in Friday’s Supreme Court opinion restricting their use.

That number is in contrast to 28 nationwide injunction cases that CRS identified from former President Joe Biden’s administration and 86 from Trump’s first term.

The report cautions that it’s not possible to provide a full count since nationwide injunction is not a legal term with a precise meaning.

Sotomayor accuses the Trump administration of “gamesmanship” in dissent

She wrote that Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order has been deemed “patently unconstitutional” by every court that examined it.

So, instead of trying to argue that the executive order is likely constitutional, the administration “asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone,” Sotomayor wrote.

“The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it,” she wrote. “Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.”

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined her in her dissenting opinion.

Attorney general applauds limits on nationwide injunctions

Politics and Government News

Homepage

The Associated Press

Author

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued decisions on the final six cases that were left on its docket for the summer, including emergency appeals relating to President Donald Trump's agenda.

Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of birthright citizenship unclear

Go Deeper.

Like this?