US Supreme Court curbs federal judges' power, handing Trump major victory on executive authority
The Supreme Court delivered a major victory to President Donald Trump on Friday, sharply limiting federal judges' authority to block presidential policies through nationwide injunctions. In a 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that such sweeping orders 'likely exceed the equitable authority' granted to courts, calling them a 'conspicuously nonexistent' practice for most of US history.
While the case stemmed from challenges to Trump's executive order denying citizenship to babies of undocumented or temporary residents, the Court deliberately avoided ruling on the order's constitutionality. Instead, Barrett emphasized that courts cannot exercise 'general oversight of the Executive Branch,' effectively dismantling a key check on presidential power that had blocked dozens of Trump's policies.
The immediate impact creates legal limbo for birthright citizenship: The policy could take effect in 28 non-challenging states after a 30-day window, potentially creating a 'patchwork' system where citizenship rules differ by state. Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent, read aloud in a rare display of protest, blasted the majority for enabling 'gamesmanship' and issuing 'an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution'.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson similarly warned the ruling permits the executive to 'violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued,' concluding her dissent without the traditional 'respectfully' as a pointed rebuke. The Court suggested challengers pivot to class-action lawsuits, a path immigration advocates immediately pursued in Maryland and New Hampshire filings.
Trump celebrated the decision as a 'monumental victory' against 'radical left judges,' while Attorney General Pam Bondi denounced 'rogue judges' who had issued 35 injunctions against Trump policies from just five districts. Legally, the ruling empowers Trump to revive stalled policies like transgender healthcare and refugee resettlement.
However, constitutional scholars warn it risks 'chaotic' outcomes, including potential statelessness for newborns and conflicting state-level citizenship standards.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Great victory': Trump hails passage of ‘Big, Beautiful bill' in US Senate with narrow margin
US President Donald Trump hailed the passage of the 'big, beautiful bill' in the Senate as 'great victory' after the Republicans sailed the bill with a narrow margin of 51-49 as they race to meet the president's deadline of July 4 for the passing of the bill in the House. The narrow tally of 51-49 came in a special session of the Senate called on Saturday, with Vice President JD Vance at the US Capitol to break a potential tie. Voting in the Senate brought everything to standstill as tense Senators huddled for negotiations, and took private meetings off the floor in order for the bill to pass. At the end of it all, two Republicans opposed the motion to proceed and joined the Democrats. Trump, in a post on Truth Social, praised the Republican senators for backing the bill. 'Tonight we saw a GREAT VICTORY in the Senate with the 'GREAT, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL,' he wrote. Trump further added 'Republican Patriots who voted for the Bill, are people who truly love our Country! As President of the USA, I am proud of them all, and look forward to working with them.' 'VERY PROUD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TONIGHT. GOD BLESS YOU ALL!' –President Donald J. Trump — The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 29, 2025 In his post, Trump listed out the features of the 'big, beautiful bill' which includes growing the economy, reducing wasteful spending, securing borders, fighting for the military, ensuring that the Medicaid system helps those who truly need it, and protecting the second amendment. The Republicans have been using their razor thin majority in the Congress to push aside Democratic opposition and pass the 'big, beautiful bill' but the party has run into troubles due to political and policy setbacks. Due to proposals such as reducing spending on Medicaid, food stamps and other programs to cover the cost of extending $3.8 trillion in Trump tax breaks, not all GOP leaders are on board with President Trump's agenda. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, ahead of the voting, said 'It's time to get this legislation across the finish line.' The bill has received criticism from billionaire entrepreneur and Trump's former advisor Elon Musk who called the 94-page revised version of the bill as 'utterly insane and destructive.'
Hindustan Times
16 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' clears key US Senate vote ahead of July 4 deadline
US President Donald Trump's "one big, beautiful bill" has moved one step closer to being passed. The $4.5 trillion tax cut bill cleared a key procedural vote at the Senate late on Saturday. The development comes just days ahead of the July 4 deadline for the bill's passage. Trump's "big, beautiful bill" proposes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.(AFP) After hours of delay, the procedural vote finally took place, and cleared the ambitious bill. While many Republicans were in favour of the bill, three Republican senators - Thom Tillis, Ron Johnson and Rand Paul - joined Democrats in opposing it. However, by the end of the crucial vote, Johnson flipped his no vote to yes. The results reportedly came following negotiation efforts by Vice President JD Vance and other Republicans. Also Read: 'Great victory': Trump hails US Senate vote for 'Big Beautiful Bill' While this is a big breakthrough for the spending cuts bill, a final vote remains. The bill would require 50 votes for its final passage in the Senate, for which the legislation may need tweaks. Democrats are preparing to force a full reading of the proposed legislation on the Senate floor, a procedural move that could delay a final vote until Monday. "Tonight we saw a GREAT VICTORY in the Senate with the 'GREAT, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL,' but, it wouldn't have happened without the Fantastic Work of Senator Rick Scott, Senator Mike Lee, Senator Ron Johnson, and Senator Cynthia Lummis," Trump wrote on Truth Social, adding that those who voted in the bill's favour are the ones who love the US. What the bill proposes Trump's 'big beautiful bill' proposes $4.5 trillion worth of tax cuts and reduced spending on Medicaid, food stamps and other programs. The tax deduction increase would apply to both local and state levels. The bill also proposes changes to who would bear the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP. Currently, the federal government bears its funding, but the spending cuts bill proposes that some states pay a share of this cost. The bill also proposes limits on Medicaid, a government program that helps low-income and disabled people get health care. One part of the bill would cut funding to states that use their Medicaid systems to help undocumented immigrants get health care, and the other would ban Medicaid from covering gender transition-related care. Why is July 4 the deadline? Fourth of July marks the American Independence Day, and hence, Trump wants the spending cuts legislation at his desk by that time. However, he recently said that the self-imposed ultimatum was not an absolute deadline. 'It's important, it's not the end-all,' Trump told reporters on Friday about the Independence Day deadline. 'It can go longer, but we'd like to get it done by that time if possible," he said, according to a Bloomberg report. The Musk-Trump fallout Billionaire Elon Musk and President Trump, who camaraderie was a sight to behold throughout Trump's Presidential campaign and even after that, had a big falling out over the spending cuts bill. The two had a public falling out and exchanged jabs on social media, and Musk had even alleged in a post that the US President was named in the Jeffery Epstein files, which is why they were not made public. However, Musk later took down the post. Even as the draft bill was being tabled in the Senate, Musk reiterated his criticism of the legislation on Saturday. In a post on X, Musk wrote, 'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!'
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
23 minutes ago
- First Post
The emerging divide in US-Japan relations
The US–Japan alliance is considered the most enduring partnership in the Indo-Pacific. However, recent developments indicate a growing unevenness in this crucial bilateral relationship. Once a predictable and resilient alliance now appears misaligned, particularly in expectations surrounding defence spending, diplomatic access, and international crises. Japan's anxieties resurfaced with the return of a Donald Trump administration, although initial gestures offered reassurance. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, despite not having a prior personal relationship with Donald Trump, was among the first world leaders invited to the White House. This early outreach mirrored the treatment of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. By contrast, the Australian Prime Minister was kept waiting and, even after re-election, has yet to be hosted in Washington. For Japan, this suggested that they might successfully recalibrate ties with Washington. Growing inconsistencies in US demands and Japan's limited diplomatic access to key American officials are causing unease in Tokyo, particularly given the Ishiba administration's relative inexperience. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD There are three clear signs of emerging strain. First, the US appears to be making broad demands on its allies in Europe and Asia regarding defence spending. The recently concluded NATO Summit in The Hague focused almost exclusively on persuading member states to raise defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. While this was directed at NATO members, similar expectations are now surfacing in US dealings with Indo-Pacific partners like Japan, Korea and Australia. In fact, Japan's Prime Minister Ishiba declined an invitation to attend the NATO summit, despite a recent tradition of Japanese PMs participating in the post-Ukraine context. This absence was interpreted as a deliberate signal that Tokyo does not wish to be drawn into the same defence-spending framework that NATO members have accepted. Japanese officials have reportedly encountered mixed messaging from Washington. On one hand, Japan is being informally asked to raise its defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP, a significant increase from its current level of 1.8 per cent, with a planned rise to 2 per cent by 2027. On the other hand, US interlocutors are framing this expectation as a part of trade negotiations, linking it to tariff reductions. This dual messaging is complicating Japan's internal policy environment. Tokyo wants such increases to be seen as sovereign decisions, not concessions made under US pressure, particularly with Upper House elections looming in July. Ishiba is wary of appearing weak or reactive in the face of American demands. A second sign of strain lies in the way US officials are extending NATO-style expectations to Indo-Pacific allies. During the Shangri-La Dialogue, US defence officials suggested that Australia should aim for 3.5 per cent of GDP in defence spending. The same figure is now increasingly being floated in Washington's dealings with Tokyo. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This recalibration appears to stem from people like Elbridge Colby, Under Secretary of Defence for Policy. Japanese officials reportedly find it difficult to engage with Colby's office, which they view as pushing unrealistic and uncoordinated demands. Complicating matters, is confusion in Tokyo about whether the 5 per cent NATO target applies to Indo-Pacific allies, 3.5 per cent for defence and 1.5 per cent for infrastructure resilience, which Japan may find more manageable than significantly raising direct defence outlays. The NATO-IndoPacific4 communique is unclear on this. The US justifies these expectations by framing them in the context of preparing for a possible Taiwan crisis, which Washington believes could be triggered by China by 2027. However, the abruptness and unilateral nature of these expectations are generating friction rather than fostering alignment. Japan feels cornered by demands that neither respect its political sensitivities nor offer strategic clarity. Reflecting this discontent, Tokyo has postponed the US–Japan '2+2' ministerial meeting between their foreign and defence ministers, originally scheduled to coincide with the upcoming Quad Foreign Ministers' Meeting in July beginning. While Japan remains committed to participating in the Quad event, it has declined to hold the bilateral dialogue at this time. Tokyo insists it prefers to wait until after the July 20 Upper House elections, when Ishiba hopes for a stronger domestic mandate. Observers in both countries doubt this will significantly alter Washington's expectations or attitude. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Another manifestation of unevenness lies in Japan's cautious stance on US military actions. Japan has not explicitly supported the US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, despite its alliance obligations. Ishiba remarked, 'It is difficult for Japan to make a definitive legal evaluation at this point.' Japan agrees that Iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons but is reluctant to condone an action lacking United Nations authorisation. For a country that places strong emphasis on international law, Japan fears that overt support for legally questionable military strikes could set dangerous precedents. This is especially relevant given the risk of China or North Korea engaging in similar actions in Japan's neighbourhood. Japan's current reticence is different from its past behaviour. In 2017, when the US struck Syria in response to chemical weapons use, then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe expressed understanding, albeit without giving outright support. In 2019, following attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, the US asked allies to join a naval coalition. Japan delayed participation for months and eventually sent its Self-Defence Forces independently, avoiding association with the US-led effort. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Japan's nuanced diplomacy reflects its effort to balance alliance solidarity with its national legal and economic considerations, particularly its better relations with Iran and its dependence on stable energy imports. The inconclusive Trump-Ishiba meeting on the sidelines of the G7 taught Japan that doing more on defence is not getting it leeway on trade tariffs. Strategic Mistrust Growing? In sum, the emerging unevenness in US–Japan relations stems from several sources: inconsistent and opaque US demands, lack of diplomatic access to key American policymakers, pressure to commit to steep defence increases, and divergent interpretations of international law. These issues are further exacerbated by a sense in Tokyo that Washington's strategic messaging lacks coordination and is poorly timed with Japan's domestic political calendar. The Ishiba administration appears intent on managing the alliance with caution and asserting Japan's strategic autonomy where possible. Yet the reality remains that alliance management under Trump 2.0 is proving more complicated than anticipated. Japan may be unwilling to say 'no', but it is increasingly finding ways to say 'not yet'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD As regional instability intensifies and Washington raises the stakes in its strategic competition with China, how the US and Japan recalibrate their expectations of each other may well determine the future balance of power in the Indo-Pacific. The author is a former ambassador to Germany, Indonesia, Ethiopia, ASEAN and the African Union. He tweets @AmbGurjitSingh. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
