US Supreme Court hands Trump 'giant' win on powers of judges
US President Donald Trump hailed a "giant win" Friday, June 27, after the Supreme Court curbed lone judges from blocking the Republican's raft of controversial policies. The 6-3 ruling, with the court's liberal justices all dissenting, stemmed from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship. The court said individual district judges had likely exceeded their powers by issuing nationwide injunctions, which have also blocked a string of Trump's hardline policies on immigration, diversity and firing federal employees.
"The Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law," 79-year-old Trump told a hastily arranged press conference at the White House. Trump said he would now proceed with "so many policies" that had been "wrongly" blocked, including stopping funding for transgender people and "sanctuary cities" for migrants. His initial reaction to the ruling came in a post on Truth Social, welcomed it as a "GIANT WIN."
US Attorney General Pam Bondi, standing alongside Trump at the podium, said the ruling would stop "rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation."
Trump separately hailed a "great ruling" by the Supreme Court to let parents opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed books at public schools. Critics say the move threatens secular education by opening the door to religious objections.
'Step toward authoritarianism'
The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on US soil. But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings removes a big roadblock to Trump's often highly contested policy agenda and has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump – or future US presidents.
The Supreme Court's majority decision was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, and joined by the other five conservative justices. "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch," wrote Barrett, who has previously been a frequent target of Trump loyalists over previous decisions that went against the president.
The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling was "nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution."
Democrats swiftly blasted the decision, saying it would embolden Trump as he pushes the boundaries of presidential power in his second term. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called it a "terrifying step toward authoritarianism." Trump, however, rejected concerns about the concentration of power in the White House. "This is really the opposite of that," Trump said. "This really brings back the Constitution."
Partner service
Learn French with Gymglish
Thanks to a daily lesson, an original story and a personalized correction, in 15 minutes per day.
Try for free
Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of a number of his moves that have been blocked by district court judges around the country – both Democratic and Republican appointees - since he took office in January.
'Lawless actions'
Past presidents have also complained about national injunctions shackling their agenda. But such orders have sharply risen under Trump, who saw more in his first two months than Democrat Joe Biden did during his first three years in office.
The case was ostensibly about Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, which was deemed unconstitutional by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. But it actually focused on whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction.
The issue has become a rallying cry for Trump and his Republican allies, who accuse the judiciary of impeding his agenda against the will of voters. Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens.
Trump said that the policy "was meant for the babies of slaves," dating back to the US Civil War era in the mid 1800s.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LeMonde
36 minutes ago
- LeMonde
Trump forces the rest of the world to exempt US companies from global tax on multinationals
Once again, the threat worked. By brandishing in recent weeks the prospect of a new tax on foreign companies – dubbed the "revenge tax" – the United States secured a major concession from other G7 countries on a tax issue that has irked Donald Trump since his return to the White House: the taxation of multinationals, and more specifically, the 15% global minimum corporate tax adopted in 2021 by 140 countries under the aegis of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Already implemented in 2024 across the European Union as well as in the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan, this tax was seen as a first step in combating unfair tax competition among states. Eager to share this American victory, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced it on Thursday, June 26, on the social network X. "After months of productive dialogue with other countries on the OECD Global Tax Deal, we will announce a joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests," he wrote. "(…) OECD Pillar 2 taxes [that is, the 15% global minimum tax] will not apply to US companies." Le Monde was able to confirm this information on Friday, 27 June, via both France's Ministry of Finance and the OECD, as the G7 finalized a communiqué seen by the newspaper.
France 24
3 hours ago
- France 24
Record crowds expected at Budapest Pride march in defiance of Orban's ban
A record number of people are expected to attend Saturday's Pride march in the Hungarian capital Budapest, defying a ban that marks an unprecedented regression of LGBTQ rights in the European Union. Prime Minister Viktor Orban 's ruling coalition amended laws and the constitution earlier this year to prohibit the annual celebration, justifying his years-long clampdown on LGBTQ rights on "child protection" grounds. While Orban has been emboldened by the anti-diversity offensive of US President Donald Trump, his own initiatives have drawn protests at home and condemnation from the EU and rights groups. The nationalist leader on Friday said that while police would not "break up" the 30th edition of the Pride march, those who took part should be aware of "legal consequences". Despite the risk of a fine, more than 35,000 people are expected to gather at 2:00 pm (1200 GMT) near Budapest's city hall, an hour before the march begins. Ministers from several EU countries, and dozens of European lawmakers are expected to attend in defiance of the ban, reminiscent of that in Moscow in 2006 and Istanbul in 2015. "We're not just standing up for ourselves... If this law isn't overturned, eastern Europe could face a wave of similar measures," Pride organiser Viktoria Radvanyi said. Freshly installed cameras Earlier this week, EU chief Ursula von der Leyen called on the Hungarian authorities to reverse the ban. Thirty-three countries have also spoken up in support of the march. While parade organisers risk up to a year in prison, attendees can face fines up to 500 euros ($580). The latest legal changes empower the authorities to use facial-recognition technology to identify those who take part. Freshly installed cameras have appeared on lamp posts along the planned route of the march. However, opposition Budapest mayor Gergely Karacsony has insisted that no attendee can face any reprisals as the march -- co-organised by the city hall this time -- is a municipal event and does not require police approval. "The police have only one task tomorrow, and it is a serious one: to ensure the safety of Hungarian and European citizens attending the event," Karacsony said during a briefing with visiting EU equalities commissioner Hadja Lahbib. Far-right groups have announced multiple counterprotests along the planned route of the procession. Justice Minister Bence Tuzson this week sent a letter to EU embassies cautioning diplomats and staff against participating because of the police ban.
Euronews
5 hours ago
- Euronews
A placated Trump and an EU-Canada love fest
The leaders of the NATO countries met in The Hague for their annual summit. In view of the latent Russian threat, they agreed on a drastic increase in collective defense spending. But it was also about satisfying the unpredictable man in the White House. Does this solve all the problems now? For decades, Europe has been the most loyal ally of the United States. That's what most political and military leaders on both sides of the Atlantic understood Europe's role on the world stage to be. That today is insufficient, as US president Trump treats his faithful allies as if they were devious freeloaders. That's why the prospect of being abandoned by the US produces existential angst among Europeans. Who would lead the western defense in case of a Russian attack? In The Hague, European NATO allies agreed to invest more in the defense of their own continent: the target is now 5% of GDP over the next few years. Is this realistic for everyone? Is it enough? Does it come with a new strategic role for Europe? And most important: will it placate Washington in the years to come? Questions our guests discussed this week: Kathleen Van Brempt, a Belgian member of the European Parliament from the Social Democrats, Matthew Robinson, director of the Euro-Gulf Information Centre, and Karel Lannoo, chief executive of the Centre for European Policy Studies. The NATO summit was overshadowed by the Middle East conflict. After all, the largest and most important member of the alliance became a party to the war there. The US attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities came in support of Israel and ultimately brought about a ceasefire - but this was broken just hours later. Does diplomacy still have a real chance after all? The problem: there are still too few answers to too many questions. Is Trump's decision like kicking a hornet's nest? What real damage have the bombings caused? Is the Iranian nuclear program now history? And what about regime change in Tehran? Does Trump want one or does he not? And how could this be achieved without a military invasion? And finally: what about the ceasefire? Finally: Thank you Donald Trump! The US president's behavior has practically turned his neighbor Canada and the European Union into political lovers. Trump's threat of the 51st federal state was echoed in this country by talk of the 28th member state of the EU. This week, the leaders of the EU and Canada met in Brussels for a summit - which also focused on defence. But that's not all: the bilateral security and defence pact, that was signed here, is the most far-reaching agreement that Europe has ever entered into with a third country. This will open up new avenues for joint work on crisis management, military mobility, maritime security, cyber and cyber threats, and defence industrial co-operation. Is Canada replacing the US as a favorite partner in North America?
