Supreme Court has 6 cases to decide, including birthright citizenship
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is in the final days of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government.
But the justices also have six cases to resolve that were argued between January and mid-May. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally.
The remaining opinions will be delivered Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts said. On Thursday, a divided court allowed states to cut off Medicaid money to Planned Parenthood amid a wider Republican-backed push to defund the country's biggest abortion provider.
Here are some of the biggest remaining cases:
Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts
The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S.
The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years.
These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies.
At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally.
Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years.
The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools
Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity.
The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools.
The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.'
The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries.
A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court
Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time.
The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life.
At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act.
Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024.
A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on.
Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law.
The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography
Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous.
The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking.
The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
At odds over Trump's tax bill, some Senate Republicans turn on chamber's referee
By Bo Erickson and David Morgan WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Struggling to agree on a path forward for President Donald Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill, some U.S. Senate Republicans on Thursday turned their anger on the referee charged with ensuring that lawmakers follow their own rules. That pushback came in response to Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough's ruling that some Medicaid policies Republicans are trying to include in the bill do not align with the special budget process the party is using to bypass the chamber's regular vote threshold, which requires 60 of the 100 senators to agree on legislation. "THE SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN SHOULD BE FIRED ASAP,' Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville posted online, "This is a perfect example of why Americans hate THE SWAMP." Tuberville, a first-term senator who is running for Alabama governor, and Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas joined a vocal group of House of Representatives Republicans calling for the ouster of MacDonough, the first woman to hold this role since it was formalized in 1935. Theirs is a minority view. Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune for months has said his party will abide by the parliamentarian's guidance. MacDonough's office did not respond to a request for comment. This is not the first time members of the current Republican congressional majority have attempted to ignore Congress's nonpartisan arbiters. A growing number of Republican senators have ignored the cost estimates of the bill from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which estimated a price tag with interest costs around $3 trillion. The bill's hefty cost has exposed divides within the party, with some hardline deficit hawks demanding deep cuts to social programs including Medicaid to try to limit the bill's cost, and others warning that those cuts could imperil their narrow majorities in the 2026 midterm elections. MacDonough, a former lawyer, joined the Senate parliamentarian's office in 1999, serving as the head parliamentarian for the last 13 years. MacDonough's critics have dismissed her as "unelected," but it was Congress more than 50 years ago that established the parliamentarian as the referee for the special process known as "budget reconciliation" that bypasses the normal Senate filibuster rule. BYPASSING THE PARTISAN DIVIDE Republicans are pursuing this route -- which they relied on to pass Trump's tax cuts in 2017 during his first term -- because of their narrow majorities in both chambers. Democrats also used the process to pass legislation under President Joe Biden. Some Republicans suggested that MacDonough's ruling had political motives, noting that she was appointed by a Democratic majority leader in 2012. In this position, the parliamentarian is not weighing the merits of the policies, but rather if they fit into the budget reconciliation rules and precedent. MacDonough in 2021 blocked Democratic efforts to pass minimum wage and immigration provisions in the special budget process. This is not the first time this year the parliamentarian has weighed in on the Republicans' tax and budget bill, but the Medicaid and healthcare provisions that she advised on Thursday were seen as opportunities for Republicans to save money in the package that is forecast to add to the nation's $36.2 trillion in debt. Other Senate Republicans are standing by the process and MacDonough. 'I consider the parliamentarian to be a straight shooter. So I don't think there's anything more than it not meeting the standard,' Senator Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, told reporters. 'Nah, never overrule the parliamentarian," Senator John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, told reporters on Thursday. Senate Republicans are allowed to tweak these provisions to try to fit the specific budget process precedents and rules, or they could abandon these provisions entirely. Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the budget committee's top Democrat, pledged his party will continue "to make the case against every provision in this Big, Beautiful Betrayal of a bill that violates Senate rules and hurts families and workers." Firing a Senate parliamentarian is not without precedent. In 2001 during President George W. Bush's administration, Senate Republican leaders with an evenly divided chamber dismissed the parliamentarian after rulings on the party's budget and tax legislation regarding natural disaster funding.

Politico
30 minutes ago
- Politico
Former Supreme Court Justice Kennedy says ‘democracy is at risk'
Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy warned Thursday that acrimonious political discourse and threats to judges are eroding the ability of the United States to serve as an example of democracy worldwide. 'Many in the rest of the world look to the United States to see what democracy is, to see what democracy ought to be,' Kennedy said during an online forum about threats to the rule of law. '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. Freedom is at risk.' Kennedy, who stepped down from the court in 2018, avoided specifics during his 10-minute speech as part of a series of presentations by current and former judges. However, the Reagan appointee's remarks appeared to be triggered at least in part by strident attacks President Donald Trump has mounted against judges, including some whom he appointed during his first term, who have ruled against the administration's policies on immigration, firings of federal workers and his implementation of broad-based tariffs. In March, Trump attacked U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg as a 'radical left lunatic' after he attempted to block the administration from deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members under a wartime presidential power Trump invoked. Trump also called for Boasberg, an Obama appointee, to be impeached. Last month, Trump issued a social media post denouncing 'USA-hating' judges as 'monsters who want our country to go to hell.' The extreme rhetoric has come alongside a spike in threats against judges, although administration spokespeople have said the president opposes any threats and the Justice Department will prosecute them. 'Judges must have protection for themselves and their families,' Kennedy said. 'Our families are often included in threats.' Some other participants were more explicit in calling out Trump's salvos at the courts. While also not mentioning Trump by name, U.S. District Judge Esther Salas invoked the president's statements more directly, arguing they are akin to attacks on judges that have caused other countries to slide into authoritarianism. 'Judges are rogue. Sound familiar? Judges are corrupt. Sound familiar? Judges are monsters. … Judges hate America,' Salas said. 'We are seeing the spreading of disinformation coming from the top down.' Salas, whose son was killed and her husband wounded by a disgruntled litigant at their New Jersey home in 2020, said the U.S. Marshals Service has tracked more than 400 threats against judges so far this year. 'We're going to break records — and not in a good way,' said the judge, an Obama appointee. In his remarks Thursday, one day before his former Supreme Court colleagues are set to deliver their final rulings of the current term, Kennedy did offer some indirect praise for Trump. The retired justice repeatedly said he welcomed the ceasefire in fighting between Israel and Iran — a deal brokered by the White House. 'The world is celebrating what looks like, what we hope might be, peace for a period of time in the Middle East,' Kennedy said. 'Peace is what gives us the opportunity to make democracy stronger, to make freedom more attainable, to make freedom greater for ourselves and the rest of the world. We must always say no to tyranny and yes to truth.'
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Marquette poll shows steady increase in support for marijuana legalization in Wisconsin
A new Marquette University Law School poll shows steady support in Wisconsin for marijuana legalization. Two-thirds of voters in the survey said marijuana should be made legal in Wisconsin. Support has grown slightly among voters since 2019, according to previous Marquette polls, and now hovers in the mid-60% range. Democrats who support marijuana legalization have long pointed to that popularity and argued Wisconsin loses tax revenue to neighboring states where marijuana is legal. Marijuana legalization hasn't gained much momentum in the Capitol this year. Some Republicans have supported a restrictive medical-use program, but legislation to create it hasn't been introduced this session. The poll, released on June 25, surveyed 873 registered voters in Wisconsin between June 13 and 19. Half of the sample answered some policy questions while half answered others. The margin of error was 4.7 percentage points. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Marquette poll shows support for marijuana legalization in Wisconsin