Live updates: Supreme Court to rule on birthright citizenship
The U.S. Supreme Court will issue decisions on the final six cases left on its docket for the summer, including those that are emergency appeals relating to U.S. President Donald Trump's agenda.
Cases on the court's emergency docket are handled swiftly, and decisions often come without explanations of the justices' reasoning.
Decisions released today will be related to appeals on birthright citizenship, an online age-verfication law in Texas, the Education Department's firing of nearly 1,400 workers and DOGE-related government job cuts.
Update:
Date: 2025-06-27 13:23:15
Title:
The justices will take the bench at 10 a.m.
Content: Once they're seated, they'll get right to the opinions.
The opinions are announced in reverse order of seniority so that the junior justices go first. It's likely that the birthright citizenship case will be announced last by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court upholds Tennessee law banning youth transgender care
STORY: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming care for transgender minors Wednesday. Challengers of the ban said it violates a constitutional right, for those experiencing gender dysphoria specifically, the 14th Amendment promise of equal protection. In a 6-3 ruling by the conservative majority court, it said the ban does not violate that promise. Tennessee in 2023 banned those under the age of 18 from accessing medical treatments such as puberty blockers and hormones, things the state says lets minors live as "a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex." The Justice Department under Biden's time had challenged the law. Trump's administration told the Supreme Court in February that Tenessee's ban was not unlawful, reversing the government's position. Writing for the court's majority Wednesday, conservative Chief Justice John Roberts said: "Tennessee concluded that there is an ongoing debate among medical experts regarding the risks and benefits associated with administering puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder and gender incongruence. (The law's) ban on such treatments responds directly to that uncertainty." Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed dismay at the decision, she wrote: "By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent." She was joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Some transgender people gathered at a church near the Supreme Court building and denounced the ruling. "They can say I'm a woman but I live as a man! I Iive as a man! I go through this world as a man." Karen Loewy, director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal, represented plaintiffs in the litigation challenging the ban: "I think it's really important to reiterate that the Supreme Court did not endorse the entirety of the lower court's ruling. It did not mandate or even greenlight other bans on gender-affirming medical care even for young people, or other forms of discrimination. It really is about how it viewed Tennessee's ban in this specific way and left us plenty of tools to fight other bans on healthcare and other discriminatory actions that target transgender people." Wednesday's ruling will have a broad impact as Tennessee's law is one of 25 such policies enacted by conservative state lawmakers around the United States. U.S. Attorney General and Trump appointee Pam Bondi applauded the ruling on social media. She encouraged other states to "follow Tennessee's lead and enact similar legislation to protect our kids."
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
SCOTUS rules in favor of parents seeking to opt children out of reading LGBTQ books
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled in favor of parents seeking to opt their children out of public school instruction that conflicts with sincerely held religious beliefs. The case, brought by a group of Christian, Muslim and Jewish parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, sought a guaranteed exemption from the classroom reading of storybooks with LGBTQ themes, including same-sex marriage and exploration of gender identity. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson cast the dissenting votes in the 6-3 decision. MORE: Supreme Court leans toward parents in dispute over LGBTQ storybooks in school Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said in the decision that refusing to allow parents to opt-out their kids from instruction that "poses a very real threat of undermining their religious beliefs and practices" violates the First Amendment protections for religious exercise. The Montgomery County Board of Education's "introduction of the 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents' rights to the free exercise of their religion," Alito wrote. The court found that the parents are also likely to succeed in their lawsuit over free-exercise claims, and have shown they are entitled to a preliminary injunction while their lawsuit proceeds. In her dissent, Sotomayor accused the court of inventing a "constitutional right to avoid exposure to subtle themes contrary to the religious principles that parents wish to instill in their children." In 2022, after introducing several LGBTQ-themed books into its language arts curriculum, the Montgomery County school board allowed parents to opt out if the content was deemed objectionable as a matter of faith. One year later, officials reversed course and said the opt-out program had become unwieldy and ran counter to values of inclusion. The parents alleged that use of the books in an elementary school curriculum -- without an opportunity to be excused -- amounts to government-led indoctrination regarding sensitive matters of sexuality. The school board insisted the books merely expose kids to diverse viewpoints and ideas. Pending the completion of the legal challenge, the school board "should be ordered to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction," Alito wrote. The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled during oral arguments in April that it was poised to establish a right of parents to opt out for sensitive subjects, saying it should be common sense. President Donald Trump called the ruling a "tremendous victory for parents" during a White House press briefing Friday. MORE: Supreme Court upholds Texas' online age verification for porn sites Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, during the briefing, thanked the Supreme Court for the decision, saying that restoring parents' rights to decide their child's education "seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight." "Now that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct," Blanche said.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Latest: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of birthright citizenship unclear
The court on Friday issued decisions on the final six cases that were left on its docket for the summer, including emergency appeals relating to Trump's agenda. A divided Supreme Court ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump 's restrictions on birthright citizenship. The court sided with Maryland parents with religious objections to school book material, preserved a key part of an Obamacare coverage requirement, upheld a law aimed at blocking kids from seeing pornography online and preserved a fee subsidizing phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas. Here's the latest: 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.' Democracy Forward has led winning injunctions against the administration over pauses to federal funding. '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 blo cking 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. Nearly half all states have passed similar age verification laws as smartphones and other devices make it easier to access online porn, including hardcore obscene material. ▶ Read more about the Supreme Court's decision 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 w ith 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. ▶ Read more about the Supreme Court's decision 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 subsidized phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas. The Federal Communications Commission 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. ▶ Read more about the Supreme Court's decision 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 'Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,' U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a post on the social platform X shortly after the ruling came down. Bondi said the Justice Department 'will continue to zealously defend' Trump's 'policies and his authority to implement them.' Universal injunctions have been a source of intense frustration for the Trump administration amid a barrage of legal challenges to his priorities around immigration and other matters. Nationwide injunctions limited, but fate of birthright citizenship order unclear The outcome was a victory for Trump, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally. Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor is reading her dissenting opinion from the bench, a sign of her clear disagreement with the majority's opinion. The other big cases left on the docket The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ+ storybooks in public schools, but other decisions appear less obvious. The judges will also weigh a Texas age-verification law for online pornography and a map of Louisiana congressional districts, now in its second trip to the nation's highest court. The justices will take the bench at 10 a.m. Once they're seated, they'll get right to the opinions. The opinions are announced in reverse order of seniority so that the junior justices go first. The birthright citizenship case will likely be announced last by Chief Justice John Roberts.
