Friday briefing: Supreme Court rulings; thimerosal; Ali Khamenei; Diddy trial; another heat wave; fireball video; and more
The Supreme Court is set to decide six remaining cases this morning.
The U.S. DOGE Service has sent staff into ATF to slash gun regulations.
Trump shook Democrats' hold on non-White voters in 2024, a new report found.
It's still not clear what the U.S. strikes on Iran achieved.
Prosecutors made their closing arguments in the trial of Sean 'Diddy' Combs.
Even more extreme heat is coming to ruin your weekend.
A fireball appeared to explode over the southeastern U.S. yesterday.
And now … what to read this weekend: One of these 15 gripping new paperbacks.
Want to catch up quickly with 'The 7' every morning? Download The Post's app and turn on alert notifications for The 7 or sign up for the newsletter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
24 minutes ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court, in birthright citizenship case, limits judges' use of nationwide injunctions
Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday limited the use of nationwide injunctions, reining in federal judges' ability to issue sweeping orders that have in recent years stymied implementation of policies from Republican and Democratic presidential administrations alike. In a widely anticipated decision stemming from President Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, the high court said that universal orders likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to the federal courts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion for the 6-3 court, with the liberal justices in dissent. The court said it will let the Trump administration partially enforce the president's executive order while proceedings move forward, but "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief" to plaintiffs who can sue, Barrett wrote. The justices did not address the question of whether Mr. Trump's order was constitutional. "Some say that the universal injunction 'give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.' But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them," Barrett wrote. "When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." The birthright citizenship case The court's ruling came in a trio of emergency appeals by the Trump administration arising out of the president's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, which says that everyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status. The Justice Department had asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of three separate injunctions that blocked implementation of Mr. Trump's policy nationwide while legal challenges brought by 22 states, immigrants' rights groups and seven individuals moved forward. But instead of swiftly deciding whether to grant the Trump administration emergency relief, the Supreme Court held arguments on whether to restrict the use of nationwide, or universal, injunctions, which are judicial orders that prevent the government from enforcing a policy anywhere in the country and against anyone. The court did not consider or rule on the merits of Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship plan, and its decision means that the executive order cannot be enforced against the states, organizations and individuals who challenged its legality. The Trump administration has said agencies have 30 days to issue public guidance about implementation of the policy. The dispute over the president's attempt to unwind birthright citizenship has become intertwined with the administration's battle against nationwide injunctions. These sweeping orders have frustrated both Democratic and Republican presidents seeking to implement their agendas among gridlock in Congress, and the fight over them has been simmering for several years. The Congressional Research Service identified 86 nationwide injunctions that were issued during Mr. Trump's first term and 28 granted while former President Joe Biden was in office. As to the president's second term, the Congressional Research Service found 17 nationwide injunctions were issued during the first 100 days, though the Trump administration estimated last month there have been far more — at least 40 of these orders, and most coming from the same five judicial districts. Some of the justices have suggested in past writings that the Supreme Court would have to clarify whether nationwide injunctions are allowed at all, and members on both ideological sides of the bench have been critical of them. But the orders that blocked Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship executive order landed the issue before the Supreme Court earlier this year, though the administration has railed against them in requests to enforce its transgender military ban, fire thousands of federal probationary workers and move forward with mass layoffs of government employees. The president's executive order on birthright citizenship was one of the first that he signed on his first day back in office and is among several directives that seek to target migrants who are in the U.S. The Trump administration's immigration policies have led to high-profile clashes with the courts — namely Mr. Trump's use of the wartime Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang. While the 14th Amendment has for more than a century been understood to guarantee citizenship to all people born in the U.S., Mr. Trump's order denied birthright citizenship to children born to a mother who is unlawfully present in the U.S. or who is lawfully present on a temporary basis; or whose father is neither a citizen nor lawful permanent resident. The president's order directed federal agencies to stop issuing documents recognizing U.S. citizenship to children born after Feb. 19. More than half-a-dozen lawsuits challenging the measure were filed in courts throughout the country before it took effect, and three federal district courts in Washington, Maryland and Massachusetts each blocked the government from implementing the birthright citizenship order. Federal appeals courts in San Francisco, Boston, and Richmond, Virginia, then refused requests by the Trump administration to partly block the lower court orders. The Justice Department filed emergency appeals of the three decisions with the Supreme Court in mid-March and asked it to limit enforcement of the birthright citizenship order to 28 states and individuals who are not involved in the ongoing cases. The administration said that at a minimum, the Supreme Court should allow agencies to develop and issue public guidance regarding implementation of Mr. Trump's executive order while proceedings continue. Like other requests made to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department took aim at the breadth of the injunctions issued by the district courts, which are nationwide in scope and cover states and individuals who are not involved in the litigation before them. The president and his allies have attacked judges for issuing nationwide injunctions in the slew of legal challenges to Mr. Trump's policies, and even called for some to be impeached. The Justice Department said in a filing that universal injunctions have reached "epidemic" proportions since Mr. Trump returned to the White House in January. "Those injunctions thwart the executive branch's crucial policies on matters ranging from border security, to international relations, to national security, to military readiness," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. "They repeatedly disrupt the operations of the Executive Branch up to the Cabinet level." But the plaintiffs in the cases challenging the directive urged the Supreme Court to leave the district court orders in place. In a filing with the Supreme Court, officials from 18 states, the District of Columbia and San Francisco called the Trump administration's request "remarkable," as it would allow the government to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship while the legal challenges move forward and render them "deportable on birth and at risk of statelessness. The states argued that the Trump administration seeks to violate binding Supreme Court precedent that recognized birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Majority of Americans disapprove of Trump's second term — what new PA poll shows
A majority of Americans said they disapprove of President Donald Trump's second term — with even some Republicans hitting the president — as immigration remains his strongest policy issue. A new NBC News Decision Desk Poll, conducted along with SurveyMonkey, found that 45% of Americans approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president, while 55% disapprove. Those figures remain unchanged from an NBC News survey in April. Trump's rating differs along party lines. Large turnout at Bucks No Kings protest: 'No Kings' protest outside Bucks County congressman's office draws 1,800 protesters Among Republicans, 89% approve of the president's second term in office, compared to 8% of Democrats and 35% of independents. Approximately 12% of Republicans said they disapprove of the president's job, compared to 92% of Democrats and 65% of independents. Republicans were five percentage points less likely to report that they strongly support the president's administration compared to the survey results from April. Much of that shift came from respondents who said they identify as part of the president's "Make America Great Again," aka MAGA, movement. The latest survey was conducted among 19,410 adults nationwide between May 30 and June 10. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points. Know your rights with ICE: ICE officers are working in Bucks County. Here are your rights if questioned According to Rasmussen Reports national polling, Trump has dropped 1 percentage point to 52% approval rating as of June 16 compared to the previous week. His approval ratings this month have hovered between 50% and 53%. The latest Quantus Insights poll shows Trump's job approval at 48%, roughly the same as earlier this month, versus a 49% disapproval rate which is up 1 percentage point among 1,000 registered voters surveyed. The president is underwater on economic topics, with 42% of voters believing the country is moving in the right direction and Trump is handling the economy well, while 53% disagree on those points. RealClear Polling, which encompasses the average of 15 different pollsters, including all of those mentioned above, shows that Trump's overall favorability is 46.5% with 50.5% who disapprove. These numbers have improved since his lows at the end of April, when it reached a 52.4% disapproval rating and 45.1% favorable approval rating. According to the most recent Civiqs polls, updated as of June 13, Trump's approval ratings remained below water in the Keystone State with 52% disapproving of the president compared with 45% who approve. An additional 4% were "unsure." The ratings are roughly the same as they were as of May 15 when the spread was 52% disapproving and 44% approving of the president. Trump has focused much of his presidency on advancing his immigration agenda, including deporting thousands of migrants to countries such as Colombia, Mexico and El Salvador. During his 2024 campaign, the sweeping deportations became his signature promise to voters. Now, Trump is leading on the issue. According to the survey, 51% of Americans approve Trump's handling of border security and immigration, while 49% disapprove. The latest Quantus Insights survey showed that 52% of 1,000 voters surveyed approve of Trumps immigration actions including deportations, while 46% disapprove. The survey was conducted as Trump sent National Guard troops to quell protests against immigration enforcement in the Los Angeles area against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat. Additional protests against the Trump administration's immigration actions have broken out across the country. On the economy, approximately 45% of Americans reported that "their personal financial situation" is about the same as it was last year, and 34% said it has gotten worse. Approximately 21% said their finances have improved over the last year, results that didn't see a major shift from NBC's survey in April. Jo Ciavaglia of and the Bucks County Courier Times contributed to this story. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Majority disapproves of Trump, but he leads on immigration: new poll
USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
In win for Trump, Supreme Court orders courts to reconsider limits on birthright citizenship and other policies
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 27 said lower courts exeeded their authority when they put nationwide holds on restrictions to birthright citizenship, an at least temporary victory for President Donald Trump that will also make it harder to block other new policies. In a 6-3 decision, the court said the holds must be narrowed to allow no more relief than necessary. The Trump administration had not asked – and the Supreme Court did not decide – whether the president can permanently deny citizenship to newborns whose parents were in this country illegally or temporarily. Instead, the Justice Department pursued a more technical – and easier to win – argument that district judges don't have the power to entirely block presidential actions while they're being challenged in court. That's a setback for the expectant parents, immigrant rights groups and states suing the administration. And it's a boost for the administration's battles in other areas. The administration is already defending itself in more than 400 challenges to Trump's sweeping efforts to downsize and reshape the federal government, swiftly deport migrants, end diversity initiatives, impose tariffs and go after adversaries. How does Trump want to limit birthright citizenship? The executive order Trump signed his first day back in office directed government agencies not to recognize as citizens anyone born in the United States unless at least one of their parents is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. That order was particularly bold in giving a new interpretation to the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, which says: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' In an 1898 ruling about the citizenship of a man born in the United States to Chinese parents, the Supreme Court said the 14th Amendment, 'in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States.' And a 1940 law defines citizenship using the terms of the 14th Amendment. But Trump argues that phrasing in the constitutional amendment rules out children born to parents who aren't citizens, because they may feel loyal to a foreign country even if they have to follow U.S. laws while they're here. How did the case come before the Supreme Court? Trump's order was immediately challenged through multiple lawsuits filed by expectant parents, immigrant rights groups and 22 state attorney generals. Federal district court judges in Washington state, Massachusetts and Maryland blocked the policy everywhere in the country while it's being litigated. They said the executive order conflicts with the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent and federal law. In an emergency appeal, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to let the policy go into effect for everyone other than the specific expectant parents named in the lawsuits or, at most, any member of the immigrant rights groups or residents of a state that challenged the policy. What was Trump's argument? The administration argues one judge shouldn't be able to entirely block a federal policy for anyone other than the parties suing. And they say that phenomenon has gotten out of control, pointing to numerous court orders putting the brakes on Trump initiatives. 'If Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble!" Trump said in a March Truth Social post. Democratic presidents have also complained about nationwide holds on policies issued by one judge. And some Supreme Court justices had also expressed frustration with them. But during the May oral arguments, the justices struggled with how to restrict nationwide orders, particularly in the case of citizenship rules which have been applied nationally.
