Supreme Court Hands Trump Even More Power
Hosted by Rachel Abrams
Featuring Adam Liptak
Produced by Diana NguyenRachelle Bonja and Rob Szypko
Edited by Patricia Willens and Rachel Quester
Original music by Elisheba IttoopDan PowellRowan NiemistoPat McCusker and Marion Lozano
Engineered by Alyssa Moxley
In a major ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court limited the ability of judges to block President Trump's policies nationwide, including his order to end birthright citizenship.
Mr. Trump immediately cheered the ruling, while critics have decried it as a fundamental threat to the rule of law.
Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times, explains how the ruling redefines the role of the courts, just when the White House is aggressively testing the limits of its power.
Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments, for The New York Times.
With this Supreme Court ruling, another check on Mr. Trump's power fades.
In the birthright citizenship case, the Supreme Court limited the power of judges to block Mr. Trump's policies.
There are a lot of ways to listen to 'The Daily.' Here's how.
We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode's publication. You can find them at the top of the page.
Special thanks to Michael Barbaro.
The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Michael Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, Nina Feldman, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon M. Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez, Brendan Klinkenberg, Chris Haxel, Maria Byrne, Anna Foley and Caitlin O'Keefe.
Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam, Nick Pitman and Kathleen O'Brien.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
5 minutes ago
- CBS News
Department of Justice files lawsuit against Los Angeles, Mayor Bass over sanctuary city policies
The Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against Mayor Karen Bass and the city of Los Angeles over sanctuary city policies, claiming they "interfere with the federal government's enforcement of its immigration laws," the department says. In the lawsuit, the DOJ alleges that days after President Trump won the November 2024 election, the city of LA and its officials worked to "thwart the will of the American people" by beginning to codify sanctuary city policies into law. The DOJ claims that LA's sanctuary city ordinance, Prohibition of the Use of City Resources for Federal Immigration Enforcement, signed by Bass on Dec. 9, 2024, prevents Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents from carrying out their obligations under federal law. "Today's lawsuit holds the City of Los Angeles accountable for deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration law," said U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli for the Central District of California. "The United States Constitution's Supremacy Clause prohibits the City from picking and choosing which federal laws will be enforced and which will not." Court documents name the city of Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass, the Los Angeles City Council and Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson as the defendants. CBS Los Angeles has reached out to Bass, Dawson and the city attorney for a comment and is awaiting a response. The lawsuit adds that the U.S. is currently facing a "crisis of illegal immigration" and claims the government's efforts to address the crisis are "hindered" by LA's sanctuary city policies. The lawsuit comes weeks after immigration operations across Southern California began ramping up, prompting demonstrations that mainly started peacefully but escalated into clashes between protestors and law enforcement. As a result, Mr. Trump ordered members of the National Guard and U.S. Marines to deploy to the region. A section of downtown LA was also affected by the violent demonstrations, including businesses being looted and public property being vandalized. Bass issued a curfew for a portion of downtown, which was lifted seven days after when safety conditions started to improve.
CBS News
5 minutes ago
- CBS News
San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus indicted for alleged conflict of interest, retaliation
The civil grand jury in San Mateo County has indicted embattled Sheriff Christina Corpus for alleged misconduct, prosecutors announced Monday, as she faces potential removal by the Board of Supervisors. District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe's office said the grand jury on Friday returned an accusation against Corpus that includes one count of conflict of interest in violation of the County Charter. The conflict of interest allegation stems from the hiring of Victor Aenlle, whom she allegedly had a close personal relationship with. The grand jury also accused Corpus of three counts of retaliation over the termination of Assistant Sheriff Ryan Monaghan, the transfer of Capt. Brian Phillip and the arrest of Deputy Carlos Tapia, who is the president of the Deputy Sheriff's Association. Prosecutors said the grand jury returned an indictment following a month-long hearing in which 32 people, including Corpus, testified under oath. The hearing was conducted by Wagstaffe's office, which acted as an advisor to the civil grand jury. Corpus has been facing months of scrutiny and calls to resign following the release of an independent report by retired judge LaDoris Cordell into allegations of abuse of power at the sheriff's office. Following the report, the Board of Supervisors called for a special election to temporarily amend the charter to remove a sheriff from office for cause. In March, 84% of voters approved the charter amendment. Earlier this month, the board initiated the process to remove Corpus from office, a process which is expected to take several months. The sheriff has repeatedly denied the allegations against her and has refused multiple calls to resign from local leaders and the Deputy Sheriffs' Association. Corpus has also filed a $10 million lawsuit against the county alleging discrimination and harassment. Prosecutors said Corpus is scheduled to appear in court on July 15 to answer the accusation, in which she is entitled to a trial by jury.
Miami Herald
7 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
US Supreme Court to take up venue dispute between Michigan, Enbridge in Line 5 suit
The U.S. Supreme Court will review whether Enbridge Energy properly removed a case to federal court that was filed against it by the state of Michigan. Enbridge's appeal seeks a federal court venue for a years-long fight over the future of the Line 5 oil pipeline through the Straits of Mackinac. The case was listed Monday as one of several the nation's highest court would consider over the next few months. The Supreme Court's eventual decision in the case could determine whether a pending state court case deciding the future of the line should be moved to a federal courtroom, where laws are largely more favorable to Enbridge's efforts to keep the pipeline open. Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judges Richard Griffin, Amul Thapar and John Nalbandian ruled in June that Enbridge had missed a procedural window for filing to remove the case to federal court. The case was filed in state court in 2019, but Enbridge didn't try to remove it to federal court until 2021 - long past a 30-day deadline for removal, the judges said. Enbridge is challenging that decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the Sixth Circuit's decision clashes with determinations made by other courts of appeals in similar cases. "The Sixth Circuit's remand decision is in conflict with decisions from two other federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, which both held that there can be exceptions to the 30-day limit," said Ryan Duffy, a spokesman for Enbridge. "The Supreme Court review will resolve this conflict in the courts of appeals." Attorney General Dana Nessel's office on Monday said it remained "undeterred" in its commitment to protect the Great Lakes from the "devastating catastrophe" a Line 5 spill would create if the 72-year-old underwater pipeline were to leak into the waterway connecting Lakes Michigan and Huron. "The department's lawsuit is based on state claims and law, and it belongs before a Michigan court," said Kim Bush, a spokeswoman for the attorney general. An eventual decision from the U.S. Supreme Court could disrupt ongoing proceedings at the state level. Ingham County Circuit Court Judge James Jamo heard arguments in late January on the merits of Nessel's attempt to shut down the four-mile segment of Line 5 under the Straits of Mackinac. Both sides asked Jamo to dismiss the case in their favor. Five months later, Jamo has yet to rule on the motions. A finding by the U.S. Supreme Court that the case should be removed to federal court could eliminate Jamo's involvement. Over the past four years, Enbridge and the state have been engaged in litigation over which court - state or federal - should have jurisdiction over the cases. Enbridge has fought to keep the case in federal court, where federal law and federal regulatory authority would likely prevail. The state of Michigan has fought to anchor the case in state courts, where Michigan law and state regulators are likely to have priority. Nessel brought her case against Enbridge - the one being taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court - shortly after taking office in 2019. Enbridge attempted to move the case to federal court about two years later in 2021 - shortly after Canada invoked its transnational pipeline agreement with the U.S., and a federal district judge ruled that a separate, similar case filed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer must remain in federal court. It wasn't until after that decision that Enbridge turned its attention back to Nessel's case and moved to bump it to federal court. The company has argued U.S. District Judge Janet Neff's 2021 decision in Whitmer's case had constituted new and pertinent action that restarted a 30-day clock for removal that otherwise would have ended in July 2019. But the three Sixth Circuit judges disagreed, arguing the same facts that led to a prompt removal of Whitmer's case to federal court in 2020 were also present in Nessel's case in 2019. "While we appreciate the difficulty of navigating complicated doctrines and applying them to unique facts under time constraints, that is what § 1446(b) requires," Griffin wrote, referring to the 30-day deadline for removal. "And Enbridge showed that it could make these arguments under a tight deadline - it timely filed its notice of removal (and amended notice of removal) articulating these theories within 30 days of its receipt of the complaint in the governor's case." Enbridge's Line 5 oil pipeline, particularly the segment beneath the Straits of Mackinac, has long been a source of controversy, with environmental groups voicing concerns about the safety of the line and the catastrophic effects of an oil spill at the nexus of Lakes Huron and Michigan. Nessel's 2019 suit sought to shutter the line as a public nuisance and Whitmer, about a year later, filed her own suit seeking to support the administration's revocation of an easement for the pipeline. Enbridge has argued the pipeline is safe and that the state has no jurisdiction over its continued operation. Enbridge says authority over the pipeline instead lies with the federal government on three fronts: the Pipeline Safety Act; a 1977 transit pipeline treaty between the U.S. and Canada that prevents disruptions to the line; and foreign affairs policy. Aside from the state court case, Enbridge also is suing Whitmer in federal court over its efforts to revoke Line 5's 1953 easement through the Straits of Mackinac, effectively closing the line that transports about 540,000 barrels of light crude oil and natural gas liquids a day. Enbridge signed an agreement with the state of Michigan in 2018 that promised to build a more than $500 million tunnel beneath the Straits to house a new segment of Line 5 and assuage worries about the prospect of the crude oil and natural gas line spilling into Lakes Huron and Michigan. The project has been held up for five years by permitting and litigation delays. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers currently is considering some of the last permits Enbridge needs to move forward with tunnel construction. The corps is expected to issue a decision in the fall. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
