Supreme Court hands down wins for Trump and Obamacare: Live updates on the rulings
The court ruled 6-3 that district court rulings temporarily blocking Trump's order "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." It did not decide whether the order is constitutional − a question that is being argued in lower federal courts.
"This was a big decision, one that we're very happy about," Trump said later on June 27. 'The Constitution has been brought back."
More: Trump wins again. Conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett again. Supreme Court takeaways
More: In win for Trump, Supreme Court orders courts to reconsider limits on birthright citizenship and other policies
In other decisions on the last day of the court's term, the justices ruled against a challenge to an Obamacare provision that forces health insurers to cover certain medicines and services, like HIV-preventive medication and cholesterol-lowering drugs; allowed parents to remove young school children from classes where the books include gay characters; and upheld a Texas law requiring age verification for users of pornographic web content.
More: Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to Obamacare health coverage
Appearing alongside Trump at the White House, Attorney General Pam Bondi took aim at what she called "imperial judges" who have tried to block the Trump administration's policies. She singled out federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, California, Washington and the District of Columbia who ordered 35 of 40 nationwide blocks against Trump's policies, and noted the high court halted that practice.
'Americans are finally getting what they voted for,' Bondi said. 'No longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation.'
A group fighting Trump's birthright citizenship order shifted gears to block the president's restrictions after the Supreme Court struck down nationwide holds by several district judges.
CASA Inc. refiled its lawsuit over the policy as a class action case. Class actions are still subject to nationwide injuctions, the Supreme Court ruled June 27.
CASA asked a federal judge in Maryland to "immediately, without awaiting furtherbriefing, enter a temporary restraining order" against enforcement of Trump's birthright restrictions, protecting 'all children who have been born or will be born in the United States on or after February 19, 2025, who are designated by ExecutiveOrder 14,160 to be ineligible for birthright citizenship...'
President Donald Trump and his top aides are declaring victory over federal judges who have blocked the Republican administration's policies at unprecedented rates, after the Supreme Court said nationwide decisions from regional judges likely exceed their authority.
"This was a big decision, one that we're very happy about," Trump told reporters in a previously-unscheduled White House press conference on June 27. Later, he added, 'The Constitution has been brought back."
The Supreme Court earlier in the day ordered U.S. district court judges to review their orders temporarily blocking Trump policies, in a case about the second-term president's executive order limiting birthright citizenship for children whose parents were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
More: Live: Trump calls news conference after Supreme Court win on judges blocking his policies
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has been targeted by some MAGA activists for siding against President Trump, but he had nothing but praises for her after a key decision.
Barrett wrote the majority opinion in a 6-3 decision limiting the use of nationwide injunctions by federal courts, something the Trump administration has railed against.
'I have great respect for her, I always have, and her decision was brilliantly written today,' Trump said June 27 during a press conference celebrating the ruling.
Barrett earlier had ruled against the Trump administration's efforts to freeze foreign aid funding, drawing criticism from the right.
-Zac Anderson
The Supreme Court upheld a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify their users are at least 18.
The case pitted concerns about protecting minors against worries about violating the First Amendment rights of adults.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the 6-3 majority that the law survived 'because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults.'
Eighteen other, largely conservative states have enacted similar laws in recent years as access to a growing cache of online pornography has exploded and the material has become more graphic.
-Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen
More: Supreme Court upholds Texas' age verification law for porn sites
The Supreme Court sided with a group of parents who want to withdraw their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read.
In a 6-3 decision that divided along ideological lines, the court said a Maryland public school district's refusal to allow opt-outs likely burdens parents' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. They said the school must allow opt-outs while the legal challenge continues.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed with the ruling, saying children of all faiths and backgrounds deserve an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society.
"That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality," Sotomayor said. "Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs."
Their decision continues a recent trend of high court rulings backing claims of religious discrimination, sometimes at the expense of other values like gay rights.
-Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen
The Supreme Court on June 27 upheld an $8 billion federal program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans, rejecting a conservative argument that the program is funded by an unconstitutional tax.
The case was decided by a 6-3 majority, with Justice Elena Kagan writing the opinion.
The court endorsed the way the Federal Communications Commission funds its multi-billion dollar program to expand phone and broadband internet access to low-income and rural Americans and other beneficiaries.
The decision overturned a lower-court ruling that the FCC's funding mechanism employing mandatory contributions from telecommunications companies had effectively levied a "misbegotten tax" on consumers in violation of the Constitution.
The case raised questions about how much Congress can 'delegate' its legislative authority to a federal agency and whether the Supreme Court should tighten that standard.
-Maureen Groppe, Bart Jansen
The court ruled against a challenge to an Obamacare board that determines which preventative care must be covered by insurance companies.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration's appointment of a Department of Health and Human Services task force is constitutional.
The decision upheld a key part of Obamacare that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive care such as cancer screenings at no cost to patients.
Individuals and small businesses had challenged the structure of the task force that makes recommendations about preventive services that insurers would be required to cover at no additional cost to patients.
But Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the 6-3 majority that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. can remove task force members at will and can review their recommendations before they take effect.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch disagreed.
-Bart Jansen
The Supreme Court decided to lift nationwide blocks on President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
More: Trump wants to end birthright citizenship. How many people would that impact?
The court ruled 6-3 that District Court rulings that temporarily blocked Trump's order "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts."
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority that the lower courts should review their temporary blocks on Trump's policy. She explicitly said the court wasn't deciding whether Trump's order was constitutional.
-Bart Jansen
Several important Supreme Court decisions will be announced after 10 a.m. Eastern time on June 27. These will be the final rulings of court's current term.
The opinions will be announced in order of the author, with the most junior justice going first.
The justice who wrote the opinion will read a summary of the decision, which usually takes several minutes. If there's a dissenting opinion, that may also be summarized but is usually done only in major cases.
That's happened only once so far this term. Justice Sonia Sotomayor read parts of her dissent from the majority's opinion upholding Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors.
-Maureen Groppe
One of the most hotly anticipated Supreme Court decisions of the year deals with President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship for the children parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
But how the justices will resolve case is anyone's guess.
The Justice Department asked the high court to ignore for now the constitutionality of Trump's executive order. Instead, the department asked the justices to allow his order signed his first day back in office to go into effect while the case is litigated.
But states and immigration advocates contend the order is clearly unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Lower courts in three states temporarily halted Trump's order while the cases are argued.
The justices could lift the pause on those lower-court rulings – or not. Or fully decide Trump's order is constitutional – or not. Or ask for more arguments for the next court session beginning in October. Or maybe something else.
-Bart Jansen
Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy warned 'freedom is at risk' as he expressed concern about the "tone of our political discourse" as he defended the role judges play.
More: How Trump's clash with the courts is brewing into an 'all-out war'
Kennedy made his comments during an online forum June 26 called 'Speak Up for Justice,' which featured judges from other countries warning about how attacks on courts can threaten democracies.
"And 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," Kennedy said. "Freedom is at risk.
Kennedy, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan and retired during President Donald Trump's first term, stressed that the rest of the world looks 'to the United States to see what democracy is, to see what democracy ought to be."
-Reuters
The latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act takes aim at 2010 law's popular requirement that insurers cover without extra costs preventive care such as cancer screenings, cholesterol-lowering medication and diabetes tests.
Two Christian-owned businesses and some people in Texas argue that the volunteer group of experts that recommends the services health insurance must cover is so powerful that, under the Constitution, its members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
The Supreme Court decided only three cases out of more than 60 decisions along strict ideological lines during the current year-long term ending June 27.
The three cases so far decided on votes of the six justices appointed by Republicans and opposed by three justices appointed by Democrats were:
A decision June 18 upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
A ruling June 26 siding with South Carolina's effort to deprive Planned Parenthood of public funding,
A case about unsolicited faxes.
-Bart Jansen
The Supreme Court has nine justices:
John G. Roberts
Clarence Thomas
Samuel Alito,
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Six of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents and three by Democrats. But their rulings often do not split along strictly ideological lines, other than in political cases or those involving thorny cultural issues.
-Bart Jansen and Anna Kaufman
The Supreme Court still has to decide the last of three cases brought this year by religious groups. The justices will say if parents should be allowed to remove their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court decisions recap: Latest on big wins for Trump, Obamacare
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class
President Donald Trump's latest trade deal with China may look like a diplomatic win, but for the American middle class, it comes with hidden costs. Trending Now: Find Out: While tariffs are being reduced in exchange for promises from Beijing, households could still face higher prices, disrupted supply chains and reduced job growth. Here are four reasons Trump's trade deal with China is bad news for the middle class and what families can do to protect their finances. Higher Consumer Prices Despite Tariff Relief Even as the U.S. and China approach an August trade deal deadline, prices on many consumer goods remain elevated, and middle-class households continue to feel the strain. Some experts argue that the new tariffs may not drastically shift average import prices. However, middle-class families are more likely to feel the impact in specific categories, such as electronics, tools and household goods. 'U.S. companies scrambled to import as many goods as possible to stockpile before new tariffs were fully implemented, mitigating the immediate impact of tariffs on prices,' said Bryan Riley, Director of the Free Trade Initiative at the National Taxpayers Union. Riley said that since imports from China account for just 13.2% of total U.S. imports, increases in the price of specific Chinese goods may not push up the overall import average. However, they can still significantly affect middle-class budgets for everyday items. Read More: Erosion of Real Incomes and Job Losses An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco warned that Trump's trade measures could cut national real income by around 0.4%, while losses in services and agriculture might offset job gains in manufacturing. 'What's pitched as economic growth is actually a slow bleed: Manufacturing jobs won't magically return, and small businesses relying on predictable import costs are about to face more whiplash,' said Patrice Williams Lindo, CEO of Career Nomad. 'Wages stay stagnant while everyday costs climb. And here's the kicker — there's no workforce investment baked into this deal. That means your job security, benefits and opportunities to grow could evaporate, especially if your industry leans heavily on exports or global sourcing.' Volatile Markets and Supply Chain Instability Although the China deal eased recession fears, experts said that uncertainty around ongoing tariffs still disrupts manufacturing and logistics. Businesses may hold back investment or retool supply chains, raising costs for middle-class consumers and slowing hiring. For example, uncertainty remains one of the most significant threats to economic momentum, particularly for businesses making long-term decisions. 'The real issue is that this deal doesn't create clarity. It reinforces an environment of 'wait and see,' Robert Khachatryan, CEO and founder of Freight Right. 'That's not how you build confidence in the economy.' Khachatryan added, 'You can't expect small and midsize businesses, who employ a huge portion of America's middle class, to plan for the future when they're stuck playing defense against the next round of tariffs.' Missed Middle-Class Priorities in the Deal While the latest Trump-China deal touts manufacturing wins, some economists warn it overlooks the broader economic trade-offs that directly affect the middle class. 'We have an experiment,' said Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a recent interview on Conversations with Jim Zirin. 'In 2018, President Trump imposed 25% tariffs on steel. Seven years later, we have 1,000 more steelworkers, but 75,000 fewer workers in manufacturing sectors that relied on steel, and a 30% drop in steel sector productivity.' This kind of trade-off may deliver political wins, but it overlooks how tariff-driven policies ripple into everyday life for the middle class. 'Over time, reduced job stability in trade-sensitive sectors and a slowdown in wage growth may exacerbate economic insecurity for families already stretched thin by inflation and debt servicing costs,' said Jean-Baptiste Wautier, a private equity CIO and World Economic Forum speaker. How To Protect Your Budget Middle-class families can shield themselves by using rewards or rebate programs and strategically stockpiling essentials before potential tariff increases. Julian Merrick, founder and CEO of Supertrader, a fintech firm focused on global markets, recommends starting with a small emergency fund, even setting aside $200 to $300, which can help families avoid debt when unexpected expenses arise. 'It also helps to cut back on spending in categories where prices are rising — things like tech, clothes or imported goods,' Merrick said. 'Families should avoid taking on new high-interest debt right now, especially for non-essentials. And for those with investments, make sure the money is spread out across different industries.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 6 Hybrid Vehicles To Stay Away From in Retirement This article originally appeared on 5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Fast Company
27 minutes ago
- Fast Company
3 things the pronatalist movement gets wrong about birth rates
Pronatalism—the belief that low birth rates are a problem that must be reversed— is having a moment in the U.S. As birth rates decline in the U.S. and throughout the world, voices from Silicon Valley to the White House are raising concerns about what they say could be the calamitous effects of steep population decline on the economy. The Trump administration has said it is seeking ideas on how to encourage Americans to have more children as the U.S. experiences its lowest total fertility rate in history, down about 25% since 2007. As demographers who study fertility, family behaviors, and childbearing intentions, we can say with certainty that population decline is not imminent, inevitable or necessarily catastrophic. The population collapse narrative hinges on three key misunderstandings. First, it misrepresents what standard fertility measures tell us about childbearing and makes unrealistic assumptions that fertility rates will follow predictable patterns far into the future. Second, it overstates the impact of low birth rates on future population growth and size. Third, it ignores the role of economic policies and labor market shifts in assessing the impacts of low birth rates. Fertility fluctuations Demographers generally gauge births in a population with a measure called the total fertility rate. The total fertility rate for a given year is an estimate of the average number of children that women would have in their lifetime if they experienced current birth rates throughout their childbearing years. Fertility rates are not fixed—in fact, they have changed considerably over the past century. In the U.S., the total fertility rate rose from about 2 births per woman in the 1930s to a high of 3.7 births per woman around 1960. The rate then dipped below 2 births per woman in the late 1970s and 1980s before returning to 2 births in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since the Great Recession that lasted from late 2007 until mid-2009, the U.S. total fertility rate has declined almost every year, with the exception of very small post-COVID-19 pandemic increases in 2021 and 2022. In 2024, it hit a record low, falling to 1.6. This drop is primarily driven by declines in births to people in their teens and early 20s —births that are often unintended. But while the total fertility rate offers a snapshot of the fertility landscape, it is not a perfect indicator of how many children a woman will eventually have if fertility patterns are in flux—for example, if people are delaying having children. Picture a 20-year-old woman today, in 2025. The total fertility rate assumes she will have the same birth rate as today's 40-year-olds when she reaches 40. That's not likely to be the case, because birth rates 20 years from now for 40-year-olds will almost certainly be higher than they are today, as more births occur at older ages and more people are able to overcome infertility through medically assisted reproduction. A more nuanced picture of childbearing These problems with the total fertility rate are why demographers also measure how many total births women have had by the end of their reproductive years. In contrast to the total fertility rate, the average number of children ever born to women ages 40 to 44 has remained fairly stable over time, hovering around two. Americans continue to express favorable views toward childbearing. Ideal family size remains at two or more children, and 9 in 10 adults either have, or would like to have, children. However, many Americans are unable to reach their childbearing goals. This seems to be related to the high cost of raising children and growing uncertainty about the future. In other words, it doesn't seem to be the case that birth rates are low because people are uninterested in having children; rather, it's because they don't feel it's feasible for them to become parents or to have as many children as they would like. The challenge of predicting future population size Standard demographic projections do not support the idea that population size is set to shrink dramatically. One billion people lived on Earth 250 years ago. Today there are over 8 billion, and by 2100 the United Nations predicts there will be over 10 billion. That's 2 billion more, not fewer, people in the foreseeable future. Admittedly, that projection is plus or minus 4 billion. But this range highlights another key point: Population projections get more uncertain the further into the future they extend. Predicting the population level five years from now is far more reliable than 50 years from now—and beyond 100 years, forget about it. Most population scientists avoid making such long-term projections, for the simple reason that they are usually wrong. That's because fertility and mortality rates change over time in unpredictable ways. The U.S. population size is also not declining. Currently, despite fertility below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, there are still more births than deaths. The U.S. population is expected to grow by 22.6 million by 2050 and by 27.5 million by 2100, with immigration playing an important role. Will low fertility cause an economic crisis? A common rationale for concern about low fertility is that it leads to a host of economic and labor market problems. Specifically, pronatalists argue that there will be too few workers to sustain the economy and too many older people for those workers to support. However, that is not necessarily true—and even if it were, increasing birth rates wouldn't fix the problem. As fertility rates fall, the age structure of the population shifts. But a higher proportion of older adults does not necessarily mean the proportion of workers to nonworkers falls. For one thing, the proportion of children under age 18 in the population also declines, so the number of working-age adults—usually defined as ages 18 to 64—often changes relatively little. And as older adults stay healthier and more active, a growing number of them are contributing to the economy. Labor force participation among Americans ages 65 to 74 increased from 21.4% in 2003 to 26.9% in 2023 — and is expected to increase to 30.4% by 2033. Modest changes in the average age of retirement or in how Social Security is funded would further reduce strains on support programs for older adults. What's more, pronatalists' core argument that a higher birth rate would increase the size of the labor force overlooks some short-term consequences. More babies means more dependents, at least until those children become old enough to enter the labor force. Children not only require expensive services such as education, but also reduce labor force participation, particularly for women. As fertility rates have fallen, women's labor force participation rates have risen dramatically —from 34% in 1950 to 58% in 2024. Pronatalist policies that discourage women's employment are at odds with concerns about a diminishing number of workers. Research shows that economic policies and labor market conditions, not demographic age structures, play the most important role in determining economic growth in advanced economies. And with rapidly changing technologies like automation and artificial intelligence, it is unclear what demand there will be for workers in the future. Moreover, immigration is a powerful—and immediate—tool for addressing labor market needs and concerns over the proportion of workers. Overall, there's no evidence for Elon Musk's assertion that 'humanity is dying.' While the changes in population structure that accompany low birth rates are real, in our view the impact of these changes has been dramatically overstated. Strong investments in education and sensible economic policies can help countries successfully adapt to a new demographic reality.
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
‘Tariff rebates' proposed: How would they work?
(NEXSTAR) — If you've been waiting and hoping for another stimulus check since receiving your last COVID relief payment in 2021, you may be in luck. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has introduced legislation that would send out 'tariff rebates' meant to 'allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump's tariffs are returning to this country.' As The Hill reports, the rebates would be modeled after the payments sent out after Congress authorized the 2020 CARES Act. In that case, adults received direct payments of $1,200 and $500 for their dependent children. Hawley introduces bill to provide $600 tariff rebates to adults and children Unlike those payments, these rebates would serve to offset the higher prices consumers have faced amid tariffs. According to Hawley, the U.S. has recorded $30 billion in tariff revenue as of June. He cited additional projections that say the revenue could exceed $150 billion this year alone. Under Hawley's bill, however, the individual payments would be much smaller. How much would the tariff rebates be? Each adult would receive 'at least $600,' as would each dependent child. The total rebate for a DINK (dual income, no kids) household, for example, would be at least $1,200, while a family of four could receive $2,400. Payments could increase 'if tariff revenue exceeds current projections for 2025,' according to a press release from Hawley's office describing the proposed legislation. Who will — and won't — have a three-payday August Payments would also decrease based on household income. The bill's text says rebates would be reduced based on a taxpayer's filing status and their adjusted gross income. That income threshold is $150,000 for those filing a joint return; $112,500 for those filing as a head of household; and $75,000 for a single taxpayer. Who would be eligible for a payment? Hawley's bill does not explicitly outline who would be eligible, but rather who is ineligible. That includes: 'any nonresident alien individual'; those who can be claimed on another taxpayer's taxes; and estates or trusts. As we saw with the COVID stimulus checks, your most recent taxes would likely be used to determine your eligibility and the size of your payment. When could tariff rebates be sent out? It's too early to say, as Hawley's bill would still need to make it through Congress. President Donald Trump has expressed support for the idea, telling reporters last week that the U.S. has 'so much money coming in' because of the tariffs that 'we're thinking about a little rebate.' 'A little rebate for people of a certain income level might be very nice,' he said, while noting that 'the big thing we want to do is pay down the debt.' As of Tuesday, the federal deficit sits at roughly $36.7 trillion. If you would like to help pay it down, you can now use Venmo to contribute to the 'Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt' program.
