Supreme Court has a busy Friday

Post Reply New Topic

The Supreme Court on Friday handed a major win to the Trump administration by allowing it to take steps to implement its proposal to end automatic birthright citizenship.

In a 6-3 vote, the court granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by judges so that they apply only to states, groups and individuals that sued. That means the birthright citizenship proposal can likely move forward at least in part in the states that challenged it as well as those that did not.

The ruling immediately sparked a response from plaintiffs who have sued to block the executive order, with their lawyers vowing to continue the legal fight.

It has long been widely accepted, including by legal scholars on left and right, that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers automatic citizenship to almost anyone born in the United States.

"GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court!" Trump said in a Truth Social post.

The court was divided on ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent.

"When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority.

But she indicated that the nationwide injunctions are limited "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary."

Lower courts, she added "shall move expeditiously" to figure out how broad the injunctions can be.

The court also said that the administration can continue working administratively on how the policy would be implemented.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor read a summary of her dissent from the bench in the courtroom, saying the ruling was a "travesty for the rule of the law" and an "open invitation to bypass the constitution."

Federal courts "will be hamstrung" when it comes to nationwide injunctions but she urged potential plaintiffs to immediately file class action lawsuits, a legal avenue the court left open.

In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the decision was “an existential threat to the rule of law.”

The policy remains blocked for now in one additional state, New Hampshire, as a result of a separate lawsuit that is not before the Supreme Court.

In light of the ruling, the proposal can potentially move forward nationwide, although individual plaintiffs could still file their own lawsuits in those states and the current challengers can still move to reinstate injunctions that are less broad in scope. The court said the executive order would technically go into effect in 30 days.

"Even without a universal injunction, we will continue to litigate this case to ensure that every child born in the United States receives the citizenship that the 14th Amendment promises them, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.” said William Powell, one of the lawyers representing challengers in Maryland.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is also involved in the litigation, calling the ruling "troubling but limited," noting that lower courts have time to act before the 30-day deadline.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, whose state challenged the plan, said he was confident the executive order would never go into effect.

"And in the meantime, our fight continues," he added.

The decision does not address the legal merits of the plan, but only whether judges had the authority to put it on hold across the entire country. President Donald Trump and his MAGA allies have been harshly critical of judges who have blocked aspects of his agenda, although it is not a new phenomenon for courts to impose nationwide injunctions.

The 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Based on historical practice, the only exception is people who are the children of diplomats.

Trump wants to adopt a completely new meaning of the language that would confer citizenship only on those who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.

Trump’s executive order, issued on his first day in office in January, was immediately challenged, and every court that has ruled on the proposal so far has blocked it. At issue at the Supreme Court were cases filed in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state.

The Trump plan has the backing of 21 other states.

The administration has complained bitterly as judges have issued nationwide injunctions in response to Trump’s bold and aggressive use of executive power to implement his contentious agenda, which has included ramping up deportations, downsizing federal agencies, targeting law firms and universities, and firing thousands of federal employe

The Supreme Court on Friday bolstered religious rights as it ruled in favor of parents who objected to LGBTQ-themed books that a Maryland county approved for use in elementary school classrooms.

In a 6-3 vote, the court backed the parents' claim that the Montgomery County Board of Education's decision not to allow an opt-out for their children violated their religious rights under the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects religious expression.

"The board'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," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that is often receptive to religious claims. The liberal justices dissented.

"The result will be chaos for this nation's public schools," liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion.

"Given the great diversity of religious beliefs in this country, countless interactions that occur every day in public schools might expose children to messages that conflict with a parents' beliefs," she added.

The dispute arose in 2022 when the school board in the diverse county just outside Washington revised its English language arts curriculum.

The board determined that it wanted more storybooks to feature LGBTQ elements to better reflect some of the families who live in the area.

Approved books include “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” which features a gay character who is getting married, and “Born Ready,” about a transgender child who wants to identify as a boy.

The school board said that although the books are in classrooms and available for children to pick up, teachers are not required to use them in class.

Initially the school board indicated that parents would be able to opt their children out of exposure to the books, but it quickly changed course, suggesting that would be too difficult to implement.

Plaintiffs include Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, a Muslim couple who have a son in elementary school. Members of the Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox churches also sued, as did a parent group called Kids First that has members of various faiths.

They said they had a right to protect their children from being taught content that conflicts with their religious beliefs by expressing support for same-sex relationships and transgender rights.

The Trump administration backed the challengers.

Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law aimed at restricting young people’s access to pornographic content online.

The justices in a 6-3 vote rejected a challenge brought by a pornography interest group called the Free Speech Coalition that said the measure violates the free speech rights of adults who want to access the content.

The law requires users of websites that host adult content to verify their age before they can access it. This requires the operator to view a government-issued identification, such as a driver’s license.

The law "simply requires established verification methods already in use by pornographic sites and other industries," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.

It also "advances the state's important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit material," he added.

The challengers argued the law violates the Constitution’s First Amendment because it places a “content-based burden” on adults’ access to speech.

They cited a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that found a federal law also aimed at restricting access to pornography, called the Child Online Protection Act, was most likely unconstitutional

A federal judge had ruled that the provision at issue was problematic because it did not merely restrict access to minors.

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then ruled for Texas and refused to put its ruling on hold pending further review.

As a result of that ruling, some online pornography platforms, including Pornhub, prevented people in Texas from accessing their sites out of concern about the provision’s going into effect.

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a challenge to an Affordable Care Act provision that set up a panel to recommend preventive care services that insurers must provide at no cost to patients.

The court, split 6-3, ruled in favor of the Trump administration, which was defending the law, saying the task force members are lawfully appointed under the Constitution's appointments clause.

The task force members are under the supervision of the health and human services secretary, a position held by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which addresses any concerns that it is not accountable to the executive branch, the court found in an opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The task force members' appointment is "fully consistent" with the appointments clause, Kavanaugh said. He also noted that Kennedy can fire the task force members at any time and has the authority to review their recommendations.

Three conservative justices dissented.

The case arose from a challenge brought by Christian employers Braidwood Management and Kelley Orthodontics, in addition to several individuals, who objected on religious grounds to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s approval of no-cost coverage for the HIV prevention medication known as pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP.

The plaintiffs asserted that their religious rights were violated “by making them complicit in facilitating homosexual behavior, drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman."

But by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the legal issue was not the religious question raised under the Constitution’s First Amendment, focusing solely on the appointments issue.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends a wide array of preventive services related to such issues as cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

The challengers said the structure of the task force was unlawful because members were not properly appointed via a presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. They added that the panel's members are intended to be independent and not under the control of the health and human services secretary as the government argued.

The panel, composed of outside experts, has 16 members and was formed as an independent body appointed by the federal official who heads the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a challenge to a Federal Communications Commission program that subsidizes phone and internet services in underserved parts of the country.

In a decision written by Justice Elena Kagan, the court ruled that Congress did not exceed its authority when it enacted a 1996 law that set up the Universal Service Fund, which requires telecommunications services to submit payments to subsidize “universal service.”

The court also said the FCC could delegate its authority to a private corporation called the Universal Service Administrative Company to administer the fund.

"Nothing in these arrangements, either separately or together, violates the Constitution," Kagan wrote.

The justices were divided 6-3, with three conservative justices dissenting.

The fees, generally passed on to customers, raise billions of dollars a year that are spent on providing phone and internet services, including for schools, libraries and hospitals.

Challengers said the program violates the “nondelegation doctrine,” a theory embraced by conservatives that says Congress has limited powers to delegate its lawmaking authority to the executive branch.

Opponents call the Universal Service Fund fee a form of tax and say only elected officials, not bureaucrats, have the power to impose it.

The 1996 law is particularly problematic because it does not tell the FCC how much money it can raise via the program, the challengers’ lawyers argued.