Supreme Court ends terms with decisions on birthright citizenship, the ACA and more
The Supreme Court on Friday limited the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order to ban birthright citizenship, a decision that will have major implications for judicial power.
In a 6-3 opinion, the justices said such nationwide injunctions probably exceed the authority Congress has given the federal courts — but they did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s birthright citizenship ban itself. Instead, the ruling pauses Trump’s order for at least 30 days and sends the issue back to the lower courts, leaving open a path for further legal challenges to Trump’s policy.
Still, Trump celebrated the decision as a “tremendous win” for his agenda, vowing to proceed with other policies he said had been “wrongly enjoined” by federal judges, including efforts to suspend refugee resettlement and end funding for sanctuary cities.
Friday is the final day of the Supreme Court’s term — and the justices left some of the most important and contentious cases until the end. They released five opinions in all, including decisions allowing parents to opt their children out of school lessons involving LGBTQ books, maintaining the Affordable Care Act’s preventive care mandate, and upholding a Texas law that requires age verification to view online porn. A sixth case was sent for reargument next term.
4:18 PM: In Maryland, lawyers vow ‘fight is not over’ on birthright citizenship
In Maryland, advocate attorneys and the state’s attorney general vowed to keep fighting to preserve birthright citizenship.
“In light of the Supreme Court’s decision this morning, I recognize that families across our country must continue to live with uncertainty about whether their children — born on U.S. soil — will be recognized as American citizens,” Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown said. “But the decision continues to leave open a question on what relief is necessary to address the President’s blatantly unconstitutional mandate.”
After Trump signed his birthright citizenship executive order in January, Maryland and a cohort of other Democratic-led states sued the administration in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. A second lawsuit, from the immigration legal groups CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, was filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland.
After Friday’s Supreme Court decision, those two cases, as well as a third filed in Washington state, will return to the judges who issued the injunctions. The ban will be paused for at least 30 days.
“His un-American executive order still will not go into effect immediately,” Brown said. “This fight is not over. We will continue to challenge this unlawful order — because justice demands it.”
Ama Frimpong, CASA Maryland’s legal director, said Friday that her organization will continue to find creative legal avenues to bring broad relief to those who are pregnant and their children, regardless of their immigration status.
“We are absolutely grateful that the named plaintiffs in our case as well as CASA members are protected under this SCOTUS ruling, but our fight is for everyone. Our fight is for every expecting immigrant mother,” Frimpong said. “Our fight is for all of them.”
Maryland — and its immigrant residents — have become a “target” of the Trump administration, she said, because the state “has proven itself to be a place that is welcoming to immigrants.”
The Trump administration this week sued the entire federal bench of the U.S. District Court of Maryland over an order from that court’s chief judge that grants a two-day stay of deportation to any detainee in immigration custody who files a petition for habeas corpus. The White House has separately threatened to withhold funding from Maryland and other states that support “sanctuary” policies regarding undocumented immigrants.
“This is a moment for our state to show what our values are,” Frimpong said, “for our state to really rise up to this moment, to protect all Marylanders regardless of where we are born.”
By: Katie Mettler
3:45 PM: The Supreme Court has accepted these cases for the next term
- First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin deals with an investigation by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin into a chain of pregnancy centers that seek to dissuade women from having abortions. The justices will weigh whether First Choice Women’s Resource Centers Inc., which operates five clinics in the state, can go to federal court to fight a state-level subpoena from Platkin that seeks a list of its donors.
- In Chiles v. Salazar, a Christian therapist is challenging a Colorado state law barring “conversion therapy” that attempts to change a young person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. More than 20 states restrict the practice, following recommendations by most professional health care provider associations that such counseling can harm young people. The Colorado therapist, Kaley Chiles, says the state law banning such treatment is unconstitutional and has forced her to deny counseling to potential clients who share her faith, in violation of her religious beliefs.
- Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety asks whether a devout Rastafarian can sue for money damages after his hair was forcibly shaved by prison guards despite the man’s religious vow not to cut his dreadlocks.
By: Amy B Wang, Justin Jouvenal and Ann E. Marimow
3:18 PM: Moms in CASA v. Trump still on edge after court’s birthright ruling
Supreme Court ends terms with decisions on birthright citizenship, the ACA and more
When they first learned that President Donald Trump wanted to end birthright citizenship in the United States, Marta and Rita — plaintiffs in the lawsuit CASA v. Trump — felt fear.
The women, both undocumented immigrants from Guatemala, were pregnant, they said in an interview Friday through interpreters while using pseudonyms for fear of their safety.
Rita was seven months along at the time, she said, and Marta was two months pregnant. They had left Guatemala and landed in Maryland, hoping for better, less trying lives. When they learned they were expecting, they said, they felt relief their babies would inherit the protections and freedoms of U.S. citizenship upon their births.
The threat that those rights might be taken away, they said, spurred them to join the lawsuit filed by the organizations CASA and Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project in U.S. District Court in Maryland, challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship.
Once the nationwide injunction pausing Trump’s ban took effect, Rita and Marta said they felt only brief relief. The normal stresses of pregnancy were exacerbated by the uncertainty of the looming court case.
“This baby has given me the strength and the resilience to fight and to join this lawsuit,” Marta said through interpreters. “I have to fight for this baby, and I have to fight for his future.”
Marta said she hopes to feel a sense of relief when her son is born, which could happen any day. But Rita said that even her daughter’s birth in the spring didn’t feel like a safety guarantee, despite her birth certificate.
Friday’s decision, though, made her feel “empowered and grateful,” she said.
“I know we fought hard for this decision,” Rita said through an interpreter. “I am still continuing to fight for the other mothers who are not as fortunate and in a similar situation as I am.”
By: Katie Mettler
2:27 PM: Ruling in FCC case reignites broadband funding debate
Advocates of greater public access to broadband internet breathed a sigh of relief at the court’s 6-3 ruling upholding the constitutionality of a federal fund established for that purpose. But they said the ruling alone isn’t enough to address funding shortfalls preventing the fund from closing a “digital divide” in which poor and rural communities still lack the broadband internet access that much of the country increasingly depends on.
“As welcome as this decision is, the underlying threat to the Universal Service Fund remains, with the program’s funding shrinking by the day,” said Gigi Sohn, executive director of the American Association for Public Broadband. With a related connectivity program also expiring, “the promise of the USF program — to deliver affordable broadband directly to homes, schools and libraries, and rural communities — remains unfulfilled.”
The Rural Wireless Association trade group called the ruling “a major victory” in a statement, but added that “the fight is not over.” It is backing legislation that would expand the fund by requiring Big Tech companies to contribute to it.
Some conservative critics of the fund, meanwhile, said the court’s decision should spur Congress to either rein in the fund or eliminate it.
“Without meaningful substantial reform, the USF fund, as it exists now, is unsustainable,” said Randolph May of the Free State Foundation, a right-leaning policy think tank. “Consumers of traditional telephone services are now paying a tax of 36% on all their calls as the contribution base continues to shrink.”
By: Will Oremus
2:26 PM: Analysis from Patrick Marley, National reporter focusing on voting issues in the Upper Midwest
It was a blockbuster day at the Supreme Court, but not for redistricting. The justices put off a decision on Louisiana’s congressional map, saying it would hold new arguments next term to decide the case.
The delay for now will leave in place a map that gave Democrats a second congressional seat in 2024. The state has six districts.
2:11 PM: Analysis from Tom Jackman, Reporter covering criminal justice locally and nationally
Justice Neil Gorsuch was not present for the court session. Court officials did not provide an immediate answer on why he was absent.
2:10 PM: Analysis from Nicole Asbury, Staff Writer
Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a video posted to X that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor was “not only a win for religious liberty, but for parental rights.”
“We are proud to see families – not bureaucrats – reclaiming their role in raising their children according to their sincerely held religious beliefs,” McMahon said.
1:58 PM: Democrats decry decision in birthright citizenship case
Democratic lawmakers overwhelmingly decried the Supreme Court’s decision Friday to scale back nationwide injunctions, casting the ruling as a loss for the judicial system’s check on executive power and vowing to fight President Donald Trump’s efforts to ban birthright citizenship.
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee called the decision “a LOSS for the rule of law and the Constitution,” while the Congressional Hispanic Caucus warned that the ruling would weaken courts’ ability to protect their communities.
Other Democrats criticized the justices’ decision to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship itself.
“Ruling on nationwide injunctions without ruling on the merits of the obviously unconstitutional birthright citizenship order, on the last day of this term, is a shameful abdication of responsibility that thrusts millions of Americans into chaos and uncertainty,” Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-New Jersey) said.
“We will not rest until that constitutional right is completely and unequivocally protected,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) said in a statement.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin warned of “chaos” if Trump succeeds in ending birthright citizenship.
“It could force hospitals to demand proof of citizenship from pregnant women, make birth certificates unreliable, and even leave U.S.-born children stateless,” Martin said in a statement.
By: Amy B Wang
1:21 PM: Texas porn ruling could bolster push for age checks online
The court’s ruling upholding a law in Texas that requires adult websites to check users’ ages could bolster a broader push by children’s safety advocates for laws aimed at protecting young people from a range of harms online.
Several states have passed laws in recent years restricting minors’ access to social networks or app stores without parental consent, some of which have been struck down by courts. And federal lawmakers in May reintroduced a bipartisan kids’ online safety act that would hold online platforms and social apps responsible for taking reasonable measures to shield children from inappropriate content.
In a ruling that the age-check mandate “only incidentally burdens” adults’ ability to access explicit content online, the court’s conservative majority downplayed concerns raised by online privacy and civil liberties advocates that such features could have a significant chilling effect.
Still, it would be wrong to view the decision as a blank check for Congress or states to pass such laws, said Vera Eidelman of the American Civil Liberties Union.
“Today’s decision does not mean that age verification can be lawfully imposed across the internet,” she said. “With this decision, the court has carved out an unprincipled pornography exception to the First Amendment” — not given a blank check to states or Congress to mandate age checks for social networks or other online services.
By: Will Oremus
1:09 PM: Immigrant advocates seek class-action relief from Trump birthright ban
Immigration aid organizations rushed to court to ask a federal judge to block President Donald Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship in response to a Supreme Court ruling limiting nationwide injunctions.
CASA de Maryland, an advocacy organization based in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, and other groups had previously obtained a nationwide injunction after suing the Trump administration earlier this year.
On Friday, Supreme Court justices backed Trump’s request to limit the scope of nationwide injunctions issued by lower-court judges. Federal judges can nonetheless still block an executive order nationwide through a class-action lawsuit. And, in some circumstances, lower courts could still find a universal injunction necessary.
In the amended lawsuit, CASA is seeking class-action status for every pregnant person or child born to families without permanent legal status, no matter where they live.
By: Arelis R. Hernández
12:26 PM: Analysis from Amy B Wang, National politics reporter
Attorney General Pamela Bondi attends a White House press briefing on Friday.
Attorney General Pam Bondi sidestepped hypothetical questions about what would happen to a baby born to undocumented immigrants or foreign visitors if President Donald Trump successfully ends birthright citizenship — including whether hospital staff would be tasked with checking parents’ citizenship or if an undocumented baby would be a deportation priority.
“This is all pending litigation,” Bondi said during an appearance in the White House briefing room. “It’s going to be decided in October by the Supreme Court, and we’ll discuss that after the litigation.”
12:15 PM: Birthright citizenship decision pauses Trump’s ban
The court’s ruling sharply limiting nationwide injunctions does not address the constitutionality of the president’s birthright citizenship order, which opponents say conflicts with the 14th Amendment, former court rulings and the nation’s history.
Instead, it pauses Trump’s plan for at least 30 days and sends a set of cases back to the lower courts to determine the practical implications of the ruling, while leaving open a path for challengers to try to continue to block the president’s policy.
By: Ann E. Marimow
12:10 PM: Analysis from Cat Zakrzewski, Cat Zakrzewski covers the White House. Send her secure tips on Signal at cqz.17
President Donald Trump greets Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett during a joint session of Congress in March 2025.
President Donald Trump said he has always had “great respect” for Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whom he nominated in his first term. His supporters have criticized her at times for breaking ranks with other conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Barrett wrote the opinion for the majority in the birthright citizenship case, and Trump said it was “brilliantly written.”
12:09 PM: Analysis from Amy B Wang, National politics reporter
Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested the Trump administration would not try to implement the president’s executive order banning birthright citizenship before a 30-day grace period noted in the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday.
“We’re going to follow the law. We’re going to make those decisions, and we’re going to do what’s right in the balance of the law,” Bondi said.
12:09 PM: Analysis from Patrick Svitek
Attorney General Pam Bondi accused district court judges of acting like “emperors” as she celebrated the Supreme Court ruling Friday that reined in nationwide orders.
“They vetoed all of President Trump’s power, and they cannot do that,” Bondi told reporters at a White House briefing. “This has been a bipartisan problem that has lasted five presidential terms ... and it has ended today.”
12:07 PM: Analysis from Nicole Asbury, Staff Writer
Eric Baxter, an attorney from Becket law firm who represented the group of religious parents in Mahmoud v. Taylor, called the decision “a historic victory for parental rights.”
“Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents — not government — have the final say in how their children are raised,” Baxter said.
12:06 PM: Alito, Sotomayor differ on use of school books
In reading summaries of their opinions from the bench, Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Sonia Sotomayor had strongly different interpretations of a textbook intended for use in Montgomery County school, entitled “Born Ready.” Alito read a passage about the character Penelope expressing that she wanted to be a boy.
“This is a clear message about gender alteration procedures,” Alito said, “to which many parents disagree.” Alito said parents “have a right to instruct their children in accordance with their beliefs,” and that Montgomery County’s school board was “dismissive of the parents’ concerns.” He said the First Amendment gave parents “the right to instruct children in their faith.”
Sotomayor said the book merely gave a positive message about accepting a transgender person. “Today’s ruling, make no mistake,” Sotomayor said, “threatens the very essence of public education in this country ... If innocuous children’s books read aloud are enough to engender strict scrutiny, then nearly everything is.”
Sotomayor said the use of such books was merely “exposing kids to the fact that gay and transgender people may exist ... and their family members may treat them with love and kindness.”
Sotomayor asked, “Does mere exposure to concepts ... prohibit the exercise of their religion? The answer to that question for centuries has been no.”
By: Tom Jackman
12:01 PM: Analysis from Cat Zakrzewski, Cat Zakrzewski covers the White House. Send her secure tips on Signal at cqz.17
President Donald Trump said the administration “can properly file to proceed” on a number of policies beyond birthright citizenship that were blocked by nationwide injunctions. He cited ending funding for “sanctuary cities,” suspending refugee resettlement, freezing “unnecessary funding” and limiting the use of federal funding for transgender surgeries. “We have so many of them,” Trump said. “I have a whole list.”
12:00 PM: Analysis from Amy B Wang, National politics reporter
President Donald Trump comments on Supreme Court rulings in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on Friday.
In a press conference Friday, President Donald Trump hailed the Supreme Court’s decision to scale back nationwide injunctions that had blocked his efforts to end birthright citizenship, calling the last hour “an amazing period.”
Trump noted that he had been hit with more nationwide injunctions than were issued in the entire 20th century combined.
“Think of it — more than the entire 20th century. Me!” he said. “I’m grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem. And they’ve made it very simple.”
11:53 AM: Sotomayor harshly attacks citizenship decision
Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke for nearly 20 minutes as she explained her dissent in the decision on birthright citizenship, attacking the logic on both citizenship and the ruling against universal injunctions issued by lower courts. As Sotomayor spoke, Justice Amy Coney Barrett turned to face Sotomayor and listened intently, with no justice sitting between them as Justice Neil M. Gorsuch was absent today.
“Today’s decision is not just egregiously wrong,” Sotomayor said, “it is also a travesty of law.” She said that “today, the test is birthright citizenship,” but that future administrations may seize firearms or legislate matters of faith.
Sotomayor also criticized the sharp restriction on universal injunctions. By stripping all courts, including the Supreme Court, “of that power,” Sotomayor said, “kneecaps the judiciary from stopping the executive from enforcing the most inequitable policies.” She called the majority ruling “very strange” because lower courts had already decided that only a universal injunction would be appropriate in each of their cases.
“The parties would be well advised to file class-actions suits immediately,” Sotomayor advised, as a way of seeking large-scale remedies to constitutional issues. “Lower courts would be wise to act quickly on such requests for relief.”
“Today the court abdicates its vital role in that effort,” Sotomayor said. “With a stroke of the pen, the president has made a mockery of our Constitution.”
By: Tom Jackman
11:51 AM: What happened in the Louisiana voting map case
Louisiana v. Callais; Robinson v. Callais
What to know: The Supreme Court put off its decision on a challenge to Louisiana’s redrawn congressional maps, setting the case for reargument likely later this year. The justices indicated they may have additional questions on maps the state’s legislature drew to create a second majority-Black district. The Supreme Court is weighing whether the map violates the Constitution. The eventual decision could affect the balance of power in Congress, the landmark Voting Rights Act and how states consider race in drawing electoral maps.
Key takeaways: Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision not to decide the case this term. At oral argument March 24, several conservative justices expressed skepticism that the Voting Rights Act’s attempts to redress past discrimination can coexist with the Equal Protection Clause. But they appeared to disagree about whether the new district’s shape was the result of racial considerations or politics, which could impact whether there are enough votes to strike down the map. The court’s three liberals seemed inclined to allow the creation of the second Black-majority district.
By: Patrick Marley and Jeremy Roebuck
11:41 AM: Supreme Court opinion on children’s books comes with illustrations
A page of the children’s book Uncle Bobby’s Wedding by Sarah S. Brannen and Lucia Soto taken from the Supreme Court opinion issued in a case involving school books with LGBTQ+ themes. (Photo by Sarah S. Brannen and Lucia Soto/Books of Wonder/Supreme Court docket 24-297)
Supreme Court rulings usually have lots of words but no pictures. Not so Friday, as the Supreme Court issued its ruling in a case involving school books with LGBTQ+ themes.
Both the majority opinion, by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., and a dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor included images from some of the books at issue. It appears to be the first time that a justice — much less two — included images from a story book in a Supreme Court opinion.
Alito, who wrote the majority opinion siding with parents seeking to opt their children out of lessons based on religious objections, included an image from the story, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” of two men announcing their engagement: “‘We’re getting married!’ said Uncle Bobby,” the words say. An image Alito included from another book shows a child being hugged by the child’s mother, telling her, “I love you Mama, but I don’t want to be you. I want to be Papa. … Help me be a boy.”
Sotomayor also included images from “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” — possibly the entire book — which tells the story of Chloe, Bobby’s niece, coming to understand and appreciate her uncle’s engagement to another man. The last image shows a scene from the wedding:
“The band starting to play,” the text says. “Chloe jumped up and grabbed Uncle Bobby’s and Uncle Jamie’s hands. They danced until the moon rose.”
By: Laura Meckler
11:25 AM: Analysis from Nicole Asbury, Staff Writer
Montgomery County Public Schools and its school board said in a joint statement Friday the Supreme Court’s decision in the Mahmoud v. Taylor books case “is not the outcome we hoped for or worked toward."
“It marks a significant challenge for public education nationwide,” school system officials said. The school system said it is working on determining its next steps.
11:23 AM: How the justices ruled and what it means for age verification for online porn
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
Decided: June 27, 2025
What they ruled: In a 6-3 ruling, the justices upheld a Texas law that requires users to verify their age to access porn sites. The court rejected arguments from the porn industry that the law violates the First Amendment rights of adults to access explicit content online.
Why it matters: The case was the first major legal test of statutes that have been enacted in two dozen states aimed at protecting young people from lewd content that has become ever easier to view.
By: Justin Jouvenal and Jeremy Roebuck
11:12 AM: Analysis from Nicole Asbury, Staff Writer
The Montgomery County Education Association, the union that represents teachers in Maryland’s largest school system, said in a statement they were “extremely disappointed” by the Supreme Court’s ruling on Mahmoud v. Taylor. “This decision sets us back and is reminiscent of a time when discrimination and intolerance were the norm,” the union said.
11:12 AM: Republicans celebrate ruling in birthright citizenship case as win for Trump
Republican lawmakers on Friday celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling in the birthright citizenship case — effectively limiting nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges — as a win for President Donald Trump.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he had been leading the charge to clarify the scope of judicial relief and “stop the abuse of nationwide injunctions.”
“Supreme Court backs up what [I’ve] been saying [for] months: judges [are] limited to cases+controversies/federal courts should NOT exceed their authority,” Grassley wrote on X.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said “rogue district court judges” should not be able to unilaterally delay Trump’s agenda.
“Bye-bye overbroad nationwide injunctions,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) wrote.
The justices did not directly address the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order to ban birthright citizenship for U.S.-born babies of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors, but several Republicans pushed for Congress to end birthright citizenship outright.
By: Amy B Wang
11:09 AM: Analysis from Jeremy Roebuck, Reporter covering the Justice Department, FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies
In two of the rulings Friday, the court’s conservative majority overturned decisions from the typically conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The first was the justices’ decision upholding the Affordable Care Act’s preventive care mandate, and the other was their ruling upholding an $8 billion fund for internet and phone service in rural and low-income communities.
11:08 AM: Analysis from Amy B Wang, National politics reporter
President Donald Trump celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision to scale back nationwide injunctions that have blocked his administration’s efforts to ban birthright citizenship for U.S.-born babies of undocumented immigrants.
“GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard,” Trump wrote on social media. “It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.”
Trump added he would hold a news conference at the White House at 11:30 a.m.
11:07 AM: Analysis from Justin Jouvenal, Reporter covering the Supreme Court
A divided Supreme Court upheld the legality of an $8 billion fund that provides internet and phone service to rural and low-income communities. The ruling is a blow to conservatives who hoped the case would be an opening to limit federal regulatory power.
11:04 AM: How the justices ruled and what it means for opting out of books on gender, sexuality
Mahmoud v. Taylor
What they ruled: In a 6-3 ruling, the justices sided with a group of parents seeking to withdraw their children from public school lessons featuring LGBTQ+-themed storybooks. The justices said school officials in Montgomery County, Maryland, may not require young children to participate in lessons with books that conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs.
Why it matters: The decision could have implications for public schools nationwide and could give families the right to voice religious objections to a broad range of learning materials, expanding on the long-standing practice of allowing opt-outs for reproductive-health classes.
By: Ann E. Marimow and Jeremy Roebuck
10:51 AM: How the justices ruled and what it means for preventive health care coverage
Kennedy (formerly Becerra) v. Braidwood Management Inc.
What they ruled: A divided Supreme Court upheld a portion of the Affordable Care Act that requires health plans to provide free preventive care such as cancer screenings. In a 6-3 decision, the justices ruled against a Christian-owned business and individuals who objected to being forced to offer medications intended to prevent the spread of HIV among at-risk populations.
Why it matters: The groups objected to the preventive care mandate on religious grounds, but their legal arguments before the high court involved a technical question about the expert panel that decides which measures health plans must cover. Health care providers and nonprofit organizations said an adverse ruling could have blocked critical health care for as many as 40 million Americans.
By: Justin Jouvenal and Jeremy Roebuck
10:35 AM: The key part of Barrett’s birthright citizenship opinion
“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. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
By: Justin Jouvenal
10:26 AM: How the justices ruled and what it means for birthright citizenship
Trump v. CASA Inc.
What they ruled: A divided Supreme Court backed President Donald Trump’s request to scale back nationwide orders from lower courts that for months have blocked the administration’s ban on automatic citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors, a signature piece of its efforts to restrict immigration. The justices did not directly address the constitutionality of the president’s birthright citizenship order but instead limited orders from three lower-court judges who had blocked the policy from taking effect while its legality was tested in court.
Key takeaways: The court’s ruling sends the case back to the lower courts to determine the practical implications of the decision. But the decision could have significant impact on the type of nationwide restrictions that judges across the country have imposed on key aspects of Trump’s agenda. Presidents in both parties, members of Congress and several Supreme Court justices have long decried such nationwide injunctions for giving outsize power to individual judges to halt a president’s agenda. The broad orders temporarily block a policy or regulation while litigation is underway if a judge believes the action may be unconstitutional or that implementing it would cause immediate harm.
By: Ann E. Marimow and Jeremy Roebuck
10:24 AM: Analysis from Justin Jouvenal, Reporter covering the Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett hold a conversation at George Washington University in Washington DC, in March 2024.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor is reading a lengthy dissent to the decision on nationwide injunctions and birthright citizenship from the bench on behalf of the three liberal justices.
10:23 AM: Analysis from Amy B Wang, National politics reporter
10:05 AM: Analysis from Justin Jouvenal, Reporter covering the Supreme Court
Hawks rest on construction scaffolding outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday.
The first case up is the biggest one: birthright citizenship. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices find nationwide injunctions likely exceed the authority Congress has given the courts.
9:59 AM: Analysis from Justin Jouvenal, Reporter covering the Supreme Court
Buckle up! This is going to be a huge day at the high court. I’m Justin Jouvenal, and I cover the Supreme Court at The Washington Post. I’ll be here to help guide you through many of the major decisions we are expecting.
9:57 AM: Analysis from Patrick Marley, National reporter focusing on voting issues in the Upper Midwest
Good morning. I’m a reporter covering democracy, voting and redistricting. I’ll be watching to see whether the Supreme Court upholds the congressional map for Louisiana after the state drew a second, majority-Black district. The decision could affect control of Congress in next year’s elections, because the House is so narrowly divided.
9:57 AM: The cases the justices are expected to decide Friday
Olga Urbina holds her 9-month-old son, Ares Webster, as people gather outside the Supreme Court of the United States on May 15, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
The Supreme Court is set to issue opinions in six cases today:
FCC v. Consumers Research — The court is weighing the legality of an $8 billion fund that pays for internet and phone service in poor and rural communities.
Mahmoud v. Taylor — The justices will rule on whether religious parents in a Maryland school district can opt students out of lessons that involve LGBTQ+ books. The parents say the lessons conflict with their faith.
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton — The court will determine whether a Texas law that requires age verification to access online porn sites violates the First Amendment. It is the first legal test of statutes in 24 states aimed at protecting young people from lewd material on the web.
Louisiana v. Callais — The justices will decide whether a voting map that created a second Black-majority congressional district in Louisiana is constitutional. The case could affect the balance of Congress and how states factor race into drawing voting districts.
Kennedy v. Braidwood — The Supreme Court will determine the legality of a portion of the Affordable Care Act that requires health plans to provide free preventive care such as cancer screenings, contraception and immunizations. Millions of Americans utilize it.
Trump v. CASA — The case began as a challenge to President Donald Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship, but the Supreme Court is weighing an emergency appeal by the administration on a different question: Do federal district courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions?
By: Justin Jouvenal
9:56 AM: Analysis from Ann E. Marimow, Supreme Court correspondent
Happy last day of the term! I’m Ann Marimow, and I cover the Supreme Court. I’m in the press room on the first floor of the court grabbing copies of the opinions as they land. I’m interested in how the justices handle the Trump administration’s request to lift nationwide court orders blocking the president’s ban on birthright citizenship.
9:55 AM: Analysis from Jeremy Roebuck, Reporter covering the Justice Department, FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies
Good morning! I’m Jeremy Roebuck, and I cover the Justice Department for The Post. I’ll be watching for how some of the most anticipated cases of this term play out as opinions are released this morning, including whether the justices take steps to rein in the nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts that have stymied many of President Donald Trump’s policies.
9:50 AM: Analysis from Nicole Asbury, Staff Writer
Good morning! I’m Nicole Asbury, and I cover Maryland schools. I’ll be watching for the ruling on Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case about a group of parents who want to opt out of storybooks with LGBTQ characters. I’ve been following this case since it started in 2023.
9:50 AM: Analysis from David Ovalle, National reporter focusing on opioids and addiction
Good morning, D.C.! I’m David Ovalle, Post health writer. I’ll be helping cover the decision on a challenge to a section of the Affordable Care Act that requires health plans provide no-cost preventive care such as cancer screenings, immunizations and contraception. The ruling could affect health services for Americans who might otherwise not have access to them.
9:48 AM: Analysis from Amy B Wang, National politics reporter
Good morning — I’m a reporter covering breaking political news for The Washington Post. Today I’ll be following the political implications of the Supreme Court’s decisions, especially its expected ruling on President Donald Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors.
9:47 AM: Analysis from Tom Jackman, Reporter covering criminal justice locally and nationally
A person walks along First Street NE outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Friday.
If it weren’t for the array of television crews lined up along First Street, there weren’t many clues this morning that a substantial day of rulings from the Supreme Court was ahead. Unlike yesterday, when a group of antiabortion activists chanted and cheered in front of the court, a lone tour group hearing a history of the court was the only action on the front plaza, though the Capitol Police had an increased presence at the nearby Metro station and the congressional office buildings.
9:14 AM: Analysis from Washington Post staff
Listen to our podcast: The little-known history of birthright citizenship, and meet the man who has become an unlikely spokesman for preserving it.
9:07 AM: What we learned from the justices’ financial disclosures this year
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, seen here Wednesday at the Kennedy Center, is promoting her new memoir, "Lovely One."
Earlier this month, eight of the nine Supreme Court justices filed their required annual forms showing gifts, outside income, travel and more. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disclosed that she received a $2 million advance payment for her memoir “Lovely One.” Several justices were paid to teach law school courses and speak at conferences around the world. Read our full story.
By: Ann E. Marimow, Justin Jouvenal and Aaron Schaffer
9:01 AM: In addition to regular docket, justices had slew of emergency cases
This Supreme Court term saw an especially high number of emergency petitions, many focused on requests by President Donald Trump’s administration to halt a lower court order that blocked one of his initiatives. These emergency rulings decisions are temporary, while cases play out in lower courts. They are not based on the legal merits, but they can be an indication of how the justices may rule on the matter if it comes before them down the road.
The most recent emergency decision was Monday, when the court cleared the way for now for the Trump administration to deport immigrants to countries where they are not citizens.
By: Washington Post staff
5:53 PM: The justices are wrapping up their work earlier than last year
The Supreme Court extended its work into July last summer, dropping a bombshell decision on presidential immunity on the first day of the month to close out the term. This year, the justices will end the term four days earlier.
Typically, the justices spend the summer teaching, traveling and vacationing, before the next term begins in October. But this summer could feature a heavier workload with a number of emergency appeals related to President Donald Trump’s executive orders.
There are currently two rulings pending, dealing with Trump’s mass layoff of federal employees and his push to dismantle the Department of Education.
By: Justin Jouvenal
