“It’s just a preposterous ruling, and the absurdity of that outcome suggests why the Supreme Court should have went the other way," Vance charged.
The Supreme Court gutted one of President Trump's signature policies, rejecting his effort to end birthright citizenship. Jan Crawford has more details.
The Supreme Court justices weighed in on whether states can ban transgender athletes from competing in female school and college sports. Jan Crawford has more.
President Donald Trump lost big at the Supreme Court on Tuesday as a majority of the justices struck down his executive order abolishing birthright citizenship in the United States — but it's possible there's an alternate reality in which he could have won this, the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote.Specifically, they argued, Trump could have tried a much less sweeping change to America's citizenship system, and gotten a more favorable result out of it."An interesting counterfactual is how the Justices might have come out on a narrower order, if Mr. Trump had tried to end birthright citizenship for transients alone," wrote the board, which has been forecasting Trump's loss on this issue for months. But instead, "he took the advice of those who recommended an expansive constitutional challenge because he thought the issue was a political winner, and his defeat is all the greater for it."With Chief Justice John Roberts issuing an absolute judgment in favor of constitutional protections for birthright citizenship, this is no longer possible without an amendment to the Constitution.A key consequence of the ruling, noted the board, is that "today’s 'Dreamers' will give birth to citizens, rather than a second generation living in limbo" — which is for the better, the board argued. "The ability to assimilate newcomers has always been an American strength, while falling birthrates will soon make that an even greater American advantage."As for the specter of "birth tourism," the board concluded, "If [it's] as big a problem as Mr. Trump says, he can make a sustained case for a constitutional amendment."
Justices to consider whether bans on AR-15s and similar semi-automatic firearms violate second amendmentThe US supreme court will consider whether bans on AR-15 rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms are constitutional.The justices said on Tuesday they will hear appeals challenging bans in Connecticut and the Chicago area in the next term. Continue reading...
A conservative majority on the Supreme Court upheld state bans on transgender athletes in female sports. NBC News’ Stephanie Gosk reports.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down federal limits on how much political parties may spend in coordination with candidates, handing party committees a major win and reshaping campaign-finance rules ahead of the midterms.Why it matters: Freed from the caps, party committees can now spend without limit alongside their candidates — making them a far more powerful magnet for the big-dollar money that's flooded into super PACs over the past 15 years.Driving the news: In a 6–3 decision with a majority opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court held that the coordinated party expenditure limits violate the First Amendment.The decision overturns a 25-year-old precedent that had upheld the same limits.The intrigue: The decision comes at a time when insurgent anti-establishment candidates have garnered success in both parties.Supporters of striking down Congress' limits on coordination have said the guardrails weaken parties while super PACs and other outside groups have become dominant players, especially after the court's landmark 2010 Citizens United decision.Critics say removing the caps could let major donors evade the few remaining anti-corruption safeguards, which is a stepping stone to allowing PACs to directly coordinate with candidates.The decision could make party committees more attractive vehicles for donor money in competitive races.What they're saying: "More speech is generally better than less speech," Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan warned that the ruling brings about an old era of corruption: The "Court ushers back in the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption that the contribution limits were meant to check."President Trump praised the ruling on Truth Social, calling it "A BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS and, more importantly, The First Amendment!" His administration had declined to defend the law in court.Catch up quick: The case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, was brought by two Republican committees, Vice President Vance and former Ohio Rep. Steve Chabot.They argued the law prevented party committees from coordinating effectively with their own candidates on core political speech.The ruling is the latest in a line of Supreme Court campaign-finance decisions narrowing the government's power to restrict political spending.
President calls ruling ‘too bad for our Country’ but says Congress should ‘start today’ to end matter – key US politics stories from Tuesday, 30 June at a glanceThe US supreme court has upheld birthright citizenship, which provides nearly all people born in the country with citizenship, ruling against a central piece of Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda.Trump called the ruling “too bad for our Country”, but said the US Congress should now take up the matter legislatively, suggesting another avenue to keep the issue alive. Continue reading...
All Things Considered host Scott Detrow speaks with NPR's editor-in-chief Thomas Evans and Nina Totenberg about her reporting on the final day of the Supreme Court term.