Major Win For Trump As Supreme Court Limits Judges’ Ability To Block Executive Orders

Written By Guest User

Plus: High Court's Term Ends With Conservative Majority Siding With Parents Against LGBTQ Books In Schools And Age Verification For Porn Sites

Good evening,

Before we get to the news, here’s a taste of what’s ahead for all of us this weekend in our ‘Cheers to the Freakin’ Weekend’ section:

What We’re Watching:

What We’re Reading:

What We’re Eating:

Have a great one!

The Mo News Team

🚨 ONE IMPORTANT THING

Supreme Court Limits Power Of Judges To Block Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Plan

Friday marked the final day of rulings for this Supreme Court term, and the justices tend to save their most divided decisions for last. Notably, all of today’s rulings came down with a 6-3 split (the six conservative Justices on one side, and the three liberals on the other). Here’s a roundup of the most consequential decisions handed down today:

In a 6–3 ruling Friday, the Supreme Court said individual federal judges can no longer issue nationwide injunctions — orders that block a president’s policy from taking effect across the entire country.

  • Hours after the ruling, President Trump applauded the six conservative Supreme Court justices’ decision, pointing to the historic number of injunctions his administration has faced. He has also issued an unprecedented number of executive actions.

WHAT THE JUSTICES SAID
The court’s issue was mainly with judges going too far with their rulings – impacting people not even involved in a lawsuit. Under recent administrations, judges have increasingly used nationwide injunctions to block presidents’ moves, usually exercised by judges of the opposite political party from the president.

During oral arguments in May, conservative Justice Samuel Alito explained: “The practical problem is that there are 680 district court judges, and they are dedicated and they are scholarly, and I’m not impugning their motives in any way. But you know, sometimes they’re wrong.”

  • The Majority Opinion: Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion in Trump v. Casa: “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.”

  • The Dissenting Opinion: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a fiery dissent for the three liberals, called it “a travesty for the rule of law.” She added, “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people from certain faiths from gathering to worship.”

The decision marks a major win for Trump and could reshape how presidential powers are checked in the courts — one of the few tools Democrats have successfully used against Trump’s wave of executive orders this term, as Republicans control both chambers of Congress. The ruling is expected to help the Trump administration advance several stalled policies, including cutting federal funding to sanctuary cities, suspending refugee resettlement programs, blocking gender-affirming care for transgender prisoners, and more.

WHAT THE JUSTICES DID NOT RULE ON
The case stemmed from challenges to Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship — which currently grants U.S. citizenship to roughly 255,000 babies each year regardless of their parents’ legal status and is protected by the 14th Amendment. The justices did not rule on whether that measure is constitutional, which is currently pending in appeals courts. The case could come back to the Supreme Court later on.

  • The birthright order is now set to go into effect in 30 days in the 28 states that have not challenged the measure — unless other legal remedies are taken, such as a class-action lawsuit. Expect one pretty quickly.

BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE
Democrats and Republicans alike have used nationwide injunctions to block the opposing party’s actions. That includes Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO), who, as Missouri’s attorney general, filed 25 lawsuits against President Biden’s administration in just 20 months. He is now celebrating this win against injunctions. At the same time, Justice Elena Kagan has previously criticized nationwide injunctions, but defended them in the dissenting opinion today.

🚨 ONE THING THAT WILL CHANGE

Supreme Court Rules Parents Can Opt Their Kids Out Of Lessons With LGBTQ-Themed Books

The court on Friday sided with a group of Maryland parents who opposed their school district’s mandatory teaching of books that feature gay and transgender characters.

  • The Majority Opinion: "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's six conservative justices in Mahmoud v. Taylor, noting that parents should be given notice about lessons that may go against their religious beliefs.

  • The Dissenting Opinion: Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion for the three liberals, "The result will be chaos for this nation's public schools."

ZOOM IN
The parents of elementary school students in Montgomery County Public Schools — including Muslims, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians — said they did not seek to remove the books from school libraries or classrooms, but only to shield their children from having to be exposed to and discuss them, arguing that the mandatory teachings of LGBTQ perspectives violates their religious freedoms and “promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning and focus excessively on romantic infatuation.”

  • The court on religious freedom: The court has ruled in favor of religious rights arguments in several decisions in recent years, including Creative LLC v. Elenis, siding with a web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings in 2023 and a coach who prayed on a public school football field after games in 2022. Looking ahead, we can expect more cases involving religion and education to come before the Court.

🚨 ONE LAST SUPREME COURT THING

Supreme Court Upholds Texas Law Requiring Age Verification For Porn Sites

The Supreme Court also ruled 6–3 on Friday that a Texas law requiring age verification to access porn sites is constitutional and does not infringe on adults’ First Amendment rights.

The ruling, in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, could impact similar laws in at least 20 states, and comes as lawmakers work to regulate content children consume online. It could also trigger a wave of online speech restrictions as states grapple with protecting minors for harm.

INSIDE THE CASE
For the majority, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the law intends to protect children and does not directly impede access to protected material for adults.

  • The Majority Opinion: "The statute advances the State’s important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit content. And, it is appropriately tailored because it permits users to verify their ages through the established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data," Justice Thomas wrote.

  • The Dissenting Opinion: Justice Elena Kagan argued the law creates a “chilling effect” on free speech and violates privacy rights by requiring adults to give up sensitive information – like government-issued IDs or facial scans to prove they are 18 or older – to access explicit sites.

    • The dissenting Justices reinforced that they do not believe children should have access to porn sites, but worried the law creates an unconstitutional burden for adults.

    • "Many reasonable people, after all, view the speech at issue here as ugly and harmful for any audience. But the First Amendment protects those sexually explicit materials, for every adult. So a State cannot target that expression, as Texas has here, any more than is necessary to prevent it from reaching children," Justice Kagan wrote.

⏳ THE SPEED READ

🚨NATION

  • Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia ask judge to keep him in jail over deportation concerns (AP)

  • California Gov. Gavin Newsom sues Fox News for $787 million, alleging defamation (CNBC)

  • University of Virginia president resigns under pressure from Trump administration (AXIOS)

  • 'Completely blindsided': Wife of Minnesota lawmaker shooting suspect Vance Boelter speaks out (ABC)

  • Navy to officially rename vessel honoring gay rights activist Harvey Milk (POLITICO)

🌎 AROUND THE WORLD

  • Russia captures key lithium deposit in Ukraine in move that could impact US mineral deal (NEW YORK POST)

  • IDF confirms probe into killings near Gaza aid site, denies troops ordered to shoot civilians (TIMES OF ISRAEL)

  • Japan executes ‘Twitter killer’ who murdered and dismembered nine people (CNN)

  • Canada demands answers after a citizen dies in ICE custody (AXIOS)

  • European countries issue travel warnings for government-banned Budapest Pride march (EURO NEWS)

📱BUSINESS, SCIENCE & TECH

  • Nestlé USA becomes latest company to promise to stop using artificial dyes (MO NEWS)

  • Trump says he's "terminating all discussions on trade with Canada, effective immediately (CBS)

  • Nike says its tariff bill is $1 billion (CNN)

  • Study says Texans most likely to travel out of state for abortions last year (THE HILL)

🎬 SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT

  • Diddy's defense blasts 'fake trial' in closing argument, claims government went after private sex life (FOX)

  • Tampa Bay Rays' Wander Franco guilty of sexual abuse, gets suspended sentence (ESPN)

  • Rick Hurst, ‘The Dukes of Hazzard’ star, dead at 79 (CNN)

  • ‘We Will Dance Again’ film on Nova massacre wins award at Documentary Emmys (TIMES OF ISRAEL)

ICYMI FROM THE 📲

In case you missed it… it’s wedding season!

Not just for Bezos & Sanchez (congratulations, btw). But I’m sure for many other people in your life. Which is why an article on The Cut, “How to Make It Through 13 Weddings in One Year” is making its way through the algorithms. (Mo News Senior Producer, Sari, had 16 weddings one year, so this resonated!)

A few good tips from the piece:

  • Set a limit on what you’re willing to spend in one year, and when you hit it – start saying no!

  • No one will notice if you wear the same outfit twice, thrice, or many more times (speaking from experience).

  • Skip Friday night activities if you’re comfortable – you’ll save on extra hotel and outfit costs.

One not-so-great tip:

  • “Accept that weddings will replace all other vacations and social plans,” The Cut’s Charlotte Cowles writes. Instead, we think you can prioritize yourself by planning budget-friendly trips or activities. Or… just do you!

Catch Up On The Latest Headlines

Guest User
Next

Trump Admin Takes On Media Over Leaked Iran Strike Intelligence