The Trump administration on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC), who were fired by President Donald Trump and then reinstated by a federal judge.
Trump has the power to fire independent agency board members, the Justice Department argued in its filing to the high court, pointing to a May ruling by the Supreme Court that endorsed a robust view of presidential power.
The administration asked the court for an immediate order to allow the firings to go forward, over the objections of lawyers for the commissioners.
The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. Trump fired the three Democrats on the five-member commission in May. They were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox in Baltimore ruled in June that the dismissals were unlawful. Maddox sought to distinguish the commission’s role from those of other agencies where the Supreme Court has allowed firings to go forward.
A month earlier, the high court’s conservative majority declined to reinstate members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board finding that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members “without cause.” The three liberal justices dissented.
The administration has argued that all the agencies are under Trump’s control as the head of the executive branch.
Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted that it can be difficult to characterize the product safety commission’s functions as purely executive.
The fight over the president’s power to fire could prompt the court to consider overturning a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey’s Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause.
The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president’s party. They serve staggered terms.
That structure ensures that each president has “the opportunity to influence, but not control,” the commission, attorneys for the fired commissioners wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission’s independence.
Senate Republicans hauled President Donald Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill to passage Tuesday by the narrowest of margins, pushing past opposition from Democrats and their own GOP ranks after a turbulent overnight session.
The outcome capped an unusually tense weekend of work at the Capitol, the president’s signature legislative priority teetering on the edge of approval or collapse. In the end that tally was 50-50, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote.
Three Republican senators — Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky — joined all Democrats in voting against it.
“In the end we got the job done,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said afterward.
The difficulty for Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to wrestle the bill to this point is not expected to let up. The package now goes back to the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana had warned senators not to overhaul what his chamber had already approved. But the Senate did make changes, particularly to Medicaid, risking more problems ahead. House GOP leaders scheduled a Wednesday vote and vowed to put it on Trump’s desk by his July Fourth deadline, which is Friday.
It’s a pivotal moment for the president and his party, as they have been consumed by the now 887-page “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which was its formal title before Democrats filed an amendment to strip out the name. Republicans are investing their political capital in delivering on their sweep of power in Washington.
Trump acknowledged it’s “very complicated stuff” as he departed the White House for Florida.
“I don’t want to go too crazy with cuts,” he said. “I don’t like cuts.”
What started as a routine but laborious day of amendment voting, in a process called vote-a-rama, spiraled into an all-night slog as Republican leaders bought time to shore up support.
The droning roll calls in the chamber belied the frenzied action to steady the bill. Grim-faced scenes played out on and off the Senate floor, amid exhaustion.
Thune worked around the clock, desperately reaching for last-minute agreements between those in his party worried the bill’s reductions to Medicaid will leave millions more people without care and his most conservative flank, which wanted even steeper cuts to hold down deficits ballooning with the tax cuts.
The GOP leaders had no room to spare. Thune could lose no more than three Republican senators, and two — Tillis, who warned that millions of people will lose access to Medicaid health care, and Paul, who opposes raising the debt limit by $5 trillion — had already indicated opposition.
Attention quickly turned to two other key senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Collins, who also raised concerns about health care cuts, as well as a loose coalition of four conservative GOP senators pushing for even steeper reductions.
Murkowski in particular became the subject of GOP leaders’ attention, as they sat beside her for talks. Then all eyes were on Paul after he returned from a visit to Thune’s office.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans “are in shambles because they know the bill is so unpopular.”
An analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law. The CBO said the package would increase the deficit by nearly $3.3 trillion over the decade.
Pressure built from all sides. Billionaire Elon Musk said anyone who voted for the package should “hang their head in shame” and warned he would campaign against them. But Trump had also lashed out against the GOP holdouts, including Tillis, who abruptly announced his own decision over the weekend not to seek reelection.
Few Republicans appeared fully satisfied as the final package emerged, in either the House or the Senate.
Collins fought to include $50 billion for a new rural hospital fund, among the GOP senators worried that the bill’s Medicaid provider cuts would be devastating and force them to close.
While her amendment for the fund was rejected, the provision was inserted into the final bill. Still she voted no.
The Maine senator said she’s happy the bolstered funding was added, but “my difficulties with the bill go far beyond that.”
And Murkowski called the decision-making process “agonizing.”
She secured provisions to temporarily spare Alaska and other states from some food stamp cuts, but her efforts to bolster Medicaid reimbursements fell short. She voted yes.
All told, the Senate bill includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, according to the latest CBO analysis, making permanent Trump’s 2017 rates, which would expire at the end of the year if Congress fails to act, while adding the new ones he campaigned on, including no taxes on tips.
The Senate package would roll back billions of dollars in green energy tax credits, which Democrats warn will wipe out wind and solar investments nationwide. It would impose $1.2 trillion in cuts, largely to Medicaid and food stamps, by imposing work requirements on able-bodied people, including some parents and older Americans, making sign-up eligibility more stringent and changing federal reimbursements to states.
Additionally, the bill would provide a $350 billion infusion for border and national security, including for deportations, some of it paid for with new fees charged to immigrants.
Costa Rica’s Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the country’s legislature to strip President Rodrigo Chaves of his legal immunity so he can stand trial on corruption charges.
Chaves, accused of awarding lucrative consulting contracts to a close associate, has denied wrongdoing. His office did not immediately comment on the ruling, which justices decided in a 15-to-7 vote.
Costa Rica’s top court has never before accepted a request to revoke a president’s immunity. The case now goes to Congress, which is dominated by opposition lawmakers and has the final say.
Prosecutors accuse Chaves of abusing his authority in diverting part of a $32,000 contract financed by a multilateral bank — the Central American Bank for Economic Integration — to his adviser and campaign strategist, Federico “Choreco” Cruz.
On Tuesday, the top court also asked Chaves’ minister of culture and former chief of staff, Jorge Rodríguez, to stand trial in the same case. The case first emerged in 2023 when local media released leaked audio recordings that purported to show Chaves discussing Cruz’s involvement in the contracts.
Chaves and his allies have other cases pending against them.
Costa Rica’s attorney general’s office filed a separate indictment last week accusing the president of illicit financing the 2022 election campaign that brought him to power.
Chaves also denies those charges.
The Supreme Court on Monday threw out appellate rulings in favor of transgender people in four states following the justices’ recent decision upholding a Tennessee ban on certain medical treatment for transgender youths.
But the justices took no action in cases from Arizona, Idaho and West Virginia involving the participation of transgender students on school sports teams. The court could say as soon as Thursday whether it will take up the issue in its next term.
The high court ordered appellate judges to reexamine cases from Idaho, North Carolina, Oklahoma and West Virginia involving access to medical care and birth certificates.
The action was unsurprising because the court had set the cases aside until after it decided the Tennessee case, as typically happens when the same legal issue is being considered.
The rulings all included findings that the restrictions on transgender people imposed by the states violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause. In the Tennessee case, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no constitutional violation in a state law prohibiting puberty blockers and hormone therapy to treat gender dysphoria in people younger than 18.
The justices ordered the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, to review its decision that West Virginia’s and North Carolina’s refusal to cover certain health care for transgender people with government-sponsored insurance is discriminatory.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will get back a case from Idaho stemming from the state’s ban on certain surgical procedures for Medicaid recipients.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver will review its ruling blocking an Oklahoma ban on people changing their gender on birth certificates.
In one other case, from Kentucky, the justices rejected the appeal of transgender minors and their families challenging that state’s ban on gender-affirming care.
A former Venezuelan spymaster who was close to the country’s late President Hugo Chávez pleaded guilty Wednesday to drug trafficking charges a week before his trial was set to begin in a Manhattan federal court.
Retired Maj. Gen. Hugo Carvajal was extradited from Spain in 2023 after more than a decade on the run from U.S. law enforcement, including a botched arrest in Aruba while he was serving as a diplomat representing current Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s government.
Carvajal pleaded guilty in court to all four criminal counts, including narco-terrorism, in an indictment accusing him of leading a cartel made up of senior Venezuelan military officers that attempted to “flood” the U.S. with cocaine in cahoots with leftist guerrillas from neighboring Colombia.
In a letter this week to defense counsel, prosecutors said they believe federal sentencing guidelines call for the 65-year-old Carvajal to serve a mandatory minimum of 50 years in prison.
Nicknamed “El Pollo,” Spanish for “the chicken,” Carvajal advised Chávez for more than a decade. He later broke with Maduro, Chávez’s handpicked successor, and threw his support behind the U.S.-backed political opposition — in dramatic fashion.
In a recording made from an undisclosed location, Carvajal called on his former military cohorts to rebel a month into mass protests seeking to replace Maduro with lawmaker Juan Guaidó, whom the first Trump administration recognized as Venezuela’s legitimate leader as head of the democratically elected National Assembly.
The hoped-for barracks revolt never materialized, and Carvajal fled to Spain. In 2021 he was captured hiding out in a Madrid apartment after he defied a Spanish extradition order and disappeared.
Carvajal’s straight-up guilty plea, without any promise of leniency, could be part of a gamble to win credit down the line for cooperating with U.S. efforts against a top foreign adversary that sits atop the world’s largest petroleum reserves.
Although Carvajal has been out of power for years, his backers say he can provide potentially valuable insights on the inner workings of the spread of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua into the U.S. and spying activities of the Maduro-allied governments of Cuba, Russia, China and Iran.
He may also be angling for Trump’s attention with information about voting technology company Smartmatic. One of Carvajal’s deputies was a major player in Venezuela’s electoral authority when the company was getting off the ground.
Florida-based Smartmatic says its global business was decimated when Fox News aired false claims by Trump allies that it helped rig the 2020 U.S. election. One of the company’s Venezuelan founders was later charged in the U.S. in a bribery case involving its work in the Philippines.
Gary Berntsen, a former CIA officer in Latin America who oversaw commandos that hunted al-Qaida, sent a public letter this week to Trump urging the Justice Department to delay the start of Carvajal’s trial so officials can debrief the former spymaster.
“He’s no angel, he’s a very bad man,” Berntsen said in an interview. “But we need to defend democracy.”
Carvajal’s attorney, Robert Feitel, said prosecutors announced in court this month that they never extended a plea offer to his client or sought to meet with him.
“I think that was an enormous mistake,” Feitel told The Associated Press while declining further comment. “He has information that is extraordinarily important to our national security and law enforcement.”
In 2011, prosecutors alleged that Carvajal used his office to coordinate the smuggling of approximately 5,600 kilograms (12,300 pounds) of cocaine aboard a jet from Venezuela to Mexico in 2006. In exchange he accepted millions of dollars from drug traffickers, prosecutors said.
He allegedly arranged the shipment as one of the leaders of the so-called Cartel of the Suns — a nod to the sun insignias affixed to the uniforms of senior Venezuelan military officers. The cocaine was sourced by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, which the U.S. has designated as a terrorist organization and which for years took refuge in Venezuela as it sought to overthrow Colombia’s government.
Forest fires fanned by high winds and hot, dry weather damaged some holiday homes in Turkey as a lingering heat wave that has cooked much of Europe led authorities to raise warnings and tourists to find ways to beat the heat on Monday.
A heat dome hovered over an arc from France, Portugal and Spain to Turkey, while data from European forecasters suggested other countries were set to broil further in coming days. New highs are expected on Wednesday before rain is forecast to bring respite to some areas later this week.
“Extreme heat is no longer a rare event — it has become the new normal,” tweeted U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres from Seville, Spain, where temperatures were expected to hit 42 Celsius (nearly 108 Fahrenheit) on Monday afternoon.
Reiterating his frequent calls for action to fight climate change, Guterres added: “The planet is getting hotter & more dangerous — no country is immune.”
In Portugal — his home country — one reading on Sunday turned up a suspected record-high June temperature of 46.6 C (115.9F) in Mora, about 100 kilometers (60 miles) east of Lisbon. Weather officials were working to confirm whether that marked a new record.
Portuguese authorities issued a red heat warning Monday for seven of 18 districts as temperatures were forecast to hit 43 degrees Celsius (more than 109F).
The first heatwave of the year has gripped Spain since the weekend and no relief is expected until Thursday, Spain’s national weather service said Monday. The country appeared to hit a new high for June on Saturday when 46 degrees C (114 F) was tallied in the southern province of Huelva.
In France, which was almost entirely sweltering in the heatwave on Monday and where air conditioning remains relatively rare, local and national authorities were taking extra effort to care for homeless and elderly people and people working outside.
Some tourists were putting off plans for some rigorous outdoor activities.
“We were going to do a bike tour today actually, but we decided because it was gonna be so warm not to do the bike tour,” said Andrea Tyson, 46, who was visiting Paris from New Philadelphia, Ohio, on Sunday. Misting stations doused passers-by along the Seine in the French capital.
France’s first significant forest fires of the season consumed 400 hectares (988 acres) of woods Sunday and Monday in the Aude region in the south. Water-dumping planes and some 300 firefighters were mobilized, the regional emergency service said. Tourists were evacuated from one campground in the area.
In Turkey, forest fires fanned by strong winds damaged some holiday homes in Izmir’s Doganbey region and forced the temporary closure of the airport in Izmir, the state-run Anadolu Agency reported. Authorities evacuated four villages as a precaution, the Forestry Ministry said.
In Italy, the Health Ministry put 21 cities under its level three “red” alert, which indicates “emergency conditions with possible negative effects” on healthy, active people as well as at-risk old people, children and chronically ill people.
Regional governments in northwestern Liguria and southern Sicily in Italy put restrictions on outdoor work, such as construction and agricultural labor, during the peak heat hours.
The mercury was rising farther north, too.
Britain’s national weather service, the Met Office, said the Wimbledon Championships were facing what could be their hottest start on record — with temperatures of just under 30 degrees Celsius (about 85 Fahrenheit) recorded at the nearby Kew Gardens.
Tennis enthusiasts fanned themselves or sought shade from the blazing sun as the first day of matches got underway at the All England Club on Monday. Tournament rules allow players to take a 10-minute break when the heat hits 30.1 degrees Celsius or more in mid-match.
The Supreme Court has been very good to President Donald Trump lately.
Even before he won a new term in the White House, the court eliminated any doubt about whether Trump could appear on presidential ballots, then effectively spared him from having to stand trial before the 2024 election on criminal charges he tried to overturn the 2020 election. That same ruling spelled out a robust view of presidential power that may well have emboldened Trump’s aggressive approach in his second term.
In the five months since Trump’s inauguration, the court has been largely deferential to presidential actions, culminating in Friday’s decision to limit the authority of federal judges who have sought to block Trump initiatives through nationwide court orders.
The decisions from a court that includes three justices Trump appointed during his first term have provoked a series of scathing dissents from liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. They accuse the conservative supermajority of kowtowing to the president and putting the American system of government “in grave jeopardy,” as Jackson wrote Friday.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, author of the opinion limiting nationwide injunctions, responded to Jackson’s “startling line of attack” by noting that she “decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary.”
To be sure, the court has not ruled uniformly for Trump, including by indefinitely stopping deportations to a notorious prison in El Salvador without giving people a reasonable chance to object.
That’s where the court deals with cases that are still in their early stages, most often intervening to say whether a judge’s order should be in effect while the case proceeds through the courts.
While preliminary, the justices’ decisions can signal where they eventually will come out in the end, months or years from now. Emergency orders are generally overshadowed by decisions the justices issued in the cases they heard arguments between last fall and the spring.
Almost since the beginning of Trump’s second term, the court’s emergency docket has been packed with appeals from his administration. For a while, the justices were being asked to weigh in almost once a week as Trump pushed to lift lower court orders slowing his ambitious conservative agenda.
Trump scored a series of wins on issues ranging from the revocation of temporary legal protections for immigrants to Elon Musk’s dramatic cost cutting at the Department of Government Efficiency.
And that was before Friday’s decision on nationwide injunctions, court orders that prevent a policy from taking effect anywhere.
Many of the recent orders are in line with the conservatives’ robust view of executive power.
The three liberal justices dissented from each of three cases involving transgender rights or LGBTQ issues more generally.
Trump has moved aggressively to roll back the rights of transgender people and the court has rebuffed attempts to stop him.
In another emergency appeal, the court’s conservatives allowed a ban to take effect on transgender members of the military, even after lower courts had found the policy unconstitutional.
In mid-June, Roberts wrote the opinion for a conservative majority that upheld Tennessee’s ban on certain medical treatment for transgender youth, rejecting arguments that it amounted to unconstitutional discrimination. The decision probably will affect a range of other pending court cases on transgender issues, including those involving access to health care, participation on sports teams and gender markers on birth certificates.
On the final day of decisions, the justices ruled in favor of Maryland parents with religious objections who don’t want their children exposed to public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks. The case was about religious freedom, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the decision “threatens the very essence of public education.”
The Supreme Court is meeting Friday to decide the final six cases of its term, including President Donald Trump’s bid to enforce his executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally.
The justices take the bench at 10 a.m. for their last public session until the start of their new term on Oct. 6.
The birthright citizenship order has been blocked nationwide by three lower courts. The Trump administration made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to narrow the court orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S.
The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years.
These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump’s efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies.
Decisions also are expected in several other important cases.
The court seemed likely during arguments in April to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools.
Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district’s diversity.
The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county’s schools.
The justices also are weighing a three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana that is making its second trip to the Supreme Court.
Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana’s six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024.
Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are considering whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time.
The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life.
At arguments in March, several of the court’s conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act.
Free speech rights are at the center of a case over a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography.
Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous.
The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn’t be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking.
The sequence of events is familiar: A lower court judge blocks a part of President Donald Trump’s agenda, an appellate panel refuses to put the order on hold while the case continues, and the Justice Department turns to the Supreme Court.
Trump administration lawyers have filed emergency appeals with the nation’s highest court a little less than once a week on average since Trump began his second term, though the pace of new filings has slowed recently.
The court is not being asked to render a final decision but rather to set the rules of the road while the case makes its way through the courts.
The justices have issued orders in 14 cases so far. The Trump administration has won more than it has lost, including on Monday when the high court allowed the resumption of swift removals of migrants to countries other than their homelands.
Republican president’s ban on transgender military service members. Among its losses was a prohibition on using an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans alleged to be gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador.
Here are some of the appeals still before the high court.
The Education Department has laid off nearly 1,400 employees
A federal judge in Boston has ordered the employees reinstated and also blocked action on Trump’s plan to dismantle the department, one of his top campaign pledges.
In his order last month, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun wrote that the layoffs “will likely cripple the department.” The federal appeals court in Boston rejected the administration’s emergency request to put Joun’s order on hold.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that Joun overstepped his authority and was substituting his policy preferences for those of the Trump administration.
The layoffs help put in the place the “policy of streamlining the department and eliminating discretionary functions that, in the administration’s view, are better left to the states,” Sauer wrote.
Massachusetts school districts, education groups and Democratic-led states sued over Trump’s plan. The court could act at any time.
Another judge blocked plans to downsize the federal workforce
Sauer recently renewed the administration’s request for the high court to clear the way for downsizing plans, while a lawsuit filed by labor unions and cities proceeds.
The high court filing came after an appeals court refused to freeze a California-based judge’s order halting the cuts, which have been led by the Department of Government Efficiency. The appeals court found that the downsizing could have broader effects, including on the nation’s food-safety system and health care for veterans.
In her ruling last month, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston found that Trump’s administration needs congressional approval to make sizable reductions to the federal workforce.
The administration initially asked the justices to step in last month, but withdrew its appeal for technical, legal reasons. The court could act at any time.
Trump wants to change citizenship rules in place for more than 125 years
Several judges quickly blocked an executive order Trump signed on his first day in office that would deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are in the country illegally or temporarily.
The administration appealed three court orders that prohibit the changes from taking effect anywhere in the country.
Earlier in May, the justices took the rare step of hearing arguments in an emergency appeal. It’s unclear how the case will come out, but the court seemed intent on keeping the changes on hold while looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders.
One possibility advanced by some justices was to find a different legal mechanism, perhaps a class action, to accomplish essentially the same thing as the nationwide injunctions blocking Trump’s citizenship order.
Nationwide injunctions have emerged as an important check on Trump’s efforts to remake the government and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies.
Judges have issued 40 nationwide injunctions since Trump began his second term in January, Sauer told the court during the arguments.
The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration’s emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump’s efforts to remake the federal government.
But the justices also have 10 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration’s bid to be allowed to enforce Trump’s executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally.
The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. On Wednesday it decided one of its most closely watched cases, handing down an opinion that upheld a Tennessee ban on some healthcare for transgender minors.
Trump’s birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts
The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration’s plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S.
The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years.
These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump’s efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies.
At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally.
Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump’s executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years.
The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools
Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district’s diversity.
The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county’s schools.
The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as “Prince and Knight” and “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding.”
The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries.
A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court
Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time.
The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life.
At arguments in March, several of the court’s conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act.
Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana’s six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024.
A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana’s arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on.
Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law.
The Supreme Court sided with e-cigarette companies on Friday in a ruling making it easier to sue over Food and Drug Administration decisions blocking their products from the multibillion-dollar vaping market.
The 7-2 opinion comes as companies push back against a yearslong federal regulatory crackdown on electronic cigarettes. It’s expected to give the companies more control over which judges hear lawsuits filed against the agency.
The justices went the other way on vaping in an April decision, siding with the FDA in a ruling upholding a sweeping block on most sweet-flavored vapes instituted after a spike in youth vaping.
The current case was filed by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., which had sold a line of popular berry and menthol-flavored vaping products before the agency started regulating the market under the Tobacco Control Act in 2016.
The agency refused to authorize the company’s Vuse Alto products, an order that “sounded the death knell for a significant portion of the e-cigarette market,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion.
The company is based in North Carolina and typically would have been limited to challenging the FDA in a court there or in the agency’s home base of Washington. Instead, it joined forces with Texas businesses that sell the products and sued there. The conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the lawsuit to go forward, finding that anyone whose business is hurt by the FDA decision can sue.
The agency appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that R.J. Reynolds was attempting to find a court favorable to its arguments, a practice often referred to as “judge shopping.”
The justices, though, found that the law does allow other businesses affected by the FDA decisions, like e-cigarette sellers, to sue in their home states.
In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said she would have sided with the agency and limited where the cases can be filed.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids called the majority decision disappointing, saying it would allow manufacturers to “judge shop,” though it said the companies will still have to contend with the Supreme Court’s April decision.
Attorney Ryan Watson, who represented R.J. Reynolds, said that the court recognized that agency decisions can have devastating downstream effects on retailers and other businesses, and the decision “ensures that the courthouse doors are not closed” to them.
The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear an appeal from Chevron, Exxon and other oil and gas companies that lawsuits seeking compensation for coastal land loss and environmental degradation in Louisiana should be heard in federal court.
The companies are appealing a 2024 decision by a federal appeals court that kept the lawsuits in state courts, allowing them to move to trial after more than a decade in limbo.
A southeast Louisiana jury then ordered Chevron to pay upwards of $740 million to clean up damage to the state’s coastline. The verdict reached in April was the first of dozens of lawsuits filed in 2013 against leading oil and gas companies in Louisiana alleging they violated state environmental laws for decades.
While plaintiffs’ attorneys say the appeal encompasses at least 10 cases, Chevron disagrees and says the court’s ruling could have broader implications for additional lawsuits.
Chevron argues that because it and other companies began oil production and refining during World War II as a federal contractor, these cases should be heard in federal court, perceived to be friendlier to businesses.
But the plaintiffs’ attorneys — representing the Plaquemines and Jefferson Parish governments — say the appeal is the companies’ latest stall tactic to avoid accountability. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit already rejected similar arguments from Chevron.
“It’s more delay, they’re going to fight till the end and we’re going to continue to fight as well,” said John Carmouche, a trial attorney in the Chevron case who is behind the other lawsuits. He noted that the companies’ appeal “doesn’t address the merits of the case.”
Chevron’s counsel, Paul Clement said in a statement that the company was “pleased” with the Supreme Court’s decision. Exxon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The court’s decision to hear the appeal offers the chance for “fair and consistent application of the law” and will “help preserve legal stability for the industry that fuels America’s economy,” said Tommy Faucheux, president of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, in an emailed statement.
In April, jurors in Plaquemines Parish — a sliver of land straddling the Mississippi River into the Gulf — found that energy giant Texaco, acquired by Chevron in 2001, had for decades violated Louisiana regulations governing coastal resources by failing to restore wetlands impacted by dredging canals, drilling wells and billions of gallons of wastewater dumped into the marsh.
“No company is big enough to ignore the law, no company is big enough to walk away scot-free,” Carmouche told jurors during closing arguments.
Louisiana’s coastal parishes have lost more than 2,000 square miles (5,180 square kilometers) of land over the past century, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, which has also identified oil and gas infrastructure as a significant cause. The state could lose another 3,000 square miles (7,770 square kilometers) in the coming decades, its coastal protection agency has warned.
Chevron’s attorneys had argued that land loss in Louisiana was caused by other factors and that the company should not be held liable for its actions prior to the enactment of a 1980 environmental law requiring companies to obtain permits and restore land they had used.
The fact that the lawsuits had been delayed for so long due to questions of jurisdiction was “bordering on absurd,” the late-federal judge Martin Leach-Cross Feldman remarked in 2022 during oral arguments in one of the lawsuits, according to court filings. He added: “Frankly, I think it’s kind of shameful.”
Louisiana’s Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, a longtime oil and gas industry supporter, nevertheless made the state a party to the lawsuits during his tenure as attorney general.
“Virtually every federal court has rejected Chevron’s attempt to avoid liability for knowingly and intentionally violating state law,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement. “I’ll fight Chevron in state or federal court—either way, they will not win.”
Consumer Rights - POSTED: 2025/07/03 12:21
