For daily news updates and analysis, be sure to follow us on Instagram. To send confidential tips, reach me @Sagecynthia.81 on Signal.
This newsletter is sponsored by:
The Supreme Court delivered devastating rulings today that hand President Trump sweeping power while hobbling federal judges' ability to check presidential overreach. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned this decision could lead to "our collective demise" — language I've never seen from a Supreme Court justice.
I spoke with California Senator Alex Padilla to discuss what's happening right here in Los Angeles, where federal agents are grabbing people off the streets and throwing them into unmarked cars. Padilla, the son of Mexican immigrants and chair of the Senate immigration subcommittee, didn't mince words about what he's witnessing.
"It's hard to see any other way," he told me when I asked if the administration is targeting a single ethnic group with paramilitary tactics in our cities. He described seeing essential workers — the same people deemed critical during COVID — now being detained without due process. "Cooks in restaurants, day laborers, farm workers," he said. "My father worked as a cook for 40 years in restaurants in Los Angeles."
As someone who grew up in LA with undocumented people in my life, I can tell you this community is being terrorized. But Padilla has a message for those feeling helpless: "If this administration is this afraid of one senator with a question, imagine how they'll be shaking in their boots when millions of people across the country keep rising up."
We also discussed the Supreme Court's other shocking ruling that could let parents remove their kids from any school lessons they find objectionable – and what both decisions mean for the future of our democracy.
Watch that interview at the top of the newsletter.
Below we get into the more details on the birthright citizenship ruling, plus rulings on public education, the Affordable Care Act, and more.
We also share non-Court news, including a new near-billion-dollar lawsuit against Fox News, Trump’s latest spat with Canada, the Senate GOP losing more provisions from the “Big Beautiful Bill” — with the vote pending. Plus the latest with Iran, and Diddy’s defense rests, and photos from the Bezos-Sánchez nuptials.
Here Are Your Headlines:
What Checks and Balances? Today, a shocking ruling from the Supreme Court in the case challenging Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The court sidestepped the question of whether the President has the right to deny citizenship to the US born children of undocumented immigrants. Instead, the decision addressed the power of federal judges, with far-reaching effects. The Court effectively reigned in the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to issue nationwide injunctions against the administration’s potentially unlawful and unconstitutional actions. (Three federal judges had issued nationwide injunctions against the birthright citizenship executive order.)
Justices v. Judges: We’ve reported in detail how federal judges have limited Trump’s attempts at unconstitutional overreach through their rulings. Now it would seem the Supreme Court is drastically limiting their ability to restrain Trump and some analysts say this empowers a president in ways more dramatic than the decision granting a president broad immunity while in office. Trump called the ruling a “giant win.” In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the Court’s six conservative Justices are allowing the president to “violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued.” She warned this decision is “an existential threat to the rule of law” and “will surely hasten the downfall of governing institutions, enabling our collective demise.”
What This Means: Until now, when a judge issued a nationwide injunction, their ruling on a particular issue applied to all persons and entities, rather than only the participants in the case being litigated in that specific court. The Supreme Court concluded these universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett argued that a federal judge may protect an individual pregnant plaintiff from, say, Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. However, she argued “extending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete.” Nationwide injunctions might still be allowed, but only when no other, narrower ruling can bring appropriate relief to the plaintiffs in a particular case. In effect, this means people would have to bring far more individual lawsuits to challenge the same unlawful policy — rather than get relief through a ruling by one federal court.
Slippery Slope: As Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued in her dissent, which she read aloud from the bench, the Court’s decision “renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit.” What if a future government tried to seize firearms? Or block black citizens from voting? Can district judges not universally block even such clearly unconstitutional actions? Apparently not. Sotomayor gave these (and other) examples to illustrate the absurdity of the Court’s decision. “Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent.” Usually Justices “respectfully” dissent; Sotomayor’s conscious omission of this nicety underscores how damaging she and the other liberal justices believe this ruling to be.
The Context of This Case: The Supreme Court did not decide the constitutionality of Trump’s day-one executive order restricting birthright citizenship to people with at least one parent who is a citizen or legal permanent resident. Instead, they temporarily stayed the order for 30 days. But by restricting nationwide injunctions, the Justices have effectively allowed the administration to prepare to implement his order after that 30 days is up. Meaning people who were born in the US to undocumented parents might themselves be considered undocumented and lawful targets of ICE in 30 days.
What’s Next: Within hours of the decision, an organization representing immigrants refiled its lawsuit as a class action case. It asked a federal judge to “immediately” block Trump from enforcing his executive order against a “putative class” that includes everyone impacted by the order. The ACLU also filed a new, nationwide class-action lawsuit today against Trump’s executive order. “This case seeks to fill the gap left by the Court’s ruling,” the ACLU stated to News Not Noise, “and ensure that all children born on US soil are protected under the 14th Amendment.”
Trump’s Plans: While praising the Court for its ruling, President Trump said the administration plans to challenge injunctions against many other executive orders. He singled out policies regarding sanctuary cities and refugee resettlement programs as some of his top targets. There are some two dozen other nationwide injunctions in place against various unlawful Trump administration policies — including attempts to mandate stricter voting ID rules, freeze trillions in federal funds, force public schools to dump DEI, and cut a contract paying for legal representation for tens of thousands of children facing deportation. Attorney General Pam Bondi today noted the Court’s decision will also make it easier for federal officials to deport people without presenting evidence to a court that they are public safety threats. “You should all feel safer,” Bondi said, now that “not one district court judge can think they’re an emperor over this administration.”
Exceptions: Justice Barrett did identify two few instances in which federal judges are allowed to issue nationwide injunctions. One: when states sue the federal government, a judge may issue a nationwide injunction because it’s the only way for a state to get relief. And federal judges may use them in some class action lawsuits. Note: these are much harder for regular people to bring.
Don’t Say Gay: The Supreme Court ruled today that parents with religious objections to books with LGBTQ+ themes may withdraw their children from public school lessons including discussions of these books. In practice, this ruling could effectively force public schools to provide advance notice to parents who may object to any classroom instruction on religious grounds — a hefty burden, considering the range of religious beliefs that parents might hold, and the Constitution’s protection of even uncommon religious beliefs.
The Case: A group of Maryland Christian and Muslim parents sued over a public school system’s use of several pro-LGBTQ+ books. They argued the books violated their constitutional rights to free exercise of religion. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, agreed. He specified that the books were objectionable not because they discussed same-sex marriage, for example, but because they celebrated it. “Other Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children,” he wrote. And public schools therefore must notify parents “in advance whenever … any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.”
The Ramifications: In practice, this will make public schools more reluctant to teach books with queer characters or themes, lest they cross the line between discussing and celebrating such things. But the ruling could theoretically go much further. Should parents be forewarned before their kids are exposed to Harry Potter, for example? Or books celebrating women working? After all, there are parents who might object to magic or feminism or any number of things on religious grounds. Not to mention evolution, immunology, the Holocaust, or the Civil Rights Movement. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor argued the multiculturalism of America’s public schools is “critical to our Nation’s civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs.”
Staying Online: The Court ruled 6–3 in favor of a program providing subsidized internet and phone service to rural and underserved people throughout the US, including low-income Americans and rural facilities like schools and libraries. In doing so, Justices defended against a conservative attempt to reduce congressional power. Read more here.
Justices’ New Clothes: The Court ruled 6–3 in favor of a Texas law mandating age verification for adult websites. Under the law, users must provide proof of their age, usually via government ID, in order to enter websites with at least 33% adult content. That’s defined as “sexually suggestive” and “harmful to children,” a vague definition that could theoretically include romance novels, for example. Social media platforms and search engines are exempted. Critics argued the law violated free speech protections, and pointed out the law doesn’t prevent sites from transferring or sharing the information they collect when verifying users’ age.
Montana just did what Congress has failed to do. It closed the ‘data broker loophole’. That means law enforcement in Montana can no longer buy your sensitive personal data from data brokers. In every other state? That loophole is still wide open. Right now, if you have a phone in your pocket, your location history could be for sale, along with your home address, email, and phone number - no warrant required. This is where Incogni comes in. They work on your behalf to remove your personal data from over 250 data broker sites. And with their Unlimited Plan, you can flag any site where your info appears, and their team will handle the takedown. Until federal law catches up, Incogni gives you one way to push back. News Not Noise readers get 55% off if you use the code NEWSNOTNOISE55. Sign up here.
Obamacare Stays: For the fourth time in 13 years, the Supreme Court has protected the Affordable Care Act from major challenges. Three conservative Justices joined liberals to conclude that the ACA’s provision forcing insurance companies to provide preventative health services at no cost is constitutional. Tens of millions of Americans rely on such care, which includes colonoscopies and HIV medication. A task force determines what services should be included.
However: The Court’s defense relied on the fact that the ultimate authority rests not with this task force but with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who is subject to the President. The Justice Department opted to defend the Obamacare provision by focusing on defending executive power, sparking worries about how they might use that power. “They really pointed out how much authority they think their Secretary wields,” one expert said, “which is kind of foreboding given who the Secretary is” — RFK, Jr — “and his ideas about science and health.”
Speaking Of: RFK’s controversial new vaccine panel yesterday voted to recommend against seasonal flu vaccines containing thimerosal, a preservative. Thimerosal has been used since the 1930s and multiple studies have demonstrated it is safe, but vaccine skeptics (like RFK Jr) oppose it because it contains a form of mercury. 96% of flu vaccines administered last year were thimerosal-free. “The risk from influenza is so much greater than the nonexistent — as far as we know — risk from thimerosal,” warned the only member of RFK’s panel to vote against the resolution.
Other Breaking News:
Gavin Sue-Some: California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued Fox News today for $787 million. Newsom argues that Fox host Jesse Waters used an edited video of Trump to accuse Newsom of lying about his phone calls with the president earlier this month, while the two politicians were arguing over Trump’s decision to deploy Marines and the National Guard to LA.
