Court limits nationwide injunctions,
but fate of president’s birthright
citizenship order unclear

By Mark Sherman 
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A united conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last Friday that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear whether President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country.

The outcome represented a victory for Trump, who has complained about judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. Nationwide, or universal, injunctions had emerged as an important check on the Republican president's efforts to expand executive power and remake the government and a source of mounting frustration to him and his allies.
But the court left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily.

The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, which was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Enforcement of the policy can't take place for another 30 days, Barrett wrote.

Even then it's unclear whether the court's decision could produce a confusing patchwork of rules that might differ in the 22 states that sued over the Trump order and the rest of the country.

The justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden's Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court. Judges have issued more than 40 such orders since Trump took office for a second term in January.

The administration has filed emergency appeals with the justices of many of those orders, including the ones on birthright citizenship. The court rarely hears arguments and issues major decisions on its emergency, or shadow, docket, but it did so in this case.

Federal courts, Barrett wrote, "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 president, speaking in the White House briefing room, said that the decision was "amazing" and a "monumental victory for the Constitution," the separation of powers and the rule of law.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York wrote on X that the decision is "an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent for the three liberal justices, called the decision "nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution." This is so, Sotomayor said, because the administration may be able to enforce a policy even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower court.

The administration didn't even ask, as it has in other cases, for the lower-court rulings to be blocked completely, Sotomayor wrote. "To get such relief, the government would have to show that the order is likely constitutional, an impossible task," she wrote.

But the ultimate fate of the changes Trump wants to make were not before the court, Barrett wrote, just the rules that would apply as the court cases continue.

Rights groups that sued over the policy filed new court documents following the high court ruling, taking up a suggestion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh that judges still may be able to reach anyone potentially affected by the birthright citizenship order by declaring them part of "putative nationwide class." Kavanaugh was part of the court majority last  Friday but wrote a separate concurring opinion.

States that also challenged the policy in court said they would try to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests was through a nationwide hold.
"We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land and of course birthright citizenship as well," said Attorney General Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts.

Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes.

The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or "right of the soil" — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.

Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called "a priceless and profound gift" in the executive order he signed on his first day in office.

The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.

But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment's adoption.

Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration.

The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings.

The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump's plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case.

The justices also agreed that the administration may make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.

Texas law aimed at blocking kids from
seeing pornography online upheld

By Lindsay Whitehurst 
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court last Friday upheld a Texas law aimed at blocking children from seeing online pornography.

Nearly half of the states have passed similar laws requiring adult websites users verify users' ages to access pornographic material. The laws come as smartphones and other devices make it easier to access online porn, including hardcore obscene material.

The court split along ideological lines in t he 6-3 ruling. It's a loss for an adult-entertainment industry trade group called the Free Speech Coalition, which challenged the Texas law.

Th majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, found the measure didn't seriously restrict adults' free-speech rights. "Adults have the right to access speech obscene only to minors ... but adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification," he wrote.

In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court should have used a higher legal standard in weighing whether the law creates free-speech problems.

Pornhub, one of the world's busiest websites, has stopped operating in several states, including Texas, citing the technical and privacy hurdles in complying with the laws.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, celebrated the ruling. "Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures," he said. The decision could pave the way for more states to adopt similar laws, the group National Center on Sexual Exploitation said.

While the Free Speech Coalition agreed that children shouldn't be seeing porn, it said the law puts an unfair free-speech burden on adults by requiring them to submit personal information that could be vulnerable to hacking or tracking.

The age verification requirements fall on websites that have a certain amount of sexual material, not search engines or social-media sites that can be used to find it.

Samir Jain, vice president of policy at the nonprofit Center for Democracy & Technology, said that age verification requirements raise serious privacy and free-expression concerns. The court's decision "overturns decades of precedent and has the potential to upend access to First Amendment-protected speech on the internet for everyone, children and adults alike."

In 1996, the Supreme Court struck down parts of a law banning explicit material viewable by kids online. A divided court also ruled against a different federal law aimed at stopping kids from being exposed to porn in 2004 but said less restrictive measures like content filtering are constitutional.

Texas argues that technology has improved significantly in the last 20 years, allowing online platforms to easily check users' ages with a quick picture. Those requirements are more like ID checks at brick-and-mortar adult stores that were upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, the state said.

District courts initially blocked laws in Indiana and Tennessee as well as Texas, but appeals courts reversed the decisions and let the laws take effect.
___
Associated Press writers Jonathan Mattise in Nashville, Tenn., Barbara Ortutay in San Francisco and Nadia Lathan in Austin, Texas contributed to this report.

Justices say Maryland parents can pull
their kids from public school lessons
using LGBTQ books

By Mark Sherman 
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled last Friday that Maryland parents who have religious objections can pull their children from public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks.

With the six conservative justices in the majority, the court reversed lower-court rulings in favor of the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington. The high court ruled that the schools likely could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material.

The lack of an "opt-out," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court, "places an unconstitutional burden on the parents' rights to the free exercise of their religion."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent for the three liberal justices that exposure to different views in a multicultural society is a critical feature of public schools. "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," Sotomayor wrote. 

"Today's ruling ushers in that new reality."

The decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in the case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them.

The school district introduced the storybooks, including "Prince & Knight" and "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. In "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," a niece worries that her uncle won't have as much time for her after he gets married to another man.

The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years, and the case is among several religious-rights cases at the court this term. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries.

Many of the removals were organized by Moms for Liberty and other conservative organizations that advocate for more parental input over what books are available to students. Soon after President Donald Trump, a Republican, took office in January, the Education Department called the book bans a "hoax" and dismissed 11 complaints that had been filed under Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

The writers' group PEN America said in a court filing in the Maryland case that the objecting parents wanted "a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name." PEN America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year.

"By allowing parents to pull their children out of classrooms when they object to particular content, the justices are laying the foundation for a new frontier in the assault on books of all kinds in schools," said Elly Brinkley, a lawyer for the group's U.S. Free Expression Programs. "In practice, opt outs for religious objections will chill what is taught in schools and usher in a more narrow orthodoxy as fear of offending any ideology or sensibility takes hold."

Lawyer Eric Baxter, who represented the Maryland parents at the Supreme Court, said the decision was a "historic victory for parental rights."

"Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission," Baxter said.

Parents initially had been allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit.

At arguments in April, a lawyer for the school district told the justices that the "opt outs" had become disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said.

The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though they didn't send their children to public schools.

Key part of Obamacare coverage
requirements preserved

By Lindsay Whitehurst 
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court preserved a key part of the Affordable Care Act's preventive health care coverage requirements last Friday, rejecting a challenge from Christian employers to the provision that affects some 150 million Americans.

The 6-3 ruling comes in a lawsuit over how the government decides which health care medications and services must be fully covered by private insurance under former President Barack Obama's signature law, often referred to as Obamacare.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court's majority. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.

The plaintiffs said the process is unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts tasked with recommending which services are covered is not Senate-approved.

The Supreme Court found that's not necessary because the panel answers to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. "In short, through the power to remove and replace Task Force members at will, the Secretary can exert significant control over the Task Force — including by blocking recommendations he does not agree with," Kavanaugh wrote.

President Donald Trump's administration defended the mandate before the court, though the Republican president has been a critic of his Democratic predecessor's law. The Justice Department said board members don't need Senate approval because they can be removed by the health and human services secretary.

Medications and services that could have been affected include statins to lower cholesterol, lung cancer screenings, HIV-prevention drugs and medication to lower the chance of breast cancer for women.

The decision protects access to free preventive care for millions of Americans, according to Alan Balch, CEO of the nonprofit Patient Advocate Foundation. He said research shows that the prospect of even small bills can stop people from getting care.

"We are all relieved that we don't have to deliver bad news today to the patients we serve," Balch said in a statement.

The group GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders applauded the continued preventive care coverage while noting "deep concern" about the power of the HHS secretary to hire and fire members of the panel. "We must be vigilant about the politicization of the Task Force going forward," the group said in a statement.

The case came before the Supreme Court after an appeals court struck down some preventive care coverage requirements. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Christian employers and Texas residents who argued they can't be forced to provide full insurance coverage for things like medication to prevent HIV and some cancer screenings.

Well-known conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who represented Trump before the high court in a dispute about whether he could appear on the 2024 ballot, argued the case.

The appeals court found that coverage requirements were unconstitutional because they came from a body — the United States Preventive Services Task Force — whose members were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Thomas agreed, writing that appointment by the president and confirmation by the Senate is the rule and Congress must explicitly adopt any alternatives, and that didn't happen with the Obamacare board. "It is the law, whether we agree with it or not," he wrote.
___

Associated Press health writer Tom Murphy contributed to this report.

By Mark Sherman 
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court last Friday upheld the fee that is added to phone bills to provide billions of dollars a year in subsidized phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas.

The justices, by a 6-3 vote, reversed an appeals court ruling that had struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the charge that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years.

At arguments in March, liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concerns about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund, which has benefited tens of millions of Americans.

The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, which pass the cost on to their customers.

A Virginia-based conservative advocacy group, Consumers' Research, had challenged the practice. The justices had previously denied two appeals from Consumers' Research after federal appeals courts upheld the program. But the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, among the nation's most conservative, ruled 9-7 that the method of funding is unconstitutional.

The 5th Circuit held that Congress had given too much authority to the FCC and the agency in turn had ceded too much power to a private entity, or administrator.

The last time the Supreme Court invoked what is known as the nondelegation doctrine to strike down a federal law was in 1935. But several conservative justices have suggested they are open to breathing new life into the legal doctrine.

The conservative-led court also has reined in federal agencies in high-profile rulings in recent years. Last year, the court reversed a 40-year-old case that had been used thousands of times to uphold federal regulations. In 2022, the court ruled Congress has to act with specificity before agencies can address "major questions," in a ruling that limited the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to combat climate change.

But the phone fee case turned out not to be the right one for finding yet another way to restrict federal regulators.

President Donald Trump's Republican administration, which has moved aggressively to curtail administrative agencies in other areas, defended the FCC program. The appeal was initially filed by President Joe Biden's Democratic administration.

headlines Oakland County

• Youth Law Conference
• Nessel joins bipartisan coalition calling for increased security funding for the federal judiciary
• Court approves Department of Justice’s settlement in UnitedHealth Group and Amedisys merger
• Consumers urged to protect their personal information following 700Credit data breach
• November commercial Chapter 11 filings increased 20 percent over 2024

headlines National

• The business of successfully running an in-house department
• ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
• Justice Gorsuch writes children’s book about ‘Heroes of 1776’
• Companies use ‘deceitful tactics’ to market harmful ultra-processed products with ‘addictive nature,’ city’s suit alleges
• Lawyer accused of trying to poison her husband
• ‘Lawyers Gone Wild’? Filmmaker criticizes bar as he seeks ethics probe of serial killer’s daughter for alleged lie