law

On Friday, a group of retired judges stepped off a tour bus in a ritzy Michigan suburb after three days of barnstorming through corn fields, cities and coal towns in Ohio and Pennsylvania. They carried with them a message.

In courthouses and public squares, they marked the nation’s 250th anniversary with a dire warning: The rule of law in America is in grave danger. They delivered a similar message at a library in Grosse Pointe just outside Detroit — the last stop on an extraordinary tour to defend judicial independence and bolster trust in courts.

Americans’ confidence in the court system and democracy has dipped in recent years. The country is more polarized, and President Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on the fairness of the judicial system.

Some judges on the tour said in phone interviews this week that the United States was at a precipice.

“Looking back in history, we have teetered,” former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Michael Donnelly said. “This is a moment where we can decide to reinstill those beliefs that we are a country of laws and not of men.”

Judges step off the bench

The four-day tour through the Rust Belt is a sharp departure for a typically reserved and insular branch of government. Federal judges in particular largely limit their comments to the courtroom and written decisions, focusing on the facts of individual cases.

But that restraint is loosening amid a barrage of attacks by Trump and other White House officials, the administration’s rampant defiance of U.S. district court orders and its expansive view of executive power. Trump has called a district judge who ruled against one of his immigration moves “crooked” and suggested with no evidence that Supreme Court justices who struck down his tariffs were motivated by foreign interests.

More federal judges have recently begun talking about receiving death threats and profane messages, though they have not blamed Trump or any other officials. Some have blasted administration policies in sharply worded opinions that strayed beyond the legal dispute before them. Even U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has weighed in.

In an appearance in March, Roberts said personal criticism of federal judges was dangerous and had to stop. The rare rebuke from the head of the nation’s top court came two days after Trump’s remark about a “crooked” judge, though Roberts didn’t mention Trump or anyone else by name.

The U.S. Marshals Service reported 564 threats against federal judges in the government fiscal year that ended in September, up from 509 the year before.

“I don’t want to say we have moved into an era of lawlessness, but it sometimes feels that way,” said former U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts, who joined the bus tour in Michigan.

Timothy Lewis, another former federal judge on the tour, said his concerns about the politicization of the judicial branch reached a tipping point a decade ago, when Senate Republicans thwarted President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Today, the rule of law is facing an “existential threat” from an ongoing breakdown of norms, according to Lewis, who spent seven years on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“I have fundamental concerns,” he said, “about where we are headed as a nation.”

Their route has been varied

The tour started Tuesday in the western Pennsylvania town of Greensburg — once the hub of a thriving coal industry that now lures visitors from nearby Pittsburgh for highland recreation and a historic downtown.

Judges mingled with customers at a coffee shop before speaking at the domed, ornate Westmoreland County Courthouse. Then it was off to Washington, also in western Pennsylvania. The town of 13,000 people, where about 15% of the population is Black, was a key stop on the Underground Railroad and a regional base for the civil rights movement.

From there, the bus headed west for events Wednesday in Columbus, Ohio, and the city of Wooster in Amish country. The judges stopped at a Cracker Barrel restaurant on the way. They spent Thursday in Cleveland before circling Lake Erie north to Michigan.

The two groups that planned the tour — dubbed “Justice in Motion” — say they were inspired by a similar campaign in Poland in 2021 after that country’s governing party took control of key judicial institutions.

Independent Polish judges visited scores of towns to promote the rule of law and teach voters about the country’s constitution. The U.S. tour also aims to educate people.

An effort to combat misinformation about what they do

Maureen O’Connor, a former chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, said judges risk ceding the narrative about their roles and motives to “voices of misinformation” if they don’t speak up.

A letter she received years ago, and still keeps, reminds her of that danger. The writer accused O’Connor, a Republican, of betraying her party when she repeatedly struck down Republican-drawn legislative maps as illegal gerrymanders. “There was just a basic misunderstanding of what my role was as a judge,” O’Connor said.

O’Connor is among roughly 30 judges, including two former federal judges and two current federal judges, who participated in the tour. One of the federal judges was nominated by a Democrat, the other three by Republicans. The state judges, some of whom are also still on the bench, represented both parties.

They were joined by former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, former Ohio attorneys general and a few lawyers. The event was put together by the Democracy Rising Collaborative and Keep Our Republic, nonpartisan advocacy groups.

Organizers say they chose stops that would get the judges in front of as many people as possible to build connections and trust. The judges embraced that mission.

“The lifeblood of the judiciary is public confidence,” Donnelly, the former Ohio Supreme Court justice, said. “If you lose that, it’s very difficult to get it back.”

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump will let the bipartisan housing bill approved by Congress become law without his signature, saying Friday that he was refusing to put his name on it because of the little progress made in passing a strict voter ID bill that he has been pushing.

“I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT,” Trump posted on social media.

Trump had 10 days until the Friday deadline to sign the bill, issue a veto, or allow the measure to take effect without his signature. He has chosen to let the measure become law without his express approval, undercutting his administration’s claims that he considers it a priority to combat inflation.

Trump’s rejection of the bipartisan housing legislation exacerbates tensions with his own party in a midterm election year and cuts short their efforts to address a key voter concern about rising costs. His post comes more than a week after he canceled plans to sign the bipartisan legislation, announcing he was using it as leverage in his push for a strict voter ID bill.

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act aims to lower the cost of housing and spur more home construction. It’s the broadest federal effort in decades to address America’s housing affordability problems, as state and local regulations have made it difficult to build in many of the communities that are also sources of job growth and economic opportunity. White House economists estimated earlier this year a national shortage of 10 million homes and the bill could help to close a portion of that gap.

But Trump called the bill “a yawn” and “so unimportant” compared to legislation that would require proof of citizenship for all voters.

He surprised Republican lawmakers on June 24, when, shortly before a planned signing ceremony at the Capitol, he announced he would not approve the bill until lawmakers first passed the voting legislation.

That bill, the SAVE America Act, doesn’t have enough Republican support to pass.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said after submitting the housing bill to the White House that he told Trump he should get the “fattest black marker you have, and sign your name really big on that.”

“I hope he does sign it,” Johnson told reporters at the time. “If he doesn’t, it’s still law. We’ll still celebrate it.”

He said he also understood Trump was trying to make a point that the elections bill is the top priority. “And I think he’s making it very effectively,” Johnson said.

Still, Trump’s decision not to sign the bill gave Democrats an opening to criticize him on the issue of affordability.

“His priorities couldn’t be clearer: higher cost for families and more power for himself,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on X.

The housing bill passed the Senate on an 85-5 vote and the House approved it with an 358-32 vote.

That legislation seeks to cut federal housing rules, slim-down environmental reviews, make it faster to build homes and limit the ability of corporations to buy single-family homes.

The bill does not address all of the causes of the country’s housing woes, including a shortage of construction workers, climbing insurance costs and wages that have not risen fast enough for renters and buyers.

But the bill has drawn support from the real estate industry and housing advocates.

The U.S. housing market has been a driver of recent affordability challenges as skyrocketing prices have kept aspiring buyers out of the market. The National Association of Realtors said Thursday that the median sales price increased 1.8% in June from a year earlier to $440,600, an all-time high on data going back to 1999.

Price and Boak write for the Associated Press. AP reporter Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

CONCORD, N.H. — Two transgender girls who were the first to challenge President Trump’s executive order, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” have withdrawn their lawsuit in New Hampshire based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld state bans on transgender athletes in girls’ sports and their own personal hardships, their lawyer said.

“This case was always about two courageous young girls who simply wanted the same opportunities as their peers to participate in school life,” their lawyer, Chris Erchull of GLAD Law, said in a statement Thursday. “Their willingness to stand up to extraordinary hostility made clear the human cost of laws that target transgender youth.”

The teenagers, Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, took on Trump’s executive order last year, amending their 2024 complaint against New Hampshire’s law on banning transgender girls from school sports. A federal judge had granted a court order allowing them to play as the case proceeded.

For Tirrell, it meant being able to keep playing on her high school girls’ soccer team. For Turmelle, it was having a chance to try out for different sports.

Both sides agreed to pause the case and wait for a ruling from the Supreme Court as it considered similar state laws barring transgender girls and women from playing on school and college athletic teams in Idaho and West Virginia. Last month, the court upheld the laws. It also said that barring transgender girls and women doesn’t run afoul of the federal law known as Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education.

One teen and her family decided to move from New Hampshire

Turmelle and her family moved out of New Hampshire last summer following proposed legislation against transgender people. One measure signed into law by Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte last year prohibits medical professionals from providing puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy to new transgender patients under age 18.

“Though there may be a carve-out for people already receiving gender-affirming care, that is way too close a call for us to risk staying,” Turmelle’s mother, Amy Manzetti, wrote in an op-ed piece at the time. “Other New Hampshire laws also seek to erase her.”

Most Republican-controlled states in the past five years have adopted laws or policies limiting gender-affirming care for transgender minors and limiting which school bathrooms transgender people can use, as well as sports restrictions. The Williams Institute at UCLA estimates that about 3% of youth ages 13 to 17 identify as transgender.

“The challenges with relocation are significant and burdensome — this includes having to find new employment, buying and selling homes, packing and moving possessions, integrating kids with a new school system, losing access to longstanding family and friends, and potential loss of income,” Corinne Goodwin, the executive director of Eastern PA Trans Equality Project in Pennsylvania, said in an email.

“But these families do so because they love their kids and know that supporting them with the care and opportunities they need is critical to their long-term success and happiness.”

The other teen gave up playing soccer at high school

Tirrell, 17, began her junior year last fall on the girls’ junior varsity soccer team. Things were fine at first, and each time she scored a goal, she got a round of ice cream from her parents. But a few weeks into the season, she decided to stop playing.

“With all of the political stuff going on, soccer wasn’t just about the game anymore,” her mother, Sara Tirrell, told The Associated Press in an interview.

It became more about preparing for the possibility of conflict.

“Were there any local Facebook groups where they were sort of agitating about potential protests and how do we prepare, and what are we walking into, and we never kind of knew,” she said. “We were on a lot of pins and needles, especially after the previous season.”

She was referring to a controversy at an away game where two dads from an opposing team were banned from school grounds for wearing pink wristbands marked “XX” to represent female chromosomes. They sued the school district and a judge ruled against them. They have appealed their case.

Last fall, there was an increased presence of school administrators at the games and bus drivers pulled in closer to the field so the students weren’t in the parking lot, she said.

“Parker didn’t talk about it a lot, but I think she could see that stress for everybody — for her, for her teammates, for her coaches,” Sara Tirrell said. “She felt kind of bad about pulling them all into that circus again. And so she ultimately said, ‘This isn’t fun anymore and I don’t want to do it.’”

Parker’s father described the atmosphere as “palpable tension.”

Even playing on her own turf, “there would typically be a couple of police officers at the home games where there weren’t previously,” Zach Tirrell said.

In the past, Parker also played soccer in a recreation league and could still do so.

“But I think it all kind of still sort of weighs on her,” her mother said. “It’s the same group of kids that she plays with who, honestly, have been very supportive and love to have her on the team and have expressed that to her many times over. But I think she still has that worry in her brain around, ‘What are other people going to say and do if I show up at a game?’”

Parker’s parents hope she’ll return to playing soccer some day. In the meantime, “she plans to be around and use her voice to continue standing up to discrimination,” her mother said. “In some ways she’s had to grow up a lot faster than some of her peers.”

McCormack writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Geoff Mulvihill in Haddonfield, N.J., contributed to this report.

Fox News declined to broadcast an ad Sunday about the violence that law-enforcement members faced as they tried to stop the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, according to the creators of the political commercial.

“We couldn’t have fathomed in our wildest imaginations that even a Fox News would reject an ad that simply condemns the insurrection, and condemns people who support the insurrection,” said Ben Meiselas, one of the co-founders of MeidasTouch, the liberal Political Action Committee that created the 60-second ad. “What Fox has really become is a fascist echo chamber gatekeeper for their base.”

Broadcast and cable networks have discretion in refusing to air ads by political campaigns and advocacy groups. A Fox News spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment on Saturday.

Meiselas and his two brothers, Brett and Jordan, said they placed the ad buy as they have in the past, but were informed over the phone on Friday that the cable network would not air the ad and were not given a reason. Fox News has never before refused to air one of their ads without offering suggestions for edits, they said.

The commercial features law-enforcement officers testifying in Congress and speaking to the media about their experiences during the insurrection, including getting sprayed with bear mace, engaging in hand-to-hand combat and being called “traitors.”

“It’s been very difficult seeing elected officials and other individuals whitewash the events of that day or downplay what happened,” DC Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone says in a clip from a CNN interview as images of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and other GOP elected officials are shown on screen.

The ad ends with block letters that say” “The GOP Betrayed America. We Will Never Forget.”

The ad has gone viral on social media, racking up more than 1 million views on Twitter.

Fox News is the target of multibillion-dollar defamation lawsuits by voting system and software makers over its coverage of the integrity of the 2020 presidential election. Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic accused Fox News of irresponsibly broadcasting falsehoods that their technology and equipment were used to rig the election. The fraud claims are among the factors that led to the insurrection as lawmakers were voting to certify the election results.

Fanone, who suffered a heart attack after rioters beat him with a flagpole and repeatedly stunned with him with his Taser gun on Jan. 6, is among the law-enforcement members who have been vocal critics of Republican lawmakers who blocked the creation of a commission to study what happened that day.

The House of Representatives approved a plan to create a bipartisan commission to investigate the insurrection on a 252-175 vote; but in the Senate, it received 54 votes in late May, six shy of the number required to bring the proposal up for debate.

A spokeswoman for President Biden on Thursday ruled out creating a presidential commission to study the matter, aligning the White House with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the belief that such an inquiry needed to be instigated by Congress.

MeidasTouch booked nearly $185,000 of air time to play the ad on Fox News between June 6 and 15, starting with Chris Wallace’s Sunday show and continuing for seven days on “Fox and Friends” as well as two spots on daytime programs and one more on Wallace’s show next weekend.

Brett Meiselas noted that many shows on the network routinely talk about “cancel culture.”

“The fact they want to cancel and censor the voices of law enforcement who bravely guarded the Capitol. It’s the height of hypocrisy, and it’s un-American,” he said.

MeidasTouch is a liberal political action committee formed in 2020 by the three brothers, who have notable ties to Hollywood. Their father is a prominent attorney who represents musicians including Lady Gaga.

Ben Meiselas is a lawyer whose clients include former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick. Brett Meiselas was an editor on Ellen DeGeneres’ talk show. Jordan Meiselas, a former marketer, is now working full time on the PAC.

The PAC made anti-Trump videos during the 2020 presidential race and supported Democrats during the special Georgia Senate races earlier this year. The PAC did not receive as much attention as anti-Trump groups such as the Lincoln Project; it spent about $4.2 million last year.

July 10 (UPI) — A bipartisan housing bill that swept the House and Senate is set to become law at midnight Friday if President Donald Trump doesn’t veto it, and he said Friday morning on social media that he won’t sign it.

The 21st Century Road to Housing Act was passed on June 29 by a wide margin of Democrats and Republicans in both chambers of Congress, but the president canceled a signing ceremony at the last minute and said he wouldn’t sign it until Congress passed Trump’s pet project, the SAVE America Act, which they don’t have the support to do.

On Friday, he posted on Truth Social that he refuses to sign it.

“I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, which is polling at 97% with the Republican Party, and very high with the non-politician Dumocrats,” he wrote.

He didn’t mention a veto, but it’s still a possibility.

“The Act states, quite simply, that to Vote a person must show PHOTO VOTER I.D., PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP, AND THAT THERE WILL BE NO MORE CROOKED, CORRUPT, & DESTABILIZING MAIL-IN BALLOTS (EXCEPTIONS for Military, Disabled, Illness, and Travel!). THE SAVE AMERICA ACT’S non-passage is CRAZY, and a serious threat to any politician who votes against it! If the Dumocrats, or any RINO (or worse!) working with them, do not allow a positive Vote on SAVE AMERICA, TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, and pass this, and every other Bill that true Republicans have ever dreamt of (In addition to the upcoming Budget BOMB and the 1929 catastrophic style DEBT CEILING BILL!). The Dumocrats will TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, if and when they ever get the chance to do so, in their very first hour – And I will no longer be able to call them Dumocrats again! The title of DUMB will revert to the Republicans who allowed this horrible calamity to happen to our Party, and our Nation, itself! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” he wrote.

If the president vetoes the bill, Congress will likely have the votes to override it. It would need a two-thirds majority to pass the override in the House and Senate.

“This is the exact kind of bill they want to point to and say Republicans are working on issues that their voters care about, and Democrats would want the same,” Julian Zelizer, a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University, told The Washington Post. “That’s not the signal that the administration is sending.”

Since the bill passed and Trump refused to sign it, he has called it “a yawn.”

“To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, everything is a big yawn,” he said.

The SAVE Act is an election bill that would require voters to prove they are citizens when registering to vote. Critics argue that it would disenfranchise too many voters because of the types of proof it would require.

The housing bill includes measures that modernize building standards, encourage renovating older homes, encourage communities to build more housing with funding and grant programs, local governments to reform restrictive zoning policies around building housing and effectively ban private equity from buying up single-family homes. Critics of the bill say it doesn’t go far enough, but they acknowledge it’s a good first step.

It’s the first bipartisan measure that’s passed this Congress.

Some Democrats have been publicly pushing the president to sign the bill.

“It’s been sitting on President Trump’s desk long enough. Sign the bill,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., posted on X.

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said on X, “Republicans and Democrats worked together to pass a bill to build more housing and stop hedge funds from buying up single-family homes, but Trump is holding it hostage. He needs to stop playing games and sign the bill so more Americans can finally afford homes.”

The police marksman who shot Chris Kaba may no longer face misconduct proceedings after the government changed the rules on how officers’ use of force is judged.

Sgt Martyn Blake shot 24-year-old Kaba in Streatham, south London, in 2022 after he tried to ram his way past police cars.

Blake was cleared of murder following a trial in 2024 but was subject to a separate disciplinary hearing, which the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) paused while it waited for the changes to be published.

The legal test for misconduct in officers’ use-of-force cases has been raised to the same used in criminal law, meaning conduct that would not amount to a crime should not amount to misconduct either.

After Blake’s acquittal, then home secretary Yvette Cooper said she would raise the legal test used to decide whether to charge officers over use of force.

On Wednesday, the watchdog said it now believes the case should not go ahead. It will consult the Kaba family, who argue there are exceptional circumstances why it should still proceed.

Dozens of other non-fatal use-of-force cases could also be affected if forces take the same approach.

IOPC director of strategy and policy Andrew Johnson said: “We carefully considered the law change and its stated intent to address the perceived unfairness and lack of proportionality of the civil law test.

“We believe this position provides consistency across impacted cases and is fair to officers who are facing potential dismissal for misconduct, which if it occurred now, would not amount to misconduct under the new law.

“We expect the number of relevant cases that are affected by this law change to be relatively small.”

Metropolitan Police deputy commissioner Matt Jukes, referring to Blake by his cypher NX121, said: “We have consistently said since the criminal trial that there is no basis for further action against this officer and that remains our position.

“That is why I welcome the recent changes to the law, introducing a presumption of anonymity for firearms officers during court proceedings until conviction, and restoring the criminal test for the use of force in misconduct cases.”

The family of Chris Kaba said the decision had a damaging impact on bereaved families in cases involving use of force by the police, and that “it gives every appearance that the IOPC has a closed mind on this specific case”.

Temi Mwale and Kayza Rose from the Justice for Chris Kaba Campaign said they were “appalled” by the IOPC’s decision.

They added: “The only just approach would have been to conclude all existing cases under the rules that were in place when those proceedings began.

“Instead, the rules have been changed mid-process to ensure that Martyn Blake will face no professional accountability.”

The campaigners described the decision as a blow to public confidence and said Britain was “moving backwards on police accountability”.

On the night Kaba died, police had followed and boxed in the Audi he was driving because it had been linked to three firearms incidents in the previous five months.

Officers did not know his identity at the time. He was later reported by police to have links to a street gang and to two shootings in the six days before his death.

Listen to the best of BBC Radio London on Sounds and follow BBC London on Facebook, external, X, external and Instagram, external. Send your story ideas to hello.bbclondon@bbc.co.uk, external

July 5 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s ruling and opposition parties clashed Sunday over a revised online information law set to take effect Tuesday, with the ruling Democratic Party calling it a safeguard against fake news and the main opposition People Power Party denouncing it as a threat to free speech.

The revised Information and Communications Network Act allows punitive damages of up to five times the actual damage when false or manipulated information is distributed online and causes harm. Repeat distribution can also trigger administrative fines of up to 1 billion won, or about $655,000.

The People Power Party called the measure an online “gag law” and said the standard for determining what counts as false or manipulated information is too vague.

Choi Soo-jin, the party’s chief floor spokesperson, said posts criticizing the government or raising reasonable suspicions could become targets of disputes.

“To avoid large damages and fines, platforms will have no choice but to preemptively delete posts even before illegality is clearly determined,” Choi said. “Excessive deletion and de facto prior censorship are structurally inevitable.”

People Power Party lawmaker Joo Jin-woo said he plans to file a constitutional challenge after the law takes effect.

“The law is rushed legislation that does not even have a body to determine false or manipulated information,” Joo wrote on social media. He said the measure violates constitutional protections against prior censorship as well as principles of proportionality and freedom of speech and the press.

The Democratic Party rejected the criticism and said the law is being misrepresented.

Jeon Su-mi, a party spokesperson, said the measure is not designed to silence ordinary citizens but to prevent malicious false information and so-called “cyber wreckers,” a Korean term for online personalities who profit from sensational or defamatory content.

“Not a single citizen who shares daily life, expresses legitimate political opinions or sharply criticizes power will be subject to punishment under this law,” Jeon said.

She accused the People Power Party of defending false information and online harassment by portraying basic social filtering as censorship.

The Democratic Party also criticized opposition proposals to limit regulation to already illegal information, saying such an approach would leave manipulated falsehoods unaddressed.

The dispute comes as South Korea continues to debate how to regulate online misinformation without chilling political speech. Supporters say the revised law is needed to hold malicious content creators accountable when false claims cause real harm. Critics say vague definitions could pressure platforms to over-remove content and discourage citizens from criticizing public officials.

The revised law was passed by the National Assembly in December under Democratic Party leadership.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260706010001674

Happy Birthday, America!

You turned 250 on Saturday and, honestly, you don’t look a day over 249. (Ha ha.)

Seriously, it’s perfectly understandable why there’s more gray on your scalp and deeper worry lines on your face. This last year has been another challenging one, to say the least. (And we thought the one cataloged 12 months ago in this space was rough.)

The country is caught up in an unpopular, on-again, off-again war with Iran that was recklessly launched by President Trump with far more swagger than foresight. In an utterly predictable move, Iran choked off the the Strait of Hormuz, a vital passageway for the world’s oil, sending gasoline prices skyrocketing. Though they’ve fallen since the announcement of a shaky ceasefire agreement, the cost of filling up is still significantly higher than a year ago.

Of course, costlier oil means virtually everything else has become more expensive. Trump was reelected in good part because he vowed to tame inflation on his very first day in office. Instead, it’s reached a three-year high.

The ground beef served up at many July 4 cookouts costs 75 cents a pound more than it did a year ago. A package of hamburger buns is up 15 cents. The price of hot dogs and other picnic staples have also increased, along with just about every other item at the grocery store.

Chew that over with your corn on the cob. (Up roughly 2.5% from July 2025.)

Meanwhile, Trump enriched himself to the tune of $2.2 billion during his first year in office alone. Treating the U.S. treasury like his personal cash cow, the president has lavished hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on vanity projects such as a personally kitted out Air Force One — a “gift” from Qatar that Trump plans to keep after retirement — and a gilded White House ballroom, rising where the demolished East Wing used to stand. Plans are underway for a grand, marble arch in Washington celebrating, well, you know who.

At the same time, Trump has squandered money and resources pursuing political vendettas, persecution of his enemies and fruitless investigations like the one probing “theft” of the 2020 election and “vandalism” at the algae-clogged Reflecting Pool he promised and failed to rehab.

All this while millions of Americans have lost healthcare coverage and/or federal food assistance, all thanks to the One Big Billionaire Bounty bill that Trump signed into law a year ago.

It’s all a bit unnerving isn’t it, America? You’re on edge in a way you haven’t been in at least a generation.

In Minnesota, in the dead of winter, two of your citizens were gunned down by federal officers as they engaged in that most American of exercises, registering dissent against the policies of their government. From sea to shining sea, innocent Americans have been arrested — and sometimes shipped abroad — and immigrant communities cower in fear of federal agents who often seem bent more on meeting deportation quotas than meting out justice.

You’re divided, America, in ways no one alive has ever seen.

It starts at the very top. Trump acts as though he’s president of a favored rump group — his political supporters — rather than the nation as a whole. He’s used your 250th birthday not to celebrate those many grand and glorious things that hold us together as Americans but to bask in the tanning-bed glow of his immeasurable self-regard.

But, heck, if it’s any consolation on this star-spangled holiday weekend, the country has been through worse. Much worse. And you, America, have not only survived but in many ways grown stronger by surmounting obstacles, facing down your flaws and overcoming some knee-buckling, soul-crushing challenges.

Slavery. Civil war. Racist exclusionary laws. Genocide against indigenous peoples. Two worldwide conflicts. Depression. Financial crises. And too many deadly natural disasters — fire, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes — to enumerate.

Your treatment of some Americans, it should be said, hasn’t always been fair and just. It still isn’t.

People are despairing over the Supreme Court and its genuflecting deference to the president. The justices of its conservative majority have done just about everything short of handing Trump a crown and scepter to reign as a virtually untouchable, imperial president.

But it’s worth noting that earlier court majorities held that Black Americans — “beings of an inferior order,” in the words of the wretched Dred Scott decision — could be denied citizenship, that racial segregation was constitutional and that compulsory sterilization based on eugenics was perfectly fine from a legal standpoint.

That ugly, sordid history won’t necessarily make anyone feel better about the current state of affairs, nor should it. But it does offer some perspective and, with it, hope.

This weekend is best celebrated honoring the country’s many good things and the bright, shining place that America aspires to be, with liberty and justice for all. So chin up! Have another slice of birthday cake, America, and don’t worry about the calories — you really do look terrific for 250!

Going forward it’s up to us, your citizens, to keep working toward that more perfect union mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution. Whatever ails you, America, the remedy resides with we the people and the power we hold, particularly at the ballot box.

Unhappy with the wrecking crew that’s heedlessly chain-sawed federal programs and allowed Trump to money-grub with both fists, defile the White House and undermine our rule of law? Send a message and vote ‘em out, starting in November’s midterm election. And bear in mind the damage that’s been wrought come the 2028 presidential race.

Don’t stop believing that, as dark and difficult as things may seem right now, better days lie ahead.

That undimmed and abiding faith is what makes America great.

NEW ORLEANS — Louisiana’s attorney general has been indicted over accusations she threatened the jobs of New Orleans leaders who fought a Republican-led overhaul of local courts in the heavily Democratic city.

The 16-count indictment against Republican Liz Murrill, handed up Thursday by a New Orleans grand jury, charges Louisiana’s first female attorney general with intimidation and malfeasance.

At the center of the case are deepening rifts between state leaders in Louisiana, which is heavily Republican, and Democrats who control the state’s most prominent city.

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry promised a swift pardon, saying Murrill would not have her reputation tarnished by an “Orleans kangaroo court.” Mayor Helena Moreno, a Democrat, was among those who had accused the state’s top law enforcement official in May of making threats against public officials.

Murrill called the case against her “retaliatory, meritless, and unconstitutional.” Late Thursday, Murrill said she had filed for an emergency stay with the Louisiana Supreme Court.

“I will not back down. I will continue enforcing the law, fighting corruption, and doing the job the people of Louisiana elected me to do,” she wrote on X.

For months, political tensions intensified between Louisiana Republicans and New Orleans officials over a new law that abolished a court clerk office won by an exoneree, Calvin Duncan, who spent nearly three decades in prison. The change consolidated that job with another clerk’s office, which Republican supporters said would make the local judicial system more efficient.

The change was staunchly opposed by New Orleans leaders, and in May, the City Council set a special election that would have given Duncan a chance to win the newly combined job. Murrill responded by warning local officials in letters that they could lose their offices for violating state “usurper” laws, which forbid support for an unauthorized officeholder.

“We’re very interested in elected officials in New Orleans not being intimidated or threatened by letter or any other way,” special prosecutor Laurie White told reporters.

Bond for Murrill was set at $400,000 on Thursday, according to court records.

Landry said he was ordering state police to investigate what he called “alleged improprieties” of the grand jury and those who ran it.

“The criminal justice system is a circus at its finest in Orleans and we will not have any of that!” he wrote on X.

The Republican Attorneys General Assn. said that making statements to local officials — in writing — was simply “issuing a legal opinion and warning public officials about the law” as part of her official duties. It called the indictment “as outrageous as it is dangerous.”

Moreno, who was elected in January and was defiant after Murrill sent the letters, on Thursday called it a “matter for the courts” and did not directly address the allegations.

“My focus, as always, remains on fulfilling the responsibilities the people of New Orleans elected me to carry out,” Moreno said.

Duncan has said he believes state officials were retaliating against him in eliminating the job he won with 68% of the vote. Murrill and Landry have long refused to acknowledge his innocence, though he’s listed on the National Registry of Exonerations.

Republicans have said the change was not personal and supporters have noted that the offices of criminal and civil clerks of courts are combined in other parishes.

Duncan was a jailhouse lawyer who later graduated from law school. He founded a nonprofit dedicated to expanding incarcerated people’s access to the court system and was the driving force behind a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ended nonunanimous jury convictions.

Duncan spent more than 28 years in prison over a fatal shooting during a robbery in 1981.

The night before a 2011 hearing to consider new evidence, prosecutors offered to reduce Duncan’s sentence to the time he’d already served in prison if he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and armed robbery. Duncan took the deal and was freed but didn’t give up on clearing his name.

In 2021, a judge agreed that Duncan had been unjustly convicted and vacated his sentence altogether. Landry and Murrill have pointed to the 2011 plea deal in objecting to Duncan calling himself exonerated.

Riddle and Hanna write for the Associated Press. Associated Press reporter Jack Brook in New Orleans contributed.

Beijing’s new ethnic unity law has taken effect. It strengthens Mandarin’s position as the primary language of education, official business and public spaces across China.

The government says the law’s provisions on social cohesion and preventing separatism benefit everyone.

But activists abroad say it will further erode the rights of groups such as Uighurs and Tibetans. They are also warning against a clause that states China can take action against those who violate the law outside of the country.

Taiwan has echoed this criticism. Its government warns the law could be used to target people there who are critical of Beijing.

Presenter: Mohammed Jamjoom

Guests:

• Einar Tangen – Senior fellow, Centre for International Governance Innovation
• Zumretay Arkin – Vice president, World Uyghur Congress
• William Yang – Senior analyst for Northeast Asia, International Crisis Group

WASHINGTON  — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. led a fractured Supreme Court this year that both expanded a president’s power to run the government and dealt major defeats to President Trump.

In Trump’s second year back in the White House, Roberts and the court punctured his claim to have power with no limits.

The justices struck down his worldwide tariffs, ruling these import taxes are a matter for Congress, not the president.

They also threw out his executive order that would end the principle of birthright citizenship. The Constitution wrote this promise into law, Roberts said, and the president may not change it.

The court also ruled in December that the president did not have the power to put National Guard troops on the streets of Chicago.

The three decisions came over fierce dissents from conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. and with Neil M. Gorsuch in two of them.

The three liberal justices dissented angrily when the court ruled the administration may end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians.

They did the same when the court ruled the president may replace the top appointees of semi-independent agencies.

But they joined Roberts in a 5-4 ruling that affirmed the independence of the Federal Reserve and blocked Trump’s move to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook.

Trump has won on most immigration fronts because Roberts and the conservatives believe Congress put the enforcement power in the hands of the administration. They point to the law authorizing temporary protection which says there shall be “no judicial review” of the decision to end the protection.

Roberts is a solid conservative who also tries to keep the court on a middle course. It’s an approach that rarely wins plaudits from the right and almost never from the left.

This year the chief justice prevailed with different coalitions.

This week, the court ruled by a 5-4 vote against the Republican National Committee and upheld state laws that allow for counting late-arriving mail ballots. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined with Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Barrett also joined the chief justice in the rulings on tariffs and birthright citizenship.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. speaks to the Georgetown Law School graduating class in 2025.

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

This week, the court also limited the power of police to use cellphone data to look for crime suspects. This too came on a 5-4 vote when Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined Roberts and the three liberals.

Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus, who has been a friend of Roberts’ since their time in law school, said the chief justice “is clearly working very hard” to put together majorities.

“It is not easy to formally preside over a court in which five of its members (Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch on the right and Justices Sotomayor and Jackson on the left) deride the kind of efforts at moderation that is the chief’s preferred signature and harshly condemn him when he strays from their own views.”

Washington attorney Roman Martinez, a former clerk for Roberts, said the court is “clearly right of center” but the decision on tariffs was the most important of the year.

“It is a huge deal for the court to say ‘no’ to the president on his major policy initiative,” he said.

Stanford law professor Michael McConnell agreed. “It’s hard to claim the court is in Trump’s pocket when he lost the major cases,” he said.

Trump responded to the tariff defeat by calling the justices in the majority a “disgrace to our nation” and “disloyal to the Constitution.”

They “sicken me,” he said of Justices Barrett and Gorsuch, his two appointees who joined Roberts in the 6-3 majority.

Trump went to the court in April to hear his top attorney defend his executive order on birthright citizenship. He left after an hour of mostly skeptical questions.

On the term’s last day, Roberts issued a clear and eloquent 26-page opinion setting out America’s history of according citizenship to children who were born in this country, without regard to their parents.

This view came from England “and crossed the Atlantic with the colonists — and was adopted with little fanfare after the Revolution,” he wrote. “Nothing is better settled,” Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1830.

But it was unsettled by the fight over slavery.

“In the odious decision of Dred Scott v. Sandford, this Court imposed the Southern States’ beliefs onto the Nation” and decreed Blacks could not become citizens, Roberts wrote.

Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass were among the many who condemned the court’s decision, he said.

“It took more than a decade — and the addition of names such as Antietam, Gettysburg, and Chancellorsville to our national canon — but Douglass’s vision of ‘our common humanity’ would be fulfilled,” he wrote.

The Reconstruction Congress wrote this rule into the 14th Amendment and said “All persons born” here are citizens by birth.

The principle of birthright citizenship had been upheld by the Supreme Court in 1898, the chief justice wrote, and it had gone unchallenged until Trump returned to the White House last year.

But Thomas filed a 91-page dissent arguing that immigrants must be “domiciled” here before their children may become citizens.

Alito filed a separate 39-page opinion branding the Roberts opinion a “serious mistake.”

On that note, the court adjourned for its summer recess.

California’s effort to restrict sales of handguns that can be converted into fully-automatic machine guns drew an immediate federal challenge Wednesday, with the Trump administration suing the state over its new “Glock ban” law just hours after it took effect.

The U.S. Department of Justice is seeking a court order to block the controversial state law that limits where most Glock and Glock-style pistols can be sold. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, also aims to invalidate key parts of the state’s handgun roster — a list that dictates the types of firearms that Californians may legally purchase. In a statement Wednesday, acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said that both policies “trample” the rights of law-abiding Californians.

“The Second Amendment is a sacred right belonging to all Americans, even those in California,” Blanche said. “California cannot ban the most popular type of handgun in America.”

California’s Assembly Bill 1127 does not explicitly name the Glock brand, but instead targets any handgun with a specific mechanism that can easily be converted by a black market device. These simple “Glock switches” convert semiautomatic handguns into a weapon capable of firing 20 rounds per second with a single squeeze of the trigger.

Advances in 3D printing have made the conversion devices widely available and cheap to produce. Federal authorities reported recovering 11,088 of them from crime scenes between 2019 and 2023. Switches have been used in several mass shootings, including one in Sacramento that resulted in six deaths and 12 injuries in 2022.

The new law does not prohibit the possession of affected handguns already owned by Californians, and includes exemptions for gun dealers, as well as law enforcement and military agencies.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill in October, and has maintained that firearm laws are responsible for California’s declining crime rates and gun deaths.

“The Trump administration is once again trying to dismantle California’s commonsense gun safety laws,” Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for the governor, said in a statement. “Our response is simple — these laws save lives.”

The federal government argues in its complaint that California can’t ban legal semiautomatic handguns simply because they could be illegally altered, adding that state and federal law already prohibit such pistol converters. The U.S. compared California’s approach to banning ordinary shotguns because they can be illegally shortened.

The lawsuit also challenges California’s decades-old handgun roster, which requires new handgun models to pass certain safety tests before they can be approved for retail sale. A federal judge tentatively blocked portions of the roster requirements in a separate 2023 case, which is being appealed before the 9th Circuit. That lawsuit was filed by the California Rifle & Pistol Assn. and other gun rights supporters following a landmark 2022 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that set new standards for evaluating firearm restrictions.

Under those new guidelines, the Trump administration wants a judge to find that California’s gun restrictions violate the 2nd Amendment, and is seeking an order to bar the state from enforcing them.

The Trump administration is relying on a federal civil rights law typically used against police departments accused of repeated constitutional violations, arguing that California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and state Justice Department agents qualify as peace officers and therefore violate gun owners’ rights whenever they enforce handgun restrictions.

Bonta, who is named in the suit, has a winning court record over the Trump administration, and has secured at least 12 final court rulings and more than 35 preliminary injunctions or emergency orders.

“We won’t be intimidated by another politically motivated lawsuit,” said Crofts-Pelayo, Newsom’s spokesperson. “We’ll continue defending the laws that protect Californians and keep dangerous weapons off our streets.”

The just-approved state budget strips authority from the elected state superintendent of public instruction, transferring power in January to an appointee of the governor, dramatically changing the oversight and management of a public school system serving more than 6 million students from preschool through 12th grade.

The change was pushed through by Gov. Gavin Newsom at the urging of academics and education reformers who have long criticized how the state’s $149 billion public education system is governed.

In essence, the change consolidates increased power within the governor’s office — streamlining and largely replacing a diffuse system in which the state superintendent has significant influence, but no direct control over budget and policy.

Supporters hail the move as bringing accountability and coherence — through the governor — to all the departments and agenices involved in education.

“The approval of education governance reform, over a century in the making, is a monumental victory for California’s students that finally establishes a sensible system to best support them,” said Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, an Oakland-based research and advocacy organization. “We commend Governor Newsom for his leadership in making this much needed change a reality.”

Critics called the change an unjustified, undemocratic side-stepping of the state constitution and the will of voters.

“California’s constitutional architecture deliberately established an independent schools chief to ensure that public education answers directly to the voters,” wrote a labor coalition that included the two largest statewide teacher unions. “Replacing an elected constitutional officer with a partisan bureaucrat serving strictly at the pleasure of the executive branch breaks that model, permanently muting the public voice when democratic transparency matters most.”

The critics noted that voters have defeated every attempt to eliminate the elected state superintendent.

The latest effort bypasses the ballot box by keeping the elected position, but stripping most of its powers. The bill did not go through the typically lengthy legislative process; it was instead folded as a trailer bill into the state budget.

School district management groups, such as the one representing county superintendents, were more supportive of the changes.

Diffuse authority and accountability

Authority over education has long been distributed among different officeholders.

The Legislature passes laws related to education. The governor chooses which to sign. The governor also proposes what to pay for in education through his budget plan. The Legislature can amend the plan and has the responsibility to approve it.

The elected state superintendent runs the state Department of Education and serves as the administrative lead for the state Board of Education, whose members have been appointed by the governor to four-year terms. The superintendent does not have a vote on the board and must follow board authority in some areas but not others.

The board approves state education policy and curriculum.

“The current state system of support and accountability for local districts is uneven,” resulting in “islands of high quality surrounded by deserts where nothing much has improved,” said former State Board of Education President Michael Kirst, an emeritus Stanford professor of education. Instruction across the entire state was “unlikely to improve” under the status quo, he said.

How the office will change

All of the state superintendent’s authority will transfer to the education commissioner, who will be named by the governor and then approved by the state Senate.

That means the next governor will gain direct control or control through appointees over developing and spending the education budget — including state and federal grants — and developing education policies.

Under the old system, the state superintendent has overseen grants while also interpreting state education law and making sure schools complied.

The new law sets out the superintendent’s role instead as the “independently elected nonpartisan voice for the public interest in the governance of the state’s educational systems.” This role includes reporting to the Legislature “on the condition of education based on statewide engagement and travel to identify significant trends, challenges, and emerging issues.”

Critics worry that amounts to a whole lot of nothing.

That may be literally the case initially, as the new law gives governor’s new education commissioner until Oct. 1, 2027 to propose further reforms including “the future role and staffing” of the elected superintendent.

Until then, the new law provides for the superintendent to have several deputies and a skeleton clerical staff.

The superintendent also becomes one of 11 members of the state Board of Education and one of 19 members of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges.

Change opposed by candidates for the office

The overhaul occurs as two candidates vie to become the elected superintendent in November. Both have strongly opposed the change.

The race pits Republican Sonja Shaw, who finished first in the primary, against Democrat Richard Barrera.

Shaw, who decried the change as a “blatant power grab” that “silences voters,” said she had a game plan for how she intended to use the previous powers of the office if elected.

Sonja Shaw candidate for state superintendent

(Photo courtesy of Sonja Shaw)

“An outsider serving as state superintendent who refuses to simply defer to Sacramento could use the office’s authority over grants, contracts, federal programs, accountability systems, fiscal standards, parent resources, and administrative functions to prioritize results over ideology,” Shaw said.

“In practice, that could mean focusing resources on proven reading and math instruction, increasing transparency, fostering increased parental involvement, protecting fairness and safety for girls in sports,” she said.

If elected, Barrera said he hopes to work immediately to fill in the blanks with a meaningful role for the superintendent and to bring in important education voices that he said have been left out so far.

Richard Barrera, a candidate for state schools superintendent

(Sam Hodgson/The San Diego Union-Tribune)

“The whole purpose of this restructuring is bringing people into alignment, with the focus on goals for student learning, and I’d say we have a long way to go,” Barrera said.

Both candidates said there was potential grounds for a legal challenge to the rewritten duties.

California Teachers Assn. President David Goldberg also was among the opposing voices.

“There’s always tons of issues going on for a governor, and education issues are likely to be put on the back burner.” State voters, he added, “have really wanted an independent voice around public education,” someone willing at times to stand up to the governor.

Supporters of the change counter that the governor — who has to answer to a broad base of interests — would be less susceptible to education special-interest groups, including teacher unions.

The central tenets of the new framework are based on a December 2025 report from Policy Analysis for California Education, a nonpartisan center that brings together researchers from Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Davis and USC.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed off on a 100% state tax on money any Californians receive from Trump’s $1.8-billion “anti-weaponization” fund for his political allies.

Newsom unveiled his proposal in May, after Trump’s Justice Department said it would create a fund to compensate Trump’s allies who claim they have “suffered weaponization and lawfare” under Biden’s Justice Department.

The settlement fund was criticized by politicians on both sides of the aisle, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who described it as a “slush fund to pay people who assault cops.”

The fund remains in legal limbo. Earlier this month, a federal judge in Virginia extended a court-ordered block on the plan, which critics warned could be used to pay pardoned Jan. 6 rioters.

Fast-tracked into law as part of Senate Bill 122, Newsom’s plan imposes “a tax on any settlement fund payment from the federal Anti-Weaponization Fund, or any subsequent fund, settlement, or agreement, as provided, at a rate of 100%,” according to the bill text. The tax applies to all tax years between 2026 and 2030.

Newsom signed the bill Tuesday. In a statement, his office said the tax is meant to ensure that, should Trump’s fund proceed, California recipients won’t “receive favorable state treatment on those payments.”

“We believe democracy is worth defending, the rule of law matters, and public dollars should support victims—not those who attacked the very institutions that protect our freedoms,” Newsom said in the statement.

University of Southern California law professor Ariel Jurow Kleiman, an expert on tax law and policy, said that while Newsom’s tax is a “novel legal strategy,” she believes there is “no categorical legal restriction” preventing California from implementing it.

States have a “wide degree of discretion” to design their tax systems — including how they define income — so long as they do not violate their constitutions, Jurow Kleiman said.

If a California resident wanted to challenge the tax in court, they would need to show they were harmed by it to have standing to sue, according to Jurow Kleiman. That would mean receiving a payment from Trump’s settlement fund and then paying the 100% California tax. Unless the settlement fund is established and distributes payments, that scenario is unlikely.

While there have been proposals to levy a 100% tax on income above certain thresholds — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 2023 said he supports a 100% tax on income exceeding $1 billion — Jurow Kleiman said she is not aware of any governments that have adopted such a policy.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Watergate-era limits on how much political parties can spend in a coordinated campaign with their candidates.

By a 6-3 vote, the court said the restrictions on parties and their campaign ads violate the 1st Amendment.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the court was restoring broad free speech protections for parties and their candidates.

“For nearly 200 years after the ratification of the 1st Amendment, parties could spend freely to support their candidates during campaigns and could do so in coordination with the candidates,” he wrote. “Notably, no one suggests ‘that these elections were not functional or that they were marred by corruption’.”

The decision is a victory for the National Republican Senatorial Committee and is likely to give a boost to Republicans this year in their bid to maintain control of Congress.

That’s because the national Republican committees that support their Congressional candidates have $230 million available to spend this year, while the struggling Democratic committees have less than $120 million.

The party funding limits were challenged in 2022 in a lawsuit filed by JD Vance, who was then running in Ohio for a Senate seat, along with the Republican party committees.

Republicans argued these restrictions on parties were outdated and unwise in an era when “SuperPACs” can raise and spend huge amounts of money to promote candidates because they are independent.

If so, they asked, why shouldn’t the parties be free to raise money and coordinate their campaign ads with the candidates?

Under the current limits, the Federal Election Commission says an individual donor may give only $3,500 to a candidate seeking a federal office, but $132,900 to the national party committees.

Since the 1970s, however, federal election law has limited the parties from funding the campaigns of their candidates on the grounds that it could allow wealthy donors to buy influence.

But the court’s conservatives have repeatedly ruled that campaign money is protected as free speech under the 1st Amendment.

In the Citizens United case of 2010, they struck down the laws that restricted election spending by individuals, companies, unions and other groups.

Left standing were the rather low limits on direct contributions to candidates as well as the limits on how much parties could contribute to directly support candidates.

The limitations on parties and how they support their candidates have been disputed for decades.

The Supreme Court upheld the limits by a 5-4 vote in 2001 and said these “coordinated expenditures” were more like contributions than independent spending, and therefore, could be limited to protect against corruption.

Two years ago, the Biden administration defended the law, and an appeals court upheld it based on the court’s 2001 decision.

But last year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the new challenge in National Republican Senatorial Committee vs. FEC.

Rather than defend the law, the Trump administration sided with the GOP and said the party limits should be struck down.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan looked back to the history of the Watergate era.

“For over half a century, a federal statute has guarded against actual and apparent quid pro quo corruption in our political system by limiting the amount of money a donor can contribute to a candidate,” she said. “The law’s theory is simple: A candidate may be induced to trade official acts for campaign contributions—and the bigger the contribution, the stronger both the candidate’s temptation and the public’s suspicion.

“But today, the court rewrites the rules, to allow circumvention of the contribution limits … and ushers back in the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption that the contribution limits were meant to check.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.

The Democratic National Committee and attorney Marc Elias had stepped in to defend the limits.

He said the parties are free to speak in favor of their candidates but he argued that allowing them to “subsidize the campaign expenses of their candidates” is a contribution that can be regulated.

Otherwise, the “potential for actual or apparent corruption is is obvious,” he said.

The ruling is another election-year boost for the GOP.

Last month, the court’s conservatives ruled the Voting Rights Act did not prevent Republican-controlled states in the South from redrawing congressional districts that favored Black Democrats.

New maps in Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee and Florida are expected to flip several seats in favor of the GOP.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Monday gave President Trump new power to fire the heads of most independent agencies created by Congress — but not the Federal Reserve.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. announced two opinions, one of which bolstered the president’s power as the chief executive and a second which said this authority did not extend to the Federal Reserve board.

The first was a 6-3 decision that had the support of five conservatives, while the second had a 5-4 majority that included the three liberals.

Roberts, a former White House lawyer, has long been skeptical of independent agencies whose officials may wield regulatory power in conflict with the views of the president.

Since the 1880s, however, Congress has at times created independent agencies led by a bipartisan board of experts. In 1935, a unanimous Supreme Court had upheld these multi-member boards and commissions.

But Roberts and the court overturned that precedent and declared it conflicts with the executive power of the president.

“Our Constitution creates three branches, but only one President,” he wrote. “To discharg[e] the duties of his trust, the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. … Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”

The decision upholds Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, one of two Democratic appointees on the five-member Federal Trade Commission.

The Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee to the Federal Trade Commission.

(Graeme Sloan / Bloomberg / Getty Images)

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the ruling “distorts the structure of government to fit the majority’s theory of unitary, total executive control. The result is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before. It is a power, however, that neither the People, nor Congress, nor the Constitution bestowed upon him.”

Under what has been dubbed the “unitary executive” theory, the court’s conservatives believe the president’s executive power in Article II of the Constitution overrides Congress’power in Article I to write the laws and structure the government.

The departments and agencies of the federal government exist only because Congress created them by law.

But in the second opinion, the court blocked Trump’s bid to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook, an appointee of President Biden.

Roberts said the central bank dates back to the nation’s founding, and Congress created the Federal Reserve Board in line with “our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference.”

Trump tried to fire Lisa Cook in a social media post, he said.

But “the Federal Reserve’s Governors do not serve at the President’s pleasure — they instead serve staggered 14-year terms, and may be removed only ‘for cause’,” he wrote.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast a crucial vote to support the Fed’s independence. He said he joined the majority because it “confirms the longstanding historical practice and understanding that the Federal Reserve is an independent agency whose Governors enjoy for-cause removal protection consistent with Article II of the Constitution.”

The court did not finally decide on Cook’s case, except to say she deserved due process of law. She could not be fired without a hearing and evidence, the court said.

The setback for independent agencies came as no surprise, however.

Even prior to Trump’s election, Roberts has insisted agency officials must be accountable and under the control of the president.

Last year, the justices blocked lower court rulings that would have reinstated agency officials who were fired by Trump.

For most of American history, however, it had been understood that Congress had the power to structure the government and to create semi-independent agencies to carry out specific tasks like regulating railroad rates or the money supply.

These agencies and commissions were led by a bipartisan board of experts who were appointed with a fixed term. They could be fired only for cause, not because of a political disagreement with the president.

The Supreme Court upheld these multi-member commissions in 1935 on the grounds their work was more legislative and judicial than simply enforcing the law.

But the court’s current conservative majority has contended these commissions and boards wield executive authority and are therefore, subject to direct control by the president.

In creating such bodies, Congress often was responding to the problems of a new era.

The Interstate Commerce Commission was created in 1887 to regulate railroad rates. The FTC, the focus of the court case, was created in 1914 to investigate corporate monopolies.

The year before, the Federal Reserve Board was established to supervise banks, prevent panics and regulate the money supply.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market and the National Labor Relations Board to resolve labor disputes.

Decades later, Congress focused on safety. The National Transportation Safety Board was created to investigate aviation accidents, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission investigates products that may pose a danger. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission protects the public from nuclear hazards.

Typically, Congress gave the appointees, a mix of Republicans and Democrats, a fixed term and said they could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

Slaughter was first appointed by Trump to a Democratic seat and was reappointed by Biden in 2023 for a seven-year term.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld state laws that allow for counting mail ballots that are postmarked by election day but arrive later.

The 5-4 decision rejects a Republican challenge to laws in California and 13 other mostly Democratic states which permit the counting of these late-arriving ballots.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined with the three liberals to form the majority.

The decision is a mild surprise and should bolster Democrats in the fall election.

While California’s seven-day grace period for mail ballots has contributed to slow tabulations, it has not been shown to trigger fraud or unreliable vote counts.

Election law experts blame slow tallies on the surge in voting by mail combined with the need to carefully match signatures on these ballots.

The court said federal law since 1845 has set election day nationwide as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November and voters were required to cast their ballots that day.

Citing that fact, the Republican National Committee and the Trump administration joined a challenge to a Mississippi law adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic that allowed counting ballots that were up to five days late.

Trump’s lawyers said federal law preempted or overrode the state law.

“From the dawn of America, election day has meant the day the ballot box closes — and when election officials must be in receipt of all ballots,” wrote Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.

Democrats said the Constitution says the “time, place and manner of holding elections” for Congress “shall be prescribed in each state” by its legislature. However, Congress was given the power to override those state rules and set its own regulations for federal elections.

Barrett said the federal election day requires only that the voter must decide by then.

“The election-day statutes require the electorate’s choice to be made on election day. That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote — as it is in Mississippi,” she wrote. “But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.”

While Congress could have prohibited the counting of late-arriving ballots, it had not done so. That may be because states wanted to count ballots from members of the military stationed overseas even if they arrived late.

Last year, however, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans struck down Mississippi’s law that allowed for counting ballots that were cast by election day but arrived up to five days later.

The opinion by three judges, all Trump appointees, concluded that the election day set by Congress “is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials.”

In its appeal, Mississippi stuck with a states’ rights view and argued that the federal election-day statutes mean that ballots must be cast — not received — by election day.

“This is a victory for voters and for an election system that meets the needs of the people it serves,” said Common Cause President Virginia Kase Solomón. “Eligible Americans shouldn’t lose their voice because of mail delays outside their control.”

WASHINGTON — Holiday gatherings and major life events have come with an empty seat. Certain dates on the calendar meant time at a cemetery, standing before granite stones.

They are a relatively small group of people, scattered across different states, but they share a common bond that stretches decades: Each had a family member die violently in the struggle for voting and civil rights, victims on a long and difficult path marked by blood that ended when the country seemed to mature into the nation of its creed.

But 61 years later, and as the country approaches its 250th anniversary this weekend, those sacrifices are in question. In a series of decisions over the last dozen years, including one in April, the Supreme Court has essentially dismantled the law that their family members died to see enacted, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

“My mother’s blood is on that bill. We were always proud of that, and now it’s gone,” said Anthony Liuzzo, whose mother, Viola Liuzzo, died on an Alabama highway between Selma and Montgomery while driving marchers in 1965.

Critics of the law contend that times have changed, an argument Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. made in a 2013 decision that was the first major step in rolling back the law.

Survivors of lost loved ones disagree, pointing to the speed with which Republican-led state legislatures eliminated majority-Black congressional districts after the court’s April ruling, which severely weakened a section of the law that had protected voting rights for minority communities. They feel anger and sadness that a milestone political victory decades ago has been reversed, but they are committed to keep fighting.

A church bombing and a chunk of concrete

Lisa McNair was born Sept. 19, 1964. Her older sister, Denise, died in the Sept 15, 1963, bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. The church had been a central organizing point for civil rights protest.

The explosion killed Denise McNair, 11, and 14-year-olds Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robertson and Cynthia Morris Wesley. Nearly two dozen others were injured. Three Ku Klux Klansmen were convicted years later.

One of Lisa McNair’s early memories of her sister was of the box that their grandmother kept from the funeral home. It included Denise McNair’s shoes, a purse and a rock-sized piece of concrete that had been embedded in her skull.

The crime brought the civil rights struggle onto the national stage and outraged President Kennedy.

The times were tumultuous, McNair said, but it seemed the nation was heading in the right direction. Most of her life, “I’ve seen advances” on television, in commercials, with interracial marriages, civil rights and voting rights, “a plethora of rights that we got over the greater part of my lifetime.” But that has changed, she said.

McNair, 61, said she is “physically sick” about the Supreme Court decision and subsequent actions by lower courts and legislatures.

“I am constantly working to pray my way through it, so I can get up and go to work in the morning and do what I need to do. But I just want to ask every white person I see, ‘What more do you want?;” she said. “‘Why do you hate us so?’”

They left for Freedom Summer and never came home

Michael Schwerner, known as Mickey, came from a family in which human rights activism and challenging social norms were expected. He was in Mississippi in 1964 as part of Freedom Summer when he, Andrew Goodman and James Chaney vanished one day in June while investigating a bombing at a Black church.

Their bodies were found weeks later, buried in an earthen dam in a rural area of Neshoba County. Schwerner, 24, and Goodman, 20, were white; Chaney, 21, was Black.

Stephen Schwerner, who died earlier this year and was a social activist in his own right, told the Associated Press in a 2023 interview that as soon as the family heard his younger brother and the other men were missing, they knew they were dead.

“Our family was very out front in the media that the only reason there was international attention was two of the young men were white,” said Stephen’s daughter, Cassie Schwerner. “Had all three of those young men been Black, they would have ended up absent from our history and our narrative.”

The executive director of Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility, Cassie Schwerner, said her family has followed voting rights through their ups and downs. That includes the 2013 Supreme Court decision that allowed states and counties with a history of discriminatory voting rules to make changes without prior approval from the Department of Justice.

The court’s April decision, she said, brought rage “and a good deal of sadness — not for me and my family, but for this country.” There is, she said, work to be done on multiple fronts.

Rights paid for in blood turned out to be fragile

Tamara Orange said among her many thoughts when she heard of the Supreme Court decision in this year’s Voting Rights Act case, there was relief — “relief that my dad is not here to see that; that Jimmie Lee Jackson is not here to see it; that Viola Liuzzo is not here to see it,” she said. “I’m relieved for them because to me, it’s as though the sacrifices that were made were done in vain.”

Her father, James Orange, was working with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to organize voting rights protests in Marion and Perry County, Ala., in 1965. When juveniles joined the effort, he was arrested for contributing to the delinquency of minors. Concern arose that Orange was going to be taken out of the jail and lynched.

A protest to intervene ended with Jackson, a 26-year-old Black church deacon, being shot in the stomach by a state trooper while Jackson tried to shield his mother and grandfather.

His death was the catalyst for what became the Selma-to-Montgomery march and “Bloody Sunday.”

Orange stayed in the movement all his life and died in 2008, Tamara Orange said. But even after the Voting Rights Act passed, “he would say, ‘Be careful or we’re going to lose it.’”

‘We got bad news for you’

Anthony Liuzzo had just turned 10 when his mother, 39, left their middle-class neighborhood in Michigan and headed for Selma. She had cried as she watched scenes from “Bloody Sunday” on television.

Viola Liuzzo participated in a portion of the second march and then helped drive other civil rights protesters around the Black Belt region of the state. On March 25, 1965, she was driving one protester between Selma and Montgomery when a vehicle pulled alongside and fired into the car.

The phone call came around midnight. Anthony Liuzzo remembers the caller asking his dad, “Is your wife Viola? We got bad news for you. She’s been shot.” When his father asked whether she was all right, the caller said, “No, she’s dead,” and then hung up.

An informant for the FBI quickly identified members of the Ku Klux Klan as her killers. The three men charged would escape conviction on state charges but be convicted in federal court.

Anthony Liuzzo and his siblings lived with the lost birthdays and other missed milestones. His comfort was that the voting rights she had died for had become a reality. But the April ruling by the Supreme Court and the subsequent rush by Republican-led legislatures in several Southern states to eliminate congressional districts represented by Black lawmakers left him angry and distraught.

Even so, he said he is still proud his mother had the courage to go to Selma “when others sat in their pretty little houses.”

One morning, the Klan returned

The inscription at the bottom of Vernon Dahmer Sr.’s tombstone reads simply: “If you don’t vote, you don’t count.”

It is a message that embodies his life’s work and the story behind his death.

Even after President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, not every state was eager to implement the new law. In Mississippi, it came with a poll tax. The amount was $2, but in a world where a farmworker’s wages might only be $5 a day, that was substantial, said Dahmer’s son, Dennis Dahmer Sr.

The elder Dahmer, 57 at the time of his death, was a successful businessman who owned a store, sawmill and farm near Hattiesburg. He also was a civil rights leader and NAACP president in Ford County. He offered to pay the $2 for Black residents who wanted to register to vote.

He had already been under scrutiny by the local Ku Klux Klan. There was harassment and there were threatening phone calls. The windows were shot out of his store, but no one challenged him directly because his sons were always present and armed.

That seemed to tail off after Johnson signed the law.

“The Klan quit calling,” Dennis Dahmer said. “They quit shooting out the windows, so my family thought that all of this was behind us.”

That changed in the early hours of Jan. 10, 1966, when two carloads of Klansmen showed up. They firebombed the house and adjacent grocery store and began shooting at the house. The elder Dahmer shot back, using his ample arsenal to fight off the attack.

His wife and the three children who were home survived, but he suffered severe injuries from inhaling the smoke and fumes from the flames. He died later that day.

Dennis Dahmer was 12 as he stood next to his dad’s hospital bed. He wondered why some people wanted his father dead just for trying to help Black people vote.

A former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, Sam Bowers, was convicted in 1998 for the attack and sentenced to life in prison.

Like the families of other survivors, Dennis Dahmer’s family has witnessed the methodical dismantling of the Voting Rights Act.

“Finally, they basically turned it into a relic,” he said.

His plan now is activism, to speak out and promote the need for a massive voter turnout. He also wants to remind people of the price that certain families paid for everyone to have the right to vote and be represented by someone of their choosing.

“We’re living in a time when America has a lot of the same characteristics of the 1960s that I grew up in,” he said. “People say, ‘Are we going back?’ Hell, we’re already there.”

Fields writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON  — Licensed gun owners have a right to carry a concealed firearm into stores and other private places unless the owner objects, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The 6-3 decision extends gun rights and strikes down laws in Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey and Maryland.

Those measures would prohibit carrying guns onto private property that is open to the public unless the owner has expressly authorized them.

“This regime hobbles what the 2nd Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives. We hold that the law is unconstitutional,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said for the court.

The new laws, if upheld, would “impose severe restrictions on the daily activities of residents who have satisfied the state’s rigorous requirements for the issuance of a carry permit. When these permit holders leave home in the morning, … they may also be barred from entering many places that people routinely visit in the course of their daily routines, such as gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants, coffee shops, drug stores, grocery stores, ‘big box’ stores, home improvement stores, barber shops or hair salons, dry cleaners, and laundromats.”

The three liberals dissented, saying the law would protect property owners who don’t want guns in their stores.

“There is no constitutional right to enter private property without the owner’s permission, let alone with a firearm,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Trump administration lawyers had joined a coalition of Hawaii gun owners in urging the court to strike down these blue state laws in the case of Wolford vs. Lopez.

They said the laws, if enforced, would mean “a person carrying a handgun for self-defense commits a crime by entering a mall, a gas station, a convenience store, a supermarket, a restaurant or a coffee shop.”

This litigation is part of much broader debate over where guns may be permitted or prohibited.

Four years ago, the justices ruled that law-abiding persons had a right to obtain a permit to carry a concealed gun when they left home. They also agreed there are “sensitive places” where guns may be prohibited, such as schools, courts and other government buildings.

In response, lawmakers in California and Hawaii adopted their own lists of “sensitive places.” They imposed restrictions on concealed weapons at parks, beaches, playgrounds, places of worship and public transit as well as bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

Gun owners sued but the 9th Circuit Court refused to block most of those restrictions in a single 83-page opinion covering Hawaii and California. Both states would prohibit carrying guns onto private property open to the public without the owner’s consent.

The 9th Circuit upheld that measure in principle but said California went too far by requiring the owner to post a prominent sign expressly authorizing guns.

“While today’s ruling in Wolford is disappointing, owners still have every right to decide whether firearms are allowed in their stores and businesses,” said Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment Litigation at Everytown Law. “The Supreme Court may have changed the default rule, but it cannot take away a private property owner’s authority over their own land.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition said the court had properly protected gun rights and barred states from carving out their “own regional version of the 2nd Amendment.”

“The historical record does not support forcing peaceable people to obtain advance permission before carrying for self-defense in places held open to them,” the group said.

Last week, the court upheld gun rights in a Texas case and said the government may not make it a crime for an “unlawful user” of a drug such as marijuana to own a gun.

WASHINGTON — Asylum seekers may be turned away without a hearing at the southern border, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a historic retreat from the promise of relief for those who say they are fleeing persecution.

The justices split over whether this was a simple dispute over legal wording or a moral question involving desperate families.

Siding with the Trump administration, the court’s conservatives said the Refugee Act of 1980 offers a right to seek asylum to migrants who “arrive in the United States” but not those who are turned back when they approach a border crossing or a port of entry.

“This case presents a straightforward question” that turns on the word “in,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place — for example, a house, a city, or a country — before the person enters that place.”

The liberal dissenters agreed with immigration rights lawyers who saw this as a nonsensical reading of the law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the asylum law arose from the “international moral reckoning that followed the Holocaust and World War II.”

She cited the infamous voyage of the MS St. Louis in 1939. More than 900 Jewish refugees attempted to flee persecution in Nazi Germany by setting sail aboard the ship, which was turned away from Cuba and the United States.

Most of the passengers were returned to Europe, and several hundred died in the Holocaust, she said.

“Congress passed the Refugee Act in 1980 because it did not want this country to repeat the mistakes of its past. Yet if the refugees on the M.S. St. Louis were to walk up to a port of entry on our southern border today, the majority’s interpretation would allow immigration officers to refuse even to consider their asylum applications by physically blocking them from stepping foot onto U. S. soil,” Sotomayor wrote.

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.

The decision upholds a turn-back policy that began in 2016 as an emergency response to a surge of Haitian immigrants at the San Ysidro border crossing.

The Department of Homeland Security said these asylum seekers must wait on the Mexican side of the border until they could return for a scheduled interview. The policy was extended to other border crossings, but it was challenged as illegal in federal court in San Diego.

Last year, a divided 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that those restrictions were illegal if they prevented migrants from applying for asylum.

“To ‘arrive’ means ‘to reach a destination,’” wrote Judge Michelle Friedland. “A person who presents herself to an official at the border has ‘arrived.’”

She said the “government’s reading would reflect a radical reconstruction of the right to apply for asylum because it would give the executive branch vast discretion to prevent people from applying by blocking them at the border.”

The 2-1 decision upheld a federal judge in San Diego who ruled for migrants who had filed a class-action suit and said they were wrongly denied an asylum hearing.

But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to review and reverse the appellate ruling, noting 15 judges of the 9th Circuit joined dissents that called the decision “radical” and “clearly wrong.”

The administration argued federal immigration law “does not grant aliens throughout the world a right to enter the United States so that they can seek asylum.”

From abroad, they may “seek admission as refugees,” Sauer said, but the government may enforce its laws by “blocking illegal immigrants from stepping on U.S. soil.”

Defenders of the asylum system denounced the decision.

“We believe that today’s ruling violates international law, as well as the express intent of Congress,” said Erika Pinheiro, executive director of the migrant support organization Al Otro Lado, which led the legal fight. “For decades, the United States has allowed individuals and families who are fleeing persecution, torture and death to ask for protection at U.S. borders.”

“Cruelty is not a substitute for real solutions. Blocking people from seeking asylum at official ports of entry will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system, said Rebecca Cassler, senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council. “It only makes things more chaotic and dangerous for vulnerable families.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform applauded the decision.

“Our immigration laws are written to be pro-enforcement, not-anti-enforcement,” said Christopher J. Hajec, deputy general counsel of FAIR. “Because of this, courts that hamstring enforcement are often forced to violate basic logic, as the 9th Circuit did here. We are pleased the Supreme Court saw that the lower court’s reading would make immigration law incoherent, and reversed.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Wednesday he would not sign the landmark housing bill Congress passed this week as scheduled, in a striking decision to jeopardize a rare bipartisan success in order to demand that lawmakers pass voter ID legislation.

It escalated tension between Trump and Senate Republicans, which had already neared a breaking point this week over the proof-of-citizenship bill, dubbed the SAVE America Act. GOP leaders have told Trump the bill does not have the votes to pass.

“Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency,” Trump wrote online.

The president’s willingness to threaten a bill that he could have framed as a win on affordability ahead of the midterm elections is a remarkable gamble as Republicans fight to keep House control.

The reversal also underscored Trump’s fixation on asserting some federal control over elections processes and his apparent indifference to the cost-of-living issues that voters are most focused on. He has repeatedly dismissed affordability as a “fake” concept, and inaccurately claimed on Sunday that the U.S. has the “BEST ECONOMY EVER.”

Last week, polls from NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll and Fox News poll showed record dissatisfaction with the economy among Americans and Trump’s support slipping among key demographics. Trump also lashed out about that on Truth Social on Wednesday morning, writing without evidence: “MY REAL POLL NUMBERS ARE THE HIGHEST THEY HAVE EVER BEEN. THANK YOU!!!”

The housing bill, which passed with overwhelming support in the House on Tuesday evening and the Senate on Monday, aims to boost housing supply. It is the most significant legislation Congress has passed on housing in more than 30 years, and it contains a host of provisions aimed at removing regulatory barriers, improving federal programs and incentivizing new building.

As president, Trump has 10 days to sign or veto bills after they are presented. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) indicated to reporters Wednesday that a signing could still be on the table, saying he had spoken to Trump about “delaying” the housing bill before the president announced the cancellation.

Johnson said he had promised an effort to advance the SAVE America Act.

“He decided — I didn’t announce it, I wanted him to announce it — but we’re delaying this,” Johnson said. “As you know, he has a window of time before he has to sign a bill and he’s going to use a little bit more of that window of time and we’re gonna go through this together.”

Bill Owens, chairman of the National Assn. of Home Builders, telegraphed hope that the legislation would be signed at some point.

“Although there was no bill signing today, we are confident the 21st Century Road to Housing Act will eventually become law,” said Owens, a home builder and remodeler from Worthington, Ohio.

Democrats were shocked, angry and confused when they found out about the cancellation Wednesday morning, according to a source within the House Committee on Financial Services, which led the legislation.

Lawmakers believed the bill was a done deal and are now scrambling, the person said. A stage for the bill signing had already been set up in the Capitol when Trump posted online. The night before, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt had posted on X: “Tomorrow’s historic bill signing is another promise made, promise kept.”

Frustration with the president has been steadily mounting among Senate Republicans for more than a month, triggered by a host of issues including Trump’s endorsement of Republican primary challengers to sitting lawmakers. On Tuesday, four Republican senators joined with Democrats to approve a war powers resolution seeking to block U.S. military action in Iran.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has told Trump the SAVE America Act doesn’t have enough support to pass, the Associated Press reported this week.

The legislation would require voters to provide proof of citizenship when they register, require Americans show identification when casting a ballot and require states to send voter data to the Department of Homeland Security. Voting rights advocates say it would create unnecessary barriers to voting for citizens.

The effort is rooted in Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud and cheating by Democrats. He has said the bill would “guarantee” the midterms for Republicans.

Trump has previously called for the federal government to “nationalize” elections and “take over” voting in some states. He renewed accusations against Democrats of cheating in California this month.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) said Trump was holding the bill hostage in a bid “to control California’s elections.”

“The stage was set both physically and metaphorically for the president to sign a historic housing bill for the American people,” said Sherman, who contributed a provision to the housing bill that would help disabled veterans get rental assistance. “Trump must put his ego aside and put the American people first and sign this bill into law.”

Less than an hour before Trump posted online that he had canceled the bill signing, he labeled the legislation “the Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren centric housing bill” in a Truth Social post, and railed about the SAVE America Act.

“That is what Americans, both Dumocrats, Republicans, and everyone else, care about. Get the bad Republicans to approve it or, better yet, Terminate the Filibuster and approve it, AND EVERYTHING ELSE REPUBLICANS HAVE EVER DREAMED OF,” Trump wrote.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who was one of the four bipartisan lawmakers leading the deal across the two chambers, said Wednesday morning on CNBC that Trump’s reversal “doesn’t make any sense.”

“It’s a complete indifference to the cost squeeze on American families and to genuine efforts to do something about it,” Warren said. “He could be over here claiming a victory lap and instead he’s saying no, no, he doesn’t want anything to do with it.”