ruling

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court justices sounded ready on Tuesday to uphold state laws that forbid transgender athletes from competing on school sports teams for girls.

Idaho, West Virginia and 25 other Republican-led states say a student’s biological sex at birth should determine who can play on the girls’ or boys’ teams.

They say it is unfair to girls to permit biological males to compete against them in sports like track and field or swimming. “Biological males are, on average, bigger, stronger and faster than biological females,” West Virginia’s state lawyers said.

While the court’s conservative majority court is likely to rule for these states, the justices said they prefer a narrow decision limited to these laws.

If so, such a ruling for the red states will not directly change the law in California and the more than a dozen other Democratic-led states that forbid discrimination based on gender identity. Those laws protect rights of transgender girls to compete on a girls’ team.

A similar dispute came before the court last year.

Then, the conservative justices ruled Tennessee and other red states may prohibit gender-affirming drugs and medical treatments for teenagers who suffer from gender dysphoria.

The 6-3 majority said this was not unconstitutional discrimination based on the teenagers’ transgender status. But that ruling did not strike down the conflicting law in California.

In recent months, the Trump administration joined the transgender sports cases on the side of West Virginia and Idaho.

But its lawyers argued only that the Constitution permits states to exclude transgender girls from girls’ teams. It does not require that they do so, their lawyers said.

Even a West Virginia lawyer agreed. “There is enough room for California to make a different interpretation,” state solicitor Michael R. Williams told the court.

Deputy Solicitor Gen. Hashim Mooppan said these Democratic states “are violating Title IX,” the education law that allows separate sports teams for girls and boys. But he said the court should not rule on that question now.

Last year, in response to the court’s ruling on gender-affirming care, President Trump cut off federal funds to hospitals and medical facilities that provided such care.

A ruling upholding restrictions on transgender athletes could spur the Trump administration to threaten Democratic states with a loss of federal education funds.

Becky Pepper-Jackson, now 15, has carried on a lonely legal fight to compete on her school’s track team in Bridgeport, W.Va.

Designated male at birth, she says she is the only transgender girl competing in her state and has been the target of complaints and protests.

In middle school, Becky participated in cross-country as a sixth-grader and described herself as slow. She “routinely placed near the back of the pack,” her attorneys told the court.

But upon reaching high school, she has been winning.

In 2024, she “placed in the top three in every track event in which B.P.J. competed, winning most,” the state’s attorneys said. Last spring “focusing on strength events, B.P.J. bumped female competitors out of the state tournament, then placed third in the state in discus and eighth in shot put while competing against much older female athletes,” they told the court.

Her attorney, Joshua Block of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she has been winning in the shot put and discus “through hard work and practice.”

He said she “received puberty-delaying medication and gender-affirming estrogen that allowed her to undergo a hormonal puberty typical of a girl.”

He urged the court to rule for Becky because she does not have a physical advantage due to her biology.

But the justices did not sound inclined to rule on the issue of puberty blockers.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ended the first year of President Trump’s second term with a record of rulings that gave him much broader power to control the federal government.

In a series of fast-track decisions, the justices granted emergency appeals and set aside rulings from district judges who blocked Trump’s orders from taking effect.

With the court’s approval, the administration dismissed thousands of federal employees, cut funding for education and health research grants, dismantled the agency that funds foreign aid and cleared the way for the U.S. military to reject transgender troops.

But the court also put two important checks on the president’s power.

In April, the court twice ruled — including in a post-midnight order — that the Trump administration could not secretly whisk immigrants out of the country without giving them a hearing before a judge.

Upon taking office, Trump claimed migrants who were alleged to belong to “foreign terrorist” gangs could be arrested as “enemy aliens” and flown secretly to a prison in El Salvador.

Roberts and the court blocked such secret deportations and said the 5th Amendment entitles immigrants, like citizens, a right to “due process of law.” Many of the arrested men had no criminal records and said they never belonged to a criminal gang.
Those who face deportation “are entitled to notice and opportunity to challenge their removal,” the justices said in Trump vs. J.G.G.

They also required the government to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador. He is now back in Maryland with his wife, but may face further criminal charges or efforts to deport him.

And last week, Roberts and the court barred Trump from deploying the National Guard in Chicago to enforce the immigration laws.

Trump had claimed he had the power to defy state governors and deploy the Guard troops in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., Chicago and other Democratic-led states and cities.

The Supreme Court disagreed over dissents from conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.

For much of the year, however, Roberts and the five other conservatives were in the majority ruling for Trump. In dissent, the three liberal justices said the court should stand aside for now and defer to district judges.

In May, the court agreed that Trump could end the Biden administration’s special temporary protections extended to more than 350,000 Venezuelans as well as an additional 530,000 migrants who arrived legally from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua or Venezuela.

It was easier to explain why the new administration’s policies were cruel and disruptive rather than why they were illegal.

Trump’s lawyers argued that the law gave the president’s top immigration officials the sole power to decide on these temporary protections and that “no judicial review” was authorized.

Nonetheless, a federal judge in San Francisco twice blocked the administration’s repeal of the temporary protected status for Venezuelans, and a federal judge in Boston blocked the repeal of the entry-level parole granted to migrants under Biden.

The court is also poised to uphold the president’s power to fire officials who have been appointed for fixed terms at independent agencies.

Since 1887, when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates, the government has had semi-independent boards and commissions led by a mix of Republicans and Democrats.

But Roberts and the court’s conservatives believe that because these agencies enforce the law, they come under the president’s “executive power.”

That ruling may come with an exception for the Federal Reserve Board, an independent agency whose nonpartisan stability is valued by business leaders.

Georgetown Law Professor David Cole, the former legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the court has sent mixed signals.

“On the emergency docket, it has ruled consistently for the president, with some notable exceptions,” he said. “I do think it significant that it put a halt to the National Guard deployments and to the Alien Enemies Act deportations, at least for the time being. And I think by this time next year, it’s possible that the court will have overturned two of Trump’s signature initiatives — the birthright citizenship executive order and the tariffs.”

For much of 2025, the court was criticized for handing down temporary unsigned orders with little or no explanation.

That practice arose in 2017 in response to Trump’s use of executive orders to make abrupt, far-reaching changes in the law. In response, Democratic state attorneys and lawyers for progressive groups sued in friendly forums such as Seattle, San Francisco and Boston and won rulings from district judges who put Trump’s policies on hold.

The 2017 “travel ban” announced in Trump’s first week in the White House set the pattern. It suspended the entry of visitors and migrants from Venezuela and seven mostly-Muslim countries on the grounds that those countries had weak vetting procedures.

Judges blocked it from taking effect, and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying the order discriminated based on nationality.

A year later, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and upheld Trump’s order in a 5-4 ruling. Roberts pointed out that Congress in the immigration laws clearly gave this power to the president. If he “finds that the entry of … any class of aliens … would be detrimental,” it says, he may “suspend the entry” of all such migrants for as long as “he shall deem necessary.”

Since then, Roberts and the court’s conservatives have been less willing to stand aside while federal judges hand down nationwide rulings.

Democrats saw the same problem when Biden was president.

In April 2023, a federal judge in west Texas ruled for anti-abortion advocates and decreed that the Food and Drug Administration had wrongly approved abortion pills that can end an early pregnancy. He ordered that they be removed from the market before any appeals could be heard and decided.

The Biden administration filed an emergency appeal. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court set aside the judge’s order, over dissents from Thomas and Alito.

The next year, the court heard arguments and then threw out the entire lawsuit on the grounds that abortion foes did not have standing to sue.

Since Trump returned to the White House, the court’s conservative majority has not deferred to district judges. Instead, it has repeatedly lifted injunctions that blocked Trump’s policies from taking effect.

Although these are not final rulings, they are strong signs that the administration will prevail.

But Trump’s early wins do not mean he will win on some of his most disputed policies.

In November, the justices sounded skeptical of Trump’s claim that a 1977 trade law, which did not mention tariffs, gave him the power to set these import taxes on products coming from around the world.

In the spring, the court will hear Trump’s claim that he can change the principle of birthright citizenship set in the 14th Amendment and deny citizenship it to newborns whose parents are here illegally or entered as visitors.

Rulings on both cases will be handed down by late June.

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John Roberts said Wednesday that the Constitution remains a sturdy pillar for the country, a message that comes after a tumultuous year in the nation’s judicial system with pivotal Supreme Court decisions on the horizon.

Roberts said the nation’s founding documents remain “firm and unshaken,” a reference to a century-old quote from President Coolidge. “True then; true now,” Roberts wrote in his annual letter to the judiciary.

The letter comes after a year in which legal scholars and Democrats raised fears of a possible constitutional crisis as President Trump’s supporters pushed back against rulings that slowed his far-reaching conservative agenda.

Roberts weighed in at one point, issuing a rare rebuke after Trump called for the impeachment of a judge who had ruled against him in a case over the deportation of Venezuelan migrants accused of being gang members.

The chief justice’s Wednesday letter was largely focused on the nation’s history, including an early 19th-century case establishing the principle that Congress shouldn’t remove judges over contentious rulings.

While the Trump administration faced pushback in the lower courts, it has scored a series of some two dozen wins on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. The court’s conservative majority has allowed Trump to move ahead for now with banning transgender people from the military, clawing back billions of dollars of congressionally approved federal spending, moving aggressively on immigration and firing the Senate-confirmed leaders of independent federal agencies.

The court also handed Trump a few defeats over the last year, including in his push to deploy the National Guard to U.S. cities.

Other pivotal issues are ahead for the high court in 2026, including arguments over Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship and a ruling on whether he can unilaterally impose tariffs on hundreds of countries.

Roberts’ letter contained few references to those issues. It opened with a history of the seminal 1776 pamphlet “Common Sense,” written by Thomas Paine, a “recent immigrant to Britain’s North American colonies,” and closed with Coolidge’s encouragement to “turn for solace” to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence “amid all the welter of partisan politics.”

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

HONOLULU — A federal judge’s ruling clears the way for Hawaii to include cruise ship passengers in a new tourist tax to help cope with climate change, a levy set to go into effect at the start of 2026.

U.S. District Judge Jill A. Otake on Tuesday denied a request seeking to stop officials from enforcing the new law on cruises.

In the nation’s first such levy to help cope with a warming planet, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green signed legislation in May that raises tax revenue to deal with eroding shorelines, wildfires and other climate problems. Officials estimate the tax will generate nearly $100 million annually.

The levy increases rates on hotel room and vacation rental stays but also imposes a new 11% tax on the gross fares paid by a cruise ship’s passengers, starting next year, prorated for the number of days the vessels are in Hawaii ports.

Cruise Lines International Assn. challenged the tax in a lawsuit, along with a Honolulu company that provides supplies and provisions to cruise ships and tour businesses out of Kauai and the Big Island that rely on cruise ship passengers. Among their arguments is that the new law violates the Constitution by taxing cruise ships for the privilege of entering Hawaii ports.

Plaintiff lawyers also argued that the tax would hurt tourism by making cruises more expensive. The lawsuit notes the law authorizes counties to collect an additional 3% surcharge, bringing the total to 14% of prorated fares.

“Cruise tourism generates nearly $1 billion in total economic impact for Hawai‘i and supports thousands of local jobs, and we remain focused on ensuring that success continues on a lawful, sustainable foundation,” association spokesperson Jim McCarthy said in a statement.

According to court records, plaintiffs will appeal. They asked the judge to grant an injunction pending an appeal and requested a ruling by Saturday afternoon, given that the law takes effect Jan. 1.

Hawaii will continue to defend the law, which requires cruise operators to pay their share of transient accommodation tax to address climate change threats to the state, state Atty. Gen. Anne Lopez said in a statement.

The U.S. government intervened in the case, calling the tax a “scheme to extort American citizens and businesses solely to benefit Hawaii” in conflict with federal law.

Kelleher writes for the Associated Press.

Dec. 15 (Asia Today) — Democratic Party leader Jeong Cheong-rae, whose party holds the presidency, on Monday called for a second, wide-ranging special investigation into an alleged insurrection case, raising questions about Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae after courts rejected arrest warrants for several figures tied to the probe.

Jeong made the remarks at a party Supreme Council meeting at the National Assembly in Seoul, as the mandate of a special prosecutor was set to end. He said the special prosecutor made progress byre-arresting former President Yoon Suk-yeol and referring 24 people to trial, but argued the investigation was constrained by court decisions, including warrant denials.

Jeong said the rejection of warrants for figures such as Choo Kyung-ho was “difficult to accept,” and claimed it fueled suspicions that the judiciary was blocking steps that could lead to broader legal consequences for the People Power Party. He also said the circumstances raised questions about whether Chief Justice Cho may have been involved, citing a meeting on Dec. 3, the day martial law was declared.

Jeong said the Democratic Party would work with the government and presidential office to push for what he called a “second comprehensive special investigation,” and urged a tougher approach without leniency. He said a follow-up probe should also examine allegations involving first lady Kim Keon-hee and issues the current special prosecutor did not fully resolve.

He additionally questioned court case assignment procedures, citing media reports that the treason-related trial was assigned through unusual in-person discussions rather than random distribution. He said the party would pursue legislation to create a specialized court for sedition-related cases.

Jeong also criticized the People Power Party’s use of filibusters, including on bills he said were bipartisan or originally proposed by the party, and said the Democratic Party would seek revisions to parliamentary rules governing the tactic. He offered condolences to victims of a collapse at a construction site at the Gwangju Central Library and called fora thorough investigation.

– Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.