Supreme Court

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday the Trump administration may deport criminal migrants to South Sudan or Libya even if those countries are deemed too dangerous for visitors.

By a 6-3 vote, the conservative majority set aside the rulings of a Boston-based judge who said the detained men deserved a “meaningful opportunity” to object to being sent to a strange country where they may be tortured or abused.

The court issued an unsigned order with no explanation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a 19-page dissent and was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the Government took the opposite approach,” she said. “I cannot join so gross an abuse of the Court’s equitable discretion.”

Last month, the government put eight criminal migrants on a military plane bound for South Sudan.

“All of these aliens had committed heinous crimes in the United States, including murder, arson, armed robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault of a mentally handicapped woman, child rape, and more,” Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer told the court. They also had a “final order of removal” from an immigration judge.

But U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston said the flight may have defied an earlier order because the men were not given a reasonable chance to object. He said the Convention Against Torture gives people protection against being sent to a country where they may be tortured or killed.

He noted the U.S. State Department had warned Americans: “Do not travel to South Sudan due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict.”

Sauer said this case was different from others involving deportations because it dealt with the “worst of the worst” among immigrants in the country without authorization. He said these immigrants were given due process of law because they were convicted of crimes and were given a “final order of removal.”

However, their native country was unwilling to take them.

“Many aliens most deserving of removal are often the hardest to remove,” he told the court. “As a result, criminal aliens are often allowed to stay in the United States for years on end, victimizing law-abiding Americans in the meantime.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the plane landed at a military base in Djibouti.

In April, Murphy said “this presents a simple question: before the United States forcibly sends someone to a country other than their country of origin, must that person be told where they are going and be given a chance to tell the United States that they might be killed if sent there?”

He said the plaintiffs were “seeking a limited and measured remedy … the minimum that comports with due process.”

SACRAMENTO — California really does still have a Legislature, even if you haven’t been reading or hearing much about it. In fact, it’s currently making a ton of weighty decisions.

They’ll affect many millions of Californians — with a gamut of new laws and hefty spending.

But the lawmakers’ moves have been slipping under the news radar because of our focus on more compelling non-Sacramento events — including protests against overzealous federal immigration raids in Los Angeles, President Trump’s power trip of calling up the California National Guard over Gov. Gavin Newsom’s objections and Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla’s being shoved to the floor and handcuffed for simply trying to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question.

Plus congressional wrangling over Trump’s “Big Beautiful” ugly, debt-hiking bill — and the eruption of a Middle East war.

Meanwhile, it’s one of the busiest and most important periods of the year in the state Capitol. This is budget time, when the Legislature and governor decide how to spend our tax dollars.

The Legislature passed a $325-billion so-called budget June 13, beating its constitutional deadline by two days. If it hadn’t, the lawmakers would have forfeited their pay. But although that measure counted legally as a budget, it lacked lots of details that still are being negotiated between legislative leaders and Newsom.

The final agreements will be tucked into a supplementary measure amending the main budget bill. That will be followed by a long line of “trailer bills” containing even more policy specifics — all currently being hammered out, mostly in back rooms.

The target date for conclusion of this Byzantine process is Friday. The annual budget will take effect July 1.

Some budget-related issues are of special interest to me and I’ve written about them previously. So, the rest of this column is what we call in the news trade a “follow” — a report on where those matters stand.

Prop. 36

For starters, there’s Proposition 36 funding.

Californians cast more votes for Proposition 36 last year than anything else on the ballot. The measure passed with 68% of the vote, carrying all 58 counties.

Inspired by escalating retail theft, the initiative toughened penalties for certain property and hard-drug crimes, such as peddling deadly fentanyl. But it offered a carrot to drug-addicted serial criminals. Many could be offered treatment rather than jail time.

Proposition 36 needs state money for the treatment, more probation officers to supervise the addicts’ progress and additional law enforcement costs. The measure’s backers estimate a $250-million annual tab.

Newsom, however, was an outspoken opponent of the proposition. He didn’t provide any funding for it in his original budget proposal and stiffed it again last month when revising the spending plan.

But legislative leaders insisted on some funding and agreed on a one-time appropriation of $110 million.

Woefully inadequate, the measure’s backers contend. They’re pushing for more. But some fear Newsom might even veto the $110 million, although this seems doubtful, given the public anger that could generate.

Greg Totten, chief executive of the California District Attorneys Assn., which sponsored the initiative, says more money is especially needed to hire additional probation officers. Treatment without probation won’t work, he insists.

Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) is trying to change the $110-million allocation mix. There’s nothing earmarked for county sheriffs who now are handling lots more arrests, she says.

“I want to make sure we uphold the voters’ wishes and are getting people into drug treatment,” Blakespear says. “This passed by such a high percentage, it should be a priority for elected officials.”

Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) predicts the Legislature will still be fiddling with the budget until it adjourns in September and vows: “I’ll continue to advocate for adequate funding for 36.” He asserts the budget now being negotiated won’t hold up because of chaos under Trump, who’s constantly threatening to withhold federal money due California.

Healthcare for immigrants

Another sticky issue is state-provided healthcare for immigrants living here illegally.

Newsom and the Democratic-controlled Legislature decided a few years ago to generously offer all low-income undocumented immigrants access to Medi-Cal, California’s version of federal Medicaid for the poor.

But unlike Medi-Cal for legal residents, the federal government doesn’t kick in money for undocumented people. The state foots the entire bill. And it didn’t set aside enough. Predictably, state costs ran several billion dollars over budget.

The Newsom administration claims that more adults enrolled in the program than expected. But, come on! When free healthcare is offered to poor people, you should expect a race to enroll.

To help balance the books, Newsom proposed $100 monthly premiums. The Legislature reduced that to $30. They both agreed to freeze enrollments for adults starting Jan. 1.

The Legislature also wants to freeze Medi-Cal enrollment for even more people who are non-citizens: those with what it considers “unsatisfactory immigration status.” What does that mean? Hopefully it’s being negotiated.

Delta tunnel

And there’s the matter of the governor’s proposed water tunnel in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Newsom tried to squeeze the controversial issue into the budget process, although it had nothing to do with the budget. But as a budget trailer bill, it could avoid substantive public hearings in the Legislature.

The governor wants to “fast-track” construction of the $20-billion, 45-mile tunnel that would transmit more Northern California water to Southern California. Delta farmers, local residents and coastal salmon interests are adamantly opposed. Fast-track means making it simpler to obtain permits and seize property.

Legislative leaders told the governor absolutely “No”: come back later and run his proposal through the ordinary committee process. Don’t try to fast-track the Legislature.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: ‘A good day’: Detained U.S. citizen said agents bragged after arresting dozens at Home Depot
The visit: Vice President JD Vance rips Newsom, Bass and mocks Padilla during visit to Los Angeles
The L.A. Times Special: Welcome to the deportation resistance, Dodgers. What’s next?

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

June 21 (UPI) — Louisiana can not compel officials to display the Ten Commandments in public school and college classrooms, a federal appeals court has ruled.

“Parents and students challenge a statute requiring public schools to permanently display the Ten Commandments in every classroom in Louisiana. The district court found the statute facially unconstitutional and preliminarily enjoined its enforcement. We affirm,” the appeals court panel said in its 50-page ruling issued this week.

The court ruled Louisiana’s House Bill 71 violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, calling the requirement to display the Ten Commandments “plainly unconstitutional” while affirming a lower court ruling.

“The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Plaintiffs satisfied the preliminary injunction elements,” the appeals court wrote, citing a similar law and subsequent ruling in Kentucky in the 1980s.

Last June, Gov. Jeff Landry, R-La., signed the bill, requiring that “each public school governing authority shall display the Ten Commandments in each classroom in each school under its jurisdiction.”

The law went into effect on Jan. 1 of this year but was challenged by a group that included parents and the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana.

The appeals court panel agreed the law subjected students to “a state-preferred version of Christianity.”

All but five of the state’s school districts are required to follow the law while the legal process plays out. The five districts where the parent plaintiffs live have a temporary exemption.

“We believe that our children should receive their religious education a thome and within our communities, not from government officials,” Rev. Darcy Roake, one of the plaintiffs in the case said in a statement following the ruling.

“We are grateful for this decision, which honors the religious diversity and religious-freedom rights of public school families across Louisiana,” said Roake, who is a Unitarian Universalist Minister.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill has indicated she will now seek appeal from the appeals court’s full judge panel and could attempt to have the case heard in front of the Supreme Court of the United State.

“We strongly disagree with the Fifth Circuit’s affirmance of an injunction preventing five Louisiana parishes from implementing HB71. We will immediately seek relief from the full Fifth Circuit and, if necessary, the United States Supreme Court,” Murrill said in a statement.

“We will immediately seek relief from the full FIfth CIrcuit and, if necessary the United States Supreme Court.”

June 20 (UPI) — Harvard University received good news on two fronts Friday — the courts and President Donald Trump — in its fight with the federal government on funding and foreign students.

A federal judge in Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction that would continue blocking Trump efforts to bar international students from attending the private university.

Judge Allison D. Burroughs, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, previously had issued a temporary block halting the moves by Trump, though her decision can be appealed to the circuit court and ultimately the Supreme Court.

Shortly afterward at 3:40 p.m. EDT, Trump posted on Truth Social that a deal could be reached with the Ivy League school in Cambridge, Mass., after billions of dollars in grants were paused as the school faced accusations of anti-Semitism.

“Many people have been asking what is going on with Harvard University and their large-scale improprieties that we have been addressing, looking for a solution. We have been working closely with Harvard, and it is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so,” Trump said.

“They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right. If a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be ‘mindbogglingly’ HISTORIC, and very good for our Country. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon last week said: “We are, I think, making progress in some of the discussion, where even though they have taken a hard line, they have, for instance, replaced their head of Middle East Studies.” Her comments came during a moderated conversation with Bloomberg in Washington, D.C.

The Education Department has frozen $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and contracts to Harvard University after the school rejected its demands to make policy changes and “uphold federal civil rights laws.” Halted were science and medicine research, including radiation exposure, ALS diagnostics and tuberculosis treatment.

Harvard sued the Trump administration in April, asking for an expedited final decision in the case. Oral arguments are scheduled for July 21. Two dozen universities filed an amicus brief in support of the school this month.

The IRS is considering revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

On June 4, Trump ordered a suspension of international visas for new students seeking to attend Harvard University, accusing the school of failing to report “known illegal activity” carried out by its students.

In a proclamation, Trump said the suspension applies only to new nonimmigrant students who travel to the United States solely or primarily to attend the Massachusetts university. International students are allowed to enter the country to attend U.S. schools under the Student Exchange Visa Program.

In the 2024-2025 academic year, Harvard had nearly 7,000 international students, representing about 27% of its total student body. They came from over 140 different countries. When counting researchers, the total international population at Harvard exceeds 10,000.

This is the case before Judge Burroughs.

The judge, in the three-page decision, blocked the Trump administration from ending Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which was based on a May 22 revocation notice the Department of Homeland Security sent to Harvard administrators.

Burroughs directed the government to “immediately” prepare guidance to alert Trump administration officials to disregard that notice and to restore “every visa holder and applicant to the position that individual would have been absent such Revocation Notice.”

Also, student visa holders shouldn’t be denied entry to the United States.

Burroughs wrote the government must “file a status report within 72 hours of entry of this Order describing the steps taken to ensure compliance with this Order and certifying compliance with its requirements.”

In the May letter, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the administration was revoking Harvard’s ability to enroll international students in part because it had been “perpetuating an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-Hamas sympathies, and employs racist ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ policies.”

Ian Heath Gershenger, an attorney for the university, accused the administration of “using international students as pawns” and targeting Harvard.

Justice Department attorneys instead focused on national security concerns because they do not trust Harvard to vet its international students.

An attorney for the Trump administration previously said that it does not have the same concerns in regard to other schools but that that could change.

June 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld a federal law that allows victims of terrorism to sue two Palestinian entities in U.S. courts.

The decision reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals in the New York-based 2nd Circuit that found the law denied the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority fair legal process.

All nine justices ruled that the bipartisan 2019 law, called the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, does not violate due process rights of the PLO and PA.

The lawsuit and appeal involve cases from the early 2000s and not the Israel-Hamas war and airstrikes between Israel and Iran. It was based on the Antiterrorism Act of 1990, which creates a federal civil damages action for U.S. nationals injured or killed “by reason of an act of international terrorism.”

Founded in 1964, the PLO is internationally recognized as the official representative of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories. The PA, founded in 1994, is the Fatah-controlled government body that exercises partial civil control over the Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 46-page opinion that included a concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas and backed by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wanted to define the boundaries of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Lawsuits by U.S. victims of terrorist attacks in Israel can move forward in American courts.

“It is permissible for the Federal Government to craft a narrow jurisdictional provision that ensures, as part of a broader foreign policy agenda, that Americans injured or killed by acts of terror have an adequate forum in which to vindicate their right to ATA compensation,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

In April, the high court consolidated two cases for arguments: a Justice Department appeal and an appeal by the family of Israeli-American Ari Fuld, who was fatally stabbed at a shopping mall in the West Bank in 2018.

The Biden administration initially intervened in Fuld’s case and another one brought by 11 American families who sued the Palestinian leadership groups and were awarded $650 million in a 2025 trial for several attacks in Israel.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday joined President Trump and congressional Republicans in siding with the oil and gas industry in its challenge to California’s drive for electric vehicles.

In a 7-2 decision, the justices revived the industry’s lawsuit and ruled that fuel makers had standing to sue over California’s strict emissions standards.

The suit argued that California and the Environmental Protection Agency under President Biden were abusing their power by relying on the 1970s-era rule for fighting smog as a means of combating climate change in the 21st century.

California’s new emissions standards “did not target a local California air-quality problem — as they say is required by the Clean Air Act — but instead were designed to address global climate change,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote, using italics to described the industry’s position.

The court did not rule on the suit itself but he said the fuel makers had standing to sue because they would be injured by the state’s rule.

“The fuel producers make money by selling fuel. Therefore, the decrease in purchases of gasoline and other liquid fuels resulting from the California regulations hurts their bottom line,” Kavanaugh said.

Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed.

Jackson questioned why the court would “revive a fuel-industry lawsuit that all agree will soon be moot (and is largely moot already). … This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.”

But the outcome was overshadowed by the recent actions of Trump and congressional Republicans.

With Trump’s backing, the House and Senate adopted measures disapproving regulations adopted by the Biden administration that would have allowed California to enforce broad new regulations to require “zero emissions” cars and trucks.

Trump said the new rules adopted by Congress were designed to displace California as the nation’s leader in fighting air pollution and greenhouse gases.

In a bill-signing ceremony at the White House, he said the disapproval measures “will prevent California’s attempt to impose a nationwide electric vehicle mandate and to regulate national fuel economy by regulating carbon emissions.”

“Our Constitution does not allow one state special status to create standards that limit consumer choice and impose an electric vehicle mandate upon the entire nation,” he said.

In response to Friday’s decision, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said “the fight for fight for clean air is far from over. While we are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow this case to go forward in the lower court, we will continue to vigorously defend California’s authority under the Clean Air Act.”

Some environmentalists said the decision greenlights future lawsuits from industry and polluters.

“This is a dangerous precedent from a court hellbent on protecting corporate interests,” said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “This decision opens the door to more oil industry lawsuits attacking states’ ability to protect their residents and wildlife from climate change.”

Times staff writer Tony Briscoe, in Los Angeles, contributed to this report.

June 20 (UPI) — Fossil fuel companies can challenge California setting stricter emissions standards for cars, the U.S Supreme Court ruled Friday.

California has stipulated that only zero-emission cars will be able to sold there by 2035, with a phased increase in ZEV requirements for model years 2026-2035. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set a fleet-wide average of 49 mpg by model year 2026, with higher standards in the following years.

In the 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court ruled that oil producers have legal standing to sue over California’s clean car standards approved by the U.S. EPA. Dissenting were Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two of the court’s three Democratic-appointed justices.

“This case concerns only standing, not the merits,” Kavanaugh wrote in the 48-page opinion that included two dissents. “EPA and California may or may not prevail on the merits in defending EPA’s approval of the California regulations. But the justiciability of the fuel producers’ challenge to EPA’s approval of the California regulations is evident.”

The Clean Air Act supersedes state laws that regulate motor vehicle emissions, but it allows the EPA to issue a waiver for California. Other states can copy California’s stricter standard.

The states are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia.

The EPA, when Barack Obama was president, granted a waiver for California, but President Trump partially withdrew it during his first term.

When Joe Biden became president in 2021, the EPA reinstated the waiver with the tougher emissions.

Last week, Trump signed a bi-partisan congressional resolution to rescind California’s electric vehicle mandate. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, called this move illegal and will sue over this order.

“You couldn’t buy any other car except an electric-powered car, and in California, they have blackouts and brownouts,” Trump said last week. “They don’t have enough electricity right now to do the job. And, countrywide, you’d have to spend four trillion dollars to build the firing plants, charging plants.”

Gasoline and other liquid fuel producers and 17 Republic-led states sued, arguing California’s regulations reduce the manufacturing of gas-powered cars. The lead plaintiff was Diamond Alternative Energy, which sells renewable diesel, an alternative to traditional petroleum-derived diesel. Valero Energy Corp. also joined in the suit.

Automakers were involved in the case.

California lawyers argue the producers have no legal standing, which requires showing that a favorable court ruling would redress a plaintiff’s injury.

The EPA said consumer demand for electric cars would exceed California’s mandate and hence the regulations wouldn’t have an impact.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the lawsuit.

“If invalidating the regulations would change nothing in the market, why are EPA and California enforcing and defending the regulations?” Kavanaugh wrote.

“The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand and what automakers would otherwise manufacture and sell.”

Sotomayor and Jackson separately wrote the case may become moot.

“I see no need to expound on the law of standing in a case where the sole dispute is a factual one not addressed below,” Sotomayor wrote.

She said she would have sent the case back to the lower court to look at the issue again.

Jackson said her colleagues weren’t applying the standing doctrine evenhandedly and it can erode public trust in judges.

“This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens. Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent,” Jackson wrote.

The ruling does not prevent California and other states from enforcing standards, Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, told The Guardian.

“The standards have saved hundreds of lives, have provided enormous health benefits, and have saved families money,” Patton said. “While the Supreme Court has now clarified who has grounds to bring a challenge to court, the decision does not affect California’s bedrock legal authority to adopt pollution safeguards, nor does it alter the life-saving, affordable, clean cars program itself.”

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is pushing for Congress to pass its signature legislation within the next two weeks, before Independence Day, when lawmakers return home for much of the summer. But their deadline appears to be in jeopardy after a Senate version of the bill released this week prompted blowback from influential Republicans in both chambers.

Widespread public opposition

Senate Majority Leader John Thune speaks along with Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) on Tuesday in the Capitol.

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

The proposal, titled the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, is meant to be the legislative vehicle to pass President Trump’s core campaign promises into law. But the overall price tag of the legislation, its cuts to Medicaid and green energy tax credits, and its tax provisions are dividing the Republican caucus.

The GOP infighting comes as new polling shows a sizable majority of Americans disapprove of the bill. A Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that Americans oppose the legislation by 2 to 1, while 64% said they opposed it in a recent KFF Health Tracking Poll.

The House passed its version of the bill last month with a razor-thin majority. But within days, several House Republicans said they regretted their votes over a host of tangential provisions, such as a line that would prohibit states from regulating artificial intelligence over the next decade.

Now, the Senate bill would hike the federal debt limit by $5 trillion — $1 trillion more than the House language — making Trump’s 2017 business tax credits permanent, expanding tax cuts for seniors and slowing the end of green energy tax breaks that had phased out more quickly in the House version.

The Senate language also introduces its own controversial, niche provisions, such as the removal of suppressors — also known as silencers for guns — from regulation under the National Firearms Act.

Gutting Medicaid, raising deficits

The Senate language, drafted by the Senate Finance Committee, also would make even more drastic cuts to Medicaid, capping provider taxes at 3.5% from 6% by 2031 and imposing even more restrictive work requirements. Those provisions risk key votes in the chamber from GOP members who have expressed concern with funding reductions to the program, including Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Shelly Moore Capito of West Virginia and Josh Hawley of Missouri, among others.

After the Finance Committee draft was released, Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rand Paul of Kentucky, who have advocated for a bill that would reduce annual deficits, said they would not vote for it in its current form. Republicans can only afford to lose three votes in the chamber to pass the bill.

“We’ve got a ways to go on this one,” Johnson said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, of South Dakota, said he would refer the text to the Appropriations Committee, headed by Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, yet another skeptic of the bill.

“Republicans’ ’One Big Beautiful Bill’ is one huge ugly mess that will come at the cost of working families’ health care,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii). “This bill proposes the biggest cut to Medicaid in history, kicking almost 14 million Americans off their insurance.”

Pushback from both GOP wings

Even if it passes the Senate, reconciliation with House Republicans will be a tall order.

“This bill, as the Senate has produced it, is definitely dead if it were to come over to the House in anything resembling its current form,” said Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, a member of the House Freedom Caucus, which advocates for decreased government spending, in a call with reporters.

But the other end of the House GOP caucus, composed of Republican lawmakers from majority Democratic states, also oppose the Senate bill as is.

Those Republicans successfully advocated to raise the cap in state and local tax deductions, to $40,000 for those making $500,000 or less a year. But the Senate version keeps the SALT provisions as is, extending them at a $10,000 cap.

“That is the deal, and I will not accept a penny less,” said Rep. Mike Lawler of New York. “If the Senate reduces the SALT number, I will vote no, and the bill will fail in the House.”

The White House has intensified its push for passage of the bill next month, warning that failure will have dire consequences. “More than 1.1 million jobs in the manufacturing sector and nearly six million jobs overall will be lost” if Trump’s 2017 tax cuts expire, the administration warned in a statement.

The bill also would provide funding for thousands of more agents at the Department of Homeland Security to perform border enforcement, a top priority for the administration that is currently reaching for unconventional resources — from refugee officers to the armed forces — for assistance in its mass deportation efforts.

“It needs to be passed,” Thune told Fox News this week. “We believe that the president and the House, the Senate, are all going to be on the same page when it’s all said and done, and we’ll get a bill that we could put on his desk that he’ll be happy with, and that the American people will benefit from.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Confusion reigns as Trump threatens to intensify L.A. sweeps even as ICE vows shift
The deep dive: The Minnesota Suspect’s Radical Spiritual World
The Times Special: As the Senate loses luster, more members run for governor. Is there a takeaway for Kamala Harris?

More to come,
Michael Wilner

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Reporting from Washington — For those outside Washington, government institutions seem equally dysfunctional. Inside the Beltway, however, the Senate occupies a somewhat special place.

The upper chamber is often revered – especially by its own members — as a more thoughtful, deliberate and collaborative body, where respect for minority viewpoints is baked into cherished rules and precedents.

But one by one, those long-standing traditions that have served as a check against extreme legislation or appointments are being tossed aside amid growing partisanship and a closely divided government.

Rather than nudging senators to compromise, the rules are now a being used in a procedural arms race that threatens to erode the very culture and practice that made the Senate different than the majority-rules House.

“This is the latest manifestation of a changing and declining Senate,” said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution and the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.

Trump made promises to blue-collar voters. Democrats plan to make sure he follows through »

“The polarization between the parties and the intensity of sentiment outside the Senate has already led to changes in norms and practices,” he said. “Our system is not well structured to operate in a period of intense polarization.”

The latest example came Wednesday when GOP lawmakers took the extraordinary step of changing committee rules to advance two of President Trump’s Cabinet nominees without any Democrats in attendance.

Democrats, revealing their own willingness to defy Senate niceties, had boycotted the votes on Steven Mnuchin as Treasury secretary and Rep. Tom Price as head of Health and Human Services as they sought more answers on the nominees’ records.

Now Trump would like to see other Senate rules scrapped to the ensure approval of his Supreme Court nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch, whom Democrats had vowed to block even before his name was revealed.

Democrats are still stinging over Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s refusal for most of last year to grant a vote for President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Supreme Court nominations have rarely been subjected to filibusters, but Democrats are talking about taking such a move against Gorsuch. In response, Republicans are considering changing Senate rules so only 51 votes are needed to end the delaying tactic, rather than the current 60. The move is seen as so severe it’s been dubbed the “nuclear option.”

“I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear,’ because that would be an absolute shame if a man of this quality was caught up in the web,” Trump said Wednesday.

Democrats opened the door themselves in 2013 when they used the nuclear option to push through several of Obama’s judicial and executive nominations, which Republicans had been filibustering.

The final frontier in this procedural war could be ending the use of filibusters on ordinary legislation. That would means that bills — which typically require 60 votes to advance in the Senate — could be moved with a 51-vote simple majority. With Republicans currently holding 52 seats, it would relegate Democrats to bystanders in the Senate.

“What is the Senate if that’s gone?” asked one Senate aide. “It’s just the House.”

The Senate has long been a frustrating place. Its slow pace and cumbersome rules are nothing like the more rambunctious House, where the majority can quickly pass a legislative agenda.

But the founders designed the bicameral system with that unique difference — one chamber to swiftly answer the will of the people, the other for a more measured second look before sending bills on to the White House.

Only in the 20th century did senators create an option for ending a filibuster as a way to cut off prolonged debate.

It all sounds pretty archaic to an increasingly frustrated public that is reeling in an intensely partisan environment.

Trump’s election has only accelerated the pressure to end the civilities of the past. On the Republican side, tea party activists pressured Republicans to jam Obama’s agenda, even if that meant shutting down the government.

Now Democratic voters are marching in the streets to stop Trump, pressuring their party leaders to confront just as aggressively what many fear is a dangerous agenda.

“What we’re seeing now is that the base is more motivated than any of us have ever seen,” said Mark Stanley, spokesman for Demand Progress, a 2-million-member progressive group whose activists will be calling and emailing Democratic senators to oppose Gorsuch. It recently turned out 3,000 people at a Democratic senator’s town hall meeting in Rhode Island to protest his vote for Trump’s CIA director nominee.

“Especially in these unprecedented times we’re in, Democrats have to stick by their principles and do what their constituents are really asking for,” Stanley said.

Though both parties have contributed to the gridlock in the Senate, it was McConnell’s willingness to utilize the filibuster as an ordinary weapon in the Obama era — rather than the occasional cudgel — that is largely seen as having fueled today’s standoff.

McConnell has made it clear that Trump’s Supreme Court nominee will be confirmed even if Democrats mount a filibuster — all but declaring he will use the nuclear option to do so.

Trump and the GOP are charging forward with Obamacare repeal, but few are eager to follow »

Such a move would probably poison legislative operations in the Senate for the foreseeable future.

The prospect has so alarmed some Democrats that they may be willing to hold their nose and vote for Gorsuch to preserve the filibuster. Others are not so sure.

Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats, acknowledges that when he arrived in the Senate in 2013, he, too, was so quickly frustrated by the obstruction that he was willing to consider rules changes.

But the former governor vividly remembers a private meeting of the Democratic caucus when one of the older senators advised the newer arrivals about the importance of the Senate as the cooling body and urged them to think about the long-term ramifications of their actions.

“One of the things that surprise me about this place is that people do things and they expect it’s not going to have results four or five years from now,” King said. “I’ve come to realize the 60-vote majority requires some kind of bipartisan support which ultimately makes legislation better.”

[email protected]

@LisaMascaro

ALSO

Despite talk of GOP unity, Trump’s programs face fight from Republican budget hawks

‘Believe me’: People say Trump’s language is affecting political discourse ‘bigly’

Trump’s rise draws white supremacists into political mainstream: ‘I am winning,’ says David Duke

More coverage of Congress

Live coverage from the campaign trail

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that states may ban hormone treatments for transgender teens, rejecting the claim that such gender-based discrimination is unconstitutional.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices said states are generally free to decide on proper standards of medical care, particularly when health experts are divided.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, writing for the court, said the state decides on medical regulations. “We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,” he said.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the law “plainly discriminates on the basis of sex… By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.” Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.

The ruling upholds laws in Tennessee and 23 other Republican-led states, all of them adopted in the past four years.

Tennessee lawmakers said the number of minors being diagnosed with gender dysphoria had “exploded” in recent years, leading to a “surge in unproven and risky medical interventions for these underage patients.”

California and other Democratic-led states do not prohibit doctors from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones for those under age 18 who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

While the court’s ruling in the Tennessee case should not directly affect California’s law, the Trump administration seeks to prevent the use of federal funds to pay for gender affirming care.

This could affect patients who rely on Medicaid and also restrict hospitals and other medical clinics from providing hormones and other medical treatments for minors.

Wednesday’s decision highlights the sharp turn in the past year on trans rights and “gender affirming” care.

Solicitor Gen. Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, had appealed to the Supreme Court in November, 2023, and urged the justices to strike down the red state laws.

She spoke of a broad consensus in favor of gender affirming care. It was unconstitutional, she argued, for states to ban “evidence-based treatments supported by the overwhelming consensus of the medical community.”

But Republican lawmakers voiced doubt about the long-term effect of these hormone treatments for adolescents.

Their skepticism was reinforced by the Cass Report from Britain, which concluded there were not long-term studies or reliable evidence in support of the treatments.

In his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order condemning “gender ideology extremism.”

He said his administration would “recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.”

His administration later said its ban on gender affirming care for minors would extend to medical facilities receiving federal funds.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s favorite target again this year was the California-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which saw 15 of 16 rulings overturned on review.

For decades, the high court’s conservatives have trained a skeptical eye on the historically liberal appeals court and regularly reversed its rulings, particularly on criminal law and the death penalty.

But by some estimates, this year saw the most Supreme Court reversals of 9th Circuit decisions since 1985. And the range of issues was broad, including immigration, religion, voting rights, property rights and class-action lawsuits.

In four years, President Trump appointed 10 judges to the appeals court, a sprawling Western jurisdiction that includes nine states and two U.S. territories. Presidents Obama and George W. Bush each named seven judges to the 9th Circuit in their eight years in the White House.

Trump’s 9th Circuit picks appeared to have played a significant role this year by pressing for internal review of rulings they didn’t like and joining sharp dissents that drew the interest of the Supreme Court.

“The more people who join the dissents, the more it gets the attention of the conservatives,” said one 9th Circuit judge, speaking on the condition of not being identified by name.

“This year was different,” another judge said. “This year was really different.”

When two owners of fruit-growing operations sued over a 1975 California state regulation that allowed union organizers to enter their property to speak to workers, they lost before a federal judge and the 9th Circuit.

Judge Richard A. Paez of Los Angeles, a Clinton appointee, said in a 2-1 decision that the state rule did not authorize “physical taking” of farmers’ property, as the lawsuit claimed, but rather temporary access to it.

Judge Sandra S. Ikuta of Los Angeles, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote a dissent arguing that the ruling was wrong and should be overturned. She said the state rule takes “an easement from the property owners” and gives it to union organizers, who are free to enter when they choose. In a dissent from the full court’s refusal to reconsider the panel’s decision, seven other 9th Circuit judges, six of them Trump appointees, agreed.

When the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 for the property owners last month, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. cited Ikuta’s dissent. “The access regulation appropriates a right to invade the growers’ property,” he wrote in Cedar Point vs. Hassid. The high court was split along ideological grounds.

The same divide was on display in the justices’ 6-3 decision shielding big donors to conservative charities and nonprofits from having their names disclosed to the California attorney general.

The 9th Circuit, in a 3-0 decision, had upheld the state’s policy of checking donors as an anti-fraud measure, but Ikuta wrote a dissent, joined by four Republican appointees, two of them nominated by Trump. The dissent said the full appeals court should “correct this error.” She argued that experience had shown that conservative donors have suffered “harassment and abuse” when their names have been disclosed.

The Supreme Court agreed to review the ruling, and Roberts cited Ikuta’s dissent in his opinion reversing the 9th Circuit in Americans for Prosperity Foundation vs. Bonta.

“There is still a large cohort of liberal judges” on the 9th Circuit, said Ed Whelan, a conservative legal analyst in Washington, “but there are now many conservative appointees who are vigilant in calling them out.”

In total, 47 judges sit on the 9th Circuit — 24 appointed by Republicans going back to President Nixon, and 23 named by Democrats starting with President Carter.

Many of those judges work part time. Of the full-time jurists, 16 are Democratic and 13 are Republican appointees.

The size of the circuit — the nation’s largest — partly explains why its cases are often subject to Supreme Court review.

“The 9th Circuit is so vastly larger than any other circuit that it is inevitable they are going to take more 9th Circuit cases,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley’s law school.

Although this year’s 9th Circuit reversal rate was unusually high, the high court in fact overturned 80% of all the cases it reviewed, Chemerinsky noted.

Moreover, only a tiny percentage of appellate decisions are reviewed by the Supreme Court. Typically, the 9th Circuit hands down about 13,000 rulings a year.

Chemerinsky noted the Supreme Court overturned several 9th Circuit cases on immigration and habeas corpus, the legal vehicle for releasing someone from detention. “The 9th Circuit is historically more liberal on immigration and habeas cases,” he said.

Some reversals occurred in cases that were not ideological, however: The high court overturned a 9th Circuit decision by Republican appointees on what constitutes a robocall.

Though the Supreme Court split along ideological lines on property rights, voting rights and conservative donor cases from the 9th Circuit, the justices were unanimous in reversing the 9th Circuit in several immigration cases.

On June 1, they overturned a unique 9th Circuit rule set by the late liberal Judge Stephen Reinhardt. Over nearly 20 years, he had written that the testimony of a person seeking asylum based on a fear of persecution must be “deemed credible” unless an immigration judge made an “explicit” finding that they were not to be believed.

In one of his last opinions, Reinhardt approved of asylum for Ming Dai, a Chinese citizen who arrived in the U.S. on a tourist visa and applied for refugee status for himself and his family. He said they were fleeing China’s forced abortion policy.

Only later did immigration authorities learn that his wife and daughter had returned to China because they had good jobs and schooling there, but the husband had no job to return to.

An immigration judge had set out the full story and denied the asylum application, only to be be reversed in a 2-1 ruling by a 9th Circuit panel. The panel cited Reinhardt’s rule and noted that although evidence emerged casting doubt on Dai’s claims, there had been no “explicit” finding by an immigration judge so his story had to be accepted.

“Over the years, our circuit has manufactured misguided rules regarding the credibility of political asylum seekers,” Senior Judge Stephen S. Trott wrote in dissent. Later, 11 other appellate judges joined dissents arguing for scrapping this rule.

Last fall, Trump administration lawyers cited those dissents and urged the Supreme Court to hear the case. They noted the importance of the 9th Circuit in asylum cases. Because of its liberal reputation, “the 9th Circuit actually entertains more petitions for review than all of the other circuits combined,” the lawyers said.

In overturning the appeals court in a 9-0 ruling, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch began by noting that “at least 12 members of the 9th Circuit have objected to this judge-made rule.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered another 9-0 ruling holding that an immigrant arrested for an “unlawful entry” after having been deported years ago may not contest the basis of his original deportation. The 9th Circuit had said such a defendant may argue his deportation was “fundamentally unfair,” but “the statute does not permit such an exception,” Sotomayor said in U.S. vs. Palomar-Santiago.

The high court’s furthest-reaching immigration ruling did not originate with the 9th Circuit, but it nonetheless overturned a 9th Circuit decision.

At issue was whether the more than 400,000 immigrants who had been living and working in the U.S. under temporary protected status were eligible for long-term green cards. The Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit said no, rejecting a green card for a Salvadoran couple who had entered the country illegally in the 1990s and had lived and worked in New Jersey ever since.

The 9th Circuit had taken the opposite view; Trump lawyers cited this split as a reason the high court should take up the New Jersey case. On June 7, Justice Elena Kagan spoke for the high court in ruling that the 3rd Circuit was right and the 9th Circuit wrong. To obtain lawful permanent status, the immigration law first “requires a lawful admission,” she said in Sanchez vs. Majorkas.

The 9th Circuit’s sole affirmance came in a significant case: By a 9-0 vote in NCAA vs. Alston, the justices agreed with the 9th Circuit that college sports authorities could be sued under antitrust laws for conspiring to make billions of dollars while insisting the star athletes go unpaid.

June 16 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a Christian-based pregnancy center’s request, challenging New Jersey over its claim the pro-life group misled women about offering abortion services.

The Supreme Court will decide later this year whether First Choice Women’s Resource Centers can use federal courts to block the state’s attorney general from investigating its donor, advertising and medical personnel records.

First Choice, which provides parenting classes and free ultrasounds to women facing unplanned pregnancies, claims a 2023 subpoena violated its free speech rights.

Attorney General Matthew Platkin “has made no secret of his hostility towards pregnancy centers,” the pro-life group wrote in its petition to the Supreme Court, as it called Platkin’s subpoena “invasive” for demanding access to records.

“State attorneys general on both sides of the political aisle have been accused of misusing this authority to issue demands against their ideological and political opponents,” lawyers for First Choice wrote. “Even if these accusations turn out to be false, it is important that a federal forum exists for suits challenging those investigative demands.”

Platkin argues that the subpoena he issued has yet to be enforced in state court. He also said the donor information he sought was from two websites, which he claimed may have misled people into thinking First Choice provided abortions.

“Nonprofits, including crisis pregnancy centers, may not deceive or defraud residents in our state, and we may exercise our traditional investigative authority to ensure that they are not doing so — as we do to protect New Jerseyans from a range of harms,” Platkin wrote in a statement.

The Supreme Court will focus on whether First Choice sued prematurely, not whether New Jersey’s subpoena was valid, according to Platkin.

“First Choice is looking for a special exception from the usual procedural rules as it tries to avoid complying with an entirely lawful state subpoena,” Platkin added. “No industry is entitled to that type of special treatment — period.”

Lawyers for First Choice said the group is not seeking special treatment and believes their free speech rights are being targeted.

“New Jersey’s attorney general is targeting First Choice simply because of its pro-life views,” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Erin Hawley said in a statement. “The Constitution protects First Choice and its donors from unjustified demands to disclose their identities, and First Choice is entitled to vindicate those rights in federal court.”

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for October.

“We are looking forward to presenting our case to the Supreme Court and urging it to hold that First Choice has the same right to federal court as any other civil rights plaintiff,” Hawley added.

“The First Amendment protects First Choice’s right to freely speak about its beliefs, exercise its faith, associate with like-minded individuals and organizations, and continue to provide its free services in a caring and compassionate environment to people facing unplanned pregnancies.”

June 16 (UPI) — Two court security officers were stabbed in an apparent “targeted attack” while screening people at metal detectors in the Lower Manhattan criminal courthouse on Monday morning, the New York Police Department said.

At about 9:35 a.m, the man ran into the lobby and charged the officers, WCBS-TV reported.

Both officers were taken to a local hospital in stable condition, sources told WABC-TV. One person was slashed in the face and the other stabbed in the neck. A third officer was hurt after being thrown into a barrier.

In the shooting, surveillance video shows the man taking knife out of a bag, running at one of the victims, turning around and attacking the other.

“The assaults, captured on surveillance video, appeared preliminarily to be a targeted attack of the uniformed officers working security details at the courthouse,” a spokesman for the state Office of Court Administration said in a statement. “Several court officers immediately rushed to stop the assailant, subduing him near a bank of magnetometers, disarming him and taking him into custody.”

Police said the unnamed suspect had 18 prior arrests, including assaulting an officer. He is considered emotionally disturbed with past incidents at the courthouse, officials said.

The accused assailant didn’t have a scheduled hearing at the courthouse.

“I’ve been coming here for over 20 years. I’ve never seen an incident of that nature toward the court officers,” criminal defense attorney Charles Miller told WCBS. “It’s very unlikely to see people try to come in with weapons, because there’s magnetometers that would see them. But the overwhelming majority of what I see here are fights that happen between people in the hallway, the general public, usually that are connected in some way to the case.

“That’s why the court staff is primarily here to maintain security and order. Assaults directly against them are rare.”

Patrick Cullen, president of the New York State Supreme Court Officers Association, said the courthouse is at least 15% understaffed.

“Every courthouse needs more people,” Cullen told WCBS. “If somebody came in and attacked our officers right at the entrance, we could have had 100 officers there and this still may have happened, but the fact is that if we had more officers, someone would be less inclined to do this.”