Supreme

Caracas, August 13, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government and representatives of the defunct 2015 National Assembly announced a series of agreements after concluding a first round of talks on Wednesday. 

The two parties will conduct a process aimed at transforming the judicial system as well as promoting the recovery of Venezuela’s gold reserves frozen at the Bank of England to support the country’s reconstruction following the June 24 earthquakes.

The agreement on the judicial overhaul, presented in a joint press conference at the 5-star Melá Hotel in Caracas, effectively replaces the process the Venezuelan National Assembly had launched in May following a reform that increased the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) from 20 to 32 members and a preliminary evaluation of magistrate candidates. 

Instead, the delegations agreed to “renew and expand the judicial nominations committee,” launch a “new nomination process” for the appointment of all Supreme Court justices, and establish a council to review the credentials and requirements of nominees to ensure compliance with the Constitution.

The joint document signed by National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, on behalf of the acting Delcy Rodríguez administration, and Dinorah Figuera, representing the opposition faction, makes no reference to the National Electoral Council (CNE), an issue considered key by anti-government forces. 

Figuera had previously vowed that the dialogue process would produce a new CNE by the end of 2026. Lawmaker Tomás Guanipa said that the opposition considers it “very important” for the issue to be addressed as soon as possible in order to “radically” change the electoral authority.

The negotiators instead prioritized “the recovery of the country’s international reserve assets” held at the Bank of England, while “establishing mechanisms for transparency, traceability, and auditing in their efficient use, to guarantee the well-being of all those affected” by the June 24 double earthquake.

Since 2019, the Bank of England has refused to release 31 tons of gold reserves belonging to Venezuela, which were deposited in 2008. Successive UK governments aligned with Washington in refusing to recognize the Nicolás Maduro government as legitimate. At current gold prices, the reserves are worth approximately US $4 billion.

Wednesday’s agreement likewise included a pledge to “work on strengthening programs for housing, electricity, healthcare, and debris removal.”

Acting President Rodríguez welcomed the “first step” in the dialogue process and urged all political forces to join the talks, “putting the well-being, peace, stability, and development of the country first.”

“I trust that this process will help build a path toward better democratic coexistence among the country’s different political sectors and that it will translate into concrete benefits for Venezuelans,” Rodríguez wrote on Telegram.

Following an initial session on August 6, the delegations held daily meetings split between plenary sessions and working sessions focused on the post-earthquake emergency and judicial and electoral reforms.

Jorge Rodríguez and Figuera pledged that the talks would yield “concrete actions” with “strict compliance with commitments.” The parties are scheduled to meet again in mid-September through both in-person and virtual sessions.

Before Wednesday’s joint press conference, Figuera held separate meetings with opposition groups and NGOs. Anti-government figures demanded that the release of “political prisoners” be a priority in the dialogue framework. Far-right factions have complained that María Corina Machado was not included in the negotiations, though the Unitary Democratic Platform backing her also met with Figuera last Friday.

The latest government-opposition negotiation initiative follows previous iterations, including in the Dominican Republic (2017-18) and Barbados (2023). 

Venezuelan authorities, including Jorge Rodríguez, had fiercely condemned the defunct 2015 opposition-majority legislature for usurping functions and plundering Venezuelan assets abroad. Rodríguez went as far as proposing that Figuera and associates be stripped of their Venezuelan nationality. Despite its mandate expiring in January 2021, a group of opposition lawmakers unilaterally decided to extend the term as the body retained recognition from Washington as Venezuela’s “legitimate government.”

The Trump administration has endorsed the latest dialogue process, with the State Department calling it a “unique opportunity” for a “political transition” in Venezuela.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the White House to resume construction on its $400 million ballroom project while it appeals a lower court’s order to halt the work.

Trump’s solicitor general on Friday petitioned the high court to suspend last week’s decision by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The divided panel ruled last week Trump must stop the White House ballroom’s construction because Congress has not approved the project. The panel’s majority said Trump doesn’t have the unilateral authority to build a 90,000-square-foot ballroom where the White House’s East Wing stood before he ordered its demolition last fall.

The lower court suspended its own ruling for two weeks to give Trump’s Republican administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court. The solicitor general asked the Supreme Court to rule on its stay petition before the appeals court panel’s decision takes effect on Aug. 21.

“This case involves an extraordinary and unlawful injunction that will halt the ongoing construction of the integrated military complex, including a totally secure ballroom space, at the East Wing of the White House, which is vitally required by national security,” the solicitor general wrote.

The lower court’s 2-1 decision sided with historic preservationists who sued to stop construction of the ballroom.

The administration argues that the president, not Congress or the courts, has unimpeded authority to renovate the White House. The current state of the project, essentially an open construction site, makes it harder to protect the White House, the Justice Department contends.

The administration also says the National Trust for Historic Preservation does not have the legal right, or standing, to sue over the ballroom.

During an appeals court hearing in early June, an administration lawyer defended a broad view of presidential control over iconic public facilities.

The government could bulldoze the Statue of Liberty and the White House, Justice Department lawyer Yaakov Roth said in response to a hypothetical question, and the descendants of immigrants who came through Ellis Island and the enslaved people who built the White House would not have standing to sue.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

The Trump administration again on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene — and fast — to save President Trump’s plan for the U.S. Postal Service to place new nationwide limits on mail voting ahead of the November midterms.

It did so after a lower court judge blocked the Postal Service plan from moving forward for a second time on Tuesday.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote to the high court that if it does not act quickly to lift both of the lower court’s “erroneous” rulings blocking the plan, those orders “will effectively run out the clock on the government’s ability to implement” the changes in time for the November election, “thereby causing irreparable harm to the federal government, the public, and election integrity.”

Sauer’s latest argument was filed in an emergency case already before the Supreme Court, in which the Trump administration is challenging a June decision blocking the Postal Service’s rule changes by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani.

Talwani, an appointee of President Obama, ruled in favor of California and 22 other states that had challenged the new rules as coming far too late in the election year to be implemented without causing significant disruptions and harming voters. That decision, which was upheld by an appellate court in July, had barred the new measures from being implemented in the states that sued, but not elsewhere.

However, Sauer filed his latest argument in response to a second ruling by Talwani in a separate case Tuesday, in which she sided with the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups to block the Postal Service plans from moving forward nationwide.

“That it is now less than 90 days before the November 3, 2026 midterm elections underscores the critical need for an injunction to prevent Defendants from changing election rules on the eve of the election,” Talwani wrote.

The court battle follows an executive order Trump issued in March, in which he called on the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure “citizenship verification and integrity in federal elections” by compiling their own state-by-state lists of citizens who are eligible to vote and then using those lists to restrict who may vote by mail in each state.

The order said the Postal Service “shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list.”

The order was immediately slammed by Democratic attorneys general and independent voting rights groups as a ploy by the Trump administration to get its hands on state voter rolls, which it has failed to secure in separate legal challenges, and severely limit mail voting, which Trump has without evidence alleged is a major source of voter fraud.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta helped lead the states’ lawsuit challenging Trump’s order, and has praised Talwani’s orders blocking it from taking effect. Bonta has said the law is clear that states control elections, not the federal government, and that Trump’s order is an illegal and dangerous power grab ahead of a pivotal election in which the president’s party is poised to lose power.

A spokesperson for Bonta’s office said it was aware of Sauer’s filing and considering “next steps” Wednesday.

The Trump administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court is limited in scope, in that it hinges on a technical argument that the challenges to the new rules are premature — and that the Postal Service should be allowed to continue preparing for the new rules to be implemented while the legal battle over their legality continues.

Sauer reiterated that argument in his filing Wednesday, asking the high court to not only issue its order soon, but to make clear in it that not one but both of Talwani’s orders are premature.

He wrote that courts cannot block the implementation of an executive order “that merely instructs agencies to pursue a proposed policy in a manner that is consistent with law,” particularly before those agencies “actually take concrete actions that injure” the groups suing to block the order.

Therefore, Sauer wrote, it would be “prudent” for the high court to make clear that it was halting Talwani’s first order “based on the uncertainty concerning the government’s future actions, not anything specific to the individual plaintiffs” — or, in other words, on grounds that would apply to her second order, too.

He wrote that it was “critical” that the court “act promptly.”

The states have asked the high court to block Trump’s order, which they said would deny mail ballots to “many of the millions of voters who rely on mail voting — especially voters with disabilities and those in rural areas.”

The League of Women Voters hailed Talwani’s order Tuesday as a win for voters and for the U.S. Constitution, which it said makes clear the president does not have the authority to rewrite election rules.

“Millions of Americans, including seniors, military voters, voters with disabilities, rural voters, and citizens living overseas, rely on voting by mail to participate in our democracy,” said Marcia Johnson, the group’s chief of activation and justice. “Today’s decision reaffirms that the rules governing our democracy must be set by the Constitution and the law, not by executive overreach.”

When the high court will rule is unclear, though the emergency nature of the appeal calls for a prompt response.

Brazil’s Supreme Court is set to hear several cases that could reshape protections for the Amazon rainforest, after a mostly conservative Congress overrode several of leftist Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s environmental vetoes.

The court will take up the cases on Wednesday, as lawmakers and environmental groups remain divided over how Brazil should balance economic development with environmental protections.

Deforestation in the Amazon has fallen to its lowest level in a decade during the first half of 2026. The cases put some of Brazil’s most consequential environmental fights before the country’s top court.

Indigenous land rights

On Friday, Brazil’s Supreme Court began reviewing final motions seeking clarification of a 2025 ruling that rejected the “time limit” thesis. The legal theory, backed by Brazil’s agribusiness lobby, restricts Indigenous land claims to territories occupied or under legal dispute when Brazil’s 1988 Constitution took effect.

The agribusiness caucus argues that a cutoff date would provide legal certainty for landowners. Indigenous groups say it ignores decades of forced displacement and violence that pushed communities from their ancestral lands. Indigenous communities across the Amazon, including the isolated and uncontacted Kawahiva people, could be affected by the ruling.

The justices are considering motions that seek clarification of the court’s ruling, addressing questions about compensation and possible deadlines for completing Indigenous land demarcations.

The soya farming moratorium

On Wednesday, the court will consider a legal fight over the future of Brazil’s soya moratorium, an agreement that barred major traders from buying soya grown on land deforested in the Amazon after 2008.

The agreement has been credited with helping curb deforestation, even as Brazil became an agricultural powerhouse. But states that are major soya producers passed laws in January revoking tax incentives for participating companies, prompting the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (ABIOVE) to withdraw from the moratorium.

Brazil is the world’s largest producer and leading exporter of soya beans. The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change has defended the soya moratorium, saying it helped reduce Amazon deforestation even as Brazil expanded production.

Environmental licensing

The court will also consider on Wednesday a challenge to a new environmental licensing law that took effect in February.

The law fast-tracks approval for projects including mines, highways and industrial plants, prompting environmental groups to warn that it could weaken safeguards in one of the world’s most important ecosystems.

Suely Araujo of the Climate Observatory said the law is already having tangible consequences in the Amazon, citing the paving of a controversial highway and plans to dredge the Tapajos River without adequate prior environmental review.

Baka’s confirmation is the latest repudiation of Viktor Orban’s legacy by Hungary’s new leaders

Hungary’s parliament has confirmed Andras Baka, a former Supreme Court chief and critic of former Prime Minister Viktor Orban, as the country’s next president.

The National Assembly voted in a secret ballot on Tuesday to confirm him as president with 140 votes in favour, six opposing and no abstentions.

He had been nominated on Saturday by the Tisza party, which holds a constitutional majority of more than two-thirds of parliament. During the nomination, Tisza lawmakers said Baka’s experience would represent “a significant asset” as the party lays “the foundations for Hungary’s new constitutional order”.

Opposition party Fidesz – which dominated Hungary’s politics until a landslide electoral defeat in April – boycotted the vote. They accuse Tisza of using authoritarian tactics to reshape the country’s political system, a charge the party denies.

Baka, 73, served two terms as a judge on the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg before being elected head of Hungary’s Supreme Court in 2009. He was removed two years later after publicly criticising Orban’s government reforms, which he said threatened judicial independence. He will assume office on August 19.

Baka replaces ex-President Tamas Sulyok, an Orban appointee who weeks ago was ousted from the role by constitutional amendment, part of Tisza’s wide-reaching campaign to dismantle the political power structures built by Orban during his 16 years in power.

Tisza has also used its majority to reform the media, establish an anticorruption task force and impose an eight-year term limit on prime ministership, effectively barring Orban’s return to the office.

While Hungary’s presidency carries mostly ceremonial powers, with limited authority to veto or refer legislation, Baka’s is appointment is seen by many as the latest repudiation of Orban’s legacy.

Andras Baka, a strong advocate for judicial independence, becomes Tisza’s pick for Hungary’s next president.

Hungary’s governing Tisza party has nominated Andras Baka, a former Supreme Court chief removed from his post by Viktor Orban’s government in 2012, as its candidate for the country’s presidency.

The nomination, announced Saturday by Prime Minister Peter Magyar, marks the latest step in Tisza’s effort to dismantle Orban’s influence over state institutions since the party’s landslide election victory in April ended his 16-year rule.

The decision to nominate Baka for the presidency comes weeks after Tisza used a constitutional amendment to remove Orban-era President Tamas Sulyok from office.

On Tuesday, Baka, 73, is expected to be elected by parliament, where Tisza holds a constitutional majority.

Magyar wrote on Facebook that the nomination, made by secret ballot within the party’s parliamentary group, was “one of its most important decisions so far”.

Tisza lawmakers said Baka had always “attached paramount importance to the principle of separation of powers, consistently standing up for the rule of law and judicial independence”, adding that his experience represented “a significant asset” as the party lays “the foundations for Hungary’s new constitutional order”.

Fidesz, the party now in opposition, said it would boycott the vote, accusing Tisza of authoritarian tactics – allegations it denies.

Baka served two terms as a judge on the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg before being elected head of Hungary’s Supreme Court in 2009.

He was removed two years later after publicly criticising Orban’s government reforms, which he said threatened judicial independence. The European court later ruled that his dismissal had violated his rights to a fair trial and freedom of expression, a judgement the Council of Europe said Hungary failed to fully implement.

Hungary’s presidency carries mostly ceremonial powers, with limited authority to veto or refer legislation, though the nomination is being treated as a heavily symbolic move.

Aug. 7 (UPI) — Justice Samuel Alito said Friday in a rare interview that he is committed to returning for another term at the Supreme Court.

Speculation that Alito, 76, would retire swelled in June, after NPR mistakenly reported that he planned to step down at the end of this term.

On Friday, the justice put those rumors to bed.

“Obviously I’m here for another term,” Alito told The Wall Street Journal.

“It’s not pleasant, in the sense that it’s a reminder of mortality,” he said to the newspaper about questions related to his retirement.

“It’s like, what are those vultures doing up there?” the justice added. “They are flying around. But it goes with life tenure.”

Alito’s non-retirement was reported by NPR reporter Nina Totenberg, a veteran of Supreme Court coverage, on June 30.

NPR retracted the story later that same day.

Totenberg said she heard a retirement announcement while rushing out of the courtroom and mistakenly assumed it was Alito.

She called it “the worst professional mistake of my more than 50 years in journalism.”

Alito, a staunch conservative, was appointed by President George W. Bush and joined the court in 2006.

President Trump targeted birthright citizenship again Thursday by signing a pair of executive orders purporting to narrow it — including by cracking down on “birth tourism” and limiting which children born to immigrants in the U.S. qualify.

The new orders follow a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that rejected an attempt by Trump to end birthright citizenship outright.

During a signing ceremony in the Oval Office, Trump called that decision by the high court “very unfair” and said the new orders were an attempt to end birthright citizenship by other means.

“Our country suffers because of it, and we’re ending it a different way,” he said.

Trump promised “big crackdowns” on birth tourism, or the practice of pregnant foreign mothers coming to the United States, or foreign fathers using surrogates already in the U.S., specifically to ensure their children receive U.S. citizenship.

Trump said an entire industry has been built up around the practice, turning birthright citizenship into “a joke.”

“Wealthy people are building businesses around birthright citizenship. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. It’s a disgrace,” he said. “They’re buying their way in, and we’re not going to let it happen.”

The orders were immediately criticized by proponents of birthright citizenship as an indefensible attempt by the president and his administration to make an end run around the Supreme Court’s clear finding that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution cannot be undone by the president.

The amendment reads in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In an apparent response to the president’s new orders, California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted that exact language to the social media platform X. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) also responded on the platform, writing, “Trump doesn’t understand the Constitution — but the 14th Amendment’s promise of birthright citizenship and equality speaks for itself.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that Trump’s “continued crusade to end birthright citizenship is blatantly illegal,” that Democrats would challenge the orders, and that the president had “set himself up for yet another loss in the courts.”

“If you are born in America, you are American — period. The Constitution says it and the Supreme Court has affirmed it,” Schumer said.

A spokesperson for California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office, which successfully sued alongside other Democrat-led states to block Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship, said attorneys there were reviewing the latest orders late Thursday.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which also sued to block the first order, denounced the new orders — and predicted they, too, would fall.

“The Supreme Court already decided this issue: Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution. No additional executive order can change the meaning of the Constitution,” Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement. “Any executive order that tries to rewrite birthright citizenship will meet the same fate as the last one.”

Trump’s order on birth tourism defines the practice as “the entry of any foreign national into the United States via a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil,” or “any effort by any foreign national to facilitate” such entry.

It orders the Homeland Security and State departments to ramp up controls to block such entries, including through the denial or revocation of visas and other travel authorizations for individuals suspecting of participating in such efforts.

“Foreign nationals seeking temporary admission into the United States must adhere to the purposes for which the Congress has authorized their temporary admission, and cannot be permitted to circumvent the immigration laws in an attempt to vest themselves and their children with lasting benefits that are irreconcilable with their nonimmigrant status,” the order reads.

The order purporting to limit which children born in the U.S. are eligible for birthright citizenship describes “certain categories of children” who it says “do not fall within the rule of birthright citizenship as announced by the Supreme Court.”

It orders U.S. agencies not to provide citizenship documents to any child whose parents are not citizens if either of their parents is a foreign government employee, ambassador or a member of a foreign terrorist organization; was “engaged in a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship” for them or to ensure their mother was in the U.S. when she gave birth to them; or had paid for a surrogate in the U.S. to give birth to them.

Echoing arguments made before the Supreme Court in defense of Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship, Trump and other White House officials claimed on Thursday that birthright citizenship was only ever intended for the children of slaves.

“This was done right after the Civil War. This was for the babies of slaves,” Trump said.

Others have said that argument “disregards the historical record” — which clearly shows lawmakers understood that the amendment’s language was much broader than that.

White House officials said the orders would prevent a large number of children from receiving birthright citizenship, hailing it as momentous.

“It ends what has been one of the gravest and most egregious abuses of the American system, and it keeps American citizenship safe,” said Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s top advisors on immigration.

Asked if the new orders would withstand judicial scrutiny, Trump predicted they would, before directing the question to White House staff secretary Will Scharf.

“What we’re doing is taking legally validated means that are clearly within our disposal and targeting them square on to this birth tourism industry,” Scharf said. “There’s absolutely nothing in here that runs afoul of any of the Supreme Court’s opinions on the subject.”

Vice President JD Vance also hailed the move.

“Our immigration system has been exploited by those who treat citizenship as a commercial transaction, not a sacred bond. President Trump is taking bold steps to combat birth tourism and restore our sovereignty. A serious nation owes its citizens nothing less,” he wrote on X.

In its 6-3 decision in June, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship outright, finding that the 14th Amendment — with very few exceptions — provided a right to children born in the U.S. that could not be undone by the president.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote for the court. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts in full, with Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurring with the outcome based on separate federal law. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

The ruling was a major defeat for Trump, and was cheered by immigrant rights advocates, including many in California, as the final say on the matter — though Trump signaled almost immediately that the fight wasn’t over.

WASHINGTON  — California and 22 other Democratic-led states urged the Supreme Court on Monday to block President Trump’s plan to take control of voting by mail through the U.S. Postal Service.

They said it is too late in the election year to impose a new set of regulations for mail ballots.

Doing so, they said, would lead to mistakes, including eligible and registered voters being told they are not on the federal government’s approved list.

“Because of the high risk of errors and the limited window for correcting mistakes, many of the millions of voters who rely on mail voting — especially voters with disabilities and those in rural areas — would likely be denied mail ballots and disenfranchised,” they told the court.

More broadly, they argued that the Constitution “entrusted the states and Congress — not the president — with the responsibility to set rules for federal elections.”

The justices are likely to act in a few days on whether to allow the Trump administration‘s plan to proceed pending the adoption of new and detailed guidelines.

Last week, Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court contending judges in Boston moved too quickly to halt the administration’s new federal restrictions on voting by mail.

He argued judges should stand back for now, even though the midterm elections are only three months away.

Trump’s executive order required the U.S. Postal Service to use state-by-state lists of eligible voters who may send a ballot by mail.

Until now, states have had the constitutional authority to register voters for federal and state elections. And nearly a third of Americans now vote by mail.

Trump, however, has insisted that voting by mail leads to fraud, including by allowing noncitizens to vote.

Congress has refused to adopt new voting restrictions at Trump’s behest.

Instead, he issued an executive order on March 31 to enlist the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure “citizenship verification and integrity in federal elections.”

The order called on Homeland Security to compile state-by-state lists of citizens who are eligible to vote. And it told the postal service that it must use those lists to restrict who may vote by mail.

“The USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list,” the order said.

But a federal judge and the 1st Circuit Court in Boston ruled Trump’s new regulations may not be enforced this year, at least in the 23 Democratic-led states which sued.

On Monday, they told the court that USPS delivered nearly 100 million mail ballots to or from voters in 2024, with roughly 30% of all voters nationwide casting ballots by mail.

TOPEKA, Kan. — Kansas voters will decide Tuesday whether to elect state Supreme Court justices rather than have the governor appoint them, a push from conservatives who have chafed for years over court decisions they disagreed with on issues such as abortion, school funding and the death penalty.

If the constitutional amendment passes, supporters hope to elect at least four conservative, antiabortion justices to the seven-member court by 2033.

Kansas is considering the change amid concerns that increasingly contentious and expensive judicial elections in other states are making their courts more partisan and less independent. Spending in a single state Supreme Court race in Wisconsin last year topped $100 million.

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a term-limited Democrat who opposes the measure, said gerrymandering and dark money have put the Legislature out of step with the state’s voters, and “to think you can make the judicial branch a part of that dysfunctional system is frightening.”

Rulings the GOP dislikes

GOP lawmakers cite rulings by Kansas courts over the last two decades as reasons a change is needed.

Most recently, a district court judge in July reinstated a three-day grace period for voters to return mail ballots after election day, which GOP lawmakers had eliminated. Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson, who is seeking the Republican nomination for governor, called the decision “outrageous” and urged people to vote yes on the ballot question.

The same judge — a finalist to fill the most recent Supreme Court vacancy — blocked enforcement of a 2025 law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Masterson described him as “radical.”

The list of rulings Republicans criticize also includes rulings on education funding back to 2004. Supreme Court decisions forced lawmakers to increase funding to comply with the state constitution.

“If we elect our Supreme Court, they won’t force you to spend money on schools,” Masterson said in remarks in November to a conservative group, the Marion County Patriots for Liberty, the Marion County Record reported.

Abortion remains a key issue

Electing state Supreme Court justices gained currency among Republicans after a 2022 public vote affirming the high court’s landmark 2019 decision that Kansas’ Bill of Rights guarantees bodily autonomy and access to abortion. Total spending by both sides has exceeded $12 million.

Legislators who worked to overturn the Supreme Court’s protections, including Masterson, helped write this proposal.

Seven weeks after that 2022 vote, state Atty. Gen. Kris Kobach, then a GOP candidate for the office, told a Republican club in Wichita that electing justices would “slowly and quietly” put antiabortion justices on the high court.

The vote-yes campaign’s biggest donor — providing $1.7 million toward the campaign’s $3.7 million in spending — is a Nashville-based nonprofit that supports Republican candidates, groups and causes. Kansans for Life, the state’s most influential antiabortion group, has spent at least $87,000 in a recent 11-day span on mailers and texts.

“Kansans can bring an end to this reign of abortion by voting ‘yes,’” Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, said in an editorial written by a staffer on the antiabortion group’s website.

Meanwhile, the national and state affiliates for abortion provider Planned Parenthood contributed $1.6 million toward the vote-no campaign’s $8 million-plus in spending.

Jamie Swan, an engineer and college teaching assistant who knocked on doors for abortion rights in 2022, is doing the same to try to halt the proposal.

“I really believe that this is just a power grab,” she said.

Legislators have no say in appointments

Backers of the Kansas proposal brush aside arguments that electing the justices will give wealthy donors control over the Supreme Court.

“Globally and over history, even in its imperfection, the best system is democracy,” said Elizabeth Patton, state director of the low-tax, small-government group Americans for Prosperity, which has spent $935,000 to promote the vote-yes campaign.

Twenty-two states elect their top court’s judges, eight in partisan races. Governors in 26 states appoint them. In South Carolina and Virginia, legislators pick the justices.

Kansas elected justices for nearly 100 years before voters amended the state constitution in 1958. The governor now picks one of three finalists named by a nominating commission controlled by attorneys. Legislators have no role.

A review of every state’s current and past constitutions shows that the last state to add an amendment like the one Kansas is contemplating was Mississippi in 1914. Since then, 18 states’ amendments went the opposite way.

Voters weigh in every six years on whether a justice remains on the bench through a yes-or-no ballot question, but they’ve never booted a sitting justice. Conservatives say that means justices face no consequences for errant decisions.

Retirements and deaths on the bench allowed Kelly to appoint four of the current justices. Recently, the governor picked a district court judge who blocked enforcement of long-standing abortion restrictions in 2023.

“We don’t have a good way to fight back,” said state Sen. Mike Thompson, a conservative Kansas City-area Republican, who backs the measure.

Hanna writes for the Associated Press.

Palestine Action’s co-founder Huda Ammori has been granted permission to challenge the UK government’s decision to designate the group a terrorist organisation at the Supreme Court.

By almost every measure, Latino communities are bearing the brunt of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign, according to a new report.

The League of United Latin American Citizens or LULAC, a Latino civil rights organization, found that court-sanctioned racial profiling has contributed to the disproportionate targeting of Latinos regardless of their immigration status.

“The impact of mass deportation is falling on Latinos as an ethnic group, not on undocumented immigrants as a legal category,” the report read in part. “U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, work-authorized immigrants, and multi-generational American families are absorbing measurable harm: economic, physical, and civic.”

Although other immigrant groups have been targeted, LULAC found that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have mostly focused on immigrants from Latin America, particularly workers with no criminal history, who are also more likely to face violence or be placed in detention centers with substandard conditions.

Citing a recent UCLA study, LULAC said from January to October, federal immigration agents arrested more than 187,000 Latinos and deported more than 126,000.

Latino arrests also jumped from under 3,900 to nearly 6,000 after Stephen Miller, White House senior advisor and chief architect of President Trump’s immigration policy, set a new goal of arresting 3,000 undocumented people a day.

In an email response to The Times, a spokesperson with the Department of Homeland Security rejected the report’s findings.

“Allegations that DHS law enforcement engages in ‘racial profiling’ are disgusting, reckless, and categorically FALSE,” the spokesperson wrote. “What makes someone a target for immigration enforcement is if they are illegally in the U.S.—NOT their skin color, race, or ethnicity.”

“Law enforcement officers use ‘reasonable suspicion’ to investigate immigration status and probable cause to make arrests consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” the spokesperson added. “The Supreme Court has already vindicated us on these practices.”

LULAC’s report comes amid recent court filings claiming that federal immigration agents were caught on body camera footage and in text messages using racial slurs when referring to Latinos.

Additionally, Congress recently approved nearly $70 billion in immigration enforcement funding to cover the rest of Trump’s term with at least $38 billion to go to ICE and $26 billion to Customs and Border Protection.

LULAC said in putting the report together it reviewed public data and published studies to provide a fact sheet that paints a broader picture about the impact mass deportations are having on Latinos.

“The people being removed are disproportionately working-age, employed and without criminal records — the demographic core of the workforce in construction, hospitality, agriculture, food processing, and care work,” the report read.

As of July 11, more than 65,000 people were being held in detention and about 70% of the population had no criminal convictions, according to Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a data gathering organization.

ICE detention data show that about 40% of detainees were being held for civil immigration violations including visa overstays and work visa violations.

Unless previously deported, living in the country illegally is considered a civil violation rather than a crime and carries penalties such as arrests, fines and deportation proceedings.

The indiscriminate immigration raids that terrorized Latino communities appeared to have worsened after the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in September, according to LULAC’s report.

The Supreme Court justices overturned a district court injunction that barred immigration agents in Los Angeles from roving around Home Depots and car washes, stopping brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking day laborers and others from arrest on immigration charges.

But once the injunction lifted, federal immigration agents descended once more on Latino communities, even stopping U.S. citizens, according to LULAC.

This month, the American Civil Liberties Union reviewed more than 1,200 enforcement incidents across eight states, identifying 155 U.S. citizens who were detained, targeted, or experienced law enforcement misconduct, and 437 incidents involving likely racial profiling. It also identified 214 children affected, including 32 Americans.

LULAC said the immigration raids had an economic impact. Citing a recent UCLA study, it said small business and Latino entrepreneurs in Los Angeles County saw foot traffic drop significantly, losing millions in potential revenue in June 2025.

A spokesperson for LULAC could not immediately be reached for comment.

WASHINGTON — President Trump and the Justice Department are asking the Supreme Court to toss an $83 million defamation verdict won by writer E. Jean Carroll after she accused him of sexual assault, saying he can’t be sued for comments he made while he was president.

It’s the second time Trump has asked the justices to nix damages awarded by a jury to Carroll, a longtime advice columnist and former TV talk show host. The Supreme Court refused in June to hear his appeal of another verdict, for $5 million, that found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

The latest case centers on comments Trump made during his first term as president. The Justice Department wants to invoke the Westfall Act, which shields government employees from being sued for doing their jobs.

“Absent this Court’s intervention, the sitting President is facing nearly a hundred million dollars of personal liability for conduct that was well within the scope of his federal office,” federal attorneys wrote. “That alone deserves this Court’s attention.”

The appeal was filed electronically and is expected to be formally docketed with the court Wednesday.

Trump’s lawyers, meanwhile, argued that an appeals court “engaged in procedural contortions” to avoid addressing Trump’s claims that presidential immunity protects him from the $83 million award because he made the statements in question in 2019 while he was president.

The lawyers argued that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled in a manner that “cries out for this Court’s review in this unprecedented case” and called the damages “grossly excessive.”

“This is the first case in our nation’s history in which a court has imposed damages liability on a president for his conduct in office,” the lawyers wrote.

Carroll’s lawyers have declined to comment on the latest Trump filing.

Trump has long argued he cannot be sued over comments he made about Carroll during his first term where he disavowed knowing her and attacked her motivations for going public with her story in a recent memoir. He’s also asking the Supreme Court justices to reconsider their rejection of his appeal in the $5 million verdict.

The appeal comes about two years after the Supreme Court granted Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution as a former president.

Carroll testified twice before New York juries that Trump sexually assaulted her in spring 1996 in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury retailer across the street from Trump Tower. She first went public with the claims in a 2019 memoir.

She sued Trump for defamation after he accused her of making up the allegation to help book sales, adding that he’d never met her and “she’s not my type.” He has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

A Manhattan jury awarded her $83 million in damages in January 2024. Lower courts have so far rejected Trump’s appeals to overturn the verdict, though the New York-based appeals court split over the decision and agreed to delay that payout until the Supreme Court weighs in.

In 2023, another jury said Carroll was entitled to $5 million after concluding that Trump had subjected her to sexual abuse in the department store encounter and for defamation for remarks he had made after his first term ended. That judgment has been paid.

The Associated Press does not identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll has done.

Whitehurst and Neumeister write for the Associated Press. Neumeister reported from New York.

A lower court blocked the mail-in ballot restrictions, ruling Trump lacked authority to change state election rules.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to allow it to move ahead with sweeping restrictions on mail-in voting ahead of November’s midterm elections, as it continues its push to reshape how federal elections are run.

In an emergency filing on Monday, the Justice Department asked the country’s highest court to pause a lower court ruling that blocked parts of Trump’s March executive order in 23 Democratic-led states and Washington, DC. The pause would remain in effect as the legal challenges play out, per the request.

The executive order directed federal agencies to help create state lists of eligible voters and required the US Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on those lists. It also instructed the Justice Department to prioritise investigations into election officials accused of issuing ballots to ineligible voters.

US District Judge Indira Talwani blocked the order in June, ruling that Trump lacked the authority to unilaterally change how states administer federal elections. She noted that under the Constitution, states oversee voter-eligibility requirements.

Over the weekend, the First US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause that ruling, prompting the administration to take the issue to the Supreme Court.

In its request to the top court, the administration argued that the order amounted to “general policy guidance” rather than a directive dictating how states should administer elections.

Solicitor General John Sauer wrote: “The injunction is especially indefensible because the agencies are still deliberating over how (if at all) to implement the Order, yet the district court preemptively decided that whatever the agencies may choose to do will necessarily be unlawful.”

He urged the Supreme Court to act quickly as the new policy would have to be in place by August to be effective by the midterm election in November.

Trump has long claimed, without evidence, that widespread voter fraud undermined the 2020 presidential election and has repeatedly questioned the security of mail-in voting, despite studies showing that such fraud is rare.

He has promised to end the widespread use of mail ballots before the midterms, which will determine which party takes control of the US House of Representatives and Senate.

Voting rights advocates say restricting mail-in voting could disproportionately affect Democratic voters, who have historically been more likely than Republicans to cast their ballots by mail.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court on Monday to lift a judge’s order and clear the way for state-by-state lists of citizens who are eligible to vote by mail.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer filed an emergency appeal and said judges in Boston had wrongly intervened too soon.

In March, Trump ordered the U.S. Postal Service to direct states to compile a list of citizens who are eligible to vote. This list would limit who may receive a mail ballot.

He also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to “compile and transmit state-specific lists of individuals who are citizens and will be 18 years of age or older at the time of an upcoming election,” Sauer said.

Lawyers for California and 22 other Democratic-led states sued, arguing the states, not the federal government, have the constitutional authority to set the rules for voting and elections.

In June, they won before a federal judge in Boston who blocked Trump’s order from going forward, at least in the 23 states which had sued. Her decision was upheld over the weekend by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.

In his appeal, Trump’s solicitor general focused on a procedural question, not the issue of whether the president has the legal authority to impose national rules on state-run elections.

Sauer said the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security had not issued final specific plans to comply with Trump’s directive.

“Courts cannot enjoin implementation of Executive Orders that leave open material issues that still need to be resolved by agencies,” he wrote.

He asked the court to lift or stay the “premature injunctions.”

Time is running short, he said.

“Absent a stay … there will not be sufficient time to obtain appellate relief before the November election,” Sauer said. “That is especially true because implementation efforts for any USPS rule or DHS policy will need to begin well before November … particularly given that absentee and mail-in voting begin (in some States) several weeks prior to Election Day.”

The justices asked for a response from the 23 Democratic states by Aug. 3.

A message attributed to Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has promised “unforgettable lessons” to Washington during their escalating conflict. But it also homed in on another theme that tempered some of the fire of his warnings against the US, amid eight nights of renewed fighting between the two countries.

Khamenei, who has not been seen or heard from since being made supreme leader in March, said Iranians must uphold “sacred unity” as a fundamental imperative, particularly against the United States.

His message also stated that it was a duty for the Iranian population and officials to refrain from “division, political disputes, and increases in social differences”. Iran’s enemies, he said, likely referring to the US and Israel, “must not detect any sign of weakness from us”.

The call for national unity comes against the backdrop of events in June, when another Khamenei statement stirred debate and controversy among some of the most hardline supporters of the Islamic Republic regarding the recently signed memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the US.

Khamenei said that although he “held a different view” about the agreement to pause four months of fighting, he approved it after President Masoud Pezeshkian, as chairman of the Supreme National Security Council, accepted responsibility for the deal.

This fired up unyielding supporters of the Islamic Republic who continue to take to city squares and streets at night with backing from armed security forces, angered about the deal.

Critics believe Khamenei was being forced into accepting a bad deal, and hardline clerical lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian even resorted to reading from classified material on live television in an apparent attempt to derail the arrangement. He was removed from the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee earlier this month.

Others went as far as accusing officials of treason, and the president and other officials linked to the deal were heckled during the funeral ceremonies for assassinated Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei earlier this month.

The MoU has been suspended by Tehran but was already effectively on the verge of collapse after Iran and the US traded fire over control of the strategic Strait of Hormuz over the past week.

Projection of military and political unity

Since Mojtaba Khamenei’s statement on Saturday, other officials have strived to present a united front between armed forces and the political and diplomatic apparatus, each with their own views on the MoU.

Ali Abdollahi, the head of Iran’s wartime joint command, vowed that the armed forces will heed Khamenei’s directive for “sacred unity and national cohesion”.

But he also warned the US, which he referred to as a “big Satan and criminal enemy”, that it will face a “decisive and destructive response” for its recent attacks on Iran, which has seen bridges, roads, and other civilian infrastructure destroyed.

President Pezeshkian thanked the supreme leader’s “wise” message and highlighted the part where he urged “trust” in the heads of government, parliament and judiciary.

“Adherence to the means of sacred unity and refraining from division and discord is the key to victory at this historic juncture,” he wrote on X.

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the parliament speaker who has faced harsh criticism from hardliners as chief negotiator in talks with the Americans, said following Khamenei’s directive is critical to Iran’s success.

“We must regard obedience to this religious and national decree of the supreme leader of the revolution as an important part of our historical role in national resistance and governance of the country,” he also tweeted in Persian on Sunday.

These messages appeared aimed at foreign audiences, coming shortly after senior US officials, anonymously briefing media in Washington, tried to blame the Hormuz escalation on an “errant” hardline faction inside Iran seeking to obstruct negotiations.

The state-linked Khorasan newspaper published an editorial on Sunday saying that Khamenei’s latest statement carried the message that “criticism is accepted, but never accusations” against officials.

“To those who claim to be revolutionaries, the supreme leader’s message was an ultimatum for you: Stop telling lies about the authorities,” the article read.

Iran’s military and political officials did not directly address the claim earlier this month, but released more statements proclaiming a unified view on how to address the conflict and regarding control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Speaking during an interview released on Sunday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi continued to back a negotiated end to the war, which has seen Iran’s civilian infrastructure systematically targeted in US air strikes over the past week.

“If we had reached the [April] ceasefire 10 days earlier, we still had Larijani, Khatib, Asaluyeh and Foolad Mobarakeh,” the chief diplomat said in reference to assassinated security chief Ali Larijani, intelligence minister Esmail Khatib, and the country’s heavily bombed petrochemical facilities and steel plants.

But as tit-for-tat strikes continue between the two sides, there is no sign of both parties returning to the negotiating table.

Mojtaba Khamenei says Trump’s signature is ‘worthless’ and that ‘bullying’ is a core element of US foreign policy.

Iran’s supreme leader has warned that the United States will suffer “unforgettable lessons” at the hands of Tehran and its regional allies, accusing the US of repeatedly violating the memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the two countries.

A written statement attributed to Mojtaba Khamenei was read out on state television on Saturday, in which the supreme leader said Washington’s breaches of last month’s MoU showed that President Donald Trump’s signature was “utterly worthless and invalid”.

“The repeated breach of agreements by the Great Satan vis-a-vis the accord has once again proven to all that the signature of the President of America is now utterly worthless and invalid, and that bullying, hegemonism and savagery are inseparable components of the American creed and doctrine,” the statement read.

“Now that the American enemy is seeking to foment war and suffer heavier costs and further humiliation, it should know that the dear nation of Iran and the Resistance Front hold unforgettable lessons for it,” it added.

The US dramatically escalated its attacks on Iran this week by targeting civilian infrastructure, including bridges, railway lines and water desalination plants.

Tehran has responded by successfully striking civilian infrastructure in Kuwait, with authorities there urging everyone to ration electricity.

The US-Israeli war on Iran, which began in February, is seen as existential by the country’s senior leadership.

Tehran has shown no sign of caving to the increasing demands from the Trump administration, as regional countries continue to push for an end to the conflict behind the scenes.

Khamenei said the US has “revealed its true face,” exposing its “deceitfulness, irrationality, unreliability and wickedness”.

He called on Iranians to trust the leadership to protect the country, urging people to remain “vigilant” and “active” as the fighting grinds on.

Reports have surfaced in recent days that the Houthis in Yemen could close the Bab al-Mandeb gateway to the Red Sea in support of their crucial ally Iran. That would further destabilise global energy markets, increase inflation and apply additional pressure on Trump to halt attacks.

The war is deeply unpopular in the US and has inflicted economic harm on Americans.

The MoU mediated by Qatar and Pakistan and signed last month aimed to create the conditions to bring the war to a permanent end.

However, Tehran and Washington have since declared the accord “over” after accusing each other of violating it.

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett told lawmakers Tuesday that a sharp increase in threats targeting her and other justices is increasingly encroaching on their personal and family lives.

During a rare appearance by justices before Congress, Barrett said she had to wear a bulletproof vest home a few years ago, something she struggled to explain to her 12-year-old son.

“I didn’t expect that performing this service would put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was, why I had to wear one,” she said.

She and Justice Elena Kagan testified before a House appropriations panel in support of a request to increase security funding for members of the nation’s highest court.

Judges around the country have seen a rise in threats of violence and intimidation. Barrett’s home was also targeted by a swatting call to police in May.

The hearing comes two weeks after the conservative-majority court finished handing down a series of major opinions, including a decision that increased President Trump’s power over federal regulatory agencies and another that rejected his wide-ranging tariffs, sparking harsh personal criticism.

It’s the first time justices have testified before Congress since 2019, and the two justices are facing wide-ranging questions about the court’s work.

Security is central to the Supreme Court’s budget request

The Supreme Court requested a total of $228 million for next fiscal year, a roughly 10% increase over the year before. About $18 million of that is for maintaining the building and grounds.

Much of the requested increase, $14.6 million, would go to expanding personal protection for justices, with six more agents for each.

An additional $2 million would fund an off-site residential security post aimed at making emergency responses faster, as well as increasing the number of Supreme Court police officers.

The U.S. Marshals Service, responsible for protecting judges, reported 564 threats in the government fiscal year that ended in September, an increase from the year before.

That total includes threats to the hundreds of federal judges around the country, though the nine-member Supreme Court has not been immune.

In May, Barrett’s security detail worked with police to quickly deal with the swatting incident, a fake 911 call designed to provoke a police response. Last year, her sister was the victim of a bomb threat in Charleston, S.C., police said. No bomb was found.

In 2022, shortly after the leak of a draft opinion overturning the Roe vs. Wade abortion decision, a would-be assassin was arrested near the home of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh with weapons and zip ties. Threats to the Supreme Court increased after that leak and have continued to grow, Kagan said.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has condemned the threats to all U.S. judges, saying during a speech in March that criticism of judicial opinions is understandable, but personally directed hostility is “dangerous, and it’s got to stop.”

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservative justices say they decide cases based on the words and original history of the Constitution — and not on their personal or political views.

Following the lead set by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, they say they see history and “originalism” as a guiding principle to prevent judges from changing the Constitution to adjust to new and changing times.

This text-and-history approach is said to contrast with an evolving or “living Constitution” favored by progressives and liberal activists.

But this year saw a flip of sorts on birthright citizenship.

The foremost conservatives agreed with President Trump that the surge of illegal immigration called for reconsidering the promise of citizenship at birth set out in the 14th Amendment of 1868.

“The number of illegal immigrants in this country exploded” in recent years, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in dissent. The rule of citizenship at birth provides “a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally,” he added.

“The Constitution is an enduring document,” wrote Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, but its rules and meaning must adjust to “modern situations that were unknown or unanticipated by the Constitution’s Framers.”

In a concurring opinion, he said that “significant illegal immigration into the United States is a new circumstance that was largely unknown as of 1868.”

There were no federal immigration laws in the mid-19th century, but it was an era when a surge of Irish immigrants had settled on the East Coast and large numbers of Chinese immigrants came to California.

Under the law, their children were deemed to be citizens at birth.

Among the conservative originalists, only Justice Amy Coney Barrett signed the majority opinion that was written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and joined by the three liberals.

The opening words of the 14th Amendment of 1868 say: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

In 1898, the Supreme Court upheld the rule of citizenship at birth in the case of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents.

In an executive order, Trump proposed to end birthright citizenship for the newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.

Writing for the court, the chief justice said the words of the 14th Amendment were clear and were clearly understood at the time. He dismissed the “dramatically revisionist view” that has been cited recently.

Kavanaugh voted with the majority to block Trump’s order from taking effect. He did so because Congress had adopted birthright citizenship in a 1952 law.

“Consistent with the 14th Amendment, Congress could … enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship,” he wrote.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Alito wrote long dissents arguing that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not or would not have favored birthright citizenship.

They pointed to recent scholarship by law professors that raised questions about the accepted understanding of the 14th Amendment and the citizenship rule.

Thomas said citizenship of the child should turn on whether the parents were “domiciled” in this country. Black people who were enslaved were undoubtedly domiciled here, but the same is not true of temporary visitors.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch agreed in part with Thomas and questioned whether the newborns of temporary visitors should be deemed as citizens at birth.

Many court commentators were surprised by the close 5-4 divide on the constitutional issue.

“Given how clear the language was, I expected it to be 7 to 2,” said Melissa Murray, a New York University law professor. “I really gasped when I saw it was 5-4. This is not settled. We’re not done with this debate.”

Sarah Isgur, a podcaster and SCOTUSblog analyst, said that “originalism is getting more and more muddled. Either the history matters or it doesn’t.”

However, she agreed with Kavanaugh’s approach of leaving it to Congress to reconsider the issue.

Not all originalists are conservative.

Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar, a constitutional historian, argued that the history of birthright citizenship is clear and not subject to revisionist thinking. He said the Reconstruction Congress adopted this principle of citizenship at birth and stated their intent in clear words in the 14th Amendment.

“When a baby is born on American soil and an American flag flies above, that baby is a birthright citizen, as the Reconstruction Republicans across the land understood,” he wrote in February. This rule “has virtually nothing to do with the baby’s parents.”

Last week, he was mostly cheered by the court’s ruling.

“It’s a triumph, but it should have been 9-0,” Amar said on a review of the court term sponsored by SCOTUSblog. “Shame on the dissenters. They didn’t even the address the statute” and its wording.

But the majority led by Roberts “clearly affirmed the plain meaning of the constitutional text and its history. And that’s a win,” he said.

History has a recurring role at the Supreme Court.

Isgur noted the court will hear arguments in the fall on whether the 2nd Amendment of 1791 gives gun owners a right to have “assault weapons” like AR-15 rifles.

She said the court will decide then between history and changed circumstances.

At issue is whether these modern rapid-fire rifles fit within the history of the gun rights protected by the 2nd Amendment or instead represent a new and dangerous threat to public safety that was unknown in 1791.

Scalia’s opinion upholding gun rights in 2008 is often cited as a model of originalism, but it too emerged from a court divided 5-4.

The 2nd Amendment says, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bears Arms, shall not be infringed.”

For decades, the Supreme Court had all but ignored the 2nd Amendment, viewing it as a somewhat outdated provision involving militias, akin to the 3rd Amendment. It forbids having soldiers “quartered in any house … in time of peace.”

Four liberal dissenters in 2008 said the court should stand by that understanding of history.

Justice John Paul Stevens said the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect state militias from federal interference. Moreover, the reference to “bear arms” suggests it was about militias, he said.

But Scalia’s opinion stands as the landmark precedent, and he said the dissenters had the history all wrong.

The right to have guns for self-defense arose in England and came to the American colonies. “By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects,” he wrote.

The 2nd Amendment did not establish a new right, he said. Rather, it “codified a pre-existing right [of] having and using arms for self-preservation and [defense],” he wrote.

“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history,” Scalia wrote, “that the 2nd Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

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.

MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an attempt by a conservative activist to obtain guardianship records in an effort to find ineligible voters in the presidential battleground state.

The case has been wending its way through the courts for years and stems from attempts by conservatives to overturn President Biden’s victory in Wisconsin over President Trump in 2020.

Here’s what to know:

A conservative activist brought the case

The case tested the line between protecting personal privacy rights and ensuring that ineligible people can’t vote.

Former travel executive Ron Heuer and a group he leads, the Wisconsin Voter Alliance, brought the lawsuit in 2022 alleging that the number of ineligible voters doesn’t match the count on Wisconsin’s voter registration list. The lawsuit doesn’t specify how many people could be affected.

In Wisconsin, a guardianship order is granted by a court giving a person certain legal rights over another who is determined to be unable to make decisions about their life. A court has the power to remove the right to vote from a person under a guardianship order if the person is determined to be unable to understand “the objective of the election process.”

Heuer asked the state Supreme Court to rule that counties must release records filed when a judge determines that someone isn’t competent to vote so that those names can be compared to the voter registration list.

Heuer’s attorney, Erick Kaardal, argued that privacy concerns could be balanced with the public’s right to access government records by redacting identifying or sensitive information on the forms.

But the attorney for Walworth County said those seeking access to the records wanted to cross-check ineligible voters against the names of those registered. They can’t do that, attorney Sam Hall said during oral arguments, without releasing the person’s name and address.

Hall praised the ruling, saying it “protects the privacy of vulnerable individuals while preserving their dignity.”

Kaardal did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, which advocates for public access to documents but did not take a position on this case, said the court’s decision was “narrowly tailored and should not have a huge impact.”

The council praised the court for clarifying the standard for deciding similar cases in the future, but that “it’s always disappointing when access to public information is curtailed.”

Signs supporting Judge Susan Crawford, and voting and election officials adorn the front yard of a home on South 16th Street on election day April 1, 2025, in Milwaukee.

(Kayla Wolf / Associated Press)

Liberal justices who control Wisconsin Supreme Court reject the case

In the 5-2 ruling on Tuesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority along with conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn ruled that the records are not public as the conservative activist had claimed.

The court took the case after two lower state appeals courts issued divergent rulings. One appeals court, based in Madison, denied access to the records while another appeals court, based in Waukesha, said in 2023 that the records should be made public.

It ordered Walworth County to release them with birth dates and case numbers redacted.

The Supreme Court overturned the appeals court ruling that the records should be made public.

State law is clear that the records being sought are not public and “the Alliance has no right to the records,” Justice Janet Protasiewicz wrote for the majority.

Conservative justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley dissented, saying the court adopted “an overbroad and unworkable definition of what records pertain to a finding of incompetency” to include the forms that indicate a person has been found ineligible to vote.

Those forms are not pertinent to the finding of incompetency and are therefore subject to the open records law, Ziegler and Bradley wrote.

The case was one of several targeting the 2020 election

The case was an attempt by those who questioned the outcome of the 2020 presidential race to cast doubt on the integrity of elections in the presidential swing state. Heuer and the WVA filed lawsuits in 13 Wisconsin counties in 2022 seeking guardianship records.

Heuer and the WVA have pushed conspiracy theories about the 2020 election in a failed attempt to overturn Biden’s win in Wisconsin. Heuer was hired as an investigator in the discredited 2020 election probe led by former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman. The probe found no evidence of fraud or abuse that would have changed the election results.

The WVA also filed two unsuccessful lawsuits that sought to overturn Biden’s win in Wisconsin.

Trump won Wisconsin in 2024 after losing in 2020

Biden defeated Trump by nearly 21,000 votes in Wisconsin in 2020, a result that has withstood independent and partisan audits and reviews, as well as lawsuits and the recounts Trump requested. Trump won Wisconsin in 2024 by about 29,000 votes.

There are no pending lawsuits challenging the results of the 2024 election or calls to investigate the outcome.

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.