Supreme Court decisions recap: Trump scores wins; impactful ruling on TPS
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a pair of victories on one of its final decision days of the term by allowing him to turn back asylum-seekers at the southern border and immediately halt temporary protection from deportation for Syrians and Haitians.
Those decisions broke down along 6-3 ideological lines, as did another ruling striking down Hawaii's law requiring permission to bring a firearm into a business, in a major setback for gun control advocates.
The justices also blocked thousands of lawsuits against the weedkiller Roundup in a 7-2 decision.
The four decisions left several major cases unresolved as the court heads into the final days of its term. Pending cases could redefine presidential appointment powers, change election rules before the congressional midterms and change what it takes to be a U.S. citizen.
Birthright citizenship, transgender athletes, Trump firings still to be decided
Aysha Bagchi
While the Supreme Court released a handful of major decisions on June 25, it still hasn't announced its rulings in several other divisive cases.
Perhaps the most prominent outstanding case is a test of birthright citizenship.
On his first day back in the Oval Office in 2025, Trump ordered an end to the policy of granting automatic citizenship to children born in the United States if their parents aren't authorized to be in the country or only have temporary permission to be here. Several people sued, arguing that the Constitution guarantees automatic citizenship to those children.
The Supreme Court also hasn't ruled in two cases dealing with transgender athletes. The cases arose out of West Virginia and Idaho, testing whether states are allowed to restrict participation in girls' and boys' sports, and in women's and men's sports, based on an athlete's biological sex characteristics at birth.
The Supreme Court is also expected to rule on Trump's ability to extend his influence by firing people. The justices are deciding cases about whether Trump may fire Lisa Cook, a governor on the board of the Federal Reserve, a powerful economic regulator, and whether he may fire the heads of certain independent agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission.
Court puts 'gun lobby ahead of American lives' in striking down Hawaii law: Schumer
Bart Jansen
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, accused the court of putting “the gun lobby ahead of American lives” in striking down a Hawaii law that aimed to restrict guns in public places.
“Today’s decision strikes down a commonsense Hawaii law, steamrolls private property rights, and invites more guns into more places where families should feel safe,” Schumer said. “Republicans may be in the pocket of the gun lobby, but the Supreme Court shouldn’t be.”
On hot-button issues, court shows its ideological divide
Aysha Bagchi
Of the four opinions issued June 25, only one included surprising bedfellows, from an ideological perspective.
Republican-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh's majority opinion blocking lawsuits against the manufacturer of the weedkiller Roundup for failing to warn people about potential cancer risks was joined by six other colleagues – two liberals and four conservatives. Meanwhile, Democrat-appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent in the case was joined by Republican-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch.
But as the court approaches the end of its term, with several hot-button cases still to be decided, it showed it remains divided along ideological lines when it comes to some of the most politically divisive policies in the country.
In two cases dealing with major initiatives within the Trump administration's immigration crackdown – halting asylum seekers at the border and ending deportation protections for certain Haitian and Syrian immigrants – the court's six Republican-appointed justices backed the administration, while the three Democrat-appointed justices dissented.
The same held true for a major case on the rights of gun owners. The court's conservatives said a Hawaii gun-carrying restriction went too far, while its liberals backed the restriction.
Advocates against gun violence disappointed court struck down Hawaii gun law
Bart Jansen
Two advocacy groups aiming to prevent gun violence – the Giffords Law Center and the Brady: United Against Gun Violence – voiced disappointment with the Supreme Court’s decision striking down a Hawaii law that said gun owners needed permission from property owners to carry firearms in places like parking lots or restaurants.
“I will not mince words: This deeply dangerous majority opinion privileges guns over everything and all people in society,” said Kris Brown, Brad’s president. “It is eminently reasonable that visitors receive property owners’ permission to bring firearms onto their private property open to the public.”
“Hawaii’s private property law wasn’t about banning firearms,” added Billy Clark, senior litigation attorney for Giffords. “Instead, it reflected the commonsense notion that property owners have a right to choose whether to allow firearms on their private property – places where their kids, neighbors and community members deserve to have peace of mind.”
Haitians in Ohio 'terrified' over Temporary Protected Status ruling
Amani Bayo
Haitian community leaders and immigrant advocates in Springfield say they fear families will be left in limbo by the Supreme Court ruling on June 25 that allows the Trump administration to move forward with ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians living in the United States.
For Springfield, home to one of Ohio's largest Haitian communities, the decision immediately sparked concern among organizations that have spent months supporting immigrants who have found themselves at the center of the national immigration debate.
"It was predictable that the Supreme Court could have taken such a decision, which is not good for our community," said Viles Dorsainvil, a Haitian immigrant and executive director of the Haitian Support Center. "We were expecting the Supreme Court to uphold justice and human dignity, but it's the opposite."
Dorsainvil said many Haitian families have built lives in the United States and may no longer have relatives or support systems waiting for them in Haiti.
"The worst thing is we have so many Haitian families who have been here for so long they might not have any person in Haiti if something happens to them," Dorsainvil said. "It's a very sad situation for the Haitian community here."
Michael McClelland, a spokesperson for G92, a Springfield faith-based organization that works to protect the rights and dignity of immigrant neighbors, said staff members watched the Supreme Court's decision together the morning of June 25, hoping the justices would at least delay implementation.
NAACP calls lifting deportation protection from Syrians, Haitians 'devastating'
Bart Jansen
The NAACP civil-rights group blasted the court for a “devastating” decision that removed deportation protections from Syrians and Haitians.
“The Supreme Court has given the green light to deport over 350,000 people, jeopardizing their safety, all while ignoring clear equal protection principles,” NAACP CEO Derrick Johnson said in a statement. “It’s a shame that this is the America we’ve come to be.”
Supreme Court allows Trump administration to end deportation protections for Haitians and Syrians
Aysha Bagchi
In a major win for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court allowed the government to immediately end temporary protected status for Haitian and Syrians – a status that had blocked those nationals from being deported.
The ruling, which divided the court along ideological lines, enables the Trump administration to curtail a humanitarian program that's permitted hundreds of thousands of immigrants from dangerous countries to live and work temporarily in the United States.
Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii gun-carrying restriction
Aysha Bagchi
In a major Second Amendment decision, the Supreme Court struck down a Hawaii law that said gun owners with concealed carry permits can't take guns onto private property that's open to the public – in places like restaurants or parking lots – without the property owner's permission.
The issue split the Supreme Court along ideological lines, with the court's six Republican-appointed justices signing onto a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, and its three Democrat-appointed justices signing onto dissents written by Justices Elena Kagan or Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Supreme Court allows feds to turn back asylum seekers in win for Trump
Bart Jansen
The Supreme Court ruled the federal government may systematically turn back asylum seekers along the U.S. border with Mexico, a previous migrant management practice that the Trump administration may want to bring back.
The court said federal law doesn’t require the government to consider an asylum claim from a migrant who has reached a port of entry but has been barred from setting foot on U.S. soil.
Limiting the number of people who can claim asylum each day, a policy often called “metering,” was used by Democratic and Republican administrations before being rescinded by the Biden administration.
Supreme Court blocks lawsuits against weedkiller Roundup
Bart Jansen
The Supreme Court blocked thousands of lawsuits over the weedkiller Roundup, ruling that the manufacturer can’t be sued for failing to warn that the popular product might cause cancer.
The Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates pesticides, has not determined that Roundup poses a cancer risk and does not require a label saying it does.
The 7-2 ruling said that means Roundup users who’ve developed cancer cannot sue by claiming the weed killer violates state laws about dangerous products.
Staff bring out two boxes of decisions
Maureen Groppe
The Supreme Court staff who distribute the opinions to journalists have brought out two file boxes.
Each box typically holds up to two decisions, giving an indication of busy a morning it will be.
The opinions will start dropping soon.
Culture-war cases deal with transgender athletes, gun policy
Bart Jansen
Decisions are also pending in culture-war disputes.
In a pair of cases from West Virginia and Idaho, the justices will decide whether states can bar transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams. Depending on the reasoning, the decision could reach beyond athletics.
In a gun case from Hawaii, the high court is expected to decide whether owners of firearms need permission to carry a weapon into a store or other private property open to the public.
Opinions issued in order of seniority
Maureen Groppe
Decisions are announced from the bench by order of seniority of the author, with Chief Justice John Roberts going last.
Because Roberts writes many of the court’s major decisions, that often means the final opinion of the day is the biggest. But that’s not always the case.
On the last day of the last term, for example, the biggest decision was the ruling rejecting how lower courts had temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s changes to birthright citizenship from going into effect while his executive order was being litigated.
That decision was the first of five to be announced because it was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court’s second-most junior member.
Court could decide rules for mail-in ballots and campaign funding
Bart Jansen
Two pending election-law cases – which also deal with Trump priorities – could change the rules for how elections are run.
Trump has argued for an end to the grace periods that many states allow for mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day. The high court is expected to decide whether Mississippi can count ballots that are received up to five days late, with possible ramifications for dozens more states.
The other election ruling is expected to determine whether to keep a 50-year-old cap on a party’s campaign funding in coordination with a candidate. The court upheld the cap in 2001 but Republicans including Vice President JD Vance contend the Watergate-era cap is no longer needed to discourage corruption.
Expect decisions from these justices
Maureen Groppe
Expect to hear a lot from three of the court’s six conservative justices as the remaining decisions are handed down.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh have authored the fewest opinions so far this term. Because the workload is roughly evenly distributed, that means those justices are most likely to have written most of the pending decisions.
Roberts, for example, wrote six decisions last term and has authored three so far this term.
Alito and Kavanaugh have also written only three.
Justice Neil Gorsuch has written the most so far: seven decisions.
Happy Birthday Justice Sotomayor
Maureen Groppe
Today is not just a decision day; it’s also Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s birthday. She turned 72.
And she wasn’t the only justice celebrating another turn around the sun this week.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s longest serving member, turned 78 on Tuesday.
Expect divided decisions
Maureen Groppe
Get ready for some ideological splits.
More than 40% of cases in recent years were decided unanimously. But those easy decisions are generally not the ones that are handed down at the end of a term.
When the justices are fiercely divided over a case, it takes time for them to respond to each other in the majority’s opinion and the dissent. And some of the biggest divisions occur when the 6-3 conservative court splits along ideological lines.
Based on oral arguments, such splits could be coming in a number of decisions including those about transgender athletes, campaign finance limits, Hawaii’s effort to limit guns in public places, and whether President Donal Trump can fire leaders of independent agencies.
The `running of the interns'
Maureen Groppe
The scene outside the Supreme Court was calm 90 minutes before the justices will start handing down decisions.
No protesters had gathered. Crews from television networks waited in preparation for broadcasting live any major opinion. They’ll often get copies of the decisions from interns who sprint from inside the building to the sidewalks in what’s known as the “running of the interns.”
Immigration policy including citizenship at heart of several cases
Bart Jansen
One of Trump's first executive orders sought to restrict birthright citizenship to the children of citizens or legal permanent residents. The high court is expected to decide whether nearly all babies born in the country are citizens, as the Constitution’s 14th Amendment has been interpreted for more than 125 years.
Among other pending immigration cases, the justices have been asked whether Trump can refuse asylum claims, after previous administrations allowed refugees to wait in the U.S. for their requests to be heard.
Another couple of cases question whether the administration can end temporary programs protecting immigrants from Syria and Haiti from deportation.
No, you can't listen remotely to decision announcements
Maureen Groppe
Don’t try tuning in to hear the justices announce today’s decisions.
Although the court livestreams the audio of oral arguments, that’s not the case for the summaries the justices give of their opinions.
The Senate Judiciary Committee last week advanced a bill that would require all open sessions of the court to be televised, unless a majority of the justices agree doing so would violate the due process rights of one of the parties arguing before the court.
“It’s time to put cameras in the Supreme Court so more Americans can finally see arguments and decisions in cases that will affect them for generations to come,” Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the committee’s top Democrat, said in a statement.
But don’t program your TV yet. Similar bills approved by the panel in previous years were never voted on by the full Senate.
Court could redefine presidential power to remove agency board members
Bart Jansen
Trump contends that as the head of the executive branch of government, he has the power to hire and fire members of so-called independent boards for any reason.
But a unanimous 1935 Supreme Court precedent found the president could only remove members of independent boards such as the Federal Trade Commission "for cause" because Congress created the agencies with a mix of executive and legislative powers.
In a pair of cases, the justices are expected to decide whether the president has the authority to fire Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission and Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Bank.
The email notifying Slaughter of her removal listed no reason. Trump cited false statements on Cook's mortgage applications as "cause" for her removal, but Cook argued she wasn't given a formal chance to respond.
A clue to how many opinions are coming
Maureen Groppe
A few minutes before the justices take the bench, reporters waiting in the press room for copies of the decisions get an indication of how many to expect.
The clue is in the number of file boxes the court staff bring out. One box generally holds up to two opinions. But which ones they are is anybody’s guess.