The Courts' Power

Yesterday's Supreme Court hearing was ostensibly about whether President Trump can end birthright citizenship. But the arguments focused on a different issue: Can a single lower-court judge block the president's policies across the whole country? Despite precedent, the administration says no. It wants to limit the judicial branch's ability to check the president, even beyond immigration.
This is not a partisan issue. Democratic politicians have also complained that lower courts have too much power. At yesterday's hearing, the justices didn't divide along ideological lines. Today's newsletter walks through the arguments around universal injunctions.
What's this debate about?
After Trump signed his order ending birthright citizenship, various groups sued to stop his policy. But courts can take years to go through filings, hearings and appeals. In the meantime, Trump could block tens of thousands of newborns from getting citizenship.
Judges often deal with this situation by telling an administration: Don't enforce your policy until the issue has worked through the courts. And, increasingly, lower courts have applied their pauses to the whole country, not just one jurisdiction. Federal District Court judges in Maryland, Washington state and Massachusetts each stopped Trump's birthright citizenship ban nationwide.
Presidents from both parties have said this process makes it too easy for random jurists to block their agendas. There are more than 600 District Court judges. With so many options, plaintiffs can almost always find a sympathetic ear.
What's the fix?
This question doesn't have an easy answer, and it consumed much of yesterday's hearing.
The administration said courts should apply injunctions only to the individual who brought the case. So if an undocumented mother sued to stop the birthright citizenship ban, a judge could grant her child — and only her child — citizenship.
That would place a huge burden on the public and the courts. Potentially millions of people would all have to hire lawyers and file lawsuits to protect their rights. A group could come together in a class-action lawsuit, but forming a class can be a time-consuming, difficult legal process.
These individuals could still appeal their case to the Supreme Court, which would retain the power to impose nationwide injunctions. But only losers can appeal a case. What if the plaintiffs never lose in lower courts? (So far, the birthright citizenship plaintiffs haven't.) An administration could choose not to appeal — to avoid setting a precedent it doesn't like and to keep the burden on individuals.
The justices could compromise. One suggestion is to limit universal injunctions to specific circumstances, such as when a case involves constitutional questions (as opposed to, say, disputes about how to interpret a regulation). Some lawmakers called for letting only three-judge panels impose universal injunctions.
What's next?
The Supreme Court will likely rule in a month or two. If the justices decide against Trump, the injunction on his birthright citizenship ban will remain. If the court rules in his favor, it could empower him to carry out his agenda, on immigration and other issues, with fewer obstacles.
For more: The Times is tracking this year's major Supreme Court decisions.
Officials from Russia and Ukraine are expected to meet today to discuss the possibility of a cease-fire. Anton Troianovski, The Times's Moscow bureau chief, explains the stakes.
Trump has not delivered the quick peace in Ukraine that he promised on the campaign trail. But neither has he sold the country out to Russia, as experts feared he might do after several warm chats with and about Vladimir Putin. Today, pushed by Trump, negotiators from Kyiv and Moscow are set to meet in Turkey — in what would be the first time they've faced each other publicly since the spring of 2022. Here's what to know.
What's on the table?
Ukraine wants a 30-day cease-fire and an exchange of prisoners. Russia wants concessions before it stops fighting. In 2022, the two sides drafted a peace agreement that would bar Ukraine from joining NATO. But Russia wanted more, such as making Russian an official language in Ukraine; Volodymyr Zelensky refused. His negotiating position is weaker now: Trump doesn't see Ukraine's fight as a core American interest, while Russia's military has recovered from the disastrous early weeks of its invasion.
How aligned are Trump and Putin?
Trump repeats pro-Russian talking points, such as the falsehood that Ukraine started the war. But he hasn't tipped the scales yet. Putin wants Ukraine to cede a large swath of territory it still controls — and to cap the future size of its military. The Trump administration has refused to go along. Still, it remains possible that Trump will cut a deal with Putin over Ukraine's head; he predicted yesterday that 'nothing's going to happen until Putin and I get together.'
How do Trump and Zelensky stand now?
In February, Trump berated Zelensky in front of the press during a meeting in the Oval Office. But the two men seem to have patched things up. They had a drama-free meeting at the funeral of Pope Francis in April. Days later, Ukraine signed a deal giving the United States control over a share of its future mining revenue.
At the same time, Trump is losing patience with Putin. The Russian leader has talked to Trump twice on the phone since February and held four hourslong meetings with Steve Witkoff, Trump's envoy and close friend. Yet Russia hasn't budged from demands that even Trump aides see as delusional.
New Jersey Transit
Trump's Middle East Trip
More on Politics
Israel-Hamas War
More International News
Other Big Stories
Yesterday, the world learned about KJ Muldoon, an infant in Pennsylvania, the first patient to be saved by a new treatment: Doctors edited his DNA to correct a liver disorder. We've heard of gene therapy before — to fight sickle-cell anemia and cancer, for instance. How is this different? I asked Gina Kolata, the science reporter who broke the story. — Adam B. Kushner
What's new here?
Other treatments don't fix your broken DNA. We deal with sickle-cell anemia by adding good genes, but the mutated ones are still there. Same with hemophilia. We can coach your immune system to attack some cancers' specific DNA. But doctors actually edited KJ's genome to correct bad spelling. Now, his liver can process the ammonia that comes from digesting protein. Eating normal food won't kill him.
They injected a lipid that brought the molecular-editing machinery to his liver. Does that mean the gene mutation in each of his liver cells is now fixed?
Probably not, though we don't actually know! Doctors didn't want to do an invasive biopsy to find out, but they can tell that he's processing ammonia properly now, and that's good enough. Anyway, you don't have to fix every single cell — only enough to get the job done.
Protecting public lands from urban development also protects America's hiking trails, biological diversity and Indigenous inhabitants, Michelle Nijhuis writes.
Here are columns by Michelle Goldberg on Joe Biden's competence crisis and David Brooks on the difficulties of college students.
Dazzled: People are obsessed with teamLab's immersive art exhibitions.
Travel: In the U.S., heightened immigration fears have made planning an international honeymoon unexpectedly complicated.
Surprise: Harvard Law School paid $27 for what officials thought was a copy of Magna Carta. Turns out it was an original.
Your pick: The Morning's most-clicked link yesterday was about an art auction at Sotheby's that flopped.
Trending online yesterday: People were searching for information about extreme weather in Michigan.
Lives Lived: Charles Strouse was an accidental Broadway composer but one of the most prolific and honored, with hits like 'Annie' and 'Bye Bye Birdie,' earning him three Tony Awards. He also won a Grammy and an Emmy. He died at 96.
W.N.B.A.: An important season begins tonight. Caitlin Clark and other stars are set to break ratings records.
N.B.A.: The Nuggets beat the Thunder to force a Game 7 in their second-round series.
The internet can be weird and confusing. We asked readers what they wanted to know about strange things online. For each of the next few weeks, The Times's internet culture reporter, Madison Malone Kircher, will answer one question.
A reader from New Orleans asked: Is there any way to distinguish between authentic trends and those cooked up by companies or bots?
A few years ago, an internet comedian named Sebastian Durfee started making videos to denounce the Porcelain Challenge, a phenomenon in which young people were supposedly grinding up fine china and snorting them like cocaine.
Except nobody was actually doing that. Durfee was satirizing the way trends proliferate online with a fake challenge that he said was meant to be 'easily debunked.' Sometimes it isn't that easy. To spot a bogus trend, think about whether it is ridiculous or inflammatory. Then, see if you can locate the source: Has it been covered by a trusted personality or news organization? Can you find the first video ever posted about the trend? (On TikTok, you can click on a particular sound clip and the app will show you the first video to use the audio. This can help, though it's not foolproof.) Does the source appear to be a regular person who just happened to go viral? When a catchy song about a little orange fish became inescapable earlier this spring, you could trace it back to a French duo.
Brands participate in memes, but often ones that are falling out of vogue. Nothing sucks the fun out of a shared online experience like a company glomming onto it for profit. The same is true of reporters who explain online trends. I'm not innocent here!
More on culture
Layer jammy strawberries over this unfussy cake.
Spend 36 hours in Rome.
Take our news quiz.
Here is today's Spelling Bee. Yesterday's pangrams were checkmate and matchmake.
And here are today's Mini Crossword, Wordle, Connections, Sports Connections and Strands.
Note: Wednesday's Spelling Bee was intended to have three pangrams. Because of a bug, only two, pinhead and pinheaded, made it into the live version. Headpin was omitted. Since a fix would erase players' progress, New York Times Games has opted to leave the puzzle and grid as is.
Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow.
Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. Reach our team at themorning@nytimes.com.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

18 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Federal judge blocks Trump effort to keep Harvard from hosting foreign students

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration's efforts to keep Harvard University from hosting international students, delivering the Ivy League school another victory as it challenges multiple government sanctions amid a battle with the White House. The order from U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston preserves Harvard's ability to host foreign students while the case is decided, but it falls short of resolving all of Harvard's legal hurdles to hosting international students. Notably, Burroughs said the federal government still has authority to review Harvard's ability to host international students through normal processes outlined in law. Harvard sued the Department of Homeland Security in May after the agency abruptly withdrew the school's certification to host foreign students and issue paperwork for their visas, skirting most of its usual procedures. The action would have forced Harvard's roughly 7,000 international students — about a quarter of its total enrollment — to transfer or risk being in the U.S. illegally. New foreign students would have been barred from coming to Harvard. The university said it was experiencing illegal retaliation for rejecting the White House's demands to overhaul Harvard policies related to campus protests, admissions, hiring and more. Burroughs temporarily had halted the government's action hours after Harvard sued. Less than two weeks later, in early June, President Donald Trump tried a new strategy. He issued a proclamation to block foreign students from entering the U.S. to attend Harvard, citing a different legal justification. Harvard challenged the move, saying the president was attempting an end-run around the temporary court order. Burroughs temporarily blocked Trump's proclamation as well. That emergency block remains in effect, and Burroughs did not address the proclamation in her order Friday. 'We expect the judge to issue a more enduring decision in the coming days,' Harvard said Friday in an email to international students. 'Our Schools will continue to make contingency plans toward ensuring that our international students and scholars can pursue their academic work to the fullest extent possible, should there be a change to student visa eligibility or their ability to enroll at Harvard.' Students in limbo The stops and starts of the legal battle have unsettled current students and left others around the world waiting to find out whether they will be able to attend America's oldest and wealthiest university. The Trump administration's efforts to stop Harvard from enrolling international students have created an environment of 'profound fear, concern, and confusion,' the university said in a court filing. Countless international students have asked about transferring from the university, Harvard immigration services director Maureen Martin said. Still, admissions consultants and students have indicated most current and prospective Harvard scholars are holding out hope they'll be able to attend the university. For one prospective graduate student, an admission to Harvard's Graduate School of Education had rescued her educational dreams. Huang, who asked to be identified only by her surname for fear of being targeted, had seen her original doctoral offer at Vanderbilt University rescinded after federal cuts to research and programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion. Harvard stepped in a few weeks later with a scholarship she couldn't refuse. She rushed to schedule her visa interview in Beijing. More than a month after the appointment, despite court orders against the Trump administration's policies, she still hasn't heard back. 'Your personal effort and capability means nothing in this era,' Huang said in a social media post. 'Why does it have to be so hard to go to school?' An ongoing battle Trump has been warring with Harvard for months after the university rejected a series of government demands meant to address conservative complaints that the school has become too liberal and has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Trump officials have cut more than $2.6 billion in research grants, ended federal contracts and threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. On Friday, the president said in a post on Truth Social that the administration has been working with Harvard to address 'their largescale improprieties" and that a deal with Harvard could be announced within the next week. 'They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right,' Trump's post said. Trump's administration first targeted Harvard's international students in April. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded that Harvard turn over a trove of records related to any dangerous or illegal activity by foreign students. Harvard says it complied, but Noem said the response fell short and on May 22 revoked Harvard's certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. The sanction immediately put Harvard at a disadvantage as it competed for the world's top students, the school said in its lawsuit, and it harmed Harvard's reputation as a global research hub. 'Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,' the lawsuit said. The action would have upended some graduate schools that recruit heavily from abroad. Some schools overseas quickly offered invitations to Harvard's students, including two universities in Hong Kong. Harvard President Alan Garber previously said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism. But Harvard, he said, will not stray from its 'core, legally-protected principles,' even after receiving federal ultimatums. ___ Collin Binkley has covered Harvard for nearly a decade — most of the time living half a mile from campus. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Collin Binkley And Albee Zhang, The Associated Press

Fox News

19 minutes ago

• Fox News

Issa floats constitutional amendment to let Congress, SCOTUS remove president after Biden health 'cover-up'

Rep. Darrell Issa on Friday suggested that the House should consider taking up a constitutional amendment to make it easier to remove a president who is unable to perform the job in response to the alleged cover-up of former President Joe Biden's declining mental state. Issa, R-Calif., who is a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said that actions taken by Biden administration officials to keep Americans in the dark about his health show that the provisions in the 25th Amendment may be insufficient. That amendment allows the Vice President and the Cabinet to remove a president from his role if he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." "The initiation was always intended to be the vice president and the cabinet based on the assumption that they would take their oath and their observation seriously and that they were closest to the president to know if that event was needed," Issa told Fox News. "It now looks as though their impartiality can be questioned." Issa added: "If that's the case, the other two branches need to be brought in in some way into the process of asserting that the president may be unable to perform his duties and determining that in a fair and, if necessary, public way." The other two branches in this case would likely be Congress and the Supreme Court. Issa's comments come as the House Oversight Committee is set to interview three Biden administration officials next week about the former president's decline. Former Domestic Policy Council Director Neera Tanden will meet with the committee Tuesday. Former Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the First Lady Anthony Bernthal will meet with the committee Thursday. Former White House Physician Dr. Kevin O'Connor will testify under subpoena on Friday. The committee also has interviews scheduled with former administration officials Annie Tomasini and Ashley Williams. And it's seeking interviews with several officials in the Biden inner circle, including former Chief of Staff Ron Klain and former Senior Advisor to the President for Communications Anita Dunn. Also among the questions investigators will have is whether any Biden officials used the autopen to authorize executive actions without the president's permission. The results of that investigation, according to Issa, could help inform exactly how to write this potential constitutional amendment. "What Chairman Comer is doing is extremely important because he's basically doing the fact-finding for the Judiciary Committee, which is going to undoubtedly take up a possible amendment to the 25th Amendment," Issa said. There is a very high threshold to amend the Constitution – a two-thirds vote in each chamber and ratification by three-quarters of states. So, if an amendment does materialize from the Judiciary Committee, it would face a tough road to make it through Congress, even with unified Republican control. But Issa says it's worth making an effort to improve the system. "Since it didn't work, we have to ask, is there another way to make it work better in the future?" he asked.

Washington Post

20 minutes ago

• Washington Post

Trump says Gabbard was 'wrong' about Iran and Israeli strikes could be 'very hard to stop'

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Friday that his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard , was 'wrong' when she previously said that the U.S. believed Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon, and he suggested that it would be 'very hard to stop' Israel's strikes on Iran in order to negotiate a possible ceasefire.