Supreme Court order gives religious organizations new chance to challenge New York abortion rule

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a New York court to take a new look at whether some religious organizations should be excluded from a state regulation requiring health insurance plans to cover abortions.
The justices acted after the court unanimously ruled earlier in June that Wisconsin discriminated against a Catholic charity by forcing it to pay state unemployment taxes.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Boston Globe

22 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

A potential strike on Iran tests Trump's propensity to play to both sides

Since his first campaign for president 10 years ago, Trump has excelled at appearing to favor both sides of the same issue, allowing supporters to hear what they want to hear, whether he's talking about tariffs, TikTok, abortion, tax cuts, or more. But the prospect that the United States might join Israel in bombing Iran is testing his ability to embrace dueling positions with little to no political cost. Some of Trump's most ardent supporters — those who defended him during multiple investigations and ultimately returned him to the White House — are ripping one another to shreds over the idea and at times lashing out at Trump as well. Advertisement The war in Iran is exactly the kind of Middle East entanglement that Trump's anti-interventionist base believed he was bitterly opposed to, because he repeatedly said he was. But he is also the same president who, in his first term, authorized missile strikes in Syria, after its leadership used chemical weapons on citizens, and the assassination of a top Iranian general, Qassem Soleimani — two actions he took pride in. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up To Trump, the contradictions are not actually contradictions. 'I think I'm the one that decides that,' he told The Atlantic recently in response to criticism from one of his most vocal anti-interventionist supporters, Tucker Carlson, who said the president's support for Israel's fight in Iran ran against his 'America First' message. Trump was propelled to victory in the Republican primary in 2016 as an outsider, in part because he forcefully condemned the invasion of Iraq, authorized by the last Republican president more than a decade before, and the seemingly endless war that followed. Yet he said the United States should have taken the country's oil, and ran radio ads saying he would 'bomb the hell' out of the Islamic State group. Advertisement He has said he wants to renew the tax cuts he put into effect in his first term, which saved some of the wealthiest earners millions, while also suggesting that congressional Republicans should implement a new tax on the wealthiest. He has said he supports businesses and also wants to deport the immigrant workforce that fuels parts of the economy. He wants to engage in mass deportation and also wants to sell visas for $5 million. He has celebrated the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as a point of pride while also condemning Republican governors who signed bills banning most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. He has both celebrated and criticized his own criminal justice reform bill of 2018. Despite the contradictions, Republicans for years have been united in support of Trump and what he says he wants, giving him a benefit of the doubt that few, if any, career politicians have ever received. Even when most elected Republicans held Trump at a distance after the deadly attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob on Jan. 6, 2021, Trump still had a tight grip on Republican primary voters. Trump, a celebrity known to the electorate for decades, has obscured long-standing and unresolved foreign policy divisions within the party dating back to the aftermath of President George W. Bush's push to invade Iraq. Advertisement But as Trump decides whether to plunge the United States into the heart of the Israel-Iran conflict, his core supporters are splintering. Trump's announcement Thursday that he could take up to two weeks to decide did not sit well with some of his most hawkish supporters. On social media, Fox News host Mark Levin began a lengthy post by suggesting that the president was being pulled back from what he actually wants to do. 'LET TRUMP BE TRUMP!' Levin wrote. 'We got our answer. Iran says no unconditional surrender. Again. And again. And again. They cheat and lie and kill. They're TERRORISTS!' His anti-interventionist supporters, meanwhile, have been equally alarmed by what he might decide to do. 'Anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA,' Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, posted on social media over the weekend. Trump's advisers say that on the Israel-Iran conflict in particular, the president is dealing with a fast-moving, complicated situation that does not lend itself to simple, black-and-white solutions, despite the fact that he has consistently campaigned that way. 'President Trump considers the nuances of every issue but ultimately takes decisive action to directly benefit American families,' said Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson. 'The American people trust this president to make the right decisions,' she said, adding that he 'started the Make America Great Again movement because he represents a new leadership that puts Americans first.' But in 2025, Trump is not the only one who can command media attention. Carlson is no longer on Fox News, but he has a show that streams on the social platform X and is a leading voice among foreign policy 'restrainers' who have argued that Trump would be acting against his own movement should he strike Iran. Advertisement Steve Bannon, an adviser who was exiled from the White House in the first year of Trump's first term, has become one of the dominant voices among the MAGA faithful with his 'War Room' podcast, delivering the same message as Carlson. Yet Trump has found that many of his allies will ultimately come back to him, despite unhappiness with some of his decisions.

USA Today

33 minutes ago

• USA Today

Justice Jackson: Supreme Court appears to favor 'monied interests' over ordinary citizens

Jackson's dissent in a case about air pollution rules came two weeks after she said the court may be unintentionally showing preferential treatment for the Trump administration. WASHINGTON − For the second time this month, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has complained that her colleagues are weighing the scales of justice differently depending on who is asking for help. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' she wrote in her disagreement with the majority's June 20 decision that fuel producers can challenge California emissions standards under a federal air pollution law. Jackson's dissent came two weeks after she wrote that the court is sending a 'troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the Trump administration. The court's six conservatives include three appointed by President Donald Trump in his first term. In a case involving the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on June 6 said Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency could have complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be 'irreparably harmed' by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court's two other liberals – Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – also disagreed with the majority's opinion in the Trump case. But Kagan joined the conservatives June 20 in siding with the fuel producers. Jackson, however, said there were multiple reasons the court shouldn't have heard the case from among the thousands of appeals it receives. Those reasons include the fact that the change in administrations was likely to make the dispute go away. But by ruling in the fuel industry's favor, Jackson wrote, the court made it easier for others to challenge anti-pollution laws. 'And I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' she said in her dissent. A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story Jackson said the court's 'remarkably lenient approach' to the fuel producers' challenge stands in contrast to the 'stern stance' it's taken in cases involving fair housing, desegrated schools or privacy concerns. In response, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the 7-2 opinion, pointed to other cases he said show the court is even handed. Those include its decision last year that anti-abortion doctors couldn't challenge the Food and Drug Administration's handling of a widely used abortion drug. More: Supreme Court revives suit against cop who fatally shot driver stopped for unpaid tolls 'In this case, as we have explained, this Court's recent standing precedents support the conclusion that the fuel producers have standing,' Kavanaugh wrote about the industry's ability to sue. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,' he wrote.

Yahoo

38 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