AFP USA

The US Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify visitors’ ages, rejecting arguments that this violates free speech and boosting efforts to protect children from online sexual content.The court’s decision will impact a raft of similar laws nationwide and could set the direction for internet speech regulation as concerns about the impact of digital life on society grow.Texas is one of about 20 US states to institute checks that porn viewers are over 18, which critics argue violate First Amendment free speech rights.Britain and Germany also enforce age-related access restrictions to adult websites, while a similar policy in France was blocked by the courts a week ago.US companies like Meta, meanwhile, are lobbying Washington lawmakers for age-based verification to be carried out by smartphone giants Apple and Google on their app stores.The Texas law was passed in 2023 by the state’s Republican-majority legislature but was initially blocked after a challenge by an adult entertainment industry trade association.A federal district court sided with the trade group, the Free Speech Coalition, saying the law restricted adults’ access to constitutionally protected content.But a conservative-dominated appeals court upheld the age verification requirement, prompting the pornography trade group to take its case to the Supreme Court, where conservatives have a 6-3 supermajority.Under the law, companies that fail to properly verify users’ ages face fines up to $10,000 per day and up to $250,000 if a child is exposed to pornographic content as a result.To protect privacy, the websites aren’t allowed to retain any identifying information obtained from users when verifying ages, and doing so could cost companies $10,000 daily in fines.During arguments in January before the Supreme Court, a lawyer representing the Free Speech Coalition said the law was “overly burdensome” and that its goal could be accomplished using content filtering programs.But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the mother of seven children, took issue with the efficacy of content filtering, saying that from personal experience as a parent, such programs were difficult to maintain across the many types of devices used by kids.Barrett also asked the lawyer to explain why requesting age verification online is any different than doing so at a movie theater that displays pornographic movies.The lawyer for the Free Speech Coalition — which includes the popular website Pornhub that has blocked all access in some states with age verification laws — said online verification was different as it leaves a “permanent record” that could be a target for hackers.During the court’s hearing of the case in January, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, both Republican appointees, seemed to suggest that advances in technology might justify reviewing online free speech cases.In 1997, the Supreme Court struck down, in an overwhelming 7-2 decision, a federal online age-verification law in what became a landmark free speech case that set a major precedent for the internet age.

President Donald Trump has escalated his longstanding assault on the mainstream media, denigrating individual reporters and threatening legal action against major outlets over their coverage this week of US military strikes on Iran.Trump has staked significant political capital on the success of last weekend’s strikes, which he ordered despite criticism within his own support base for breaking his campaign promises to avoid foreign military interventions.The president has blasted press coverage of a preliminary classified report from his own administration that suggested that Trump’s claim that Iran’s nuclear facilities were “obliterated” was overstated.The unusually scathing attack on reporters underscores what many observers view as Trump’s effort to put the media — already battling record low public trust — on the defensive and stifle scrutiny of the bombing raid.”Having made the decision to join the fight against Iran, being able to claim that the intervention was brief and successful has obvious political upside for Trump in repairing rifts within his coalition,” Joshua Tucker, co-director of the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics, told AFP.”The discussion by the media of the preliminary intelligence report therefore complicated the president’s preferred narrative about the US attack.”The preliminary intelligence assessment, first reported by CNN and The New York Times, then picked up by other mainstream media, suggested that the strikes may not have destroyed the core parts of the nuclear sites and had set back Iran’s nuclear program by only a few months.Trump said CNN should throw the reporter on the story out “like a dog.” He said CNN and New York Times reporters were “bad and sick people” attempting to demean American pilots involved in the strikes.At a televised news conference on Thursday, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth reiterated the president’s complaints and pushed back on the findings of the report — issued by the US Defense Intelligence Agency –- but did not deny its existence.- ‘Increasingly ugly’ -Both news outlets have stood behind their journalists and defended their reporting.”President Trump and his administration are going after shooting the messengers in an increasingly ugly way,” said CNN’s top political anchor Jake Tapper.”They’re calling journalists ‘fake news’ for true stories,” he added.Trump has also threatened to sue The New York Times and CNN over their coverage of the intelligence report.In a letter, the president’s personal lawyer said the New York Times had damaged Trump’s reputation and demanded that it “retract and apologize” for its report, calling it “false,” “defamatory” and “unpatriotic,” according to the newspaper.The newspaper said it had rejected those demands.”Trump is killing the messenger,” Todd Belt, director of the political management program at George Washington University, told AFP.”He’s taking it out on the press because he knows that the press are unpopular,” particularly among his core Make America Great Again (MAGA) base, he said.”Additionally, he and others in the administration are using the attack line of patriotism to bolster their side against the press.”- ‘Peace through strength’ -The anti-media rhetoric escalates Trump’s longstanding battle with the press.Since the beginning of his second term, his administration has sought to target the finances of media organizations — already struggling in an increasingly tough commercial climate — by cutting government agencies’ news subscriptions.He has also targeted news outlets with multi-million dollar lawsuits.Trump’s latest attacks come amid a public relations campaign to portray himself as a peacemaker in the Middle East, while retaining the support of his core MAGA base.On Friday, Trump doubled down on his stance, stating that Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei “got beat to hell” in the hostilities involving the United States and Israel, while exhorting Tehran to return to the negotiating table.”If his ‘peace through strength’ single attack didn’t work and the conflict gets drawn out, this undermines his claim as a peacemaker,” said Belt.”If the public believes the single strike didn’t work, then he will either have to attack again or negotiate from a position that recognizes that Iran still maintains fissile material, which may not work.”

US President Donald Trump’s signature domestic policy bill faced major roadblocks Friday, as his Republicans struggled to overcome differences and many of the spending cuts proposed to pay for his tax breaks were deemed against Senate rules.Trump is hoping to seal his legacy with the so-called “One, Big Beautiful Bill” — extending his expiring first-term tax cuts at a cost of $4.5 trillion and beefing up border security.But Republicans eying 2026 midterm congressional elections are divided over the package, which would strip health care from millions of the poorest Americans and add more than $3 trillion to America’s burgeoning debt pile.Trump ratcheted up pressure on Congress to get the package to his desk by July 4, posting on social media Friday: “We can get it done. It will be a wonderful Celebration for our Country.”Senate Republican leaders had planned to begin a weekend of votes beginning Friday to pass the sprawling legislation but that timetable was in limbo, with negotiations mired in rows.Republicans are using an arcane process called “reconciliation” which allows them to pass the package on a simple majority, without Democratic buy-in.But there are strict rules governing the provisions allowed in such legislation, adjudicated by the chamber’s independent “referee,” Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough.The savings come largely from decimating funding for Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income Americans, but MacDonough called some of those cuts out-of-bounds.That leaves around $250 billion in savings on the cutting room floor, and Republicans scrambling to offset the $4.5 trillion cost of Trump’s tax relief elsewhere. Republicans are split in any case on the Medicaid cuts, which will threaten scores of rural hospitals and lead to an estimated 8.6 million Americans being deprived of health care.Independent analysis also shows that the bill would pave the way for a historic redistribution of wealth from the poorest 10 percent of Americans to the richest.It is unpopular across multiple demographic, age and income groups, according to extensive recent polling. Although the House has already passed its own version, both chambers have to agree on the same text before it can be signed into law.Republican leaders worked Friday to hammer out a version that can get a quick rubber-stamp in the House without returning to the negotiating table.But more than a dozen House Republicans — enough to tank the package — have said they will not vote for the Medicaid cuts. Meanwhile, there are conservatives in both chambers who are adamant that the cuts do not go far enough.”Every Republican senator is committed,” Trump said at a White House press conference Friday.But he acknowledged the bill’s precarious status, telling reporters that “a couple of grandstanders” could derail his plans.”And it’s very dangerous, because our country would go from being the most successful country in the world to, who knows what,” he said.

President Donald Trump said Friday he is calling off trade negotiations with Canada in retaliation for taxes impacting US tech firms, adding that Ottawa will learn of their new tariff rate within a week.Trump was referring to Canada’s digital services tax, which was enacted last year and forecast to bring in Can$5.9 billion (US$4.2 billion) over five years.While the measure is not new, US service providers will be “on the hook for a multi-billion dollar payment in Canada” come June 30, noted the Computer & Communications Industry Association recently.The three percent tax applies to large or multinational companies such as Alphabet, Amazon and Meta that provide digital services to Canadians, and Washington has previously requested dispute settlement talks over the matter.”Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform Friday.He called the country “very difficult” to trade with.Canada may have been spared some of Trump’s most sweeping duties, such as a 10 percent levy on nearly all US trading partners, but it faces a separate tariff regime.Trump has also imposed steep levies on imports of steel, aluminum and autos.Last week, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Ottawa will adjust its 25 percent counter tariffs on US steel and aluminum — in response to a doubling of US levies on the metals to 50 percent — if a bilateral trade deal was not reached in 30 days.”We will continue to conduct these complex negotiations in the best interest of Canadians,” Carney said Friday, adding that he had not spoken to Trump following the US president’s announcement.- China progress -Trump’s latest salvo targeting Canada came shortly after Washington and Beijing confirmed finalizing a framework to move forward on trade.Beijing said Washington would lift “restrictive measures” while China would “review and approve” items under export controls.A priority for Washington in talks with Beijing had been ensuring the supply of the rare earths essential for products including electric vehicles, hard drives and national defense equipment.China, which dominates global production of the elements, began requiring export licenses in early April, a move widely viewed as a response to Trump’s blistering tariffs.The two sides agreed after talks in Geneva in May to temporarily lower steep tit-for-tat duties on each other’s products.China also committed to easing some non-tariff countermeasures but US officials later accused Beijing of violating the pact and slow-walking export license approvals for rare earths.They eventually agreed on a framework to move forward with their Geneva consensus following talks in London this month.A White House official told AFP on Thursday that the Trump administration and China had “agreed to an additional understanding for a framework to implement the Geneva agreement.”This clarification came after the US president told an event that Washington had inked a deal relating to trade with China, without providing details.Under the deal, China “will review and approve applications for the export control items that meet the requirements in accordance with the law,” China’s commerce ministry said.”The US side will correspondingly cancel a series of restrictive measures against China,” it added.- Upcoming deals? -Dozens of economies, although not China, face a July 9 deadline for steeper duties to kick in — rising from a current 10 percent.It remains to be seen if other countries facing the higher US tariffs will successfully reach agreements to avoid them before the deadline.US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Friday that Washington could wrap up its agenda for trade deals by September, indicating more agreements could be concluded although talks were likely to extend past July.Speaking to Fox Business, Bessent reiterated there are 18 key partners Washington is focused on pacts with.”If we can ink 10 or 12 of the important 18, there are another important 20 relationships, then I think we could have trade wrapped up by Labor Day,” Bessent said, referring to the US holiday on September 1.The White House suggested Thursday the July deadline could be extended, or Trump could pick a tariff rate for countries if there was no agreement.Wall Street’s major indexes, which bounced early Friday on hopes for deals, lost some ground after Trump called off Canada talks.

Sean “Diddy” Combs’s lawyer told jurors Friday in closing arguments that the music mogul’s racketeering and sex trafficking trial was all about his accusers trying to score a big payday.Defense attorney Marc Agnifilo scofffed at the picture painted by prosecutors of the 55-year-old former rapper as a violent, domineering man who used fear to force women into demeaning sex parties.The relationships between the “self-made, successful Black entrepreneur” and his accusers were “complicated” but amounted to “love stories,” rather than the result of a “climate of fear,” he said.”This isn’t about justice. This isn’t about a crime. This is about money,” Agnifilo said.On Thursday, US attorney Christy Slavik had methodically walked the jury through the charges, summarizing thousands of phone, financial, travel and audiovisual records along with nearly seven weeks of testimony.Slavik said Combs had “counted on silence and shame to keep his crimes hidden.””Up until today, the defendant was able to get away with these crimes because of his money, his power, his influence. That stops now,” she said.In explaining the most serious charge of racketeering, the prosecution said Combs led a criminal enteprise of “loyal lieutanants” and “foot soldiers” who “existed to serve his needs.”Central to their case is the claim that senior employees — including his chief-of-staff and security guards, none of whom testified — were aware of his actions and actively enabled them.- Consent or coercion? -As in their opening statements, Combs’s defense conceded that some relationships may have involved domestic violence but insisted they did not amount to sex trafficking. The prosecution showed examples they say are “crystal clear” evidence of trafficking that included coercion into drug-addled sex with paid escorts under threat of reputational, physical or financial harm.The defense countered that the women were consenting adults making their own choices.Both women at the center of the trafficking charges — singer Casandra “Cassie” Ventura and a woman testifying under the pseudonym Jane — were in long-term relationships with Combs. The defense argued the sex was consensual, if unorthodox.”Cassie is nobody’s fool,” said Agnifilo. “She’s sitting somewhere in the world with $30 million if you had to pick a winner in this whole thing, it would be Cassie.””She was always free to leave. She chose to stay because she was in love with him and he was in love with her.”Calling Ventura “beatiful” and “sexy,” he added: “She’s a woman who actually likes sex. Good for her.”He questioned her testimony about being coerced into sex with male escorts, adding “This was a lifestyle. You want to call it swingers. You want to call it threesomes… that’s all it is.”Addressing the now-infamous video of Combs beating Ventura in a hotel hallway, Agnifilo acknowledged it was “terrible” and “very much domestic violence,” but said, “The video is not sex trafficking.” Jurors were shown many phone records that included messages of affection and desire from both women — but prosecutor Slavik said taking those words literally, and in isolation, doesn’t paint the whole picture.Throughout her arguments she referenced testimony from a forensic psychologist who explained to jurors how victims become ensnared by their abusers.And in one powerful moment she asked jurors to put themselves in the shoes of Ventura, who testified of harrowing physical abuse for years under Combs.”Imagine the terror of never knowing when the next hit might come,” Slavik said. “Now imagine trying to say no to that person.” Government witnesses also included former assistants and other employees, as well as escorts, friends and family of Ventura, and a hotel security guard who said he was bribed with $100,000 in a paper bag.The defense opted against calling witnesses, including Combs himself, a strategy that’s not uncommon in criminal trials.Once closing arguments conclude, judge Arun Subramanian will instruct jurors on how they are to apply the law to the evidence during their deliberations.

Donald Trump’s second son fueled speculation Friday that his family seeks to establish a multi-generational political dynasty, saying he and other relatives may run for public office.Eric Trump told the Financial Times that a political career would be “would be an easy one” for family members, as they look beyond President Trump’s second term that ends in 2029.Eric, 41, is a fierce defender of his father on TV networks, while older brother Don Jr. is a key player in the Trump inner circle, using his podcast and social media presence to fire up the president’s base.”The real question is: ‘Do you want to drag other members of your family into it?'” Eric Trump said in an interview.”If the answer was yes, I think the political path would be an easy one, meaning, I think I could do it,” he said. “And by the way, I think other members of our family could do it too.”Trump’s children and his close family have long been involved in his business life, and have also taken major roles as he moved into politics and took the White House in 2017.In Trump’s first term, his daughter Ivanka and husband Jared Kushner held senior administration posts, though they have retreated from the political frontlines for now.Eric’s wife Lara Trump co-led the national Republican Party during the last election campaign — receiving lavish praise from the candidate — and she now has her own show on Fox News.Barron Trump, the president’s only child with wife Melania, is aged 19, but his father says he is interested in politics and helped him to draw in young male voters via podcasts and TikTok.Kai Trump, 18, daughter of Don Jr. and ex-wife Vanessa Trump, spoke at last year’s Republican National Convention and is a competitive junior golfer.Eric Trump told the Financial Times he was “wholly unimpressed by half the politicians I see” adding “I could do it very effectively.”Asked if a Trump would stand for election in future, he replied “I don’t know… Time will tell. But there’s more people than just me.”- Profiting from politics -Eric and Don Jr. run the Trump family business, which now includes a growing cryptocurrency portfolio.Eric Trump denied any conflicts of interest, saying “if there’s one family that hasn’t profited off politics, it’s the Trump family.”The opportunity cost, the legal cost, the toll it’s taken on our family has been astronomical.”The Trumps are widely believed to have taken the monetizing of their powerful status to unprecedented levels for US first families.Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has agreed to finance a film about Melania Trump, reportedly netting her $28 million. Other close family are involved in multi-billion-dollar real estate deals abroad, and Don Jr. is launching a Washington club where membership reportedly costs more than half a million dollars.In May, President Trump hosted a dinner at one of his golf clubs for investors in his $TRUMP cryptocurrency, which he launched shortly before reentering the White House. Seats went to investors who bought the most of the currency, with the top 25 holders gaining a private reception with Trump himself.

US President Donald Trump said Friday he had saved Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khameni from assassination and lashed out at the supreme leader for ingratitude, declaring he would order more bombing if the country tried to pursue nuclear weapons.In an extraordinary outburst on his Truth Social platform, Trump blasted Tehran for claiming to have won its war with Israel and said he was halting work on possible sanctions relief.Trump said that the United States would bomb Iran again “without question” if the country was still able to enrich nuclear-weapons grade uranium following US strikes.The US president accused the Iranian leader of ingratitude after Khamenei said in a defiant message that reports of damage to its nuclear sites from US bombing were exaggerated, and said Iran had beaten Israel and dealt Washington a “slap.”Trump posted: “I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life.””I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH, and he does not have to say, “THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP!'” Trump said that he had been working in recent days on the possible removal of sanctions against Iran, one of Tehran’s long-term demands.”But no, instead I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief, and more,” Trump added, exhorting Iran to return to the negotiating table.Iran’s foreign minister on Wednesday denied it is set to resume nuclear talks with the United States, after Trump said at a NATO summit in The Hague that negotiations were set to begin again next week.- ‘Beat to hell’ -Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff had expressed hope “for a comprehensive peace agreement.”Asked earlier in a White House press conference whether he would consider fresh air strikes if last week’s sorties were not successful in ending Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Trump said: “Sure. Without question. Absolutely.”Trump added that Khamenei and Iran “got beat to hell” in the hostilities involving the United States and Israel and that “it was a great time to end it.”He had said during the press conference that he would be “putting out a little statement” on Khamenei’s comments, which appeared to be the Truth Social post.In the post, he accused Khamenei of “blatantly and foolishly” saying Iran won the 12-day war with Israel, adding: “As a man of great faith, he is not supposed to lie.”The war of words come as a fragile ceasefire holds in the conflict between Israel and Iran.Speculation had however swirled about the fate of Khamenei.In a televised speech on Thursday — his first appearance since the ceasefire — Khamenei hailed what he described as Iran’s “victory” over Israel, vowed never to yield to US pressure and insisted Washington had been dealt a humiliating “slap”.”The American president exaggerated events in unusual ways, and it turned out that he needed this exaggeration,” Khamenei said, rejecting Trump’s claims Iran’s nuclear program had been set back by decades.

US President Donald Trump said Friday he can now push through a raft of controversial policies after the Supreme Court handed him a “giant win” by curbing the ability of lone judges to block his powers nationwide.In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by individual district court judges likely exceed their authority.”This was a tremendous win,” Trump told reporters in a hastily arranged press conference at the White House. “I want to just thank again the Supreme Court for this ruling.”Trump said he would now proceed with “so many policies” that had been “wrongly” blocked, including his bid to end birthright citizenship, and stopping funding for transgender people and “sanctuary cities”  for migrants.US Attorney General Pam Bondi, standing alongside Trump at the podium, said the ruling would stop “rogue judges striking down President Trump’s policies across the entire nation.”Democrats swiftly blasted the decision, saying it would embolden Trump as he pushes the boundaries of presidential power in his second term.Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called it a “terrifying step toward authoritarianism.”Trump however rejected concerns about the concentration of power in the White House.”This is really the opposite of that,” Trump said. “This really brings back the Constitution.”Trump separately hailed a “great ruling” by the Supreme Court to let parents opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed lessons at public schools.The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on US soil.But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings removes a big roadblock to Trump’s often highly contested policy agenda and has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump or future US presidents.Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of a number of his moves that have been blocked by judges around the country — both Democratic and Republican appointees – since he took office in January.Courts have, for example, blocked or slowed down his hardline immigration crackdown, firing of federal employees, efforts to end diversity programs and punitive actions against law firms and universities.- ‘No right is safe’ -Past presidents have also complained about national injunctions shackling their agenda, but such orders have sharply risen under Trump, who saw more in his first two months than Democrat Joe Biden did during his first three years in office.Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, authored the majority opinion joined by the other five conservative justices.”Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,” wrote Barrett, who has previously been a frequent target of Trump loyalists over previous decisions that went against the president.The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying “no right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.”Trump’s initial reaction to the ruling came in a post on Truth Social, welcomed it as a “GIANT WIN.”The case was ostensibly about Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, which was deemed unconstitutional by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state.But it actually focused on whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction.The issue has become a rallying cry for Trump and his Republican allies, who accuse the judiciary of impeding his agenda against the will of voters.Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, told AFP that the court’s ruling “sharply undermines the power of federal courts to rein in lawless actions by the government.”Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens.Trump said that the policy “was meant for the babies of slaves,” dating back to the US Civil War era in the mid 1800s.

The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled 6-3 to let parents opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed lessons at public schools, a move critics warn threatens the future of secular education by opening the door to broad religious objections.The justices reviewed an appeal brought by Christian and Muslim parents against a Maryland public school district that, in 2022, added books tackling prejudice and exploring gender identity to its elementary curriculum.President Donald Trump, who has made fighting “woke ideology” a hallmark of his second term, hailed the outcome as a “great ruling for parents.””They lost control of the schools and they lost control of their child, and this is a tremendous victory for parents,” he said at a White House press conference.The court found that the Montgomery County parents were likely to prevail in their claim that blocking them from opting out “unconstitutionally burdens” their religious freedom.”For many people of faith, there are few religious acts more important than the religious education of their children,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the majority.He said the books in question “are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”Alito cited specific texts including “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” which celebrates gay marriage, and “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,” about a transgender boy.The right-wing Heritage Foundation, which authored the blueprint for Trump’s second term, also praised the ruling as “a resounding victory for parents across America, affirming their fundamental right to guide their children’s moral and religious upbringing.”- Evolution next? -In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor — joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson  — defended public schools as places where “children of all faiths and backgrounds” gain exposure to a pluralistic society.”That experience is critical to our Nation’s civic vitality,” she wrote. “Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs.”She warned of a slippery slope: “Books expressing implicit support for patriotism, women’s rights, interfaith marriage, consumption of meat, immodest dress, and countless other topics may conflict with sincerely held religious beliefs and thus trigger stringent judicial review under the majority’s test.”The ruling could even reopen settled legal ground on how schools teach evolution and other scientific topics, said Daniel Mach, a legal expert with the American Civil Liberties Union.”The issue had come up many times in lower courts, including where parents claimed a religious right to opt out of biology lessons on evolution,” he told AFP. “In each of those cases, the courts rejected the claim, but now with today’s decision, the door has been bashed open to invite all manner of objections.”Mach warned that schools may now choose to self-censor rather than navigate a patchwork of opt-outs in anticipation of lawsuits.

A divided US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory on Friday by curbing the power of lone federal judges to block executive actions.In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by district court judges “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”The top court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on American soil.But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings removes a big roadblock to Trump’s often highly controversial policy agenda and has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump or future American presidents.Trump celebrated by telling reporters he had “a whole list” of policies he could now proceed on without opposition in the courts.Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of a number of his moves that have been blocked by judges around the country — both Democratic and Republican appointees – since he took office in January.Courts have, for example, blocked or slowed down his hardline immigration crackdown, firing of federal employees, efforts to end diversity programs and punitive actions against law firms and universities.Past presidents have also complained about national injunctions shackling their agenda, but such orders have sharply risen under Trump, who saw more in his first two months than Democrat Joe Biden did during his first three years in office.Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee who authored the majority opinion joined by the other five conservative justices, said “the universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation’s history.””Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,” Barrett wrote.”When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” she said.The three liberal justices dissented with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying “no right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.””The Court’s decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution,” Sotomayor said.”The Executive Branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals’ constitutional rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully,” she said.- ‘GIANT WIN’ -Trump, in a post on Truth Social, welcomed the ruling as a “GIANT WIN.”The case was ostensibly about Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, which was deemed unconstitutional by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state.But it actually focused on whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction.The issue has become a rallying cry for Trump and his Republican allies, who accuse the judiciary of impeding his agenda against the will of voters.Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, said the court’s ruling “sharply undermines the power of federal courts to rein-in lawless actions by the government.””The ruling will likely create a patchwork of birthright citizenship rights,” Schwinn told AFP, where it is recognized in some locations for people who have successfully sued and not recognized for people who have not sued.”This patchwork approach to individual rights is inconsistent with our history and tradition of federal rights in the United States and is inconsistent with the rule of law,” he said.The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to restrict the application of a district court’s injunction solely to the parties who brought the case and the district where the judge presides.Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens.The three lower courts ruled that to be a violation of the 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”