The Daily Brief — June 30, 2026
Birthright citizenship to stay, trans athletes banned from female sports, SCOTUS strikes down campaign finance limits
These are today’s top stories, delivered straight to your inbox. Catch up here on all the news.
SCOTUS Upholds Birthright Citizenship
The Supreme Court has struck down President Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship for children born in the US to undocumented and temporary immigrants. The Court reaffirmed that children born on American soil to those parents are citizens at birth.
The case, Trump v. Barbara, centers on a Trump executive order issued in January 2025 that sought to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the United States if neither parent is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The Trump administration argued that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” does not apply to people in the United States without permanent authorization.
The order was part of a broader effort to crack down on immigration in the United States. The president has frequently referred to phrases like “anchor babies” and “birth tourism,” and sought to remove what he perceives as an incentive for people to enter the US without authorization to give birth and establish citizenship for their children.
The plaintiffs — immigrant parents and their US-born children — argued that the executive order violates the plain text of the 14th Amendment. They contended that the Trump administration was asking the Supreme Court to overturn more than 150 years of constitutional practice and precedent, and that adopting the administration’s interpretation would risk the citizenship status of millions of Americans and create chaos in the legal system.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion, joined by four other justices. They traced the rule to English common law and to the 14th Amendment’s purpose after the Civil War: undoing the widely condemned Dred Scott decision, which had denied citizenship to Black Americans. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment simply means subject to US law, the Court said — which includes nearly everyone physically in the country, including undocumented and temporary immigrants.
Justice Kavanaugh agreed the executive order was illegal, but for a different reason: he wrote that it did not violate the 14th Amendment but did break a federal law first passed by Congress in 1940 that establishes who is a citizen at birth. According to Kavanaugh, only Congress — not the president — can change who qualifies.
Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented. Thomas, who wrote a 91-page dissent, argued that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not mean someone is physically present in the US and bound by the country’s law. Rather, he wrote, it refers to people who owe full allegiance to the United States, which he argues includes only people who make the country their permanent home. Children of temporary visitors or of parents living here illegally still belong to a foreign nation, so the amendment never made them citizens.
SCOTUS Upholds Trans Athletes Ban in School/College Sports
The Supreme Court has upheld laws in West Virginia and Idaho that prohibit transgender girls and women from competing on female sports teams in public schools and colleges.
The Supreme Court consolidated two cases — West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox — about state laws that ban transgender girls and women from competing on female sports teams in public schools, including college teams. The cases concern whether Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution prevent states from passing laws that require athletes to participate on the team that aligns with their biological sex at birth.
The first case, Little v. Hecox, involves a law passed in 2020 by Idaho’s GOP-led legislature that also created a sex-verification process allowing anyone to challenge an athlete’s biological sex. If challenged, the athlete could be required to provide medical verification based on reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or natural testosterone levels. Critics alleged that it would force “female athletes to undergo… an invasive internal and external examination of reproductive organs.”
Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman, wanted to compete on Boise State University’s women’s cross country and track teams. She was joined in the suit by a high school athlete who is not trans but who believed she would have been subjected to sex verification under the law.
The second case, West Virginia v. BPJ, stems from a similar 2021 West Virginia law. The plaintiff in that case was an 11-year-old, BPJ, who transitioned to female before puberty and was barred from participating in girls’ sports.
In both cases, plaintiffs argued that the laws violate the Equal Protection Clause, since they apply only to girls and trans individuals. They also said that the laws violate Title IX, which they argued also protects trans athletes. Both Idaho and West Virginia said that they enacted these laws for the sake of fairness and to provide equal athletic opportunities for biological females.
Writing for the Court, Justice Kavanaugh said that Title IX and the regulations implementing it have long allowed schools to maintain separate sports teams based on sex, and that the meaning of the term refers only to biological sex. Because separate teams based on biological sex are permitted, and because Title IX and its regulations don’t mention any required exceptions for people who’ve taken puberty blockers or hormones, the court unanimously found Title IX does not protect trans athletes in this instance.
Six justices also held that the laws do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits states from making laws that classify people on the basis of sex unless the law is meant to advance an “important” government interest and the state can show that the law is “substantially related” to that interest. The Court agreed that the states have an important interest in protecting safety and competitive fairness in girls’ and women’s sports, and that limiting those teams to biological females is “substantially related” to achieving those goals.
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented from the Court’s Equal Protection ruling. They argued that the majority resolved the case too soon and should have given the lower courts more time to learn whether transgender girls who received gender-affirming treatment without undergoing male puberty retain the competitive advantages or pose the safety risks that the states cited to justify the bans.
SCOTUS Strikes Down Limits on Coordinated Campaign Finance
The Supreme Court struck down limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their own candidates’ campaigns. The decision in the case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, was 6–3.
The case began in 2022, when Republican groups and office holders — JD Vance, then a senator, and Steve Chabot, then a House member — sued the Federal Election Commission to challenge a law that limited the coordinated spending.
They argued that the limits violated the First Amendment by preventing political parties and candidates from pooling their resources to engage in political speech.
Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh said that limiting coordinated spending by political parties could reduce the parties to “second-tier status” in comparison with “outside groups” such as super PACs whose contributions are not limited. He also wrote that “weakened political parties distort the political system” and may contribute to political polarization.
Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented. She wrote that the new rules could lead to “quid quo pro corruption” in which donors direct large amounts of money to particular candidates through their political parties and then expect policy favors in return.
Newsbreak
Personalize your library with this sophisticated set of bookplates. Each features a beloved literary quote and a charming illustration that makes each book in your collection even more special. With quotes from the likes of Jane Austen, Jonathan Swift, and Samuel Johnson, these 55 classic labels appeal to a wide range of tastes and genres.
Judge Blocks New Student Loan Restrictions
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from implementing a new rule that would have sharply reduced the amount graduate students in nursing and several other fields related to health care are allowed to borrow in federal student loans. The rule hinged on a label — “professional degree” — that determines how much a graduate student can borrow from the federal government.
Students pursuing degrees in that category would qualify to borrow up to $50,000 a year and $200,000 total, compared with $20,500 a year and $100,000 total for other graduate students. The old rule allowed graduate students to borrow up to the full cost of their degree.
Under the new rule, only certain degrees in 11 fields, such as law and medicine, would qualify for higher federal loan limits. Nursing, physical therapy, and several other health-related degrees were excluded. Eight professional organizations, including the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, sued to block the rule.
A federal judge ruled last week that the Education Department exceeded its authority by narrowing the definition of a “professional degree,” a change that would have subjected many health care students to lower borrowing limits beginning July 1.