The Supreme Court wrapped up its term Tuesday morning with three consequential decisions that will shape American law on birthright citizenship, transgender athletes in school sports, and political campaign financing. The rulings came on the final day of a term marked by significant constitutional questions and sharp divisions among the justices.
In the most closely watched case, the court ruled that virtually all children born in the United States are entitled to birthright citizenship, a decision that directly contradicts efforts by President Trump to narrow the scope of the 14th Amendment. The ruling came down 5-4, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing a separate concurrence that brought the effective margin to 6-3.
Kim Wehle, professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law, characterized the narrow margin as troubling given the constitutional clarity at stake. The 14th Amendment states plainly that all persons born in the country are citizens, making this a straightforward textual question for a court that frequently emphasizes its commitment to originalism and textualism.
"This is the kind of decision that they could have just pointed to the Constitution and said, there's really not a job for the Supreme Court here. You just read the text," Wehle told NPR. "The fact that this has become a challenged issue and a debate in the country, in a way, is a win for people in the Trump camp that want to see this historic constitutional right dismantled."
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion by relying on common law traditions dating to English monarchy, arguing the principle of birthright citizenship has deep historical roots that were adopted by the United States. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, invoking the Dred Scott case and suggesting the 14th Amendment should be read more narrowly as applying primarily to formerly enslaved people.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a concurrence noting the inconsistency in conservative justices' approach to the 14th Amendment. She pointed out that the same justices who argue the Constitution is colorblind when striking down affirmative action programs were now suggesting race-conscious limitations on birthright citizenship.
Wehle suggested the timing of the announcement, released on the final day of the term, may have been strategic. The court could be attempting to minimize public attention to a ruling that contradicts the president's stated policy goals, similar to how organizations release unfavorable news on Fridays to reduce media coverage.
In a second major ruling Tuesday, the Supreme Court determined that states may ban transgender girls and women from participating in sports at publicly funded high schools and colleges. The decision addressed two consolidated cases and interpreted Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs receiving federal funding.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, concluding that for purposes of Title IX funding, sex means biological sex. The ruling emphasized that the statute, enacted in the 1970s, was designed to address disparities between boys' and girls' sports programs and ensure fairness based on biological sex differences.
The court also struck down limits on how much political parties can raise and spend on behalf of candidates, a campaign finance decision that significantly expands the role of party organizations in elections. Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion warning of the consequences.
"The majority invalidates Congress's restriction of coordinated expenditures, thus enabling a party to serve as an alternative checking account for a campaign," Kagan wrote, according to NPR. "A donor will be able to give a party as much as a half a million."
While the birthright citizenship and tariff rulings represent setbacks for the Trump administration, Wehle cautioned against overstating the court's independence from the president's agenda. Other decisions this term have dramatically expanded executive power, including rulings that declared nearly a century of congressional action in creating independent agencies unconstitutional.
The term concludes with fundamental questions about the court's relationship to the executive branch and its role in checking presidential power. Wehle noted that unlike the other branches of government, the Supreme Court lacks enforcement mechanisms and depends entirely on its perceived legitimacy to ensure compliance with its rulings.
