Conservative US Supreme Court Backs Republican Priorities While Drawing Line on Trump

Court blocks a series of Trump policies, including curbs on birthright citizenship

Justices reaffirm citizenship by birthplace

‘Anyone born in the US can join the political community’

Campaign finance spending limits eased

Presidential power over independent agencies broadened

Rulings largely favor Republican priorities

The US Supreme Court ruled on June 30 to preserve birthright citizenship, which automatically grants citizenship to children born on अमेरिकी soil. The court held that an executive order President Donald Trump signed in January 2025, seeking to deny that right to children born to foreign parents without permanent residency, violated the Constitution. At the same time, the justices gave the president far broader power to remove officials at major independent agencies. They also upheld restrictions on transgender athletes competing in women’s sports, underscoring the court’s conservative bent.

Reaffirming birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court issued rulings in nine major cases over two days starting June 29. The decisions came in a rush before the court’s two-month recess through August. The most closely watched was a 6-3 ruling reaffirming the constitutional principle of birthright citizenship.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Trump’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all people born or naturalized in the US regardless of their parents’ origin or social status. The amendment, he wrote, promised citizenship to all those freely born on US soil and made clear they could participate fully in the nation’s political community. “Today, we keep that promise.”

The three liberal justices joined Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh in the majority. The ruling marked a setback for Trump, who has often used court proceedings to strengthen his political standing, including by appearing in person during arguments. Trump later said Congress could still effectively nullify birthright citizenship through legislation. Still, any bill that conflicts with the Supreme Court’s ruling would face steep odds in Congress.

Election rulings favor Republicans

Other decisions reflected the broader conservative shift in the US. The ruling on transgender athletes showed that causes championed by Democrats and the broader progressive camp no longer enjoy wide support. The court found that West Virginia and Idaho acted lawfully in barring transgender women from competing in women’s sports. Kavanaugh, who has long served as a girls’ basketball coach, wrote that allowing transgender athletes to compete could displace or disadvantage female athletes. Courts, he said, cannot ignore the realities of sports.

The court’s sharp expansion of presidential authority to remove members of independent agencies pointed in the same direction. In a case involving Trump’s dismissal of Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, the justices sided with the president. The decision overturned a 91-year-old precedent and significantly strengthened White House influence over more than 20 independent agencies with structures similar to the FTC.

The court also issued several politically sensitive rulings that could affect the November midterm elections. Republicans argued that a Mississippi law allowing mail ballots to be counted if they arrive within five business days after Election Day was unconstitutional, but the court rejected that challenge. Other rulings, however, could benefit the GOP. Most notably, the court allowed Alabama to use congressional district maps in this year’s midterms even after lower courts found them racially discriminatory. That followed an April decision declining to recognize a minority district in Louisiana, extending the court’s conservative approach to protections for minority voting rights.

The justices also moved to effectively loosen restrictions on the use of money in federal campaigns. Under current rules, an individual may give no more than $7,000 directly to a candidate. Political parties can raise money separately, but face substantial limits on how those funds may be spent. That system has generally been seen as more favorable to Democrats, who rely more heavily on small donors, than to Republicans, who draw greater support from large contributors. The ruling will allow the Republican National Committee, which has already secured substantial funding, to sharply increase spending in the midterms, the New York Times and other outlets said.

Lee Sang-eun, Washington correspondent, Hankyung.com, selee@hankyung.com