Good morning. Here’s the latest news to start your day:
More news is below. We also take a close look at this Supreme Court term. The Republican bill clears the Senate
The Senate narrowly passed Republicans’ sprawling bill to slash taxes and social safety net programs. Vice President JD Vance cast the tiebreaking vote, after three Republican senators — Susan Collins, Thom Tillis and Rand Paul — voted no. The bill extends roughly $3.8 trillion in tax cuts enacted during Trump’s first term and increases funding for border security and the military. It cuts about $1.1 trillion from health care programs, mainly Medicaid, which experts estimate will cause nearly 12 million Americans to lose coverage. The bill, which could affect millions of Americans, is a major political gamble, Carl Hulse writes. The House must now decide whether to pass the Senate’s version of the bill or try to reconcile it with its own. Any delays could mean that Congress misses the July 4 deadline that Trump set. The Morning’s readers were interested in the bill yesterday (it was our most-clicked link). Here’s more from Times reporters who were in the Capitol:
Covering the courtThe end of June is some combination of Christmas and Tax Day for Adam Liptak, who has covered the Supreme Court for The Times since 2008. That’s when the justices release a dizzying array of rulings: This term’s major cases, some of which were decided earlier in the year, touched on guns, porn, police tactics, religion, citizenship, L.G.B.T.Q. rights, vapes and TikTok. Adam, a former lawyer who also writes the Sidebar column, is soon moving from daily coverage of the court to a broader legal affairs beat. Jodi Rudoren, who oversees newsletters at The Times, asked him to help us make sense of the recent rush of news. Jodi: This was your 17th term covering the court. On a scale of 1 to 10 — with 1 being “This is ho-hum, maybe I should try a different beat” and 10 being “This is the most interesting and important story line on Earth” — how did it rank? Adam: The last few terms were bigger and more varied, but this one sure had a story line: The court cleared the way for much of Trump’s aggressive agenda. So if the term that overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 was a 10, this one was an 8. The story started on Trump’s first day in office. Three days earlier, the court unanimously upheld a law that required TikTok to go dark in the U.S. if the app remained under Chinese control. In a move that set the tone for the administration’s relationship with the judiciary, Trump issued the first of a series of executive orders ignoring the TikTok ban and the court’s ruling. That kind of thing continued through the spring as the administration peppered the justices with emergency applications asking them to undo rulings from lower courts on immigration, government spending, the independence of executive agencies and trans rights. The court gave Trump almost all of what he wanted. Then on Friday, the last day of the term, the court delivered its coup de grâce in Trump v. CASA, the birthright citizenship case. The justices basically eliminated universal injunctions, the key tool federal judges had been using to keep the administration in check. Another major case this term, United States v. Skrmetti, upheld a ban on medical intervention for trans youths. About half the states have such bans, similar to the post-Dobbs split over abortion access. Are we destined to be a divided country? Dobbs and Skrmetti didn’t simply return the issues to the states; the rulings said those questions should be decided by the people’s “elected representatives.” That includes Congress, so I wouldn’t rule out national legislative action. I can conceive of a patchwork approach in those two areas. On the other hand, if birthright citizenship or same-sex marriage were eliminated in parts of the country, that would give rise to really hard questions about how it would work and what sort of nation we are. I’m a big fan of dissents. I just love that this is an institution where the losers also get to make their case at length. What story do this term’s dissents tell? Dissents have different functions and are written for different readers. Some are simply expressions of frustration. Others mean to raise the dissenters’ reputations in their social and professional circles. Others are written to spur lawmakers to enact legislation overturning the majority. Still others are written for future justices, urging them to reconsider. The standard closing phrase is, “I respectfully dissent.” But this term featured some slashing dissents whose writers even refashioned the salutation. “In sadness, I dissent,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the case on trans care. In the case making it harder for judges to block the Trump agenda, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson signed off, ”With deep disillusionment.”
As the chart above shows, this term had half the number of 6-to-3 votes as last term, but more 5-to-4 and 7-to-2 votes. What to make of these numbers? I’d start by noting the largest number: Twenty-two of the decisions in argued cases, or about 40 percent, were unanimous. And some of those decisions were important ones, on religion, guns and job discrimination. The justices like to tout that level of consensus, and they have a point. Cases that reach the Supreme Court present hard questions; finding common ground is not easy. Some of the shift in vote splits can be explained by Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal who has been voting somewhat more frequently with members of the conservative majority. Why is a bit of a puzzle. What about the fact that Brett Kavanaugh is the justice most often (89 percent) in the majority? Kavanaugh has been in the majority at a higher rate than any justice since 1953. But he’s not an authentic swing vote like his predecessor, Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy sat at the court’s ideological center. When he voted with the court’s four-member conservative bloc, the law moved to the right. When he joined the four liberals, it moved to the left. The dynamic is different now that the court is dominated by six Republican appointees. What can we look forward to in the next term? The court has already announced two marquee cases, one on campaign finance and one concerning “conversion therapy” for sexual orientation or gender identity. Both involve the First Amendment — which Justice Kagan, in a 2018 dissent, accused the court’s conservative majority of “weaponizing.” Listen to Adam talk about the birthright citizenship case on “The Daily.”
CBS News
Russia
Sean Combs Trial
Trump’s Wealth
New York Mayor’s Race
Other Big Stories
This question comes from a recent edition of the newsletter. Click an answer to see if you’re right. (The link will be free.) Two nuns recently went viral after they did what kind of performance on a Brazilian TV show?
The Republican bill would be disastrous for health care: Over 17 million Americans could lose their insurance or Medicaid, Larry Levitt writes. Here’s a column by Bret Stephens on the meaning of “intifada.” Morning readers: Save on the complete Times experience. Experience all of The Times, all in one subscription — all with this introductory offer. You’ll gain unlimited access to news and analysis, plus games, recipes, product reviews and more.
Swim vicariously: Fantasize about taking a dip in the most beautiful pools ever to appear in T Magazine. Look of the week: Our photographer captured someone in a shorts suit and tabi shoes. See the outfi |
