Good morning. A strike has halted New Jersey Transit trains, disrupting commutes into New York City. Peace talks between Russia and Ukraine are expected to begin today. Pope Leo’s childhood house will be auctioned. More news is below. But first, we’re covering an argument over judicial power at the Supreme Court.
The courts’ power
Yesterday’s Supreme Court hearing was ostensibly about whether President Trump can end birthright citizenship. But the arguments focused on a different issue: Can a single lower-court judge block the president’s policies across the whole country? Despite precedent, the administration says no. It wants to limit the judicial branch’s ability to check the president, even beyond immigration. This is not a partisan issue. Democratic politicians have also complained that lower courts have too much power. At yesterday’s hearing, the justices didn’t divide along ideological lines. Today’s newsletter walks through the arguments around universal injunctions. What’s this debate about?After Trump signed his order ending birthright citizenship, various groups sued to stop his policy. But courts can take years to go through filings, hearings and appeals. In the meantime, Trump could block tens of thousands of newborns from getting citizenship. Judges often deal with this situation by telling an administration: Don’t enforce your policy until the issue has worked through the courts. And, increasingly, lower courts have applied their pauses to the whole country, not just one jurisdiction. Federal District Court judges in Maryland, Washington state and Massachusetts each stopped Trump’s birthright citizenship ban nationwide. Presidents from both parties have said this process makes it too easy for random jurists to block their agendas. There are more than 600 District Court judges. With so many options, plaintiffs can almost always find a sympathetic ear. What’s the fix?This question doesn’t have an easy answer, and it consumed much of yesterday’s hearing. The administration said courts should apply injunctions only to the individual who brought the case. So if an undocumented mother sued to stop the birthright citizenship ban, a judge could grant her child — and only her child — citizenship. That would place a huge burden on the public and the courts. Potentially millions of people would all have to hire lawyers and file lawsuits to protect their rights. A group could come together in a class-action lawsuit, but forming a class can be a time-consuming, difficult legal process. These individuals could still appeal their case to the Supreme Court, which would retain the power to impose nationwide injunctions. But only losers can appeal a case. What if the plaintiffs never lose in lower courts? (So far, the birthright citizenship plaintiffs haven’t.) An administration could choose not to appeal — to avoid setting a precedent it doesn’t like and to keep the burden on individuals. The justices could compromise. One suggestion is to limit universal injunctions to specific circumstances, such as when a case involves constitutional questions (as opposed to, say, disputes about how to interpret a regulation). Some lawmakers called for letting only three-judge panels impose universal injunctions. What’s next?The Supreme Court will likely rule in a month or two. If the justices decide against Trump, the injunction on his birthright citizenship ban will remain. If the court rules in his favor, it could empower him to carry out his agenda, on immigration and other issues, with fewer obstacles. For more: The Times is tracking this year’s major Supreme Court decisions.
Officials from Russia and Ukraine are expected to meet today to discuss the possibility of a cease-fire. Anton Troianovski, The Times’s Moscow bureau chief, explains the stakes. Trump has not delivered the quick peace in Ukraine that he promised on the campaign trail. But neither has he sold the country out to Russia, as experts feared he might do after several warm chats with and about Vladimir Putin. Today, pushed by Trump, negotiators from Kyiv and Moscow are set to meet in Turkey — in what would be the first time they’ve faced each other publicly since the spring of 2022. Here’s what to know. What’s on the table?Ukraine wants a 30-day cease-fire and an exchange of prisoners. Russia wants concessions before it stops fighting. In 2022, the two sides drafted a peace agreement that would bar Ukraine from joining NATO. But Russia wanted more, such as making Russian an official language in Ukraine; Volodymyr Zelensky refused. His negotiating position is weaker now: Trump doesn’t see Ukraine’s fight as a core American interest, while Russia’s military has recovered from the disastrous early weeks of its invasion. How aligned are Trump and Putin?Trump repeats pro-Russian talking points, such as the falsehood that Ukraine started the war. But he hasn’t tipped the scales yet. Putin wants Ukraine to cede a large swath of territory it still controls — and to cap the future size of its military. The Trump administration has refused to go along. Still, it remains possible that Trump will cut a deal with Putin over Ukraine’s head; he predicted yesterday that “nothing’s going to happen until Putin and I get together.” How do Trump and Zelensky stand now?In February, Trump berated Zelensky in front of the press during a meeting in the Oval Office. But the two men seem to have patched things up. They had a drama-free meeting at the funeral of Pope Francis in April. Days later, Ukraine signed a deal giving the United States control over a share of its future mining revenue. At the same time, Trump is losing patience with Putin. The Russian leader has talked to Trump twice on the phone since February and held four hourslong meetings with Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy and close friend. Yet Russia hasn’t budged from demands that even Trump aides see as delusional.
New Jersey Transit
Trump’s Middle East Trip
More on Politics
Israel-Hamas War
More International News
Other Big Stories
Yesterday, the world learned about KJ Muldoon, an infant in Pennsylvania, the first patient to be saved by a new treatment: Doctors edited his DNA to correct a liver disorder. We’ve heard of gene therapy before — to fight sickle-cell anemia and cancer, for instance. How is this different? I asked Gina Kolata, the science reporter who broke the story. — Adam B. Kushner What’s new here? Other treatments don’t fix your broken DNA. We deal with sickle-cell anemia by adding good genes, but the mutated ones are still there. Same with hemophilia. We can coach your immune system to attack some cancers’ specific DNA. But doctors actually edited KJ’s genome to correct bad spelling. Now, his liver can process the ammonia that comes from digesting protein. Eating normal food won’t kill him. They injected a lipid that brought the molecular-editing machinery to his liver. Does that mean the gene mutation in each of his liver cells is now fixed? Probably not, though we don’t actually know! Doctors didn’t want to do an invasive biopsy to find out, but they can tell that he’s processing ammonia properly now, and that’s good enough. Anyway, you don’t have to fix every single cell — only enough to get the job done.
Protecting public lands from urban development also protects America’s hiking trails, biological diversity and Indigenous inhabitants, Michelle Nijhuis writes. Here are columns by Michelle Goldberg on Joe Biden’s competence crisis and David Brooks on the difficulties of college students. The Times Sale: Our best rate for readers of The Morning. Save now with our best offer on unlimited news and analysis as part of the complete Times experience: $1/week for your first year.
Dazzled: People are obsessed with teamLab’s immersive art exhibitions. Travel: In the U.S., heightened immigration fears have made planning an international honeymoon unexpectedly complicated. Surprise: Harvard Law School paid $27 for what officials thought was a copy of Magna Carta. Turns out it was an original. Your pick: The Morning’s most-clicked link yesterday was about an art auction at Sotheby’s that flopped. Trending online yesterday: People were searching for information about extreme weather in Michigan. Lives Lived: Charles Strouse was an accidental Broadway composer but one of the most prolific and honored, with hits like “Annie” and “Bye Bye Birdie,” earning him three Tony Awards. He also won a Grammy and an Emmy. |
