作者： root

Taylor Swift-Travis Kelce wedding events at Madison Square Garden to include rehearsal dinner, late-night celebration, sources say

2026-06-30 14:42:00 EDT / CBS News

By Anna Schecter, Richard Esposito
Updated on: June 30, 2026 / 3:10 PM EDT / CBS News

Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce will be celebrating their nuptials this holiday weekend in New York City after days of speculation about the most anticipated celebrity wedding of the year.

The couple plans to have a rehearsal dinner Thursday evening and a wedding celebration Friday into the early hours of Saturday morning at Madison Square Garden, according to two law enforcement sources familiar with the security planning for the events.

The rehearsal dinner Thursday will be for around 100 people at the Infosys Theater at Madison Square Garden, the two sources told CBS News. The second, larger event can accommodate around 1,000 people, the sources said, and it could go until 4 a.m.

ABC News was first to report the planned celebrations on Tuesday.

Fans have been eagerly awaiting details and sharing rumors about the potential ceremony for Swift and Kelce after news broke that Swift had rented out the massive concert venue, which locals refer to as “the Garden.”

Swift’s team applied for a street activity permit from July 2 to July 4, a senior law enforcement source told CBS News last week. The source added that the event planners will need to hire private security because New York Police Department resources are already tight during that time, when tourists flood the city for the Fourth of July weekend.

The NYPD did not immediately respond to a request for comment on this story.

John Hart, a retired assistant chief of the NYPD who has extensive experience handling security for high profile events, told CBS News that the confined space of Madison Square Garden will help the security team keep Swift, Kelce and their guests safe. He added that obtaining the street activity permits frees up the burden on the NYPD and allows for private security to help secure the area around the venue.

“That said, it will be swarmed by media of all types and fans hoping to catch a glimpse,” Hart said.

Managing media and what’s known as “fan pens” will likely fall on the NYPD, as they will be outside the hard frozen zone secured by private security.

“Paparazzi chasing cars with guests and swarming hotels will be a side issues that will fall to NYPD as well,” Hart said.

Large trucks have been seen parked outside the venue in recent days, with work crews unloading stage equipment, lights and other gear, much of it under wraps. Some of it bore signs labeled “Garden Party” or “GP.”

Deanna Marie Lowe contributed to this report.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/taylor-swift-travis-kelce-wedding-rumors-prediction-markets/

House conservatives derail GOP agenda in SAVE America Act showdown

June 30, 2026 2:19pm EDT / Fox News

Trump urged the cohort to stop ‘grandstanding’ while Johnson called their hardball tactics ‘self-defeating’ for the agenda

By Adam Pack, Fox News

Congress LEAVES as election integrity & SAVE America FIGHT heats up

Congressman Pat Fallon condemn the Senate’s delay in passing the SAVE America Act, citing its importance for election integrity.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/caadb0d5-3f94-48af-b72b-83533a9ae331

Listen to this article
4 min

The House floor remained effectively shut down Tuesday after more than a dozen House conservatives continued their blockade in protest of the stalled SAVE America Act.

The group of holdouts, including Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., blocked a procedural vote, effectively freezing legislative business for the foreseeable future, after forcing GOP leaders to punt several votes last week.

The hardball tactics have forced the chamber into legislative paralysis as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., races to advance several legislative priorities before the July 4 recess.

Lawmakers voted 198-224 against advancing a spate of legislative items — including a must-pass defense bill that will be paired with the SAVE America Act — with 14 Republicans voting “no.”

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., spoke to members of the media outside a House Republican Conference meeting at the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 3, 2025, in Washington, D.C.(Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

‘AS LONG AS IT TAKES’: TRUMP ALLIES FREEZE HOUSE FLOOR TO PRESSURE SENATE ON VOTER ID BILL

The GOP holdouts included Luna and Reps. Max Miller, R-Ohio, Eric Burlison, R-Mo., Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., Andy Harris, R-Md., Randy Fine, R-Fla., Chip Roy and Keith Self, R-Texas, Eli Crane, R-Ariz., Victoria Spartz, R-Ind, Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Lauren Boebert, R-Colo.

Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, likely voted “no” over an unrelated objection to the NDAA and House Majority Leader Steve Scaclise switched his vote to allow lawmakers to reconsider it again.

With such slim margins, Johnson could afford to lose just a handful of defections.

The conservative rebels continued their floor blockade in apparent defiance of President Donald Trump, who urged the cohort to stop “grandstanding” in a Truth Social post last week. Johnson also called their hardball tactics “self-defeating” for Republicans’ agenda.

“It doesn’t make any sense,” Johnson told reporters Monday. “We have to move forward with legislation and that’s what I’ll be telling them all.”

He was seen having a tense conversation with Luna and several holdouts shortly before the failed vote.

In a likely attempt to appease conservative hardliners, Johnson used a rare procedural maneuver this week to revive the Trump-backed election measure, which has sat in limbo in the Senate chamber for months amid widespread opposition from Democrats.

GOP leaders proposed merging the SAVE America Act with an annual defense policy bill, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, when sending the legislation over to the Senate.

The House already passed that version of the SAVE America Act, but Johnson argued the upper chamber would be more likely to pass the measure if paired with a traditionally bipartisan bill.

“Let’s just have the full bill that’s still sitting there and has been transmitted to the Senate, let’s send it again, but put it as part of something that we hope and believe will be a bipartisan vote in both chambers, and that Democrats in the Senate will understand,” Johnson said during a leadership press conference on Tuesday.

The GOP holdouts have repeatedly demanded that leadership attempt to jam the upper chamber with the election measure as Trump insists it’s his top legislative priority. They largely withheld their support for Johnson’s proposal prior to the vote, arguing it would not force Senate action on the SAVE America Act.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., talks with reporters in the U.S. Capitol on June 10, 2026.(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

HOUSE GOP’S SAVE ACT RESCUE PLAN HITS RESISTANCE FROM CONSERVATIVE HOLDOUTS

Luna said she wanted the SAVE America Act to be attached to the NDAA as an amendment or have a vote on an amendment to attach voter identification proof of citizenship requirements to the defense policy bill.

“IF IT IS NOT DONE THIS WAY, IT WILL EASILY BE TAKEN OUT,” Luna wrote on social media shortly before the vote.

Though both Trump and Johnson sharply criticized the floor blockade, Luna disputed that her approach was derailing Republicans’ agenda.

“To, you know, say that we’re holding up the process. This is legislating,” the Florida lawmaker told reporters Monday, standing next to Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., who has also joined the SAVE protest. “If people elected us to just come up here and vote in line with what the party wants, then it would be a whole lot different.”

The upper chamber is also considering its own version of the NDAA that does not include the election measure.

Tuesday’s procedural vote also advanced fiscal year 2027 funding for the State Department and other foreign operations and a GOP-authored measure commemorating the one-year anniversary of President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, among other measures.

Some conservatives, including Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, threatened to withhold their support during the test vote over a stalled border security package they want to put to a chamber-wide vote.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, speaks to reporters after passage of a Department of Homeland Security funding bill, on April 30, 2026, at the U.S. Capitol.(Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Johnson promised conservatives a vote on the legislation before the July 4 recess, but that deadline appears likely to pass without a floor vote. Republicans have also yet to release the bill text.

“There’s no consensus,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., told reporters Tuesday. “At the end of the day, we’ve got to have consensus before we can move forward.”

Longtime Clinton aide walks back claim former president visited Epstein island, sources say

2026-06-30T16:53:08.924Z / CNN

By Annie Grayer

PUBLISHED Jun 30, 2026, 12:53 PM ET

Doug Band, center, a former aide to Bill Clinton, arrives to testify at a closed-door interview with the House Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill on June 30, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Doug Band, center, a former aide to Bill Clinton, arrives to testify at a closed-door interview with the House Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill on June 30, 2026.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

A longtime aide to Bill Clinton walked back a prior claim that the former president visited Jeffrey Epstein’s island, according to two sources familiar with closed-door testimony on Capitol Hill.

Doug Band, the former Clinton aide, is the 17th person to testify behind closed doors as part of the House Oversight Committee’s sprawling probe into Epstein’s orbit and how previous investigations were handled. The panel sought Band’s testimony after Clinton testified before the committee in February. The former president told lawmakers at the time that Band worked for him for years and that the aide knew both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, the late sex offender’s accomplice.

In 2020, Band told Vanity Fair that Clinton visited Epstein’s private island in 2003. In February, however, Clinton testified that he was never on Epstein’s island — and on Tuesday, Band amended his previous assertion during his own interview with the panel, the sources said.

Band stated he had no evidence that Clinton went to Epstein’s island, and he doesn’t remember why he told Vanity Fair that he did, one of the sources told CNN.

CNN has reached out to a lawyer for Band for comment. CNN has also reached out to a Clinton spokesperson.

Ahead of the interview, House Oversight Chair James Comer told reporters that Band’s comments to Vanity Fair would “obviously be a question.”

“We know that Mr. Band set up several meetings between Clinton and Epstein. We know Mr. Band accompanied Mr. Clinton on several flights on Epstein’s jet,” Comer said. “We know that Mr. Band had a lot of communication with Ms. Maxwell. So that’ll be a topic of several questions.”

The Justice Department’s release earlier this year of Epstein case files offered fresh insight into how Band, a top aide to the former president, communicated with Maxwell.

In one email released as part of the files, Band appears to tell Maxwell that he shared an email account with Clinton.

But in Clinton’s deposition with the panel, the former president could recall only ever sending two emails in his life and added that he didn’t send emails on the account mentioned by Band. Clinton said he thought Band “thought it would increase his cache if he had an email with WJC on it,” referring to his initials.

In some messages released as part of the Epstein files, the initials “WJC” are shown in the recipient or sender line while the full email address is often redacted.

In another exchange, Maxwell appears to send a message to a redacted email address, which has the initials WJC associated with it, and says, in part, “I could not help myself – there was one juicy little tit bit I did let out – the one about what a supper stud you are and how I have a crush on you and how you are hung like a horse.”

Clinton told lawmakers that he believed that message was sent to Band and added that he only learned about it while preparing for his testimony.

“I did not know nor did I need to know that they had a personal relationship for a while,” Clinton said of Band and Maxwell.

Much of the communications between Maxwell and the WJC email address reviewed by CNN pertain to travel and dining logistics, and sometimes last-minute invites to the former president himself. It’s unclear whether the communications were related to the business of the foundation or personal dealings of Clinton or his staff.

Clinton has denied having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes during what he said was the pair’s “brief acquaintance.”

Why the Supreme Court’s ruling could deepen Democrats’ fundraising woes

2026-06-30 12:57 p.m. EDT / The Washington Post

The Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday to loosen campaign finance laws by allowing party committees to coordinate with candidates is a boon for Republicans and threatens to deepen Democratic fundraising woes.

By Dan Merica and Clara Ence Morse

The Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday to loosen campaign finance laws by allowing party committees to coordinate with candidates is a boon for Republicans and threatens to deepen Democratic fundraising woes.

The court essentially supercharged Republicans’ almost $150 million committee fundraising cash advantage relative to Democrats, giving Republicans another large pot of money to use in what could be a challenging midterm election.

The most dramatic divide is between the Republican National Committee, which ended May with $125 million in the bank, and the Democratic National Committee, which ended the month $3 million in debt.

The heads of the three major Democratic committees lamented the decision Tuesday, labeling it “a win for billionaire donors and special interests.” Republicans said they were ready to use the ruling to their advantage in the midterms.

Under earlier rules, there were strict limits on what party committees could do for candidates. But these new guidelines are likely to upend how committees funnel money into TV ads and campaigns.

“Every Republican campaign essentially inherits a much bigger trust fund than any of the Democrats inherit,” Jesse Ferguson, a longtime Democratic operative, said ahead of the ruling.

_Catch up quickly every weekday morning with a rundown of the 7 most important and interesting stories.Sign up for The 7 newsletter.

Supreme Court takes up challenges to AR-15 bans

June 30, 2026 12:21 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will consider whether the Second Amendment guarantees the right to have AR-15-style rifles.

In a brief order, the high court agreed to take up a pair of cases challenging local and state laws outlawing AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles. One involves an ordinance in Cook County, Illinois, and the other centers on Connecticut’s law.

The justices will hear arguments in the cases in its next term, which begins in October.

The cases are the first in which the high court will weigh the legality of laws restricting access to certain types of firearms. In a landmark 2022 decision, the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry a gun in public for self defense. But the justices had — until now — declined to take up challenges involving bans on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles in Illinois and Maryland, leaving the laws in place.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled that occassional marijuana users cannot be prohibited from having firearms, and it struck down a Hawaii measure that generally barred concealed carry permit holders from bringing their guns onto private property open to the public, unless they received permission from the owner.

The Connecticut AR-15 ban

One of the cases centers on Connecticut’s laws that make it a crime to possess so-called assault weapons, including certain semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15. Connecticut first adopted an assault-weapon ban in 1993. The state tightened its restrictions after the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, when a gunman armed with an AR-15-style rifle and large-capacity magazines killed 26 children and teachers.

Residents can have a wide range of firearms, including many semiautomatic handguns, rifles and shotguns, according to the state. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia restrict access to semiautomatic weapons.

Two separate groups of plaintiffs, which include the National Association for Gun Rights and several Connecticut residents who want to own AR-15s, challenged the constitutionality of the restrictions, arguing their Second Amendment rights were violated.

In both cases, federal district judges declined to block the bans, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which considered the challenges together, affirmed that decision. The three-judge panel found that Connecticut’s ban is consistent with the country’s historical tradition of firearms regulation, applying a new test for reviewing the constitutionality of gun laws that the Supreme Court set out in 2022.

The 2nd Circuit said in its decision that AR-style rifles are “dangerous and unusual” and “particularly suited for criminal violence.” It also noted that Connecticut’s ban still allows residents to own “many popular weapons, including semiautomatic weapons deemed to be less dangerous by the legislature for self-defense and other lawful purposes.”

The gun owners appealed to the Supreme Court and argued that Connecticut’s ban on AR-15s covers “the most popular rifle in the country,” one that is owned by 10s of millions of Americans.

Cook County’s law

Cook County, which includes Chicago, enacted its ordinance banning “assault weapons” nearly 20 years ago. Under the law, it is illegal to sell, transfer or possess semiautomatic rifles, including the AR-15 and AK-47, as well as rifles that are capable of accepting magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition and have certain features. Violators of the ban are subject to up to six months in prison and a minimum $5,000 fine.

In August 2021, two Cook County residents who want to acquire banned semiautomatic rifles, as well as two gun rights groups, filed a lawsuit arguing that the assault-weapons ban violates the Second Amendment.

While their case was pending, the Supreme Court issued its landmark June 2022 decision that recognized for the first time that the right to carry firearms extends to outside the home. The high court’s ruling also set out a new framework for examining the constitutionality of gun laws, which requires the government to show that a restriction is rooted in the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation.

Also during that time, the state of Illinois passed its own statewide assault-weapons ban, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld. As a result, a federal district court rejected the challenge to Cook County’s restriction on semiautomatic rifles. The 7th Circuit then upheld that decision.

Library of Congress official Trump tried to fire can keep her job for now, Supreme Court says

2026-06-30T16:19:23.643Z / CNN

By John Fritze

3 hr ago

PUBLISHED Jun 30, 2026, 12:19 PM ET

The current Library of Congress building opened its doors to the public on November 1, 1897. It is the United States’ oldest federal cultural institution and the largest library in the world.

KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an effort by President Donald Trump to fire a top official at the Library of Congress for now, a move that will allow her to remain in her post while her case is reviewed by lower courts in light of the court’s blockbuster decisions on presidential power earlier this week.

The move means that Shira Perlmutter will remain the director of the US Copyright Office despite a long-pending request from Trump to remove her immediately.

In a brief order, the court stressed that it was not ruling on the merits of the legal issues raised by Trump’s claim.

Trump launched a battle with the Library of Congress last spring. The president removed the former Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, in early May and then attempted to install then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, one of his former private attorneys, as the acting librarian. He also attempted to fire Perlmutter at the Copyright Office, which is part of the library.

Last fall, the Supreme Court paused action in the Perlmutter kerfuffle while the court resolved two other major cases dealing with the president’s power to fire members of the executive branch. On Monday, the court resolved those cases, granting president’s broad power to remove the leadership at independent agencies within the executive branch. But one of Perlmutter’s arguments is that her position is part of the legislative branch, which she has argued should make her out of Trump’s reach.

The dispute led to high drama last year when several Trump loyalists showed up at the building in May with a letter from the president purporting to put them in charge. Library officials declined to recognize them as properly appointed and then filed a lawsuit.

Perlmutter has claimed she got on the president’s bad side with a report that suggested some copyrighted works used to train artificial intelligence models would likely require licensing — that is, tech companies would have to pay to use that material. Perlmutter’s lawsuit said that Trump “allegedly disagreed” with that report. Days later, a White House official sent an email to Perlmutter asserting that she had also been terminated.

In a 2-1 decision earlier this year, a panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals said that the register of copyrights is part of the legislative branch, meaning that only a Senate-confirmed Librarian of Congress can remove her, and not the president.

“The executive’s alleged blatant interference with the work of a legislative branch official, as she performs statutorily authorized duties to advise Congress, strikes us as a violation of the separation of powers that is significantly different in kind and in degree from the cases that have come before,” US Circuit Judge Florence Pan wrote.

Pan and another judge who sided with Perlmutter were appointed by President Joe Biden. A third judge, who was nominated by Trump, dissented.

The Trump administration told the high court in its appeal that the DC Circuit’s decision “contravenes settled precedent and misconceives the Librarian’s and Register’s legal status.” That’s partly because the register of copyrights, it argued, performs “executive functions,” such as taking part in meetings with foreign governments about copyright issues, which it described as “an increasingly sensitive issue in international diplomacy.”

“Treating the Librarian and Register as legislative officers would set much of federal copyright law on a collision course with the basic principle that Congress may not vest the power to execute the laws in itself or its officers,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court in the emergency filing.

Supreme Court says nation’s top copyright official can keep job for now

June 30, 2026 / 12:39 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it won’t allow President Trump to remove the nation’s top copyright official for now, leaving intact an order from a federal appeals court that restored her to the role.

The high court’s decision is a rare loss for the Trump administration in its efforts to fire officials appointed by Democrats. It comes on the heels of a ruling from the conservative wing of the bench finding that removal restrictions for members of the Federal Trade Commission were unconstitutional, a decision that expands presidential power over so-called independent agencies.

But in a separate ruling involving Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Supreme Court rejected the president’s efforts to fire her while a challenge to her firing moves forward.

The copyright dispute involves Mr. Trump’s move earlier this year to fire Shira Perlmutter, the register of copyrights. In a brief unsigned order, the high court specified that its denial of the Trump administration’s request for emergency relief “is not a ruling on the merits of the legal issues presented in the litigation.”

As register of copyrights, Perlmutter served as the director of the U.S. Copyright Office, working under the librarian of Congress. She was fired a day after releasing to Congress a report on artificial intelligence and copyright.

The president had first removed Carla Hayden from her post as librarian of Congress last year and then directed her temporary replacement to oust Perlmutter. Hayden did not challenge her termination, but Perlmutter did, arguing that because the librarian of Congress and register of copyrights are legislative officers, the president lacked the power to name an acting librarian, who in turn had no authority to remove her.

Hayden was appointed librarian of Congress in 2016, and in 2020, she tapped Perlmutter as register of copyrights.

A U.S. district court declined to let Perlmutter remain in her post while her lawsuit played out, but a divided panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit restored her to the job.

“The executive’s alleged blatant interference with the work of a Legislative Branch official, as she performs statutorily authorized duties to advise Congress, strikes us as a violation of the separation of powers that is significantly different in kind and in degree from the cases that have come before,” Judge Florence Pan, joined by Judge Michelle Childs, wrote in a concurring opinion.

The register of copyrights’ primary responsibility is to advise Congress on issues of copyright law and is a “unique position” within the legislative branch, Pan wrote. Additionally, under federal law, only a librarian of Congress who has been confirmed by the Senate has the power to remove Perlmutter, she said.

Mr. Trump had tapped Todd Blanche, deputy attorney general at the Justice Department, to serve as acting librarian of Congress after he removed Hayden. Pan, joined by Childs, found that Blanche’s purported appointment is also likely unlawful because any librarian appointee must be confirmed by the Senate.

“The President’s attempt to reach into the Legislative Branch to fire an official that he has no statutory authority to either appoint or remove, and to impede Congress’s ability to carry out an enumerated constitutional duty, presents a ‘genuinely extraordinary situation,’ that threatens irreparable harm to the constitutional structure of our government,” Pan wrote. “The President’s purported removal of the Legislative Branch’s chief advisor on copyright matters, based on the advice that she provided to Congress, is akin to the President trying to fire a federal judge’s law clerk.”

The Trump administration sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court last year, arguing that both the librarian of Congress and register of copyrights fall within the executive branch and exercise executive powers.

“Treating the Librarian and Register as legislative officers would set much of federal copyright law on a collision course with the basic principle that Congress may not vest the power to execute the laws in itself or its officers,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a filing.

But in response to the administration’s bid for Supreme Court intervention, Perlmutter’s lawyers accused the Trump administration of making “an inexcusable mess of Congress’s plans for the governance of its Library.”

They argued that Blanche was not properly serving as acting librarian of Congress when he moved to oust Perlmutter, and Congress has repeatedly defined the Library of Congress as part of the legislative branch, not the executive.

Administrative officials “insist that courts are powerless to do anything about the President’s attempt to seize control of the Library of Congress, even if a court correctly concludes that the President’s actions are in reckless disregard of the law,” Perlmutter’s lawyers wrote. “Under this theory, the President’s lawless misconduct would be rewarded — creating an unchecked power that is antithetical to the Constitution’s design.”

Supreme Court lambasted over ‘destructive’ and ‘outrageous’ birthright citizenship decision

2026-06-30 13:44 EDT / Fox News

Critics warn the 6-3 decision will fuel birth tourism and dilute American citizenship after Kavanaugh, Barrett and Roberts sided with liberals

By Charles Creitz Fox News

Published June 30, 2026 1:44pm EDT

Shannon Bream reads Justice Alito’s dissent on birthright citizenship implications

Shannon Bream highlights Justice Samuel Alito’s strong dissent regarding the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision. Alito warns of national security implications, citing hypothetical scenarios of children born in the U.S. to foreign mothers or illegal immigrants, who might pose threats. He argues this ruling offers a ‘powerful incentive’ for illegal entry, potentially affecting the country’s future.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/56e87cff-95e7-4343-a18e-45c28e40206a

Listen to this article

6 min

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision upholding birthright citizenship as the law of the land enraged critics, who warned it will open the floodgates for third-world and pro-Communist “birth tourism” at a time when immigration enforcement is cracking down on illegal entry.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and the court’s three liberals in the 6-3 majority in Trump v. Barbara, while the court’s three remaining conservatives dissented.

The case, brought by an immigrant in New Hampshire under the pseudonym Barbara for her own protection from retaliation, challenged President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to exempt birthright citizenship from the Fourteenth Amendment, which was crafted to ensure formerly enslaved people obtained American citizenship.

SUPREME COURT’S LATEST IMMIGRATION RULING WILL CAUSE AMERICANS TO ‘DIE AND SUFFER’ ATTORNEY WARNS

https://www..com/video/6399820137112

White House advisor Stephen Miller called the ruling “one of the most destructive and outrageous decisions in the long history of the Supreme Court.”

“American citizenship is not the birthright of the world. It belongs only and solely to Americans. No provision of the Constitution can be read to require our national self-obliteration,” he said.

“The constant diluting of our citizenship. Everyone can vote. Everyone’s a citizen. Everyone gets Medicaid. Everyone qualifies for food stamps,” said Daniel Turner, president of the pro-domestic energy group Power the Future.

LOS ANGELES PROPOSAL TO ALLOW NONCITIZENS TO VOTE IN LOCAL ELECTIONS SPARKS ONLINE BACKLASH

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a press conference in the James S. Brady Briefing Room at the White House, on June 27, 2025, in Washington D.C., following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limits the application of birthright citizenship. (Photo by Mehmet Eser / Middle East Images via AFP)(Getty Images)

“You’re American. So is the Mexican who arrived 11 minutes ago or the Chinese spy who paid for birth tourism: Because ‘equity’.”

Turner’s take echoed a common refrain among those long concerned that such a ruling would result in an influx of illegal immigrants having babies on American soil before returning to their home countries, allowing their children to vote in U.S. elections once they turn 18.

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., wasted no time proposing legislation to address the ruling after Kavanaugh wrote in his concurring opinion that Trump’s order didn’t violate the Constitution but did violate a federal law crafted in the spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment.

TRUMP’S SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWS SIGNS OF LIFE IN THE SENATE DESPITE REPUBLICAN REVOLT

https://www..com/video/6392575600112

“The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision is wrong, dangerous, and disastrous for American sovereignty and the American people,” Schmitt said in a statement.

“If we can’t fix it with ordinary legislation, then we must do what the Constitution commands in moments of national crisis: We must amend the Constitution and restore American citizenship.”

“We must again put ‘We the People’ first. The Supreme Court’s decision constitutionalizing unlimited birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens and temporarily present aliens is wrong—and disastrous for our sovereignty and the future of our republic.”

Schmitt said America is already reaping the fruits of birthright citizenship in light of “foreign communists essentially taking over New York City politics.”

Mayor Zohran Mamdani, for one, was born in Uganda, moved to New York with his family as a child and later became a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Schmitt said his constitutional amendment — which would be the first in nearly 40 years if ratified — would fix the loophole the court created.

“Today is a sad day in the history of our republic,” he said.

Rep. Clay Fuller, R-Ga., who recently succeeded former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, said on X that the Supreme Court put the future of illegal immigrants over real American children.

“We cannot continue to support this invasion taking place. Congress must act before it’s too late,” he said, adding that he is introducing HR 172 – a Constitutional amendment likely to correspond with Schmitt’s Senate version.

Former law professor John Eastman, who previously advised Trump on election law matters, said Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch’s dissents were “strong, and in my view, correct.”

Meanwhile, Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet tweeted that a willingness to overturn the case is the “new litmus test for every new Supreme Court justice.”

“The Court has utterly and completely failed America. The dissent of Justice Thomas will prove prescient: ‘I’m not sure that today’s decision will stand the test of time.’”

Citizenship test and USCIS Director Joseph Edlow(Reuters; Getty)

In the run-up to the decision, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis correctly predicted on X that Thomas and Alito would be featured dissenting against a “bad ruling.”

When informed of the ruling during a news conference on Capitol Hill, House Speaker Mike Johnson audibly grumbled before stating that the majority justices put forth what one “could say [is] a textualist originalist view.”

“However, I do think that this has been grossly abused in recent years.”

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts agreed, adding in a statement that the ruling is a “tremendous betrayal of the Republic.”

“The Justices in the majority have inflamed the all-out assault on our sovereignty and cheapened the sacred value of American citizenship. Universal birthright citizenship erases any uniquely American birthright—a distortion that was never the meaning or intention of the 14th Amendment. It is time for a constitutional amendment to correct this gross injustice.”

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

The ruling did have its celebrants, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, and Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif.

Padilla said in a statement that the Constitution “could not be clearer” that if someone is born in the U.S. they are a citizen — “period.”

“While there is nothing surprising about Donald Trump’s efforts to erode birthright citizenship and disregard laws he doesn’t like, today’s decision reaffirms over a century of legal precedent protecting this fundamental constitutional right,” Padilla said.

The senator added that the ruling is personal for him as the son of Mexican immigrants.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul concurred, saying in a statement that as the granddaughter of Irish immigrants, she was “heartened” by the court.

Clarence Thomas is an associate justice of the Supreme Court.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“The Statue of Liberty stands proudly in our harbor, and New York will always stand with those seeking the promise of America,” Hochul said.

Schmitt and Fuller’s amendment would require approval by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the states. The convention method has never been used to ratify any of the Constitution’s 27 amendments.

House sinks Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s second war powers resolution on Lebanon

June 30, 2026 / 2:32 PM EDT / CBS News
By Caitlin Yilek Politics Reporter
Caitlin Yilek is a politics reporter at CBSNews.com, based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked for the Washington Examiner and The Hill, and was a member of the 2022 Paul Miller Washington Reporting Fellowship with the National Press Foundation.

Read Full Bio

Washington— For a second time, the House on Tuesday voted against limiting President Trump’s authority to engage the U.S. military in warfare in Lebanon without congressional authorization.

The war powers resolution, which was introduced by Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, is an updated version of a measure that also failed earlier this month after Democratic leaders came out against it.

Tuesday’s vote ended with 189 voting in favor and 235 voting in opposition of constraining the president’s authority.

The new version, which had the approval of Democratic leaders, would have directed the president to remove U.S. armed forces “from any hostilities in Lebanon” within seven days of the measure’s adoption. It would not have constrained all military activity, stipulating, “Nothing in this concurrent resolution may be construed to prevent or limit security cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces or the protection of diplomatic facilities.”

The original measure would have directed the president to remove U.S. armed forces “from Lebanon” within seven days of the measure’s adoption.

“Currently, there are no U.S. service members involved in combat operations or hostilities in Lebanon,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Whip Katherine Clark and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar said in a statement earlier this month explaining the change.

Tensions in southern Lebanon have threatened a final peace deal between the U.S. and Iran. Iran and Hezbollah have demanded the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the region as part of the deal between Washington and Tehran to end the war. But an agreement signed last week between the Israeli and Lebanese governments to end the fighting in southern Lebanon links Israel’s removal of forces from the area with Hezbollah’s disarmament. Hezbollah, however, has refused to give up its weapons.

Tlaib said Monday during floor debate that the vote was about “immediately ending all U.S. participation in the Israeli government’s violent assault against the people of Lebanon.” She accused the Israeli government of carrying out an “ethnic cleansing and territory expansion” through its bombing campaign in southern Lebanon.

Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the updated version “corrected the flaws” of the earlier measure.

“It will not infringe upon America’s national security interests in Lebanon, while ensuring we stay out of another forever war that is not in our national interest,” he said. “I will state for the record that, to my knowledge, United States forces are not currently engaged in any active hostilities in Lebanon with the Israeli military. Nonetheless, this resolution ensures that does not change without congressional authorization.”

Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the updated measure is “not quite as ridiculous this time as it was the last time … but still significantly ridiculous.” He called the resolution “a win for terrorists.”

“Hezbollah is the one holdout that is standing in the way of peace between Israel and Lebanon,” Mast said. “The Lebanese government wants the fighting to stop. Israel wants the fighting to stop. Who is it that wants the fighting to continue? That would be the one entity that is supported by this resolution, and that’s Hezbollah.”

Supreme Court agrees to review ban on AR-style semi-automatic rifles in major Second Amendment case

2026-06-30T16:16:03.191Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/30/politics/ar-15-style-rifles-supreme-court-second-amendment

The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will decide whether cities and states may ban people from owning AR-15 rifles and similar semi-automatic weapons, taking up a major Second Amendment dispute that it had previously declined to address.

One of the appeals involving certain semi-automatic rifles came from two Illinois residents who want to purchase AR-15 style rifles but are blocked from doing so by an ordinance in Cook County that makes it unlawful to sell or possess any “assault weapon or large capacity magazine,” specifically listing dozens of models that were off limits.

Ten states have similar bans in place, according to the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety.

Another case came from several Connecticut residents who wish to purchase weapons covered under that state’s ban.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to take up the issue but there have been signs in recent years that the court was prepared to reconsider that approach.

Last year, when the justices declined to hear arguments in a case involving Maryland’s ban on similar weapons, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a short opinion asserting that “this court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon.” In that opinion, he noted that most states do not ban the guns and described those that do as “something of an outlier.”

Gun rights groups are pointing to a unanimous decision in a separate matter last year written by liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who described the AR-15 as “the most popular rifle in the country” and “widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.” The court’s precedents have held that weapons that are in “common use” for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment, as opposed to those that are “dangerous” and “unusual.”

Appeals over AR-15 rifles are among several Second Amendment matters that have reached the court following its blockbuster 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down a strict requirement in New York that residents show cause to obtain a carry permit. As part of that decision, a 6-3 conservative majority said that in order to survive Second Amendment challenges, modern-day gun regulations needed to have some grounding in the “nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The gun rights groups challenging Cook County’s ordinance framed the AR-15 as both common and historic.

“From the founding of this country, the rifle has been a paradigmatic American arm, facilitating the struggle for independence from the British and serving as ‘the companion’ and ‘tutelary protector’ of the westward pioneers,” the groups told the Supreme Court in their appeal. “The AR-15 platform rifle is the modern descendant of the rifles that were borne by the militiamen of the Revolution and the pioneers who struck out West in search of a better life.”

Cook County, by contrast, opened its brief opposing the appeal with a list of mass shootings that involved what it described as “assault weapons,” and the number of people killed in those incidents. “2022 Highland Park parade, 7 dead; 2022 Buffalo supermarket, 10 dead,” it read. The list continued for more than three pages.

“Their inherent lethality makes them an alluring choice for mass murder, compared to less lethal weapons like knives or handguns,” the Cook County officials wrote. “At war, the ability to fire continuously without reloading translates to combat effectiveness.”

Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya, both Cook County residents, filed the lawsuit in 2021, alleging that the ordinance violated the Second Amendment. Viramontes wants to purchase an AR-15-style weapon for self-defense, according to court records. Khaya testified that he would be most likely to use one “at the range.” The Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation were also part of the suit.

A federal district court sided with the county and the Chicago-based 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.