On June 30, the Supreme Court rejected President Donald Trump’s limits on birthright citizenship and upheld state bans on transgender athletes in West Virginia and Idaho. In the same set of decisions, the court also ruled that limits on coordinated campaign sp
For President Donald Trump. the Supreme Court’s June 30 rulings arrived like a double hit—first on the bedrock of birthright citizenship. then on eligibility for transgender athletes. Within the span of several decisions. the court delivered a major loss for Trump on immigration policy and a separate victory on sports that has been central to his campaign against transgender participation.
The day also brought another sharp turn for Republicans: the Supreme Court struck down a long-standing limit on how much political parties can spend in coordination with election candidates—an outcome sided with Vice President JD Vance and other Republicans.
The rulings marked an eventful end to a Supreme Court term packed with high-stakes decisions, including both wins and setbacks for the White House on topics ranging from presidential powers and immigration to losses for Trump on tariffs and the firing of a Federal Reserve official.
The birthright citizenship case grew out of a directive Trump signed on Inauguration Day. It instructed federal agencies not to recognize U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States whose parents were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The Supreme Court rejected that attempt to limit birthright citizenship. reaffirming the Constitution’s 14th Amendment as defining citizenship for essentially anyone born on U.S. soil.
The justices split sharply. The majority was 6-3 and included conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, Trump appointee Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and the court’s three liberals: Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Three of the court’s conservatives—Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch—dissented, saying Trump’s order was fully lawful. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, also a Trump appointee, wrote separately: he agreed the order was unlawful but was still partly dissenting from the majority opinion.
Trump reacted with a blunt assessment, calling the result “too bad,” while arguing that Congress should pass legislation to adopt his proposed restrictions on temporary or unlawful visitors having children.
Inside the courtroom battle, ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang, who argued for the challengers, said the ruling “reaffirms a fundamental American promise – if you are born here, you are a citizen.” She added that “A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
The Supreme Court’s second major decision turned to transgender athletes in women’s sports. The case centered on whether bans on female transgender athletes in West Virginia and Idaho violated the Constitution or a federal law barring sex discrimination in education.
The court ruled that the state bans are constitutional and do not violate the Title IX civil rights statute barring sex-based discrimination in education. Writing for the majority. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said schools “may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex. ” adding that “Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable.”.
Here too, the court’s voting followed a clear political line. The conservative majority held that the state laws do not violate the 14th Amendment. It also decided unanimously, 9-0, that the state laws do not violate Title IX “on the basis of sex.”
Trump called the outcome a “BIG WIN. ” saying it takes a “ridiculous situation off the table!” Josh Block. a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who represented the transgender athlete who unsuccessfully challenged West Virginia’s ban. said the court’s decision does not broadly rule on the constitutionality of transgender discrimination. “This was a loss. but it was a narrow loss and that the court balked at the more sweeping arguments made by the other side. ” Block told reporters after the ruling.
The third decision shifted from sports and immigration to political spending. where the stakes are less visible to everyday voters—but intense in the court’s view of free speech. The case stemmed from a challenge brought by Vance and other Republicans in 2022 against a more than 50-year-old rule capping how much parties can spend in coordination with candidates. The rule was passed in 1974 as part of Congress’ response to the Watergate scandal and had been upheld by the Supreme Court in 2001.
On June 30. the court struck down the current cap. finding it violates the Constitution’s First Amendment protections against government abridgment of freedom of speech. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the conservative majority that the decision “treats all political parties equally.” Both parties can now “participate more freely and compete more fully in the political process. ” he wrote.
The final vote was again 6-3, powered by the conservative majority. In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the majority “jettisons a rule needed to protect our democracy’s integrity.”
Across the three rulings. the court repeatedly tested whether long-standing limits and government actions can be sustained—whether on citizenship rules. on athlete eligibility. or on campaign spending. The outcomes were mixed for the White House and its allies. with the day’s biggest political message coming through the breadth of disagreement: the court refused to move birthright citizenship away from the 14th Amendment. but upheld state bans on transgender athletes and opened the door to more coordinated political spending.
Supreme Court birthright citizenship 14th Amendment Donald Trump transgender athletes Title IX West Virginia Idaho campaign finance First Amendment JD Vance political parties spending