United States of America - June 2025

On 27 June, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling that significantly decreased the power of federal courts to curb executive overreach. The case was brought against an executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of temporary visa holders or of undocumented migrants (EO). The Court held that universal injunctions (nationwide orders that halt the enforcement of executive action or legislation) exceed the provisions of the 1789 Judiciary Act, which were not meant to empower federal judges to carry out such broad oversight. The Court dismissed states’ arguments that, in this case, narrower injunctions could result in a legal ‘patchwork’, where some states enforce the executive order and others do not. It held that it was for the matter of lower courts to decide whether narrower injunctions would be fitting in suits brought against the EO. It added that class action certifications and suits brought by States were other alternatives for individuals to access relief, pending a decision on the merits. 

Update: On 10 July a US District judge in New Hampshire certified a class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Executive Order, and issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking its enforcement. The lawsuit was filed immediately after the Supreme Court ruling was handed down on 27 June.   

Sources: Supreme Court, CNN, The New York Times, The White House, NPR, The Conversation 

On 7 June, President Donald Trump authorized the deployment of the California National Guard and US Marines to quell civil unrest in Los Angeles, marking the first time since 1965 that such forces were deployed without the state Governor’s consent. Large protests against immigration raids, primarily in downtown Los Angeles, had escalated into instances of violence, which local police struggled to contain. Both the Mayor of Los Angeles and the Governor of California objected to the deployment. The operation also involved federalized National Guard forces—National Guard units placed under federal rather than state authority—in an anti-drug raid alongside the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) outside Los Angeles. This raised additional concerns about the expanding use of military forces in public security operations. Experts note that absent congressional authorization, the participation of federal forces in civilian security tasks (the use of active-duty or federally controlled troops to carry out domestic law enforcement) would be contrary to the Posse Comitatus Act.

Sources: ABC News, Just Security, State of California Department of Justice  

On 14 June, Minnesota House of Representative Speaker, Emerita Melissa Hortman of the Democratic Party, and her husband, were killed at their home, while State Senator John Hoffman, also a Democrat, and his wife were shot in a separate attack the same night. Minnesota officials characterized the killings as politically motivated, citing evidence that the suspect had compiled lists of elected officials as potential targets. The suspect, who was apprehended days later, was charged with multiple federal crimes, including murder, stalking and firearms violations. Federal rather than state charges were brought because the attacks targeted public officials and involved interstate elements, giving federal authorities jurisdiction and allowing them to pursue harsher penalties, including the death penalty. 

Sources: Department of Justice, Public Broadcasting Service

On 5 June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman claiming anti-straight discrimination against her by her employer. The  Ohio government employee alleged her employer had shown bias in two instances in which she was passed over for a job and asked to take a demotion. The Court unanimously ruled that the ‘background circumstances standard’, used in many discrimination cases, is incompatible with Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The standard required majority-group members to meet a higher evidentiary burden, which the Court found violates Title VII’s guarantee of equal protection. The lower courts that had dismissed her claims for failing to meet the ‘background circumstances standard’ will now reassess them. The Supreme Court’s ruling standardizes discrimination claims under Title VII, making it easier for majority-group individuals to challenge workplace bias. This could intensify debates over diversity and equity programs. 

Sources: Supreme Court, The New York Times