From the desk of Rich Stephens
News for the week ending 6-26-26
Below find the expanded text from tonight’s broadcast. For corrections or additions, contact Rich directly.
Politics
Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship
On Tuesday, June 30, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Barbara that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The case challenged President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order directed federal agencies not to recognize birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States if the mother was unlawfully present or temporarily in the country and the father was neither a United States citizen nor a lawful permanent resident.
The administration argued that the Citizenship Clause applies only to people who are fully subject to the political jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States, not to the children of illegal aliens or temporary visitors. The government also argued that the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark involved a child born to parents who were lawfully domiciled in the United States, not parents who were unlawfully or temporarily present.
The historical dispute centered on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared that “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,” were citizens. In the Senate debate over the Fourteenth Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard said the Citizenship Clause would not include “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers,” but would include “every other class of persons.”
The challengers argued that Wong Kim Ark settled the issue and that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly everyone born in the United States. During oral argument, Cecillia Wang said the amendment put that rule “out of the reach of any government official to destroy.”
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said Wong Kim Ark controls the case and that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thomas argued that the majority’s interpretation departs from the original public meaning of the Citizenship Clause and that being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States requires complete political allegiance, not simply birth within the country’s borders.
Justice Samuel Alito also dissented. He argued that the majority’s interpretation grants citizenship to virtually everyone born in the United States, including children born to people who entered the country unlawfully or temporarily for the purpose of giving birth.
Supreme Court opinion in Trump v. Barbara
Executive Order 14160: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship
Petition for writ of certiorari in Trump v. Barbara
Supreme Court oral argument transcript in Trump v. Barbara
Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, page 2890
Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649
Supreme Court Upholds Late-Arriving Mississippi Absentee Ballots
On Monday, June 29, the Supreme Court ruled that Mississippi may count absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day and received up to five business days later.
The case was Watson v. Republican National Committee. Mississippi law allows certain voters, including college students away from home and senior citizens, to vote absentee. Those ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by the registrar no more than five business days after the election.
The Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, and individual plaintiffs challenged the rule. They argued that federal law setting Election Day for congressional and presidential elections requires ballots to be received by Election Day.
The District Court ruled for Mississippi. The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that Mississippi’s law was preempted by federal election-day statutes.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the Court that the question was narrow: whether federal law bars a state from counting ballots postmarked by Election Day but received later. The Court said it does not.
Barrett wrote that the defining element of an election is the electorate’s choice of candidate. The Court held that federal law sets the day by which ballots must be cast, but does not set a nationwide deadline for when those ballots must be received.
The Court also pointed to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which refers to state-law ballot-receipt deadlines. Barrett wrote that those references would make little sense if federal election-day statutes already created a single national receipt deadline.
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Alito argued that the electorate’s choice is not complete until the ballots are received by election officials.
Alito wrote that if ballots received after Election Day are added to the total, the electorate’s choice does not occur on Election Day, and federal election-day statutes are violated.
Supreme Court Opinion – Watson v. Republican National Committee
Supreme Court Docket – Watson v. Republican National Committee
3 U.S.C. § 1 – Time of appointing electors
2 U.S.C. § 7 – Time of election
52 U.S.C. § 20303 – Federal write-in absentee ballots
Supreme Court Rules Geofence Warrants Are Fourth Amendment Searches
On Monday, June 29, the Supreme Court ruled that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they used a geofence warrant to obtain Google Location History data from phones near a bank robbery.
The case was Chatrie v. United States. Police investigating a bank robbery in Virginia obtained a geofence warrant directed to Google. The warrant required Google to search Location History data and identify devices that were near the bank around the time of the robbery.
Google eventually gave police three names. One of them was Okello Chatrie, who was later charged in federal court.
The District Court said the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, but refused to suppress the evidence under the good-faith exception. A divided Fourth Circuit panel affirmed on different grounds, holding that no search had occurred because Chatrie did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in two hours of Location History data voluntarily exposed to Google.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the Supreme Court that the Fourth Circuit was wrong on that point. The Court held that police conducted a search when they acquired Chatrie’s Location History data from Google.
Kagan wrote that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location, even when the information is held by a third-party technology company. The Court relied on Carpenter v. United States, the 2018 case holding that accessing cell-site location information is a Fourth Amendment search.
The Court did not decide whether the geofence warrant was valid. It sent the case back to the Fourth Circuit to decide whether each step of the warrant process satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s requirements for probable cause and particularity, and whether the good-faith exception still allows the evidence to be used.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Jackson agreed that the police conducted a search, but wrote that she would go further and hold that parts of the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred in the judgment. He agreed that the government’s access to Chatrie’s Location History data was a search, but said the Court should analyze the issue through the Fourth Amendment’s text protecting “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” rather than the modern reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test.
Justice Samuel Alito dissented. He argued that the Court should not have taken the case and that the majority improperly used it to expand Carpenter into another area of digital privacy law.
Supreme Court Opinion – Chatrie v. United States
Supreme Court Docket – Chatrie v. United States
Oral Argument Transcript – Chatrie v. United States
Question Presented – Chatrie v. United States
Supreme Court Upholds State Limits On Transgender Athletes In Girls’ Sports
On Tuesday, June 30, the Supreme Court ruled that states may limit girls’ and women’s school sports teams to biological females without violating Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause.
The decision came in West Virginia v. B.P.J., decided together with Little v. Hecox. West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act bars male students from female teams and defines sex based on biology. Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act follows the same general approach.
B.P.J. is a biological male who identifies as female and sought to compete on girls’ cross-country and track-and-field teams in West Virginia. Lindsay Hecox, a biological male who identifies as female, challenged Idaho’s law after seeking to compete on women’s college sports teams.
Writing for the Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Title IX was enacted to promote equal athletic opportunity for women and girls. The Court held that schools may maintain separate girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on biological sex and that doing so does not violate Title IX.
The Court also held that the state laws do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Kavanaugh wrote that protecting competitive fairness and safety are important governmental interests and that limiting girls’ and women’s teams to biological females is substantially related to achieving those interests.
The Court rejected the argument that states must make individual exceptions for biological males who identify as female and have taken puberty blockers or hormone therapy. Kavanaugh wrote that legislatures and schools, rather than judges, are better suited to establish eligibility rules for athletic competition.
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion. He wrote that a man does not have a legal right to compete against women because he believes he is a woman and concluded that transgender status is not a suspect class requiring heightened constitutional scrutiny.
Justice Neil Gorsuch also filed a concurring opinion, focusing on Title IX as legislation enacted under Congress’s Spending Clause authority. He wrote that Congress must clearly state any conditions it places on recipients of federal education funding.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in part, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor argued that the Court approved categorical bans even where an individual athlete may not possess a competitive advantage and wrote that B.P.J. had not experienced male puberty and was receiving gender-related medical treatment.
Justice Jackson also wrote separately, stating that the Court did not need to decide that Title IX protects only biological sex in the context of school athletics in order to resolve the case.
Supreme Court Opinion – West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox
Supreme Court Docket – West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Oral Argument Transcript – West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Title IX (20 U.S.C. § 1681)
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits On Party Spending With Candidates
On Tuesday, June 30, the Supreme Court struck down federal limits on how much political parties may spend in coordination with their own candidates.
The case was National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission. Federal law limited coordinated expenditures by party committees, including spending on campaign activities discussed with or requested by a candidate’s campaign.
The challengers included the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, JD Vance, and Steve Chabot. They argued that political parties have a First Amendment right to spend money supporting their own candidates, including in coordination with those campaigns.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the Court that the limits violate the First Amendment. He said political spending is political speech, and that federal law cannot restrict campaign spending simply to reduce the amount of money in politics or level influence among speakers.
The Court overruled its 2001 decision in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, known as Colorado II, which had upheld the coordinated-spending limits.
Kavanaugh wrote that later campaign-finance decisions, including McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission and Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, had undermined Colorado II. He wrote that the Court now recognizes only quid pro quo corruption or its appearance as a valid reason for restricting campaign finance.
The majority said existing base contribution limits, earmarking rules, disclosure requirements, and bribery laws are enough to address circumvention and corruption concerns.
The outcome is direct: political parties may now spend unlimited amounts in coordination with their own federal candidates. That means a party can consult with a campaign on advertising, timing, placement, and other campaign activity without hitting the old federal coordinated-spending cap.
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan wrote that the decision allows political parties to serve as “an alternative checking account for a campaign.”
Kagan said the ruling weakens candidate contribution limits by letting large donors route money through party structures. Under the Federal Election Commission’s 2025–2026 limits, an individual may give $3,500 per election directly to a candidate, $44,300 per year to a national party committee, and $132,900 per year to each of a national party’s special accounts. Kagan wrote that a donor limited to $7,000 in direct candidate contributions could give more than $550,000 through a joint fundraising committee, with the party then able to use the money to pay campaign bills.
Kagan concluded that the ruling brings back the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption that contribution limits were designed to prevent.
Supreme Court Opinion – National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission
Supreme Court Docket – National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission
Federal Election Commission Case Page – National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC
Federal Election Commission Contribution Limits Chart for 2025–2026
House Votes To Release Taxpayer-Funded Sexual Misconduct Settlement Records
On June 30, the House passed H. Res. 1399 by a vote of 420–0, with 1 member voting present and 10 not voting.
The resolution directs the House Committee on Ethics and the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights to publicly release records relating to taxpayer-funded monetary settlements involving sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual misconduct.
The resolution gives those offices 60 days to publish a single consolidated list naming each House member, delegate, or resident commissioner who was the subject of a covered review or investigation if taxpayer funds were paid. The list must include the total taxpayer amount paid next to each name.
The disclosure applies if sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual misconduct was any component of the matter, even if it was classified or resolved under another claim or category.
The resolution also requires aggregate taxpayer totals for other settlement categories, including non-sexual-misconduct matters involving members, sexual-misconduct matters involving House employees, and non-sexual-misconduct matters involving House employees.
The resolution does not immediately release the names. It orders the Ethics Committee and Office of Congressional Workplace Rights to make the records public within 60 days of adoption.
House Clerk Roll Call 233 On H. Res. 1399
Text Of H. Res. 1399
House Ethics Committee Code Of Official Conduct
DHS Says Minnesota Pardon Could Interfere With Deportation
On June 10, the Minnesota Board of Pardons voted to pardon Tou Lue Vang, a Laotian national convicted in Minnesota of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a child, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
DHS says Vang entered the United States in 1994, lost legal status after the conviction, and received a final order of removal from an immigration judge in 2006. ICE says the pardon came one week before Vang was set to be removed from the United States.
The Minnesota Board of Pardons consists of Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson. Under Minnesota’s clemency process, the governor and at least one other board member must vote in favor for a pardon to be granted.
Minnesota says a pardon sets aside a criminal conviction, restores rights, and removes many consequences of that conviction.
DHS says the pardon could interfere with Vang’s removal from the United States by affecting the conviction that made him deportable.
Department of Homeland Security Statement On Minnesota Pardon
ICE Statement On Tou Lue Vang Pardon
Minnesota Board Of Pardons
Minnesota Clemency Review Commission: Pardon
Current Events
ICE Says More Than 10,000 Foreign Students Linked To Suspect OPT Employers
On Tuesday, May 12, Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said Homeland Security Investigations identified more than 10,000 foreign students claiming to work for highly suspect employers through Optional Practical Training.
OPT allows eligible F-1 foreign students to work temporarily in jobs related to their field of study. USCIS says standard OPT can last up to 12 months, and certain STEM graduates may apply for a 24-month extension.
Lyons said the 10,000 students were found among only the top 25 OPT employers reviewed. He called that “only the tip of the iceberg” and said HSI found fraud nationwide.
According to Lyons, investigators visited problematic OPT worksites in Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Florida. He said agents found empty buildings, locked doors, residential addresses listed as worksites for hundreds of students, and multiple employers claiming to operate from the same address without leasing the facility.
An acting Homeland Security Investigations official said HSI investigators and compliance officials visited 18 OPT worksites in North Texas in one week. He said one employer claimed to have only three foreign students working through OPT, while DHS records showed more than 500 foreign students claiming to work there.
ICE officials also described suspected shell companies, shared websites, shared job postings, overseas management, missing employment records, phantom employees, and financial transactions moving across multiple countries.
The concerns are not new. In 2014, GAO reported that ICE had not identified and assessed OPT fraud and noncompliance risks and did not have complete information on which OPT students were actually working or whether their jobs were related to their studies. In 2022, GAO again reported that ICE had incomplete employment data in SEVIS for foreign students participating in OPT.
Lyons said the fraud is deliberate, coordinated, and criminal, and said DHS will investigate, disrupt, and refer cases for prosecution.
ICE/HSI video statement on OPT fraud
USCIS: Optional Practical Training for F-1 Students
GAO: Student and Exchange Visitor Program — DHS Needs to Assess Risks and Strengthen Oversight of Foreign Students with Employment Authorization
GAO: Export Controls — State and Commerce Should Improve Guidance and Outreach to Address University-Specific Compliance Issues
8 CFR § 214.2 — Special requirements for admission, extension, and maintenance of status
Eight Alleged Tren de Aragua Members Charged In Texas And Illinois Kidnapping Death Cases
On Wednesday, July 1, the Department of Justice announced federal charges against eight alleged members of Tren de Aragua in separate kidnapping death cases out of Texas and Illinois.
DOJ says all eight defendants are illegal aliens believed to be from Venezuela who illegally entered the United States between December 2021 and April 2024.
In Illinois, three alleged Tren de Aragua members were charged with kidnapping conspiracy and committing a kidnapping that resulted in death. The criminal complaint says the victim was kidnapped near Meyering Park on the South Side of Chicago on May 18, forced into a vehicle, taken to an apartment, and later moved to an abandoned building with his hands bound behind his back. Chicago Police found him dead the next night in a bathroom, shot multiple times and with blunt force injuries to his head, arms, neck, hands, and torso.
In Texas, a federal grand jury charged five alleged Tren de Aragua members with racketeering offenses involving murder, kidnapping, robbery, bank fraud, and firearms offenses. DOJ says each defendant is charged with kidnapping three people on or about August 24, 2024. Three defendants are also charged with murder in aid of racketeering, and one is charged with causing death through the use of a firearm.
DOJ says Tren de Aragua is a designated foreign terrorist organization that originated as a Venezuelan prison gang and has expanded across the Western Hemisphere, including inside the United States.
The cases are part of the Homeland Security Task Force initiative and Joint Task Force Vulcan. DOJ says all eight defendants face up to life in prison if convicted, and five face the possibility of the death penalty.
Department of Justice: Eight Illegal Alien Tren de Aragua Members Charged In Kidnappings That Resulted In Death
Northern District Of Illinois Criminal Complaint
Two Russian Nationals Charged After Empire State Building Climb
On Wednesday, July 1, two Russian nationals allegedly entered restricted areas of the Empire State Building, climbed onto its 1,454-foot antenna and forced an NYPD Emergency Service Unit response.
The pair were arrested without injury after officers reached them on the spire. The building’s observation deck was cleared during the response and later reopened.
According to the criminal complaint cited in court reporting, a lock on the security door to the 104th floor was broken. That door leads to the building’s broadcast antenna, which emits high-frequency radio signals powerful enough to harm the human body. NYPD Emergency Service officers had to wait about 30 minutes while the antenna was powered down before approaching the climbers.
Both defendants were charged with felony burglary, felony reckless endangerment and felony criminal mischief, along with criminal trespass, criminal tampering, possession of burglar’s tools, disorderly conduct and violating a local law.
They were arraigned Thursday in Manhattan Criminal Court, released under supervised release, and are due back in court August 24.
No official public source reviewed states their immigration status beyond identifying them as Russian nationals with an address in East Orange, New Jersey.
Associated Press: Couple charged with felonies for Empire State Building climb
ABC News: Empire State Building climbers expected in court
ABC News: Daredevils reach top of Empire State Building with banner
New York Post: How climbers allegedly accessed the Empire State Building
Finance
Markets
Markets rebounded across the board this week. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at a record high 52,900 after gaining 1024 points, nearly a 2% increase.
NASDAQ recouped almost half of last week’s loss, picking up 535 points, a 2% gain with a close of 25,832.
The S&P 500 saw a 1.75% gain, 129 points saw the index finish out the week at 7,483.
Even gold stopped the skid, picking up $69, following the market trends with a 1.7% increase. Futures trading closed at $4,151 per ounce.
Sports
F1 Austria
Last weekend, Formula One returned to Austria, where George Russell converted pole position into his second win of the season, holding off Max Verstappen and teammate Kimi Antonelli at the Red Bull Ring. Verstappen finished second after a late charge, while Antonelli rounded out the podium to keep his championship lead intact.
Eight races into the season, Antonelli leads the Drivers’ Championship with 171 points. Russell’s victory moves him into second with 131, followed by Lewis Hamilton on 125. Oscar Piastri sits fourth, just ahead of Lando Norris and Charles Leclerc. Defending champion Max Verstappen sits in 7th. The series now heads to Silverstone this weekend for the British Grand Prix on July 5.
World Cup
The World Cup has reached the Round of 16, and the United States is still alive after a 2-0 win over Bosnia and Herzegovina. Folarin Balogun scored his third goal of the tournament before being handed a red card for stepping on a Bosnian defender’s ankle. Playing with 10 men, the U.S. held on before Malik Tillman added a late free kick to seal the win. Balogun will miss Monday night’s Round of 16 match against Belgium because of the automatic red card suspension. Elsewhere, Paraguay produced one of the tournament’s biggest upsets by eliminating Germany in a penalty shootout. Brazil, France, England, Spain, Portugal, Mexico, and Canada also advanced as the Round of 16 gets underway.
Wimbledon
Wimbledon is through the first two rounds, and several big names are already out. Seven-time champion Serena Williams returned to singles at Wimbledon for the first time in nearly four years but lost in the opening round. American Ben Shelton was also upset in his first match.
Meanwhile, defending champion Jannik Sinner, seven-time Wimbledon champion Novak Djokovic, and former champion Carlos Alcaraz remain in contention as third-round play gets underway. The Round of 16 begins this weekend as the field narrows toward the July 11 and 12 finals.
MLB
Finally, in Major League Baseball, the Yankees have lost 7 in a row while the rays have won 8 straight. The Bronx bombers now sit 4 games back in the AL east. In the central division, the white Sox are tied with Cleveland and sit 4 games ahead of the twins. Similarly in the west, the rangers and Seahawks are tied with a 2.5 game advantage on the Astros. In the national league, the Braves are just 2-8 over their last 10 and their advantage in the east is now only 2.5 games over the Phillies. In the west though, the dodgers have a 13 game lead on the Padres. In the central division, Jacob Misiorowski and the brewers still hold a 5 game advantage over the Cubs. It also looks like scheduling will keep Miz from pitching in the all star game. Disappointing, but understandable.
Rich Stephens
The Cold Take