标签： North America

In a landmark decision that has reshaped the landscape of youth and collegiate athletics policy in the United States, the US Supreme Court has upheld the right of individual states to implement bans barring transgender women from competing on female sports teams at public K-12 schools and colleges. The ruling stems from two separate legal challenges brought against participation bans passed in the states of Idaho and West Virginia, both of which require athlete eligibility for public school and college sports to be determined based on an individual’s sex assigned at birth. The challengers argued that the restrictions violate core US legal protections: one claimed the ban runs afoul of equal rights guarantees enshrined in the US Constitution, while the other asserted it conflicts with federal civil rights legislation. Idaho pioneered this policy shift when it passed the first such ban in 2020, and in the years since, more than 25 other states have followed suit with similar legislation. Under these rules, transgender women – individuals who were assigned male at birth but identify as women – are completely excluded from competing in women’s and girls’ athletic programs at public educational institutions. Long-distance runner Lindsay Hecox was one of the first to mount a legal challenge to Idaho’s law, filing suit almost immediately after the legislation was signed into action. Lower courts sided with Hecox, granting her a preliminary injunction that blocked enforcement of the ban while the case worked its way through the judicial system. A three-judge panel on the appeals court even went a step further, ruling that the Idaho law violated constitutional equal protection rights. The panel noted that state officials had failed to present concrete evidence proving the ban was necessary to preserve competitive fairness and athletic opportunity for cisgender female athletes. Barbara Ehardt, the Idaho state lawmaker who originally sponsored the legislation, defended the ban at the time of its passage, arguing that excluding transgender women from female sports was necessary to prevent cisgender girls and women from being displaced from competition and to maintain a level playing field. The issue of transgender athlete eligibility has become a flashpoint in partisan US politics over the past several years, and it featured prominently in former President Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential election campaign. After taking office earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order mandating a federal ban on transgender women competing in female sports. In the wake of that executive action, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the governing body that oversees intercollegiate athletics across the United States, updated its own policies to implement a nationwide ban on transgender women’s participation in women’s college sports. The Supreme Court’s latest decision clears the way for existing state bans to go into full effect, and is expected to encourage more states to adopt similar restrictions in the coming months, deepening the national debate over transgender rights, athletic equity, and state versus federal authority over education policy.

As the current U.S. Supreme Court term draws to a close, the nation’s highest judicial body is preparing to issue two of the most consequential and widely anticipated decisions of the Donald Trump presidency on Tuesday, rulings that could reshape long-standing American legal and social frameworks.

The first and arguably most closely watched of the two cases centers on the Trump administration’s bid to restrict the long-standing principle of birthright citizenship, a rule that guarantees automatic U.S. citizenship to any person born on American soil. Enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for nearly 160 years, this principle, legally known as jus soli (or “right of the soil”), has its roots in the aftermath of the American Civil War. Ratified in 1868, the amendment’s opening citizenship clause was originally crafted to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people born in the U.S., cementing a core tenet of equal citizenship after the abolition of slavery.

Shortly after taking office, Trump made restricting birthright citizenship a central pillar of his hardline immigration agenda, signing an executive order that directed federal agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or hold only temporary visas. This policy followed through on repeated campaign promises to overhaul the U.S. immigration system, alongside other administration actions including aggressive crackdowns on illegal border crossings and the revocation of Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of vulnerable migrants from Haiti and Syria — a move the Supreme Court previously allowed to stand.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and allied civil rights groups quickly launched a class-action lawsuit, Barbara v. Trump, challenging the executive order as unconstitutional. The entire dispute hinges on the interpretation of one key phrase from the 14th Amendment: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Administration legal arguments contend that this clause explicitly excludes children of parents who are not lawfully present in the U.S. on a permanent basis, arguing the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented or temporary migrants. Trump himself has repeatedly framed birthright citizenship as a “scam” that enables both undocumented immigrants and wealthy foreign nationals to exploit the U.S. immigration system for unfair advantage.

On the opposing side, the ACLU argues that the jurisdiction clause refers exclusively to the physical presence of a person born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The organization warns that ending birthright citizenship would create a permanent underclass of people born in the United States who are denied basic citizenship rights from birth. During oral arguments held in April, multiple Supreme Court justices appeared openly skeptical of the Trump administration’s position. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan noted that the administration was seeking to undo a legal tradition that stretches all the way back to English common law, stating “What the 14th Amendment did was accept that tradition and not attempt to put any limitations on it. That was the clear rationale.” Legal experts remain divided on whether the court will issue a broad sweeping ruling on constitutional grounds or a narrower decision tied to statutory interpretation, a distinction that could drastically alter the long-term impact of the decision.

The second landmark decision due Tuesday addresses a separate divisive cultural and legal issue: whether U.S. states have the authority to bar transgender athletes from competing on women’s and girls’ school and college sports teams. The cases before the court stem from laws passed in Idaho and West Virginia, which require public school and college sports teams to be organized based on an athlete’s sex assigned at birth. Transgender students in both states have challenged the bans, with one arguing the policy violates equal protection guarantees under the U.S. Constitution, and the other claiming it contradicts federal civil rights legislation.

Currently, more than two dozen U.S. states have enacted similar restrictions on transgender athlete participation, making the Supreme Court’s ruling a decision that will impact trans students across nearly half the country. Banning transgender athletes from competing in categories aligned with their gender identity has been a top policy priority for Republican officials at both the state and federal level during the Trump administration.

Proponents of the bans argue that transgender women hold an inherent biological advantage over cisgender women — athletes assigned female at birth — a position that received backing earlier this year from the International Olympic Committee (IOC). In March, the IOC announced new rules limiting the women’s Olympic category to biological females, following an 18-month review of existing scientific research. The IOC working group concluded there was a “clear consensus” that male sex provides a measurable performance advantage in all sports that rely on strength, power, and endurance.

Critics of the state-level bans push back on both scientific and ethical grounds, arguing the policies amount to unlawful, unfair discrimination against transgender students and dispute the claim that there is a universal scientific consensus on inherent competitive advantage for all trans women athletes.

With the Supreme Court holding a 6-3 conservative majority, observers noted that during more than three hours of oral arguments in January, at least five justices appeared inclined to uphold the state-level bans. A ruling upholding the restrictions would set a binding nationwide precedent that reshape how civil rights protections are applied to transgender students in public education across the United States, a outcome that would ripple through state education and athletic policies for decades to come. As crowds of supporters gathered outside the Supreme Court building this week holding signs in favor of the transgender athlete bans, the nation waits for two decisions that will define the trajectory of American law and society for a generation.

Four months out from the 2026 U.S. midterm elections, a sharp internal rift over Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has emerged as a defining fracture for the Democratic Party, one that could reshape the party’s leadership and policy trajectory ahead of November’s general election contests.

Recent results from 2026 Democratic primary elections, which select the party’s general election candidates, have made clear that attitudes toward Israel have become a wedge issue pitting the party’s progressive base against its long-standing establishment leadership. No race has highlighted this divide more clearly than last week’s contest for New York City’s 10th Congressional District, where two liberal, Jewish candidates who both opposed Donald Trump’s political agenda and identified as Zionist ran on starkly different platforms about Israel.

City Comptroller Brad Lander, the progressive candidate in the race, labeled Israel’s military operation in Gaza a genocide, pledged to oppose new U.S. military funding for Israel, and refused to accept any campaign donations from the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). His opponent, incumbent Congressman Dan Goldman, had also criticized the Israeli government and opposed West Bank settlement expansion, but stopped short of describing the Gaza campaign as genocide and had previously accepted AIPAC contributions. Goldman centered his campaign on addressing rising antisemitism and secured endorsements from prominent Orthodox Jewish community leaders, a key voting bloc in the district.

When ballots were counted, Lander’s unapologetic criticism of Israel secured him a landslide victory over Goldman. The win came as part of a broader pattern: in two other New York City Democratic primaries, progressive candidates endorsed by outspoken Israel-critic and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani all defeated more moderate opponents who took softer stances on the issue. These results signal a growing schism that is expected to ripple through upcoming high-stakes contests, including August’s closely watched Democratic Senate primary in Michigan.

Because New York’s congressional districts are heavily Democratic, primary victors like Lander are nearly guaranteed to win general election seats in Congress. Once in Washington, their presence is expected to force more urgent, contentious policy debates over U.S. military funding for Israel and push the entire Democratic Party to re-evaluate its long-standing messaging on Israel and the Gaza conflict.

“What we’re seeing is that in much of the Democratic base – especially in urban, progressive, young demographics – public criticism of Israel acts as a signal that a candidate rejects the status quo and is going to Washington to deliver change,” explained Tali DeGroot, vice president of political and digital strategy at J-Street, a group that supports Israel’s right to exist but has criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s military actions in Gaza. As American public opinion shifts, DeGroot noted, Democratic voters “want to see elected officials engage with nuance on this complicated issue.”

While J-Street endorsed Goldman, it took the unusual step of also listing Lander as an approved candidate for voter consideration. Lander additionally secured the backing of Jews for Racial and Economic Justice (JFREJ), a left-leaning social justice group that has called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and an end to U.S. weapons sales to Israel.

At Brooklyn polling places on primary day, Lander voters repeatedly cited his stance on Israel and endorsement from Mamdani as the top factors driving their support. Many argued that the Democratic Party’s national leadership has lost touch with the base’s shifting views on the conflict.

“I learned a lot watching a Jewish leader work through his relationship to Zionism, to Israel, and to opposing genocide in Gaza,” said Perrin Roosevelt Ireland, a Park Slope, Brooklyn voter who supported Lander. “Watching his journey has been really powerful to me, and I appreciate a leader who learns in public.” Ireland added that she believes top congressional Democrats Chuck Schumer, the Senate Majority Leader, and Hakeem Jeffries, the House Minority Leader – both New York delegates who have broadly supported Israel – are out of step with the views of many of their own constituents.

The current conversation around Israel is rooted in the outbreak of the Israel-Gaza war: Israel launched its military campaign in Gaza after the October 7, 2023, attack led by Hamas, which killed roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel and took 251 hostages. Since the campaign began, the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health – whose casualty figures are considered reliable by the United Nations – reports that at least 73,058 people have been killed in Israeli attacks, including more than 21,280 children. Multiple international, Israeli human rights groups, independent UN experts, and scholars have accused Israel of genocide in Gaza, claims Israel has strongly denied. Last week, a three-member UN-appointed commission of inquiry released a report concluding that Israeli authorities deliberately targeted Palestinian children and committed genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The panel does not officially represent the UN, but its findings amplified existing global criticism. Israel’s foreign ministry rejected the report as “libellous propaganda.”

New polling confirms that U.S. public opinion of Israel has shifted dramatically over the past year. An April Pew Research Center survey found that 60% of all U.S. adults hold an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53% in 2025. Fully 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters now view Israel unfavorably, an 11-point increase from 2025. The shift has also touched the Republican Party: more than half of Republicans under 50 now hold an unfavorable view of Israel, and former President Trump has publicly expressed frustration with Netanyahu, with the party’s “America First” isolationist wing openly criticizing the U.S.-Israel alliance.

Dina Smeltz, managing director of public opinion and foreign policy at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, noted that American public opinion initially leaned heavily toward Israel after the October 7 attack. “But then as it retaliated against those attacks and carried out a lot of military action in Gaza that resulted in a big humanitarian crisis, attitudes toward Israel have fallen quite a bit,” Smeltz explained.

As the Democratic base’s views shift, some voters and Jewish organizations have expressed concern over Israel becoming a polarizing partisan issue. Haile Soifer, CEO of the Democratic Jewish Council of America, called it “regret that Israel became a divisive issue in these races, especially in NY-10.”

Rob Geaillig, a Brooklyn resident who voted for Goldman, said he believed Lander was “far too liberal for this area.” Though a registered Democrat, Geaillig voted for Trump in 2024, citing discomfort with how far left the Democratic Party has shifted on the issue of Israel. It is important to note that not all pro-Israel Democratic incumbents lost in last week’s primaries: several New York incumbents who supported Israel won their renomination contests.

Mainstream Democratic leaders, including Schumer and Jeffries, have walked a careful middle path: they have criticized Netanyahu’s leadership and the scale of Israel’s military action in Gaza, while continuing to support broad U.S. military and diplomatic backing for Israel. Still, there are clear signs the congressional Democratic caucus is shifting toward a harder line on Israel. In April, 40 Democratic senators supported a symbolic motion to express congressional disapproval of proposed new military sales to Israel; only seven Senate Democrats, including Schumer, joined Republicans to block the motion. While non-binding, the vote exposed widespread growing frustration among Democratic lawmakers with the ongoing military campaign.

Sam Geisler, a 37-year-old Lander voter, warned that any Democratic incumbent who continues to approve military aid for Israel should expect to face tough primary challenges in upcoming cycles. “We’ll see if the national party learns. I don’t have a whole lot of faith,” Geisler said. “They’re going to learn when they keep getting voted out.”

As the critical July 1 review deadline for the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) draws near, all three North American nations are widely expected to miss the target without a final resolution to the trade pact’s future. This Wednesday will mark the first formal trilateral meeting between the countries’ top trade representatives since the mandatory review of the 2018 agreement launched earlier this year. Both Canada and Mexico have publicly pushed for a full renewal of the accord, but the United States has so far declined to lay out a clear official stance.

Recent remarks from former President Donald Trump, who originally negotiated USMCA to replace the 1990s-era North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), have deepened uncertainty: Trump has stated he believes the deal should “expire immediately,” arguing the U.S. would gain a stronger position without the trilateral pact. The agreement, which serves as the backbone of regional economic integration, currently supports $1.6 trillion in annual cross-border trade, enables integrated supply chains for core industries like automobile manufacturing, and sustains millions of jobs across the three countries. It also grants Canadian and Mexican goods exemption from most U.S. tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, a critical protection for North American exporters.

Public opinion in the U.S. leans heavily in favor of retaining the deal: a late 2025 Ipsos survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that 75% of U.S. respondents view USMCA as beneficial to the American economy. Even so, negotiations have been tangled by tensions stemming from Trump’s existing tariffs, with Canada’s retaliatory trade measures adding extra layers of complexity to discussions. All three sides have already acknowledged that no final decision will come out of Wednesday’s meeting. Canadian officials have openly prepared for extended negotiations beyond the July 1 deadline, while Mexico and the U.S. have already scheduled a second round of bilateral talks for later this month.

In an official statement shared with the BBC, the office of Canadian Minister of U.S. Trade Dominic LeBlanc framed Wednesday’s gathering as a chance to build on the productive one-on-one talks LeBlanc has held with officials from both partner nations in recent weeks. “He is looking forward to continuing the work of supporting Canadian workers, farmers and businesses, on July 1 and beyond,” the statement read.

Since the review launched, the U.S. has held separate bilateral discussions with Mexico and Canada to address longstanding trade frictions. Many observers have noted Canada has fallen behind in visible progress, as Mexico and the U.S. have already held multiple formal negotiating rounds while U.S.-Canada talks were slower to materialize. But members of the trade advisory committee assembled by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney push back on that narrative, noting the list of U.S. demands for Canada is far shorter than the list presented to Mexico, and behind-the-scenes negotiations are advancing steadily.

Key U.S. demands for Canada include expanded market access for American dairy producers, the elimination of Canadian digital taxes on large U.S. streaming services, and the reversal of provincial alcohol boycotts that Canada put in place as a retaliatory response to Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs. For its part, Canada’s top priority remains removing the existing U.S. tariffs on core Canadian exports including steel, aluminum and automobiles. Carney has repeatedly emphasized Canada will not accept a deal that harms national economic interests, a position echoed by Canadian business groups. While the current trade uncertainty has already inflicted harm on Canadian companies, most industry leaders are willing to extend negotiations to secure a favorable outcome, according to Dennis Darby, president of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and a member of Carney’s trade advisory committee.

U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra revealed that a U.S.-Canada deal was nearly reached last October, but talks collapsed after Ontario ran an anti-tariff advertisement on U.S. television networks that angered Trump. “They were very, very close to having an agreement, and then you know, poof, it’s all gone,” Hoekstra told Canadian broadcaster CTV in an interview last week.

Even if no deal is reached by July 1, the existing USMCA will remain in effect until its scheduled expiration date in 2036. The three parties have three potential paths forward after the deadline: first, all three can agree to extend the deal for 16 additional years, pushing its expiry to 2042; second, if no consensus is reached, the agreement will move to an annual review process that will repeat until 2036; third, any one party can formally notify the others of its intention to withdraw, triggering a six-month waiting period before the exit takes effect.

Canadian business leaders overwhelmingly view a full U.S. withdrawal as the least likely outcome, even with Trump’s public criticism of the deal. “Everyone is hopeful that won’t be the case,” Darby said, adding that U.S. negotiators recognize the agreement has delivered mutual benefits to all three nations. Still, Darby noted that permanent annual reviews would be a bad outcome for Canadian business, as ongoing uncertainty would continue to disrupt investment and planning. Ultimately, most key players agree the final decision rests with Trump and Carney. Trump’s recent comments on the deal have been contradictory: he has both said he is “not looking to renew it” and claimed he is “open” to keeping the pact in place. While Carney acknowledged it is no secret that Trump is dissatisfied with USMCA, he noted U.S. negotiators have already accepted that the agreement’s core structure is sound. “What I have seen with the president is you’re not close to making a deal – and then you make a deal,” Carney told reporters recently.

On the penultimate day of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025-2026 term, the nation’s highest court delivered a mix of landmark victories and unexpected setbacks to former and current President Donald Trump, revealing surprising ideological shifts within the court’s conservative majority that defy common partisan assumptions. A close examination of the four major rulings involving the president lays bare the evolving dynamics of the nation’s most powerful judicial body.

Almost a century ago, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that blocked Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt from claiming unlimited authority to oust commissioners from congressionally established regulatory agencies designed to operate independent of direct presidential control. On this eventful Monday, that 90-year-old precedent was formally overturned in a case brought by Trump, with the court’s six conservative justices — three of whom Trump himself appointed during his first term — forming a unified majority to expand executive power.

“Subordinates who exercise the president’s power are subject to removal by him,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the president, and the president to the people.” The outcome of this ruling hands Trump and all future U.S. presidents sweeping authority to replace regulators across dozens of key federal agencies when the sitting president disagrees with their policy stances. While the Federal Trade Commission was the specific agency at the heart of this case, echoing FDR’s dispute a century prior, the new precedent applies to every sector of federal regulation, from election oversight and communications policy to labor disputes, financial rulemaking and environmental protections. This decision is widely expected to accelerate the dramatic policy swings that have become standard when a new president of a different party takes office — a trend that has already played out between the presidencies of Barack Obama, Trump, Joe Biden, and now Trump’s second term. Trump himself celebrated the ruling in a post on his Truth Social platform, writing, “Ninety years of precedent has been completely and unequivocally overruled, greatly increasing presidential power at a time when it is most needed!”

Not long after delivering that sweeping win for executive authority, the court drew a clear line against one of Trump’s specific personal policy priorities: his bid to remove Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook. In a narrow 5-4 ruling, two conservative justices — Chief Justice Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh — broke ranks with their fellow conservatives to join the court’s three liberal justices in blocking Trump’s removal attempt. Trump has claimed Cook engaged in mortgage fraud to justify her ouster, but observers widely view the move as rooted in his anger over the Fed’s refusal to cut U.S. interest rates, a key policy demand of his second term. Writing for the new majority, Roberts ruled that Cook is entitled to a full opportunity to challenge her removal and rebut Trump’s unsubstantiated allegations, warning of the “calamities that could arise” if presidents were allowed to force their monetary policy preferences on the independent central bank.

A second major setback came in a case over late-arriving mail-in ballots, where the court again ruled against Trump. The case centered on whether federal law bars states from counting mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive after the polls close. In this ruling, the three liberal justices were joined by Roberts and Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the majority opinion. Citing the U.S. Constitution’s grant of broad authority to states to set the “time, place and manner” of congressional elections, Barrett rejected Trump’s claims that late-arriving mail-in ballots are inherently vulnerable to widespread fraud, arguing that disputes over election rules are best resolved through the democratic process rather than judicial intervention. Trump immediately responded by doubling down on his push for congressional passage of an election reform package that would drastically restrict mail-in voting. While the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has already approved the legislation, Democrats and a small bloc of moderate Republicans have blocked a Senate vote, leaving the measure stalled.

The final blow for Trump on Monday came in a little-noticed entry on the court’s list of cases it declined to hear: the president’s final appeal of the civil judgment in the E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse and defamation case. Carroll, a former magazine writer, accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in a 1990s department store dressing room, and a 2023 jury found Trump liable for defamation, ordering him to pay $5 million in damages. The Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the appeal closes off the final avenue for Trump to challenge that $5 million judgment, though he still plans to appeal a separate $83.3 million damages award from a second defamation case brought by Carroll. Trump decried the decision in a Truth Social post, writing, “I will continue the fight against this weaponization and lawfare case against me, including the ridiculous claim of defamation, with all my power and strength. This injustice cannot be allowed to stand!”

Monday’s rulings served as a stark reminder of the Supreme Court’s unique role as the final arbiter of U.S. law, and delivered a day of mixed outcomes for Trump: a historic expansion of presidential power that delivers a long-term partisan victory, but concrete defeats for his immediate policy priorities and personal legal battles. The day also upended expectations of unified conservative control, showing that even with a 6-3 conservative majority, Trump cannot count on automatic victory for every one of his priorities before the nation’s highest court.