Liberal justices dissent in latest major US supreme court decision
Per my last post, the supreme court has ruled 6-3 in a decision could embolden red states across the country to effectively “defund” Planned Parenthood.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented from the decision, which overturned a lower court’s ruling barring Republican-governed South Carolina from terminating regional affiliate Planned Parenthood South Atlantic’s participation in the state’s Medicaid program because the organization provides abortions.
Key events
Joanna Walters
There is some debate among supreme-court watchers as to whether the birthright citizenship case, Trump v CASA, will be announced tomorrow with the other cases from the main season.
It technically does not have to be announced tomorrow but observers are leaning towards the notion that it will be.
It’s the most closely watched remaining case. Given that the conservative justices got their way in the transgender healthcare case and today’s Planned Parenthood ruling, liberals have cause for concern.
But, in fact, during oral arguments in May, the bench took issue with Donald Trump’s attempt to sidestep the constitution to limit birthright citizenship, a case that, while technically about immigration, could reshape presidential power and the role of federal courts.
Many predict that the US president’s plan is likely to be, ultimately, struck down, as it directly contradicts the 14th amendment, which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”.
Here’s our explainer from last month.
Supreme court’s final opinions of the term coming on Friday
The supreme court will issue the final opinions of its term on Friday, the Associated Press reports.
Chief Justice John Roberts made the courtroom announcement on Thursday. Six cases remain to be decided, including whether Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship can take effect anywhere in the United States.
Other remaining cases include whether Maryland parents with religious objections can remove their children from lessons using LGBTQ storybooks and a fight over a second majority Black congressional district in Louisiana.
JB Pritzker announces reelection campaign for third term as Illinois governor
JB Pritzker has launched his reelection campaign for a third term as Democratic governor of Illinois, amid speculation of a future run for higher office.
In a video posted on X, he said:
Donald Trump’s made clear he’ll stop at nothing to get his way. I’m not about to stand by and let him tear down all we’re building in Illinois.
I’m running for reelection to protect our progress and continue solving the problems we face. I love this state, and it’s the honor of my life to serve as your Governor – to help lead through the most challenging of times and celebrate the most joyful ones together.
I’m ready for the fight ahead.
Pritzker has served as governor in the deep-blue state since 2018 and is widely seen as a possible 2028 presidential contender, having positioned himself as one of the most vocal critics of Trump in the Democratic party.
In a statement announcing his re-election bid, his campaign said:
Thanks to the Governor’s leadership, Illinois remains a symbol of hope and freedom as we face down Donald Trump’s attacks, with abortion rights and civil rights enshrined into law and protections for our LGBTQ and immigrant communities stronger than ever before.
Liberal justices dissent in latest major US supreme court decision
Per my last post, the supreme court has ruled 6-3 in a decision could embolden red states across the country to effectively “defund” Planned Parenthood.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented from the decision, which overturned a lower court’s ruling barring Republican-governed South Carolina from terminating regional affiliate Planned Parenthood South Atlantic’s participation in the state’s Medicaid program because the organization provides abortions.
Supreme court paves way for South Carolina to defund Planned Parenthood
Carter Sherman
The US supreme court has paved the way for South Carolina to kick Planned Parenthood out of its Medicaid program over its status as an abortion provider, in a decision that could embolden red states across the country to effectively “defund” the reproductive healthcare organization.
The case, Medina v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, centers around a 2018 executive order from South Carolina’s governor, Henry McMaster, that blocked clinics that provide abortions from receiving Medicaid reimbursements. “Payment of taxpayer funds to abortion clinics, for any purpose, results in the subsidy of abortion and the denial of the right to life,” McMaster said at the time, even though the reimbursements could not be used for abortions. Abortions are also now banned in South Carolina after six weeks of pregnancy.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a Planned Parenthood affiliate that operates two clinics in South Carolina, and Julie Edwards, a patient who sought birth control, sued over McMaster’s order, arguing that it flew in the face of a federal provision known as the “free choice of provider” clause. That provision guarantees that people insured by Medicaid, the government health insurance program for people with low income or other eligibilities, can freely choose their own providers as long as they accept the program and are qualified to provide care. Lower courts have repeatedly sided with Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and Edwards, keeping McMaster’s order from taking effect.
The case in front of the supreme court did not directly deal with the question of whether South Carolina could legally remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid. Instead, the justices were asked to weigh in on a highly technical question: Do Medicaid beneficiaries have the right to sue if they believe their right to a free choice of provider has been violated?
South Carolina, which was represented in the case by the powerful rightwing organization Alliance Defending Freedom, argued that beneficiaries could not sue and that the free choice of provider clause lacked “clear rights-creating language”, as ADF senior counsel John Bursch put it in oral arguments.
These technicalities cloaked the potentially sweeping consequences of the case. If people can’t sue when they believe a state is violating Medicaid, it is far harder to stop states from discriminating against controversial care, such as abortion, Nicole Huberfeld, a health law professor at Boston University’s School of Public Health, told the Guardian ahead of oral arguments.
The South Carolina case was also part of a longstanding effort by anti-abortion activists, including ADF, to “defund” Planned Parenthood by cutting it out of Medicaid. Of the 2.4 million people treated at Planned Parenthood each year, almost half use Medicaid.
Iran moved uranium from Fordow before US strikes, EU capitals believe – FT
Contrary to that, the Financial Times is reporting that European capitals believe Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile remains largely intact following US strikes on its main nuclear sites.
The newspaper, citing two people briefed on preliminary intelligence assessments, said European capitals believe Iran’s stockpile of 408 kilogram of uranium enriched close to weapons-grade levels was not concentrated in Fordow, one of its two main enrichment sites, at the time of last weekend’s attack.
Trump says nothing taken out of facility at Iran nuclear site ahead of US bombing
Trump has claimed that nothing was taken out of the facility at the Iranian nuclear site struck by the US last weekend, as his administration continues its campaign to insist that the strikes were more effective than early intelligence has found.
The president wrote on Truth Social minutes ago, without providing evidence:
The cars and small trucks at the site were those of concrete workers trying to cover up the top of the shafts. Nothing was taken out of facility. Would take too long, too dangerous, and very heavy and hard to move!
We just heard similar from defense secretary Pete Hegseth who said he was unaware of any intelligence suggesting Iran had moved any of its highly enriched uranium to shield it from US strikes on its nuclear program.
Hegseth ends the briefing by reiterating that the attack was “devastating” and “historic, setting back the Iranian nuclear program untold number of years”.
Caine says he hasn’t been pressured to change assessment of US strikes on Iran
Asked if he’s been pressured to change his assessment of US strikes on Iran, General Dan Caine says:
I’ve never been pressured by the president of the secretary to do anything other than tell them exactly what I’m thinking and that’s exactly what I’ve done.
No known intelligence that Iran moved uranium, Hegseth says
Pete Hegseth says he is unaware of any intelligence suggesting Iran had moved any of its highly enriched uranium to shield it from US strikes on Iran’s nuclear program over the weekend.
I’m not aware of any intelligence that I’ve reviewed that says things were not where they were supposed to be, moved or otherwise.
“I have chills literally talking about this,” says Caine as he recounts the mission.
Caine is going into detail about the people behind the mission and a map of the Fordow enrichment site.
Top US general: there were ‘indications’ of Iran’s intention to attack military bases
Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff air force general Dan Caine says that on Monday morning they began to receive “indications and warnings that Iran intended to attack US bases in the region” and moved most personnel out of the area.
Hegseth – of Signal group chat leak fame – is now bemoaning that the press is reporting stories based on “leaked classified information”.
Time and time again, classified information is leaked or peddled for political purposes to try to make the president look bad.
Hegseth launches extraordinary attack on media over reporting on US strikes on Iran
Hegseth is very aggressively and bizarrely attacking the press corps, claiming:
Because you cheer against Trump so hard – it’s in your DNA and in your blood to cheer against Trump, because you want him not to be successful so bad – you have to cheer against the efficacy of these strikes. You have to hope that maybe they weren’t effective.
He then accuses the media of “spinning” leaked information “in every way we can to try to cause doubt and manipulate the public mind over whether or not our brave pilots were successful”.
Hegseth has some suggestions for stories the media could write – including “how hard it is to fly a plane for 36 hours”, and blames “the hatred of this press corp” on stories like that not happening, adding: “It’s irresponsible.”
Hegseth is now reading out various quotes from UN, IDF, CIA and Iranian figures suggesting that the nuclear sites were “severely damaged” and “effectively destroyed”, supposedly contrary to the DIA’s early findings.
Pete Hegseth cites a statement from Trump’s CIA director to refute press reports that Iran’s nuclear program isn’t as obliterated as Trump wants people to believe pic.twitter.com/zndtWYCIg9
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 26, 2025
Hegseth calls the UN “no friend to the United States, or certainly Israel often”.
Hegseth attacks the media for reporting on the “preliminary assessment” by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), claiming “there’s low confidence in this particular report”. (Just a reminder that the DIA is the intelligence arm of the Pentagon – Hegseth’s own department).
He said:
This was preliminary and leaked because someone had an agenda to try to muddy the waters and make it look like this historic strike wasn’t successful.
