SCOTUS Decision Roundup
Civics 101
This episode of Civics 101 explores the major rulings from the Supreme Court's 2025-2026 term, focusing on landmark decisions including Trum
Key takeaways
- The Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, rejecting Trump's executive order to end it, emphasizing that such changes require a constitutional amendment.
- Six justices ruled that campaign finance limits on political party coordination violate the First Amendment, expanding the role of parties in election spending.
Main topics
- Birthright citizenship
- Campaign finance reform
Notable quotes
If you're born here, are you an American? Regardless.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's final decisions of the term underscore ongoing tensions between constitutional rights, executive
Transcript preview
Speaker 4 (0:04) The Speaker 1 (0:05) city moves fast, but your vibe, that's different. Sharper, smoother, more alive. Speaker 4 (0:15) The new Speaker 1 (0:20) Honda City isn't just made to drive, it's made to feel. The new Honda City, all new vibe. Speaker 2 (0:28) This is Civics 101 from NHPR. I'm Hannah McCarthy. I'm Speaker 3 (0:33) Nick Capodice. And Speaker 2 (0:34) today, while the robes are away, the Civics hosts are gonna play. Here is what the Supreme Court had to say. Speaker 3 (0:44) This year. Speaker 2 (0:45) Yeah, this year, but it didn't rhyme. Speaker 2 (0:50) The 2025-2026 Supreme Court term wrapped up just before July 4th, a.k.a. the 250th birthday of America. Now, the Supreme Court issues decisions about cases throughout the year. Just like July is the big blockbuster month for Hollywood, June tends to be the blockbuster month for the biggest, most anticipated, often most consequential decisions from the Supreme Court. Speaker 3 (1:17) Yeah, they do seem to wait until like the very last minute to tell us what they think about everything. Whether or not some or all of our lives are going to change. Speaker 2 (1:28) What they don't tell us, Nick, is why we have to wait till the end of term to hear certain decisions. It's probably because those are the cases that require the most deliberation. That and, well... Maybe they're saving major constitutional releases for the last minute so they can immediately pack their bags and go on summer vacation. Speaker 3 (1:50) Well, it's easier to avoid the reviews, Anna, if you're on a private island drinking out of a coconut, I guess. I Speaker 2 (1:56) mean, if I were writing scripts with the power to profoundly change American constitutional democracy, I would probably take a little time away. All right. Speaking of, let's get into it. the major releases of the 2025-2026 SCOTUS season. You ready? Got Speaker 3 (2:14) my popcorn. Speaker 4 (2:31) The Speaker 1 (2:32) city moves fast, but your vibe, that's different. Sharper, smoother, more alive. Speaker 4 (2:43) The new Speaker 1 (2:47) Honda City isn't just made to drive, it's made to feel. The new Honda City, all new vibe. Speaker 3 (2:57) Hello, hello. Welcome back, everyone. This is Civics 101. I'm Nick. Speaker 2 (3:01) And I'm Hannah. And we are going to start with one of the biggest things to come out of the court this year, the Christopher Nolan's odyssey of cases, Trump v. Barbara. Speaker 3 (3:15) A journey to the very meaning of home. Speaker 2 (3:23) This one came out on June 30th in the last batch of the summer releases. The plot. Speaker 2 (3:31) Trump signs an executive order to end birthright citizenship for children who are born in the United States to parents who are not in this country lawfully. Three individuals, all non-citizens of the United States, challenged this order on behalf of both themselves and all people with similar situations. These three challengers? Barbara, Susan, and Mark. Speaker 3 (3:54) All three of whom chose to remain anonymous. Speaker 2 (3:57) That is right. All three remained anonymous throughout this entire thing to protect themselves and their family. And their situations vary. Our titular character, Barbara, is a Honduran immigrant with a pending asylum application living in New Hampshire. She was pregnant with her daughter when Trump's order came down in October of 2025. Susan is a Taiwanese citizen living in Utah whose child, born while Susan was in the United States on a student visa, had a pending passport application. And finally, Mark, a green card applicant living in Florida whose undocumented wife had given birth in the spring before the Trump order. Their baby had a U.S. passport. And now the issue is, is that passport's validity in question? Speaker 3 (4:46) So we've got stories from across the country, across the spectrum of immigrant and citizenship status. This ensemble cast class action case is all hinging on one question. If you're born here, are you an American? Regardless. Speaker 3 (5:10) And Speaker 2 (5:10) in the end, the Supreme Court chose to stick with the auteurs of the past. Six of the nine justices decided that Trump's order was unlawful and birthright citizenship remained intact. Speaker 3 (5:31) Well, as big as this blockbuster decision was, though, Hannah, it pretty much instantly spurred a bunch of sequels. There's a proposed bill for ending birthright citizenship in American territories, one that would classify undocumented people in the U.S. as quote-unquote invaders to try and turn Trump's order into a law, and one that would change the Immigration and Nationality Act to get around birthright citizenship. Also, two new executive orders from Trump attempting to narrow the definitions of birthright citizenship and prevent pregnant non-citizens from traveling to the U.S. and giving birth. Speaker 2 (6:08) Now, see, the trouble with retelling a SCOTUS story from an executive or even a congressional perspective is that you're dancing into constitutional territory, which is why you have a lot of experts saying. Eliminating birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment, not just a law or an executive order. Speaker 3 (6:31) In a world where nine people interpret the supreme law of the land, several lawmakers are wondering, can we avoid doing that thing that's basically impossible and get away with it? Speaker 2 (6:45) And who knows, they are certainly going to try. Speaker 2 (6:52) We will have to see if that one somehow gets the green light. All right, moving on, because there were two other big releases that same day with majorly different plots. Yeah, Speaker 3 (7:08) real Barbenheimer. We Speaker 2 (7:10) had a political drama by the name of National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, NRSC v. FEC. Speaker 3 (7:22) For those who are familiar with Citizens United and the widening gyre of political spending that followed, this might be of some interest. Speaker 2 (7:30) This case should be of interest to any American who cares about money in politics. Before this decision, there were limits on how much a political party could spend when they coordinated with a presidential or congressional candidate. Meaning the party doesn't write the candidate a check. but they foot a portion of the bill for goods and services the candidate needs to campaign. Speaker 3 (7:55) Like paying for a campaign ad, for example. Speaker 2 (7:58) Yeah, historically that has been the primary coordinated expense. But sometimes coordinating just means that a party will pay invoices of various kinds for a candidate. And again, Nick, there used to be a limit on how much they could actually pay. A limit that the Supreme Court upheld. back in 2001. Speaker 2 (8:23) Now here are the plot twists that helped this case to get to the Supreme Court. The National Republican Senatorial and Congressional Committees sued the FEC. They said campaign finance law has changed since 2001. We have super PACs now, for one thing. Super PACs that exist only because the Supreme Court changed the way it thinks about First