The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that members of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors cannot be removed by the president without cause, reinforcing the central bank’s longstanding institutional independence while leaving unresolved questions about the scope of presidential authority in future removal attempts.

The decision comes amid an ongoing legal dispute involving President Donald Trump and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. According to the court’s ruling, Cook will remain in her position as litigation continues in lower courts over Trump’s effort to remove her from the central bank’s governing board.

The case carries broader implications beyond Cook’s position, addressing the constitutional balance between presidential authority and the Federal Reserve’s independent role in setting monetary policy—a structure widely viewed as central to financial market stability.

Supreme Court Recognizes the Fed’s Unique Constitutional Status

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that the Federal Reserve occupies a distinct constitutional position compared with other independent federal agencies.

The ruling came alongside a separate 6-3 decision allowing presidents greater authority to dismiss leaders of several independent agencies. However, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the Federal Reserve’s historical role justified different legal treatment.

According to the opinion, the Fed shares characteristics with the First and Second Banks of the United States, institutions that historically operated at a distance from direct political influence.

The court stated that allowing presidents to remove Federal Reserve governors without cause would undermine the independence that Congress intended to preserve when establishing the central bank’s governance structure.

The decision therefore maintains legal protections for the Federal Reserve’s seven-member Board of Governors, distinguishing it from other federal agencies whose leaders may now face broader presidential removal authority.

Decision Leaves Lisa Cook Case Active

Although the ruling strengthens institutional protections for the Federal Reserve, it does not fully resolve the legal dispute involving Governor Lisa Cook.

Trump previously sought Cook’s removal after accusing her of mortgage fraud, an allegation she has denied. Cook was appointed to the Federal Reserve Board by former President Joe Biden.

The Supreme Court declined to establish a narrow legal definition limiting “for cause” removals only to inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct committed while serving as a governor. Instead, the justices suggested that serious misconduct could potentially satisfy the constitutional standard, without providing a comprehensive definition.

The court also found that Cook had not received formal notice or an opportunity to respond before the president publicly announced her dismissal attempt last August on Truth Social.

Chief Justice Roberts noted in the opinion that nothing prevents the administration from pursuing another removal effort if proper procedural requirements are followed, leaving additional legal questions to be resolved by lower courts.

Broader Implications for Federal Reserve Independence

The decision is expected to influence future debates over the extent of Federal Reserve independence from the executive branch.

The Federal Reserve plays a central role in U.S. monetary policy by adjusting short-term interest rates to influence inflation, employment, economic growth, and borrowing costs. Because those decisions often require politically unpopular measures, Congress historically designed the institution to operate with a degree of insulation from day-to-day political pressure.

President Trump has repeatedly called for lower interest rates, arguing that reduced borrowing costs would benefit consumers, businesses, and the federal government. The court’s ruling preserves legal protections intended to allow Federal Reserve policymakers to make monetary decisions independently of direct presidential influence.

At the same time, legal experts cited in the source material noted that the broader weakening of independence protections for other federal agencies could affect how courts interpret institutional independence in future cases involving the Federal Reserve.

Historical Importance of Central Bank Independence

Economists have long argued that independent central banks are better positioned to control inflation because they can implement difficult policy decisions without immediate political considerations.

The importance of that independence is often linked to the inflationary period of the 1970s, when former Federal Reserve Chair Arthur Burns faced criticism from many economists for allegedly yielding to political pressure during President Richard Nixon’s administration.

His successor, Paul Volcker, raised interest rates dramatically beginning in 1979 to reduce inflation, despite triggering a severe recession and rising unemployment. Although the policy proved economically painful, many economists regard it as an example of an independent central bank prioritizing long-term price stability over short-term political concerns.

Financial markets also generally favor an independent Federal Reserve because predictable monetary policy can reduce uncertainty for investors and borrowing costs throughout the broader economy.

While Monday’s ruling preserves the Federal Reserve’s distinct legal status for now, additional litigation involving Lisa Cook may further define how constitutional protections apply to the central bank and the limits of presidential authority over its leadership.

Tags: Federal Reserve, Supreme Court, Lisa Cook, Constitutional Law, Judicial Review, Executive Branch, Monetary Policy, Presidential Authority, Federal Reserve Board, Interest Rates,

The post Supreme Court Affirms Federal Reserve Independence While Leaving Questions Over Presidential Removal Powers appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

A federal court ruling found that recent changes to a government verification system may violate privacy protections and risk removing eligible voters from registration rolls.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has blocked the use of a recently expanded federal database tool that had become a central component of the Trump administration’s efforts to help states verify voter citizenship, ruling that the system’s redesign raised significant privacy concerns and could lead to eligible Americans being removed from voter rolls.

In a decision issued Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan ruled in favor of voting rights and privacy advocacy groups that challenged modifications to the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, commonly known as SAVE. According to the court order, the upgraded system consolidated sensitive personal information in a manner that could jeopardize voter eligibility determinations and potentially infringe on federal privacy protections.

The ruling represents a significant legal setback for President Donald Trump’s broader election-related initiatives during his second term. The revised SAVE system had been incorporated into a presidential executive order aimed at expanding federal involvement in efforts to identify noncitizens on state voter registration lists.

Judge Sooknanan concluded that the agencies responsible for developing the updated system exceeded legal boundaries established by Congress regarding the handling and centralization of Americans’ personal information. The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated substantial concerns regarding both privacy rights and the potential impact on lawful voters.

Court Examines Privacy and Voting Rights Concerns

The lawsuit was brought by several organizations, including the League of Women Voters, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and individual U.S. citizens. The plaintiffs argued that the revised SAVE system violated federal privacy laws and increased the risk that eligible voters could be incorrectly identified as noncitizens.

Court filings indicated that the challenge focused on the administration’s decision to significantly broaden the system’s capabilities. The plaintiffs alleged that federal agencies implemented the changes without complying with required transparency measures and repurposed sensitive information collected by various government entities.

In explaining the ruling, Judge Sooknanan wrote that the agencies combined and reused personal data belonging to millions of Americans while pursuing directives contained in an executive order focused on voter verification.

The court further determined that the plaintiffs had shown evidence that inaccuracies within the system could affect lawful voters. According to the ruling, some states relying on the updated database had already used information that may incorrectly classify certain U.S. citizens as noncitizens.

SAVE System Became a Key Election Enforcement Tool

The SAVE program was originally established under federal immigration law to assist government agencies in determining eligibility for certain public benefits. The Department of Homeland Security administers the system.

Beginning in 2025, the Trump administration expanded the tool’s functionality for election officials. Public announcements from the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Department of Government Efficiency outlined changes that made the database available without cost to election administrators and enabled large-scale voter registration checks.

Under the revised framework, officials could conduct bulk searches using names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers rather than relying solely on immigration identification numbers. Supporters argued that the modifications improved the efficiency of identifying noncitizens who may appear on voter registration lists.

According to information presented during the case, at least 25 states had used the expanded SAVE system since April 2025, and approximately 67 million voter registrations had been reviewed through the platform.

Several state election officials have described the upgraded system as one of several tools available to verify voter eligibility. However, critics argued throughout the litigation that the database could produce inaccurate results and disproportionately affect naturalized citizens.

Legal Debate Centers on Executive Authority

The ruling also adds to a growing series of court challenges involving election-related executive actions issued by President Trump.

The administration has pursued multiple initiatives intended to strengthen citizenship verification and alter election administration procedures. Several of those measures have faced legal challenges questioning whether the executive branch possesses authority to implement election rules that traditionally fall under the jurisdiction of states and Congress.

Voting by noncitizens is already prohibited under federal law and may carry criminal penalties, including potential deportation. Election experts and prior studies cited in public debates have generally found documented cases of noncitizen voting to be relatively rare compared with the overall number of registered voters.

During court proceedings, attorneys representing the plaintiffs argued that naturalized citizens face a heightened risk of being incorrectly flagged because of potential inconsistencies within government databases.

The Department of Homeland Security defended the administration’s objectives following the ruling. James Percival, general counsel at the department, criticized the decision in a social media post. The Department of Justice did not immediately issue a public response.

Future of the Program Remains Uncertain

The court order prevents continued use of the revised SAVE system in its current form, creating uncertainty about the future of one of the administration’s primary election verification initiatives.

Legal experts following the case noted that the dispute raises broader questions about the balance between election security efforts, privacy protections, and the limits of executive authority.

Whether the federal government will appeal the ruling remains unclear. For now, the decision places a significant obstacle before efforts to expand nationwide voter citizenship verification through the revamped federal database.

Tags: Judiciary, Constitutional Law, Voting Rights, Election Administration, Voter Registration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Privacy Law, Executive Authority, Court Ruling, Election Integrity,

The post appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

WASHINGTON (AP) — With June ticking away, the U.S. Supreme Court is entering the final stretch of its term — and the justices still have big decisions to hand down.

While emergency appeals from the Trump administration have recently grabbed headlines, the court also has 10 major cases left to decide, including hot-button issues like birthright citizenship, religious rights in public schools, congressional redistricting, and online pornography laws.

Here’s a breakdown of the most important cases still awaiting rulings — and why they matter:

1. Birthright Citizenship and the Power of Nationwide Court Orders

One of the most consequential cases involves the Trump administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants — a right that has stood unchallenged for over 125 years.

Lower courts blocked Trump’s executive order, and the Supreme Court took the unusual step of hearing an emergency appeal. At stake isn’t just the citizenship policy — it’s also whether lower court judges should be allowed to issue nationwide injunctions, a powerful legal tool that has frustrated both Republican and Democratic administrations in recent years.

What’s at risk?
If the Supreme Court sides with the administration, it could reshape how federal policies are blocked or enforced across the country. But during arguments, justices appeared hesitant to let the citizenship restrictions go into effect, even temporarily.

2. Religious Rights vs. LGBTQ-Inclusive Curriculum in Maryland Schools

Another closely watched case could expand the court’s already growing track record of siding with religious rights claims.

Parents in suburban Maryland are challenging their local school district’s decision to require lessons using LGBTQ-themed storybooks like Prince and Knight and Uncle Bobby’s Wedding. They want the right to opt their children out — something they were once allowed to do before the district changed its policy, citing classroom disruptions.

Only sex education currently allows for opt-outs in the county’s curriculum. But the justices seemed inclined to side with the parents.

Why it matters:
This case is unfolding as schools across the country grapple with curriculum fights and book bans, making it a potential bellwether for how far religious objections can go in shaping public education.

3. Louisiana Redistricting: Race, Politics, and Voting Rights Collide

The court is once again weighing the legality of Louisiana’s congressional maps — and the outcome could affect future redistricting lawsuits nationwide.

After striking down two previous maps, the justices are now reviewing one that added a second majority-Black district — which elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A lower court found that the map leaned too heavily on race in its design, while state officials argue political strategy was the driving force.

What’s at stake?
Several conservative justices suggested during arguments that they may side with Louisiana — a move that could make it much harder to challenge redistricting plans under the Voting Rights Act in the future.

4. Can States Require ID to View Porn? Texas Law Faces Supreme Court Test

Texas is leading a national push to restrict kids’ access to online pornography through age-verification laws. But critics — including the adult-entertainment industry — say the Texas law goes too far, threatening adults’ privacy and free speech rights by requiring users to submit personal ID data that could be hacked or tracked.

The legal question:
Does this law violate the First Amendment? Justices seemed open to upholding the Texas law, but also hinted they might send the case back to a lower court for a more rigorous review.

Already Decided: Transgender Healthcare Case

This week, the court handed down one of its most closely watched decisions, upholding Tennessee’s ban on certain medical treatments for transgender minors. The ruling marks a significant moment in the national debate over trans rights and youth healthcare.

With just days left before the end-of-June deadline, the Supreme Court is racing to deliver opinions that could reshape U.S. law on immigration, education, race, free speech, and more — in what’s turning out to be a blockbuster finish to the term.

Source: AP News – Supreme Court work goes on with 10 cases to decide, including birthright citizenship

The post What’s Still Left for the Supreme Court? Big Decisions on Citizenship, LGBTQ Books, and More appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

As the Supreme Court prepared to hear arguments on whether to allow President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship to take effect, he made a striking claim on Truth Social: that the United States is the only country in the world that grants citizenship simply by being born on its soil.

This claim is false.

Back on January 20, the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order aimed at denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are here illegally or only temporarily. However, lower courts quickly blocked this order nationwide, and the administration is now appealing these decisions, challenging the authority of judges to issue such broad injunctions. Importantly, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether the executive order itself is constitutional.

Let’s break down the facts.

Trump’s Claim vs. Reality

On Truth Social, Trump said:
“The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows.”

But the truth is quite different.

According to the CIA World Factbook and the Library of Congress, about 30 countries worldwide offer unconditional birthright citizenship, including Canada, Mexico, and many nations in Africa and Asia. The U.S. is far from unique in this regard.

“The statement is pretty obviously wrong,” says Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and expert on constitutional law and migration rights. “Many countries have birthright citizenship, though in some of them the rules differ from those in the U.S.”

What Is Birthright Citizenship?

Birthright citizenship is based on the principle of jus soli — Latin for “right of the soil.” It means that anyone born within a country’s borders automatically gains citizenship, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

This contrasts with jus sanguinis, or “right of blood,” where citizenship depends on the nationality of one’s parents or ancestors.

In the U.S., birthright citizenship is nearly unconditional. Children born on American soil are citizens, except for two narrow exceptions: children of foreign diplomats and children of enemy soldiers occupying the country during wartime. Historically, Native Americans were excluded until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

A Historical Foundation

Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship for formerly enslaved people. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

This Citizenship Clause overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which held that Black people — enslaved or free — could not be citizens. It was a monumental shift in American history, affirming citizenship rights regardless of race or parentage (with the limited exceptions noted).

Trump’s Executive Order Faces Legal Hurdles

Trump’s executive order attempts to restrict birthright citizenship in a way that conflicts with longstanding Supreme Court precedent, notably a decision from 1898 that confirmed the Citizenship Clause grants citizenship to all born on U.S. soil except in very specific, rare cases.

Currently, the Supreme Court is considering this case alongside other immigration-related appeals brought by the Trump administration.

What This Means

The U.S. is not unique in offering birthright citizenship — many countries around the world have similar policies. The ongoing legal battle will determine whether Trump’s effort to limit this constitutional right can move forward, but the claim that the U.S. stands alone on this issue is simply wrong.

As the debate unfolds, understanding the history and facts behind birthright citizenship helps cut through the political rhetoric and misinformation.

Source: AP News – FACT FOCUS: Trump claims the US is the only country with birthright citizenship. It’s not

The post Trump’s Claim That Only the U.S. Has Birthright Citizenship Is False appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

A federal judge issued a ruling early Saturday that blocks Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing sensitive U.S. Treasury Department records containing personal data for millions of Americans. The records in question include crucial information such as Social Security numbers and bank account details.

Judge’s Ruling: Preliminary Injunction in Response to Lawsuit

U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued a preliminary injunction after 19 Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump. The case, presented in New York federal court, alleges that the Trump administration unlawfully granted Musk’s team access to the Treasury’s central payment system. This system is responsible for distributing trillions of dollars annually, including tax refunds, Social Security benefits, and veterans’ benefits—all of which contain sensitive personal and financial data.

Judge Engelmayer, appointed by President Barack Obama, emphasized that anyone who accessed the data after January 20 must immediately destroy any copies of information downloaded from the Treasury’s systems. He scheduled a hearing for February 14.

DOGE’s Mission Under Scrutiny

Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, was created to identify and eliminate perceived wasteful government spending. Its controversial access to Treasury records has sparked debate, with critics raising concerns about Musk’s growing influence and the potential misuse of personal data, while supporters argue that the initiative could streamline government finances and save taxpayers millions.

Musk has dismissed criticism of DOGE on his social media platform X, where he claims the program is saving taxpayer money. However, many state officials are concerned about the implications of allowing a private entity such as DOGE to access such sensitive information.

Lawsuit Alleges Security Risks and Legal Violations

The lawsuit, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, argues that DOGE’s access to Treasury Department data creates significant security risks. It also suggests that the initiative could lead to an illegal freeze on federal funds, affecting critical programs like healthcare, childcare, and veterans’ benefits.

“This unelected group, led by the world’s richest man, is not authorized to have this information,” James said in a video message. “They explicitly sought this unauthorized access to illegally block payments that millions of Americans rely on.”

James, a vocal critic of Trump, emphasized that the president cannot unilaterally grant access to Americans’ private information nor stop federal payments approved by Congress.

States Join Forces Against DOGE

Alongside New York, the lawsuit includes attorneys general from 18 other states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

The suit argues that DOGE’s access could disrupt payments already authorized by Congress and exceed the Treasury Department’s authority. It also claims that Musk’s team bypassed legal safeguards designed to protect personal and financial data, violating federal law and the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine. The lawsuit also accuses Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent of altering department policy to allow DOGE’s access.

Concerns About Privacy and Potential Data Breach

Attorney General William Tong of Connecticut called DOGE’s access to Treasury records “the largest data breach in American history.” Tong raised concerns about the potential risks of allowing Musk’s private initiative to comb through confidential records and critical payment systems.

“This is an unlawfully constituted band of renegade tech bros,” Tong said, referring to Musk and his team. “What could go wrong?”

Treasury Department Defends Its Actions

In response to the concerns, the Treasury Department has stated that the review of its systems is focused on assessing their integrity, and no changes are being made. However, two sources familiar with the process revealed that Musk’s team initially began its review with the goal of suspending payments made by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a move both Musk and Trump have expressed interest in dismantling.

Additional Legal Action and Congressional Scrutiny

Democratic lawmakers are calling for further investigation into DOGE’s access to the Treasury’s payment systems. Meanwhile, labor unions and advocacy groups have also filed lawsuits to block the review over concerns about its legality.

On Thursday, a judge in Washington temporarily restricted two Treasury employees from accessing the payment system, limiting them to “read-only” privileges.

Conclusion

The ongoing legal battle between Elon Musk’s DOGE and state attorneys general highlights significant concerns over the privatization of sensitive government data and the potential risks to millions of Americans’ personal and financial information. As the case moves forward, both sides are preparing for an extended legal fight, with critical hearings scheduled for mid-February.

Source

The post Court Stops Elon Musk’s Team from Reviewing Americans’ Personal Financial Records appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.