Politics

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court ruled Friday that a Texas law that mandated websites with “sexual material harmful to minors” have age verification is constitutional.

The court’s conservative judges ruled 6-3.

An adult entertainment industry trade group challenged a 2023 Texas law that requires sites with more than a third of content containing “sexual material harmful to minors” must receive electronic proof that a patron is 18 or older.

The law requires users to provide digital ID, government-issued ID or other commercially reasonable verification methods, such as a facial scan or credit card transaction data.

The court’s decision only affects the Texas law — not similar laws instituted in other states.

The trade group alleged the verification law uniquely threatens individual privacy and data security for millions of adults who otherwise have a First Amendment right to view the material.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, ruled that “the decades-long history of some pornographic websites requiring age verification refutes any argument that the chill of verification is an insurmountable obstacle for users.”

“The statute advances the State’s important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit content. And, it is appropriately tailored because it permits users to verify their ages through the established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data,” he wrote in his decision to uphold the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that sided with the state.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent that while protecting children from explicit online material is an important task, the state could have accomplished its objectives and “better protect adults’ First Amendment freedoms.”

“Many reasonable people, after all, view the speech at issue here as ugly and harmful for any audience. But the First Amendment protects those sexually explicit materials, for every adult. So a State cannot target that expression, as Texas has here, any more than is necessary to prevent it from reaching children,” she wrote.

Kagan — joined in her dissent by justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — said no one disagrees with the paramount importance of protecting children from viewing porn but asks “what if Texas could do better?”

“What if Texas could achieve its interest without so interfering with adults constitutionally protected rights in viewing the speech that HB 1181 covers?”

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled in favor of parents seeking to opt their children out of public school instruction that conflicts with sincerely held religious beliefs.

The case, brought by a group of Christian, Muslim and Jewish parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, sought a guaranteed exemption from the classroom reading of storybooks with LGBTQ themes, including same-sex marriage and exploration of gender identity.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court ruled Friday that a government task force that determines what preventive health care services insurers must cover at no cost under the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.

The vote was 6-3 with conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.

This is a relief to public health advocates and medical groups who had said cancellation of the United States Preventive Services Task Force and invalidation of its recommendations would be devastating to Americans’ health. Roughly 150 million Americans have benefitted from the no-cost provision — which must underwrite a broad range of treatments from cancer screenings to cholesterol-lowering medications and drugs to prevent the spread of HIV.

A group of Christian-owned businesses challenged the arrangement, alleging that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which operates out of the Department of Health and Human Services, is not legally structured and possesses unchecked power to influence the health care system. Lower federal courts agreed.

The 16-member panel of expert volunteers is appointed by the HHS secretary. Members are removable at-will, but they are not confirmed by the Senate. It is also supposed to operate “independent” of political influence, meaning its recommendations are not directly reviewable.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Friday granted a partial stay of nationwide injunctions issued by district judges against President Donald Trump’s executive order to effectively end birthright citizenship.

The 6-3 opinion came from Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The court’s three liberal justices dissented.

In a partial win for the president and executive power, the court said it was not deciding whether the executive order from Trump was constitutional, but rather focusing on whether a single judge has the authority to issue universal injunctions.

“Government’s applications for partial stays of the preliminary injunctions are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue,” the opinion read.

Legal challenges will continue to Trump’s Day 1 order to deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to unlawful immigrants or those on a temporary immigrant status, as the court did not rule on the merits of the cases.

Trump can move forward immediately, though, with developing plans to implement the order, which does not take effect until 30 days

Friday’s decision is a boost for Trump in his crusade against nationwide injunctions that have blocked some of the executive actions he’s taken so far in his second term.

Supporters of nationwide injunctions say they serve as an essential check to potentially unlawful conduct and prevent widespread harm. Critics say they give too much authority to individual judges and incentivize plaintiffs to try to evade random assignment and file in jurisdictions with judges who may be sympathetic to their point of view.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her dissent aloud from the bench, criticizing the court’s majority.

“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” Sotomator wrote. “Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from lawabiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”

“The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief,” she added. “That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent.”

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced on Friday the USNS Harvey Milk is being renamed the USNS Oscar V. Peterson, after he ordered the Navy to strike the name of the pioneering gay rights activist from the ship.

Hegseth made the announcement in a video posted to X.

“We are taking the politics out of ship naming,” Hegseth said. “We’re not renaming the ship to anything political. This is not about political activists, unlike the previous administration. Instead, we’re renaming the ship after a United States Navy Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, as it should be.”

Peterson, Hegseth said, was a chief watertender who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for heroism during an attack on the USS Neosho by Japanese bombers during the Battle of Coral Sea in 1942.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration is looking to speed up its ability to fine those in the United States illegally — up to $1,000 per day — according to a rule set to be published Friday in the Federal Register that was obtained by ABC News.

Currently, the government can alert those in the U.S. illegally 30 days before it starts issuing fines.

The rule proposed by the departments of Justice and Homeland Security allows the government to immediately start fining those in the U.S. illegally.
“DHS believes that the nature of the failure-to-depart and unlawful entry penalties supports the need for more streamlined procedures,” the proposed rule says.

The new process will apply to those who enter the U.S. illegally, ignore final orders of removal, and those in the U.S. illegally who do not comply with a judge’s voluntary departure order.

Fines will range from $100 to $500 per illegal entry into the U.S., up to almost $10,000 for failure to voluntary deport after a judge orders it, and up to $1,000 per day for those who do not comply with a removal order.

Fining migrants illegally in the U.S. started during President Donald Trump’s first term in office and was stopped during the Biden administration. Trump started it again after he took office in January.

“The law doesn’t enforce itself; there must be consequences for breaking it,” said Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said Thursday. “President Trump and [DHS] Secretary [Kristi] Noem are standing up for law and order and making our government more effective and efficient at enforcing the American people’s immigration laws. Financial penalties like these are just one more reason why illegal aliens should use CBP Home to self-deport now before it’s too late.”

Those who use the Customs and Border Protection’s CBP Home app to self-deport will have any fines levied against them waived, according to the DHS. As of June 13, DHS has issued 10,000 fine notifications.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo will stay on the New York City mayoral ballot in November on the independent ballot line that he qualified for, a source close to the campaign confirmed to ABC News.

Cuomo qualified in May to run on the “Fight and Deliver” ballot line in the general election through an independent nominating petition submitted to the New York City Board of Elections, which at the time he said was meant to reach voters disillusioned with the Democratic Party. He would have been allowed to appear on both the Democratic Party and “Fight and Deliver” lines on the general election ballot if he had won the Democratic primary.

CNN first reported on Thursday night that Cuomo, who conceded to state assemblymember Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor on Tuesday, would not withdraw from the independent ballot line but had not yet decided whether to actively campaign in the coming months.

In a speech to supporters Tuesday night, Cuomo told supporters, “Tonight was not our night; tonight was Assemblyman Mamdani’s night… He deserved it. He won. We’re going to take a look and make some decisions.”

Candidates have until the end of Friday, June 27 to withdraw from running on an independent ballot line they qualified for, according to the New York State Board of Elections calendar.
A source close to the campaign told ABC News on Thursday that the former governor is looking at all of the data, including that the New York City Board of Elections would only start releasing ranked-choice voting tabulations on July 1.

Cuomo told CBS 2 New York on Wednesday, “So I have that independent line. I qualified for that. And I’m on that line in November. And we’re going to be looking at the numbers that come in from the primary. And then we have to look at the landscape in the general election, which is a totally different landscape.”

He added later, “We’ll take it one step at a time because we haven’t even gotten the [full] numbers yet from the primary election, and we have some time.”
Cuomo’s run for mayor comes four years after he resigned as governor after several women accused him of sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct. He has denied the allegations and recently told The New York Times he regrets resigning.

On Thursday, incumbent Democratic Mayor Eric Adams, who’s also running as an independent in the general election, officially kicked off his reelection campaign.

Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa and independent candidate Jim Walden will also be on the ballot in November.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Despite a setback to President Donald Trump’s megabill Thursday morning, the president is set to hold an event in the East Room of the White House to rally Republicans behind his tax legislation.

“Later this afternoon, here at the White House, the president will host a ‘One Big, Beautiful Event’ in the East Room to rally Republicans to get the one big, beautiful bill across the finish line. At that event, he will be joined by everyday Americans from across the country, who will massively benefit from the common-sense policies and provisions within this bill,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during the briefing Thursday afternoon.

Among the special guests expected at the event are delivery drivers, a barber from Arkansas, law enforcement officers and Border Patrol agents, Leavitt added. Border czar Tom Homan is also expected to deliver remarks.

This event will “show the American people how this bill works for them and how there are provisions in this bill that will change their lives,” she said.

Negotiations are underway in the Senate on the House-passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” with some fiscal hawks pushing for additional changes.

Earlier Thursday, the Senate parliamentarian rejected key Medicaid provisions in the bill — a major blow to Senate Republicans and their plan to slash costs in the budget package.

When asked if there is enough time for Congress to work through the issues that come up with the parliamentarian’s ruling, the White House remained adamant that the president expects to sign it next week on Independence Day.

“We expect that bill to be on the president’s desk for signature by July Fourth. I know that there was a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian this morning. Look, this is part of the process. This is part of the inner workings of the United States Senate. But the president is adamant about seeing this bill on his desk here at the White House by Independence Day,” she said.

This comes as frustrated Republican senators balked at the parliamentarian’s ruling — with some seeking to rework the language in order to get it passed.

When asked what the president is doing to push his legislation across the finish line, Leavitt indicated that the president is hosting meetings at the White House.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — “We didn’t do it for recognition. We did it out of duty to one another and to our country.”

Those are the humble words of Pfc. John Wardell, 99, as he and U.S. Army Ranger veterans from World War II were honored with the Congressional Gold Medal on Thursday.

“To be a Ranger is to live by a code: Courage. Sacrifice. Resolve,” Wardell said. “That legacy lives on in every Ranger who follows. Our motto has stood the test of time, and it always will. Rangers lead the way!”

Wardell, who served in E Company, 2nd Ranger Battalion, joined Sgt. Joe Drake as two of five surviving Army Rangers — among more than 6,500 who served in WWII — for a patriotic ceremony in Emancipation Hall at the U.S. Capitol.

“On behalf of all the Rangers, I accept this special award,” Drake, 100, said. “I’d like to thank each member of this Congress for giving me and every Ranger this extraordinary award.”

The Congressional Gold Medal, which is struck from 24-karat gold, is the highest civilian award given by Congress to people who have made a major and long-standing impact on American history and culture.

“This band of brothers is so deserving, and this day, to be frank, is long overdue,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said. “They formed the spearhead of American special operations in the Second World War, and today, we express our most profound gratitude for their courageous contributions with the highest honor that this body can bestow, and that is the Congressional Gold Medal.”

Today marked the 159th time that Congress has awarded the medal. Ranging from its first recipient George Washington to Robert Frost, Walt Disney, Rosa Parks and the Tuskegee Airmen, Speaker Johnson remarked the U.S. Army Rangers who served in World War II came from “every corner of American life,” from welders and waiters to factory hands and musicians.

“There were ordinary men called to extraordinary valor, who stared death in the face and by the grace of God, achieved the incredible and defended freedom,” Johnson said. “They were America’s best.”

That sentiment was bipartisan, as congressional leaders and military officials honored the Rangers.

“What the Army Rangers achieved in Normandy, they did again and again and again throughout the war, across every theater, against overwhelming odds,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. “With the fate of the free world on the line, Army Rangers led the way.”

It was during the D-Day invasion on the beaches of Normandy in France that the Rangers gained their motto.

Following the United States’ strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites last weekend and a trip with President Donald Trump to a NATO summit at The Hague earlier this week, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth appeared at the ceremony, as did Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“Today we celebrate real heroes,” Hegseth said. “We point the spotlight exactly where it deserves to go.”

“It is altogether fitting and proper that we are here today honoring these two men and the other three at home, and all the Army Rangers of World War Two and all generations who’ve been willing to put it all on the line for the rest of us,” Hegseth said. “There are heroes among us, ordinary people who did extraordinary things.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday said the U.S. military bomb strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities had “significantly damaged [Iran’s] nuclear program” and “set it back by years” in a confrontational news conference called to counter an early intelligence assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency that said Iran’s program had been set back only by months.

Hegseth described news reports about the leaked DIA report as “half-truths” intended “to cause doubt and manipulate” and instead said he would focus on what he called the “bottom line” of Saturday’s strikes involving seven B-2 stealth bombers that dropped 14 massive ordnance penetrators on two of the three Iranian sites.

“President Trump directed the most complex and secretive military operation in history, and it was a resounding success, resulting in a ceasefire agreement and the end of the 12-day war” in Iran, Hegseth said.

“Because of decisive military action, President Trump created the conditions to end the war, decimating – choose your word – obliterating, destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities.”

Asked twice during the briefing about enriched uranium that may have been moved from nuclear sites before the attack — a key outstanding question as the intelligence community assesses post-strike realities — Hegseth said the Pentagon was “watching every aspect” and did not say the U.S. believed it was under rubble at the sites.

But he said he hasn’t reviewed any intelligence “that says things were not where they were supposed to be,” whether “moved or otherwise.”

The director general of the UN’s nuclear oversight agency, Rafael Grossi, has said he believes the material was moved from the sites before the attacks.

Hegseth lashed out against news media reporting about the early DIA assessment and said it was a “re-strike report” intended to gauge whether a site would need to be hit again.

Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, standing next Hegseth, referred questions about damage assessments to the intelligence community.

Hegseth said Caine told him in the White House Situation Room “that the first reports are almost always wrong.”

“They’re almost always incomplete,” he said Caine told him.

The defense secretary appeared to read from the preliminary DIA assessment that he said “admits itself, in writing, that it requires weeks to accumulate the necessary data to make” the assessment it made.

That assessment was made with “low confidence,” according to Hegseth, and was not coordinated with the broader intelligence community.

Hegseth said the DIA report was based on a “linchpin assumption,” which, he said, means “your entire premise is predicated on a linchpin” and “if you’re wrong, everything else is wrong.”

Caine, who had noticeably refrained from repeat Presdient Trump’s “obliterated” claim at a Sunday news conference the morning after the strikes, told reporters Thursday that “the Joint Force does not do [battle damage assessments] … the intelligence community does.”

Instead, he focused on tactical details and seemingly described a mission that unfolded without a hitch.

Describing “what we know,” Caine said “the weapons functioned as designed, meaning they exploded.” Planners “accounted for everything,” the chairman said.

“We know that the trailing jets saw the first weapons function and the pilots stated, quote, ‘This was the brightest explosion that I’ve ever seen. It literally looked like daylight.'”

Hegseth told reporters it was “my lane” as the top civilian leader at the Defense Department, to “do politics.” He said it was part of his job to “translate and talk about those types of things.”

“So, I can use the word ‘obliterated.’ He could use ‘defeat, destroyed,’ [and] assess all of those things.”

When asked, “Have you been pressured to change your assessment or give a more rosy intelligence assessment to us by any political factors, whether it’s the president or the secretary? And if you were, would you do that?” Caine said that was an “easy” question to answer.

“I’ve never been pressured by the president or the secretary, to do anything other than tell them exactly what I’m thinking,” he said. “And that’s exactly what I’ve done.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.