Making sense of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings during its final week in session
UC Law’s Anne Lofaso shares her analysis with WXVU
The U.S. Supreme Court gave President Donald Trump a wave of victories in the final week of its session. The high court sided with the president to limit universal injunctions issued by federal court.
WVXU spoke with Anne Lofaso, professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, about what the court’s decisions will mean for birthright citizenship, LGBTQ+ books in public schools and more a segment of Cincinnati Edition.
The Supreme Court in a June 27 ruling granted the administration’s request to partially stop nationwide injunction blocking an executive order ending birthright citizenship for certain people born in the United States.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said “universal injunctions” issued by district judges “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.”
“It didn’t rule on the merits, which means it did not talk about whether the President’s executive orders were actually constitutional,” Lofaso told WVXU. “It only ruled on whether or not an individual district court judge could actually issue a universal or what’s called a nationwide injunction. So the court said this is almost certainly not within the power of a district court and therefore it gave the president a limited victory.”
The Supreme Court also ruled that school systems are required to offer parents an ‘opt-out’ provision that allows their children to be excused from class if course material conflicts with religious beliefs. The case arose when a group of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland sued the school board seeking an opt out for elementary students when reading material included books on LGBTQ characters.
Lofaso, a former attorney for the National Labor Review Board, teaches constitutional law, employment law and labor law.
Listen to the WVXU segment on Supreme Court rulings online.
Featured top image of WVXU Journalist Lucy May and UC Law's Anne Lofaso in studio. Photo provided.
Related Stories
Marcus Sapp says he’s finally free after wrongful murder charges tossed
September 8, 2024
Marcus Sapp, an Ohio Innocence Project exoneree, spoke with The Cincinnati Enquirer about his journey to freedom following a wrongful murder conviction. OIP at UC Law took his case and uncovered exculpatory evidence that should have been presented during his initial trial.
The debate over the death penalty
October 30, 2024
WVXU Cincinnati Edition host Lucy May Interviewers Pierce Reed, director of policy and engagement for the Ohio Innocence Project at UC Law as part of a discussion on the death penalty. UC Law will host a Nov. 1 roundtable on the topic featuring former Ohio death row inmate Lamont Hunter, his attorney Erin Gallagher Barnhart,an assistant federal public defender and Dr. Robert J. Norris, a criminologist at George Mason University.
What is exoneration for individuals wrongly convicted of a crime?
October 17, 2024
Tara Rosnell, chair of the Ohio Innocence Project's Board of Advocates, spoke recently with WYSO public radio station about how exoneration works for individuals wrongly convicted for crimes they did not commit. OIP at UC Law helped 42 people secure their freedom. The group of clients collectively spent more than 800 years behind bars for crimes they didn’t do.