Week in Review

IN THE NEWS

• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal judges may not impose nationwide injunctions, holding that injunctions may protect only the plaintiffs in a lawsuit and not others who may be similarly harmed. In the ruling, the Court gives lower courts a 30-day window to replace the nationwide freezes that have stalled President Donald J. Trump’s directive denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented or temporary migrants. The Court declined to clarify whether states may obtain broad injunctions against the federal government’s enforcement of the directive, leaving lower courts to sort through the question in suits challenging the directive brought by 22 states. President Trump reportedly hailed the outcome as a “monumental victory for the Constitution,” while Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned in her dissent that the ruling is “an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.”
• The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s authority to require insurers to cover no-cost preventive care under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), preserving free access to more than 50 services—including screenings for diabetes and certain cancers—for roughly 150 million Americans. In its opinion, the Court rejected an employer’s argument that the Task Force’s volunteer members, who were appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, were principal officers who, under the Constitution, could only be appointed by the President with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. The Court deemed the volunteer panel’s members to be “inferior officers”—in part because their recommendations were reviewable by, rather than being binding on, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services—and so could be constitutionally appointed by the Secretary.
• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a group of Maryland parents must be provided the opportunity to opt out of instruction involving “LGBTQ+-inclusive” books at their children’s public schools. In the opinion, the Court found that such educational materials seek “to ‘disrupt’ children’s thinking about sexuality and gender,” likely posing an undue burden on parents’ free exercise of religion, all while conditioning the “benefit of public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction.” In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor argued that the ruling creates a new constitutional right to avoid exposing school children to views contrary to their parent’s religion. Justice Sotomayor also predicted that this ruling will have a chilling effect on intellectual freedom, forcing schools with limited resources to resort to censorship rather than track opt-out notifications and student absences.
• The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Texas law requiring age verification to access online pornography. In the decision, the Court ruled that the Texas statute survives scrutiny because it furthers the state’s important interest in shielding children from sexual content. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas emphasized that age verification is a common practice for age-based regulations and an appropriate means of shielding minors from online pornography. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued that the Texas law restricts adults’ access to constitutionally protected, sexually explicit material and that the state must adopt a less burdensome alternative if one is available.
• The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to fund its universal service programs through carrier contributions. The Court rejected the claim that this funding scheme unconstitutionally delegates Congress’s legislative power to the FCC. The Court retained the “intelligible principle” test—which permits Congress to delegate power as long as it provides clear policy guidance—and held that the FCC met this standard. In dissent, Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that the funding scheme lacked meaningful limits and urged the court to abandon the intelligible principle test in favor of a stricter standard.
• A federal judge temporarily blocked President Trump’s sweeping asylum restrictions at the southern border. Issued on Inauguration Day, President Trump’s order sought to cut off asylum for migrants arriving outside of designated ports of entry or without extensive background checks. Judge Randolph D. Moss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, however, ruled that the policy unlawfully restricted protections guaranteed under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The ruling, which applies to individuals currently in the United States, is paused for 14 days to allow time for appeal.
• University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson announced the results of an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Department of Education into the participation of a transgender athlete on the university’s swim team from 2021 to 2022. President Jameson affirmed that the university was in compliance with all relevant Title IX and National Collegiate Athletic Association regulations at the time, and also pledged compliance with the eligibility rule modifications issued under recent executive orders. As part of the resolution, the university agreed to issue formal apologies to any student-athletes who experienced a “competitive disadvantage” or “anxiety” at the time, while also updating all athletic records to reflect current eligibility guidelines.
• Senator Mike Lee (R–Utah) withdrew a budget reconciliation land sale provision from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act after failing to secure protections against potential land purchases by foreign and corporate interests. The original proposal provided for the sale of between 2.2 and 3.3 million acres of U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) parcels to support the development of affordable housing. A revised plan limited the proposed sale to between 612,500 and 1.225 million acres of only BLM parcels, but still faced bipartisan opposition in Congress and criticism from non-profit conservation groups.

WHAT WE’RE READING THIS WEEK

• A new report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that Medicaid’s initiative called “Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment” has seen reduced participation among eligible children. Although 85 percent of the program’s 33 million children are now in managed care plans, just 51 percent of eligible children received at least one recommended medically comprehensive screening in 2023—down 8 percentage points from pre-pandemic levels. GAO highlighted three states—North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington—that withhold 1 to 3 percent of the monthly money they give each health plan for every child and later pay the money back only if the plan raises screening and follow-up rates. Ohio and Washington officials called the tactic effective, while North Carolina is waiting for more data to arrive in 2026 to draw conclusions.
• In a recent Brookings Institution essay, Sherry Gilead, dean of the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, and Dong Ding, an associate research scientist at the same institution, argued that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s proposed requirement to work to maintain eligibility for Medicaid is unlikely to generate the cost savings estimated for budget reconciliation. The authors estimated about 300,000 individuals who choose not to work would be disenrolled under the new requirement, but that this group would generate minimal cost savings due to their low use of health care services. Because this disenrollment would only account for one-third of projected savings, Gilead and Ding found that the proposal would either fail to deliver or would be overinclusive, disenrolling individuals who already work or experience activity limitations, such as difficulty walking.
• In a recent Brooking Institution essay, John Villasenor, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, argued that California’s proposed artificial intelligence (AI) copyright legislation, AB-412, would burden AI developers and hinder innovation in generative AI across the country. Villasenor claimed that the bill’s documentation and disclosure requirements would especially harm business startups that lack the resources to comply. He also contended that although the law’s ambiguities could lead to costly litigation over compliance obligations, forcing smaller developers to exit the market and chilling broader AI development in the U.S., Villasenor noted that federal legislation is pending that, if passed, could render AB-412 and other legislation unenforceable.

EDITOR’S CHOICE

• In an essay in The Regulatory Review, James Gerber, the chief financial officer of SimSpace Corporation, examined the role of good governance in responding to cyber threats. Gerber explained that U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules requiring faster and more transparent cyber incident disclosures could spur broader adoption of best practices among public companies. He emphasized that early integration of legal and financial teams after a cyber incident can help companies meet regulatory standards and recover more effectively. Gerber urged public company executives to begin thinking about how to prepare their companies for future cyber threats.