The Supreme Court rules to limit universal injunctions.
But it does not clarify whether President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is constitutional.
I'm Scott Simon. I'm Aisha Roscoe, and this is Up First from NPR News.
In a moment, we'll have details on two of the high court's rulings from NPR's Nina Totenberg.
Senate Republicans have a timeline to try to advance Trump's big, beautiful bill with the first vote possible today.
Also, an Israeli newspaper reports that IDF soldiers were ordered to fire at hungry Gazans seeking food from aid distribution sites.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls the report vicious lies.
So please stay with us.
We'll have the news you need to start your weekend.
The House of Representatives has approved a White House request to claw back two years of previously approved funding for public media.
The rescissions package now moves on to the Senate.
This move poses a serious threat to local stations and public media as we know it.
Please take a stand for public media today at GoACPR .org.
Thank you. 25 NPR podcasts.
On the minus side, you get fewer chances to tap fast forward on your podcast player.
On the plus side, you get to support something you care about.
On the minus side, you like challenges and think this makes it too easy.
So why don't you join us on the plus side of things with NPR Plus.
Learn more and sign up at plus .npr .org.
Decades ago, Brazilian women made a discovery.
They could have an abortion without a doctor, thanks to a tiny pill.
That That pill spawned a global movement, helping millions of women have safe abortions, regardless of the law.
Hear that story on the network, from NPR's Embedded and Futuro Media, wherever you get your podcasts.
It was a day of blockbuster opinions at the U .S. Supreme Court yesterday.
And who better to join us than NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg.
Nina, thanks for being with us.
Always my pleasure, Scott.
Please give us the top lines here.
Well, among the questions resolved by the justices were, can President Trump prevent federal courts from issuing nationwide court orders to block his executive orders?
And do public schools have to provide an opt out for children when material is offensive to their religious beliefs?
And the answers to those questions are yes and yes.
All right. Well, let's take up the decision about universal injunctions first. That was a case involving President Trump's executive order.
to limit birthright citizenship.
It's a little more complicated than that, isn't it?
The subject of this case was the president's executive order limiting citizenship for children of illegal immigrants and some legal immigrants, too.
Now, remember that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says that every baby born in the United States is automatically an American citizen.
And so it wasn't surprising that every judge to have ruled on the Trump executive order struck it down.
And the Supreme Court didn't disagree with that.
It didn't even address the question at all.
But bowing to the arguments put forth by the administration, the court for the first time barred the practice of a single district court judge applying his or her rulings to the whole country.
And that's going to make challenging all of President Trump's executive orders and any future president's executive orders exponentially more difficult.
So Nina, what are the implications of this decision?
And what's the status of birthright citizenship as we speak?
Look, you really can't find any constitutional scholar who thinks that Trump's birthright order is constitutional.
And all of the lower court judges who ruled on this question said that.
And even the justices who sided with Trump didn't seem likely to uphold the Trump executive order when it comes back to them.
But they did did grant Trump's big wish, meaning that for now at least, lower court decisions can only protect the individual plaintiffs or groups that brought these cases.
And at that rate, this whole process could take years, except that it won't, because the court did provide some outs, allowing states, for instance, to seek nationwide injunctions and allowing class action suits, which are difficult and expensive, but can be used, the court said, instead of universal injunctions.
In fact, In fact, yesterday, the ACLU filed a nationwide class action challenging Trump's executive order.
And the other big case now, the court ruled that public school systems are required to provide parents with an opt -out provision that would excuse their children from class when course material conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Please tell us what the implications of this are.
And if the children are going to be pulled in and out of classes, how would that even work?
Well, public school boards, administrators, and teachers are worried about how to navigate opt -out demands of all kinds, from courses that include LGBTQ characters in books to science classes that teach Darwin's theory of evolution.
During the arguments in this case, the school board had said that opt -out provisions were impractical and noted that it had initially allowed parents to opt their children out of select lesson plans, but they got rid of the opt -out program because it became too difficult and disruptive to class time.
The board argued that while it's easy enough to facilitate single -class opt -outs like school districts provide for sex education, it's much more challenging to take children from the classrooms every time that a book mentions same -sex parents or gay and lesbian kids.
kids. But the court, in its 6 -3 opinion along ideological lines, disagreed and required opt -outs for religious parents, but giving precious little in the way of guidance as to how to implement the ruling, which of course has school boards sort of freaking out.
And Piers, Nina Totenberg, thanks so so much. Thank you, Scott.
President Trump's so -called big, beautiful bill, the mega spending and tax cut legislation bill is making its way through the Senate.
Republicans hope to start voting on it this weekend.
And GOP leaders have been racing to get a number of holdouts on board with the bill, which contains much of the president's domestic agenda.
Trump wants to sign it by July 4th, less than a week away, and PR political reporter Elena Moore joins us.
Thanks so much for being with us.
Thanks, Scott. And how close are Republicans to reaching a deal on this bill?
Well, Scott, I think it'll depend on how much they can get done today or really how many outstanding issues Senate Majority Leader John Thune can resolve.
He told reporters yesterday that the idea of bringing the bill to the floor today was, quote, aspirational, but that he would try.
It's a tricky situation since there are still several lawmakers with outstanding concerns.
And yes, Republicans have a majority in the chamber, but they can only afford to lose three votes.
What are senators still debating?
Well, simply put, there's a math problem.
A key part of this bill would make Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent.
Those expire at the end of the year.
But that that is going to be really expensive.
One way lawmakers are trying to offset some of those costs is by making changes to Medicaid.
But that's created a slew of procedural and policy issues, especially over a proposal to slowly reduce and cap the tax that states can place on Medicaid providers.
What exactly are they concerned about?
Well, I mean, some senators with big rural populations say that that change would take away funds for hospitals that serve people without access to other care.
The bill would create a fund of $25 billion to spread out over several years to help those rural hospitals.
But that may not cut it for some Senators, like, you know, Susan Collins of Maine, who has said that she wants that number much higher.
Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina has also been saying the idea of a fund doesn't solve all of his problems. He told reporters that he's run the numbers, and many of these proposed Medicaid changes could really hurt Americans across the country.
Blue states, purple states, red states, in our estimation, they're not going to be fiscally prepared to ramp it down.
And some of that has to do, people, some people have just a simplistic view, maybe haven't done the analysis that we have. You know, he told me yesterday that he hasn't seen anything so far that would get him to a yes on this initial vote.
But important to note that this bill specifically states both that the the provider tax change and this fund would start in 2028, which is notably after the midterm elections.
And, of course, elections have a way of adjusting plans.
Are any of the skeptical senators likely to be moved by an adjustment for politics?
Well, Tillis and Collins, who are both up for re -election next year, that's in the mix for them.
But they, you know, they say this is bigger than that.
This change could help them, but we don't know how they're going to respond.
bond. This is a tricky situation.
I mean, Medicaid provides health coverage to 71 million low -income and disabled Americans, and it's just really popular.
A recent poll from the health research organization KFF found that three in four Republicans support it.
This bill, Scott, is far less popular.
Elena, if senators do come to an agreement, what then happens?
Well, I mean, they could hold an initial vote that would kickstart the process, But that's really not a speedy process.
First, they need to debate the bill and then they have to vote on amendments.
And that whole shebang could very well stretch into Sunday.
And then, of course, once the Senate passes the bill, it goes back to the House, which also has a slim majority.
And as for timing, like you said at the beginning, Trump wants this bill at his desk by July 4th.
But we should say that's a self -imposed deadline.
line. And he even seemed to soften on that demand yesterday at a press conference at the White House.
But the bottom line is that Trump wants to deliver on campaign promises he made.
And this bill will do that.
And Paris political reporter Elena Moore, thanks so much for being with us.
Thanks for having me.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has slammed a report by one of his country's most prominent news outlets.
It quotes unnamed Israeli soldiers saying they were ordered to deliberately shoot at Palestinians trying to get food from distribution sites in Gaza.
Over 500 Palestinians Palestinians have been killed and thousands wounded in shootings near these sites, according to Gaza's health ministry.
Netanyahu says the report by Haaretz contains, quote, malicious falsehoods.
And Piers Hadil Alshalchi joins us now from Tel Aviv.
Hadil, thanks for being with us.
Thank you. Good morning.
And let us begin with what the report says, that an Israeli soldier they talked to called these food distribution sites, quote, killing fields.
Why? So just for context, Haaretz is one of Israel's respected left -leaning news sources that's known for investigating the Israeli military and government.
Now, NPR cannot independently confirm Haaretz's reporting.
But in the story they released yesterday, Haaretz says it spoke to a number of unnamed Israeli soldiers and military officers who described fatal scenes near food distribution sites of an organization called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, or GHF.
And the Israeli army is meant to keep those sites secure.
One soldier, for example, in the report said that Palestinians coming to receive the food were treated like a hostile force, that Israeli troops were told to fire at them with heavy machine guns or mortars to drive them away, that even if there was no danger to the Israeli soldiers, they'd still shoot, that troops would charge at civilians from close range.
And the soldier said that they weren't aware of any return of fire.
The report also alleges that the Israeli military advocate general has called for a war crimes investigation at those sites.
Of course, NPR has been reporting on the killings near those GHF sites.
How does this Haretz report fit in?
You're right. So we've been following the story of these sites since they opened up in May.
After almost three months of a total Israeli blockade on aid into Gaza, the Israeli government gave GHF the task of distributing food.
That's because Israel blames Hamas for stealing aid, even though the United Nations has said that there's been little diversion.
Now, GHF operates four sites and Palestinians have told us about the utter chaos they run into and the fatal danger when trying to get this food.
We also know from organizations like the International Red Cross that its field hospitals have received wounded, killed from these sites.
So now, for the first time, the Haaretz report alleges to show the point of view of the Israeli soldiers, and their testimonies match as much of what Palestinians have told us about what goes on around those sites.
And GHF said that it, quote, is not aware of the incidents in the Haaretz report, but did call on Israel to investigate them.
And how does Israel's government respond?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel's defense minister released a statement yesterday.
Yesterday, they rejected the Haaretz report calling it blood libel.
Netanyahu said that it was designed to defame what he called the most moral military in the world.
The Israeli military also rejected the report saying it had not instructed its soldiers to deliberately shoot at civilians and that it was, quote, examining reports of incidents of harm to civilians.
Nadil, what else do we know about the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation?
So GHF is a little bit of a murky background.
We know that the United Nations and other aid organizations refuse to cooperate with it, saying it breaks humanitarian laws, weaponizes aid.
It's also unclear where GHF gets the majority of its funding, but this week the U .S. State Department said it would give it $30 million.
That's the first known U .S. government funding by GHF.
Palestinians have no other choice but to go to these sites for food.
Israel has restricted organizations like the U .N. from distributing aid, And we know that convoys that do get in are usually looted by armed gangs, which Israel blames on Hamas.
And Pierce Adil Osholchi in Tel Aviv, thanks so much. You're very welcome.
And that's Up First for Saturday, June 28, 2025.
Today's podcast was produced by Michael Radcliffe with help from Fernando Narro and Gabe O 'Connor.
Our editors are Krishna Dave Cullimore, Kelsey Snell, Alex Leff, Martha Ann Overland, Jacob Finston, and Melissa Gray.
Zoe Vangenhoven is our technical director with engineering support from a mighty fine crew of Tom Marchito, Nisha Hines, and Damian Herring.
Our director is the mighty Andrew Craig.
And where we are, the heads that wear the crowns.
Our acting senior supervising editor is Shannon Rhodes.
Our executive producer is Evie Stone.
Our deputy managing editor is Jim Kane.
Tomorrow on the Sunday Story, the Biden administration was fully invested in electric vehicles and gave incentives to auto manufacturers.
But the Trump administration is putting those policies in reverse.
NPR's Camila Dominovsky explains how the car industry is trying to navigate this changing political landscape.
And for more news, interviews, and analysis, tune into Weekend Edition on your radio.
You can go to stations .npr .org to find your local NPR station and have a friend for life.
Exactly. It would mean so much. We need friends.
Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks?
Amazon Prime members can listen to Up First sponsor -free through Amazon Music.
Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get Up First Plus at plus .npr .org.
That's plus .npr .org.
It all starts with listening.
To the person in front of you and the person you'll never meet.
To the person living a story and the journalist who helps you see it in a new light.
The NPR network is built on listening.
With microphones in every region so where there anytime a voice or sound demands to be heard. Hear stories in the first person.
Hear the bigger picture on NPR.
On NPR's Wildcard podcast, Michelle Obama says she's reinventing herself.
I don't know if my ambition has ever fully been able to actualize itself.
I think I'm now at a stage in my life where all my choices are mine.
I'm Rachel Martin. Listen to Wildcard for a conversation about balancing family and personal growth with Michelle Obama.
