Supreme Court’s Big Rulings on Trump’s Citizenship Order, Porn Laws, and Planned Parenthood Near!

The Supreme Court is set to deliv­er land­mark deci­sions on major issues, includ­ing Trump’s con­tro­ver­sial birthright cit­i­zen­ship exec­u­tive order, state laws restrict­ing minors’ access to online pornog­ra­phy, reli­gious objec­tions to LGBTQ books in schools, and South Carolina’s bid to defund Planned Par­ent­hood. With rul­ings expect­ed soon, these cas­es could reshape immi­gra­tion pol­i­cy, First Amend­ment rights, and fed­er­al fund­ing for abor­tion providers. Stay updat­ed on how these deci­sions could impact Trump’s poli­cies, state reg­u­la­tions, and cul­tur­al debates in Geor­gia and beyond.

• Where is Tul­si Gab­bard? New intel­li­gence con­firms Iran­ian nuclear facil­i­ties destroyed, says Gab­bard. Is she out? 
• The Supreme Court is head­ing into the home­stretch for the biggest case of the year, with poten­tial­ly land­mark opin­ions still to come on immi­gra­tion, pornog­ra­phy, reli­gion and health care. Deci­sion com­ing as soon as today will resolve whether Trump can enforce his changes to birthright cit­i­zen­ship while his new pol­i­cy is being lit­i­gat­ed. The rul­ing could make it hard­er for judges to block any of the president’s poli­cies. The jus­tices will also issue a deci­sion on how states can keep minors from access­ing online pornog­ra­phy and on defund­ing planned par­ent­hood. Birthright cit­i­zen­ship: Trump’s exec­u­tive order lim­it­ing birthright cit­i­zen­ship has been put on hold by judges across the coun­try who rule it’s prob­a­bly uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. Dur­ing the May 15 oral argu­ments, none of the Supreme Court jus­tices voiced sup­port for the Trump administration’s the­o­ry on the mat­ter. The admin­is­tra­tion says Trump’s order is con­sis­tent with the 14th Amendment’s cit­i­zen­ship clause and past Supreme Court deci­sions about that pro­vi­sion. Pre­vent­ing stu­dents from read­ing LGBTQ books and minors from view­ing porn. The court’s con­ser­v­a­tive major­i­ty sound­ed sym­pa­thet­ic in April to Mary­land par­ents who raised reli­gious objec­tions to hav­ing their ele­men­tary school chil­dren read books with LGBTQ char­ac­ters. And in the case about Texas’ require­ments that web­sites ver­i­fy users are 18 or over, one jus­tice expressed her own parental frus­tra­tions over try­ing to con­trol what her chil­dren see on the inter­net. Jus­tice Amy Coney Bar­rett, who has sev­en chil­dren, said she knows from per­son­al expe­ri­ence how dif­fi­cult it is to keep up with con­tent block­ing devices that those chal­leng­ing Texas’ law offered as a bet­ter alter­na­tive. 
• That hits home in Geor­gia. A lot of peo­ple have worked for years to keep the alpha­bet peo­ple from hav­ing these books in our libraries. In the state of GA the law­mak­ers will tell you that they do not allow it in the class­room. But in the cen­ter of the school is the media cen­ter, the media is exempt from the law. They will tell you that there is an obscen­i­ty law in the books but it doesn’t apply to their media cen­ters. 
• A long time repub­li­can goal ‑defund­ing planned par­ent­hood- could get a major boost from the Supreme Court. In a push backed by the Trump admin­is­tra­tion, South Car­oli­na wants to lock Planned Par­ent­hood out of its Med­ic­aid pro­gram because it per­forms abor­tions. We have want­ed to de-fund planned par­ent­hood. They have said they do not use their fed­er­al fund­ing for abor­tions. There is a Har­ry Hyde amend­ment where fed­er­al funds are not used for abor­tion.