SCOTUSblog: Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, June 30, 10:00 a.m.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

The blogging starts a half-hour earlier.

Upcoming: Starts Jun 30, 9:30 AM ET
Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, June 30
We will be live blogging as the court potentially releases opinions in one or more argued cases from the current term. Click here for a list of FAQs about opinion announcements.

Note: A login is not required to participate in the chat.

To learn about future live blogs and the latest developments at the Supreme Court, subscribe to our SCOTUStoday newsletter, which we send each weekday morning.

Added, as Chris Geidner posts the decisions as they are announced:

Chris Geidner
‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

OK. Off to SCOTUS, for the final opinions at 10. Birthright citizenship, trans sports bans, and coordinated party expenditure limits cases remain. I’ll be posting live here, then writing at Law Dork.

Subscribe and support my work: www.lawdork.com

Chris with his cold brew
ALT
8:30 AM · Jun 30, 2026

OK. Off to SCOTUS, for the final opinions at 10. Birthright citizenship, trans sports bans, and coordinated party expenditure limits cases remain. I’ll be posting live here, then writing at Law Dork.

Subscribe and support my work: www.lawdork.com

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T12:30:15.735Z

[Lovie777]

1. Cringe....................

[obamanut2012]

6. What's cringe?

[Sympthsical]

2. This is my World Cup

Set an alarm an hour early for the gym so I could be home by 7am.

I am aware this isn't normal.

[newdeal2]

3. I expect bad decisions all around

A lot of cleanup will be required after this regime. A Dem Congress and President must make this a top priority.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. The liveblogging is underway.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/announcement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-june-30/

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. We have the trans athlete cases. Justice Kavanaugh has the opinion.

Amy Howe
Mod
10:00 AM
We have the trans athlete cases.
Justice Kavanaugh has the opinion.

Zachary Shemtob
Mod
10:01 AM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p…
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-43_2b35.pdf
Amy Howe
Mod
10:01 AM
The court holds that schools can determine eligibility for women's and girls' sports teams based on biological sex.
Rory K. Little
Mod
10:01 AM
Fair to say, no surprise here?
Amy Howe
Mod
10:02 AM
The court holds that West Virginia did not violate Title IX, which bars educational programs that receive federal funding from discriminating based on sex.
Rory K. Little
Mod
10:02 AM
More interesting will be to hear what they say about the EP clause in the constitution..... (14th Amendment)
Amy Howe
Mod
10:03 AM
The court also says that West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Constitution's equal protection clause by maintaining female sports teams for biological females.
The chief justice and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett join the Kavanaugh opinion.
Justice Sotomayor has an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
Justices Kagan and Jackson join that opinion.

sarah isgur
Mod
10:16 AM
Again, I think nearly everything in this decision can be read as the foundation for the next cases that will be brought by female athletes arguing that states are required to ban trans athletes from women's sports to comply with Title IX. This case is already percolating up in the second circuit.

[Sympthsical]

7. Citizens United just had a baby

Should just name this FEC ruling CU Jr.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

8. Justice Kavanaugh also has NRSC v. FEC, the campaign finance case. The vote is 6-3.

Earl H McCreary
10:23 AM
Wow 52k plus on line
Tom
10:23 AM
The next hour is going to be a real test of our internet connections. 😄
Amy Howe
Mod
10:24 AM
Justice Kavanaugh also has the next opinion
It is NRSC v. FEC, the campaign finance case.
The vote is 6-3. Kagan dissents, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.
Nora Collins
Mod
10:24 AM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p…
Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1260_g3cn.pdf
Amy Howe
Mod
10:24 AM
This was a challenge to a federal law that limits the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate for federal office. In 2001, in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, the court upheld the limits by a vote of 5-4 – with Justice Clarence Thomas (the only member of that court now on the current court) writing for the dissent. When this case went to the court of appeals, it said, in essence, that the challengers had some good arguments, but that it was bound by the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2001 case. The Trump administration declined to defend the party-expenditure limits, so the justices appointed Roman Martinez, a former clerk to Chief Judge John Roberts and then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh, to do so.
The court holds that the law's "limits on political parties' coordinated expenditures violate the First Amendment."

Nora Collins
Mod
10:25 AM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p…
Wrong link, sorry! https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-621_h315.pdf
Amy Howe
Mod
10:26 AM
The court also overruled its decision in the Colorado case.
Rory K. LittleMod replied Amy Howe
10:26 AM
The court also overruled its decision in the Colorado case.
Two overrulings in two days!
David LatMod replied Amy Howe
10:27 AM
This was a challenge to a federal law that limits the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination… more
Roman Martinez is one of the best SCOTUS advocates under 50 (or really of any age, but especially under 50). Makes sense that he'd be appointed to serve as counsel in an important case.
Amy Howe
Mod
10:27 AM
Kavanaugh writes that its reasoning in that case "has been rejected by subsequent cases and is no longer good law in light of the court's more recent precedents. To the extent that Colorado II has retained any vitality, it is now overruled."
In her dissenting opinion, Kagan argues that the majority "jettisons a rule needed to protect our democracy's integrity."
David Lat
Mod
10:28 AM
I haven't given it a lot of thought, but I think I prefer honest overrulings as opposed to faux ones.
Amy Howe
Mod
10:29 AM
She adds later that "To count on disclosure to prevent corruption is as much as to give up on the goal itself. Which is, sad to say, what this Court does today."
sarah isgur
Mod
10:29 AM
Again, this doesn't change donor limits to candidates or parties but it does mean that parties will have a lot more carrots and sticks to determine their own candidates---a blow to DSA and tea party movements, for example. Also likely to undermine the effectiveness superPACs.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

9. "Birthright is next. We've been waiting for this moment since January 2025."

sarah isgur
Mod
10:32 AM
Birthright is next. We've been waiting for this moment since January 2025. After Trumps EO we knew this would be a scotus decision and now its waiting until the very end of the last day of the term. WILD!

Amy Howe
Mod
10:33 AM
We have birthright citizenship.
The court strikes down the executive order.
Nora Collins
Mod
10:34 AM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p…
Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf
Rory K. Little
Mod
10:34 AM
Wow, 194 total pages of writing. How'd they get all that into one box? 😀

Amy Howe
Mod
10:35 AM
Thomas has a dissenting opinion, joined by Alito; Alito and Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.
David LatMod replied Amy Howe
10:35 AM
Thomas has a dissenting opinion, joined by Alito; Alito and Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.
6-3, as a number of us (including me and Amy) predicted.
Amy Howe
Mod
10:35 AM
The court holds that the order violates the 14th Amendment.
Rory K. Little
Mod
10:35 AM
five and a half, to 3 and a half. Kavanaugh concurs in the judgment?
Amy Howe
Mod
10:36 AM
Kavanaugh concurs in the judgment and dissents in part.

Zachary Shemtob
Mod
10:44 AM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p…
The opinion itself for those who are having trouble getting it from the Supreme Court site: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf

Amy Howe
Mod
10:45 AM
The court is now done for the day. Roberts concluded by reading a list to honor the court employees who are retiring or have retired.
David LatMod replied sarah isgur
10:46 AM
Echoing a recent comment by Will Baude on Divided Argument (now part of the SCOTUSblog extended universe), Trump lost in at least three cases he cared about deeply: tariffs, birthright citizenship, and his attempt to fire Lisa Cook/control the Fed.

Amy Howe
Mod
10:48 AM
Thomas argues that the court gets its history wrong. "Because many potential applications of the President's Order are consistent with the original public meaning of the Citizenship Clause, I respectfully dissent."