US supreme court expected to rule on birthright citizenship and other outstanding cases on last day of term – live updates

David Marcus argues that cracking down on government insiders who leak classified info—often for political gain—might actually help journalism in the long run. He points to CNN’s coverage of an Iran strike as an example of how manipulated leaks distort the news. While punishing leakers sounds harsh, Marcus suggests it could force journalists to rely less on shady, agenda-driven sources and more on real reporting.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just about punishing whistleblowers—it’s about untangling journalism from political games. If leaks are weaponized to spin narratives (like with the Iran strike story), the public gets fed misinformation disguised as news. Marcus’s take flips the script: fewer leaks might mean less drama, but also less manipulation. For readers, it’s a reminder to question where "scoops" really come from.

The US Supreme Court just handed down a major ruling that limits federal judges' authority to issue nationwide injunctions—a big win for Trump, who's set to speak about it soon. But the decision isn’t sitting well with everyone: liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor tore into it in a fiery dissent, calling it a "travesty for the rule of law" and warning it undermines constitutional checks. She was backed by Justices Kagan and Jackson, who also dissented. Meanwhile, the ruling could reshape how legal battles over policies play out in the future.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just another legal technicality—it’s a power shift. The court’s decision weakens a tool often used to block controversial policies (like immigration or healthcare changes) from taking effect nationwide. Sotomayor’s dissent frames it as a dangerous erosion of judicial oversight, while conservatives see it as reining in activist judges. Either way, it’s fuel for the fire in America’s endless legal-political wars.

The Senate's rulekeeper just gave Republicans the go-ahead for their revamped SNAP proposal, which would make states chip in for food benefits—something they’ve never had to do before. The plan cleared a key procedural hurdle after the Senate Parliamentarian said it fits within budget rules, paving the way for debate.

Editor’s Note: This could shake up how food assistance works in America. If states have to foot part of the bill, some might tighten eligibility or cut benefits to save money—potentially leaving fewer people helped. It’s a wonky procedural step, but the real-world impact could be huge for families relying on SNAP.

The Supreme Court has decided to kick the can down the road on a controversial Louisiana redistricting case, delaying it until their next term. The heart of the dispute? State lawmakers drew a new Black-majority congressional district, but critics argue it’s an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. For now, the legal limbo leaves voters—and potentially the 2024 election map—in suspense.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just bureaucratic delay—it’s a stall with real stakes. Redistricting fights shape who gets representation and how, and Louisiana’s case could ripple into other states grappling with race, voting rights, and gerrymandering. By punting, the Court avoids a heated pre-election ruling but keeps the uncertainty alive for voters and politicians alike.

Jeff Bezos, the billionaire founder of Amazon, is tying the knot with Lauren Sánchez this weekend in a lavish three-day wedding celebration in Venice. Details are still emerging, but expect high-profile guests, opulent settings, and plenty of media buzz.

Editor’s Note: While it’s easy to dismiss celebrity weddings as pure gossip, this one carries weight—Bezos is one of the most influential figures in business and tech, and his personal life often intersects with broader cultural and economic conversations. Plus, the sheer scale of the event offers a glimpse into how the ultra-wealthy celebrate milestones, which can spark discussions about wealth disparity, privacy, and even the future of Bezos’ ventures.