Good morning. A strike has halted New Jersey Transit trains, disrupting commutes into New York City. Peace talks between Russia and Ukraine are expected to begin today. Pope Leo's childhood house will be auctioned. More news is below. But first, we're covering an argument over judicial power at the Supreme Court.
The courts' power
Yesterday's Supreme Court hearing was ostensibly about whether President Trump can end birthright citizenship. But the arguments focused on a different issue: Can a single lower-court judge block the president's policies across the whole country? Despite precedent, the administration says no. It wants to limit the judicial branch's ability to check the president, even beyond immigration. This is not a partisan issue. Democratic politicians have also complained that lower courts have too much power. At yesterday's hearing, the justices didn't divide along ideological lines. Today's newsletter walks through the arguments around universal injunctions. What's this debate about?After Trump signed his order ending birthright citizenship, various groups sued to stop his policy. But courts can take years to go through filings, hearings and appeals. In the meantime, Trump could block tens of thousands of newborns from getting citizenship. Judges often deal with this situation by telling an administration: Don't enforce your policy until the issue has worked through the courts. And, increasingly, lower courts have applied their pauses to the whole country, not just one jurisdiction. Federal District Court judges in Maryland, Washington state and Massachusetts each stopped Trump's birthright citizenship ban nationwide. Presidents from both parties have said this process makes it too easy for random jurists to block their agendas. There are more than 600 District Court judges. With so many options, plaintiffs can almost always find a sympathetic ear. What's the fix?This question doesn't have an easy answer, and it consumed much of yesterday's hearing. The administration said courts should apply injunctions only to the individual who brought the case. So if an undocumented mother sued to stop the birthright citizenship ban, a judge could grant her child — and only her child — citizenship. That would place a huge burden on the public and the courts. Potentially millions of people would all have to hire lawyers and file lawsuits to protect their rights. A group could come together in a class-action lawsuit, but forming a class can be a time-consuming, difficult legal process. These individuals could still appeal their case to the Supreme Court, which would retain the power to impose nationwide injunctions. But only losers can appeal a case. What if the plaintiffs never lose in lower courts? (So far, the birthright citizenship plaintiffs haven't.) An administration could choose not to appeal — to avoid setting a precedent it doesn't like and to keep the burden on individuals. The justices could compromise. One suggestion is to limit universal injunctions to specific circumstances, such as when a case involves constitutional questions (as opposed to, say, disputes about how to interpret a regulation). Some lawmakers called for letting only three-judge panels impose universal injunctions. What's next?The Supreme Court will likely rule in a month or two. If the justices decide against Trump, the injunction on his birthright citizenship ban will remain. If the court rules in his favor, it could empower him to carry out his agenda, on immigration and other issues, with fewer obstacles. For more: The Times is tracking this year's major Supreme Court decisions.
Officials from Russia and Ukraine are expected to meet today to discuss the possibility of a cease-fire. Anton Troianovski, The Times's Moscow bureau chief, explains the stakes. Trump has not delivered the quick peace in Ukraine that he promised on the campaign trail. But neither has he sold the country out to Russia, as experts feared he might do after several warm chats with and about Vladimir Putin. Today, pushed by Trump, negotiators from Kyiv and Moscow are set to meet in Turkey — in what would be the first time they've faced each other publicly since the spring of 2022. Here's what to know. What's on the table?Ukraine wants a 30-day cease-fire and an exchange of prisoners. Russia wants concessions before it stops fighting. In 2022, the two sides drafted a peace agreement that would bar Ukraine from joining NATO. But Russia wanted more, such as making Russian an official language in Ukraine; Volodymyr Zelensky refused. His negotiating position is weaker now: Trump doesn't see Ukraine's fight as a core American interest, while Russia's military has recovered from the disastrous early weeks of its invasion. How aligned are Trump and Putin?Trump repeats pro-Russian talking points, such as the falsehood that Ukraine started the war. But he hasn't tipped the scales yet. Putin wants Ukraine to cede a large swath of territory it still controls — and to cap the future size of its military. The Trump administration has refused to go along. Still, it remains possible that Trump will cut a deal with Putin over Ukraine's head; he predicted yesterday that "nothing's going to happen until Putin and I get together." How do Trump and Zelensky stand now?In February, Trump berated Zelensky in front of the press during a meeting in the Oval Office. But the two men seem to have patched things up. They had a drama-free meeting at the funeral of Pope Francis in April. Days later, Ukraine signed a deal giving the United States control over a share of its future mining revenue. At the same time, Trump is losing patience with Putin. The Russian leader has talked to Trump twice on the phone since February and held four hourslong meetings with Steve Witkoff, Trump's envoy and close friend. Yet Russia hasn't budged from demands that even Trump aides see as delusional.
New Jersey Transit
Trump's Middle East Trip
More on Politics
Israel-Hamas War
More International News
Other Big Stories
Yesterday, the world learned about KJ Muldoon, an infant in Pennsylvania, the first patient to be saved by a new treatment: Doctors edited his DNA to correct a liver disorder. We've heard of gene therapy before — to fight sickle-cell anemia and cancer, for instance. How is this different? I asked Gina Kolata, the science reporter who broke the story. — Adam B. Kushner What's new here? Other treatments don't fix your broken DNA. We deal with sickle-cell anemia by adding good genes, but the mutated ones are still there. Same with hemophilia. We can coach your immune system to attack some cancers' specific DNA. But doctors actually edited KJ's genome to correct bad spelling. Now, his liver can process the ammonia that comes from digesting protein. Eating normal food won't kill him. They injected a lipid that brought the molecular-editing machinery to his liver. Does that mean the gene mutation in each of his liver cells is now fixed? Probably not, though we don't actually know! Doctors didn't want to do an invasive biopsy to find out, but they can tell that he's processing ammonia properly now, and that's good enough. Anyway, you don't have to fix every single cell — only enough to get the job done.
Protecting public lands from urban development also protects America's hiking trails, biological diversity and Indigenous inhabitants, Michelle Nijhuis writes. Here are columns by Michelle Goldberg on Joe Biden's competence crisis and David Brooks on the difficulties of college students. More ways to share, more ways to connect. Find an article you want to share? You can easily post it to your Instagram story or share it as a free-to-read gift article. Learn more.
Dazzled: People are obsessed with teamLab's immersive art exhibitions. Travel: In the U.S., heightened immigration fears have made planning an international honeymoon unexpectedly complicated. Surprise: Harvard Law School paid $27 for what officials thought was a copy of Magna Carta. Turns out it was an original. Your pick: The Morning's most-clicked link yesterday was about an art auction at Sotheby's that flopped. Trending online yesterday: People were searching for information about extreme weather in Michigan. Lives Lived: Charles Strouse was an accidental Broadway composer but one of the most prolific and honored, with hits like "Annie" and "Bye Bye Birdie," earning him three Tony Awards. He also won a Grammy and an Emmy. He died at 96.
W.N.B.A.: An important season begins tonight. Caitlin Clark and other stars are set to break ratings records. N.B.A.: The Nuggets beat the Thunder to force a Game 7 in their second-round series.
The internet can be weird and confusing. We asked readers what they wanted to know about strange things online. For each of the next few weeks, The Times's internet culture reporter, Madison Malone Kircher, will answer one question. A reader from New Orleans asked: Is there any way to distinguish between authentic trends and those cooked up by companies or bots? A few years ago, an internet comedian named Sebastian Durfee started making videos to denounce the Porcelain Challenge, a phenomenon in which young people were supposedly grinding up fine china and snorting them like cocaine. Except nobody was actually doing that. Durfee was satirizing the way trends proliferate online with a fake challenge that he said was meant to be "easily debunked." Sometimes it isn't that easy. To spot a bogus trend, think about whether it is ridiculous or inflammatory. Then, see if you can locate the source: Has it been covered by a trusted personality or news organization? Can you find the first video ever posted about the trend? (On TikTok, you can click on a particular sound clip and the app will show you the first video to use the audio. This can help, though it's not foolproof.) Does the source appear to be a regular person who just happened to go viral? When a catchy song about a little orange fish became inescapable earlier this spring, you could trace it back to a French duo. Brands participate in memes, but often ones that are falling out of vogue. Nothing sucks the fun out of a shared online experience like a company glomming onto it for profit. The same is true of reporters who explain online trends. I'm not innocent here! More on culture
Layer jammy strawberries over this unfussy cake. Spend 36 hours in Rome. Organize your chaotic Tupperware cabinet. Take our news quiz.
Here is today's Spelling Bee. Yesterday's pangrams were checkmate and matchmake. And here are today's Mini Crossword, Wordle, Connections, Sports Connections and Strands. Note: Wednesday's Spelling Bee was intended to have three pangrams. Because of a bug, only two, pinhead and pinheaded, made it into the live version. Headpin was omitted. Since a fix would erase players' progress, New York Times Games has opted to leave the puzzle and grid as is. Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. Reach our team at themorning@nytimes.com.
|
