Law & Court Decisions — 2026-07-06

Supreme Court & Federal Courts

United States v. Trump (Birthright Citizenship) — U.S. Supreme Court

• Holding: The Supreme Court invalidated President Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, holding that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to all persons born in the U.S. cannot be overridden by executive action.
• Vote / posture: 6-3 decision (June 30, 2026)
• Why it matters: This ruling definitively rejects a cornerstone of the administration's immigration agenda and confirms that birthright citizenship remains constitutional law. The decision provides immediate relief to immigrants and children of immigrants facing potential citizenship challenges, and signals the Court's willingness to constrain executive power on immigration matters despite the administration's other courtroom successes this term.

2 sources

npr.brightspotcdn.com

npr.brightspotcdn.com

npr.brightspotcdn.com

npr.brightspotcdn.com

Campaign Spending Limits — U.S. Supreme Court

• Holding: The Supreme Court struck down federal campaign spending limits on First Amendment grounds in a 6-3 decision, expanding permissible political expenditures.
• Vote / posture: 6-3 decision (June 30, 2026)
• Why it matters: This decision further liberalizes campaign finance law and removes restrictions on the flow of money into elections, favoring wealthy donors and organized interests. Combined with prior precedent, it substantially limits government's ability to regulate political spending.

Geofence Warrant Privacy Protections — U.S. Supreme Court

• Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement's use of geofence warrants—which sweep up smartphone location data from an entire area—must include constitutional privacy protections and cannot operate as blanket dragnet searches.
• Vote / posture: Ruling issued June 29, 2026
• Why it matters: This decision provides a critical safeguard for digital privacy, requiring police to narrow geofence warrants to protect the rights of innocent people whose location data would otherwise be exposed without individualized suspicion. The ruling will reshape law enforcement investigative techniques involving digital surveillance.

New York Gas Appliance Ban — U.S. Court of Appeals (Second Circuit)

• Holding: A federal appellate panel unanimously upheld New York State and New York City's bans on gas appliances in new buildings, rejecting claims that federal energy law preempts local environmental regulations.
• Vote / posture: Unanimous panel decision (July 1, 2026)
• Why it matters: This decision creates a circuit split with the Ninth Circuit and permits states to impose stricter environmental standards than federal minimums. It strengthens state and municipal climate policy autonomy and could encourage other jurisdictions to adopt similar gas appliance restrictions.

Tech Antitrust & Regulatory Battles

California COMPETE Act (Assembly Bill 1776) — California State Legislature

• What happened this week: The California State Senate Judiciary Committee voted 9-2 on July 1, 2026, to advance Assembly Bill 1776 (the California COMPETE Act), which would impose single-firm monopoly liability on technology platforms.
• Stakes: If enacted, California would become the first U.S. state to adopt single-firm liability rules targeting Apple, Google, Meta, and other dominant platforms—a more aggressive standard than current federal antitrust law. The bill would allow state prosecutors and private litigants to challenge allegedly anticompetitive conduct by large tech firms even without proof of market monopolization.
• Status: Bill cleared key committee; now advancing in state legislative process toward potential floor vote and governor's signature.

Google EU Fine Appeal — European Court of Justice / EU Regulators

• What happened this week: Google exhausted its long-running appeal of a record €4.7 billion EU fine for antitrust violations and must now pay the penalty. The loss comes as EU regulators intensify enforcement under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).
• Stakes: This represents one of Europe's largest tech antitrust fines and signals that Google's appeals avenue has been foreclosed. The decision upholds the EU's authority to impose massive penalties for search conduct violations and emboldens regulators to pursue additional cases.
• Status: Fine payment now due; EU DMA enforcement continues against Google and other designated gatekeepers.

EU Digital Markets Act (DMA) Enforcement — European Commission

• What happened this week: EU regulators are investigating whether Amazon and Microsoft should be designated as "gatekeepers" under the DMA for their cloud computing services and whether the legislation can effectively tackle anticompetitive conduct in cloud infrastructure markets.
• Stakes: Potential gatekeeper designation would subject Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft Azure to strict DMA compliance obligations, including interoperability requirements and restrictions on self-preferencing. The expansion of DMA enforcement to cloud services would affect a multi-hundred-billion-dollar market segment.
• Status: Investigation ongoing; decisions expected in coming months as EU regulators assess market structure and competitive effects.

Other Notable Rulings & Enforcement

• Fifth Circuit Rules Against Mandatory Immigration Detention Policy: A Fifth Circuit appeals panel issued a decision striking down a Trump administration policy requiring mandatory detention for certain migrants without bond hearings, holding that due process requires individualized consideration of bond eligibility. The ruling creates uncertainty about the scope of detention authority and may be appealed to the Supreme Court.

• Apple App Store Compliance Disputes with EU: Apple and EU regulators continue negotiations over Digital Markets Act compliance regarding Apple's App Store fee structure and third-party developer access. Apple claims the EU refused to approve its proposed compliance measures and has used "political delay tactics," while the EU withholds approval pending further modifications. This dispute highlights the contentious implementation phase of the DMA.

Case of the Week — Deep Dive

Birthright Citizenship Executive Order Struck Down

Background: On Trump's first day of his second term, the administration issued an executive order attempting to overturn birthright citizenship—the automatic grant of U.S. citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil, codified in the 14th Amendment since 1868. The executive order claimed that the amendment's language did not extend to children of certain immigrant categories, arguing that Congress had discretion to carve out exceptions. Constitutional scholars and immigrant rights groups immediately challenged the order as unconstitutional and beyond presidential authority.

What the court said: The Supreme Court's 6-3 majority opinion reaffirmed that the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is unambiguous and does not permit executive or legislative carve-outs. The Court emphasized that birthright citizenship is a foundational constitutional principle established by the post-Civil War amendments and that only a constitutional amendment—not an executive order—could alter this guarantee. The decision firmly rejected the administration's creative statutory and constitutional readings, signaling institutional limits on executive immigration power despite the Court's recent deference to executive authority in other contexts.

Ripple effects: The ruling provides immediate legal certainty for millions of U.S.-born children of immigrants and forecloses a central plank of the administration's immigration agenda. It may embolden legal challenges to other administration initiatives on immigration and citizenship. The decision also underscores that even a conservative-majority Court retains some boundaries on executive power, particularly where the constitutional text is unambiguous. Civil rights organizations have cited the decision as proof that courts remain guardians of fundamental rights. Future litigation may focus on narrower immigration restrictions that avoid the constitutional clarity of birthright citizenship.

What to Watch Next

• July 15, 2026 — California COMPETE Act potential assembly floor debate (California State Assembly): Watch whether the bill advances to a full legislative vote or encounters procedural delays.
• July 20–August 10, 2026 — EU DMA Gatekeeper Decision Window (European Commission): Regulators may announce final determinations on whether Amazon and Microsoft qualify as gatekeepers for cloud services.
• Late July 2026 — Google EU Fine Payment Deadline (EU): Google must satisfy the €4.7 billion fine; timing and method of payment will be monitored.
• September 2026 — Supreme Court New Term Begins (U.S. Supreme Court): New cases on immigration, technology regulation, and executive power will be docketed and oral arguments scheduled.

Reader Takeaways

• If you run a business or tech company: The Supreme Court's geofence ruling and California's potential single-firm monopoly law signal that courts and state legislatures are tightening constraints on data practices and competitive conduct. Plan compliance strategies for stricter privacy standards and prepare for potential state-level antitrust liability even without federal gatekeeper status.

• If you build tech products or platforms: The California COMPETE Act and EU DMA expansion mean that product features, data practices, and interoperability decisions face heightened legal scrutiny. Consider early compliance audits and impact assessments for potentially anticompetitive conduct, particularly regarding self-preferencing and third-party access restrictions.

• If you're an immigrant or parent: The Supreme Court's birthright citizenship decision provides lasting legal protection for U.S.-born children and forecloses executive attempts to strip citizenship at birth. However, other immigration restrictions and enforcement actions remain active litigation fronts—monitor appeals in Fifth Circuit detention cases and related due process disputes.