Trump Week 23, Part 2: Supreme Court, Trade and Immigration Pressures Mount
Rulings on citizenship and curriculum, economic fallout, and immigration crackdowns conclude the week.
Trump’s 23rd week concluded with major Supreme Court rulings, public health updates, intensified immigration enforcement, and escalating trade tensions. The Supreme Court upheld the Trump administration’s executive order seeking to narrow birthright citizenship, effectively blocking previous nationwide injunctions. The decision raises constitutional questions as the future of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause remains uncertain.
Following a previous Introspective report on Montgomery County, Maryland, parents seeking to opt their children out of LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum, the Court ruled in favor of the parents—prompting backlash amid controversy against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies.
In another closely watched case, the Court sided with South Carolina in its effort to defund Planned Parenthood, ruling that Medicaid recipients cannot sue to enforce their right to choose a medical provider.
On the public health front, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) announced the withdrawal of all U.S. funding from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, sparking criticism from global health experts as outbreaks of bird flu and measles continue.
Amid growing anti-immigrant sentiment, a Canadian citizen died in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, prompting demands for transparency from Canadian officials. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a daily $1,000 fine for undocumented immigrants.
In trade, President Trump abruptly ended all negotiations with Canada following the country’s announcement of a digital services tax on American tech companies. New data revealed the U.S. economy contracted more sharply than previously estimated in the first quarter, with economists citing tariff pressures as a contributing factor.
Supreme Court Rulings
Following a previous report from The Introspective highlighting the Supreme Court's involvement in the birthright citizenship debate, the Court issued a major ruling limiting the ability of federal judges to impose nationwide injunctions that blocked President Trump’s executive order on the constitutional right.
“Some say that the universal injunction ‘give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.’ But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett, delivering the majority opinion.
“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” she added.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called the ruling an “existential threat.”
“The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law,” she wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also dissented, accusing the majority of abandoning its duty to uphold constitutional protections.
“With the stroke of a pen, the president has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution,” she wrote.
“Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way.”
At a press conference Friday, President Trump praised the decision, calling it a “monumental victory for the Constitution.”
“This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch,” Trump said, further claiming that birthright citizenship was only intended for formerly enslaved Black Americans—not immigrants.
“Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn’t meant for that reason,” Trump stated.
“It was meant for the babies of slaves.”
In a separate case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland—a suburb of Washington, D.C.—allowing them to opt their children out of school curriculum involving LGBTQ+ books.
“Without an injunction, the parents will continue to suffer an unconstitutional burden on their religious exercise, and such a burden unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the majority opinion.
Justice Sotomayor dissented, emphasizing the importance of exposing students to diverse perspectives in public education.
“Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs,” she wrote.
“Today’s ruling ushers in that new reality.”
In a statement, the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA) expressed disappointment in the Court’s decision.
“While we are extremely disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision, unfortunately, we are not surprised. MCEA believes that our public schools should remain inclusive places where differences are celebrated,” the association said.
Evan Glass, the first openly LGBTQ+ member of the Montgomery County Council, called the ruling a “painful setback.”
“This ruling sends a chilling message—one that threatens to roll back the progress we’ve fought so hard to make. But let me be clear: this fight is far from over,” Glass said in a press release.
“We will continue to advocate, educate, and celebrate the beautiful diversity of our community. They may try to silence our stories. They may try to hide our history. But they will not erase us.”
Planned Parenthood and Public Health
The Court later ruled in favor of South Carolina in its effort to defund Planned Parenthood, holding that Medicaid patients cannot sue to enforce their right to choose a medical provider.
“Congress knows how to give a grantee clear and unambiguous notice that, if it accepts federal funds, it may face private suits asserting an individual right to choose a medical provider,” the majority opinion stated.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the decision undermines the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which allowed people to sue for civil rights violations during Reconstruction.
“South Carolina asks us to hollow out that provision so that the state can evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose their own doctors,” Jackson wrote.
“The Court abides South Carolina’s request. I would not.”
South Carolina’s efforts to defund Planned Parenthood date back to before the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned abortion rights to individual states.
Meanwhile, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the United States is pulling all funding from the vaccine alliance Gavi—raising alarm among global health experts as outbreaks of measles and bird flu continue to spread.
“In its zeal to promote universal vaccination, @gavi, the Vaccine Alliance has neglected the key issue of vaccine safety,” RFK Jr. wrote in a post on X.
“I call on Gavi to re-earn the public trust and to justify the $8 billion that America has provided in funding since 2001. Until that happens, the United States won’t contribute more to Gavi. Business as usual is over.”
In response, Gavi said in a statement that its “utmost concern is the health and safety of children,” adding that its decisions align with guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO).
“Gavi fully concurs with the Secretary for Health and Human Services on the need to consider all available science, and remains committed to continuing an evidence-based and scientific approach to its work and investment decisions, as it always has done,” the organization stated.
Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft and the Gates Foundation, warned on X that pulling U.S. support from Gavi would have “devastating consequences.”
“I’m urging Congress to rethink this decision, fund Gavi, and help save millions more lives,” Gates wrote.
Immigration
As anti-immigrant sentiment continues, controversy erupted after Johnny Noviello, a Canadian citizen and lawful permanent U.S. resident, died in ICE custody in Miami—prompting backlash from Canadian officials.
“Medical staff responded immediately and began administering cardiopulmonary resuscitation, automated external defibrillator shock, and called 911,” ICE said in a press release. Noviello had been facing deportation following a 2023 conviction for drug trafficking and racketeering.
In a post on X, Anita Anand, Canada’s minister of foreign affairs, confirmed that officials were aware of his death.
“Canadian consular officials are urgently seeking more information from U.S. officials,” she wrote, adding that no further details would be provided in order to respect the family’s privacy.
Dan Leising, Noviello’s legal representative, told CBC that his client was a “very polite, quiet, unassuming man with a very simple life,” and noted that he had epilepsy.
“Is he violent or anybody that you’d be afraid of if you walked by them on the street? Absolutely not,” said Leising, adding that Noviello had never served time in state prison after his 2023 conviction and had not violated his probation when he was arrested by ICE in May.
An investigation into his death is currently underway.
Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued new guidance introducing a series of escalating fines for undocumented immigrants. The rules include fines of up to $500 for crossing the U.S. border unlawfully, $1,000 per day for not leaving the country when ordered, and up to $10,000 for individuals who agreed to self-deport but failed to do so.
“The law doesn’t enforce itself; there must be consequences for breaking it,” said Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin in a press release, referring to undocumented immigrants as “illegal aliens.”
“President Trump and Secretary Noem are standing up for law and order and making our government more effective and efficient at enforcing the American people’s immigration laws. Financial penalties like these are just one more reason why illegal aliens should use CBP Home to self-deport now—before it’s too late.”
A previous Introspective report detailed earlier DHS guidance, which outlined fines of up to $988 per day for failing to self-deport.
Economy and Trade
With the trade war ongoing, President Trump ended all trade talks with Canada after the country announced a tax on American tech companies.
“Based on this egregious tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven-day period. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Trump later said he expects Canada to remove the tax.
“Economically, we have such power over Canada. We’d rather not use it,” he said.
“It’s not going to work out well for Canada. They were foolish to do it.”
The tax will affect companies such as Amazon, Google, Meta and Uber, applying a 3% levy on revenue generated from Canadian users.
Trump’s announcement came as the U.S. economy was reported to have shrunk more than initially estimated during the winter. According to the Department of Commerce, gross domestic product (GDP) fell by more than 0.5% from January through March, with ongoing trade tensions continuing to send ripple effects through the economy.
Canadian officials later scrapped the tax plan Sunday night, just hours before it was set to take effect.