Wednesday, July 1, 2026, episode of the podcast The Excerpt: The Supreme Court ended its term with a high-stakes decision that was both a setback and a victory for President Donald Trump. The justices protected birthright citizenship while paving the way for states like West Virginia and Idaho to restrict transgender athletes’ participation in women’s sports. USA TODAY court reporter Aisha Bagchi breaks down the implications of this pivotal day for the court.
Press play in the player below to listen to the podcast and follow the transcript below. This transcript was automatically generated and edited in its current format for clarity. There may be some differences between audio and text.
Podcast: For true crime stories, in-depth interviews, and more USA TODAY podcasts, click here
Dana Taylor:
Another Supreme Court term is in the book. In a final ruling Tuesday, the high court upheld birthright citizenship, the principle that guarantees that every child born in the United States is a citizen, dealing a major blow in one of President Donald Trump’s signature issues. But in another landmark issue, the president was awarded a major victory. The court’s ruling would allow West Virginia and Idaho, among others, to ban transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports teams.
Hello. Welcome to this excerpt from USA TODAY. I’m Dana Taylor. Today is Wednesday, July 1, 2026. USA TODAY Justice Department correspondent Aisha Bagchi breaks down this momentous day of decision for SCOTUS. Aisha, I’m always happy to have you with me.
Aisha Bagki:
Thank you, Danna. I’m glad to be here.
Dana Taylor:
The Supreme Court ruled against Trump on Tuesday in a birthright citizenship decision. What was the breakdown of the pros and cons, and what was the reason the majority justified their decision?
Aisha Bagki:
Essentially, there were six justices who ruled against Trump, five who ruled in some sort of uniform way, and three who would have subsequently ruled in Trump’s favor. The main opinion, the majority opinion, was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. In addition to the three liberals on the court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett was also present. And basically they argued that President Trump’s order is unconstitutional and violates the 14th Amendment, which contains a very important civil rights clause that says all people born in this country and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens. And there was Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who said he didn’t think Trump’s order violated the Constitution. He said he thought the amendment was compatible, but that the order was not compatible with the Act of Parliament. So he said Congress can step in and change the meaning of citizenship, but Trump or any other president can’t do it alone. And there were opponents who argued it was constitutional and in accordance with federal law, and they would fully support the order.
Dana Taylor:
Were you at all surprised by this ruling?
Aisha Bagki:
To be honest, I was not surprised by this verdict. Looking back at the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in this case, which I listened to live at the time, the justices asked tough questions of both sides, but especially of the Trump administration. And when you look at the breakdown of votes, that’s not all that surprising. The court has a majority of three liberals, the more moderate Justice John Roberts, and often Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And Brett Kavanaugh stands in the middle. He tends to be someone who can sometimes drift between two sides. and the three most conservative justices in the dissent. So it wasn’t that surprising.
And we can dig a little deeper into what the judge was actually thinking. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, essentially spoke about the history of civil rights in the United States. “If you go back to the founding of the country, where we adopted an understanding of citizenship that came from English common law, it was basically English law made by judges. And the idea was that it wasn’t a matter of blood, but that if you were born on the soil of that country, you had citizenship,” he said. And it was in the period leading up to the Civil War that the Supreme Court began to contradict that principle, he said. Dred Scott issued this infamous ruling, essentially stating that black Americans were not citizens and could not sue.
Chief Justice Roberts basically said that when the 14th Amendment was ratified, in 1868 after the Civil War, the idea that black people were not just American citizens, but basically that people were citizens because they were on this land, which meant that they were citizens of the United Kingdom. By going back to common law, he wrote, he was trying to reject the Dred Scott decision, which he called “obnoxious,” and he was trying to reject the very idea of undermining the concept of citizenship owed to the American Constitution. To be born here.
And if you look at the dissent from the courts, they’re actually making the argument that citizenship is more about complete loyalty to the country. And they said that people whose parents do not have a permanent right to be here, their children do not have such complete loyalty. And Justice Thomas, one of the dissenters here, basically said that in his view, the 14th Amendment was essentially aimed at black people in the country, and they were a post-Civil War nation, and they weren’t trying to do anything more than that. So this was really a debate between the justices over understanding how far the victors of the Civil War wanted to go in respecting what was essentially a broad idea of American citizenship.
Dana Taylor:
Aisha, can you tell us something about the parents who represented their children in this birthright civil rights case, Trump v. Barbara?
Aisha Bagki:
These parents were affected in a variety of ways by President Trump’s order. One was a Honduran immigrant who was seeking asylum in the United States and was planning to have a child here, another was a Taiwanese student on a temporary student visa, and the third was a man from Brazil who was seeking permanent residency in the United States. So these are all people who were affected by the Trump executive order. That executive order basically says that children of people who are not authorized to be in the United States or who have only been granted temporary permission to remain are not automatically U.S. citizens.
Dana Taylor:
Last week, we saw a major ruling by the high court against Haitian and Syrian immigrants in the United States under a program called Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The decision affirmed the Trump administration’s authority to end the program. What is happening to these immigrants now? Also, does the situation change if you have a U.S.-born child who is legally recognized by the high court as a U.S. citizen?
Aisha Bagki:
This is a decision that could affect hundreds of thousands of people currently in the United States, essentially making them more susceptible to immediate deportation. What’s happening is that there are several lower court cases surrounding these issues, but the Supreme Court’s decision means that the Trump administration can immediately seek to deport people who are here legally, who were here illegally, and who are now disqualified from their status here. And the Supreme Court’s ruling on birthright citizenship does not reduce their risk of deportation. It only affects the status of children born here. And these are only children born in this country after President Trump issued this executive order in 2025. His order did not apply retroactively. So you’re really talking about little kids. They do not have the ability to give legal status to their parents.
Dana Taylor:
Aisha, I’d like to move on to the issue of transgender athletes. Yesterday, there were two cases awaiting decision, and the court decided to combine them in rulings affirming states’ right to ban transgender athletes from competing in female sports, specifically in West Virginia and Idaho. How did the judges decide, and what did the majority argue?
Aisha Bagki:
Basically, these state laws were sued as violating both federal law and the Constitution. They argued that these state laws violate a federal law called Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, and also violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. It is a provision that provides that people have equal protection of the law. And the justices here ruled that the state law violates neither of those things, and that essentially the state has the ability to differentiate between men and women in sports and has an interest in fairness that allows it to do so. And essentially, the majority ruled that states are in a better position to clarify these scientific questions and make policy decisions, at least compared to courts, when it comes to analyzing the performance of transgender athletes.
That includes transgender athletes who have gone through various types of medical processes. There are transgender girls and women who have taken puberty blockers, which prevent male puberty, and then estrogen, which is a hormone. Those challenging these laws argue that it actually changes their status and means they will no longer receive this additional benefit. So the justices, the majority, said, “It’s not really our job to evaluate those nuances. It’s really best left to the states, but states are allowed to impose these kinds of restrictions when it comes to transgender girls and transgender women participating in women’s athletics.”
The opponents here essentially say there should be a little more nuance in how the court evaluates these issues, and that this case should have been sent to a lower court to consider such factual issues. Are there specific cases where there are transgender girls and women who have gone through a medical process that means they don’t have the same advantages as men and boys who have gone through male puberty, especially when it comes to sports that are fundamental to why states allow gender segregation in athletics in the first place?
Dana Taylor:
West Virginia and Idaho were the two states specifically named in yesterday’s case, but 25 other states have similar bans in place. How will this ruling affect them?
Aisha Bagki:
This decision sends a message to them regarding their understanding of the Constitution and federal law that their ban will also be called to the Supreme Court. This basically gives them a fortress to think that they can issue these injunctions and that the injunctions will not be reversed in court.
Dana Taylor:
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a law that protects runaway transgender children from their parents next term. The fight for transgender rights isn’t over yet.
Aisha Bagki:
That’s correct. This particular issue has to do with a Washington state provision that allows a shelter to refuse to notify a parent if the minor is seeking gender-affirming care and the shelter determines that the parent may be subjecting the child to abuse or neglect. We have also seen other laws and regulations issued related to this topic. President Trump has issued an executive order restricting transgender girls and women’s participation in women’s sports and attempting to tie federal funding to the issue. It also faces legal challenges. So, basically, the question is whether the President of the United States can issue orders on this issue. Various issues surrounding transgender identity in the medical and sports worlds are likely to continue, and there is no doubt that the Supreme Court has shown some receptivity to the Trump administration’s arguments. There’s a decision handed down this week related to athletics, but we’ve also seen the Supreme Court uphold state laws in recent years that ban gender-affirming medical care for minors. It is clear that this issue will continue to be fought in court.
Dana Taylor:
Aisha Bagchi is USA TODAY’s Justice Department correspondent. Aisha, thank you for joining us on The Excerpt.
Aisha Bagki:
Thank you, Danna.
Dana Taylor:
Thank you for your attention. I’m Dana Taylor. Join our community of listeners starting every weekday with The Excerpt on USA TODAY. Like and subscribe to stay connected.
