By:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/ashley-murray/">Ashley Murray</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/shauneen-miranda/">Shauneen Miranda</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">Jennifer Shutt</a>

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate voted mostly along party lines late Saturday night to move forward with Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” that President Donald Trump wants on his desk in less than a week, after a dramatic three-hour pause when several GOP senators withheld their votes.

Republican Sens.&nbsp;Thom Tillis of North Carolina&nbsp; and Rand Paul of Kentucky&nbsp;voted against moving forward with the sweeping tax break and spending cuts package that contains many of the GOP’s campaign promises. All Democrats were opposed. Vice President JD Vance came to the Capitol in case a tie-breaking vote was required, but in the end was not needed.

Tillis, who is up for reelection in 2026, had told reporters earlier that he would vote “no” on what is called a motion to proceed and on final passage.&nbsp;

He said in a statement the legislation would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina and force the state to make “painful decisions” about Medicaid. Trump in a post on social media later threatened to find primary candidates to challenge Tillis.

The&nbsp;51-49 vote doesn’t guarantee the bill will make it through a final passage vote but does make it significantly more likely, even with Republicans’ narrow 53-47 majority.

The procedural vote kicked off a maximum of 20 hours of floor debate on the bill, with half of that time controlled by Democrats and the other half by Republicans — though Democrats after the motion to proceed vote forced a reading of the giant bill expected to take as long as 15 hours. That would mean floor debate would not begin until sometime Sunday.

Unlike regular bills, budget reconciliation packages are not subject to the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, so as long as at least 50 Republicans support the package, and Vance casts the tie-breaking vote if needed, the measure will go back to the House.

The vote on the motion to proceed that began at about 7:30 p.m. Eastern was held open for more than three hours, with the votes of four senators in suspense — Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mike Lee of Utah, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Rick Scott of Florida. All four eventually voted aye and Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson switched his vote to aye after earlier voting against the measure.

Lee, however, just before the vote was over,<a href="https://x.com/SenMikeLee/status/1939132778605388207" target="_blank">&nbsp;announced</a>&nbsp;he had pulled from the bill an extremely controversial proposal to sell some public lands that was opposed by other lawmakers from the West. He said because of the process being used for the bill, he was unable to obtain enforceable safeguards to ensure the land would be sold to American families and not China or foreign interests.

The latest version of the measure had set up the Interior Department to sell at least 600,000 acres of public land and up to 1.2 million acres of public land within 10 years, advocates said.

Critics, including hunters, anglers and other Western state constituents, have ripped the measure as a “land grab,” as put by Jennifer Rokala, executive director for the Center for Western Priorities.

<a href="https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/E711007F-42C9-49B4-863B-2A939142DA81" target="_blank">A summary</a>&nbsp;of the provisions by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee said the Bureau of Land Management “must sell a minimum of 0.25% and a maximum of 0.50% of their estate for housing and associated community needs. This will increase the supply of housing and decrease housing costs for millions of American families.”

Senate GOP leaders released new bill&nbsp;<a href="https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/the_one_big_beautiful_bill_act.pdf" target="_blank">text</a>&nbsp;just before midnight Friday that satisfied rural state lawmakers’ worries about financial threats to rural hospitals posed by cuts in Medicaid. The bill also addresses concerns by Murkowski and Dan Sullivan of Alaska about access to food assistance for their constituents despite new restrictions on a USDA program for low-income people.

As talks continued on Capitol Hill Saturday afternoon, a handful of Senate Republicans, including Missouri’s Eric Schmitt and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, were on the golf course with Trump, according to the White House. Graham&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1939036491549757804" target="_blank">said on social media</a>&nbsp;that Kentucky’s Paul also played.

Senate Democrats said a fresh financial analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the preliminary Senate text would result in $930 billion in cuts to Medicaid, the joint federal-state low-income health insurance and disability assistance program.

The CBO score was not yet publicly available but Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Finance, pointed to it and slammed the Medicaid provisions as “cruel” in a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.finance.senate.gov/ranking-members-news/wyden-statement-on-new-cbo-numbers-showing-more-than-930-billion-in-medicaid-cuts-in-new-senate-draft" target="_blank">statement</a>&nbsp;Saturday afternoon.&nbsp;Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, also&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/SenWarren/status/1939041047687954589" target="_blank">cited the preliminary analysis</a>, pointing to the nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts.

Senate Republicans planned to take their negotiations to the floor and push for amendments after the procedural vote that triggered official debate on the bill, which in its current public version runs 940 pages.

GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who voiced concerns throughout negotiations about rural hospitals and health cuts that would harm low-income individuals, said her vote on the motion to proceed “does not predict my vote on final passage.”

“I will be filing a number of amendments,” she told reporters as she headed into a closed-door working lunch before the Senate convened at 2 p.m. Eastern.

While Sen. Tim Sheehy&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/TimSheehyMT/status/1939037092874473488" target="_blank">wrote</a>&nbsp;on social media Saturday afternoon that he was a “no” on the motion to proceed because of a provision to sell off federal public lands, the Montana Republican&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/TimSheehyMT/status/1939047707106038251" target="_blank">changed his mind</a>&nbsp;nearly an hour later and declared he would propose an amendment to strip the provision — which was later removed by its sponsor.

GOP Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma painted somewhat of a rosier picture of the mood in the Senate, telling reporters “we’re good.”

“We won’t bring it to the floor if we don’t have the votes,” said Mullin, who was the lead negotiator with House Republicans on state and local tax deductions, or SALT — a sticking point for Republicans who represent high-tax blue states like New York and California.

The lawmakers settled on a $40,000 deduction through 2029 for taxpayers who earn up to $500,000 annually. The level then reverts to $10,000, the current limit under the 2017 tax law.

Proposed changes to Medicaid have been strongly resisted by rural medical providers who say they are already financially strapped.

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley told reporters Saturday he would be a “yes” on both the motion to proceed vote and the final bill based on the new rural hospital “transformation program” Senate leadership included in the bill overnight. The measure has yet to be finalized.

The bill’s new version includes $25 billion in a stabilization fund for rural hospitals from 2028 through 2032. The amount is frontloaded to give more of the funds in the first two years.

Critics warn that amount will not fill the financial gaps that rural medical providers will face from losing a sizable portion of federal funding via Medicaid cuts.

While Hawley called the fund a “win” for Missouri over the next several years, he said his party needs to do some “soul searching” over the “unhappy episode” of wrangling over Medicaid cuts.

“If you want to be a working-class party, you’ve got to deliver for working-class people. You cannot take away health care for working people,” he said.

Senators had not yet agreed on other Medicaid provisions as of Saturday afternoon, including a phase-down of the provider tax rate from 6% to a possible 3.5% that’s become hugely controversial.

States use a combination of general revenues, provider tax revenues and in some cases local contributions to fund their Medicaid programs.

Advocates warn that it’s not a guarantee states would be able to backfill the lost revenue, and if they can’t, provider rate cuts and losses of benefits for patients could be on the horizon.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the House version’s provider tax changes — not as deep as the current Senate proposal — could lead to 400,000 people losing Medicaid benefits.

A full and final financial score for the Senate bill is not yet out as the several provisions remain up in the air.

Hawley also praised the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/radiation-exposure-fund-backed-missouris-hawley-included-us-senate-mega-bill" target="_blank">inclusion</a>&nbsp;of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act fund, or RECA, that revives payments for survivors and victims who suffered cancer as a result of U.S. atomic bomb testing and radioactive waste dumps.

In what clean power advocates dubbed a “midnight dumping,” Senate GOP leadership added language to accelerate the phase out of clean energy tax credits that were enacted under Democrats’ own massive mega-bill in 2022 titled the “Inflation Reduction Act.”

The language, which wasn’t yet finalized by Senate GOP tax writers as of 6 p.m. Eastern Saturday, tightened restrictions on foreign components in wind and solar projects — and added a new tax on those that don’t comply.

Senators largely targeted wind and solar credits, ending them for projects not plugged into the electricity grid by 2028. Additionally credits for wind turbine manufacturers would terminate in 2028.

Other tax credits would be phased out at a faster pace, including those for the production of critical minerals, though a credit for metallurgical coal, used in steelmaking, was added in.

Clean energy industry&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/republicans-congress-axed-green-new-scam-its-red-state-boon" target="_blank">manufacturers</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/small-business-owners-rural-america-urge-congress-keep-clean-energy-tax-credits" target="_blank">small businesses</a>&nbsp;had hoped Senate Republicans would ease up rollbacks in the House version.

Kurt&nbsp;Neutgens, president and chief technology officer of Orange EV, told States Newsroom in an interview Friday that any further rollbacks would amount to “cutting our legs out from underneath us.”

Neutgens, whose Kansas City, Kansas-based company manufactures heavy duty electric trucks and chargers, was watching for changes to credits to the commercial clean vehicles credit. New Senate GOP text would terminate the credit in September of this year.

Jason Grumet, president of the Clean Power Association, said in a statement Saturday that imposing new taxes on the industry “will strand hundreds of billions of dollars in current investments, threaten energy security, and undermine growth in domestic manufacturing and land hardest on rural communities who would have been the greatest beneficiaries of clean energy investment.”

Proposed cuts to federal food assistance remained largely unchanged in the new text released Friday night except for a few carve-outs for Alaska.

If the bill were enacted as written, Alaska’s state government could request a waiver for its citizens from stricter work reporting requirements that critics say will result in some SNAP recipients losing their food benefits.

GOP lawmakers also slightly shifted the timeline for when states will have to begin shouldering SNAP costs — the first time states will be&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-senate-gop-tries-ease-pain-states-sharing-costs-snap-benefits" target="_blank">on the hook</a>&nbsp;for the federal food assistance outside of administrative costs.

States would be required to pick up a portion of the costs depending on their “payment error rate” — meaning how accurate states are at determining who needs SNAP, including both overpayments and underpayments.

States that have error rates at 6% or above would responsible for up to 15% of the food program’s cost. According to&nbsp;<a href="https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/snap-fy23-qc-payment-error-rate.pdf" target="_blank">SNAP error rate data</a>&nbsp;for 2023, the latest available, only seven states had an error rate below 6%.

The new text delays the cost-sharing for states until 2028 and allows states to choose the lesser of their two error rates in either 2025 or 2026.

Starting in 2029, states will be required to use their error rate from three years prior to the current year.

The new text includes the option for Alaska and Hawaii to waive their cost share burden for up to two years if their governments implement an improvement plan. In 2023, Alaska had the highest payment error rate of all states, reaching just above 60%.&nbsp;

Advocates for low-income families worry the cost, which will amount to billions for most state governments, will incentivize states to tighten eligibility requirements for the program, or even drop SNAP altogether.

The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/by-the-numbers-senate-republican-leaderships-reconciliation-bill-takes" target="_blank">estimates</a>&nbsp;the cuts will affect up to 40 million people who receive basic SNAP assistance, including 16 million children and 8 million seniors.

The Senate bill would also increase a state’s share of administrative costs for the program to 75%, up from the previous 50% cost-sharing responsibility with the federal government.

Despite inaccurate public statements from Republicans as recently as in a bill&nbsp;<a href="https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/one_pager_-_the_one_big_beautiful_bill_act.pdf" target="_blank">summary</a>&nbsp;released overnight, the bill does nothing to limit food assistance to immigrants without documentation because SNAP was&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility/non-citizen" target="_blank">never available</a>&nbsp;to them.

SNAP benefits will remain available to legal permanent residents, and Republicans loosened some language to allow certain immigrants from Cuba or Haiti to access the program.

But if the bill passes, federal food assistance will not be available to refugees and asylees who are already in the U.S. — for example, people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and other war-torn places.

Republicans on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions revised or scrapped several measures that the parliamentarian deemed to not comply with the “Byrd Bath,” a Senate process named for the late Sen. Robert Byrd, according to a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/help_committee_reconciliation_2025_section-by-section.pdf" target="_blank">summary</a>&nbsp;and new bill text out Friday.

Under the revised text, for any loans made starting July 1, 2026, borrowers will have only two repayment plan options: a standard repayment plan and an income-driven repayment plan. The original proposal would have applied these restrictions to existing borrowers, but the parliamentarian struck that down.

Republicans also nixed a proposal that opened up the Pell Grant — a government subsidy that helps low-income students pay for college — to institutions that are not accredited.

The new plan also scraps a restriction that barred payments made by students enrolled in a medical or dental internship or residency program from counting toward Public Service Loan Forgiveness.

Senate Democrats remain united in opposition to the bill and are expected to slow down final passage by introducing numerous amendments on the floor during&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/both-parties-prep-mega-bill-marathon-us-senate-vote-rama" target="_blank">what is called the vote-a-rama.</a>

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer continued to rally against the package during remarks on the Senate floor Saturday afternoon, saying it’s “hard to believe this bill is worse — even worse — than any draft we’ve seen this far.”

The New York Democrat said “it’s worse on health care, it’s worse on SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), it’s worse on the deficit.”

Schumer added that “if Republicans proceed, Senate Democrats will hold them to account.”

“We’ll gear up for another night of vote-a-rama very soon. We’ll expose this bill piece by piece. We will show how it cuts health care, raises costs, rewards the ultra rich.”

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities condemned the cuts to safety net programs as “all in service to tax cuts that are heavily skewed toward the wealthy and corporations.”

“None of this harm has anything to do with fiscal responsibility: our deficits and debts would soar under this bill,” said Sharon Parrott, the think tank’s president, in a statement Saturday.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan watchdog, released a new&nbsp;<a href="https://www.crfb.org/blogs/senate-obbba-violates-house-budget-instructions" target="_blank">analysis</a>&nbsp;Saturday finding the Senate version will add roughly $4 trillion to the national deficit over 10 years.

“If you thought the House bill borrowed too much — and it did — the Senate manages to make things even worse,” CRFB’s president Maya MacGuineas said in a statement.

Senate Republicans have spent more than a month rewriting the bills that make up the measure in order to meet the strict rules for moving a budget reconciliation package and to earn support from enough Republicans to actually pass the legislation.

The lawmakers have been struggling to maintain spending cuts passed by House Republicans that will pay for the nearly $4 trillion price tag for extending and expanding the 2017 tax cuts.

The House&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-house-republicans-push-through-massive-tax-and-spending-bill-slashing-medicaid" target="_blank">voted 215-214</a>&nbsp;to approve its 11-bill version of the package in May. Many of that chamber’s GOP lawmakers hoped the Senate wouldn’t change much, though that hasn’t been the case.

The Senate has modified numerous proposals, including those addressing tax law; Medicaid; and SNAP. The Senate bill also&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-senate-gop-wants-hike-debt-limit-5-trillion-mega-bill" target="_blank">raises the country’s debt limit by $5 trillion</a>, a full $1 trillion more than the House version.

The revisions have led to concerns among both centrist House GOP lawmakers and far-right members of the party, muddying the waters around whether Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., can cobble together the votes needed to clear the package for Trump’s signature.

Republicans hold a 220-212 majority in the House, so leaders there can only lose four members if all of the chamber’s lawmakers are present and voting.

Trump has encouraged Congress to approve the legislation before the Fourth of July, but with time running short and some tempers rising over how the legislation will impact the country’s deficits, that might not be possible.

“The Great Republicans in the U.S. Senate are working all weekend to finish our ‘ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’,” Trump posted on social media Friday.

“The House of Representatives must be ready to send it to my desk before July 4th — We can get it done,” he added. “It will be a wonderful Celebration for our Country, which is right now, ‘The Hottest Country anywhere in the World’ — And to think, just last year, we were a laughingstock. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Senate votes to advance Republican mega-bill in tense late-night session

WEBSTER COUNTY —A child died in a farm accident just before 11a.m. Saturday in Webster County.

The Missouri State Highway Patrol reported a 73-year-old Seymour, Missouri, man was back up a 2023 John Deere Tractor at 2188 Walnut Ridge Road three and one half miles south of Seymour.

 The driver didn't see the 1-year-old boy.

EMS transported the boy to Cox South Hospital. He was pronounced deceased just before 12:30p.m., according to the MSHP. The Patrol no longer releases names of accident victims.

WEBSTER COUNTY —A child died in a farm accident just before 11a.m. Saturday in Webster County.The Missouri State Highway Patrol reported a 73-year-old Seymour, Missouri, man was back up a 2023 John Deere Tractor at 2188 Walnut Ridge Road three and one half miles south of Seymour. The driver didn't see the 1-year-old boy.EMS transported the boy to Cox South Hospital. He was pronounced deceased just before 12:30p.m., according to the MSHP. The Patrol no longer releases names of accident victims.

1-year-old boy killed in Missouri farm accident

KANSAS CITY —A Kansas City man has been charged with two misdemeanors for allegedly discharging a firearm into the air at an intersection during a shooting .

<a href="https://www.jacksoncountyprosecutor.com/DocumentCenter/View/2659/L-Holman-Misd-Information">Leonard Holman Jr</a>., 24,&nbsp;faces Unlawful Discharge of a Firearm – 1st Offense and Resisting/Interfering with Arrest, Detention Or Stop, according to&nbsp;Jackson County Prosecutor Melesa Johnson.

<a href="https://www.jacksoncountyprosecutor.com/DocumentCenter/View/2660/L-Holman-CRIFS-PC_Redacted">According to court records</a>, Kansas City police were conducting an area presence near the intersection of East 19th Street and Paseo Boulevard on June 22 when multiple people began to run from the defendant who was holding a firearm.

Officers observed the defendant discharge multiple rounds from his firearm into the air. When officers gave Holman verbal commands to drop the firearm and get down on the ground, Holman ran. He was eventually taken into custody and told police he was shooting in the air to protect himself.&nbsp;

Detectives reviewed city traffic cameras and observed Holman retrieve his firearm from his waist band and discharge it in the air multiple times.

The investigation into the fatal shooting that occurred on East 19th and Vine Street is ongoing.&nbsp; Holman is being held on a $10,000 bond.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750711438864.png" alt="Holman photo Jackson Co." />
 <figcaption>Holman photo Jackson Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY —A Kansas City man has been charged with two misdemeanors for allegedly discharging a firearm into the air at an intersection during a shooting .<a href="https://www.jacksoncountyprosecutor.com/DocumentCenter/View/2659/L-Holman-Misd-Information">Leonard Holman Jr</a>., 24,&nbsp;faces Unlawful Discharge of a Firearm – 1st Offense and Resisting/Interfering with Arrest, Detention Or Stop, according to&nbsp;Jackson County Prosecutor Melesa Johnson.<a href="https://www.jacksoncountyprosecutor.com/DocumentCenter/View/2660/L-Holman-CRIFS-PC_Redacted">According to court records</a>, Kansas City police were conducting an area presence near the intersection of East 19th Street and Paseo Boulevard on June 22 when multiple people began to run from the defendant who was holding a firearm. Officers observed the defendant discharge multiple rounds from his firearm into the air. When officers gave Holman verbal commands to drop the firearm and get down on the ground, Holman ran. He was eventually taken into custody and told police he was shooting in the air to protect himself.&nbsp;Detectives reviewed city traffic cameras and observed Holman retrieve his firearm from his waist band and discharge it in the air multiple times.The investigation into the fatal shooting that occurred on East 19th and Vine Street is ongoing.&nbsp; Holman is being held on a $10,000 bond.

KC man charged after firing gun, running from police

PHILLIPS COUNTY —A Phillips County Deputy and suspect died after an exchange of gunfire Friday in Phillipsburg.

At around 9:28 p.m. Friday, the Phillips County Sheriff’s Office received a report of illegal, non-consumer-grade fireworks being detonated at 899 1st Street in Phillipsburg, according to the Sedgwick County Sheriff's Department Spokesman Branden Stitt.

&nbsp;Phillips County Deputy Brandon Gaede responded to the scene and contacted 27-year-old Colton Griffith, a resident of the address and the individual believed responsible for the fireworks.

During the encounter, the undersheriff developed probable cause to arrest Griffith. As the undersheriff attempted to place Griffith in handcuffs, a struggle broke out. Griffith pulled a concealed handgun and opened fire on the deputy.

Despite being struck by gunfire, the undersheriff returned fire and hit Griffith multiple times. Griffith died at the scene.

EMS transported Undersheriff Brandon Gaede to a local hospital. Despite life-saving measures, medical personnel pronounced him dead at 10:24 p.m.

The Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Office, the lead agency in the investigation, is working to determine the full sequence of events that led to the shooting.

Detectives are reviewing evidence and statements from witnesses, medical staff, and others involved. The Sheriff’s Office will release additional information as it becomes available. The case findings will be submitted to the Phillips County Attorney upon the conclusion of the investigation.

Gaede is survived by his wife Karlye and 3 young children.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1FuFYWCTy9/">&nbsp;Click here to view the Farmer’s State Bank in Phillipsburg</a>&nbsp;is collecting donations for the family.

PHILLIPS COUNTY —Phillips County Deputy Sheriff Brandon Gaede died Friday as the result of an officer involved shooting in Phillipsburg, according to a social media report from the Holdrege, Nebraska Police Department.

On Friday night while responding to a fireworks call on the corner of First Street and E Street in Phillipsburg gunfire was exchanged between  a sheriff's deputy Gaede and a suspect, according to a social media report from Phillips County Sheriff.

The suspect died from the injuries. Deputy Gaede was wounded and transported to a hospital where he died.

Gaede is survived by his wife Karlye and 3 young children.&nbsp; <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-the-gaede-family-after-tragic-loss">&nbsp;Click here to</a> view an online fundraiser for the family.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1FuFYWCTy9/">&nbsp;Click here to view the Farmer’s State Bank in Phillipsburg</a>&nbsp;is collecting donations for the family.

The KBI’s Crime Scene Response Team responded, according to KBI spokesperson Natalie Turner. However, the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Office is in charge of the investigation, according to Sheriff's Department spokesman Branden Stitt.

PHILLIPS COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities are investigating a fatal officer-involved shooting in Phillips County.

On Friday night while responding to a fireworks call on the corner of First Street and E Street in Phillipsburg gunfire was exchanged between&nbsp; a sheriff's deputy and suspect, according to a social media report from Phillips County Sheriff. 

The suspect died from the injuries. The deputy was wounded and transported to a hospital.

The KBI’s Crime Scene Response Team responded, according to KBI spokesperson Natalie Turner. However, the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Office is in charge of the investigation.&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1751127258786.png" alt="Deputy Brandon Gaede-courtesy photo" />
 <figcaption>Deputy Brandon Gaede-courtesy photo</figcaption>
 </figure>PHILLIPS COUNTY —A Phillips County Deputy and suspect died after an exchange of gunfire Friday in Phillipsburg.At around 9:28 p.m. Friday, the Phillips County Sheriff’s Office received a report of illegal, non-consumer-grade fireworks being detonated at 899 1st Street in Phillipsburg, according to the Sedgwick County Sheriff's Department Spokesman Branden Stitt.&nbsp;Phillips County Deputy Brandon Gaede responded to the scene and contacted 27-year-old Colton Griffith, a resident of the address and the individual believed responsible for the fireworks.During the encounter, the undersheriff developed probable cause to arrest Griffith. As the undersheriff attempted to place Griffith in handcuffs, a struggle broke out. Griffith pulled a concealed handgun and opened fire on the deputy.Despite being struck by gunfire, the undersheriff returned fire and hit Griffith multiple times. Griffith died at the scene.EMS transported Undersheriff Brandon Gaede to a local hospital. Despite life-saving measures, medical personnel pronounced him dead at 10:24 p.m.The Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Office, the lead agency in the investigation, is working to determine the full sequence of events that led to the shooting.Detectives are reviewing evidence and statements from witnesses, medical staff, and others involved. The Sheriff’s Office will release additional information as it becomes available. The case findings will be submitted to the Phillips County Attorney upon the conclusion of the investigation.Gaede is survived by his wife Karlye and 3 young children.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1FuFYWCTy9/">&nbsp;Click here to view the Farmer’s State Bank in Phillipsburg</a>&nbsp;is collecting donations for the family.-----------------PHILLIPS COUNTY —Phillips County Deputy Sheriff Brandon Gaede died Friday as the result of an officer involved shooting in Phillipsburg, according to a social media report from the Holdrege, Nebraska Police Department.On Friday night while responding to a fireworks call on the corner of First Street and E Street in Phillipsburg gunfire was exchanged between a sheriff's deputy Gaede and a suspect, according to a social media report from Phillips County Sheriff.The suspect died from the injuries. Deputy Gaede was wounded and transported to a hospital where he died.Gaede is survived by his wife Karlye and 3 young children.&nbsp; <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-the-gaede-family-after-tragic-loss">&nbsp;Click here to</a> view an online fundraiser for the family.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1FuFYWCTy9/">&nbsp;Click here to view the Farmer’s State Bank in Phillipsburg</a>&nbsp;is collecting donations for the family.The KBI’s Crime Scene Response Team responded, according to KBI spokesperson Natalie Turner. However, the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Office is in charge of the investigation, according to Sheriff's Department spokesman Branden Stitt.-------------PHILLIPS COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities are investigating a fatal officer-involved shooting in Phillips County.On Friday night while responding to a fireworks call on the corner of First Street and E Street in Phillipsburg gunfire was exchanged between&nbsp; a sheriff's deputy and suspect, according to a social media report from Phillips County Sheriff. The suspect died from the injuries. The deputy was wounded and transported to a hospital.The KBI’s Crime Scene Response Team responded, according to KBI spokesperson Natalie Turner. However, the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Office is in charge of the investigation.&nbsp;

NW Kansas deputy wounded in gunfight has died

JACKSON COUNTY—A 12-year-old died in an accident just before 8p.m. Thursday in Jackson County, Missouri.

The Missouri State Highway Patrol reported the boy from Raytown was driving a Monster Moto 80CC mini bike southbound at East 62nd Street and Arlington Avenue. The vehicle traveled off the road, struck a curb and a building.&nbsp; &nbsp;

The boy was pronounced dead at the scene and released to the Jackson County Medical Examiner. He was wearing a helmet, according to the MSHP. The Patrol no longer releases names of accident victims.

JACKSON COUNTY—A 12-year-old died in an accident just before 8p.m. Thursday in Jackson County, Missouri.The Missouri State Highway Patrol reported the boy from Raytown was driving a Monster Moto 80CC mini bike southbound at East 62nd Street and Arlington Avenue. The vehicle traveled off the road, struck a curb and a building.&nbsp; &nbsp;The boy was pronounced dead at the scene and released to the Jackson County Medical Examiner. He was wearing a helmet, according to the MSHP. The Patrol no longer releases names of accident victims.

12-year-old Mo. boy killed in mini bike crash

TOPEKA, KAN. – A federal grand jury in Topeka returned an indictment charging a Kansas man with committing an assault on Tribal land.

According to court documents, Wesley Reel Bennett, 23, of Topeka was indicted on one count of assaults within maritime and territorial jurisdiction, according to the United State's Attorney.

In June 2025, Bennett is accused of assaulting and seriously injuring a member of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation within the confines of its Tribal territory.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribal Police Department are investigating the case.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Hunting is prosecuting the case

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750968787684.png" alt="Bennett is being held in Osage County" />
 <figcaption>Bennett is being held in Osage County</figcaption>
 </figure>TOPEKA, KAN. – A federal grand jury in Topeka returned an indictment charging a Kansas man with committing an assault on Tribal land.According to court documents, Wesley Reel Bennett, 23, of Topeka was indicted on one count of assaults within maritime and territorial jurisdiction, according to the United State's Attorney.In June 2025, Bennett is accused of assaulting and seriously injuring a member of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation within the confines of its Tribal territory.The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribal Police Department are investigating the case.Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Hunting is prosecuting the case

Indictment: Kansas man committed  assault on Tribal land

WASHINGTON —President Trump held a a news conference in the White House briefing room Friday and said that the decision on nationwide injunctions in connection with his birthright citizenship order from the Supreme Court was “amazing” and a “monumental victory for the Constitution,” the separation of powers and the rule of law.

(Click below to watch the full press conference)

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1751042330519.png" alt="Image from White House video" />
 <figcaption>Image from White House video</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON —President Trump held a a news conference in the White House briefing room Friday and said that the decision on nationwide injunctions in connection with his birthright citizenship order from the Supreme Court was “amazing” and a “monumental victory for the Constitution,” the separation of powers and the rule of law.(Click below to watch the full press conference)<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">President Trump Holds a Press Briefing, June 27, 2025 <a href="https://t.co/4BE57TB6e5">https://t.co/4BE57TB6e5</a>&mdash; The White House (@WhiteHouse) <a href="https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1938625348129739251?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Supreme Court Monumental Victory 🇺🇸 &quot;Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.&quot; - <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a> <a href="https://t.co/tdFqP0ESVz">pic.twitter.com/tdFqP0ESVz</a>&mdash; The White House (@WhiteHouse) <a href="https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1938634814606934393?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &quot;This is really also a decision based on common sense. It didn&#39;t work the other way. It was a disaster where somebody from a certain location in a very liberal state or a liberal judge or liberal group of judges could tie up a country for years.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/MFcAIjKIVG">pic.twitter.com/MFcAIjKIVG</a>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1938630127367405710?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &quot;This really brings back the Constitution. This is what it&#39;s all about... the Constitution has been brought back.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/KMmx0e0C8d">pic.twitter.com/KMmx0e0C8d</a>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1938629850174038075?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">President Trump: “Should we keep this going?” Press: “YES!!!” President Trump: “This is the opposite of Biden!” TRANSPARENCY! 🇺🇸 <a href="https://t.co/2XCxfKDCkl">pic.twitter.com/2XCxfKDCkl</a>&mdash; Margo Martin (@MargoMartin47) <a href="https://twitter.com/MargoMartin47/status/1938637864322929115?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &quot;I think the ruling was a great ruling, and I think it&#39;s a great ruling for parents... they lost control of the schools. They lost control of their child, and this is a tremendous victory for parents.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/Pla2qrLE36">https://t.co/Pla2qrLE36</a> <a href="https://t.co/jqySSHA8QM">pic.twitter.com/jqySSHA8QM</a>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1938631684284432695?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">.<a href="https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AGPamBondi</a>: &quot;35 of the 40 nationwide injunctions filed against this President ... came from Maryland, D.C., Massachusetts, California, and Washington. That&#39;s CRAZY.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/xffC32Wjvk">pic.twitter.com/xffC32Wjvk</a>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1938629547928506391?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">.<a href="https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AGPamBondi</a>: &quot;Americans are finally getting what they voted for. No longer will we have rogue judges striking down <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>&#39; policies across the entire nation — NO LONGER!&quot; <a href="https://t.co/rqLMAgVKj9">pic.twitter.com/rqLMAgVKj9</a>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1938627972874854848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">The White House press corps has a question for President Trump .. <a href="https://t.co/WTneHzVQjb">pic.twitter.com/WTneHzVQjb</a>&mdash; Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) <a href="https://twitter.com/HowardMortman/status/1938642896145559709?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥President Trump victory lap on Supreme Court decisions

The case involves a 2023 state law requiring adult websites to verify users’ ages, but the ruling is expected to have broader implications for free speech law.

By&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/about/staff/kayla-guo/">Kayla Guo</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/about/staff/eleanor-klibanoff/">Eleanor Klibanoff</a>&nbsp; <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/27/texas-porn-websites-age-verification-law-supreme-court/">Texas Tribune</a>

Texas’ law requiring Pornhub and other adult websites to verify users’ ages is constitutional and can remain in effect, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf">Click here to read the full Supreme Court ruling</a>

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2024/23-1122">Click here to listen&nbsp;</a>to the oral argument from January

The case stems from a 2023 law,&nbsp;<a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&amp;Bill=HB1181">HB 1181</a>, that required websites to verify that a user is over the age of 18 if more than one-third of their content is considered harmful to minors. A group of adult entertainment websites sued, arguing this violated free speech and privacy protections.

Texas countered that the state had a right to protect children with what Solicitor General Aaron Nielson framed as “simple, safe and common” restrictions.

While the Supreme Court justices&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/01/15/texas-porn-site-ban-us-supreme-court/">seemed divided</a>&nbsp;on the free speech issues, a 6-3 majority of the Court&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf">ultimately sided</a>&nbsp;with Texas, finding that requiring age verification “is within a State’s authority to prevent children from accessing sexually explicit content.”

The 2023 law “is an exercise of Texas’s traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority’s opinion. “To the extent that it burdens adults’ rights to access such speech, it has ‘only an incidental effect on protected speech,’ making it subject to intermediate scrutiny.”

The Court’s three liberal justices dissented, arguing that the law should have been held to the higher standard of strict scrutiny, the most stringent level of legal review used in cases related to fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech. The dissenting judges also argued that while states have a “compelling interest” in protecting children from obscene speech, doing so sometimes impeded the right of adults to access that speech.

In her dissent, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Kentanji Brown Jackson, Justice Elena Kagan said that Texas’ law might well have passed strict scrutiny and used the least restrictive means to achieve its goals.

“But what if Texas could do better — what if Texas could achieve its interest without so interfering with adults’ constitutionally protected rights in viewing the speech HB 1181 covers?” Kagan wrote. “The State should be foreclosed from restricting adults’ access to protected speech if that is not in fact necessary.”.

Texas’ law requires people visiting websites “more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors” to show they are over 18 by submitting digital identification, uploading government-issued identification or by using a “commercially reasonable method,” such as their banking information. Neither the website nor the party performing the verification can retain identifying information. Sites that violate the law face fines of up to $10,000 a day.

The law was passed amid a broader push in Texas and other states to prevent children from being exposed to sexual materials, which&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/26/texas-school-library-bill/">continued this legislative session</a>. Friday’s ruling could have implications for more than a dozen states that have passed similar laws.

It was not the first time that these Texas bills have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/17/texas-book-rating-lawsuit-5th-circuit/">tested the boundaries of</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/31/texas-drag-bill-lawsuit-federal-hearing/">free speech protections</a>: In two cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws aimed to prevent the distribution of obscene materials to minors unconstitutionally restricted free speech.

Attorney General&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/directory/ken-paxton/">Ken Paxton</a>&nbsp;celebrated the ruling Friday, calling it a “major victory for children, parents and the ability of states to protect minors from the damaging effects of online pornography.”

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors.&nbsp;<a href="https://mediakit.texastribune.org/">Become one</a>.

“Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures,” Paxton said. “I will continue to enforce the law against any organization that refuses to take the necessary steps to protect minors from explicit materials.”

Civil liberties groups decried the decision as a rollback of free speech protections.

“Today’s ruling limits American adults’ access to only that speech which is fit for children — unless they show their papers first,” Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said in a statement. “Data breaches are inevitable. How many will it take before we understand the threat today’s ruling presents? Americans will live to regret the day we let the government condition access to protected speech on proof of our identity.”

The Free Speech Coalition, a legal advocacy group representing the adult film industry, has argued that laws targeting pornography are always the “canary in the coal mine of free speech.”

“Many of the First Amendment protections Americans hold dear are the result of hard battles fought by the adult industry and others over issues such as these,” the coalition said in a statement&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/14/texas-pornhub-5th-circuit-age-verification-paxton/">last March</a>. “None of these battles has ever been simple or easy, though they have been important and just.”

Critics of Texas’ law raised privacy concerns and said it could make it dangerous for adults to access legal content. Critics also argued HB 1181 was overly broad and could apply to websites providing resources on reproductive health, sex education and LGBTQ+ issues.

The day before the law was set to go into effect in 2023, a U.S. district judge put it on hold, granting a request for a temporary injunction filed by the Free Speech Coalition.

Federal District Judge David Alan Ezra, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said in granting the injunction that the law would allow the government “to peer into the most intimate and personal aspects of people’s lives,” imposing a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.

The state appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which allowed the law to take effect. In March 2024, the appeals court upheld most of the law, but struck down a requirement that these websites post a “health warning,” saying that pornography is addictive and weakens brain function.

The Supreme Court agreed to take up the case in July 2024 and heard arguments earlier this year on whether the appeals court applied proper legal reasoning in upholding age-verification.

The pornography websites’ claims attracted support from a wide cross-section of advocacy groups, from librarians to libertarians, who cited concerns about the ripple effects of Texas’ law. The Biden administration also submitted an&nbsp;<a href="https://assets.freespeechcoalition.com/documents/legal/FSCvPaxton/amici/SG.pdf">amicus brief</a>&nbsp;in support of overturning the law.

Meanwhile, some websites, including Pornhub, have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/14/texas-pornhub-5th-circuit-age-verification-paxton/">suspended services</a>&nbsp;in Texas, saying they are unable to comply with the law. In a statement that greets users who try to access the website in Texas, Pornhub says that “providing identification every time you want to visit an adult platform is not an effective solution for protecting users online, and in fact, will put minors and your privacy at risk.”

“As we’ve seen in other states, such bills have failed to protect minors, by driving users from those few websites which comply, to the hundreds of thousands of websites with far fewer safety measures in place, which do not comply,” the statement says.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/1/1706036605430.png" alt=" " />
 <figcaption> </figcaption>
 </figure>The case involves a 2023 state law requiring adult websites to verify users’ ages, but the ruling is expected to have broader implications for free speech law.By&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/about/staff/kayla-guo/">Kayla Guo</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/about/staff/eleanor-klibanoff/">Eleanor Klibanoff</a>&nbsp; <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/27/texas-porn-websites-age-verification-law-supreme-court/">Texas Tribune</a>Texas’ law requiring Pornhub and other adult websites to verify users’ ages is constitutional and can remain in effect, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf">Click here to read the full Supreme Court ruling</a><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2024/23-1122">Click here to listen&nbsp;</a>to the oral argument from JanuaryThe case stems from a 2023 law,&nbsp;<a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&amp;Bill=HB1181">HB 1181</a>, that required websites to verify that a user is over the age of 18 if more than one-third of their content is considered harmful to minors. A group of adult entertainment websites sued, arguing this violated free speech and privacy protections.Texas countered that the state had a right to protect children with what Solicitor General Aaron Nielson framed as “simple, safe and common” restrictions.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1751040262939.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>While the Supreme Court justices&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/01/15/texas-porn-site-ban-us-supreme-court/">seemed divided</a>&nbsp;on the free speech issues, a 6-3 majority of the Court&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf">ultimately sided</a>&nbsp;with Texas, finding that requiring age verification “is within a State’s authority to prevent children from accessing sexually explicit content.”The 2023 law “is an exercise of Texas’s traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority’s opinion. “To the extent that it burdens adults’ rights to access such speech, it has ‘only an incidental effect on protected speech,’ making it subject to intermediate scrutiny.”The Court’s three liberal justices dissented, arguing that the law should have been held to the higher standard of strict scrutiny, the most stringent level of legal review used in cases related to fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech. The dissenting judges also argued that while states have a “compelling interest” in protecting children from obscene speech, doing so sometimes impeded the right of adults to access that speech.In her dissent, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Kentanji Brown Jackson, Justice Elena Kagan said that Texas’ law might well have passed strict scrutiny and used the least restrictive means to achieve its goals.“But what if Texas could do better — what if Texas could achieve its interest without so interfering with adults’ constitutionally protected rights in viewing the speech HB 1181 covers?” Kagan wrote. “The State should be foreclosed from restricting adults’ access to protected speech if that is not in fact necessary.”.Texas’ law requires people visiting websites “more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors” to show they are over 18 by submitting digital identification, uploading government-issued identification or by using a “commercially reasonable method,” such as their banking information. Neither the website nor the party performing the verification can retain identifying information. Sites that violate the law face fines of up to $10,000 a day.The law was passed amid a broader push in Texas and other states to prevent children from being exposed to sexual materials, which&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/26/texas-school-library-bill/">continued this legislative session</a>. Friday’s ruling could have implications for more than a dozen states that have passed similar laws.It was not the first time that these Texas bills have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/17/texas-book-rating-lawsuit-5th-circuit/">tested the boundaries of</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/31/texas-drag-bill-lawsuit-federal-hearing/">free speech protections</a>: In two cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws aimed to prevent the distribution of obscene materials to minors unconstitutionally restricted free speech.Attorney General&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/directory/ken-paxton/">Ken Paxton</a>&nbsp;celebrated the ruling Friday, calling it a “major victory for children, parents and the ability of states to protect minors from the damaging effects of online pornography.”The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors.&nbsp;<a href="https://mediakit.texastribune.org/">Become one</a>.“Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures,” Paxton said. “I will continue to enforce the law against any organization that refuses to take the necessary steps to protect minors from explicit materials.”Civil liberties groups decried the decision as a rollback of free speech protections.“Today’s ruling limits American adults’ access to only that speech which is fit for children — unless they show their papers first,” Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said in a statement. “Data breaches are inevitable. How many will it take before we understand the threat today’s ruling presents? Americans will live to regret the day we let the government condition access to protected speech on proof of our identity.”The Free Speech Coalition, a legal advocacy group representing the adult film industry, has argued that laws targeting pornography are always the “canary in the coal mine of free speech.”The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors.&nbsp;<a href="https://mediakit.texastribune.org/">Become one</a>.“Many of the First Amendment protections Americans hold dear are the result of hard battles fought by the adult industry and others over issues such as these,” the coalition said in a statement&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/14/texas-pornhub-5th-circuit-age-verification-paxton/">last March</a>. “None of these battles has ever been simple or easy, though they have been important and just.”Critics of Texas’ law raised privacy concerns and said it could make it dangerous for adults to access legal content. Critics also argued HB 1181 was overly broad and could apply to websites providing resources on reproductive health, sex education and LGBTQ+ issues.The day before the law was set to go into effect in 2023, a U.S. district judge put it on hold, granting a request for a temporary injunction filed by the Free Speech Coalition.Federal District Judge David Alan Ezra, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said in granting the injunction that the law would allow the government “to peer into the most intimate and personal aspects of people’s lives,” imposing a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.The state appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which allowed the law to take effect. In March 2024, the appeals court upheld most of the law, but struck down a requirement that these websites post a “health warning,” saying that pornography is addictive and weakens brain function.The Supreme Court agreed to take up the case in July 2024 and heard arguments earlier this year on whether the appeals court applied proper legal reasoning in upholding age-verification.The pornography websites’ claims attracted support from a wide cross-section of advocacy groups, from librarians to libertarians, who cited concerns about the ripple effects of Texas’ law. The Biden administration also submitted an&nbsp;<a href="https://assets.freespeechcoalition.com/documents/legal/FSCvPaxton/amici/SG.pdf">amicus brief</a>&nbsp;in support of overturning the law.Meanwhile, some websites, including Pornhub, have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/14/texas-pornhub-5th-circuit-age-verification-paxton/">suspended services</a>&nbsp;in Texas, saying they are unable to comply with the law. In a statement that greets users who try to access the website in Texas, Pornhub says that “providing identification every time you want to visit an adult platform is not an effective solution for protecting users online, and in fact, will put minors and your privacy at risk.”“As we’ve seen in other states, such bills have failed to protect minors, by driving users from those few websites which comply, to the hundreds of thousands of websites with far fewer safety measures in place, which do not comply,” the statement says.

State can require porn websites to verify users’ ages, Supreme Court rules

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">Ariana Figueroa</a>

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Friday in a major decision reined in nationwide injunctions by some lower courts that had blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order barring birthright citizenship.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf">Click here to read the full order from the court&nbsp;</a>

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2024/24A884">Click here to listen to</a>&nbsp;a replay of the oral argument

The high court declined to decide the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself, but said the executive order rewriting the constitutional right to birthright citizenship could go into effect within 30 days after Friday’s ruling in the states that did not initially sue.

The ruling likely could hamper other legal challenges against Trump administration actions in which nationwide injunctions are sought.

In a 6-3 ruling, the conservative justices found that nationwide “injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.”

“The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue,”&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf" target="_blank">according to the ruling written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.</a>

While the dispute before the court related to Trump’s executive order to rewrite the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, the Trump administration asked the high court to instead focus on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A884/352051/20250313135341225_Trump%20v.%20CASA%20Inc%20application.pdf" target="_blank">the issue of preliminary injunctions</a>&nbsp;granted by lower courts.

“The applications do not raise—and thus the Court does not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act,” according to the ruling, referring to the practice of granting citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil.

The order instructs lower courts to “move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity.”

More than two dozen nationwide injunctions

In the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, through April 29, judges issued about 25 nationwide injunctions,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48476" target="_blank">according to the Congressional Research Service.</a>

“The lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate; we therefore leave it to them to consider these and any related arguments,” according to the ruling.

A narrower injunction could refer to a class action suit.

Barrett argued that a nationwide injunction would not grant more relief for barring the enforcement of Trump’s executive order against a pregnant person who is not a U.S. citizen and fears their child would be denied citizenship.

“Her child will not be denied citizenship. And extending the injunction to cover everyone similarly situated would not render&nbsp;her&nbsp;relief any more complete,” according to the ruling. “So the individual and associational respondents are wrong to characterize the universal injunction as simply an application of the complete-relief principle.”

Under birthright citizenship, all children born in the United States are considered citizens, regardless of their parents’ legal status.

If birthright citizenship were to be eliminated, more than 250,000 children born each year would not be granted U.S. citizenship, according to a recent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/birthright-citizenship-repeal-projections" target="_blank">study</a>&nbsp;by the think tank the Migration Policy Institute.

It would effectively create a class of 2.7 million stateless people by 2045, according to the study.

In last month’s oral arguments, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who argued on behalf of the Trump administration, contended that it’s unconstitutional for federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Instead, he&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-wants-supreme-court-let-him-mostly-carry-out-birthright-citizenship-order" target="_blank">said, the injunctions should be limited</a>&nbsp;to those who brought the challenges.

The case, Trump v. CASA, was consolidated from three cases.

One was brought by immigrant rights groups and several pregnant women in Maryland who are not U.S. citizens who filed their case in Maryland; the second came from four states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon — that filed a case in Washington state; and the third came from 18 Democratic state attorneys general who filed the challenge in Massachusetts.

Those 18 states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia and the county and city of San Francisco also joined.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of birthright citizenship.

In 1898, the Supreme Court upheld the&nbsp;<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-8-9-2/ALDE_00000051/" target="_blank">14th Amendment,</a>&nbsp;in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, extending birthright citizenship.

<a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/169us649" target="_blank">In that 19th-century case</a>, Ark was born in San Francisco, California, to parents who were citizens of the Republic of China, but had legal authority to be in the United States, such as a temporary visa. While Ark was born in California, his citizenship was not recognized when he went on a trip to China. Upon his return to California, he was denied reentry due to the Chinese Exclusion Act— a racist law designed to restrict and limit nearly all immigration of Chinese nationals.

When his case went all the way to the Supreme Court, the high court ruled that children born in the U.S. to parents who were not citizens automatically become citizens at birth.

The Trump administration has argued that the 1898 case was misinterpreted and point to a specific phrase: “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Government attorneys contend that the phrase in the 14th Amendment means that birthright citizenship&nbsp;does not apply to&nbsp;people in the U.S. without legal status or temporary legal status&nbsp;who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of their country of origin.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1747336226952.png" alt="Protesters outside the Supreme Court during the arguments on the case in May-image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Protesters outside the Supreme Court during the arguments on the case in May-image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>By:&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">Ariana Figueroa</a>WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Friday in a major decision reined in nationwide injunctions by some lower courts that had blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order barring birthright citizenship.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf">Click here to read the full order from the court&nbsp;</a><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2024/24A884">Click here to listen to</a>&nbsp;a replay of the oral argument<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><a href="https://t.co/T4SIRwsXOX">pic.twitter.com/T4SIRwsXOX</a>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1938611988697080142?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The high court declined to decide the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself, but said the executive order rewriting the constitutional right to birthright citizenship could go into effect within 30 days after Friday’s ruling in the states that did not initially sue.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1751034373464.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>The ruling likely could hamper other legal challenges against Trump administration actions in which nationwide injunctions are sought.In a 6-3 ruling, the conservative justices found that nationwide “injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.”“The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue,”&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf" target="_blank">according to the ruling written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.</a>While the dispute before the court related to Trump’s executive order to rewrite the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, the Trump administration asked the high court to instead focus on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A884/352051/20250313135341225_Trump%20v.%20CASA%20Inc%20application.pdf" target="_blank">the issue of preliminary injunctions</a>&nbsp;granted by lower courts.“The applications do not raise—and thus the Court does not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act,” according to the ruling, referring to the practice of granting citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil.The order instructs lower courts to “move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity.”<h2>More than two dozen nationwide injunctions</h2>In the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, through April 29, judges issued about 25 nationwide injunctions,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48476" target="_blank">according to the Congressional Research Service.</a>“The lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate; we therefore leave it to them to consider these and any related arguments,” according to the ruling.A narrower injunction could refer to a class action suit.Barrett argued that a nationwide injunction would not grant more relief for barring the enforcement of Trump’s executive order against a pregnant person who is not a U.S. citizen and fears their child would be denied citizenship.“Her child will not be denied citizenship. And extending the injunction to cover everyone similarly situated would not render&nbsp;her&nbsp;relief any more complete,” according to the ruling. “So the individual and associational respondents are wrong to characterize the universal injunction as simply an application of the complete-relief principle.”Under birthright citizenship, all children born in the United States are considered citizens, regardless of their parents’ legal status.If birthright citizenship were to be eliminated, more than 250,000 children born each year would not be granted U.S. citizenship, according to a recent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/birthright-citizenship-repeal-projections" target="_blank">study</a>&nbsp;by the think tank the Migration Policy Institute.It would effectively create a class of 2.7 million stateless people by 2045, according to the study.In last month’s oral arguments, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who argued on behalf of the Trump administration, contended that it’s unconstitutional for federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Instead, he&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-wants-supreme-court-let-him-mostly-carry-out-birthright-citizenship-order" target="_blank">said, the injunctions should be limited</a>&nbsp;to those who brought the challenges.<h2>Origins of birthright citizenship case</h2>The case, Trump v. CASA, was consolidated from three cases.One was brought by immigrant rights groups and several pregnant women in Maryland who are not U.S. citizens who filed their case in Maryland; the second came from four states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon — that filed a case in Washington state; and the third came from 18 Democratic state attorneys general who filed the challenge in Massachusetts.Those 18 states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia and the county and city of San Francisco also joined.This is not the first time the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of birthright citizenship.In 1898, the Supreme Court upheld the&nbsp;<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-8-9-2/ALDE_00000051/" target="_blank">14th Amendment,</a>&nbsp;in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, extending birthright citizenship.<a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/169us649" target="_blank">In that 19th-century case</a>, Ark was born in San Francisco, California, to parents who were citizens of the Republic of China, but had legal authority to be in the United States, such as a temporary visa. While Ark was born in California, his citizenship was not recognized when he went on a trip to China. Upon his return to California, he was denied reentry due to the Chinese Exclusion Act— a racist law designed to restrict and limit nearly all immigration of Chinese nationals.When his case went all the way to the Supreme Court, the high court ruled that children born in the U.S. to parents who were not citizens automatically become citizens at birth.The Trump administration has argued that the 1898 case was misinterpreted and point to a specific phrase: “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.Government attorneys contend that the phrase in the 14th Amendment means that birthright citizenship&nbsp;does not apply to&nbsp;people in the U.S. without legal status or temporary legal status&nbsp;who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of their country of origin.

 Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions; Fate of Trump Birthright Citizenship Order Unclear

WASHINGTON–&nbsp;On Thursday, U.S. Senators Roger Marshall,&nbsp; Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama), and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), introduced a resolution to implement term limits on the Senate Parliamentarian, a key figure in the United States Senate who advises on rules, procedures, and precedents as it relates to the reconciliation process, according to a statement from Marshall's office.

Click&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.marshall.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/BIN25098-1.pdf">HERE</a>&nbsp;to read the full text of the resolution

The Senators call for the parliamentarian to serve one six-year term, which would prevent power entrenchment, promote accountability, and encourage fresh perspectives.

“Based upon early reports, the Senate Parliamentarian may eliminate some $500 billion in savings for the American people, all of which are arbitrary decisions, with minimal guidance,”&nbsp;said Senator Marshall.&nbsp;“The current parliamentarian has been in office since 2012, appointed by former Democrat Senator Harry Reid. This is NOT an elected position. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Term limits on a person with this absolute power need to be implemented. Therefore, we are dropping a resolution calling for just that, limiting a parliamentarian of the Senate to a maximum of 6 years.”

“The woke, Radical Left Senate Parliamentarian, who was appointed by Harry Reid and was an advisor to Al Gore, is actively trying to&nbsp;undermine&nbsp;President Trump’s agenda,”&nbsp;said Senator Tuberville.&nbsp;“Unelected bureaucrats should not be able to overturn the will of the 77 million Americans who voted for President Trump and his agenda. This is exactly why Americans hate the swamp. Proud to join my friend Senator Roger Marshall in introducing&nbsp;this resolution imposing 6-year term limits for the Senate Parliamentarian.”

“The Senate parliamentarian holds unchecked power over major legislation, despite never being elected by the American people,”&nbsp;said Senator Blackburn.&nbsp;“This individual has served for a decade, having been appointed by Harry Reid, we must act now to impose term limits on the Senate parliamentarian&nbsp;to ensure this position&nbsp;is accountable to the will of the people.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1751029214593.png" alt="Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough&nbsp; -photo U.S. Senate" />
 <figcaption>Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough&nbsp; -photo U.S. Senate</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON–&nbsp;On Thursday, U.S. Senators Roger Marshall,&nbsp; Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama), and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), introduced a resolution to implement term limits on the Senate Parliamentarian, a key figure in the United States Senate who advises on rules, procedures, and precedents as it relates to the reconciliation process, according to a statement from Marshall's office.Click&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.marshall.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/BIN25098-1.pdf">HERE</a>&nbsp;to read the full text of the resolution<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1751027942171.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">In 2001 Leader Trent Lott fired the Senate Parliamentarian during reconciliation. It’s 2025 during reconciliation &amp; we need to again fire the Senate Parliamentarian. My resolution to term limit the parliamentarian will settle this now &amp; in the future.<a href="https://t.co/7XcVaNgcGH">https://t.co/7XcVaNgcGH</a>&mdash; Dr. Roger Marshall (@RogerMarshallMD) <a href="https://twitter.com/RogerMarshallMD/status/1938258594178211995?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 26, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The Senators call for the parliamentarian to serve one six-year term, which would prevent power entrenchment, promote accountability, and encourage fresh perspectives.“Based upon early reports, the Senate Parliamentarian may eliminate some $500 billion in savings for the American people, all of which are arbitrary decisions, with minimal guidance,”&nbsp;said Senator Marshall.&nbsp;“The current parliamentarian has been in office since 2012, appointed by former Democrat Senator Harry Reid. This is NOT an elected position. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Term limits on a person with this absolute power need to be implemented. Therefore, we are dropping a resolution calling for just that, limiting a parliamentarian of the Senate to a maximum of 6 years.”<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Did Harry Reid’s Senate Parliamentarian not get the memo? President Trump’s landslide victory was a MANDATE from 77 million Americans. The One Big Beautiful Bill delivers on that mandate. The Parliamentarian is trying to UNDERMINE the President’s mandate and should be fired.&mdash; Coach Tommy Tuberville (@SenTuberville) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenTuberville/status/1938259471467438355?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 26, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>“The woke, Radical Left Senate Parliamentarian, who was appointed by Harry Reid and was an advisor to Al Gore, is actively trying to&nbsp;undermine&nbsp;President Trump’s agenda,”&nbsp;said Senator Tuberville.&nbsp;“Unelected bureaucrats should not be able to overturn the will of the 77 million Americans who voted for President Trump and his agenda. This is exactly why Americans hate the swamp. Proud to join my friend Senator Roger Marshall in introducing&nbsp;this resolution imposing 6-year term limits for the Senate Parliamentarian.”“The Senate parliamentarian holds unchecked power over major legislation, despite never being elected by the American people,”&nbsp;said Senator Blackburn.&nbsp;“This individual has served for a decade, having been appointed by Harry Reid, we must act now to impose term limits on the Senate parliamentarian&nbsp;to ensure this position&nbsp;is accountable to the will of the people.”Background:<ul>
 <li>The parliamentarian of the Senate serves at the will of the Secretary of the Senate, who is chosen by the Senate Majority Leader.</li><li>Since 1981 only three different individuals have served as parliamentarian of the Senate. Each served on average 15 years.</li>
 </ul>