Executive Order Update: June 27th, 2025
This week’s updates span major court rulings, executive actions, and public health decisions—from the Supreme Court allowing states to cut Medicaid ties with Planned Parenthood, to federal courts stepping in to protect science education and Job Corps funding. We are also tracking the fallout from the Trump administration’s quiet move to shut down federal surveys, renewed deportation efforts, and growing concerns over the CDC’s vaccine panel.
Supreme Court Curbs Nationwide Injunctions Without Deciding on Birthright Citizenship: In a 6-3 decision today, June 27, in Trump vs. Casa, Inc., the Supreme Court significantly limited the power of federal district courts to impose nationwide injunctions when individuals bring lawsuits to challenge the legality of federal policies and laws. The underlying case was an appeal of three nationwide injunctions against the president’s January 21 executive order ending birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors. While the Court struck down those injunctions, it did not address the constitutionality of the partial ban on birthright citizenship, staying the order for 30 days instead. Several justices clarified that nationwide or region-specific injunctions can still be granted in the form of “preliminary relief” when cases are filed as class action lawsuits. The broader significance of this decision is that it will take longer and be more difficult to halt likely illegal executive actions before trials and appeals conclude – effectively expanding executive powers. As to the constitutionality of the executive order on birthright citizenship, it is still very likely the Supreme Court will ultimately rule that the order is unconstitutional. Because the Court stayed the executive order for 30 days, the partial ban on birthright citizenship will not take effect immediately and will be re-challenged in courts under the Supreme Court’s new guidance.
Third-Country Deportations Resume After Supreme Court Ruling: On April 18, 2025, a federal judge in Boston blocked the U.S. government from deporting migrants to countries where they feared harm, requiring that individuals be given a chance to challenge such removals. However, on June 23, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision, overturned that nationwide injunction, allowing the Trump administration to resume deportations to third countries like South Sudan. Despite this broader ruling, the Court left in place a narrower injunction that specifically blocked a May deportation flight to South Sudan. In response, the administration filed a new appeal to the Supreme Court on June 24, seeking to lift that remaining restriction as well. Dissenting justices warned that the ruling undermines due process and endangers lives. For many immigrants, including Arab Americans, who come from conflict-affected regions or face political persecution, deportation to third countries with poor human rights records or unstable governments could expose them to grave risks, especially when they are denied the opportunity to present asylum claims or evidence of danger.
Federal Courts Reign in Executive Overreach, Safeguard Science Education Funds and Job Corps: In two significant rulings this June, federal courts have blocked major policy changes by the executive branch, reinforcing legal protections for both scientific research infrastructure and vulnerable student populations.
On June 20, a federal district court struck down the administration’s policy that capped National Science Foundation (NSF) reimbursements for universities’ indirect costs at 15% of direct grant funds—far below the previously negotiated rates of 50% to 65%. The judge ruled the cap unlawful, calling it “arbitrary and capricious,” and emphasized that federal agencies must follow proper administrative procedures when changing funding formulas. This decision follows similar rulings against cost-cap policies at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy.
Five days later, on June 25, a federal judge halted the Department of Labor’s plan to close Job Corps centers, issuing a preliminary injunction while a lawsuit moves forward. The Department had aimed to suspend nearly all 123 centers by the end of June, citing high costs and poor outcomes. The ruling protects over 20,000 low-income students who rely on Job Corps for housing, meals, and job training—support that helps many avoid homelessness. In cities with large Arab American populations, such as Dearborn and Detroit, the program has been a key resource for economic mobility and providing career pathways in fields like healthcare and technology. The judge emphasized that the executive branch cannot dismantle a congressionally funded program without proper authority, reinforcing limits on executive power and protecting vulnerable communities.
Together, these rulings underscore the judiciary’s role in upholding procedural integrity and protecting essential public programs from abrupt executive action.
Supreme Court Ruling Allows States to Cut Medicaid Ties with Planned Parenthood: On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, allowing South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program due to its status as an abortion provider. The Court also determined that Medicaid patients do not have the standing to sue states for denying access to qualified providers, even when those providers offer essential non-abortion services like contraception, cancer screenings, and STI testing.
This decision poses a serious threat to women’s health—especially for low-income women and women of color, including many in Arab American communities. In cities like Dearborn and Chicago, where Arab American populations are concentrated, Planned Parenthood has long served as a trusted source of affordable reproductive and other health care. With nearly half of its patients relying on Medicaid, the exclusion of Planned Parenthood could leave thousands of women without access to critical services that support their health, autonomy, and economic stability.
Byrd Rule Ruling Derails Key Provisions in Republicans’ ‘Big Beautiful Bill’: On June 26, the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that several provisions in the GOP’s sweeping budget reconciliation package—dubbed the “One Big, Beautiful Bill”—violate the Byrd Rule, which prohibits non-budgetary items from being passed through the fast-track reconciliation process. The flagged provisions, primarily from the Senate Finance Committee, include restrictions on Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare, and ACA subsidies for immigrants, including refugees, asylum seekers, and individuals with temporary protected status. These measures were deemed policy-driven rather than budget-focused, disqualifying them from reconciliation.
Key violations include:
Cutting Medicaid/CHIP funding for individuals whose immigration status is not immediately verified.
Penalizing states that use their own funds to cover undocumented immigrants.
Stripping Medicare access from certain immigrants (refugees, asylum seekers, and people with TPS status), even if they have paid into the system.
Blocking Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies for over 1 million non-citizen immigrants.
Cuts to Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA subsidies would disproportionately impact Arab American families, especially those with mixed-status households or recent arrivals from conflict zones like Syria, Iraq, Palestine, and Yemen. These measures, if reinstated or passed separately, could increase uninsured rates, reduce access to care, and strain community health resources.
The ruling forces Republicans to revise or remove these provisions, negotiate their budgetary relevance, or split the bill to pass only compliant sections through the reconciliation process. GOP leaders are under pressure to finalize the bill before the July 4 deadline, when President Trump hopes to sign it into law.
Controversy Clouds CDC Vaccine Panel Under RFK Jr: The CDC’s vaccine advisory panel met June 25–26 under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., despite calls to delay it over concerns about lack of expertise and ideological diversity. One member, Dr. Michael Ross, withdrew over financial disclosure issues, leaving only seven active members. The reduced panel raises concerns about credibility and the politicization of vaccine guidance, which could undermine trust and limit access, including for immigrant communities relying on public health. During the meeting, the panel approved the use of clesrovimab, a monoclonal antibody for infants without maternal RSV protection, updated the Vaccines for Children Program for RSV, and reaffirmed routine annual flu vaccination. In a shift, they also recommended single-dose, thimerosal-free flu vaccines for all age groups. If vaccine policy becomes politicized or misinformed, it could erode national confidence in immunizations, weaken outbreak response, and put millions of Americans at greater risk of preventable disease.
Survey Shutdown Sparks Alarm Over Data Integrity: The Trump administration is facing backlash after reports revealed it unilaterally moved to terminate several federal surveys, bypassing the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and threatening agencies with “adverse actions” for noncompliance. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) claimed it worked with the Census Bureau to shut down five surveys, though no details were provided. This move violates federal law requiring public notice and comment, raising serious concerns about transparency, coercion, and democratic norms.
Federal surveys are vital tools for shaping public policy, especially for marginalized communities. Undermining them not only weakens the evidence base for decision-making but also erodes public trust in government data—at a time when participation in such surveys is already declining. Americans should be alarmed: without reliable data, policies risk becoming less fair, less informed, and less accountable.
Supreme Court Ruling Opens Door to Erase LGBTQ+ Topics in Schools: On June 27, the Supreme Court released the decision in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, allowing parents to stop LGBTQ+ stories and curriculum from being shared in their children’s classrooms. Parents in Montgomery County, Maryland argued that their religious freedoms, protected under the First Amendment, were being violated. The County argued that sharing differing beliefs or religious views does not violate Constitutional rights and warned that allowing parents to opt-out of everything they disagree with could have grave consequences for public education by allowing extremists to misuse religion to censor topics they dislike.
This decision is concerning because it elevates some religious beliefs over others and discourages public school classrooms from being a place where diverse learning can occur. Removing LGBTQ+ themes sends the message that these students, their families, and their communities are not worthy of recognition, contributing to a broader pattern of erasure that harms all marginalized groups and undermines efforts to build inclusive public education.