Tuesday was a busy day at the Supreme Court that was headlined by the upholding of birthright citizenship and state laws that sought to protect the competitive integrity of female sports. However, the Court also cited the First Amendment and free speech when it struck down a campaign finance law that limited how much money political parties can spend on candidates, which led MS NOW and CNN to suffer epic meltdowns at the news they considered to be the latest example in Republicans’ war on democracy. MS NOW Reports host Antonia Hylton simply put the ball on the tee for Brookings Institute senior fellow and Democracy Defenders Fund founder Norm Eisen when she declared, “Norm, I want your big picture take on what the Court has done to the curtain that I think at least Americans used to think there was between big money and their political voice.”   MS NOW suffered an epic melt down after the Supreme Court struck down party donation limits, citing the First Amendment. Antonia Hylton asked Norm Eisen "I want your big picture take on what the Court has done to the curtain that I think at least Americans used to think there was… pic.twitter.com/LvCdns7Ysl — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) June 30, 2026   The melodramatic Eisen began his response by claiming the ruling was a corrupt handout to the GOP, “Republicans who love this big, dark corporate money that is devastating our country went to their Republican colleagues on the Supreme Court, and they got an exemption to pump more of that corporate cash that has so broken our country, Antonia, and devastated the lives of working people to pour more of that money into the swamp.” The First Amendment is not an “exemption.” It’s the rule. Nevertheless, Eisen was then unwittingly torn between his narrative that money buys elections and some self-promotion proving that it doesn’t: But let me tell you, the American people are not going to tolerate that. Individual candidates have a small donor advantage on the Democratic side. This corruption of our political system with big money, as you saw on the screen, is rejected by a super-majority of Americans at Democracy Defenders Action, for example, we fought Elon Musk when he tried to outspend pro-reform candidates for the Supreme Court in Wisconsin. We — the big money turned that into a race, the people versus Musk, and they rejected him, even though he outspent by a factor of many times.  Getting back to the corruption allegations, Eisen was more explicit, “So, I think this is part of the reason that the Republican Party is so corrupt. We need to say that candidly, that their fellow Republican justices on the Supreme Court have gone ahead to break the playing field and let this huge flood of corporate and other dark cash into the system know the American people, irrespective of party, don't want that.” He then demanded, “We need to have Supreme Court reform, for example, term limits, and we need Congress to pass sane laws. This is no way to run a democracy. The American people of all parties hate it.” Over at CNN, chief congressional correspondent and Inside Politics guest host Manu Raju framed the ruling in terms of how it will benefit Republicans, “Just look at the amount of money that the NRSC, the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, which brought this case. $48.9 million that they have compared to the Democrats’ 38.9 million. That’s the Senate side. And it's — you compare it to the other outside groups as well, significant. So, that's why they can make up for that disparity.”   Over at CNN, NPR host Ayesha Rascoe claimed, "It's a huge deal, right? I mean, and then you couple that with the Voting Rights—being Voting Rights Act really being gutted. I mean, these are having impacts when people vote. . I do think that, you know, this is something where you… pic.twitter.com/T9CsC7z4mB — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) June 30, 2026   NPR host Ayesha Rascoe agreed and tried to tie the case to other recent Court rulings, “It's a huge deal, right? I mean, and then you couple that with the Voting Rights—being Voting Rights Act really being gutted. I mean, these are having impacts when people vote. I do think that, you know, this is something where you often talk to people, they want to get money out of politics. But the Supreme Court has went in the totally opposite direction.” She also claimed, “I do think that ultimately that does lead to a disconnect, right? Like people are going to go to cast their ballots in November, but are they actually being heard and represented? And, like, when you have decisions like this that seem to go against the popular will.” The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the basis of the Constitution, not “popular will.” Understanding that should be the bare minimum for any media person talking about the Court. Here are transcripts for the June 30 shows: MS NOW Reports 6/30/2026 11:43 AM ET ANTONIA HYLTON: Norm, I want your big picture take on what the Court has done to the curtain that I think at least Americans used to think there was between big money and their political voice. NORM EISEN: Republicans who love this big, dark corporate money that is devastating our country went to their Republican colleagues on the Supreme Court, and they got an exemption to pump more of that corporate cash that has so broken our country, Antonia, and devastated the lives of working people to pour more of that money into the swamp. But let me tell you, the American people are not going to tolerate that. Individual candidates have a small donor advantage on the Democratic side. This corruption of our political system with big money, as you saw on the screen, is rejected by a super-majority of Americans at Democracy Defenders Action, for example, we fought Elon Musk when he tried to outspend pro-reform candidates for the Supreme Court in Wisconsin. We — the big money turned that into a race, the people versus Musk, and they rejected him, even though he outspent by a factor of many times.  So, I think this is part of the reason that the Republican Party is so corrupt. We need to say that candidly, that their fellow Republican justices on the Supreme Court have gone ahead to break the playing field and let this huge flood of corporate and other dark cash into the system know the American people, irrespective of party, don't want that. And you are going to see a resounding rejection of this at the polls in November. We need to have Supreme Court reform, for example, term limits, and we need Congress to pass sane laws. This is no way to run a democracy. The American people of all parties hate it. *** CNN Inside Politics with Dana Bash 6/30/2026 12:20 PM ET MANU RAJU: Just look at the amount of money that the NRSC, the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, which brought this case. $48.9 million that they have compared to the Democrats’ 38.9 million. That’s the Senate side. And it's — you compare it to the other outside groups as well, significant. So, that's why they can make up for that disparity. AYESHA RASCOE: It's a huge deal, right? I mean, and then you couple that with the Voting Rights—being Voting Rights Act really being gutted. I mean, these are having impacts when people vote. I do think that, you know, this is something where you often talk to people, they want to get money out of politics. But the Supreme Court has went in the totally opposite direction. And I do think that ultimately that does lead to a disconnect, right? Like people are going to go to cast their ballots in November, but are they actually being heard and represented? And, like, when you have decisions like this that seem to go against the popular will.

After more Supreme Court rulings on Tuesday, including a decision to allow states to ban biological men from playing in women’s sports, MS NOW legal reporter Lisa Rubin praised the written opinion for its words of “respect” for transgender athletes. But later, she said female athletes’ tactics in the controversy have ‘villainized’ the biological males in women’s sports. She even commented on young athletes' cheers outside the court, with a warning that their “feeling of victory” could bleed into “ostracizing.” After the decision was released, Rubin first said the court “fetishizes history,” as she explained how the court said the original text of Title IX was based on biological sex since it was written in 1972.   In more response to the SCOTUS decision on transgender athletes, MS NOW's Lisa Rubin said the court "fetishizes history" as she read the majority's interpretation of Title IX. pic.twitter.com/OkVBHp4B0X — Nick (@nspin310) June 30, 2026   But a few minutes after the initial discussion of the court’s interpretation of Title IX, Rubin returned to the actual written opinion in the cases released by the court. She said, “the majority wants to make sure that even as they're ruling against both of these athletes, they want to make sure that it's conveyed to the public that they don't mean any disrespect, and they don't always do something like this.” After she conveyed the Supreme Court’s respectful remarks in its decision, she read one part aloud which noted the athletes are mostly teenagers and people in their 20s as she continued to read, “Their desire to compete warrants respect. No student athlete on either side of the issue, whether a biological female or transgender, deserves to be ostracized or vilified.“ Rubin then turned to discuss the “women athletes in particular,” who she described as those “who are born female and present as female,” and said the court decision is different from athletes who, “sort of villainize some of the people who are like the plaintiffs in this case.”   In response to SCOTUS’s ruling that allows states to ban transgender athletes from sports, MS NOW's Lisa Rubin was struck by the written opinion and said it was different from “women athletes in particular” who “sort of villainize some of the people who are like the plaintiffs in… pic.twitter.com/2a6I2VKype — Nick (@nspin310) June 30, 2026   Fill-in host Antonia Hylton, after Rubin mentioned women’s athletes' views on transgender athletes, agreed and responded, “Yeah,” before Rubin continued. Rubin then mentioned the cheers outside the court from female athletes, who she now called “biologically female athletes who compete as women,” and said they are “feeling like they are victorious in the moment.” But she then said the feeling of victory could “bleed over” into something else: “That feeling of victory can very easily bleed over into the sort of ostracizing that the majority is talking about.” Rubin closed and continued to say she was struck by the court’s respect: I find it notable that they go out of their way to say, we're reaching this result on legal grounds. But make no mistake, the people who are living their lives as trans women and trans men, they deserve your respect. Their desire to play sports and compete on the playing field is genuine. That strikes me. That sticks with me. Apparently, according to MS NOW, blame should be placed on women’s athletes, like some of those cheering outside the court, because they “villainize” the biological males who competed in their sports. The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s Money, Power, Politics w/ Stephanie Ruhle June 30, 2026 10:10:53 AM Eastern LISA RUBIN: Yeah. Well, I'm looking now at some of the aspects of the opinion. And so let's start with the majority opinion where they're interpreting Title IX first. That's the statute that forbids gender discrimination or other forms of discrimination in educational opportunity. And they say “the term sex in the 1972 Title IX statute and surrounding amendments and regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex, the ordinary meaning of the term sex at the time of enactment.” And let me just pause there for a second, because this is a court that fetishizes history. History at the time of enactment- UNKNOWN: What does that mean? RUBIN: - meaning they're obsessed with what something means at the time a statute is enacted, at the time a constitutional provision comes into play. So, whether it's we're talking about 1866, in the birthright citizenship context, or we're talking about 1972, when Title IX was passed, this court is always going to go back to what they consider the original meaning of a term at the time that a statute or a constitutional provision was put into play. (...) 10:20:07 AM Eastern LISA RUBIN: There's one thing here that Fallon Gallagher has pointed out to me that I think is so important and so smart, which is that the majority wants to make sure that even as they're ruling against both of these athletes, they want to make sure that it's conveyed to the public that they don't mean any disrespect, and they don't always do something like this. And so I want to read aloud from the ruling. “In so ruling, we emphasize one last point. Most of the biological female and transgender student athletes who are involved in transgender sports disputes around the country are teenagers or in their early 20s. Those student athletes want to play sports. Their desire to compete warrants respect. No student athlete on either side of the issue, whether a biological female or transgender, deserves to be ostracized or vilified.“ And I think that's a really interesting comment by the majority, because you have seen a number of athletes, women athletes in particular, who are born female and present as female, sort of villainize some of the people who are like the plaintiffs in this case.  ANTONIA HYLTON: Yeah RUBIN: And Fallon was talking earlier about a demonstration at the court and hearing a cheer from biologically female athletes who compete as women, feeling like they are victorious in this moment. That feeling of victory can very easily bleed over into the sort of ostracizing that the majority is talking about.  I find it notable that they go out of their way to say, we're reaching this result on legal grounds. But make no mistake, the people who are living their lives as trans women and trans men, they deserve your respect. Their desire to play sports and compete on the playing field is genuine. That strikes me. That sticks with me. (...)

State laws limiting participation in school sports teams to athletes of the same biological sex are constitutional and violate neither the Equal Protection Clause nor Title IX of the 1964 federal civil rights act, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. The high court consolidated two cases, West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, producing a single ruling (“West Virginia v. B.P.J.”) applying to both. As a result, some judges concurred with the majority on one issue, but dissented on another. Thus, West Virginia and Idaho state laws separating sports teams based on biological sex were validated by a 6-3 vote regarding the Equal Protection Clause – as well as by a unanimous 9-0 concurrence, including even the most liberal justices, with respect to Title IX. “Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX,” the ruling states. “West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by maintaining female sports teams for biological females,” the high court determined. What’s more, a person’s sex is clearly defined by the “immutable characteristic” of biology, not presumed identity, it explains: “The term ‘sex’ in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term ‘sex’ at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context. See, e.g., Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 686 (‘sex’ is ‘an immutable characteristic’). In addition, the Title IX regulations allowed separate sports teams precisely because of the inherent physical differences between biological men and biological women.” …. “The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the States from applying that same principle to all biological males, including those who identify as female. States are not required to conduct an individual-by-individual comparison of the physical and athletic capabilities of all biological males in order to satisfy intermediate scrutiny.” Even if female-identifying biological males who take puberty blockers or hormones do not retain physical advantages over biological females (a subject of ongoing debate), the ruling says it would not alter the equal protection conclusion. In the past six years, 27 states have enacted laws that maintain female sports for biological females. Additional states are expected to follow suit, in light of Tuesday’s opinion. The ruling does more than just affirm the right of states to pass laws prohibiting biological males from participating in female sports, however. Tuesday’s decision also lays the foundation for female athletes to file lawsuits contending that states are required, not just allowed, to ban trans athletes from women's sports in order to comply with Title IX. Title IX is a landmark federal civil rights law enacted in 1972 that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or education program that receives federal funding. The Equal Protection Clause is a core constitutional guarantee under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It mandates that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws."

In the year of our Lord 2026, CNN apparently still didn’t know what a woman was. In The Situation Room’s immediate reaction to Tuesday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding state bans on men (transgenders) completing in girl’s and women’s sports, CNN journalists openly mourned the outcome. Additionally, one of them suggested that the case involved those who were “assigned the male gender at birth” and “so-called girl’s sports.” Shortly after the media interns sprinted across the Supreme Court’s Front Plaza with the written opinions, CNN chief legal correspondent Paula Reid mourned the ruling: We just got a really important case about transgender athletes in student sports, and it does appear that here the Supreme Court says that states can bar transgender students from playing on girls' sports teams. So this is expected based on what we saw in oral argument, but it's the latest in a series of defeats for trans Americans amid political backlash, especially in conservative states.   CNN mourns that states can ban men from playing in women's sports. Paul Reid whines: "It's the latest in a series of defeats for trans Americans amid political backlash, especially in conservative states." pic.twitter.com/OuCRLYOE5c — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) June 30, 2026   Co-host Pamela Brown lamented, “this in many ways is not a surprise given this high court.” Of course, she reference the court ruling against allowing medical procedures on minors that would mutilate their bodies and leave them sterile, or, as she called it, “transgender care for minors.” Attempting to downplay the serious nature of the issue, Brown huffed about people opposing transgender issues at all given how small of a population they were. “And also there's a political element of this. Of course, this is an issue that is enmeshed in the culture wars in America, even though a very small percentage of Americans are transgender,” she bemoaned. “That's exactly right,” Reid agreed.   Pamela Brown huffs that people care at all about men completing in women's sports or men being in women's locker rooms or bathroom give how few there are: "Also, there's a political element of this, of course this is an issue that is enmeshed in the culture wars in America, even… pic.twitter.com/TIvomxzHoI — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) June 30, 2026   A short time later, chief legal analyst Laura Coates suggested “the crux of the issue” was about “somebody who was assigned the male gender at birth” being allowed to play in “so-called girl’s sports.” Coates only vaguely alluded to the possibly of there being an issue with biological men competing in women’s sports. Of course, she ignores the grievous injuries and stolen awards and keeps it in the realm of the theoretical: The argument that they were using to support a ban was that there was an unfair advantage provided to those assigned male at birth in women's competition. The other side said no, no, this is sex-based discrimination and it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and therefore you cannot do it. This has been, as Pamela said, at the heart of many culture wars and one about what the unfair advantage may be.   CNN's Laura Coates calls them "so-called girls sports": COATES: Here was the crux of the issue. It was whether or not somebody who was assigned the male gender at birth would be allowed to play in a traditionally so-called girls sports in a public, or a high school, or of… pic.twitter.com/5330RxpHvM — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) June 30, 2026   Playing dumb with how federalism allowed states to decide how things were conducted within their borders (when they didn’t violate the U.S. Constitution), Coates expressed concern of different laws in different states. “And so, you have the potential for a patchwork system as opposed to a workable framework that would be consistent across the board,” she said. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s The Situation Room June 30, 2026 10:02:30 a.m. Eastern (…) PAULA REID: We just got a really important case about transgender athletes in student sports, and it does appear that here the Supreme Court says that states can bar transgender students from playing on girls' sports teams. So this is expected based on what we saw in oral argument, but it's the latest in a series of defeats for trans Americans amid political backlash, especially in conservative states. Now, this is significant because roughly half of the states in this country have similar laws, but this is one of the big cases that we've been watching. We just got it. We didn't have a chance to go all the way through it, but it does appear that the Supreme Court is allowing states to ban athletes from playing - transgender athletes from playing in girl’s sports. PAMELA BROWN: Yeah, and as I mentioned, you know, this in many ways is not a surprise given this high court. It has ruled against transgender care for minors. It has ruled in favor of the Trump administration when it comes to banning transgender people in the military, requiring birth sex and passports. Now, as you just reported, they're upholding these state bans or restrictions on transgender athletes playing. And also there's a political element of this. Of course, this is an issue that is enmeshed in the culture wars in America, even though a very small percentage of Americans are transgender. REID: That's exactly right. And the way this case came before the court, there were a pair of cases, one from West Virginia, one from Idaho. West Virginia, one dealt with high school sports, the Idaho case dealt with a college athlete, and this case coming before the Supreme Court at this time. Again, we watched in oral argument. It did not appear that they were going to be able to rule that these laws are unconstitutional based on the questions the justices were asking. So, this is a significant case. This is again one of the biggest culture war cases that we're seeing. (…) 10:04:39 a.m. Eastern LAURA COATES: This is a monumental decision. Not unexpected, however, given how the oral arguments went. Here was the crux of the issue: It was whether or not somebody who was assigned the male gender at birth would be allowed to play in a traditionally so-called girl’s sports in a public, a high school, or, of course, in the college setting. The argument that they were using to support a ban was that there was an unfair advantage provided to those assigned male at birth in women's competition. The other side said no, no, this is sex-based discrimination and it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and therefore you cannot do it. This has been, as Pamela said, at the heart of many culture wars and one about what the unfair advantage may be. And whether or not gender identity should be included in a sex discrimination case and otherwise. The courts seemed at the onset to be leaning towards this outcome anyway, but the fact that it has now happened now we have 27 or more states, I believe, who have this ban, different colleges, and the NCAA applies it differently to each and every type of sport. And so, you have the potential for a patchwork system as opposed to a workable framework that would be consistent across the board. (…)

Disney-owned ABC News was predictably forlorn on Tuesday in reaction to the landmark Supreme Court ruling protecting women’s sports, bemoaning the “blow” leveled by the decision’s “unavoidable” “exclusion” of “trans athletes” like one in West Virginia who will be “devastated” after having “bravely brought this case.” In addition, they feared the fallout for “the transgender community...on this last day of Pride Month.” Starting on ABC News Live moments after the ruling came down, legal contributor James Sample lamented the impending “exclusion” as “an unavoidable consequence”: ABC News legal contributor James Sample frets the SCOTUS ruling against transgenderism on women’s sports will lead to “exclusion” as “an unavoidable consequence”.... “Justice Kavanaugh, who is himself an addition to a Supreme Court justice, a sports coach of his own, coaches,… pic.twitter.com/LX4ngiBklD — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 30, 2026 Later, during an ABC News Special Report, streaming host Kyra Phillips and Court reporter Devin Dwyer touted the latter’s interview from January with West Virginia trans high school student “Becky” Pepper Jackson, who served as the plaintiff. Dwyer gushed Jackson had “bravely brought this case to the Supreme Court, insisting that she had an equal right to play with the girls,” but the Court turned away this request by upholding a state ban as well as those in 20 other states. He tried to sound hopeful by acknowledging “21 states don’t have bans on transgender athletes,” but couldn’t hide his disappointment because the ruling is “certainly a blow to that transgender community and student athletes on this last day of Pride Month, Kyra.” WATCH: ABC News is very sad about the Supreme Court keeping biological men out of women’s sports, denying trans kids who “bravely brought this case” and “a blow” to trans people everywhere “on this last day of Pride Month”... pic.twitter.com/CRIsKmOIvM — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 30, 2026 Chief White House correspondent and Biden regime apple polisher Mary Bruce had weigh in, huffing, “rarely does a day go by...when the President doesn’t rail against...transgender female athletes in girls and women’s sports.” ABC’s Mary Bruce laments “rarely does a day go by..when the President doesn’t rail against...transgender female athletes in girls and women’s sports” pic.twitter.com/H1aahN7Mfp — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 30, 2026 Back on ABC News Live, Dwyer predicted there’s “no doubt” Jackson and their family are “devastated.” He unspooled more Orwellian drivel: “I asked her if she would continue to play with the boys if this law was allowed to take effect, and she said no, because she is not a boy. She’s never identified as a boy. She has identified as a girl since third grade and she’s never gone through male puberty.” ABC’s Devin Dwyer says “no doubt” West Virginia trans student “Becky” Pepper Jackson is “devastated” because “she’s never identified as a boy” and “has identified as a girl since third grade and she’s never gone through male puberty,” and had “just won the state championship in… pic.twitter.com/4di5G4z4GV — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 30, 2026 “So, this is a big disappointment for her. 16 years old. She actually just won the state championship in West Virginia in — in shot put. But it isn’t necessarily an impact in 21 other states that don’t ban trans athletes. And that’s an important silver lining today for that community,” he added. Dwyer had different emotions about the birthright citizenship case, which went against the President. Touting the “landmark decision,” he said this was “a big win for the immigrant advocates, we should note, who had fought this case, the ACLU, who led the way, Cecilia Wang, herself a birthright citizen, arguing this case before the Supreme Court.” In addition to Bruce cheering the “huge blow to one of President Trump’s signature immigration promises,” Sample took issue with the fact that three justices were firmly in the dissent: ABC News legal contributor James Sample complains three Justices -- Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas -- dissented in the birthright citizenship case, fretting the Overton Window has shifted so far anyone would call into question the 14th Amendment pic.twitter.com/HWVnJMi15n — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 30, 2026 Ironically, Dwyer and Sample had different views about the campaign finance case, with the former predicting more chaos and more ads, while Sample suggested “it may not be a hugely consequential decision” compared to others on the issue (click “expand”): DWYER: [Campaign finance laws] have stood in place for 25 years, Diane, enacted by Congress to prevent even the appearance of corruption in our elections, limiting the amount of money that political parties can spend directly on individual candidates, and those limits were meant to sort of keep in place the, you know, the guardrails of spending in our politics. So individuals who are only limited to donate so much can’t give big fat checks to the political party, who in turn can then spend it on candidates. But today, the Supreme Court said that violates the First Amendment and that parties should be able to spend as much as they want on individual candidates. And so those will now go away. The impact will likely mean more TV ads in our politics, Diane, because individual candidates get preferred rates with local TV stations. This decision now means that political parties who can coordinate with them can get those preferred rates as well. And so, with that added money from the parties, we’ll see more ad spending, particularly as we get closer to the midterm elections this fall. (....) SAMPLE: [T]he federal campaign finance regime that started with Buckley v. Valeo, which is the case that said that, in essence, money in the campaign context operates like speec, and therefore that First Amendment considerations are at the forefront, has changed so much over the last quarter century that these particular limits may that losing these limits may not have a huge impact, because they really only operated effectively in conjunction with other limits that have long since been struck down. So, I think that while we like to have quick takes on this one, it may not be a hugely consequential decision in isolation so much as only in combination. To see the relevant ABC transcript from June 30, click here.