Articles & Videos

An anonymous victim of Jeffrey Epstein who has accused President Trump of sexually assaulting her is reportedly living in fear of retaliation.The Guardian reports that the woman identified in the federal government’s Epstein files as “Jane Doe 4” is “living off the grid” and fears retaliation from the Trump administration, according to one of her relatives.“Trauma is brutal. Chronic trauma destroys. She’s coping as best she can,” the relative told the publication, saying the woman had been abused since early childhood. “She’s coping as best she can.”Jane Doe 4 spoke to the FBI in 2019, telling agents she was abused by Epstein in the 1980s and sexually assaulted by Trump when she was between 13 and 15 years old on Hilton Head Island in South Carolina. In March, South Carolina’s Post and Courier confirmed certain details of the woman’s life outlined in the Epstein files. None of these details were related to her allegations against Trump.There’s no evidence the FBI followed up after the woman made the allegations. One of her attorneys, who accompanied her in two of her FBI interviews, said he never received follow-up calls from the agents nor got copies of their reports, which normally are given to defense counsel. In her final FBI interview, the woman cut off contact with the bureau, telling agents that she believed she was being followed.White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told The Post and Courier the woman’s allegations were “baseless accusations from decades ago’’ that “are backed by zero evidence or facts,” describing her as “a sadly disturbed woman who has an extensive criminal history.”The woman’s account is one of the few from the Epstein files that accuse Trump directly, and the Justice Department has been criticized for its handling of her case files. Last week, a federal judge ordered the Justice Department to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act and either release any unreleased Epstein files—including interview notes on Jane Doe 4—or explain why it can’t do so.There are about 2.5 million unreleased government files on Epstein, which were either classified as “duplicative” or remain legally protected by the DOJ for unknown reasons.“It should not be Jane Doe 4’s responsibility to keep coming forward,” Sky Roberts, the brother of Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre, told The Guardian. “She’s already given her testimony to the FBI. It should be Justice’s responsibility to take that evidence and press forward.”

Susquehanna Investment Group sued 100 unnamed defendants who it says placed suspicious trades before Beijing last month targeted three online brokers popular with mainland Chinese investors trading foreign stocks.

Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts called out Justice Samuel Alito’s nonsensical argument about birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that children born in the United States to parents who were undocumented or temporarily in the country are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause. In his separate dissent, Alito argued that immigrant parents, in order for their child to automatically be made an American citizen, could not be subject to any foreign power. But he contended that some people who had done “everything within their power to become United States citizens can be seen as no longer subject to any foreign power.”But Roberts argued that this kind of “ad hoc exemption” was plainly inconsistent with Alito’s own interpretation of the Civil Rights Act. “He does not explain how that exception can be squared with his view of the text, which (to repeat) is that anyone ‘automatically’ made a [‘national’] of his ‘parents’ native country’ was not entitled to citizenship,” Roberts wrote. That wasn’t the only reason Alito’s dissent was a mess. In closing, Alito argued that the majority’s interpretation “saddles this country with an ancient British rule that even the United Kingdom has abandoned,” referring to jus soli, or the right of soil. But the British government scrapped this law by passing the British Nationality Act of 1981—not by asking the courts to rewrite the nation’s founding documents.

The Supreme Court may have upended the White House’s attempt to rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment, but at least one justice pointed Republican lawmakers in a different direction to unravel the birthright citizenship clause.Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed by Donald Trump to the bench in 2018, wrote a dissenting opinion in Trump v. Barbara, despite ruling alongside the majority.His rationale: Trump’s plan to strip American-born second-generation immigrants of their citizenship could work if it were enacted through Congress.“In my view, the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does contravene a federal statute,” Kavanaugh wrote, referring to the law specifying birthright parameters. “Congress could—consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend [this law] or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.”Kavanaugh argued that while Trump’s executive order violated federal law, it did not actually run afoul of the Constitution, even though the federal law echoed the same language employed in the Constitution.The justice noted that Congress had considered numerous amendments to the law over the last 30 years but never actually enacted any of them.Trump has tried and failed multiple times over the last year and a half to strip the constitutionally enshrined right. Mere hours after he was sworn into office, Trump signed an executive order stating that children born to immigrants on temporary visas or who are in the country illegally are not entitled to birthright status. That order was blocked by several judges in different court circuits over the last year.

Everyone needs to hear the sound House Speaker Mike Johnson made when he heard the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that children born in the United States to parents who were undocumented or temporarily in the county are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause. Johnson was in the midst of reciting his reasons for opposing birthright citizenship, when the ruling was read to him by a member of the press. The Louisiana Republican looked crestfallen. “What’s your reaction to that?” one reporter asked, as other members of the press struggled to suppress their laughter. “MmmmMmmm,” Johnson moaned, like he had a bad taste in his mouth. an unhappy Mike Johnson growls when informed in real time by a reporter that the Supreme Court ruled to uphold birthright citizenship pic.twitter.com/VYMw0krto6— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 30, 2026“Well, uh, I need to read the opinion, OK? But uh, obviously that’s, I mean you could say that’s a textualist and originalist view,” Johnson stammered. “But, however, I do think that this has been grossly abused in recent years, and that is the case that’s being made by the plaintiffs of the case, and we’re very sympathetic to that because it’s a serious problem.”The House speaker then suggested that the conclusion from this ruling would be to push for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but he noted the significant obstacles to ratifying such a measure. “I will say I’m very disappointed in that outcome,” Johnson added.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld West Virginia and Idaho state laws banning transgender athletes from competing on teams that align with their gender, further restricting trans rights in the U.S.This is the court’s first ruling on laws regarding trans athletes, and follows last year’s decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti allowing states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors.The ruling contributes to an increasingly bleak legal landscape for trans people in the U.S. Both petitioners argued that the state bans are discriminatory, and violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. One argued that the restrictions are also a violation of Title IX, which prohibits discrimination in schools on the basis of sex.All three liberal justices dissented in the decision, noting that they would have sent the case back for further factual findings on the equal protection claim.Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a partial dissent, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan.“States do have some room to legislate around issues when there exists significant, and genuine, scientific debate,” Sotomayor wrote. “At this point, however, neither the District Court nor the Fourth Circuit has passed upon any of the available evidence or made the necessary factual findings about the state of the scientific debate.“The majority’s opinion ends by reciting the many wonderful ways in which playing sports can be valuable to young people. It can help build resilience, tenacity, leadership, and discipline. It can lead to life-long friendships, community, and a sense of belonging. It can bring joy and the thrill of victory, along with all the lessons one learns from experiencing defeat. The benefits are immense,” Sotomayor continued. “Because of the Court’s decision today, West Virginia, and any other state actor, can deny B. P. J. and others like her these experiences simply because it thinks they have an inherent athletic advantage, even if the facts show that they do not.”“A transgender woman penalized for being perceived as aggressive has experienced discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ just as much as a cisgender woman has, no matter that the transgender woman’s behavior matches expectations of her sex assigned at birth,” Justice Jackson wrote in an additional dissent. “Either way, the institution has imposed its gender-based expectations upon her. And either way, the institution may have violated Title IX.”The majority decision will have national repercussions on transgender athletes competing in youth and college sports. The number of trans athletes participating in these activities is already very slim.Rachel Kahn contributed reporting to this story.

The Supreme Court has tossed another one of the president’s efforts to kill birthright citizenship. In a 6–3 decision filed Tuesday, the court ruled in favor of the 1868 constitutional clause, which entitles any person born on U.S. soil to an American passport, further safeguarding the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment from the Trump administration.Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, writing that “citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.” Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Justice Brett Kavanaugh voted with the majority but wrote a dissenting opinion disagreeing in part with the court’s ruling.Altogether, two Donald Trump appointees—Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett—ruled against the executive order, marking the third such time in recent memory that the president’s Supreme Court appointments have turned against him.Trump has tried and failed multiple times over the last year and a half to strip the constitutionally enshrined right. Mere hours after he was sworn into office, Trump signed an executive order stating that children born to immigrants on temporary visas or who are in the country illegally are not entitled to birthright status. That order was blocked by several judges in different court circuits over the last year.In December, the nation’s highest judiciary agreed to hear another one of the administration’s birthright challenges, this time pertaining to a case out of New Hampshire. The executive branch argued in the case that language included in the Fourteenth Amendment—specifically, “subject to the jurisdiction of”—required applicable children not only to be present in the country at the time of the birth but also to confer their allegiance to the United States. The argument appeared thin at best, considering the administration did not clarify how it expected people who had just been born to declare their allegiance.Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in legal arguments filed at the time that the naturalized citizenship pathway had become “pervasive” with “destructive consequences.”During arguments in May 2025, justices on both ideological sides of the court flamed the Trump administration’s efforts to rewrite birthright citizenship through America’s courts, questioning why the government’s attorneys would even bring the case to the judiciary’s doorstep when “every court has ruled against” the administration on birthright citizenship.At the time, Kavanaugh pressed Sauer into a corner, forcing the solicitor general to admit that the Trump administration doesn’t even know how it would enforce its birthright citizenship order. Sauer managed to appall Barrett by arguing that Trump has the “right” to disregard legal opinions that he doesn’t personally agree with.In Tuesday’s case syllabus, the Supreme Court noted, “If Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design; words appearing frequently in the Executive Order—‘mother,’ ‘father,’ ‘lawful,’ ‘temporary’—are absent from the Clause.”This story has been updated.

In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS sided with GOP states and ruled that their blanket bans on trans student athletes do not violate the Equal Protection Clause.