NEW: @Law360 has created a *public* database of legal challenges involving President Trump's executive orders and other actions. The data is searchable and sortable and will be updated regularly; links to coverage for subscribers. Graphics by Ben Jay.

TL;DR: 5 justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, *Barrett*, Kavanaugh) voted to allow the individual grant cancellations, and 5 justices (Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, *Barrett*, Jackson) found the basis for the cancellations were *likely* unlawful. Barrett says:

What do you want to know?.

The court left standing a Mass. judge's finding that NIH memos directing the cancellations are *likely* unlawful, but held challenges to the individual cancellations need to be brought in a different court (Court of Federal Claims).

BREAKING: A divided Supreme Court ALLOWS the National Institutes of Health to withhold $783 million in funding for research related to "gender ideology," DEI & other disfavored topics with complicated reasoning. Roberts & liberals dissent. #SCOTUS.

#SCOTUS's ruling upholds a 5th Circuit stay of an order that barred enforcement of the law against eight social media giants. Along with its age-verification and parental-consent requirements, the law calls on platforms to prevent or mitigate minors' exposure to harmful content.

BREAKING: The Supreme Court rules social media giants like Facebook, X, YouTube and Reddit MUST COMPLY (for now) with a Mississippi law that they claim unconstitutionally requires them to verify users' ages and obtain parental consent before minors can create accounts.

#SCOTUS's ruling pauses the 8th Circuit's May ruling that Section 2 doesn't "unambigously confer an individual right to sue," which vacated a lower court finding that North Dakota's election map diluted the Native American vote.

BREAKING: The Supreme Court has STAYED an 8th Circuit decision that held individuals cannot sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The decision comes in a North Dakota tribe's challenge to the state's election map. #SCOTUS Justices Thomas, Alito & Gorsuch dissent.

Full story:

BREAKING: The Supreme Court allows President Donald Trump to remove three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission despite an ongoing legal battle over his authority to fire them without cause. The liberals dissent.

BREAKING: The Supreme Court *allows* the Trump administration to move forward with large-scale layoffs at the Department of Education, where the government wants to fire ~50% of the workforce to “streamline” the agency. Liberals dissent. #SCOTUS.

ICYMI: In the two weeks since the Supreme Court curtailed judges' ability to issue universal injunctions, the Trump administration has begun pushing to expand the decision's limits to other avenues of litigation. So far, judges aren't buying it.

RT @bykatiebuehler: In the two weeks since the Supreme Court curtailed federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions, the Trump ad….

So far, district court judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents have adopted a more limited reading of #SCOTUS's ruling – one in line with the interpretation pushed by many plaintiffs challenging the Trump administration's actions.

And class actions, such as those challenging Trump's birthright citizenship executive order, should only apply to a judges' specifical judicial district, not nationally, the administration contends.

Federal judges can't stay agency actions nationally under the Administrative Procedure Act, which has been invoked in ~76% of cases against the administration, and may even lack authority to vacate rules and regulations deemed unlawful, the DOJ argues.

Although #SCOTUS explicitly confined its ruling to universal/nationwide injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789, DOJ attorneys across the country argue judges face similar restrictions on their powers to stay agency actions and certify class actions.

In the two weeks since the Supreme Court curtailed federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions, the Trump administration has begun pushing to expand the decision's limits to other avenues of litigation. So far, judges aren't buying it.

This case *does not* involve the Department of Education cuts.

The order applies to 14/15 of the Cabinet-level agencies and several independent agencies, listed below: