10 days · 10 summary articles
The US Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a Texas marijuana user in a landmark ruling that narrows a federal law barring drug users from owning firearms, delivering a sharp rebuke to President Donald Trump’s administration. In a 6-3 decision, the justices ruled that the 1968 law—long used to prosecute cases such as Hunter Biden’s—cannot be applied to individuals who use cannabis in states where it is legal. The decision marks a significant setback for the Trump administration, which had defended the statute as a public safety measure.
The ruling comes amid a broader pattern of legal and political turbulence surrounding the Trump administration’s enforcement policies. A Reuters analysis published Thursday found that deaths in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centres have more than doubled during Trump’s second term, rising from 15 in 2024 to at least 34 in 2025 and 2026. Advocates and analysts attribute the surge to overcrowding, understaffing, and inadequate medical care, with advocates warning that systemic failures have created a “humanitarian crisis” in detention facilities.
In a separate development, the Trump administration has asked an appeals court to allow Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to select members of a federal vaccine panel, a move critics argue politicises public health decision-making. The request follows reports that the administration has also removed more than 50 exhibits from national parks that referenced slavery, civil rights, and climate change, with the Department of Justice calling the restoration of these installations “herculean and unmanageable.”
Meanwhile, an American pastor, Paul Guione, faces deportation from Russia after a court in Kamchatka ordered his detention until 27 August. Guione, who was arrested for urging congregants to pray for Trump, has become the latest casualty in a widening crackdown on foreign nationals perceived as political allies of the US president.
The Supreme Court’s gun ruling underscores the judiciary’s growing resistance to Trump’s expansive interpretation of federal authority, even as his administration pushes forward with contentious policies on immigration, public health, and national parks. Legal experts suggest the decision may embolden further challenges to laws tied to Trump’s second-term agenda, particularly those with disproportionate impacts on marginalised communities. With the 2026 midterm elections looming, the rulings and controversies of this week are poised to intensify the political and legal battles shaping the final years of Trump’s presidency.
4 further sources not geolocated