The Supremes played it straight in its final decisions of the season Tuesday, delivering two knockout rulings — on trans sports and campaign finance — and one on birthright citizenship that reflects a fair reading of the law, even if it disappoints President Donald Trump and immigration hardliners.
Letting states ban trans girls — that is, biological boys — from girls’ sports in publicly funded schools and colleges is a victory for states’ rights and common sense.
Even more important, such bans restore fair competition for biologically female athletes in their sports and relieve the concerns of millions of parents who don’t want boys or men watching their daughters undress and shower in locker rooms, regardless of how they “identify.”
Giving girls and young women equal access to their own sports under Title IX was a hard-fought achievement for women’s rights that was pointedly attacked by the trans lobby, which made a twisted appeal for “fairness.”
Indeed, allowing physically superior biological men to compete on the same playing fields and stand on the same award podiums as young women is the precise opposite of fair play.
The court also lifted restrictions on campaign spending by political parties on their candidates, so-called “coordinated spending.”
True, money isn’t exactly speech, but it’s been well-established — for example, in the Citizens United case — that restricting financing that can pay for pamphlets, commercials, films, etc. — amounts to a restriction of the First Amendment.
Letting political parties work with their candidates isn’t a stretch, nor is it carving out some exotic new vehicle for corruption.
Finally, in a close 5-4 decision, the court ruled against Trump’s executive order ending “birthright citizenship.”
Illegal immigrants, say restrictionists, are quick to have babies here who get automatic citizenship simply by being born on US soil in order to “anchor” their presence in the country.
Birthright citizenship, they say, draws them in, amounting to a loophole that needs to be close.
Yet Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the 14th Amendment doesn’t say anything about the status of the parents of a baby born here, and that the country would need to amend the Constitution to make such a profound change to the definition of American citizenship.
This is a plain reading of the law, and shows deference to long-established judicial rulings.
Restrictionists should nonetheless take heart: Just last week, the court ruled that the president can deny entry to bogus asylum-seekers at the border, which will go a long way to screening out those seeking to have anchor babies here.
Tuesday’s decisions add up to a solid affirmation of common sense, a recognition of shared values and plain, straight-forward reading of the law. Bravo!