The Supreme Court is taking up one of the term's most consequential cases, President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens, and he was in the courtroom on Wednesday to attend the arguments.

The justices will hear Trump's appeal of a lower-court ruling from New Hampshire that struck down the citizenship restrictions, one of several courts that have blocked them. They have not taken effect anywhere in the country.

Trump is the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the nation's highest court. Crowds watched from the sidewalks as his motorcade drove along Constitution and Independence Avenues, passing the Washington Monument and the National Mall on the way to the court building.

The case frames another test of Trump's assertions of executive power that defy long-standing precedent for a court that has largely ruled in the president's favor — but with some notable exceptions that Trump has responded to with starkly personal criticisms of the justices. A definitive ruling is expected by early summer.

The birthright citizenship order, which Trump signed the first day of his second term, is part of his Republican administration's broad immigration crackdown.

Birthright citizenship is the first Trump immigration-related policy to reach the court for a final ruling. The justices previously struck down global tariffs Trump had imposed under an emergency powers law that had never been used that way.

Trump reacted furiously to the late February tariffs decision, saying he was ashamed of the justices who ruled against him and calling them unpatriotic.

He issued a preemptive broadside against the court on Sunday on his Truth Social platform. "Birthright Citizenship is not about rich people from China, and the rest of the World, who want their children, and hundreds of thousands more, FOR PAY, to ridiculously become citizens of the United States of America. It is about the BABIES OF SLAVES!," the president wrote. "Dumb Judges and Justices will not a great Country make!"

Trump's order would upend the long-standing view that the Constitution's 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, and federal law since 1940 confer citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.

A jury convicted a Wisconsin man of election fraud and identity theft for requesting the ballots of Republican state Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Democratic Racine Mayor Cory Mason without their consent.

Jurors in Racine County on Tuesday found Harry Wait guilty of two misdemeanor election fraud charges and one felony identity theft charge following a two-day trial. He was acquitted of a second count of identity theft.

Wait leads a group that makes false election claims, including that Wisconsin's elections are riddled with fraud and that President Donald Trump won the 2020 election. Trump lost Wisconsin in 2020 by about 21,000 votes.

Wait admitted in 2022 that he requested Vos' and Mason's ballots to try to prove that the state's voter registration system is vulnerable to fraud. Wait told The Associated Press at the time that he wasn't surprised he was charged.

"You got to expect to pay some costs sometimes when you are trying to work for the public good," he said.

His efforts drew praise from Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson in 2022, who called Wait a "white hat hacker."

After the verdict, Wait told WTMJ that he "would do it again." "I tested the system and the system failed," he said.

A sentencing date has not been set. Wait's attorney Joe Bugni did not respond to an email Wednesday asking whether he would appeal.

Wait, 71, faces up to six years in prison on the felony conviction and up to a year in jail on each of the misdemeanor convictions.

His conviction comes after a jury in 2024 found a former Milwaukee election official guilty of misconduct in office after she obtained three military absentee ballots using fake names and Social Security numbers in 2022. Like Wait, Kimberly Zapata argued that she was trying to expose vulnerabilities in the state's election system.

Zapata was fined $3,000 and sentenced to one year probation.

A federal judge has ruled in favor of artificial intelligence company Anthropic in temporarily blocking the Pentagon from labeling the company as a supply chain risk.

U.S. District Judge Rita Lin on Thursday said she was also blocking enforcement of President Donald Trump's social media directive ordering all federal agencies to stop using Anthropic and its chatbot Claude.

Lin said the "broad punitive measures" taken against the AI company by the Trump administration and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared arbitrary, capricious and could "cripple Anthropic," particularly Hegseth's use of a rare military authority that's previously been directed at foreign adversaries.

"Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the U.S. for expressing disagreement with the government," Lin wrote.

Lin's ruling followed a 90-minute hearing in San Francisco federal court on Tuesday at which Lin questioned why the Trump administration took the extraordinary step of punishing Anthropic after negotiations over a defense contract went sour over the company's attempt to prevent its AI technology from being deployed in fully autonomous weapons or surveillance of Americans.

Anthropic had asked Lin to issue an emergency order to remove a stigma that the company alleges was unjustifiably applied as part of an "unlawful campaign of retaliation" that provoked the San Francisco-based company to sue the Trump administration earlier this month. The Pentagon had argued that it should be able to use Claude in any way it deems lawful.

Lin said her ruling was not about that public policy debate but about the government's actions in response to it.

"If the concern is the integrity of the operational chain of command, the Department of War could just stop using Claude. Instead, these measures appear designed to punish Anthropic," Lin wrote.

Anthropic has also filed a separate and more narrow case that is still pending in the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. That case involves a different rule the Pentagon is using to try to declare Anthropic a supply chain risk.

The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Monday sounded skeptical of state laws that allow the counting of late-arriving mail ballots, a persistent target of President Donald Trump.

A ruling, likely to come by late June, that bars counting ballots arriving after Election Day would send officials scrambling in 14 states and the District of Columbia, just a few months before the 2026 midterm congressional elections to change their ballot rules.

An additional 15 states that have more forgiving deadlines for ballots from military and overseas voters also could be affected.

The legal challenge is part of Trump's broader attack on most mail balloting, which he has said breeds fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and years of experience in numerous states. Trump has repeatedly claimed that his loss to Joe Biden in 2020 resulted from fraud even though more than 60 court decisions and his own attorney general said that argument had no merit.

While there was no explicit reference to the 2020 election, several conservative justices gave voice to some of Trump's complaints. Justice Samuel Alito wondered about the appearance of fraud in situations where "a big stash of ballots" that arrive late "radically flipped" an election.

Defending the state law, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart pointed out that the Trump administration and its allies in the case have yet to submit a single case of fraud due to late-arriving mail ballots.

The court's liberal justices indicated they would uphold state laws with post-Election Day deadlines. "The people who should decide this issue are not the courts, but Congress, the states and Congress," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

Forcing states to change their practices just a few months before the election risks "confusion and disenfranchisement," especially in places that have had relaxed deadlines for years, state and big-city election officials told the court in a written filing.

California, Texas, New York and Illinois are among the states with post-Election Day deadlines. Alaska, with its vast distances and often unpredictable weather, also counts late-arriving ballots.

Alaska elections officials said Monday they are preparing for the fall elections under existing law. "If a ruling requires operational changes, we will work through those in coordination with the appropriate state entities to ensure compliance and to provide clear information to voters," the Alaska Division of Elections said in a statement.

Lawyers for the Republican and Libertarian parties, as well as Trump's administration, are asking the justices to affirm an appellate ruling that struck down a Mississippi law allowing ballots to be counted if they arrive within five business days of the election and are postmarked by Election Day.

A federal judge said the government overreached by issuing a declaration that called treatments like puberty blockers and surgeries unsafe and ineffective for young people experiencing gender dysphoria, according to a ruling Thursday in Oregon.

Judge Mustafa Kasubhai's ruling was centered on Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. not going through the proper administrative procedures when issuing the declaration in December.

The declaration also warned doctors that they could be excluded from federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid if they provide these treatments.

The judge also denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case.

The judge's ruling was at the end of a roughly 6-hour hearing and will be followed by a written decision.

"Today's win breaks through the noise and gives some needed clarity to patients, families, and providers," the Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the lawsuit, said in a statement Thursday. "Health care services for transgender young people remain legal, and the federal government cannot intimidate or punish the providers who offer them."

A spokesperson for HHS did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment. The New York Times reported that the judge spoke about the broader implications associated with this case, especially as it relates to democracy.

"The notion that 'I will go forward and issue a declaration and see if we can get away with it' is not a principle of governance that adheres to the overarching commitment to a democratic republic that requires the rule of law to be regarded and respected and honored as a sacred," the judge said.

The decision is the second major legal setback for Kennedy and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services this week. Another federal judge in Boston on Monday temporarily blocked several of Kennedy's vaccine policy changes. The judge ruled Kennedy likely violated federal procedures in revamping a key vaccine advisory committee and slimming down the childhood vaccine schedule without the committee's input. Federal officials have indicated they plan to appeal that ruling.

A coalition of 19 states and the District of Columbia in December sued HHS, Kennedy and its inspector general over the declaration, alleging that it is inaccurate and unlawful and asking the court to block its enforcement.

The lawsuit says that HHS's declaration seeks to coerce providers to stop providing gender-affirming care and circumvent legal requirements for policy changes. It also says federal law requires the public to be given notice and an opportunity to comment before substantively changing health policy — neither of which, the suit says, was done before the declaration was issued.

HHS's declaration based its conclusions on a peer-reviewed report that the department conducted earlier this year that urged greater reliance on behavioral therapy rather than broad gender-affirming care for youths with gender dysphoria.

The report questioned standards for the treatment of transgender youth issued by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and raised concerns that adolescents may be too young to give consent to life-changing treatments that could result in future infertility.

Major medical groups and those who treat transgender young people have sharply criticized the report as inaccurate, and most major U.S. medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, continue to oppose restrictions on transgender care and services for young people.