The U.S. Supreme Court issued nine opinions on Thursday and Friday, headlined by its decision on Trump v. CASA, Inc., which effectively advanced President Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship even though justices did not directly rule on that issue.

In that case, the court’s decision — written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and passed 6-3 — limited the scope of federal judges’ rulings, holding that they apply to a given case, not nationwide. In effect, that granted the Trump administration’s request to pause rulings from three federal judges that had blocked his executive order.

Justice Barrett acknowledged that universal injunctions are indeed a “powerful tool to check the Executive Branch” but that such judges are to “resolve cases and controversies” before them, not provide “general oversight” of the executive branch.

“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully,” Barrett continued, “the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

The order did not address the underlying birthright citizenship issue.

Here are some other decisions:

LBTQ+ themes in schools

In another 6–3 decision, the court in Mahmoud v. Taylor ruled in favor of a number of Maryland parents, finding that the Montgomery County school board’s decision to rescind opt-outs for LGBTQ+ content in schools violated their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that “what the parents seek here is not the right to micromanage the public school curriculum, but rather to have their children opt out of a particular educational requirement” that goes against their First Amendment rights.

Planned Parenthood and Medicaid

In another 6–3 decision, the court found that a South Carolina woman lacked legal standing to sue the state over its decision to bar Medicaid funding from being used at Planned Parenthood, which she says she wants to use for “all [her] gynecological and reproductive health care.”

The state, in barring the use of Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood, argued that such public funds provided for permissible services could still indirectly support its ability to provide abortions.

DNA clearance

A decision that opened the way for a Texas death row inmate to sue to challenge the state’s DNA testing laws saw three conservatives — Chief Justice John Roberts, Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh — join with the liberals for a 6–3 ruling in Gutierrez v. Saenz.

For nearly 15 years, Ruben Gutierrez, on death row since his conviction in the 1998 murder of 85-year-old Excolastica Harrison, has been seeking DNA evidence that he believes would clear him of the murder. Texas law, as described in the ruling’s preface, gives prisoners the right to challenge their sentence “but prevents them from obtaining DNA testing to support those petitions unless they can establish innocence of the underlying crime.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, said that Gutierrez’s request “is not mooted by the defendant’s … promise that, no matter the result of a lawsuit, the ultimate outcome will not change. Holding otherwise would allow all manner of defendants to manufacture mootness by ensuring that, no matter what procedures a court requires the defendant to employ, the same substantive outcome will result.”