WASHINGTON − For the second year in a row, theSupreme Courtended its term with a big win forPresident Donald Trump. This time, the conservative court − which includes three justices appointed by Trump in his first term − limited the ability of judges to block the president's policies as they're being challenged in court. Last year, the courtsaidformers presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, a decision that helped Trump avoid being tried for trying to overturn the 2020 election. And Trump has also been on awinning streakon emergency appeals that the justices decide relatively quickly, without oral arguments. Those emergency actions will continue over the summer, while the court is in recess. But June 27 was thefinal day for decisionson cases the justices have been considering for months. In addition to ruling on the holds judges put on Trump's changes to birthright citizenship, they handed down opinions aboutLGBTQ+ schoolbooks,online porn,Obamacareandinternet subsidies. UpdatesSupreme Court hands down wins for Trump and Obamacare Here are the highlights. Rather than deal directly withbirthright citizenship, thehigh court instead ordered lower courtsto review nationwide blocks on Trump policies. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the 6-3 majority that nationwide orders "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts." Judges have 30 days to review their rulings. "These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,"Trump said. "This was a colossal abuse of power." Attorney GeneralPam Bondi, who complained that 35 of 40 national blocks on Trump policies came from five jurisdictions, said the decision would stop regional judges from becoming "emperors." But states and immigration advocates had warned such a decision would leave a patchwork where newborns are recognized as citizens in nearly half the states where judges have blocked Trump's order but not in other jurisdictions. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit to halt Trump's birthright order in the wake of the high court's decision. "Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. Varu Chilakamarri, a partner at K&L Gates, said the decision could result in more class-action lawsuits or fast-tracking litigation to get decisions from theSupreme Courtfaster. "The Supreme Court's sweeping rejection of nationwide injunctions sharply limits the power of lower courts to block controversial executive actions," Chilakarmarri said. "But all of those paths will inevitably take longer to unfold – making it harder to stop the broad implementation of highly contested policies." The high court didn't consider the constitutionality of whetherTrump's order limiting birthright citizenshipfor the children of parents in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. Bondi said that decision could come in the court's next session starting in October. MaybeJustice Amy Coney Barrettwill stopbeing vilifiedby Trump supporters. Some of the president's loudest supporters called her diversity, equity and inclusion hire after Barrett (and Chief Justice John Roberts) sided with the court's three liberal justices in a March decision that theTrumpadministrationhas to pay foreign aid organizationsfor work they already did for the government. But Barrett authored the big win for Trump. Conservative commentator Sean Davissaid on social mediathat in Barrett's opinion "nuking universal injunctions," she also "juked" the dissent written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. "I want to thank Justice Barrett who wrote the opinion brilliantly," Trump told reporters at the White House. Trump said he wasn't familiar with conservative criticism of Barrett as a "squishy" or "rattled" law professor. "I don't know about that. I just have great respect for her. I always have," Trump said. "Her decision was brilliantly written today, from all accounts." While the justices like to emphasize how many of the decisions they hand down are unanimous, the ones that split along ideological lines are more common at the end of the term. In three of the five full opinions handed down on June 27, the court's six conservatives were on one side and the three liberals were on the other. In the decision, limiting how judges can block Trump's policies, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the president"has made a `solemn mockery' of our Constitution." "Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way," she wrote in her dissent. In response to the majorityupholding Texas' age verification law for pornographic websites, Justice Elena Kagan said the court should've pushed Texas on whether there's a way to stop minors from seeing sexually explicit content with less of a burden on the First Amendment rights of adults to view the content. In the third decision, Sotomayor said requiring schools to let parents remove their children from class when books with LGBTQ+ characters are being read "threatens the very essence of public education." Two more decisions also broke 6-3, but for a different reason. Three of the court's conservatives – Roberts, Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh – joined the three liberals inrejecting conservative challenges to Obamacareand to an internet subsidy program. The court's other three conservatives – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch – dissented. In the latest challenge to the 2010 Affordable Care Act– commonly known as Obamacare – the majorityturned aside an attack on free access to cancer screenings, drugs that prevent HIV, cholesterol-lowering medication and other preventive health care services. And in a case rooted in a longstanding conservative complaint about Congress delegating too much authority to agencies, themajority saidCongress didn't do that when it created a program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans. The court was supposed to announce whether Louisiana could keep its congressional map, a decision that would potentially affect the 2026 elections and states' ability to consider race when drawing legislative boundaries. Instead, the courtsaidit wants to hear more arguments first. Why? They didn't say. When? They didn't say that either, except that they will be laying out a timeline "in due course." The case tests the balancing act states must strike when complying with a civil rights law that protects the voting power of a racial minority while not discriminating against other voters. A group of non-Black voters challenged the map as unconstitutional, arguing it relied too heavily on race to sort voters. The state says it drew the lines to protect powerful incumbents like House Speaker Mike Johnson and to comply with a court's decision that it could reasonably create a second majority-Black district. Democrats have the advantage in that district, which could be a factor when voters decide in 2026 which party will control the closely divided House. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Trump's big win and other takeaways from final Supreme Court decisions