As some 450,000 New Yorkers face losing the Essential Plan—a public health insurance option—due to $7.5 billion in federal cuts, state lawmakers Gustavo Rivera and Amy Paulin are scrambling to fund a rescue bill before the delayed Albany budget lands. Governor Kathy Hochul’s stance is measured, but advocates argue New York can still burnish its reputation for coverage—a high-wire act with less-than-essential room for error.
New York City in brief
Top five stories in the five boroughs today
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Donald Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship, with the former president making a rare cameo at the proceedings—a first for a sitting president. Justices across the spectrum voiced doubts about rewriting the Fourteenth Amendment via executive order, while statistics from Pew suggested America is hardly alone in offering such rights. We await the court’s ruling, though we suspect the Constitution sleeps soundly tonight.
A phalanx of state attorneys general asked the US Supreme Court to strike down Donald Trump’s 2025 order denying birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants, arguing it flouts the Fourteenth Amendment’s century-old guarantee. The presidential cameo in court added theatre, while justices—Roberts in particular—sounded unimpressed by arguments invoking Roman law and diplomatic exceptions, which rarely settle bets on the American birthright.
New York City’s Council fired back at Mayor Eric Adams’ budget blueprint, unveiling their own approach to plug a $6 billion funding hole without resorting to property tax hikes or hacking away at essential services. After 32 hearings with dozens of agencies, they claim to have identified enough loose change and efficiencies to bridge the gap—resisting the urge to raid the Rainy Day Fund, at least this time around.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v. Barbara, weighing Donald Trump’s executive order terminating birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented or temporary immigrants—a move at odds with longstanding constitutional interpretation, Congressional statutes, and precedent. Even this conservative-majority court seemed skeptical; Trump, never shy with opinions or epithets for Justices, attended in person, perhaps hoping presence might sway where tweets failed. Odds-makers remain unconvinced.