The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Thursday in upholding the power of federal regulators to enforce data privacy laws on telecommunications companies.

The 8-1 decision preserved one of the Federal Communications Commission's key tools, though the companies also won a concession from the Republican administration that could shift the regulatory landscape.

The appeal from telecommunications giants Verizon and AT&T challenged a combined $100 million in penalties imposed after the agency determined that the companies had failed to safeguard customer location data.

The companies argued that the FCC's process was unconstitutional because it gave them little opportunity to tell their side of the story in front of a jury.

The administration defended the fines as an essential regulatory tool. But the government also said companies did not have to pay the penalties right away, a regulatory shift in the companies' favor.

The Supreme Court agreed, affirming the FCC's power to order fines when challenges are still available.

"The orders at issue did not settle the carriers' legal obligations because, stated simply, they did not create an obligation to pay," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter, said he would have given the two telecom companies a clearer path to recouping the fines they already paid.

Other agencies use similar enforcement methods, so a sweeping victory for AT&T and Verizon could have had widespread effects, advocates said.

The environmental group Earthjustice applauded the ruling, saying it has direct implications for other agencies and a key energy-efficiency case.

"By rejecting this unsupported attack on agency authority, the Court's decision safeguards the government's ability to enforce laws that protect people, communities, and the environment," said Caroline Flynn, the group's Supreme Court counsel.

The libertarian-leaning New Civil Liberties Alliance was disappointed by the decision, but expected it to help other companies in the future. "In fact, it may even buttress their willingness to challenge future agency orders in federal court before paying any penalties," said the alliance's president, Mark Chenoweth.

A few more carriers may decide to litigate, but the decision leaves the FCC with the power to "publicly announce large fines with much fanfare," said Doug Orvis, a veteran telecom attorney. "It will be interesting to see what happens going forward."

The Supreme Court's conservative majority has sided against federal agencies and limited their power before. That includes overturning a decades-old decision that had given regulators an advantage in court and stripping another agency of a major tool in fighting securities fraud.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a push to avoid a lawsuit alleging that Facebook and Instagram harmed young users, a decision that comes as social media companies increasingly face legal scrutiny.

Parent company Meta Platforms Inc. appealed after Vermont's highest court allowed a suit filed by its attorney general in 2023 to move forward. The company is facing similar lawsuits from states across the country, accusing it of knowingly designing addictive features.

Meta had argued that it can't be sued in Vermont court because neither the company nor the app design has specific ties to the state. Vermont countered that the sites' large number of teen users gives its courts jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal in a brief, unexplained order, as is typical. The procedural decision comes after court losses for Meta and YouTube in social media addiction lawsuits in California and New Mexico.

Vermont's lawsuit was filed after an investigation by a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general in several states. Newspaper reports based on Meta's own research also found that the company knew about the harms Instagram can cause teenagers — especially teen girls — when it comes to mental health and body image issues. One internal study cited 13.5% of teen girls saying Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse and 17% of teen girls saying it makes eating disorders worse.

Almost all teens ages 13 to 17 in the U.S. report using a social media platform, with about a third saying they use social media "almost constantly," according to the Pew Research Center.

Meta, for its part, has said that it has already introduced dozens of tools to support teens and their families and suggested it would have worked with the states on standards for youth social media use.

Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark applauded the decision, saying it affirms "that companies that choose to do business in Vermont, like Meta, can be held accountable when they harm kids."

Two U.S. families went to Italy's highest court Tuesday to challenge the scope of a year-old law passed by Giorgia Meloni's government limiting citizenship claims to Italian descendants removed by more than two generations.

Their lawyer, Marco Mellone, argued before the Cassation Court that the law should apply only to people born after it took effect, potentially opening a pathway to citizenship for millions of people living in the United States and parts of Latin America. Another lawyer represented Italian descendants from Venezuela.

A decision by an expanded panel, which makes the ruling binding in lower courts, is expected in the coming weeks.

A decree by the conservative government in March 2025 put the brakes on previous rules allowing anyone who could prove ancestry after Italy's formation in 1861 to seek citizenship. Italy's constitutional court last month ruled the new law is valid, but Mellone said the supreme court has the power to clarify the scope of the law.

"The families involved in this case are simply descendants ... from an Italian ancestor who emigrated in the late 19th century to the United States, like millions of other people, of other Italians," Mellone said before the hearing. "Today they are invoking their right to Italian citizenship."

Mellone's case would clarify the citizenship rights of the descendants of some 14 million Italians who emigrated between 1877 and 1914, according to Foreign Ministry statistics, and beyond.

While Mellone's case involves two families, another dozen people whose citizenship claims were stopped by the law were present outside the courthouse in solidarity.

Karen Bonadio said she hopes one day to move to Italy on the strength of her ancestry. She brought photos of her as a young girl alongside her Italian-born great-grandparents, who emigrated from Basilicata in southern Italy to upstate New York, along with their birth certificates.

"The new law says, 'all these great-grandchildren didn't know their great-grandparents.' This is from 1963, I think I was 3 1/2," she said, showing the photograph.

At least one of Mellone's cases had been rejected in lower courts before the new law, hinging partially on rulings that Italian emigrants who took on another citizenship before having children cannot pass on Italian citizenship.

Jennifer Daley's case has been working its way through the Italian bureaucracy for nearly a decade. Her grandfather, Giuseppe Dalfollo, immigrated to the U.S. in 1912 from the northern province of Trento when it was under Austro-Hungarian control. He later married an Italian woman and brought her over, and at some point became a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Daley said she always had a strong Italian identity that transcended her last name anglicized by U.S. immigration officials. She petitioned for citizenship because "it is truly a recognition of who I am, where I am from. It's so much more than citizenship. It's everything," Daley, a historian, said by phone from Salina, Kansas.

Outside the courthouse, Alexis Traino said great-grandparents on both her maternal and paternal sides had come from Italy, where she now lives, mainly in Florence.

"My entire life, I grew up knowing — and my parents always emphasized — that I was Italian. I had a very, very strong connection with Italy," said Traino, 34, who was waiting for documents from Italy and the U.S. when the law passed, blocking her case.

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 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.