US calls on Hamas to accept ceasefire terms now, says White House – as it happened

This live blog is now closed. Read our latest full reports on the Israel-Gaza war and Donald Trump below:

• Hamas negotiators under pressure to release list of hostages to be free
• Trump was wrongly removed from Colorado ballot, supreme court rules

While no members of the court's three-justice liberal minority dissented, they make clear in their concurrence that they aren't happy with the conclusion reached by the majority.

They open with a quote from the conservative chief justice John Roberts's concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the 2022 decision that overturned Roe v Wade and allowed states to ban abortion, where he writes: If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more."

Today, the Court departs from that vital principle, deciding not just this case, but challenges that might arise in the future. In this case, the Court must decide whether Colorado may keep a Presidential candidate off the ballot on the ground that he is an oathbreaking insurrectionist and thus disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation's federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case. Yet the majority goes further. Even though [a]ll nine Members of the Court" agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case, five Justices go on. They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy ... Although only an individual State's action is at issue here, the majority opines on which federal actors can enforce Section 3, and how they must do so. The majority announces that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily, and we therefore concur only in the judgment.

By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.

This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law in state court. It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.

The majority's choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.