The Supreme Court should resolve the “chaos” caused by lower court judges continuing to order reinstatements of fired executive officials, the Trump administration argued in a Wednesday filing.

President Donald Trump asked the justices to immediately let him fire three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and to finally resolve questions surrounding the president’s ability to remove officials without cause by adding the case to their fall docket.

“The ongoing dysfunction at the agency has put career employees in the untenable position of deciding which Commissioners’ directives to follow, has distracted the agency from its mission of protecting consumer safety, and has done serious harm to the President’s policy agenda,” the application explains. “Put simply, the district court’s decision and the court of appeals’ refusal to stay it have left the CPSC at loggerheads with the President and with itself.”

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision on Tuesday preventing the president from removing the three CPSC members.

Two days after the district court ordered the members’ reinstatement, the officials “annulled a host of agency decisions,” the application notes.

The lower court’s decision also challenges the Supreme Court’s authority, the administration argues, noting the justices’ allowed them to move forward with firing officials in a similar case in May.

In Trump v. Wilcox, the Supreme Court granted Trump’s emergency request to dismiss National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) members, finding the government “faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.”

While the Trump v. Wilcox decision “did not definitively resolve the merits,” it is still “binding precedent,” the administration said.

“This Court should step in to stop lower courts from treating Wilcox like the proverbial excursion ticket—good for one day and trip only,” the administration argued.

District court judges also blocked removals of Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) and the United States Institute of Peace officials after the Wilcox decision, though their orders were paused by the D.C. Circuit Court of appeals.

“Those decisions have subjected the President to ongoing intrusions on his exercise of executive power, have exposed agencies to the disruption of repeated removals and reinstatements, and have required federal courts to continue to resolve emergency applications concerning the removal of executive officer,” the administration wrote. “This Court should grant certiorari before judgment now, hear argument in the fall, and put a speedy end to the disruption being caused by uncertainty about the scope of Humphrey’s Executor.“

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent revealed on Thursday that his department will turn its attention to student loan debt after completing its work on trade and tax policy.

President Donald Trump’s second term has largely focused on negotiating new trade deals and extending his 2017 tax cuts, along with fulfilling campaign promises of eliminating certain taxes. Bessent, appearing on “The Charlie Kirk Show,” said his department would prioritize student loan debt next, noting it currently lacks “a solution,” but that he disagreed with former President Joe Biden’s approach to debt forgiveness.

WATCH:

“Once we have finished trade and taxes here at Treasury, we’re going to take on the student loan portfolio,” Bessent said. “We don’t have a solution for what’s going on there, but I do think that just forgiving student debt was unacceptable.”

“I think that there is a firm and humane way to deal with the student debt crisis. And we are going to be focused on that here at Treasury,” he continued. “Because for many young Americans, they’ve started out post-college with the equivalent of a mortgage. So we’re going to be working on that.”

Trump implemented steep reciprocal tariffs on numerous countries starting on April 2 before announcing a 90-day pause that lowered most of them to a 10% baseline while the administration works on cutting new deals.

The House of Representatives sent Trump’s “big, beautiful” bill to his desk for signature on Thursday. It is a tax and immigration bill that enacts a permanent extension of the president’s 2017 tax cuts and delivers on his pledges to remove taxes on tips and overtime pay, along with permanently raising the child tax credit to $2,200.

Despite a Supreme Court ruling that struck down one of Biden’s efforts to forgive student loans in June 2023, the former president repeatedly tried to continue forgiving the loans. The Biden administration boasted in October that it had forgiven $74 billion in student loans for government and public service employees under his tenure.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Supreme Court shot down a district court judge’s bid to circumvent an order allowing the Trump administration to resume third-country deportations.

Though the Supreme Court cleared the path June 23 for the administration to quickly deport illegal migrants to countries not specified in their removal orders, Biden-appointed District Court Judge Brian Murphy claimed hours later that one of his orders preventing the deportation of eight migrants to South Sudan remained in effect.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court agreed Thursday that Murphy violated its order, noting the “only authority” he cited was the dissent.

“Our June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full,” the majority held. “The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.”

The Trump administration previously urged the Supreme Court to clarify its order, accusing Murphy of “unprecedented defiance” of the high court’s authority. Murphy’s ruling was “a lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the Executive’s lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals,” the administration wrote its June 24 motion.

Even Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented from the original decision, agreed the lower court could not continue to block the deportations.

“I voted to deny the Government’s previous stay application in this case, and I continue to believe that this Court should not have stayed the District Court’s April 18 order enjoining the Government from deporting non-citizens to third countries without notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a concurring opinion. “But a majority of this Court saw things differently, and I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, that the government “may not deport noncitizens to a country where they are likely to be tortured or killed.”

“Given that the majority can muster no more than a sentence of 80-year-old dictum in support of today’s holding, the District Court can hardly be faulted for reaching a contrary conclusion,” Sotomayor wrote. “The District Court, moreover, had only moments to decide the question, for (unlike this Court) it realized that the lives and safety of eight noncitizens were at stake.”

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

At least partly because of the exhaustive promotions of transgenderism during Joe Biden’s term in the White House, the fight over boys in girls sports and men in women’s showers right now is white hot.

Lawsuits abound, confrontations happen regularly and fullscale battles are erupting over tax money being used for the unscientific ideology, as being male or female is embedded in the human body at the DNA level, and does not change.

Activists claim that boys who say they are girls have every right to be in competitions set up for girls because they believe they are girls, in apparent defiance of federal laws that require fairness for girls and women with their own events and President Donald Trump’s order that the U.S. government recognizes two genders, male and female.

Some states, like Colorado, have gone so far into the agenda that officials discussed taking away the rights of parents who don’t support children who may be coached by leftist teachers and counselors into the ideologies.

Now the Supreme Court is stepping in.

It has agreed to hear arguments in two cases in which extremists are seeking to overturn state laws that protect girls and women in their sports.

“Women and girls have overcome decades of discrimination to achieve a more equal playing field in many arenas of American life – including sports,” explains a petition from the state of Idaho, which is in one of the cases.

“Yet in some competitions, female athletes have become bystanders in their own sports as male athletes who identify as female have taken the place of their female competitors – on the field and on the winners’ podium.”

In a stunning development that happened in just the past few days, the University of Pennsylvania signaled its own defeat in its transgender agenda.

BREAKING:

UPenn will formally apologize for allowing Lia Thomas to compete as a woman.

The tide is turning! pic.twitter.com/Dn9M2WkhKQ

— Laura Powell (@LauraPowellEsq) July 1, 2025

BREAKING: @Penn to APOLOGIZE for allowing male swimmer Lia Thomas to invade the women’s team.

The University will also be adopting definitions for male and female consistent with biological sex, strip all records/titles from Thomas and return them to female swimmers, and issue… pic.twitter.com/YhKfMJAsuA

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 1, 2025

@usedgov’s @EDSecMcMahon: UPenn will be sending personal apologies to every female athlete who was forced to compete against a male. pic.twitter.com/B7TJzuGPUX

— Independent Women’s Forum (@IWF) July 1, 2025

The school has confirmed it is issuing apologies to women it forced to compete alongside a male swimmer, William “Lia” Thomas, and change with him in locker and shower rooms.

It further is removing the “wins” Thomas recorded in competition, and moving those who female swimmers who were in second place as a result.

The government also announced Tuesday that Penn is adopting strict definitions for male and female competitors under White House guidelines.

It happened after the Trump administration suspended $175 million in federal funding to the school, giving university officials an incentive to reach a resolution.

The Supreme Court will hear cases from West Virginia and Idaho.

Supreme Court is taking up a case on laws banning transgender athletes from women’s sports

Should Ketanji recuse herself, since she can’t define what a woman is? pic.twitter.com/pVrjYDt9GF

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) July 3, 2025

West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey asked the court to hear a case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled against the state regarding its law protecting fairness in women’s sports. And Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador is asking the high court to uphold his state’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit stopped the law from going into effect.

“McCluskey said, “It’s a great day, as female athletes in West Virginia will have their voices heard. The people of West Virginia know that it’s unfair to let male athletes compete against women; that’s why we passed this commonsense law preserving women’s sports for women. We are confident the Supreme Court will uphold the Save Women’s Sports Act because it complies with the U.S. Constitution and complies with Title IX. And most importantly: It protects women and girls by ensuring the playing field is safe and fair.”

Labrador said, “Idaho’s women and girls deserve an equal playing field. I am thrilled the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear our case. For too long, activists have worked to sideline women and girls in their own sports. Men and women are biologically different, and we hope the court will allow states to end this injustice and ensure men no longer create a dangerous, unfair environment for women to showcase their incredible talent and pursue the equal opportunities they deserve.”

Kristen Waggoner, of the ADF, which is working with the states, said, “Women and girls deserve to compete on a level playing field. But activists continue their quest to erase differences between men and women by forcing schools to allow men to compete in women’s sports

“This contradicts biological reality and common sense. We should be seeking to protect women’s sports and equal opportunities, and West Virginia’s and Idaho’s women’s sports laws accomplish just that.”

The laws simply say males are not allowed in sports for females.

Just weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Tennessee was allowed to ban minors from receiving “treatments,” for transgenderism, including chemicals and body-mutilating surgeries.

In Idaho, two men sued to be allowed into women’s sports. In West Virginia, a parent sued on behalf of a male child being allowed in girls sports.

An eventual ruling will have vast impact on dozens of states where transgender activists have demanded to have their way with the state laws regarding access to sports.

Reports have confirmed that John McConnell Jr., a federal judge in Rhode Island, long has been a financial supporter of Democrats, contributing some $60,000 to the party’s candidates.

He was nominated to the bench by Democrat Barack Obama.

He’s a former treasurer of the Rhode Island Democratic Committee and chaired the campaign of Providence Mayor David Cicilline.

But what’s gotten attention now is that he’s also documented as being part of an organization that was funded, at least partly, by grants from the federal government.

Then at the same time he, instead of recusing himself from the case over government grants and funding, sided with a team of Democrat state attorneys general who oppose President Donald Trump’s agenda to freeze and cut federal funds being handed out through grants to nongovernmental groups.

A report at Fox News explains that U.S. Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., are asking the judicial council for the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to investigate McConnell over that issue.

Their charge is that the judge has a financial conflict of interest in the outcome of the issue.

McConnell has been making decisions in “a pivotal funding freeze case in Rhode Island brought by 22 states with Democratic attorneys general. The case centers on the Office of Management and Budget’s order in January that federal agencies implement a multibillion-dollar suspension of federal benefits.”

States say they get the money no matter what because Congress approved it, and McConnell agreed, blocking Trump from suspending those payments.

The fight now has gone over McConnell’s head, to the 1st Circuit.

But in his ruling, he had claimed the Trump suspension “fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government.” He claimed the freeze wasn’t rational and showed no “thoughtful consideration” for the consequences.

Issa and Jordan pointed out that McConnell long has been a leader with Crossroads Rhode Island, an organization that has gotten “millions of dollars in federal and state grants.”

“Given Crossroads’s reliance on federal funds, Judge McConnell’s rulings had the effect of restoring funding to Crossroads, directly benefitting the organization and creating a conflict of interest,” Jordan and Issa wrote.

An earlier complaint over McConnell’s ties to Crossroads, and his decision affecting that group’s funding, was filed by America First legal.

And Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., already has filed articles of impeachment against the judge.

It’s only days old, but the Supreme Court ruling that Tennessee is allowed to ban body-mutilating chemical treatments and surgeries on children already is having an impact.

On at least four other states with similar prohibitions.

Just last week, the high court affirmed a state law that bans the infliction of transgender procedures on minors. The 6-3 ruling revealed a pointedly leftist trio on the court demanding the agenda of chemically and surgically altering children to accommodate what almost always is a temporary gender dysphoria.

The majority opinion, supported by the conservative members of the court, was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. The ruling found the Tennessee law does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

It was in orders issued on Monday that the court wiped out other lower court rulings that essentially promoted the transgender ideologies, the scientific impossibility that men can become women or vice versa, as being male or female is embedded down to the DNA level and does not change.

The Washington Examiner explained the cases now are being sent back down to lower courts for reconsideration in light of the ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti.

The orders on Monday involved rulings that previously blocked similar state-level bans on transgender treatments in North Carolina, West Virginia, Idaho and Oklahoma.

“The move means each case must now be reheard under the legal standard articulated in the Skrmetti ruling, which found no violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause in a ban on medical treatments for minors who identify as transgender,” the report explained.

Further, the justices declined to take up a separate case from Kentucky where families were trying to challenge a similar state law.

The appeals courts now assigned the responsibility of changing the outcomes on those cases include the 4th Circuit, 9th Circuit and 10th Circuit.

“Monday’s actions come as the justices continue to weigh whether to take up additional cases, including challenges to school sports participation rules in Arizona, Idaho, and West Virginia that restrict biological boys from competing on girls sports teams,” the report said.

WND reported on the Tennessee case that there are up to 20 other states with similar disputes developing.

The case revolved around the fact, according to the court, the “growing number of states restricting sex transition treatments for minors by enacting the Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity.”

In Tennessee, SB1 “prohibits healthcare providers from prescribing, administering, or dispensing puberty blockers or hormones to any minor for the purpose of (1) enabling the minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s biological sex and asserted identity.”

“At the same time, SB1 permits a healthcare provider to administer puberty blockers or hormones to treat a minor’s congenital defect, precocious puberty, disease, or physical injury,” the court noted.

Three “transgender minors,” their parents, and a doctor challenged the law under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A trial judge halted the law but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed it to take effect, as the law “did not trigger heightened scrutiny and satisfied rational basis review.”

The ruling said SB1 “is not subject to heightened scrutiny because it does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review.”

The law’s classifications are based on age and medical condition.

“Classifications based on age or medical use are subject to only rational basis review,” the court explained.

The court said, “Tennessee determined that administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence carries risks, including irreversible sterility, increased risk of disease and illness, and adverse psychological consequences. The legislature found that minors lack the maturity to fully understand these consequences, that many individuals have expressed regret for undergoing such treatments as minors, and that the full effects of such treatments may not yet be known. At the same time, the State noted evidence that discordance between sex and gender can be resolved through less invasive approaches. SB1’s age- and diagnosis-based classifications are rationally related to these findings and the State’s objective of protecting minors’ health and welfare.”

“In today’s historic Supreme Court win, the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism,” said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. “A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee’s elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand. I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood.”

Commentator Scott Jennings had his fellow CNN talkers grim-faced as he ticked off the many accomplishments of President Trump over the last week.

WATCH

You can see the discomfort written all over these CNN panelists’ faces as @ScottJenningsKY rattles off Trump’s wins this week.

“Nope, we’re not tired of winning yet.”

• Supreme Court shot down “universal” injunctions that blocked Trump’s executive orders.
• Supreme Court also… pic.twitter.com/Ld7DJBDORP

— The Vigilant Fox (@VigilantFox) June 28, 2025

Genteel. Restrained.

Those descriptives often are applicable in Supreme Court opinions when factions, a majority and a dissent, disagree.

It sometimes moves toward the critical, such as when Chief Justice John Roberts and others, disagreeing with the leftist majority at that time that fabricated out of nothing a “right” to same-sex marriage pointed out that there was nothing in the Constitution supporting that scheme.

But all of a sudden, the rantings of Ketanji Jackson, the leftist nominated by Joe Biden who confirmed her lack of ability by assuring senators at her confirmation hearing that she was unable even to define “woman,” are generating a reaction.

Among the paragraphs in the majority opinion on Friday that said entry-level court judges in the federal judiciary have been exercising powers they are not given by the Constitution through their nationwide injunctions, giving President Donald Trump a court victory that could reverberate for presidencies, were the following:

“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

And, “JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’ … That goes for judges too.”

It is in a commentary at the Federalist that the writings of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the majority opinion, were cited as taking “a flamethrower to KBJ’s reality-challenged dissent.”

OMG Justice Amy Coney Barrett basically implied Ketanji Jackson is too dumb or unwilling to read “legalese” – literally her JOB description

She is the most unqualified justice in Supreme Court history. DEI. pic.twitter.com/j7cuh7kWVK

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 27, 2025

A fight over birthright citizen prompted the court case, as the president challenged the multiple lower-court nationwide injunctions issued, but the justices did not comment on the birthright dispute, which now will return to its progression in the court system.

“Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has never been one to shy away from engaging in left-wing political activism while on the bench. And now, it appears some of her Supreme Court colleagues are growing tired of it,” the commentary said.

HOLY CRAP! Amy Coney Barrett absolutely TORCHED Ketanji Brown Jackson in her opinion.

Even Jackson’s colleagues think she’s an absolute clown.

Basically accusing Jackson of being too dumb to read “legalese” pic.twitter.com/XDV2DSlaX9

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 27, 2025

“In its Friday ruling nuking lower courts’ nationwide injunctions against President Trump’s birthright citizenship order, the high court’s majority took a verbal flamethrower to Jackson’s dissenting opinion. As if she were echoing the writing style of legacy media hacktivists, the wannabe Broadway star — who ‘struggl[es] to understand’ a lot of issues that come before the Court — dramatically declared that the majority’s ‘decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.'”

Barrett noted that Jackson’s dissent, “chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.”

She blasted Jackson for adopting the positions of those who believe in a judicial supremacism, that “the judiciary is superior to the other branches of government.”

The opinion includes, “Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a ‘mind-numbingly technical query,’ post, at 3 (dissenting opinion), [Jackson] offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush. In her telling, the fundamental role of courts is to ‘order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop.'”

The majority opinion explained the court’s most junior justice “appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands ‘universal adherence,’ at least where the Executive is concerned.”

The opinion also notes that Jackson apparently doesn’t do the requisite analysis of the law, as it involves “legalese.”

Amy Coney Barrett’s full evisceration of Ketanji Brown Jackson is below. She’s basically asking how KBJ passed the bar. pic.twitter.com/skHbUpDSbL

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) June 27, 2025

It took literally no time at all for those doing satire online to walk through the door that had been opened. From the satire site the Babylon Bee:

Ketanji Brown Jackson Pauses Oral Arguments To Ask Clarence Thomas ‘What Is A Constitution’ https://t.co/oOLGSVBTWW pic.twitter.com/mX4BgZMKLR

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) June 27, 2025

President Donald Trump announced on Friday after the Supreme Court ruled in his favor in a fight over nationwide injunctions from entry-level judges in the federal judiciary that a number of disputes now will be litigated.

Refugee resettlement, sanctuary cities, birthright citizenship, federal funding freezes, taxpayer money used for radical and injurious “trans” surgeries and more.

The actual dispute was over lower court judges who took over the decision-making for the executive branch and issued nationwide injunctions on Trump’s birthright citizenship order. The ruling Friday didn’t address that dispute.

But one senator, John Kennedy of Louisiana, put the legal controversy in terms for the common man: “Anybody who knows a law book from an L.L. Bean catalog knows that federal judges just made up the concept of universal injunctions. … If you disagree with a president or Congress, fill out a hurt feelings report – but you can’t put their actions on hold because you don’t like them.”

The Supreme Court found that the nationwide injunctions at issue went far beyond the authority of the local judges, and those injunctions now are limited to the actual case participants.

A huge rulling by the Supreme Court, smacking down the ridiculous process of nationwide injunctions. Under our system, everyone has to follow the law–including judges! pic.twitter.com/S3Os7RpV6F

— JD Vance (@JDVance) June 27, 2025

BREAKING: President Trump announces LIST OF POLICIES that were blocked on “nationwide injunctions,” but can now PROCEED thanks to SCOTUS.

– Ending birthright citizenship
– Ending funding for sanctuary cities
– Suspending refugee resettlement
– Freezing unnecessary federal… pic.twitter.com/WFzpzxlThw

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 27, 2025

Today SCOTUS made it possible for Americans to finally get what they voted for. No longer will rogue judges be able to seize executive power through bogus nationwide injunctions.

This is a huge win for the American people. pic.twitter.com/rlRmkdqJXh

— U.S. Department of Justice (@TheJusticeDept) June 27, 2025

Anybody who knows a law book from an L.L. Bean catalog knows that federal judges just made up the concept of universal injunctions.

If you disagree with a President or Congress, fill out a hurt feelings report—but you can’t put their actions on hold because you don’t like them. pic.twitter.com/SMPtkPsYKz

— John Kennedy (@SenJohnKennedy) June 27, 2025

.@POTUS: The Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the RULE OF LAW in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions pic.twitter.com/iQUR3xmMt8

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 27, 2025

Trump’s contention is that “birthright citizenship” has been misused to deliver citizenship to any person born on U.S. soil, when the Constitution actually stipulates that citizenship goes to those who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.

That raises the question whether those visiting in America, inside its borders with temporary permission, or even illegally, should be granted that exceptional right.

A report at the Gateway Pundit said, “DOJ Solicitor General John Sauer previously highlighted that federal judges have issued more than 40 nationwide injunctions since January, effectively stalling key executive actions, including the administration’s controversial order to end birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizen parents.”

Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett appeared on Fox Business Thursday to discuss the significance of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling saying states can block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that states can block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds for services like contraception and cancer screenings, advancing the Republican effort to defund the organization. During an appearance on “The Evening Edit,” Jarrett shared Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion.

“It’s huge because you can now defund Planned Parenthood of Medicaid dollars upon which they rely heavily. Just as South Carolina did, the governor had ordered that taxpayer money could not be used to fund abortions at providers like Planned Parenthood, and it was a six to three majority in which Justice Gorsuch made an important point,” Jarrett told Elizabeth MacDonald. “He said elected representatives, not unelected judges, are empowered to make these significant policy decisions.”

Jarrett said the ruling is entirely consistent with the reasoning of the High Court.

WATCH:

“That is, Liz, entirely consistent with the reasoning of the High Court when it overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving decision-making to states. They’re elected officials. And it’s also consistent with federal law that prohibits Medicaid from being used for abortions. The three liberal justices who dissented complained ‘Oh, gee, this is now going to restrict access to health care.’ No, it’s not, ” Jarrett added.

Jarrett said Medicaid patients in South Carolina will still have access to healthcare at over 200 publicly funded clinics across the state, many of which accept Medicaid.

“Medicaid patients can go to any of the 200 publicly-funded clinics in South Carolina, and they take Medicaid. So it doesn’t restrict healthcare,” Jarrett said. “There are two clinics that are Planned Parenthood in South Carolina, but, as I say, there are 200 other Medicaid clinics that take those dollars, and they’re all over. I’m here in South Carolina. They’re all over the state.”

The ruling opens the door for other states to cut Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. The case arises from South Carolina’s 2018 effort to stop taxpayer funding for the abortion provider, which is facing growing financial difficulties. This decision could set a precedent for other states to follow suit amid ongoing financial challenges for the organization.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision has affirmed a requirement in the state of Texas that pornography sites online verify the age of their users.

The fight was brought by organizations that objected to the new law, adopted in 2023.

That, in Texas, requires that “certain commercial websites publishing sexually explicit content that is obscene to minors to verify that visitors are 18 or older.”

Violations can include injunctions and civil penalties.

“Petitioners—representatives of the pornography industry—sued the Texas attorney general to enjoin enforcement as facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. They alleged that adults have a right to access the covered speech, and that the statute impermissibly hinders them.”

The 5th U.S. Court of Appeals said the plaintiffs weren’t likely to succeed on that claim, so they did not deserve an injunction.

“The court viewed H. B. 1181 as a ‘regulatio[n] of the distribution to minors of materials obscene for minors.’ It therefore determined that the law is not subject to any heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment.”

The ruling, delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, who was joined by Justices Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, affirmed.

Justice Elena Kagan disagreed, contending that porn should be readily accessed by children.

She was joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, who earned a spot in America’s history books during her Senate confirmation by being unable, or refusing, to define “woman.”

The majority opinion said the required standard for the case is “intermediate scrutiny” and under that the law survives.

“To determine whether a law that regulates speech violates the First Amendment, the court considers both the nature of the burden imposed by the law and the nature of the speech at issue. Laws that target protected speech ‘based on its communicative content’ are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if ‘they satisfy strict scrutiny.’ Laws that only incidentally burden protected speech are subject to intermediate scrutiny.”

“History, tradition, and precedent establish that sexual content that is obscene to minors but not to adults is protected in part and unprotected in part. States may prevent minors from accessing such content, but may not prevent adults from doing the same. H.B. 1181 has only an incidental effect on protected speech, and is therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny. The First Amendment leaves undisturbed states’ traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective. That power includes the power to require proof of age before an individual can access such speech.”

BREAKING: The Supreme Court has UPHELD Texas’ age-verification law for pornogaphy #txlege pic.twitter.com/8rx5stQbiu

— Brandon Waltens (@bwaltens) June 27, 2025

“It follows that no person—adult or child—has a First Amendment right to access such speech without first submitting proof of age. The power to verify age is part of the power to prevent children from accessing speech that is obscene to them. Where the Constitution reserves a power to the states, that power includes ‘the ordinary and appropriate means’ of exercising it,” the ruling said.

Annie Chestnut Tutor, policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Technology and the Human Person, said, “The Supreme Court’s decision is a historic victory for the fight to protect children from obscenity. Texas’s age verification requirement is constitutional, and states nationwide have a clear pathway forward to implement similar safeguards.

“Exposure to pornography does irrefutable harm to children, and this ruling holds online platforms accountable for willfully providing access to children. Age verification is the only technical solution to consistently and reliably keep children off adult websites. The state not only has a compelling interest to protect children from obscenity—it has a duty.”

“Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative and a senior legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, said, “This ruling rightly places the power in the hands of the people and their elected lawmakers to protect children from sexually explicit content online. The decision is a step toward grounding free speech law in the Constitution, not in decades of judicial invention, and allowing parents and lawmakers to act in the best interests of the next generation.”

The Supreme Court has delivered a stunning blow to the activist judges at the district court level in the federal court system, those judges who sit at the entry level to the federal system: They likely have been exceeding the authority granted to them by Congress.

The fight is over literally dozens of universal injunctions, or nationwide injunctions, that have been delivered against the Trump administration by trial court judges who have positioned themselves to take over and make decisions for the executive branch.

The topics covered by those injunctions in just the first few months of President Donald Trump’s second term include deportations, citizenship, budget cutting and many more.

The Supreme Court, considering the demands by the district judges to exceed their own authority, said, “Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The court grants the government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the majority opinion of the court’s 6-3 ruling.

Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined, and the leftists on the court collaborated on a dissent written by Sonia Sotomayor. Joining her were Justices Kagan and Jackson, the legal scholar who during her Senate confirmation hearings was incapable of defining “woman.”

The ruling said, “The issue raised by these applications—whether Congress has granted federal courts authority to universally enjoin the enforcement of an executive order—plainly warrants this court’s review. On multiple occasions, and across administrations, the Solicitor General has asked the court to consider the propriety of this expansive remedy.”

Now, with Trump in his second term, those injunctions have “increased.”

And with that has the importance of the issue.

“The government is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the district courts lacked authority to issue universal injunctions,” the ruling said. “The issuance of a universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power. The Judiciary Act of 1789 endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over ‘all suits . . . in equity,’ and still today, this statute ‘is what authorizes the federal courts to issue equitable remedies.’

“This court has held that the statutory grant encompasses only those sorts of equitable remedies ‘traditionally accorded by courts of equity’ at our country’s inception.”

The wild orders by district judges – one demanded that the president turn jets already out of American airspace that were deporting illegal alien criminals around mid-flight – oblivious to the question of whether they would have enough fuel to return to their origination points – are simply “not sufficiently ‘analogous’ to any relief available in the court of equity in England at the time of the founding,” the ruling said.

President Trump had appealed three lower court rulings preventing the executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens or migrants on temporary visas from taking effect.

The ruling focuses on the injunctions rather than the birthright citizenship issue because the administration asked the justices in Trump v. CASA to consider limiting the scope of nationwide injunctions that block policies across the entire country.

During oral arguments, Solicitor General John Saur highlighted the dozens of injunctions lower court judges have issued blocking executive policies since January.

The ruling is expected to hit hard at the leftist and anti-Trump agenda of activists judges, and affect a multiple of cases and fights now pending. And it will hit multiple issues. Recent reports confirmed that leftist activists at the state level were scheming to fight Trump in court even before he was elected.

The decision delivered partial stays to the injunctions at issue.

SCOTUS REINS IN ROGUE JUDGES

The Supreme Court FINALLY ruled that the rogue judges imposing universal injunctions against President Trump do not have the authority to do so!

Huge win for President Trump. pic.twitter.com/tEwQzLRw5L

— TJ Roberts (@realTJRoberts) June 27, 2025

SCOTUS REINS IN ROGUE JUDGES

The Supreme Court FINALLY ruled that the rogue judges imposing universal injunctions against President Trump do not have the authority to do so!

Huge win for President Trump. pic.twitter.com/tEwQzLRw5L

— TJ Roberts (@realTJRoberts) June 27, 2025

#BREAKING: The Supreme Court has just issued a MAJOR ruling.

They’ve ruled, 6 to 3, that activist district judges do NOT have the authority to impose injunctions nationwide.

A MASSIVE win for our country and for President Trump!pic.twitter.com/64Q8xtTpLv

— George (@anaveragegeorge) June 27, 2025

In a stunning decision that assists the pro-life cause across America, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood’s demand that a state be ordered to consider it a “qualified provider” and thus eligible for Medicaid program cash.

The justices ruled 6-3 in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic that South Carolina is allowed to legally block the leading player in America’s abortion industry from demanding payment through the Medicaid program.

Seven years ago, Republican South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster signed an executive action telling the state’s Department of Health and Human Services to take the abortion provider off of the state’s Medicaid provider list.

His explanation was that funding to abortionists, even if not used directly for abortions, indirectly funded abortions and such public funding was banned by state law.

He said in a recent statement, “This case is about protecting the sanctity of life and preserving South Carolina’s right to govern itself in a way that reflects the values of its people.”

Justice Neal Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion of the court, and was joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

Ketanji Jackson, one of the three pro-abortion activists on the court, wrote a dissent that would have insisted taxpayers in the state revert to paying their cash to the abortionists, and was joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.

McMaster had said, “South Carolina has made it clear that we value the right to life. Therefore, taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize abortion providers who are in direct opposition to their beliefs. Just as I was in 2018, I am confident in our authority to terminate funding for Planned Parenthood, and I trust that the U.S. Supreme Court will agree.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed our right to exclude abortion providers from receiving taxpayer dollars. Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina’s authority and values – and today, we are finally victorious. My statement: pic.twitter.com/N9fkoPpQ9v

— Gov. Henry McMaster (@henrymcmaster) June 26, 2025

\

JUST ANNOUNCED: Good Thursday. The Supreme Court SCOTUS rules 6-3 in favor of South Carolina BANNING Planned Parenthood from Medicaid, getting taxpayer dollars. DEFUND Planned Parenthood! We won! Save our children! #thursdayvibes

Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan dissent. pic.twitter.com/fmoAeTjZfJ

— AJ Huber (@Huberton) June 26, 2025

JUST IN: The Supreme Court rules 6-3 in favor of South Carolina BANNING Planned Parenthood from Medicaid, getting taxpayer dollars.

It’s OPEN SEASON on Planned Parenthood. Every red state, FOLLOW SUIT!

Abortionists lose, again.

Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan dissent.

The… pic.twitter.com/L2lzPLImqY

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 26, 2025

BREAKING: In landmark 6-3 ruling, SCOTUS says states may ban Medicaid recipients from using planned parenthood clinics.

A major blow to the abortion industry and a massive win for the pro-life movement. pic.twitter.com/9C1S2uG7Uo

— Bad Hombre (@joma_gc) June 26, 2025

A spokesperson for the abortion company’s South Carolina’s two sites claimed, “In just under two years, we’ve already heard countless stories of distress, bodily harm, persecution, and even death, from patients whose care was delayed or denied due to these bans. If anti-abortion lawmakers are allowed to act unchecked, they will revoke our access to this care altogether—with no exceptions. We must continue to take them to task—in the legislature, in the courts, and in our communities.”

Priests for Life National Director Frank Pavone said, “This is one of the unfolding victories of the 2022 Dobbs decision and rightly shows deference to the states. People should not have the right to bar states from disqualifying abortion providers from receiving taxpayer money.”

The court ruling concluded that Medicaid laws do not give individuals the right to bring federal lawsuits against states over this issue.

A statement from the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a pro-life research arm, said, “South Carolina’s victory marks a meaningful step forward in the fight to stop forced taxpayer funding of the abortion industry. It offers a glimpse of what can be achieved nationwide with congressional passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, which would defund big abortion businesses in Medicaid through the budget reconciliation process. Although the Hyde Amendment and similar policies in the majority of states prevent taxpayer dollars from being spent on most abortions, abortion businesses – like Planned Parenthood – still receive hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers each year, freeing them to spend donations on abortion on demand, partisan politics and litigation instead of health care.”

The corporation boasts of doing more than 400,000 abortions a year, collecting nearly $800 million from U.S. taxpayers.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America Director of Legal Affairs Katie Daniel said, “By rejecting Planned Parenthood’s lawfare, the Court not only saves countless unborn babies from a violent death and their mothers from dangerously shoddy ‘care,’ it also protects Medicaid from exposure to thousands of lawsuits from unqualified providers that would jeopardize the entire program. Pro-life Republican leaders are eliminating government waste and prioritizing Medicaid for those who need it most – women, children, the poor, people with disabilities. Planned Parenthood was rightly disqualified. Multi-billion-dollar abortion businesses are not entitled to an unending money grab that forces taxpayers to fund America’s #1 cause of death: abortion.”

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, said, “Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer-funded gravy train is swiftly coming to an end. Its days of posing as a ‘trusted health care provider’ are over as the truth is exposed – most recently, by revelations of botched procedures, open sewage and other horrifying conditions at their facilities across America and the tragic death of yet another young woman following a late-term abortion. The profit-driven abortion industry isn’t merely uninterested in fixing these systemic issues, the Planned Parenthood organization actually forbids donor funds from being spent on quality health care, funneling millions into political activism and litigation instead. Women, children and families deserve so much better – and with community health centers that offer comprehensive care outnumbering Planned Parenthoods 15 to one, women have real choices.”

The ruling found the state’s decision to exclude the abortionists from Medicaid’s list of “any qualified provider,” was allowed in this case as the plaintiff’s lacked any legal grounds for challenging it.

Mat Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said, “The U.S. Supreme Court has rightfully ruled that states can defund abortion. It makes no sense to require states to fund an organization that kills children. Congress did not create a right for individuals to have states pay for their abortions. Taxpayer dollars should never be used to fund abortion or subsidize practices that kill children and harm women.”

Liberty Counsel’s briefs noted, “the law’s language allows for states to disqualify providers that engage in unethical and illegal practices, in which Planned Parenthood has been credibly implicated.”

The corporation was “implicated in unethical and illegal profiteering of aborted baby body parts revealed through undercover videos by undercover journalists Sandra Merritt and David Daleiden. This ‘shadowy proliferation’ of fetal tissue trafficking gives states like South Carolina a compelling interest to deem the abortion giant unqualified and keep Medicaid funds from subsidizing these ‘abhorrent’ practices,” the statement said.

The court said federal law “does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights” in such cases.

“Congress sometimes allows private enforcement through §1983, which authorizes suits against state actors who deprive individuals of federal ‘rights, privileges, or immunities.’ But statutes create individual rights only in ‘atypical case[s].’ … To prove an enforceable right, plaintiffs must show the statute ‘clear[ly] and unambiguous[ly]’ uses ‘rights-creating terms’ with ‘an unmistakable focus’ on individuals.”

It continued, “Congress may not wish to authorize private suits.”

And, “Private enforcement requires showing States ‘voluntarily and knowingly’ consented to private suits, meaning Congress must ‘clearly’ and ‘unambiguously’ alert States that private enforcement was a funding condition.”

Instances of anarchy in the American judiciary are self-evident. There’s Hannah Dugan, the Wisconsin judge who is on video diverting federal ICE agents and apparently helping an illegal alien criminal escape.

She is arguing in court now that she has absolute immunity for anything she does in her courtroom, or even her courthouse.

Just like the kings of civilizations past.

Moving to the national level, leftists long have complained that President Donald Trump disagrees with and doesn’t follow the rulings of the federal court system.

On the first point, they’re right, and Trump never has concealed his disagreements with some of the outlandish rulings – like the order to turn jets deporting illegal alien criminals around while they were in the air to return to America. And other entry level judges who claim to control the executive branch’s decisions nationwide.

On the second point, wrong. As Trump does follow even the rulings to which he has legitimate objections.

But now a leftist and “activist” judge in Boston has decided the Supreme Court rulings don’t apply to him and his court, and the outrage from leftists would compete with crickets for silence.

But the fireworks soon are expected.

WTF? An activist judge in BOSTON decided the Supreme Court ruling allowing Trump to deport illegals to third countries like Sudan DOES NOT APPLY to them.

Stephen Miller: We will hold the judge accountable TOMORROW – expect FIREWORKS.

GOOD!

pic.twitter.com/RQlGs6XLws

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 24, 2025

It was in a 6-3 decision on Monday that the high court gave Trump’s administration a huge victory: deciding that illegal aliens could be deported via “third countries” without requirements that they be allowed to present their case against that.

The fight is over what Trump’s officials have called “the worst of the worst,” violent criminals accused of crimes in America but who were refused permission to return to their home countries.

Several leftist organizations in America fought in the courts on their behalf, claiming they could not be moved to third countries. A leftist judge, the Biden-nominated Brian Murphy, agreed, but the Supreme Court stayed that order.

Some of the criminals have been held in a makeshift room in Africa, guarded constantly by federal officers, because the Trump administration is not allowed to finish the deportation process there.

At the Western Journal was a commentary: “Remember how President Donald Trump’s administration was supposed to listen to judges when they issued injunctions, even if said judge didn’t have jurisdiction over the entire nation? Well, as it turns out, that was all bogus. There is one court that has jurisdiction over the entire nation — the Supreme Court, for all you dullards out there who don’t get the point — and it handed down a ruling in a controversial case. A judge appointed by President Joe Biden is deciding he can ignore that ruling — and the crickets from the left are more deafening than anything you’ll hear in the late, muggy hours of a countryside summer night.”

Tricia McLaughlin of the Department of Homeland Security said the ruling was a victory “for the safety and security of the American people.”

Murphy, instead, insisted, his order “remains in full force and effect, notwithstanding today’s stay of the Preliminary Injunction.”

The Gateway Pundit noted Trump senior adviser Stephen Miller held an opinion on that.

“Yes, this is an incredible victory — the Supreme Court win. It allows President Trump, as the law has long said but the courts have blocked, to send illegal aliens convicted of rape, murder, homicide, assault, battery, and crimes against children to any country around the world that is willing to accept them. Whether that be South Sudan, Somalia, or Ethiopia — any country in the world that is willing to accept these monsters — we can get them out of our country and be free of them forever. The only thing I have to share tonight, Sean — and this is a bit of breaking news — is that the district court judge in Boston has said he’s going to defy the Supreme Court’s ruling. So expect fireworks tomorrow when we hold this judge accountable for refusing to obey the Supreme Court.”

This leftwing radical Biden judge got jammed through the Senate in December, in the lame-duck session after Democrats lost the White House and Senate.

Six months into the job, Massachusetts U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy is now openly defying a Supreme Court order.

Impeach. https://t.co/IPZXvq01Gd pic.twitter.com/0tLkwqMRHk

— Mike Davis (@mrddmia) June 24, 2025

WH Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller says to expect “fireworks tomorrow” after a Boston U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy defied the Supreme Court’s ruling which allows the administration to deport dangerous illegal immigrants to countries other than their… pic.twitter.com/QpkqKRXdAt

— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) June 24, 2025

The fireworks didn’t take long to appear.

Solicitor General John Sauer Tuesday morning was at the Supreme Court, asking for a decision.

“The district court’s ruling of last night is a lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the Executive’s lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals. For over two months now, the Executive has labored under an injunction that this Court yesterday deemed unenforceable. This Court should immediately make clear that the district court’s enforcement order has no effect, and put a swift end to the ongoing irreparable harm to the Executive Branch and its agents, who remain under baseless threat of contempt as they are forced to house dangerous criminal aliens at a military base in the Horn of Africa that now lies on the borders of a regional conflict.”

NEW: The Trump administration asks the Supreme Court to clarify is unexplained ruling that allows the government to send noncitizens to countries where they have no prior ties (third-country removals) without notice or a chance to challenge the decision. https://t.co/o0OTDebnzf pic.twitter.com/QqOCCBTASE

— Katie Buehler (@bykatiebuehler) June 24, 2025

Supreme Court gives Trump major victory in deporting ‘worst’ illegal aliens

The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to more quickly deport illegal migrants to countries not specified in their removal orders.

A majority temporarily blocked a lower court order that required the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to give migrants notice and allow them to raise concerns about potential threats of torture before deporting them to a “third country.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan dissented from the decision.

“Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled,” Sotomayor wrote. “That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable.”

The Trump administration argued the order interfered with their ability to deport “some of the worst of the worst illegal aliens” in its emergency application.

“The United States is facing a crisis of illegal immigration, in no small part because many aliens most deserving of removal are often the hardest to remove,” Solicitor General John Saur wrote in May. “When illegal aliens commit crimes in this country, they are typically ordered removed. But when those crimes are especially heinous, their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. As a result, criminal aliens are often allowed to stay in the United States for years on end, victimizing law-abiding Americans in the meantime.”

District Court Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee, wrote in his original order that plaintiffs “are simply asking to be told they are going to be deported to a new country before they are taken to such a country, and be given an opportunity to explain why such a deportation will likely result in their persecution, torture, and/or death.”

“This small modicum of process is mandated by the Constitution of the United States,” the judge wrote.

Attorneys for the migrants claimed in a brief that the administration “repeatedly sought to remove people as a punitive measure, to some of the most dangerous places on the planet, and with only hours’ notice.”

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that Louisiana’s law requiring public schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms is unconstitutional.

Louisiana has become the first state to require public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom in June 2024 under a new law signed by Republican Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry. A panel of three federal appellate judges ruled that a Louisiana law requiring public schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms is unconstitutional, according to The Associated Press.

The decision represents a victory for civil liberties groups. They say the law violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of separation of church and state, AP reported. The law has sparked controversy, with many critics saying that posting religious texts in public schools would isolate students who do not identify as Christian.

“This is a resounding victory for the separation of church and state and public education,” said Heather L. Weaver, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, AP reported. “With today’s ruling, the Fifth Circuit has held Louisiana accountable to a core constitutional promise: Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must welcome all students, regardless of faith.”

The legal battle began after parents of Louisiana students from various religious backgrounds filed a lawsuit. They said the mandate violated their children’s religious freedoms by forcing them to view a religious document in a public-school setting.

The ruling upholds U.S. District Judge John deGravelles’ previous decision, which declared the mandate unconstitutional and instructed state education officials to halt enforcement. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill disagreed. She said the ruling applies only to the five school districts involved in the lawsuit and announced plans to appeal.

Earlier this month, a group of Arkansas families filed a federal lawsuit against a nearly identical law passed in their state. In April, Republican Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders approved the law, which will take effect in August and apply to all public schools, universities and taxpayer-funded buildings. Parents involved in the lawsuit say that the law forces religion on children and families.

In May, the Texas legislature also approved a Ten Commandments bill. In a previous case, an appeals court ruled that a two-and-a-half-ton Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama State Judicial Building violated the Establishment Clause by creating an “unavoidable” religious display.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor shared her “sadness” Wednesday that children would no longer be able to access experimental and irreversible transgender procedures.

The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s law banning child sex change procedures in a 6-3 decision.

“By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims,” Sotomayor wrote. “In sadness, I dissent.”

Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, agreed with the Biden administration’s argument that Tennessee’s law violates the Equal Protection Clause.

“By depriving adolescents of hormones and puberty blockers only when such treatment is ‘inconsistent with’ a minor’s sex, the law necessarily deprives minors identified as male at birth of the same treatment it tolerates for an adolescent identified as female at birth (and vice versa),” she wrote.

She also drew parallels to the Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down state laws banning interracial marriage as unconstitutional.

“This Court, famously, rejected the States’ invitation in Loving to ‘defer to the wisdom of the state legislature’ based on assertions that “the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt,” she wrote. “What the Court once recognized as an imperative check against discrimination, it today abandons.”

Those searching for evidence of transgender discrimination “need look no further than the present,” Sotomayor wrote, referencing recent policies implemented by the Trump administration.

“The Federal Government, for example, has started expelling transgender servicemembers from the military and threatening to withdraw funding from schools and nonprofits that espouse support for transgender individuals,” she continued.

A report published by the Trump Department of Human Health and Services (HHS) in May found that the “gender-affirming” model of care lacks scientific support. Yet these medical interventions offered to children “carry risk of significant harms including infertility/sterility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone density accrual, adverse cognitive impacts, cardiovascular disease and metabolic disorders, psychiatric disorders, surgical complications, and regret,” according to the review.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed a state law in Tennessee that bans the infliction of transgender procedures on minors.

The 6-3 ruling revealed a pointedly leftist trio on the court demanding the agenda of chemically and surgically altering children to accommodate what almost always is a temporary gender dysphoria.

The majority opinion, supported by the conservative members of the court, was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The ruling found the Tennessee law does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Regarding the state’s SB 1, Justices Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, and Samuel Alito wrote concurring opinions, while Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Ketanji Jackson and Elena Kagan.

“We are asked to decide whether SB1 is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. We hold it is not. SB1 does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review,” Roberts found.

The ruling is significant, as there are about 20 other states that have similar laws preventing the infliction of body alterations and mutilations on minors.

The case revolved around the fact, according to the court, the “growing number of states restricting sex transition treatments for minors by enacting the Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity.”

In Tennessee, SB1 “prohibits healthcare providers from prescribing, administering, or dispensing puberty blockers or hormones to any minor for the purpose of (1) enabling the minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s biological sex and asserted identity.”

“At the same time, SB1 permits a healthcare provider to administer puberty blockers or hormones to treat a minor’s congenital defect, precocious puberty, disease, or physical injury,” the court noted.

Three “transgender minors,” their parents, and a doctor challenged the law under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A trial judge halted the law but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed it to take effect, as the law “did not trigger heightened scrutiny and satisfied rational basis review.”

The ruling said SB1 “is not subject to heightened scrutiny because it does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review.”

The law’s classifications are based on age and medical condition.

“Classifications based on age or medical use are subject to only rational basis review,” the court explained.

In fact, the plaintiffs claimed the classifications were based on sex, but they are not, the ruling said.

“The law does not prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing those same treatments for minors of the opposite sex. SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to any minor to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence, regardless of the minor’s sex; it permits providers to administer puberty blockers and hormones to minors of any sex for other purposes,” the ruling said.

Also, the ruling said, “the court rejects the plaintiffs’ argument that, by design, SB1 enforces a government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex.”

The court said, “Tennessee determined that administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence carries risks, including irreversible sterility, increased risk of disease and illness, and adverse psychological consequences. The legislature found that minors lack the maturity to fully understand these consequences, that many individuals have expressed regret for undergoing such treatments as minors, and that the full effects of such treatments may not yet be known. At the same time, the State noted evidence that discordance between sex and gender can be resolved through less invasive approaches. SB1’s age- and diagnosis-based classifications are rationally related to these findings and the State’s objective of protecting minors’ health and welfare.”

“In today’s historic Supreme Court win, the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism,” said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. “A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee’s elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand. I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood.”

Roberts wrote, “This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”

Leftists who brought the fight to create mandates for transgenderism, one of Joe Biden’s highest priorities while in office, included an official of Lambda Legal, who said, “This is a heartbreaking ruling, making it more difficult for transgender youth to escape the danger and trauma of being denied their ability to live and thrive.”

Sotomayor explained the basis for her claim it is sex discrimination, asserting in her dissent, the “law conditions the availability of medications on a patient’s sex. Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls.”

The Supreme Court has ruled several times in recent years that state governments cannot impose their religious ideology on business operators and require them to abide by, and promote, those beliefs.

Those decisions came from the insistence of Colorado officials that business owners there promote the LGBT lifestyle choices or not do business in the state.

Both times, Colorado lost at the high court, including once when the state’s officials were criticized for their open “hostility” to Christianity.

But the message is getting through, as a judge hearing a case involving a New York photographer ordered to violate her Christian faith in order to do business there has issued an injunction stopping the state’s attack in its tracks.

A report at Townhall explains the development:

“U.S. District Judge Frank P. Geraci Jr. of the District Court for the Western District of New York granted Emilee Carpenter, the photographer, a preliminary injunction shielding her from being compelled to violate her religious beliefs.”

She runs a wedding photography business and New York. Attorney General Letitia James, who recently was accused of mortgage fraud, insisted that the state could force Carpenter to violate her faith.

I’m so thankful to get a big win yesterday for Emilee Carpenter.

Under NY law, Emilee faced up to $100,000 in fines & a year in jail should she decline to create photos & blog posts that violate her faith. Now, NY may not enforce its unjust law against her as the case proceeds. pic.twitter.com/ysI2dX9Yil

— Kristen Waggoner (@KristenWaggoner) May 23, 2025

The federal court confirmed that Carpenter “believes that opposite-sex marriage is a gift from God” and that she uses her company to ” to celebrate such marriages.”

Promoting the LGBT ideology, including same-sex duos, would violate her faith.

The district court said, “The Supreme Court held that a state public accommodation law may violate a business owner’s free-speech rights under the First Amendment to the extent it ‘compel[s] an individual to create speech she does not believe.'”

The judge found that her work product is an expressive product, and she creates works of art that are protected by the Constitution.

Geraci rejected state claims that the work did not include a specific message.

The injunction will be in place, protecting Carpenter from fines and other punishment, while the case moves through the courts.

Not sure exactly where the Constitution has confirmed a government freedom to censor, but that’s apparently what a federal judge has discovered, in order to rule that the organization formerly named the Global Engagement Center and assigned to censor Americans must stay alive.

It is the Federalist confirming that while U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the Center Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference Hub, formerly known as the GEC, was dead, a judge said otherwise.

It is Susan Illston, a judge in the leftist enclave of San Francisco, who has, “through the miraculous powers of an activist judge,” has said no, the report said.

The organization must remain, she is claiming.

The report described GEC, or R-FIMI under its new name, as “the creepy censorship arm within the Department of State that curtails free speech.”

The focal point of the argument, the report said, is “whether the president has the authority to reorganize the federal workplace and trim excess employees or if only unelected local judges have that authority for the entire nation.”

Illston also claimed, in taking over responsibilities of the Executive Branch, “If the State Department has any question about whether planned actions fall within the scope of the court’s injunction, the court orders the department to first raise those questions with the court before taking action.”

Illston’s rant comes because of the president’s agenda to find and eliminate waste, fraud, corruption and criminal activity in the government’s spending programs. He created the Department of Government Efficiency to address the problems.

Illston earlier had used a legal filing from the American Federation of Government Employees and the AFL-CIO to try to destroy Trump plans to save money.

“Rubio made the case that the State Department is not subject to the injunction and planned to move forward with cutting employees and sunsetting R-FIMI, until Illston’s order put that on pause,” the report said.

The ex-GEC organization was assembled by Barack Obama in 2016 and funded with $50 million a year.

The federal tax dollars it got, “helped grease the wheels of the Russian election interference hoax that marred Trump’ first term. The agency was used instead to pressure tech companies to meddle in the 2020 election,” the report said.

US District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco temporarily blocked the US State Department from implementing an agency-wide reorganization plan that includes nearly 2,000 layoffs.

For more top news, subscribe to The Daily Docket: https://t.co/2OT5pYThbu pic.twitter.com/g9Dquvn71e

— Reuters Legal (@ReutersLegal) June 16, 2025

LAWFARE: Democrat Judge Susan Illston has ordered Trump NOT to shutdown the US government’s censorship agency after all. The Clinton judge also ordered Rubio NOT to terminate USAID workers at US embassies. https://t.co/xDXef9My4Y

— @amuse (@amuse) June 16, 2025

A late-term abortionist once accused of blatant infanticide has written a book about her experiences, arguing in a promotional interview that late-term abortion is acceptable… and that preborn children are not “babies.”

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• Late-term abortionist Shelly Sella acknowledged that babies in the third trimester are not mere “clumps of cells,” but are only babies once they’re born.
• Sella further argued that people focus too much on the baby and his or her viability during third trimester abortions.
• She used to work with late-term abortionist George Tiller and has been accused of killing an abortion survivor.

THE DETAILS:

Abortionist Shelley Sella was one of a handful of late-term abortionists working in the United States who became notorious for their ‘work.’ Sella had a long history with the infamous late abortionist George Tiller, and later worked with abortionist Curtis Boyd at Southwestern Women’s Options in New Mexico.

Speaking to Andrea González-Ramírez for The Cut, Sella acknowledged that late-term abortions can be controversial, even among those who support abortion. Yet Sella still made sure to dehumanize the children she kills.

“A third-trimester pregnancy is not ‘a clump of cells.’ It is not ‘tissue,’” she admitted. “Although until birth it is technically a fetus, most would consider a third-trimester pregnancy a baby, and if it were born alive, it would be a baby.”

Sella relies on a half-truth here, being honest about what makes people uncomfortable about late-term abortions, while still refusing to state directly that the preborn human in the womb is unquestionably a human being.

A preborn child does not need to be born to magically become a baby; after all, in the third trimester, a preborn baby can survive outside of the womb, and is already exhibiting and practicing the behaviors he or she exhibits at birth.

She is startled by loud noises and has begun to practice breathing, her eyes produce tears, she can react to light outside of the womb, and she recognizes familiar voices. In the last month of pregnancy, she even develops individual flavor preferences based on the food her mother eats.

But Sella argued that there is too much emphasis put on the fact that preborn children can survive at the age at which she has killed them, and too much emphasis on “the fetus” in general.

She questioned, “But what about the person carrying the pregnancy? What about their capacity to continue the pregnancy and raise a child? What about their life?”

She added:

I think that this focus on the fetus got carried over into the public’s discourse on abortion and into the reproductive-rights discourse.

There has always been discomfort with abortions later in pregnancy that’s led to an unwillingness to talk about more complicated situations.

It’s true that situations may be, as Sella describes it, “complicated.” But surely we can provide better answers to complicated situations than death. Women need support and resources so that they know there are other options that do not include killing an innocent child. As one recent study pointed out, most women have conflicting feelings about getting an abortion, with over half reporting they would have preferred to give birth if they had the resources and support to do so.

But then, if women are given that support, people like Sella might be out of a job — and a lucrative one, at that. As former clinic worker and owner Carol Everett previously said, “Abortion is a skillfully marketed product sold to a woman when she needs help.”

In another recent interview promoting her book, Sella said those seeking third-trimester abortions are “the most desperate” and claimed they may have a fetal diagnosis or “difficult life circumstances.” In the clip, she says she wishes people would “open their hearts” to the “most marginalized” who allegedly “need” to kill their preborn children so late in pregnancy:

THE BACKSTORY:

Sella was one of four abortionists featured in the film “After Tiller,” which openly praised late-term abortionists as heroes. Along with Sella, the film spotlighted Warren Hern, Susan Robinson, and LeRoy Carhart as the last four late-term abortionists in the country. Prior to Tiller’s murder, Sella worked in his facility and trained with him; Tiller served as a mentor to her. After Tiller died, Sella relocated to Southwestern Women’s Options (SWO) in New Mexico, a late-term abortion facility previously owned by Boyd.

In 2008, nurse Tina David, who worked at Tiller’s facility, accused Sella of infanticide:

Well, my job, like I said, my job was to hold the leg and count the parts, if it was in pieces.

And this was… maybe 35 weeks. That’s pretty big….It was a big baby…. [the] baby came out, and it was moving. I don’t know if it was alive or if it was nerves, I have no clue.

But Dr. Sella looked up right away at me and took a utensil and stabbed it, right here, and twisted.

And then it didn’t move anymore.

Sella’s medical disciplinary history includes multiple malpractice suits filed on behalf of patients who were injured or killed.

Though Southwestern Women’s Options was responsible for the death of Keisha Atkins after a second-trimester abortion, Sella was not the abortionist responsible in that case. However, she was at fault in the case of Atkins’ sister Nichole, who was repeatedly drugged over a period of several days by Sella, who committed an induction abortion, using misoprostol and digoxin, though Nicole was only 17 weeks pregnant.

The reason why later became clear: documents indicated that Nichole Atkins’ baby was given to the University of New Mexico (UNM). SWO had partnered with the University of New Mexico (UNM) for its research program — which specifically sought “digoxin treated brain.” The most common second-trimester abortion procedure is a dilation and extraction (D&E) procedure, in which the preborn baby is dismembered — not an induction abortion with use of digoxin.

Nichole Atkins had not consented to her baby’s body or organs to be donated. On top of this, Nicole’s procedure was badly botched, with Sella’s cervical dilators causing such pronounced lacerations that Nichole had to have a hysterectomy.

Sella, along with other abortionists at SWO, experimented on hundreds of women, combining abortion drugs with surgical late-term abortion procedures in an effort to speed up the process. Numerous women were injured.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

Today, Sella is retired from committing abortions, which is seemingly why she is now involved with pro-abortion advocacy instead. Unfortunately, pro-abortion media outlets are unlikely to disclose Sella’s full history, allowing her to promote abortion on demand with virtually no pushback.

[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by Live Action News.]

A ruling from the Michigan Court of Appeals means that a prosecutor in Wayne County now must face a court case that charges him with retaliation against a resident for challenging the county’s money-making car forfeiture scheme.

It is the Institute for Justice that explained Robert Reeves sued the county and prosecutor Dennis Doherty.

The decision clears the way for Reeves’s First Amendment and malicious prosecution claims to proceed through the court system.

“Today’s decision sends a powerful message: When government officials abuse their authority to silence critics, they don’t get a free pass,” explained Kirby Thomas West, a lawyer with IJ. “Robert stood up to Wayne County’s unconstitutional forfeiture program, and today the court has confirmed that he has a right to hold the prosecutor accountable for retaliating against him for taking that stand.”

Reeves charged that Doherty twice dragged him into baseless criminal proceedings “to punish him for challenging the county’s civil forfeiture machine,” the IJ explained.

And the court rejected the prosecutor’s claim of absolute immunity, concluding “the assistant prosecutor can be sued for using the criminal process as a tool of retaliation.”

The appeals court explained what had happened.

“After Robert Reeves challenged Wayne County’s controversial civil forfeiture program in federal court, he says the County retaliated—reviving a dormant criminal case and selectively prosecuting him for bringing that suit. The charges against Reeves were ultimately dismissed (twice) for lack of evidence. This appeal asks whether Reeves’s claims of retaliatory prosecution can survive governmental immunity and pleading challenges.”

It said, “Doherty’s immunity turns on the legal character of the conduct alleged—an issue that can be resolved on the face of the original pleadings. Plaintiff alleged that Doherty contacted the new officer in charge of the task force to seek clarification, recommended submission of the warrant request, and directed the officer in charge to file that request. Those allegations suggest that Doherty’s conduct was aimed at reviving a dormant prosecution and falls within the category of investigative or administrative acts, not quasi-judicial ones. Because the alleged conduct is not protected by absolute immunity, the trial court erred in dismissing the claims against Doherty on that basis.”

The fight developed when Javone Williams—an associate with whom plaintiff had previously worked—asked him to meet at a job site, where plaintiff demonstrated that he knew how to operate a skid-steer loader.

“Plaintiff then drove to a nearby gas station, where he was stopped by officers assigned to a Michigan State Police task force investigating thefts of rental equipment from Home Depot. Officers questioned plaintiff about the skid-steer loader, detained him briefly in a local jail, and then released him without filing charges.”

They also grabbed his 1991 Chevrolet Camaro and $2,280 in cash, which were retained as part of “omnibus forfeiture proceedings” submitted to the Wayne County Prosecutor.

Later in 2019 police sought arrest warrants for several individuals, including plaintiff and Williams, but did not follow through with them.

The next year, plaintiff helped lead a federal class action challenging the constitutionality of Wayne County’s forfeiture program, the ruling said.

The day after the case was filed, the county directed state police to release the assets seized from him.

And that same day, Doherty “instigated” a filing for which Doherty again was arrested, leading to a district court to dismiss the charges for lack of evidence.

A second filing also was dismissed sometime later.

The IJ explained the forfeiture scheme was a “controversial legal tool called civil forfeiture” because it let the county confiscate private property without charging any crime.

The IJ said, “While today’s ruling does not end the litigation, it breathes new life into Reeves’s quest to expose the county’s vendetta and to secure damages for the years-long cloud that wrongful felony charges cast over his life and his landmark effort to reform forfeiture in Detroit.”

A unanimous Supreme Court has taken the side of a family whose home was negligently and violently invaded, without any cause, by an FBI SWAT team.

The decision in the Martin v. U.S. case sends the dispute back to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for an evaluation of the legitimate issues.

The raid, in suburban Atlanta, happened, Oct. 18, 2017.

“Officers meant to execute search and arrest warrants at a suspected gang hideout at 3741 Landau Lane but instead stormed 3756 Denville Trace, a quiet family home occupied by petitioners Hilliard Toi Cliatt, his partner Curtrina Martin, and her 7-year-old son,” the court said.

“A six member SWAT team breached the front door, detonated a flash-bang grenade, and assaulted the innocent occupants before realizing their mistake. The cause of the error was Special Agent Guerra’s reliance on a personal GPS device, combined with the team’s failure to notice the street sign for ‘Denville Trace’ and the house number visible on the mailbox.”

The government then refused to pay for the personal injuries and property damage inflicted by the armed agents, so the residents brought a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The opinion noted that the complicated law waives sovereign immunity in lawsuits “as to certain torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment,” but there are multiple statutory exceptions.

“The first is the intentional-tort exception in §2680(h), which bars claims against the government for 11 enumerated intentional torts. The second is the discretionary-function exception in §2680(a), which bars claims against the government that are based on an official’s exercise of discretionary functions.”

The unanimous ruling said the law does allow for lawsuits for assault, battery, false imprisonment, and false arrest to proceed against the United States when the torts are committed by “investigative or law enforcement officers.”

The 11th Circuit earlier had taken a novel approach, claiming the government “can escape liability when an officer’s actions have ‘some nexus with furthering federal policy’ and reasonably ‘comply with the full range of federal law.'”

Reading the law as Congress wrote it, the opinion said, “The statute generally makes the government liable under state law on the same terms as a private individual would be liable under the law of the place where the tortious conduct occurred. Because the FTCA incorporates state law as the liability standard, there is typically no conflict between federal and state law for the Supremacy Clause to resolve. While federal law may sometimes displace state law in FTCA suits where a constitutional text or federal statute supplies controlling liability rules, the Eleventh Circuit identified no such federal statute or constitutional provision displacing Georgia tort law in this case.”

One of the issues was that the agent who set up the raid threw away his GPS unit, so no evidence could be obtained from that.

WND previously has reported that according to the Institute for Justice, when given a chance, Toi told the agents the address, and they realized they raided the wrong home. There was a warrant, but the address on it was not that of the family’s home. The agents then fled, heading to the correct target.

“When police—including the FBI—raid the wrong house, they must be held responsible for the damages,” said IJ lawyer Anya Bidwell.”

Just a day after America’s largest Protestant group, the Southern Baptists, called for the Supreme Court to overturn the same-sex marriage “right”-creating Obergefell decision, the legal team already working on that project issued a statement that the ruling, biased because at the time two justices had publicly advocated for the creation, is “vulnerable.”

The decision, unleashed on Americans in 2015, had no connection to, or foundation in, the U.S. Constitution, the dissent from the bare 5-4 majority said. In fact, although it cites the 14th Amendment, that doesn’t mention marriage. The Constitution doesn’t mention marriage, meaning that the issue legally needs to be left to the states, under the 10th Amendment.

It is lawyers with Liberty Counsel who have fought for years already against the imposition of the leftist, radical, and anti-Christian ideology.

“As the 10th anniversary of the 2015 Obergefell opinion approaches on June 26, 2025, where ‘five lawyers’ on the U.S. Supreme Court abused their duty to interpret the Constitution and invented a so-called ‘right’ to ‘same-sex marriage,’ there is one legal case that could challenge it,” the team explained.

The case involves former Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, the first victim of this disastrous opinion, who was sent to prison for six days for refusing to issue marriage licenses while waiting for a religious accommodation.

The organization said besides the Southern Baptists’ actions, there already is a growing consensus to overturn the opinion, even support from the high court.

“In his concurring opinion in Dobbs that overturned Roe, Justice Thomas stated that the rationale the High Court used to reverse abortion rights should be the same in overturning other court-established rights, such as ‘same-sex marriage,'” Liberty Counsel said.

And lawmakers in at least four states have introduced resolutions calling for Obergefell to be overturned.

Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver said, “The U.S. Constitution provides no foundation for ‘same-sex marriage.’ Obergefell was wrongly decided whereby the Court created a right that is nowhere to be found in the text. We will petition the U.S. Supreme Court because Kim Davis’ case underscores why the High Court should overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. Obergefell threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman.”

Liberty Counsel’s case is Davis v. Ermold, in which Davis, a former Rowan County Kentucky clerk has been held personally liable for not issuing a “marriage” license to David Ermold and David Moore.

On release of the radical Supreme Court ruling, Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses, instead referring same-sex duos to other locations, and never blocked any person from getting such a document.

Since the ruling violated her personal religious beliefs, she was awaiting a procedure that would protect her constitutional rights with an accommodation.

“However, she became Obergefell’s first victim serving six days in jail, and now has a $100,000 jury verdict levied against her personally. Adding to that amount, the judge tacked on $260,000 in attorney’s fees and costs, for a total of $360,000,” Liberty Counsel said.

The ruling from the 6th Circuit denied her request to throw out the verdict, but it cited the dispute as a case of “first impression,” “meaning that Davis presents a novel or unique question of law which the courts have not settled,” a question Liberty Counsel now is presenting to the Supreme Court.

In fact, does the First Amendment protect Davis from liability for damages for “hurt feelings” that erupted as state laws abruptly were trashed without any guidance on procedural changes.

“By taking the case, SCOTUS can do two things – affirm religious freedom for all people and also correct the Obergefell mistake by overruling the 2015 opinion. SCOTUS can return the religious and governmental institution of marriage back to the states in similar fashion as it did when it found no right to an abortion in the Constitution in the 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade,” Liberty Counsel said.

It was Chief Justice John Roberts who wrote, at the time: “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”

And Justice Samuel Alito said, “To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has [previously] held that ‘liberty’ under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’ And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.”

Justice Clarence Thomas said, “In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court read a right to same-sex marriage into the Fourteenth Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text. Several Members of the Court noted that the Court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. The Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ‘ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'”

Liberty Counsel pointed out that a majority of those leftists who fabricated same-sex marriage, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, no longer are on the court.

The SBC resolution is, On Restoring Moral Clarity through God’s Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family,” calls for the overturning of “laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God’s design for marriage and family.”

It seeks “laws that affirm marriage between one man and one woman, recognize the biological reality of male and female, protect children’s innocence against sexual predation, affirm and strengthen parental rights in education and healthcare, incentivize family formation in life-affirming ways, and ensure safety and fairness in athletic competition.”

The dissent to Obergefell had warned it would be used to attack the religious rights of Americans, and it has.

For example, officials in just one state, Colorado, have gone to the Supreme Court twice already trying to impose a state-adopted religious belief, which is anti-Christian, on its residents.

Officials there, led by homosexual Gov. Jared Polis, first tried to punish a Christian baker for declining to promote anti-Christian beliefs with his work. The state lost at the Supreme Court, and got scolded for its “hostility” to Christianity. The same thing happened when Colorado officials tried to force a Christian web designer to promote anti-Christian religious beliefs with her work.

Incredibly, officials in that state, after costing taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees for their ideological warfare, have gone to the Supreme Court yet a third time, this time trying to impose their religious beliefs on every counselor in the state.

At the time of the Obergefell ruling, same-sex marriage was illegal in many states.

The pro-marriage Mass Resistance organization said, “The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was passed by a slim 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices. It has caused immense societal havoc across the country. States have been forced to ignore their legitimate laws and constitutional amendments regarding marriage. Governments, businesses, and even schoolchildren have been forced to accept same-sex ‘marriage’ – and by extension homosexual behavior – as normal, under pain of punishments, fines, and even imprisonment.”

The problem with that ruling?

“The First Amendment guarantees free speech, freedom of assembly, religious liberty, and the right to petition government for redress of grievance. By forcing same-sex ‘marriage’ on the country in this way, Obergefell challenged all those rights,” the group reported.

“In order to invent a previously unknown constitutional ‘right’ to same-sex marriage, the 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices used a strategy concocted by the LGBT lawyers. They redefined the Fourteenth Amendment to allow them to effectively change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to ‘two people who love each other,'” the group reported.

But the 14th Amendment actually states: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” and does not mention marriage.

The Obergefell promoters at the time also cited “substantive due process,” which is not in the Constitution.

The decision was biased because two justices, Ruth Ginsberg and Elena Kagan, who joined in creating the new right, already had officiated at same-sex weddings, indicating they had a clear bias in favor.

This is the legacy of Obergefell. pic.twitter.com/riFSFgI8pB

— Ruth Institute (@RuthInstitute) June 12, 2025