Tag: scotus

What’s Next In The Fight To Stop Schools From Transing Kids After SCOTUS Victory

A few weeks before Christmas in 2022, Amber Lavigne was cleaning her 13-year-old’s bedroom when she stumbled upon her daughter’s secret: a chest binder. She learned that Autumn had been wearing the garment, which girls use to flatten their breasts to achieve a masculine appearance, for about two months at school in Maine, where she had adopted a boy’s name, Leo, and was using he/him pronouns. 

It was the first of two chest binders Lavigne found that had been provided to her eighth-grade daughter by a social worker at the Great Salt Bay Community School, according to a federal lawsuit Lavigne filed in 2023, which is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Her lawsuit alleges that the public school not only aided and abetted Autumn’s gender transition but also hid the information from her parents. 

“I think it’s important for parents to know that this is occurring in our public schools because I don’t think many parents believe that it’s as bad as it really is,” Lavigne said on a recent podcast. “When I was a kid, one of the first things I heard about adults is if any adult asks you as a child to keep a secret, there’s something wrong with that adult, and you need to come tell me immediately.”

“And now, I mean, it’s like we’re in upside-down land.” 

The Maine lawsuit and others like it raise one of the most contentious issues in the broader conflict over transgender policies: whether a parent’s constitutional right to direct their children’s education and medical care extends to a circumstance that society has never grappled with until the past decade or so — a youth’s rejection of their biological sex, adoption of a new name and matching pronouns, and assertion of a new gender identity. And to what extent children who are transitioning or exploring gender options have the right to confidentiality if they worry about rejection and hostility at home.

Keep reading

Bad Faith Noncompliance: Virginia Schools Flout Supreme Court And Trump With DEI ‘Rebrand’

Just over a year ago, President Trump issued two executive orders banning destructive diversity ideology (a.k.a. “DEI” or “diversity, equity, and inclusion”) from the federal government and its contractors, including colleges and universities. The EOs sought to restore merit as the basis of hiring, advancement, and college admissions.

Both EOs reinforced prior actions by the president as well as by the Supreme Court: In his first term, Trump signed EO 13950, Combatting Race and Sex Stereotypes, which banned divisive concepts based on race and ethnicity, a measure duplicated in many states; and in June of 2023, the Supreme Court decided Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard (“SFFA”), which found that diversity rationales for racial preferences in admissions were themselves discriminatory and therefore unlawful.

Notwithstanding these major legal developments against DEI, colleges and universities, especially in Virginia, are continuing business as usual to promote it, albeit under different names, a move known as rebranding. “To avoid scrutiny,” said one official at the University of Virginia, diversity offices are now called offices for “community and belonging,” while “queer brunch” is now marketed as “cozy brunch.” At George Mason University, the DEI office is now called the Office for Access, Compliance, and Community—same staff, same stuff. They do this even though Trump’s EO explicitly banned rebranding, stating such programs are illegal “under whatever name they appear.”

Obviously, bad actor schools are engaged in bad faith noncompliance.

In this 250th anniversary year of America’s founding, we should remember that the word “diversity“ is absent from our foundational documents: it does not appear in either the Declaration of Independence or in our Constitution.

How, then, did “diversity” become so ubiquitous—in education, government, and corporate America—and what does it really mean?

“Diversity” is in fact a top-down, divide-and-conquer strategy pitting Americans against each other based on race, ethnicity, and sex (and now including “gender” and gender ideology). It distracts from—and detracts from—talent and excellence, actually encouraging racial discord as everyone must have skin color or race in mind, rather than achievement or moral character. Accordingly, it destroys nations. Only corrupt politicians, owned and controlled by anti-American handlers, could parrot the lie that “Diversity is our strength.”

Many date the debut of diversity ideology from the 1978 Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, where the medical school of the University of California at Davis had a special admissions program reserving 16 of its 100 open spots for minorities, often with lesser qualifications than white applicants, such as complainant Allan Bakke. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell announced in this opinion that “diversity” was a legitimate governmental interest. But he and the other justices rejected the medical school’s rigid quotas to get there—insisting, instead, that race should be one of many different criteria for admission even while stating that “racial and ethnic considerations are inherently suspect” under the Constitution.

These ambiguities guaranteed more fights about the role of race in college admissions and elsewhere.

In 2003, the Court made matters worse in Grutter v. Bollinger, where Justice Sandra Day O’Connor elevated “diversity” from a permissible state interest to a compelling one, finding that the University of Michigan law school’s racial preferences in admissions were lawful, provided they were tailored and individualized.

Historically, “compelling state interests” concerned public safety, national security, or the protection of minor children. With no history, tradition, or textual basis to do so, the Grutter Court not only shoved diversity onto this list but also put it above a citizen’s right to equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. For this reason, many called the decision illegitimate. In practice, this case was the official government stamp of approval for discrimination against Christian, heterosexual men of European descent, as they are the only demographic said not to contribute to diversity.

Keep reading

Clinton Judge Orders Trump Admin to Refund $130 Billion in Tariffs

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the Trump Administration to refund $130 billion in tariffs.

The US Supreme Court recently struck down President Trump’s tariffs in a 6-3 decision.

The Supreme Court said President Trump does not have the authority to impose the tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The high court’s decision only invalidates Trump’s tariffs under the IEEPA.

Chief Justices Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch sided with the three liberal justices.

Conservative Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh sided with President Trump.

In his dissent, Kavanaugh warned that refunding the tariffs would be a ‘mess.’

The Trump Administration asked for a 90-day delay in refunding the tariffs, but the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request on Monday.

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday rejected the Trump Administration’s request to delay the Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs.

On Wednesday, Judge Richard Eaton, a Clinton appointee, said the Trump Administration to begin refunding $130 billion in tariffs.

Fox News reported:

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Wednesday to begin the drawn-out task of refunding billions of dollars to companies that paid tariffs the Supreme Court recently invalidated.

Judge Richard Eaton, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, laid out the estimated $130 billion refund process in a three-page order, saying it would begin with U.S. Customs and Border Protection calculating what importers would have paid without the now-invalid tariffs. Eaton also made clear he had sole jurisdiction over the refunds, which more than 1,000 companies have sued over in the U.S. Court of International Trade.

“The Chief Judge has indicated that I am the only judge who will hear cases pertaining to the refund of [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] duties,” Eaton wrote. “So there is no danger that another Judge, even one in this Court, will reach any contrary conclusions.”

The case in question was brought by Atmus Filtration, Inc., a company that paid President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which Trump imposed on nearly every country on an emergency basis under IEEPA last year.

Last week FedEx filed a lawsuit seeking a refund.

Keep reading

AI-Generated Art Can’t Receive Copyright Protection After Supreme Court Declines Case

The advancement of AI-generated art suffered a crucial blow this week when the Supreme Court left in place a lower-court ruling that such works cannot be protected under U.S. copyright law.

The original plaintiff, a computer scientist from Missouri named Stephen Thaler, appealed to the Supreme Court after “lower courts upheld a U.S. Copyright Office ​decision that the AI-crafted visual art at issue in the case was ineligible for copyright protection ​because it did not have a human creator,” per Reuters.

Thaler, of St. Charles, Missouri, applied for ⁠a federal copyright registration in 2018 covering “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” visual art he said his AI ​technology “DABUS” created. The image shows train tracks entering a portal, surrounded by what appears to be green and ​purple plant imagery.

The Copyright Office rejected his application in 2022, finding that creative works must have human authors to be eligible to receive a copyright.

According to The Verge, the U.S. Copyright Office issued new guidance last year saying that AI-generated could not enjoy copyright protection, potentially destroying the profitability of text prompts with no original source material. Thaler had also tried to patent his AI-generative works, which has also faced several legal challenges.

“The US federal circuit court similarly determined that AI systems can’t patent inventions because they aren’t human, which the US Patent Office reaffirmed in 2024 with new guidance, stating that while AI systems can’t be listed as inventors on a patent, people can still use AI-powered tools to develop them,” noted The Verge.

Thaler’s lawyers argued admitted that the Supreme Court’s rejection could likely hurt the advancement of AI-generated artworks.

“Even if it later overturns the Copyright Office’s test in another case, it will be too late,” Thaler’s lawyers claimed. “The Copyright Office ​will have irreversibly and negatively impacted AI development and use in the creative ​industry during ⁠critically important years.”

Without copyright protection, AI-generated works would fall under public domain, allowing anyone to copy, sell, or use, essentially destroying the potential to create commercial intellectual property.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Shuts Down New York’s Bid To Redistrict GOP Seat Ahead Of 2026 Midterms

The U.S. Supreme Court shut down a bid by New York courts to redistrict a Republican-controlled congressional seat ahead of the 2026 midterms on Monday.

In its 6-3 ruling, the high court granted an emergency application to temporarily stay (“pause”) a state judge’s efforts to redraw Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis’ congressional district. Malliotakis has represented New York’s 11th Congressional District since 2021 and won reelection by 28 points during the 2024 election.

As described by The Hill, “A state judge had ordered the boundaries be redrawn after ruling the district dilutes black and Latino voting strength in violation of the state constitution.” The Supreme Court’s Monday order “granted Malliotakis’s emergency application to block that ruling as the litigation proceeds, effectively restoring her existing district lines for the midterms.”

The high court noted that the New York court’s ruling “is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the New York state courts” and the filing of a petition at SCOTUS asking the justices to take up the case. The Supreme Court’s stay will terminate if it declines to hear the case or if it agrees to take up the case and renders a verdict on the matter.

Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied Malliotakis’ request for relief.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion in which he expressed agreement with the court’s decision and blasted the New York judge’s directive “that blatantly discriminates on the basis of race.” He noted how the “New York Supreme Court (that State’s trial-level court) ordered the New York Independent Redistricting Commission to draw a new congressional district for the express purpose of ensuring that ‘minority voters’ are able to elect the candidate of their choice.”

Keep reading

SCOTUS Blocks California School Policy Hiding Kids’ ‘Gender Presentation’ From Parents

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major win for California parents seeking to protect their children from LGBT ideology in state schools on Monday.

In its per curiam opinion, the high court vacated a stay (“pause”) issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on a December injunction by a California-based district court judge. That permanent injunction prohibited enforcement of a California policy that permitted or forced school employees to “mislead[] the parent or guardian of a minor child in the education system about their child’s gender presentation at school.”

In his order, District Judge Roger Benitez, a Bush 43 appointee, further required California officials to notify school personnel of his ruling and to include in materials for parents and faculty a statement acknowledging parents’ “federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.”

California parents’ victory was short-lived, however, because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals froze Benitez’s order a few weeks later. In its unanimous ruling, the appellate court’s three-judge panel of Democrat appointees claimed that state officials “have shown that ‘there is a substantial case for relief on the merits,’” and said it was “skeptical of the district court’s decision on the merits.”

The 9th Circuit’s decision prompted plaintiffs to file an application with SCOTUS, in which they requested that the high court vacate the 9th Circuit’s stay and allow Benitez’s injunction to take effect.

In its unsigned opinion, SCOTUS granted the plaintiffs’ request to vacate the 9th Circuit’s injunction “with respect to the parents because this aspect of the stay is not ‘justified under the governing four-factor test.’” The high court noted that the parents are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and that they will suffer “irreparable harm” if the 9th Circuit’s ruling is allowed to remain in place.

The court’s order does not apply to the plaintiff teachers suing over the policy, however. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have granted the plaintiffs’ application in full.

Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Orders CNN to Respond

We have a MAJOR DEVELOPMENT in our landmark case against CNN at the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has just ordered CNN to file a formal response to our petition – the petition we filed to hold CNN and the mainstream media accountable for spreading falsehoods during President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, when they twisted and manipulated what a member of the president’s legal team actually argued. I know because I was there on the floor of the Senate when it happened.

When we filed our petition for writ of certiorari in this critical defamation case, CNN appeared to think it could simply ignore it. That’s a common tactic. If a party believes the Court isn’t likely to take a case, they can waive their response and hope the Justices quietly deny review.

That’s exactly what CNN tried to do.

Their strategy seemed simple: Don’t engage. Don’t draw attention to it. Let it die quietly.

But the Supreme Court didn’t let that happen. Instead, the Court stepped in and ordered CNN to respond – in writing.

That matters.

It doesn’t guarantee the Court will ultimately take the case. But it does signal that at least some of the Justices believe this issue deserves serious consideration.

And it should.

Keep reading

5 Takeaways From Supreme Court’s Rejection of Trump’s Global Tariffs

The Supreme Court on Feb. 20 struck down many of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, stating they violated an emergency powers law he invoked last year.

The president previously declared a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, saying the tariffs were needed to stem the flow of illegal drugs and to combat “large and persistent” trade deficits with foreign nations.

The act generally gives the president the power to regulate imports to address emergencies, but debate ensued over what that meant in practice.

Writing for the 6–3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected Trump’s arguments, saying that the law’s phrasing did not clearly authorize tariffs.

Tariffs enacted under other laws are not affected by the ruling.

Tariffs Not Authorized Under Emergency Law

Roberts said Trump rested his claim of tariff authority on the words “regulate” and “importation” in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which gives the president authority to act.

“The President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Roberts said. “Those words cannot bear such weight.”

Keep reading

Media Silent On KBJ Attending Anti-ICE Grammys After Inventing ‘Scandals’ About Her Colleagues

America’s propaganda media have always applied two very different standards when judging the “ethics and conduct” of U.S. Supreme Court justices. While expending countless resources inventing nothingburger “scandals” of wrongdoing about the court’s originalists, these so-called “defenders of democracy” regularly go out of their way to glamorize the body’s leftist members — no matter how untoward or inappropriate their behavior may seem.

That’s the dynamic that was at play on Sunday evening, when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson attended this year’s anti-ICE Grammy Awards. The Biden appointee made an appearance at the event following the nomination for “best audio book, narration and storytelling recording” for her 2024 memoir, according to USA Today.

While Jackson hobnobbed with Hollywood’s biggest snobs and received a favorable shoutout from host Trevor Noah, many of the night’s (overrated) winners used their acceptance speeches to give us their unwanted thoughts on something they know little to nothing about — immigration enforcement. From expletive-laden comments (“f-ck ICE”) to embarrassing “land acknowledgements,” the leftist-led attacks on lawful efforts to deport illegal aliens (including rapists and other violent criminals) were everything one would expect.

And yet, despite this overwhelming display of uber left-wing partisanship, as of Monday morning, there are no legacy media outlets or major Democrats expressing outrage about Jackson’s Grammy attendance. The same righteous “truth tellers” who were supposedly so concerned about non-scandals like Justice Sam Alito’s wife flying an Appeal to Heaven flag or Justice Clarence Thomas having a rich friend now have nothing to say when Jackson attends an overtly partisan event whose attendees expressed extreme hostility to federal law enforcement.

There are no leftist calls to impeach Jackson. Nor are there any demands for her to recuse herself from immigration-related cases involving the Trump administration — several of which are before the court this term.

The left’s outrage machine is dead silent.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Decision On Mail-In Voting Rules Could Shape Future Elections

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 last week that Rep. Michael Bost, an Illinois Republican, has legal standing to challenge an Illinois election law that allows mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received and counted for up to two weeks afterward, a decision that could shape how voting rules are litigated in future elections.

The case does not decide whether Illinois’ receipt deadline is lawful. Instead, the court revived Bost’s lawsuit and sent it back to lower courts to consider the merits.

Illinois law requires election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified no later than Election Day and received within two weeks of Election Day. Bost and two other candidates sued in 2022, arguing that counting ballots after Election Day conflicts with federal statutes that set a uniform day for federal elections.

Lower courts dismissed the lawsuit on standing grounds, concluding the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficiently direct injury. The Seventh Circuit, for example, pointed to Bost’s past electoral performance and treated alleged campaign costs tied to monitoring late-arriving ballots as voluntary steps taken to avoid a hypothetical harm.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, rejected that approach and held that candidates have a personal stake in vote-counting rules in their own elections. The opinion said an unlawful election rule can harm a candidate in multiple ways, but went further by recognizing an additional interest in “a fair process,” even apart from whether a rule changes the outcome.

In the court’s view, candidates are uniquely affected when the rules for counting votes depart from what the law requires, because the integrity of the process is tied to the legitimacy of whoever wins. The opinion also pointed to the practical consequences of forcing disputes to the last minute, warning that waiting until just before Election Day, or after ballots are counted, risks voter confusion and instability if courts step in too late.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred in the judgment, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, but argued the case should be resolved using a more traditional standing theory. Barrett said Bost had standing because he alleged “pocketbook” harm from added campaign expenses tied to monitoring late-arriving ballots, rather than standing based simply on his status as a candidate.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, arguing the majority’s approach weakens the court’s usual requirement that plaintiffs show a concrete, particularized injury. In her view, an interest in election fairness is broadly shared, and the court’s ruling could invite more candidate-filed lawsuits over election administration rules.

The immediate impact may be procedural but significant: by lowering the barrier to getting into federal court, the ruling could increase pre-election challenges to rules governing vote counting and ballot deadlines, including disputes over how long ballots can arrive after Election Day and still be counted. The decision could also steer litigation earlier in the calendar, rather than after close races, because candidates can sue without proving a substantial risk of losing.

Keep reading