Tag: scotus

Justice Thomas Revives Emergency Injunction in Case to Halt Doctor Investigations Over COVID-19 Criticism

The US Supreme Court is set to once again consider a request to issue an injunction in the Stockton v. Ferguson case, that would prevent the Washington Medical Commission from investigating and sanctioning – effectively, censoring doctors because of their criticism of Covid policies.

The application was originally submitted as part of a lawsuit brought by basketball legend John Stockton, several dozen doctors affected by this censorship, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense (CHD), only to be rejected on November 20 by Justice Elena Kagan.

Two days later, the plaintiffs filed the injunction application again, addressing it at Justice Clarence Thomas, who then decided to schedule a Supreme Court private judicial conference for January 10, 2025.

We obtained a copy of the application for you here.

The justices will decide whether to approve the injunction or deny it, while another possible outcome is that oral arguments will be scheduled, with the case proceeding in that way.

The Washington Medical Commission is investigating the doctors, treating their publicly expressed opinions regarding the controversial measures as “potentially dangerous misinformation” that the state has the right to regulate (a 2018 Supreme Court ruling, however, says that this is not the case).

The doctors, meanwhile, argue that the First Amendment speech protections apply to them as well, regardless of their status as licensed medical professionals, including when their views clash with “medical orthodoxy.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Stunner: Secret Gender Transitions at Schools Allowed to Continue

Lower court said parental rights were not affected when teachers in stealth encouraged children to be transgender.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling that subjugates parental rights to school politics.

The ruling that had come out of the 7th U.S. District Court of Appeals in a Wisconsin fight claimed that parental rights were not affected when schools secretly encouraged children to be transgender, so the parents had no standing to bring the case.

Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas would have granted the petition, according to the court announcement, as it’s an issue that is coming up more and more.

Alito explained, “This case presents a question of great and growing national importance: whether a public school district violates parents’ ‘fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the rearing of’ their children…when, without parental knowledge or consent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender or assists in that process.”

Thomas joined in the statement that added, “We are told that more than 1,000 districts have adopted such policies.”

It is the transgender ideology, which puts its faith in the science-defying concept that boys can become girls and girls can become boys, that has been promoted literally around the globe by the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris regime in Washington. Actually, being male or female is embedded in the human body down to the DNA level and does not change.

The situations involving schools, activist employees, teachers and administrators repeatedly getting caught encouraging children to pursue the transgender ideology and keeping those actions secret from parents.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Justice Alito Obliterates Notion Of Allowing Trans Surgeries & Drugs For Kids

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito destroyed the idea of allowing minors to undergo sex change operations and take gender-bending drugs as he made oral arguments in the United States v. Skrmetti case.

Citing the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, Alito pointed out the risks of puberty blockers and “gender-affirming” treatments outweigh “the expected benefits” of the treatments.

He continued to point to a UK report which found a lack of evidence that the benefits of the treatments outweigh the risks.

After referring to the two foreign studies, Alito asked U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar if she’d like to take back her previous statement that there is overwhelming evidence the treatments have benefits that outweigh the risks and dangers.

Prelogar stood by her claim as she argued on behalf of the Biden administration.

Meanwhile, liberal SCOTUS justices made bizarre comparisons during their arguments in favor of allowing children to undergo sex operations and take sex change drugs.

Keep reading

Justice Sotomayor Compares Risks of Transgender Hormone Therapy for Minors to “Taking Aspirin” as She and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Blast Bans as ‘Sexist’

Obama Justice Sonya Sotomayor made an idiotic and dangerous analogy during Supreme Court oral arguments on Wednesday in a case regarding the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that bars puberty blockers and hormone therapy for so-called transgender minors. 

Twenty-four states currently have laws similar to Tennessee’s dealing with ‘gender-affirming’ care for children. There is no meaningful push to bar adults from mutilating themselves at the moment.

A federal judge in Arkansas ruled last year for the Biden regime and its allies and struck down the Tennessee law. The judge claimed the law ‘discriminates based on sex and targets transgender people’ and that the ‘benefits’ of the health care outlawed by the law are ‘well-established.’

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit quickly reversed the lower court’s decision and allowed the law to go into effect, leading to the Supreme Court taking up the case.

The Supreme Court is expected to render a final decision on the case in June 2025.

During the hearing, Sotomayor likened the risk of irreparable harm, including mental and physical harm and the loss of fertility, from chemical castration on minors to that of “taking aspirin.”

“There is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that’s going to suffer a harm,” said Sotomayor while trying to make the point that children should be able to alter their biological and chemical makeup with synthetic hormones.

Sotomayor may almost be as dumb as Biden Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson, who later piggybacked on Sotomayor’s claims that banning the use of hormones without a legitimate medical purpose is discriminatory on the basis of sex.

Keep reading

Biden Appointed Justice: Banning Child Sex Changes Is Like Banning Interracial Marriage 

Biden’s Supreme Court Justice pick, Ketanji Brown Jackson, the one who can’t describe what a woman is, has argued that banning sex changes on children is akin to banning interracial marriages.

The Supreme Court is currently addressing a case concerning the constitutionality of a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for ‘transgender’ identifying children that was enacted last year.

Jackson confronted Tennessee Solicitor General Matt Rice, who was defending the law, by citing an old case regarding the state of Virginia banning interracial marriage. She then argued that somehow this can be compared to gender reassignment surgery on kids. 

“The question was whether this was discriminatory because it applied to both races,” Jackson said.

“But as I read the statute here, I mean the case here, it states that Virginia is one of the states that punishes marriages on the basis of race,” she continued.

Keep reading

Justice Ketanji Jackson Makes a Fool of Herself During Oral Arguments

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, an extremely important case over state restrictions on medically unnecessary interventions, such as puberty blockers and hormone treatments, for minors experiencing gender confusion. 

At issue is the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that prohibits these procedures for gender-confused kids, though the outcome of this case will have implications for 24 other states enacting similar measures, as it could pave the way for more states to outlaw these practices on kids and potentially adults as well.

“The dispute is the first in which the justices will consider the constitutionality of state efforts to regulate medical interventions for transgender youth, but it comes as Republican-led states have enacted a slew of restrictions targeting transgender individuals, including policies on sports teams and restroom access,” reports CBS News. “President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to restrict medical treatments for transgender minors and bar transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports. And while the Biden administration will argue Wednesday that the Supreme Court should invalidate Tennessee’s law, the incoming Trump administration could reverse the government’s position once it is in power early next year.”

Oral arguments are ongoing, and we’ve already got a cringeworthy claim from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was nominated to the court by Joe Biden.

Keep reading

Food and Drug Administration Defends Refusal To Approve Flavored E-Cigarettes Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court heard the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) appeal in Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC on Monday. The case concerns the FDA’s requirement for scientific studies to approve premarket tobacco applications (PMTAs) for flavored electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) manufacturers and distributors. The FDA’s requirement contradicts data and years of its own guidance for the end of reducing an exaggerated epidemic of underage nicotine use.

Concerns about rampant teen nicotine use are common. They are also commonly exaggerated. NPR originally claimed that “the percentage of high school kids who reported daily vaping of e-cigarettes jumped from 9.7% in 2014 to 30% in 2023.” (The outlet has since printed a correction.) What the FDA and CDC’s 2023 National Youth Tobacco Survey actually said was that 29.9 percent of high schoolers currently using e-cigarette were daily users; only 10 percent of all high schoolers were current users, (down from 14.1 percent in 2022), 90.3 percent of whom used flavored products. If “e-cigarettes have filled the vacuum” left by smoking, as former FDA deputy commissioner William Schultz says to NPR, the vacuum is not as large as people are led to believe.

The 2024 National Youth Tobacco Survey shows that this figure has fallen even further: from 10 percent to 7.8 percent. E-cigarettes have become increasingly unpopular with middle school and high school students despite sales increasing 47 percent from 2019 to 2023. More than 80 percent of this is attributable to flavored products, according to data from the CDC Foundation and Truth, a nonprofit public health organization committed to preventing youth nicotine addiction.

E-cigarettes are not the only product inappropriate for consumption by middle schoolers and high schoolers, alcohol is too. Despite the popularity of Pink Whitney, Fireball, Mike’s Hard Lemonade, and other sugary, colorful alcoholic drinks among high schoolers, federal regulators allow these products to be manufactured and distributed. The prohibition of such goods to adults would be unwarranted, not to mention infeasible. Nonetheless, the paternalistic Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, which grants the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco and nicotine products, restricts what kinds of tobacco products adults may consume.

The Act explicitly “prohibits a cigarette or any of its components from containing…any artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or any herb or spice (including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, and vanilla.” The law also directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the FDA to establish the Center for Tobacco Products and to, among various responsibilities, “develop an action plan to enforce restrictions on the promotion and advertising of menthol and other cigarettes to youth.”

But the Act also “prohibits the secretary from: imposing unduly burdensome requirements” on manufacturers and importers. This provision is problematic for the FDA’s wholesale denial of PMTAs to flavored nicotine products. In the Fifth Circuit’s January 2024 opinion, Judge Andrew Oldham explains that the FDA “sent manufacturers of flavored e-cigarette products on a wild goose chase” by imposing new testing requirements after “promulgat[ing] hundreds of pages of guidance documents” between 2018 and 2020.

Keep reading

Parents Appeal To U.S. Supreme Court After Vermont Courts Ruled Schools Can Vaccinate Kids Against Parents’ Wishes

A Vermont family whose 6-year-old son was vaccinated with an experimental Covid-19 intervention against the family’s wishes has appealed a Vermont Supreme Court ruling. The Vermont court had ruled that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) prohibits such claims, granting immunity to school and government personnel when they mandate vaccinations.    

Stunningly, the Vermont Supreme Court did not even pay lip service to the constitutional liberties implicated, ruling against traditional protections of parental rights and informed consent. But the PREP Act is not above the Constitution’s supremacy clause; it’s the other way around.      

Parents’ rights are being chiseled away rapidly. In Vermont, minor children may obtain transgender hormones and birth control without parental consent, and a 2024 law bars parents from seeing which library books are checked out by their children 12 years and older. Yet these are examples where the child wants something against his parents’ wishes. In Vermont’s Covid-19 vaccination case, the child protested and was forced to be jabbed anyway.

Keep reading

J6 Prisoner Released After Landmark Supreme Court Overturns Obstruction Charge, His ONLY Charge — Watch This Emotional Family Reunion

Nick Ochs, a January 6 defendant and co-founder of the Hawaii chapter of the Proud Boys, has been released from prison after serving less than two years of a four-year sentence.

Ochs, who was convicted under the controversial 1512(c) statute, had his conviction vacated after the Supreme Court overturned the obstruction charge used to jail hundreds of January 6 defendants.

Ochs’s release marks a significant development in the ongoing legal battles faced by January 6 defendants, many of whom were charged under the same statute.

Speaking to The Gateway Pundit, Ochs shared the emotional experience of reuniting with his family.

“I just got released early from Butner Prison where I was a January 6th Hostage doing 4 years. I ended up doing a bit less than 2 total,” Ochs told The Gateway Pundit, adding, “I beat the whole case and am now innocent.”

“The only charge I had was 1512(c), a charge the Supreme Court threw out on June 28 as not a crime anymore—unless someone tampered with paper ballots, which no one did,” he continued.

He also highlighted the significance of his case for other January 6th defendants, many of whom remain behind bars under similar charges.

“I believe my co-defendant and I were among the first to be released, and others will now be citing my case in court,” Ochs noted, expressing hope that this marks a turning point for many innocent J6ers.

Ochs, who was initially threatened with up to 20 years in prison for his actions on January 6th, argued that he was targeted not for any violent act but “for filming the same events in the same place as mainstream media reporters – who were not arrested.”

Keep reading

Despite Supreme Court 1512 Ruling, DOJ Still Cracking Down On J6 Defendants Like Stephanie Baez — Demonstrating That Lawfare Won’t End Until President Trump Is Sworn In And Cleans Out Deep State

In June, the Supreme Court handed J6 defendants a long-awaited victory by effectively gutting the 1512 obstruction of justice statute.

Leading up to that decision, the DOJ had been using the statute in a context totally unrelated to its original intent and purpose.

The statute was enacted shortly after the Enron scandal of the early 2000s to provide oversight into fraud and corruption within the accounting industry.

The law’s originators never conceived of its use in a presidential certification process, much less against peaceful demonstrators who simply exercised their First Amendment rights to protest a contested election.

Nevertheless, radical lawyers within the DOJ, abetted by outside lawfare groups, took it upon themselves to completely pervert the statute’s meaning.

Rather than fighting accounting fraud, it was now being weaponized by vindictive, bad-faith actors within the DOJ to deny J6 political prisoners of fundamental rights, and in many cases, imprison them with cruel and unusually long sentences.

The statute’s vague wording that was the focus of much of the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer had previously given the DOJ convenient cover to stretch its construction to absurd lengths.

This is how a statute enacted to limit the tampering of evidence to protect whistleblowers in a proceeding for accounting fraud became twisted and applied in a completely foreign area – namely, the context of punishing J6 defendants.

Keep reading