Tag: scotus

Ketanji Brown Jackson Is Neither A Biologist Nor A Qualified Justice

Being a justice on the United States Supreme Court requires legal brilliance, intellectual rigor, strict discernment of and adherence to facts, and logical consistency. Clearly, not every justice on the current court meets these criteria.

This was demonstrated in the courts’ recent “trans” sports decision that now reasonably permits schools, under Title IX, to let biological sex be the determinant of who can and cannot compete on high school and college sports teams. In sum, this was a case about fundamental human reality and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s bold and incoherent dissent from it.

In their landmark 6-3 decision, the majority (Kavanaugh, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett) describe the primary plaintiff — identified as “B.P.J.” in the case — as a biological male who “identifies as female.”

This boy is West Virginia’s Becky Pepper-Jackson, who consistently dominated girls in track and field events. Kristen Waggoner, President of Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization that helped argue this case before the court, said Pepper-Jackson took wins from more than 470 girls over 1,400 competitions. He stole two regional and one state championship from deserving female athletes. In addition to beating girls in sports, Pepper-Jackson also threatened them with sexual assault in the locker room, Waggoner explained to a CNN host.

The majority thankfully never referred to this sexually abusive boy as “transgender” nor by female pronouns, but simply as B.P.J. They chose to not play the gender ideology language game. That was certainly not true for the minority justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson.

They confess “B.P.J. is also transgender” while ignoring the fact that no one is transgender. It is a made-up term with no objective scientific backing. Even the American Psychiatric Association (APA), who regularly carries water for trans ideology, confesses “transgender is a non-medical term” which merely refers to one’s subjective gender-atypical belief or physical presentation. The APA explains the term is used interchangeably with other meaningless ideological words such as “gender non-conforming, genderqueer, bigendered and agendered.”

Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson then write these nonsensical words: “Her sex was identified as male at birth, but she has known from the time that she was ‘very little’ that she is a girl.” 

This is the deceptive talk of gender ideology. These three justices reflexively side with and parrot the child’s obvious mental illness, all while sitting on America’s highest court.

This is bad enough already, but certainly not the worst of it.

Keep reading

Supreme Court won’t block Texas from enforcing a law requiring age verification for app downloads

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to block Texas from enforcing a state law that requires apps stores to verify users’ ages and obtain parental consent for minors seeking to download apps or make in-app purchases on mobile phones.

Justice Samuel Alito, in a pair of one-sentence orders, denied petitions by plaintiffs who claim that the Texas App Store Accountability Act violates users’ constitutional rights to free speech.

Last month, a three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law can take effect. The panel suspended a district court’s ruling last December that the law is unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs suing to block the law include the Computer & Communications Industry Association and Students Engaged in Advancing Texas. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is a defendant in both cases.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that the law impermissibly seeks to limit access to content protected by the First Amendment, including news and educational material.

“Equity and the public interest support relief because protecting First Amendment rights — and parents’ rights to supervise their children as they see fit, not as the government tells them they should — is always in the public interest,” wrote attorneys for Students Engaged in Advancing Texas.

Attorneys from Paxton’s office argued that the law protects children from “dangerous modern products.”

“A child with access to an app store and a mobile device (such as a tablet or smartphone) can potentially download any number of software applications, potentially agreeing to invasions of the child’s privacy and sale of the child’s data and be exposed to any conceivable content without parental consent or even parental knowledge,” they wrote.

Keep reading

Essence Magazine Gets ROASTED for Calling Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘The People’s Champion’ in Cover Story

Essence Magazine is a publication that focuses on black women, but their new cover story about U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is getting them absolutely dragged on social media.

The main criticism is that they are trying WAY too hard to turn her into some kind of celebrity, much like the liberal media did with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

It is apparently not enough that she is a judge who sits on the highest court in the land, she has to be treated like a movie star as well.

Just look this, with the headline: ‘The People’s Champion’

Really?

FOX News reported on the fallout:

Brown Jackson’s latest spotlight moment fuels accusations she’s forgetting her day job: ‘Not celebrities’

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared on the cover of the most recent issue of Essence magazine, spurring critics to argue that she is seeking publicity in ways that are inappropriate for a member of the Supreme Court.

“Supreme Court Justices are not celebrities and should not be treated like celebrities,” Andrew Fleischman, a Georgia trial and appeal lawyer, wrote of the cover.

The magazine’s cover features a picture of Jackson wearing a purple coat and smiling directly at the reader. Underneath Jackson’s photo is a caption that reads “the people’s champion.”…

Jackson’s public appearances outside the court have drawn periodic criticism from some conservatives and legal observers, who argue that events such as the Grammy Awards, Broadway appearances and a Vogue photoshoot risk blurring the line between judicial service and celebrity.

“Ketanji Brown Jackson isn’t supposed to be ‘the people’s champion,’” Billy Binion, a reporter for a libertarian magazine, wrote on X. “She’s not a politician. She’s supposed to interpret the law, not make it. This kind of thing is why so many people misunderstand how our government works at a basic level.”

Keep reading

Connecticut “Human Rights” Commission Defiantly Vows To Ignore SCOTUS And Keep Biological Males In Girls’ Sports

While women and girls across America are celebrating the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling upholding bans on transgender athletes in West Virginia and Idaho, Connecticut’s Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities is doubling down on erasing women’s sports.

In an absolutely tone-deaf statement following the June 30, 2026 B.P.J. decision, the CHRO proudly declared that the ruling “does NOT limit the right of transgender women and girls to participate in sports in CT.”

Let that sink in.

A so-called “Human Rights” commission is openly misappropriating the words “women” and “girls” to describe biological males — and boasting about it.

“In Connecticut, we proudly and loudly protect civil rights,” the CHRO proclaims. Just not the civil rights of actual women and girls who are being displaced, injured, or robbed of scholarships, podiums, and opportunities by biological men in female categories.

The commission vows to continue enforcing its radical “gender identity” antidiscrimination policies (which have been in place since 2011) to ensure “transgender women and girls remain protected and able to participate fully in sports throughout our state.”

Notice the language.

They don’t say “transgender athletes.”

Instead, they specifically say “transgender women and girls.”

Why?

Keep reading

Supreme Court Declines to Stop $800 Per Day Fine For Catherine Herridge After Obama Judge Holds Her in Contempt For Refusing to Give Up Her Sources

The US Supreme Court on Thursday declined to halt the $800 a day fine for former Catherine Herridge after a judge held her in contempt for refusing to give up her confidential sources.

Justice Kavanaugh dissented.

In 2024, Catherine Herridge, an Emmy-winning and nominated reporter known for her work on national security and intelligence, was held in civil contempt by an Obama-appointed federal judge for her refusal to unmask her confidential sources related to a blockbuster story on how there is an infiltration from China in US universities.

In August 2024, US District Court for the District of Columbia, Christopher Cooper, ordered Herridge to sit down for a sworn deposition regarding a confidential source she used for a 2017 story she covered on a Department of Defense-funded school that was at the center of federal investigations over Chinese military ties while she was at Fox News.

The judge ordered Herridge to turn over her source(s) in response to a lawsuit that was filed by Chinese-American scientist Yanping Chen against the FBI. Chen subpoenaed Herridge in an effort to find out who her sources were.

Herridge argued she should not be forced to disclose her source because of her First Amendment rights.

Keep reading

‘Grotesque Results’ Of Birth Tourism Allow Foreign Invaders To Seize Control Of U.S. From The Inside

he Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, gave its stamp of approval Tuesday to birth tourism, “the practice of traveling here with temporary authorization solely to give birth and obtain citizenship for one’s children, then returning to raise them in another country,” as Justice Clarence Thomas described in his dissent.

In doing so, Roberts and the high court have given away the country’s sovereignty to random, hostile foreign invaders to take control of the American government in less than a generation.

“The Court has repurposed the Fourteenth Amendment to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot find support in its text,” Thomas wrote. “Today, the Court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.”

Thomas wrote about the birth tourism industry, consisting of companies that “reportedly collect large fees from wealthy foreigners to facilitate their trips to give birth in the United States.”

In his dissent Justice Samuel Alito offered a scathing critique of the majority’s approach to the issue. The majority opinion, Alito wrote, went “out of its way to hold that even a child born to a mother who is here for only a brief time is a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment,” ostensibly because doing otherwise would mean dismantling the entire system of so-called birthplace citizenship, which allows any foreigner anywhere to be considered a “citizen” so long as he was born on American soil.

“Showing merely that the Executive Order is valid as applied to a child born to a birth tourist would be enough to defeat respondents’ facial claim,” Alito said. “The Court’s interpretation is not only contrary to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it produces grotesque results. While foreigners who wish to immigrate lawfully must sometimes wait for many years, a child born here to a birth tourist is automatically a citizen.”

Thomas noted another bizarre outcome of the Roberts opinion, stating that it essentially means a Chinese national has more of a claim to American citizenship than an American Indian does.

It is true that tribal Indians belonged to “alien and sovereign” nations and that the United States’ relations with them implicated “intersovereign concerns.” But, temporarily visiting foreigners also belong to “alien and sovereign” nations, and the United States’ relations with them also implicate “intersovereign concerns.” It is difficult to understand why China, for example, would be less alien or less sovereign than the Cherokee Nations. It is also difficult to understand why tribal Indians would be less entitled to American citizenship if born on non-Indian land within the United States than children of birth tourists who immediately returned to China.

As The Federalist’s Brianna Lyman noted, the thousands of Chinese babies whose parents have snatched (and will snatch) citizenship for them through birth tourism in the United States now have a comprehensive claim to the American homeland. All they must do is show up, perhaps at the age of 35, and convince the many millions of foreigners already imported into the United States — and their white liberal enablers — to elect them as president.

Keep reading

Courtroom Battles: Trump’s Wins Against the Deep State

Traditionally, June marks the climax of the Supreme Court term. This is when the justices release their most consequential rulings – decisions that shape how America lives for years to come.

For the Trump administration, this June delivered another round of intense combat against the entrenched forces determined to block common-sense reforms, from protecting women’s sports to dismantling the administrative state’s unaccountable power.

The Court’s current makeup gives conservatives a clear 6-3 edge. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were appointed by Republican presidents before Trump.

Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined during Trump’s first term. The liberal bloc consists of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan (Obama appointees) and Ketanji Brown Jackson (Biden appointee).

This alignment produced meaningful advances for the administration’s agenda even as the left’s institutional resistance remained fierce.

Keep reading

The Supreme Court Has Weakened The Regulatory State

n Trump v. Slaughter, published yesterday, the Supreme Court held that the President has plenary (that is, unfettered) authority to fire the heads of regulatory agencies (though not the governors of the Federal Reserve Board, as explained in a note at the end of this post). The decision is hugely consequential. It is both a massive blow to the regulatory state and a huge—albeit precarious—step to returning our nation to function as the Constitution intended.

For over a century, ever since President Woodrow Wilson ushered in the “progressive era,” Congress has been creating “independent” agencies that have complete power to write regulations with the force and effect of law, and then to enforce those regulations, including deciding cases in their own courts, with penalties that include fines and jail time.

This means that, for most of our lifetimes, we have lived in a nation where federal agencies, which do not exist in the Constitution and are insulated from the ballot box, have had a far greater impact on our daily lives than the other three branches of government. The agencies’ reach has been an ever more intrusive tyranny of the regulatory state, from the EPA’s CO2 endangerment finding (which allows the agency to control every aspect of life) to the Department of Education’s unceasing support for teachers’ unions, which launder money to the Democrat party. (Indeed, Jimmy Carter created the DOE to sustain the unions.)

Almost all federal agencies hew to the same increasingly radical left agenda, as evidenced by political donations. And, indeed, this was President Wilson’s dream: To run roughshod over the Constitution and democracy, substituting rule by technocrats. Until yesterday, Wilson had succeeded.

When Congress created these so-called “independent agencies,” it often provided that the people appointed to operate had long-term sinecures that presidents could end only for malfeasance. This created what some called a fourth branch of government, cementing the “Deep State.” These agency heads, running their own fiefdoms, could thwart an elected president’s preferred policies. As Senator Elizabeth Warren has repeatedly, and rightly, pointed out, “personnel is policy.”

However, despite their seeming entrenchment, these agencies have no place under the Constitution. Art. II Section 1 provides that the “executive power” to enforce the laws resides solely with the duly elected president. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion, the Constitution’s drafters explicitly intended that the executive power include the plenary authority to remove any personnel exercising executive powers. Congress cannot curb that power using legislation.

Keep reading

Justice Sotomayor Discloses $4,333 in Concert Tickets from Bad Bunny’s Record Label in Latest Supreme Court Financial Report

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor disclosed receiving $4,333 worth of concert tickets from Rimas Entertainment, the Puerto Rican record label that represents superstar Bad Bunny, as part of the latest round of Supreme Court financial disclosure reports.

The tickets were for Sotomayor and an unspecified number of guests during a private trip she took to Puerto Rico in August.

Sotomayor, the first justice of Puerto Rican descent, noted in her filing that the gift came from the label while she was traveling privately, though she did not specify which concert she attended.

At the time, Bad Bunny was in the middle of a major residency that included more than 30 sold-out shows in San Juan.

These 2025 financial disclosures, which cover outside income, gifts, and other interests for eight of the nine justices, are required annually under federal ethics rules.

Justice Samuel Alito was granted a 90-day extension and has not yet filed.

While Sotomayor’s concert tickets stand out as the most eye-catching gift in the current reports, the filings also show substantial outside earnings for several other justices, primarily from book deals and teaching positions.

Keep reading

Justice Clarence Thomas Dissents: Birthright Citizenship Claim Is Based on Feudalism

Justice Clarence Thomas says the Supreme Court’s 5-4 court decision today establishing birthright citizenship as a constitutional right is a modern political project built on a feudal principle rejected by the American Revolution that devalues U.S. citizenship.

Thomas wrote:

The Court says that the Citizenship Clause incorporated the English feudal principle that subjects owed lifetime servitude to the King who owned the soil on which they were born, but Americans — unsurprisingly — rejected this feudal principle.

…

Today’s opinion devalues [U.S.] citizenship. I respectfully dissent.

His dissent is long:

The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens. In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress [after the civil war] did not support. [Emphasis added.]

Thomas’s dissent, which was co-signed by Justice Neil Gorsuch, explained his view:

The Citizenship Clause was consistently interpreted not to apply to the children of foreign temporary visitors, who were by definition not domiciled in the United States. Regardless of administration or party, the Federal Government for decades after ratification regularly denied claims to citizenship by children who were born in the United States but not domiciled here. When a child was “born” in the United States to parents “domiciled” abroad, he was “not, therefore, under the statute and the Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth”…  Scholars agreed: A child “born within the territory of the United States, of alien parents” was not a citizen unless his parents were “permanently domiciled within the United States”… This Court agreed: The Citizenship Clause “exclude[d] from its operation children of… citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”… And, Congress agreed: The Citizenship Clause did not extend to a child born here but “subject to any foreign power”… As Justice Harlan would write in his [Supreme Court] dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson… the Citizenship Clause “gave citizenship to all born or naturalized in the United States and residing here”…

The [Supreme] Court offers a different account. American citizenship, the Court says, was based on a medieval English “feudal” principle, according to which each person “owed personal service to the lord of the soil” as his “master” — a perpetual servitude that was “born with the child and only ended in the grave”… Americans, the Court says, adopted this feudal principle as a rule of American citizenship “with little fanfare”… Then, according to the Court, the Reconstruction Congress codified that feudal principle with the words “not subject to any foreign power” in the Civil Rights Act and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof ” in the Citizenship Clause. Then, the Court says, the Clause’s meaning was definitively settled by dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark…

With due respect, the Court’s account is not historically accurate. The Court says that the Citizenship Clause incorporated the English feudal principle that subjects owed lifetime servitude to the King who owned the soil on which they were born, but Americans — unsurprisingly — rejected this feudal principle. The Court’s theory of American citizenship is based on the opinion of a New York assistant vice chancellor in an inheritance dispute called Lynch v. Clarke, … But, the assistant vice chancellor’s reasoning, whatever it was worth, was not even followed in New York by the time of the Citizenship Clause. Finally, the Court reasons that dicta in Wong Kim Ark settled the meaning of the Clause. But, Wong Kim Ark itself emphasized that its holding was limited to persons domiciled in the United States. And, scholars and government officials continued to agree after Wong Kim Ark that the Citizenship Clause did not extend to the children of foreign temporary visitors. The rule remained what it always was: A child born on American soil of “a stranger or traveler passing through the country, or temporarily residing here,” was “not a citizen.”

President Barack Obama’s nominee, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, responded with a sneer that Thomas is a racist who supports the court’s 1857 Dredd Scott decision endorsing slavery which helped trigger the Civil War:

Of course, the ultimate irony is that for all the talk about the detestable Dred Scott decision, the Government and the principal dissent propose a return to its core tenet. Their bottom line is that, for certain people, being born on American soil will not suffice to confer citizenship. It is that odious conclusion that the Citizenship Clause plainly rejects, as the Court explains.

Thomas ended his dissent with a reference to the court’s 1896 Plessy v Ferguson decision that overturned racial segregation and the obsolete, pre-Civil War Dredd Scott case:

I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause “added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.” Plessy, 163 U. S., at 555 (Harlan, J., dissenting). Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship. I respectfully dissent.

The court’s decision leaves American citizens with no avenue to guard their citizenship except a formal constitutional amendment enacted via a two-thirds majority of the federal Congress or of the states.

Keep reading