Tag: scotus

Leftist Supreme Court Justices Want To Parent Your Kids In The Worst Way

After a flurry of recent Supreme Court decisions, parents still have the right to teach values to their own children. For now.

If the three minority, leftist justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — had their way, public schools, rogue doctors, and the internet would be parenting instead.  

In dissenting opinions on three key cases, these three life-long appointees revealed how little they care for children.   

In Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, they argued it is unconstitutional to keep kids safe from porn if it means adults have to pause when entering an internet smut site long enough to prove they are over 18 to leer at  “hardcore pornographic content and videos,” many of which depict “sexual violence, incest, physical aggression, sexual assault, non-consent, and teens,” the majority opinion notes.

According to Kagan, who wrote the minority opinion, “Obscene-for-children speech is constitutionally protected speech for adults.” She repeats this concept many times.

Kagan and her gals really believe it is more important to preserve adult access to videos depicting sexual crimes than it is to keep it where it belongs: far away from children. In truth, there should be no market for this marriage-damaging, mind-altering, addictive content at any age.

Some porn is made with real trafficking victims, sometimes minors.

For example, Michael Pratt, leader of the GirlsDoPorn sex trafficking ring, pleaded guilty in federal court this month to many sex trafficking counts, according to the Department of Justice, for using “force, fraud, and coercion to recruit hundreds of young women – most in their late teens – to appear in GirlsDoPorn videos.”

Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson want to assure adults don’t have to prove their age before viewing these crime victims, no matter the consequence it may have on children.   

In Skrmetti v. United States, the Supreme Court majority found the “Tennessee law prohibiting the surgical and chemical castration of minors does not violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause,” The Federalist’s Shawn Fleetwood reported last week.  

Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion that Kagan and Jackson joined in part and in full, respectively.

Keep reading

This Excerpt From Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Dissent Explains Why She Got Nuked by Amy Coney Barrett

If you were following the Supreme Court news yesterday, you likely saw that Justice Amy Coney Barrett smacked down her fellow Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson over her childish dissent, saying:

“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,” she began. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary,” she added.

Now another excerpt from Jackson’s dissent is circulating and it contains a phrase that makes Jackson sound more like a YouTuber than a Supreme Court justice.

She actually used the expression ‘wait for it’ in the middle of a sentence.

Keep reading

Justice Kagan’s Own Words Come Back to Haunt Her on Nationwide Injunctions

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., released Friday, finally put the brakes on the reckless abuse of nationwide injunctions by lower courts—and has Democrats in full meltdown mode. The left’s favorite judicial weapon just got neutered, and the hypocrisy is impossible to ignore.

The liberal wing of the court didn’t do itself any favors, either. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent was so horrible that Justice Amy Coney Barrett felt compelled to call it out in the majority opinion.

But Justice Elena Kagan’s credibility also took a direct hit. In a stunning display of judicial flip-flopping, Kagan’s own words from 2022 have come back to haunt her, exposing the left’s all-too-familiar habit of changing the rules when it suits their political objectives. 

Nationwide injunctions have been the left’s go-to tactic for derailing conservative policy at the stroke of a single judge’s pen. Under Trump, district judges from deep-blue enclaves repeatedly issued sweeping orders to block administration policies nationwide at an unprecedented pace, no matter how tenuous the legal grounds. 

Despite all the apocalyptic rhetoric, there’s no doubt that the left’s current position on nationwide injunctions is purely political—and Justice Elena Kagan accidentally proved it.

How? Well, Justice Kagan, who dissented in this case, was singing a very different tune just a couple of years ago. Back in 2022, when President Biden was in the White House and conservatives were the ones seeking relief from his executive orders, Kagan was openly skeptical of nationwide injunctions. 

“This can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stuck for the years that it takes to go through a normal process,” she said. 

That’s not some out-of-context paraphrase—it’s her own words, on the record.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Greenlights Online Digital ID Checks

With a landmark ruling that could shape online content regulation for years to come, the US Supreme Court has upheld Texas’s digital ID age-verification law for adult websites and platforms, asserting that the measure lawfully balances the state’s interest in protecting minors with the free speech rights of adults.

The 6-3 decision, issued on June 27, 2025, affirms the constitutionality of House Bill 1181, a statute that requires adult websites to verify the age of users before granting access to sexually explicit material.

Laws like House Bill 1181, framed as necessary safeguards for children, are quietly eroding the rights of adults to access lawful content or speak freely online without fear of surveillance or exposure.

Under such laws, anyone seeking to view legal adult material online (and eventually even those who want to access social media platforms because may contain content “harmful” to minors) is forced to provide official identification, often a government-issued digital ID or even biometric data, to prove their age.

Supporters claim this is a small price to pay to shield minors from harmful content. Yet these measures create permanent records linking individuals to their browsing choices, exposing them to unprecedented risks.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Greenlights States to Cut Off Medicaid Funding for Planned Parenthood in Major Win for Pro-Life Advocates

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday paved the way for states to block Medicaid funding from going to abortion giant Planned Parenthood.

The high court’s decision, which comes after years of legal wrangling, affirms the authority of individual states to determine how taxpayer dollars are allocated — and who gets excluded.

In a landmark 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic that individual Medicaid recipients do not have the right to sue states under federal law for excluding abortion providers like Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs.

The Court’s decision, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, reversed a ruling from the Fourth Circuit and solidified the state of South Carolina’s authority to remove Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid network—without fear of federal lawsuits from individual patients or abortion activists cloaking themselves in civil rights statutes.

This case arose after South Carolina decided in 2018 to terminate Planned Parenthood’s participation in its Medicaid program, citing a state law that bans the use of public funds for abortion.

Abortion advocates predictably sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming the state violated a supposed “right” under the Medicaid Act’s “any-qualified-provider” provision.

Justice Gorsuch clarified that this provision does not confer individually enforceable federal rights. It is a directive to states, not a free pass for left-wing groups to weaponize the courts every time a state takes a stand for life.

“The decision whether to let private plaintiffs enforce a new statutory right poses delicate questions of public policy. New rights for some mean new duties for others. And private enforcement actions, meritorious or not, can force governments to direct money away from public services and spend it instead on litigation,” Gorsuch wrote.

He continued, “The job of resolving how best to weigh those competing costs and benefits belongs to the people’s elected representatives, not unelected judges charged with applying the law as they find it.” 

Keep reading

Letting Marijuana Users Have Guns Poses ‘A Clear Danger,’ Trump’s Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court

In a recent filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump-led Department of Justice (DOJ) is doubling down on arguments made under former President Joe Biden that users of illegal drugs—including marijuana—”pose a clear danger of misusing firearms.”

That risk, DOJ contends, justifies the longstanding federal prohibition on gun ownership by drug consumers—known as Section 922(g)(3)—despite the Constitution’s broad Second Amendment protections.

In a petition for review by the high court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues that despite recent appeals court decisions calling the constitutionality of the firearms ban into question, the restriction is nevertheless lawful.

“Section 922(g)(3) complies with the Second Amendment,” the government’s June 2 filing in the case, U.S. v. Hemani, says. “That provision targets a category of persons who pose a clear danger of misusing firearms: habitual users of unlawful drugs.”

Some lower courts have said the government’s blanket ban on gun and ammunition possession infringes on the Second Amendment—at least as applied to certain individual cases—because there’s no historical justification for such a broad restriction on an entire category of people.

But in the appeal petition in Hemani, Trump’s solicitor general said the ban is necessary and narrowly tailored enough to survive the legal challenge.

The federal statute “bars their possession of firearms only temporarily and leaves it within their power to lift the restriction at any time; anyone who stops habitually using illegal drugs can resume possessing firearms.”

Notably, while the government mentions “habitual” users of illegal drugs 40 times in its filing, that word does not itself appear in 922(g)(3). The language of the statute prohibits anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition.

A reply brief from Hemani’s lawyers is due to the Supreme Court by July 21.

While DOJ is asking the high court to take up the Hemani case, at least two other, similar cases are waiting in the wings: U.S. v. Cooper and U.S. v. Baxter both of which also hinge on the constitutionality of 922(g)(3).

In Cooper, an Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel dismissed a three-year prison sentence against a person convicted for possession of a firearm while being an active user of marijuana. Judges in that case ruled that government’s prohibition on gun ownership by drug users is justified only in certain circumstances—not always.

“Nothing in our tradition allows disarmament simply because [the defendant] belongs to a category of people, drug users, that Congress has categorically deemed dangerous,” their ruling said.

In Baxter, the Eighth Circuit ruled 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to the facts in the case.

Judges in that case wrote that there were insufficient factual findings in the record “for this Court to review Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge.” Nevertheless, the they wrote, “We reverse the district court’s ruling on Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Keep reading

$2 Million Advance? SCOTUS Justices Disclose Financial Gains

Eight of the nine justices on the highest court in the land have filed their annual financial disclosures. These reports, released to the public on Tuesday, detail the incomes, gifts, liabilities, and outside positions of each justice serving on the United States Supreme Court. 

The reports were due May 15 for eight of the justices. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Justice Samuel Alito requested a 90-day extension, as he has done previously.

Three of the justices reported considerable outside income from books in the last year. Ketanji Jackson recorded receiving a book advance payment from Penguin Random House for over $2 million. She also received reimbursements for thirteen “book events”. 

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch also brought in additional money from book deals, according to the reports. Sonia Sotomayor reported over $70,000 in book royalties from Penguin Random House LLC and an additional $60,000 in an advance payment. Sotomayor said that she visited the Coterie Theatre in Kansas City, Missouri, to “review a workshop performance” of “Just Ask,” her children’s book that was adapted as a musical. The trip was valued at $1,437, according to her own report.

Gorsuch claimed over $250,000 in book royalty income from Princeton University Press and HarperCollins Publishers LLC. He also listed reimbursements for three separate “Participations in book-related events” and $30,000 from teaching at George Mason University. 

Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett both reported income from teaching at the University of Notre Dame Law School, claiming over $30,000 each in their individual reports. Kavanaugh continues to coach girls’ basketball, according to his disclosure. 

Keep reading

Supreme Court: US Gun Makers Not Liable For Cartel Violence

In a unanimous blow to gun control advocacy groups, the Supreme Court shut down Mexico’s $10 billion claim targeting U.S. gun makers in a cross-border lawsuit.

Mexico originally filed the suit in 2021, arguing that U.S. gun companies were responsible for the weapons that fueled cartel violence. Mexico received support in its lawsuit from American gun control advocacy groups such as Everytown and March for our Lives Action Fund.

The Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan, found that the manufacturer’s alleged failure to exercise “reasonable care” does not meet the standard necessary to be found liable for “aiding and abetting” the sale of illegal firearms in Mexico.

Mexico had asked the court for $10 billion in damages and additional court-imposed injunctive relief in the form of restrictions on manufacturers. According to a lawyer who spoke to RCP, siding with Mexico on the injunctive relief “would have likely severely prohibited the distribution of the manufacturer’s products” within the United States.

A federal district court judge initially ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protected the gun manufacturers from the suit. In 2024, the First Circuit Court of Appeals revitalized the lawsuit. In response, gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson brought the case to the Supreme Court.

The PLCAA, signed into law in 2005 by President George W. Bush, shields gun manufacturers and dealers from liability when crimes are committed with their products. The law includes exceptions which Mexico’s lawyers sought to invoke.

The original suit by Mexico, which named multiple U.S.-based gun manufacturers as defendants, claimed that Mexicans “have been victimized by a deadly flood of military-style and other particularly lethal guns that flows from the U.S. across the border.” It also argued that U.S. companies were negligent in their sales practices, claiming that the gun companies “are not accidental or unintentional players in this tragedy; they are deliberate and willing participants, reaping profits from the criminal market they knowingly supply.”

In response, lawyers for Smith & Wesson argued in a filing that the lawsuit “faults the defendants for producing common firearms” and for “failing to restrict the purchase of firearms by regular citizens.” They made the case that “aiding and abetting criminal activity must involve something more than making products generally.” Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning.

In reference to the injunctive relief that Mexico asked the court to grant, lawyers for Smith & Wesson asserted that the lawsuit was “inflicting costly and intrusive discovery at the hands of a foreign sovereign that is trying to bully the industry into adopting a host of gun-control measures that have been repeatedly rejected by American voters.”

According to some estimates, more than 250,000 firearms are smuggled from the United States into Mexico each year. In contrast, Mexico has one gun store and issues fewer than 50 new gun permits each year. The U.S. is the largest firearm exporter in the world, partly due to relaxed gun laws within the country.

Keep reading

Justice Elena Kagan: AR-15s and AK-47s Are ‘Widely Legal and Bought by Many Ordinary Consumers’

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion in the Supreme Court’s decision striking down Mexico’s lawsuit and described AR-15s and AK-47s as “both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.”

Breitbart News reported that SCOTUS pointed to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in striking down Mexico’s lawsuit in a unanimous June 5, 2025, decision.

In the  opinion, Kagan noted how Mexico tried to point to the way certain guns were marketed and designed in hopes of getting traction with their lawsuit. She explained why the court rejected this approach and while so doing, highlighted how popular and “widely” owned AR-15s, AK-47s, and other similar rifles have become.

Keep reading

US Gun Makers Notch Win Against Mexico In Unanimous SCOTUS Ruling Authored By Liberal Justice

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected on Thursday the Mexican government’s lawsuit against American gun manufacturers.

The court held that Mexico’s 2021 lawsuit against seven U.S. gun manufacturers is barred under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

“As required by a federal statute, Mexico seeks to show (among other things) that the defendant companies participated in the unlawful sale or marketing of firearms,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court’s opinion. “More specifically, Mexico alleges that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. The question presented is whether Mexico’s complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not.”

Keep reading