The Supreme Court on Tuesday slammed the brakes on a high-stakes, cross-country legal war, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-florida-lawsuit-drivers-licenses-undocumented-immigrants-rcna265323">throwing out</a> a lawsuit by Florida that aimed to punish blue states for putting allegedly unqualified illegal immigrants behind the wheel of deadly 80,000-pound rigs.
Florida’s Republican Attorney General James Uthmeier took the fight straight to the nation’s highest court, trying to sue California and Washington state after a horrific August 2025 crash on the Florida Turnpike left three people dead.
The driver in that fatal wreck, Harjinder Singh, was an illegal Indian immigrant who had sneaked across the Mexican border. According to federal tests administered after the disaster, Singh could barely speak English and recognized just one out of four basic highway signs before he made a catastrophic, illegal U-turn into a minivan.
Despite the tragedy, the high court’s majority refused to even look at the case, invoking a rarely used power to reject the Sunshine State’s complaint without explanation.
But conservative titan Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, ripped his colleagues in a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/162orig_8n6a.pdf">blistering dissent</a>, arguing that the court cannot simply duck its constitutional duties while rogue states spark a national border crisis on wheels.
“An illegal alien who cannot read English road signs cannot drive an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer,” Thomas wrote in his fiery opinion, taking direct aim at the liberal West Coast states.
Florida’s lawsuit claimed California and Washington showed &#8220;open defiance&#8221; of federal laws by greenlighting commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) for migrants without legal status, leaving them untrained and unable to read American road signs. Thomas pointed out that “although Singh failed his test at least ten times in Washington and at least one time in California, both Washington and California provided Singh with CDLs.”
The high court’s brush-off means Florida is completely locked out of justice, Thomas warned, fuming that the Supreme Court is the only venue allowed to arbitrate battles between states.
“This Court declines to even hear Florida’s claims, even though it has nowhere else to bring them,” Thomas wrote. “I doubt this Court has discretion to refuse to hear cases within its exclusive original jurisdiction.”
Thomas argued that the crisis of blue states unleashing dangerous drivers across state lines is so severe it practically amounts to an act of war.
“A dispute over one nation sending dangerous people into another &#8216;would be the source of considerable international tension,&#8217;” Thomas wrote. “If Florida were an independent nation, it &#8216;might resolve [this] dispute by diplomacy, by submitting it to international arbitration, or by self-help measures.&#8217; By entering the Union, States agree to instead have such disputes resolved by this Court.”
Officials claimed the lawsuit was nothing more than a conservative &#8220;political stunt&#8221; rolled out on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show. Washington state lawyers warned that opening the door to Florida’s suit would lead to an endless flood of interstate bickering over everything from gun laws to vaccines.
The ruling comes as the Trump administration turns up the heat on &#8220;unqualified foreign drivers,&#8221; with Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy auditing foreign workers and threatening to yank federal funds from states that flout English-language standards.
But for Thomas, the majority&#8217;s refusal to act represents a total failure of the justice system based on &#8220;policy judgments that are in conflict with the policy choices that Congress made.&#8221;
“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given,” Thomas wrote, quoting historic precedent. “Because I would allow Florida to file its complaint, I respectfully dissent.”

Welcome to California Sign

Supreme Court Rejects Lawsuit Against Blue States Over Illegal Immigrant Truck Drivers

Supreme Court Rejects Florida’s Lawsuit Against Blue States Over Illegal Immigrant Truck Drivers

California

Clarence Thomas

Driving

Florida

illegal immigrant

Supreme Court

The easiest way to misunderstand Justice Clarence Thomas’s recent <a href="https://manhattaninstituteny-my.sharepoint.com/personal/pbeston_manhattan_institute/Documents/Documents/CJ/as%20part%20of%20the%20celebration%20of%20the%20250th%20anniversary%20of%20the%20Declaration%20of%20Independence">speech</a> at the University of Texas is as a conventional swipe at contemporary progressives. His target was instead deeper and older: the capital-P Progressive challenge to the American Founding itself.
Appearing in Austin as part of a celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas framed the issue as one of first principles. “The Constitution is the means of government,” he said, and “it is the Declaration that announces the ends of government.”
Indeed, the American system is bigger than mere elections or policy outcomes. It’s defined by a moral claim about human equality and natural rights, and by a constitutional structure designed to secure them.
<a href="https://www.rawstory.com/clarence-thomas-2676762870">Thomas’s critics</a> seem eager to collapse his argument into today’s partisan disputes. They miss the broader view of his speech, with its focus on the long intellectual revolt against the Declaration’s premises and the Constitution’s architecture. As Thomas put it, “At the beginning of the 20th century, a new set of first principles of government was introduced into the American mainstream.” Its leading apostle was Woodrow Wilson, and the movement was progressivism.
Since then, Thomas said, progressivism has “coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration.” Because it’s opposed to those principles, “it is not possible for the two to coexist forever.”
The original Progressives really did reject the Founding’s understanding of liberty, rights, and constitutional structure. Wilson proposed more than modernizing technical improvements around the edges. He argued for a different theory of government, based on his study of German bureaucracy.
That view dates back to his 1887 journal article “<a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-study-of-administration-2">The Study of Administration</a>,” where he insisted that “administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics,” and that “Administrative questions are not political questions.” He praised expert administration as distinct from ordinary constitutional politics and suggested that Montesquieu did not “say the last word” on the distribution of authority — meaning there was more to governance than checks and balances.
Thomas summarized the point bluntly. “Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government,” he said. “It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from the government.”
That gets to the heart of the matter: a dispute over the nature of rights, not merely whether the government should act here or there. If rights are granted only by positive law, then liberty becomes contingent and revocable — and ultimately political.
And structure is where that dispute cashes out. The Progressives regarded separation of powers, federalism, and bicameralism as mere impediments to enlightened administration. The New Deal accelerated that tendency, consolidating policymaking and enforcement inside sprawling agencies that would’ve struck the Framers as a dangerous concentration of power.
Thomas was thus right to make an argument about regime-level principles. A country that forgets the Declaration’s account of man and government will not preserve the Constitution’s structure for long. Why bother, after all, with rival institutions, limited jurisdictions, and procedural friction if rights come from benevolent experts rather than from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”?
That’s why the speech also matters, given the increasingly fevered speculation over possible Supreme Court retirements. Justice Thomas turns 78 in June, while Justice Samuel Alito turned 76 earlier this month. Both men are at the top of their game, enjoying more influence than they’ve ever had — as the most senior associate justices, with Thomas set to become the longest-serving justice in history if he stays through May 2028. Neither has indicated a desire to leave and, while they’re aware of the crass political calculus, Republicans <a href="https://www.realclearpolling.com/latest-polls/senate">are still narrowly favored</a> to keep the Senate in this fall’s midterms.
But the actuarial tables underscore what’s at stake. A hypothetical replacement needs to be not just smart, credentialed, and temperamentally suited for the high court. He or she needs to understand our constitutional order: that government exists to secure pre-political rights, and that constitutional structure is itself a guarantor of liberty. The late Justice Antonin Scalia <a href="https://gwtoday.gwu.edu/us-supreme-court-justices-discuss-first-amendment">captured</a> the point memorably: “Every tinhorn dictator in the world today has a bill of rights. It isn’t the Bill of Rights that produces freedom. It’s the structure of government that prevents anybody from seizing all the power.”
Justice Thomas’s Austin speech was a reminder of that forgotten truth. The American Founding was a claim about human nature, political power, and the institutions needed to keep freedom alive. Any successor worthy of his seat should understand that, too.
***
This was originally published with permission in Manhattan Institute&#8217;s City Journal, found <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/justice-clarence-thomas-speech-progressives">here</a>.
Ilya Shapiro is director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, contributing editor of City Journal, senior counsel to Burke Law Group, PLLC, and author, most recently, of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Lawless-Miseducation-Americas-Ilya-Shapiro/dp/0063336588/">Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites</a>. He also writes the <a href="https://ilyashapiro.substack.com/">Shapiro’s Gavel</a> newsletter.

Clarence Thomas judge

Clarence Thomas Understands Why The Constitution And A Progressive Worldview Are Incompatible

Founding Fathers

MI x DW

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Wednesday decried &#8220;progressivism,&#8221; saying the political ideology threatens the foundational principles and values of the United States.
During a lecture at the University of Texas School of Law, Thomas participated in an event <a href="https://www.fox7austin.com/news/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-speaks-ut-austin">marking the 250th anniversary</a> of the signing of the United States Declaration of Independence.
He warned that a political ideology of &#8220;cynicism, rejection, hostility, and animus&#8221; is consuming Americans and taking over the country&#8217;s way of life.
&#8220;Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence, our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government,&#8221; Thomas said. &#8220;It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a Constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
🚨 JUST IN: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is being praised nationwide for dropping this TRUTH on leftism and &#8220;progressivism&#8221;
&#8220;Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights… <a href="https://t.co/pVRS8AuwwL">pic.twitter.com/pVRS8AuwwL</a>
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2044821167328878610?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
Thomas, one of the most influential conservatives on the Supreme Court, argued progressive ideals are on a collision course with the nation’s founding values.
&#8220;Since Woodrow Wilson&#8217;s presidency, progressivism has made many inroads into our system of government,&#8221; Thomas said. &#8220;It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
Justice Thomas: &#8220;Since Woodrow Wilson&#8217;s presidency, progressivism has made many inroads into our system of government. It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/7Z08ZnNR0H">pic.twitter.com/7Z08ZnNR0H</a>
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) <a href="https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/2044793679009689802?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
<div dir="auto" lang="en" data-testid="tweetText">
Thomas slammed elitism in Washington and accused policymakers of being &#8220;so swept up in the euphoria of acclamation and acceptance that they put aside their convictions.&#8221;
&#8220;They fall prey to the enchanting siren songs of flattery and become so bewitched by praise that they will desperately seek to conform accordingly,&#8221; he said.
&#8220;They water down their message, negotiate against themselves, vote against their principles, and hide in the tall grass,&#8221; Thomas asserted. &#8220;They recast themselves as institutionalists, pragmatists, or thoughtful moderates, all as a way of justifying their failures to themselves, their consciences and their country.&#8221;
The broadside against progressivism comes amid rising tensions at the Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a rare public apology for personal criticism directed at Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
The controversy began in Kansas, where she criticized Kavanaugh for his <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">concurring opinion</a> in an immigration case involving ICE raids.
</div>
“I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these are only temporary stops,” Sotomayor said, according to a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-08/sotomayor-faults-kavanaugh-over-immigration-stops-concurrence" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bloomberg report</a>. “This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.”
“At a recent appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law, I referred to a disagreement with one of my colleagues in a prior case, but I made remarks that were inappropriate,” Sotomayor said in a statement. “I regret my hurtful comments. I have apologized to my colleague.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
NEW: Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor publicly apologizes for comments suggesting Justice Brett Kavanaugh was privileged and out of touch for his concurrence in an immigration case greenlighting warrantless ICE stops in LA. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> <a href="https://t.co/6kLLuHol5d">pic.twitter.com/6kLLuHol5d</a>
— Katie Buehler (@bykatiebuehler) <a href="https://twitter.com/bykatiebuehler/status/2044528919785750761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 15, 2026</a></blockquote>
During a speech on Monday at Yale Law School, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stepped up her criticism of the court&#8217;s conservative majority, calling their handling of the emergency docket &#8220;corrosive,&#8221; <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/justice-jackson-says-us-supreme-courts-use-emergency-docket-is-corrosive-2026-04-15/">according to Reuters</a>.
In Texas, Justice Thomas urged Americans frustrated with the country&#8217;s direction to get off the sidelines.
&#8220;I think if we don’t stand up and take ownership of our country, and take responsibility for it, we are slowly letting others control how we think and what we think,&#8221; Thomas said. &#8220;It&#8217;s our country.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
Justice Clarence Thomas on rebuilding public trust in government: &#8220;I think if we don&#8217;t stand up and take ownership of our country, and take responsibility for it, we are slowly letting others control how we think and what we think.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/4bho06ftMX">pic.twitter.com/4bho06ftMX</a>
— CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/2044604183077061074?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 2026</a></blockquote>

The U.S. Supreme Court Poses For Official Group Photo

Clarence Thomas Issues Stark Warning About America’s Survival Under The Left

Courts

U.S.

Washington D.C.

President Donald Trump said Senator Ted Cruz could be Supreme Court nominee in the near future, praising the Texas Republican during a speech in Corpus Christi on Friday evening.
Trump, who was once a fierce critic of Cruz, called the senator &#8220;an amazing guy&#8221; who is &#8220;so good and so talented.&#8221;
&#8220;I&#8217;m thinking about putting him in the Supreme Court,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;I&#8217;m thinking because it&#8217;s very hard, getting these nominations through is tough.&#8221;
The president added that Cruz would receive &#8220;100%&#8221; of the Democratic and Republican vote, arguing that Cruz&#8217;s foes would &#8220;want to get him out of [the Senate]. He is such a pain in the ass.&#8221;
Trump also floated the idea of a Cruz Supreme Court appointment during a speech last month, calling the senator a &#8220;brilliant legal mind.&#8221; Cruz, however, shot the proposal down in January.
&#8220;My answer&#8217;s not just no, it&#8217;s hell no,&#8221; he <a href="https://www.fox26houston.com/news/supreme-court-texas-ted-cruz-donald-trump">said</a>. &#8220;It is interesting in the first Trump term, the president talked to me about all three Supreme Court vacancies, and we had very serious conversations and I told him no all three times.&#8221;
Cruz added that he wants to be &#8220;right in the middle&#8221; of political battles, something the Republican said a &#8220;principled federal judge&#8221; would stay out of.
After completing law school, Cruz clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist at the Supreme Court from 1996 to 1997. Trump first discussed the idea of nominating Cruz to the Supreme Court with the senator privately after the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, according to Cruz.
&#8220;I wrestled with it because I knew Justice Scalia and revered him,&#8221; Cruz added. &#8220;And to have the opportunity to succeed him, I mean, talk about taking your breath away.&#8221;
While none of the Supreme Court justices have announced plans to retire anytime soon, there has been talk of either Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas, the two oldest and most conservative justices, retiring within the next couple of years to give Trump a chance to replace either of them with another conservative. Thomas is 77-years-old and Alito is 75.
Alito is set to release a book in early October, which has sparked rumors that the conservative justice could be hanging up his robe before the beginning of the Supreme Court&#8217;s next term, which also begins in October. Alito has served on the court for 20 years, while Thomas is the longest-tenured justice, nearing his 35th year on the high court.
When asked about Thomas or Alito potentially retiring in the near future, Trump <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/09/donald-trump-full-interview-transcript-00681693?nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&amp;nname=playbook&amp;nrid=fe8db97b-d67e-4e92-8f3a-1577ce038e35">told</a> POLITICO in December that he wants both of them to stay on the court.
&#8220;Both of those men are fantastic,&#8221; he said.
After Republicans successfully prevented former President Barack Obama from tapping Merrick Garland as Scalia&#8217;s replacement — thanks to the efforts of then-Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch in 2017. Trump went on to nominate two more justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, during his first term. Conservatives now have a 6-3 majority, but Trump has recently been frustrated with conservative justices, including Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Trump Signs Order Seeking To Limit State-Level AI Regulation

Trump Floats Idea For His Next Supreme Court Appointment As Rumors Swirl About Possible Retirements

Donald Trump

Executive

Politics

Samuel Alito

Ted Cruz

Supreme Court justices ranging from conservative Clarence Thomas to liberal Elena Kagan pressed the state of New Jersey on Tuesday about its expansive investigation targeting a Christian pro-life crisis pregnancy center. 
The justices heard arguments about whether a Christian pregnancy center can challenge a wide-ranging subpoena from the New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin that demanded donor information. The case hinges on whether the subpoena had the impact of chilling supporters of  First Choice Women’s Resource Centers and is entitled to relief in federal court. 
During oral arguments on Tuesday, many of the justices appeared skeptical of the arguments made by Sundeep Iyer, a lawyer for the state of New Jersey. 
In one exchange, Justice Thomas pushed Iyer on why the subpoena was issued to First Choice. 
“Did you have complaints that formed the basis of your concern about the fundraising activities here?” Thomas asked.
Iyer responded by saying that they had complaints about crisis pregnancy centers in general, but not specifically First Choice. Thomas then suggested that New Jersey had “no factual basis” for believing that the pregnancy center was deceiving donors and that the subpoena was a “burdensome way to find out whether someone has a confusing website.”
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-jerseys-war-on-crisis-pregnancy-centers-heads-to-the-supreme-court?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=5&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=New+Jersey’s+War+On+Crisis+Pregnancy+Centers+Heads+To+The+Supreme+Court">Related: New Jersey’s War On Crisis Pregnancy Centers Heads To The Supreme Court</a>
Another key question in the case is whether the subpoena could be considered “chilling” because it had not yet been approved by a court. Justice Kagan, one of the court’s liberals, pushed Iyer on that question. 
“I think here, too, you would make the same argument is that an ordinary person, one of the funders for this organization or for any similar organization, presented with this subpoena, and then told, ‘But don&#8217;t worry, it has to be stamped by a court is not going to take that as very reassuring,’” Kagan said. “Why isn’t that right?”
Other justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and John Roberts, were also critical of New Jersey’s interpretation of the subpoena it had issued. 
First Choice has centers in five of New Jersey’s largest cities, including New Brunswick, Newark, Morristown, Montclair, and Jersey City. Services include free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and options counseling. They also offer a parenting program that provides essential needs such as baby clothes and diapers. 
“This court has long safeguarded the right of association by protecting the membership and donor list of nonprofit organizations like First Choice,” said Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer Erin Hawley. “Yet the attorney general of New Jersey issued a sweeping subpoena, commanding on pain of contempt that First Choice produce donor names, addresses, and phone numbers, so his office could contact and question them. That violates the right of association.”
Platkin first subpoenaed First Choice in November 2023, asking for ten years of documents related to its promotion of the abortion pill reversal, information they provided to clients and donors, personnel records, and copies of every advertisement the centers had run. 
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://DailyWire.com/cyberweek" data-sk="tooltip_parent">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
Pregnancy centers across the country that support vulnerable women in blue states like California, New York, and Illinois have all faced legal challenges for promoting the abortion pill reversal protocol.

2025-Netroots-Nation

Supreme Court Justices Clash With New Jersey In Pregnancy Center Battle

Supreme Court Justices Push New Jersey Over Targeting Of Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Abortion

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

pregnancy centers

Pro-Life Movement

Transgender Rights Advocates Rally Against The Supreme Court’s Ban On Gender-Affirming Youth Care

The Trans Agenda Was Just Dealt A Fatal Blow

Gender

Matt Walsh

Opinion

SCOTUS

Sonia Sotomayor

Tennessee

Transgender

transgender surgery

WPATH

This week’s Supreme Court decision in United States v. Skrmetti revealed a stark contrast between rigorous constitutional analysis and sloppy judicial reasoning.
While the six-judge majority correctly applied Equal Protection doctrine to uphold Tennessee&#8217;s commonsense restrictions on experimental medical treatments for minors, Justice Sonia Sotomayor&#8217;s dissent — to which her fellow liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, signed on — is a masterclass in how not to interpret the Constitution.
Rather than actual Constitutional analysis, Sotomayor’s dissent relies on emotional manipulation and strained legal analogies.
The centerpiece of Justice Sotomayor&#8217;s dissent rests on a fundamental category error: borrowing reasoning from a case interpreting a civil rights statute and trying to apply it to a very different constitutional text.
Bostock v. Clayton County was the infamous 2020 case in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the Court’s liberals and Chief Justice John Roberts to conclude that civil rights law barring employment discrimination “because of sex” also barred discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status.
Gorsuch’s error in that case grew out of his cramped application of textualism and turned on the precise meaning of the words “because of sex.” As flawed as Bostock’s reasoning was, that reasoning doesn’t apply to Skrmetti, because the words being interpreted in Bostock are found nowhere in the Equal Protection Clause. Instead, it simply prohibits states from denying &#8220;equal protection of the laws.&#8221;
This distinction matters enormously. In a democratic republic like ours, the people make law or adopt constitutional amendments through their elected representatives, and a great deal of negotiation and debate go into the exact words chosen. A court can’t simply decide that the meanings of two phrases in very different legal contexts are close enough for government work. Just because the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause both deal with discrimination doesn’t mean their reasoning is fungible.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented in Bostock, pointed out this analytical flaw in his Skrmetti concurrence, noting that “[a]n abstract similarity between the purposes of the Constitution and a statute is not a license to import the statute’s interpretation into the Constitution, much less to ignore the Constitution’s text.”
It is telling that the dissent put so much weight on Bostock rather than analyzing the language of the Constitution itself, let alone the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment.
<blockquote>
<h2>Just because the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause both deal with discrimination doesn’t mean their reasoning is fungible.</h2>
</blockquote>
Perhaps more troubling than the dissent&#8217;s misuse of precedent is its shameless deployment of emotional manipulation where legal reasoning should prevail. Sotomayor devotes substantial space to the personal stories of the plaintiff families, describing children who felt &#8220;trapped in the wrong body&#8221; and parents who worried about their children&#8217;s &#8220;ability to survive.&#8221;
These stories may be heart-wrenching, but there are emotional stories on both sides in this case. Detransitioners speak of the deep regret and lifelong health challenges created by childhood treatments that permanently altered their bodies, sexual function, and fertility.
Constitutional law cannot be decided based on which side tells the most compelling sob stories. The Equal Protection Clause protects important rights, but those rights must be grounded in constitutional text, history, and precedent — not in judicial sympathy for particular litigants.
The dissent&#8217;s emotional appeals serve a strategic purpose: they distract from the weakness of the underlying legal arguments. When Justice Sotomayor cannot convincingly explain why Tennessee&#8217;s age-based and purpose-based medical regulations constitute sex discrimination, she pivots to describing tragic individual circumstances. This is advocacy, not constitutional interpretation.
We’ve seen this type of reasoning before. Instead of discussing the Second Amendment, we are treated to heartbreaking stories of shooting victims. When considering the constitutionality of Obamacare, one side discusses the meaning of the Commerce Clause while the other shows posters of children with cancer. The dissent&#8217;s methodology would transform constitutional law into a contest of competing narratives rather than a discipline grounded in legal principle.
<blockquote>
<h2>Constitutional law cannot be decided based on which side tells the most compelling sob stories.</h2>
</blockquote>
It’s not just judges who too often override their professional standards to advance political objectives. Most of the nation’s medical organizations have themselves become politically compromised and provide cover for results-oriented judges. Justice Sotomayor repeatedly cites the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, and similar groups as if they were neutral and unassailable scientific enterprises rather than advocacy groups wholly captured by progressive ideology.
This appeal to authority crumbles under scrutiny. Justice Thomas&#8217;s concurrence exposes the utter corruption of these supposedly neutral medical authorities. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which provides the &#8220;scientific&#8221; foundation for these groups&#8217; positions, has admitted in internal communications that &#8220;evidence-based review reveals little or no evidence&#8221; supporting their recommendations. Yet they continue pushing these experimental treatments on children.
One WPATH contributor explicitly stated that medical guidelines should be tailored to &#8220;have serious effect in…law and policy settings.&#8221; Most damning, WPATH ultimately removed age limits for adolescent transgender surgeries after pressure from the Biden administration and specifically to avoid &#8220;devastating legislation.&#8221;
It’s telling that countries like England, Sweden, Finland, and Norway — hardly bastions of conservatism — have moved away from experimental transgender treatments on minors after honest scientific review. So much for the dissent’s alleged scientific consensus.
<blockquote>
<h2>Justice Sotomayor&#8217;s dissent in Skrmetti is a microcosm of the problems with results-oriented judging.</h2>
</blockquote>
When supposed medical authorities admit they&#8217;re pursuing political rather than scientific goals, citing their positions as neutral expertise becomes intellectually dishonest. The dissent never grapples with this evidence of institutional capture, instead treating politically motivated medical organizations as oracles of scientific truth.
Justice Sotomayor&#8217;s dissent in Skrmetti is a microcosm of the problems with results-oriented judging. Rather than honestly grapple with constitutional text and precedent, it deploys weak analogies, emotional manipulation, and appeals to compromised authority to reach a predetermined conclusion.
The good news is that this type of analysis, once commonplace in our constitutional law, is now relegated to a three-justice dissent.
Carrie Severino is the president of JCN and co-author of the bestselling book Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Court.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Justice Sotomayor’s Sloppy Reasoning in Skrmetti: Weak Analogies And Emotional Appeals

Skrmetti

Vice President JD Vance trolled users of BlueSky on Wednesday, joining the social platform to take part in “common sense political discussion” of the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding state bans on gender mutilation surgeries.
Vance created an account on BlueSky, reputedly a platform for leftists and defectors of Elon Musk’s X, and posted a screenshot of a piece of Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in United States v. Skrmetti shortly before the vice president was apparently suspended from the site. Vance&#8217;s account was then reactivated a short time later.
In the concurrence, Thomas raised objections to “deferring to the authority of the expert class.”
“First, so-called experts have no license to countermand the ‘wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices,’” Thomas wrote. “Second, contrary to the representations of the United States and the private plaintiffs, there is no medical consensus on how best to treat gender dysphoria in children.”
“Third, notwithstanding the alleged experts’ view that young children can provide informed consent to irreversible sex-transition treatments, whether such consent is possible is a question of medical ethics that States must decide for themselves,” he continued. “Fourth, there are particularly good reasons to question the expert class here, as recent revelations suggest that leading voices in this area have relied on questionable evidence, and have allowed ideology to influence their medical guidance.”
Vance posted the snippet with an encouraging, if cheeky, message inviting “discussion and analysis” of Thomas’ argument.
“Hello Bluesky, I’ve been told this app has become the place to go to for common sense political discussion and analysis. So I&#8217;m thrilled to be here to engage with all of you,” Vance said before laying out “illuminating” points from Thomas’ concurrence.
“[Thomas] argues that many of our so-called ‘experts’ have used bad arguments and substandard science to push experimental therapies on our youth,” Vance said. “I might add that many of those scientists are receiving substantial resources from big pharma to push these medicines on kids. What do you think?”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Just set up my page on <a href="https://twitter.com/bluesky?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@bluesky</a>, hope to see you guys there! <a href="https://t.co/5cgjyMF8su">pic.twitter.com/5cgjyMF8su</a>
&mdash; JD Vance (@JDVance) <a href="https://twitter.com/JDVance/status/1935457852082016556?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 18, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Progressives on BlueSky pounced on Vance&#8217;s post. Gun control activist Fred Guttenberg <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/fredguttenberg.bsky.social/post/3lrwaj53vk224">called</a> Vance an &#8220;anti-Democracy hack&#8221; and said of the vice president&#8217;s post that BlueSky &#8220;does not need to be infested with your deranged thoughts.&#8221;
Zach Kopplin, an activist and investigator with the Government Accountability Project, <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/zackkopplin.bsky.social/post/3lrw7pd7doc2l">responded</a> to Vance&#8217;s post: &#8220;Time to cyber bully JD Vance off this app.&#8221;
In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-upholds-tennessees-ban-on-transgender-drugs-for-children">upheld</a> a state ban on transgender drugs and surgeries in Tennessee. The court ruled that the ban does not violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
“In today’s historic Supreme Court win, the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism,” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/fatal-blow-to-the-child-mutilation-industry-conservatives-cheer-scotus-decision-on-trans-ban">said</a> 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.”

JD Vance, Clarence Thomas

Lib Social App Suspends Vance’s Account After His Opening Salvo Triggers Trans Activists

Lib Social App Suspends Vance's Account After His Opening Salvo Triggers Trans Activists

JD Vance

The Supreme Court on Thursday <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-320_m648.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">unanimously ruled</a> that disabled veterans were entitled to retroactive compensation.
The case, Soto v. United States, began as a class action lawsuit led by Simon Soto, who served in the Marines for six years until he was medically retired. Soto served for part of this time in Mortuary Affairs, where he was “assigned to ‘search for, recover, and process the remains’ of war casualties.’” He struggled to return to civil life and was later diagnosed with a 100% disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), signifying “[t]otal occupational and social impairment.”
Soto applied for combat-related special compensation (CRSC), which is intended to offset the portion of retirement pay veterans are required to waive in order to receive disability benefits from the VA. Originally available only to veterans with 20 or more years of service, Congress extended special compensation to all veterans in 2008.
Soto applied for CRSC in 2016, and was found eligible. The government gave him retroactive compensation for his waived retirement pay, but capped it at six years, citing the Barring Act, which “subjects most claims to a six-year limitations period.” But the Barring Act also said that if “another law” allows the government to adjudicate settlements with the government, the six-year ceiling is not applicable.
Soto filed a class action lawsuit with other veterans whose compensation was limited under the Barring Act. They argued that the combat-related special compensation falls under the Barring Act’s loophole for superseding laws. The government argued that the statute establishing combat-related special compensation lacked the “specific language” needed to establish this.
A district court ruled in favor of Soto, and a federal circuit ruled in favor of the government, sending the case to the Supreme Court.
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court, which emphasized that Congress isn’t limited by specific language arguments.
“As this Court has repeatedly explained, Congress &#8216;need not state its intent in any particular way,” and &#8216;[w]e have never required that Congress use magic words.&#8217;”
The Court ruled that there is sufficient basis for “another law” in the combat-related special compensation statute, ultimately deciding that Soto and his fellow veterans, whom they described as a “group of exceptionally deserving claimants”, can receive full disability compensation for their service.

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously In Favor Of Back Pay For Disabled Vets

Veterans

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a Catholic charity that sued Wisconsin after it was mandated to pay certain unemployment taxes while other religious organizations were exempted.
In its <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-154_2b82.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruling</a>, the court struck down a decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court that said the Catholic Charities Bureau had to pay taxes on unemployment compensation. The court said that the interpretation of state tax law by Wisconsin&#8217;s Supreme Court violated the First Amendment.
&#8220;The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religions and subjects any state-sponsored denominational preference to strict scrutiny,&#8221; Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority decision. &#8220;The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s application of [Wisconsin law] imposed a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines.&#8221;
Catholic Charities Bureau is an organization that provides services to poor people, the disabled, the elderly, and children with special needs as a ministry of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Superior. According to its <a href="https://ccbsuperior.org/about-us/">website</a>, it provides around 50 programs to over 10,500 people.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, saying that in addition to violating the First Amendment, the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated the church autonomy doctrine, which means that a religious institution is not defined by any corporate entity it may form.
&#8220;I would reverse for an additional reason — that the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated the church autonomy doctrine,&#8221; Thomas wrote. &#8220;However incorporated, Catholic Charities and its subentities are, from a religious perspective, a mere arm of the Diocese of Superior. The Wisconsin Supreme Court should have deferred to that understanding, and its failure to do so amounted to an unlawful attempt by the State to redefine the Diocese’s internal governance.&#8221;
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a>
Thomas noted that the government could not use entities created by religious institutions as a backdoor means to regulate their internal governance.
&#8220;In short, the corporation is made for the church, not the church for the corporation. Both the basic principles of church autonomy and the history of religious corporations establish that religious institutions are more than the corporate entities that they form,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;It follows that the government may not use such entities as a means of regulating the internal governance of religious institutions.&#8221;
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also issued a separate concurring opinion.

DOGE-FED-BUILDINGS

Supreme Court Sides With Christian Charity Targeted By Wisconsin

Catholic Church

First Amendment

Religious Liberty

Wisconsin

Support among Republicans for gay marriage has plummeted in the last three years, according to a new <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/691139/record-party-divide-years-sex-marriage-ruling.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gallup poll</a>.
Gallup’s poll released on Thursday found 41% of GOP voters support gay marriage, as opposed to 55% in 2021 and 2022. A whopping 88% of Democrats approved of gay marriage in the new poll; the 47-point gap between the two parties is the largest since Gallup first asked the question in 1996. Seventy-six percent of independents approve of gay marriage. In 1996, 16% of Republicans approved; 33% of Democrats and 32% of independents agreed.
86% of Democrats said gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable; 38% of Republicans agreed, a drop from 2022, when 56% of Republicans agreed. Among those who attend religious services at least once a week, 33% said same-sex marriage was morally acceptable and 24% said gay-lesbian relations were socially acceptable. Gallup polling between 2020-2023 <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/507692/church-attendance-lower-pre-pandemic.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">found</a> that more Republicans attended weekly religious services than Democrats by 15 percentage points.
When writing a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22067323-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization-clarence-thomas-concurrence/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">concurring opinion</a> in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made the legal case for overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges, the last of which guaranteed the right to gay marriage.
Thomas explained that the three cases relied on substantive due process, which he called “an oxymoron that lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.”
Courts have used substantive due process to protect unenumerated rights not mentioned in the Constitution. The right to privacy and the right to gay marriage have been recognized under substantive due process.  
“On the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas has long argued (consistent with much academic commentary) that insofar as the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates enumerated rights against the states and protects unenumerated rights, this work is done by the Privileges [and] Immunities Clause, and not the Due Process Clause,” Reason <a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/26/on-justice-thomas-dobbs-precedent-and-substantive-due-process/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a>.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday&amp;_gl=1*1qdq03s*_gcl_au*MTYyNDg0MTE0OS4xNzQxODk4NTMz*_ga*MTEzOTk1NjkxNi4xNzI2MzI1MDQz*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NDgzNzg2NDgkbzEwMDMkZzEkdDE3NDgzODEwMTckajU4JGwwJGgw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents, After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.”
“Substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority,&#8221; he wrote, “Substantive due process distorts other areas of constitutional law. &#8230; Substantive due process is the core inspiration for many of the Court’s constitutionally unmoored policy judgments. &#8230; The harm caused by this Court’s forays into substantive due process remains immeasurable.”

Group of People Celebrating Gay Pride Parade- Pride Month and Parade-People marching with the rainbow LGBTQ+ flag

Support For Gay Marriage Plummets Among Republicans: Gallup Poll

Gallup

Republicans

Same-Sex Marriage

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump announced his first wave of his judicial nominees on Tuesday, a highly-anticipated event given the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/inside-leonard-leos-plan-for-conservatives-to-crush-liberal-dominance">massive impact</a> Trump had on the federal judiciary during his last administration.
The nominations comes as top Trump administration officials — and Trump himself — daily express their frustration with judges who immediately block the president&#8217;s orders. As recently as Wednesday morning, Trump posted on Truth Social: &#8220;Our Court System is not letting me do the job I was Elected to do. Activist judges must let the Trump Administration deport murderers, and other criminals who have come into our Country illegally, WITHOUT DELAY!!!&#8221;
Trump <a href="https://x.com/TheElizMitchell/status/1919868297916391549">promised The Daily Signal&#8217;s Elizabeth Mitchell</a> on Sunday evening that he would release his nominee names &#8220;rapidly,&#8221; noting, “We’re putting them in rapidly and trying to get very good ones.&#8221; Several nominees came from Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey&#8217;s office, Bailey pointed out on Wednesday, boasting: &#8220;Missouri is leading the way in restoring legal excellence to the federal bench.&#8221;
First came the nomination of Whitney D. Hermandorfer of Tennessee, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh, to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Her nomination drew quick criticism from leftist critics and judicial groups, such as the Leadership Conference on Civil &amp; Human Rights, which called her nomination “appalling.&#8221;
Trump described her as &#8220;a staunch defender of girl&#8217;s and women&#8217;s sports,&#8221; and Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) praised her career as &#8220;nothing short of outstanding,&#8221; dubbing her &#8220;a rising star in Tennessee.&#8221;
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement that &#8220;Whitney Hermandorfer&#8217;s unwavering commitment to the rule of law, her exacting analytical rigor, and her unshakeable optimism will serve our country well.&#8221;
JCN&#8217;s Carrie Severino predicted that Trump&#8217;s other nominees will face criticism from left-wing groups as well,<a href="https://x.com/JCNSeverino/status/1920169760408363483"> warning</a>, &#8220;Expect to see more of the same duplicated attacks from the Left on the president’s judicial picks as we did with Hermandorfer.&#8221;
The Heritage Foundation&#8217;s Thomas Jipping <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/the-judicial-appointment-train-is-leaving-the-station/">offered</a> a similar prediction: &#8220;Expect more of this mantra, with the name of the current nominee cut and pasted, in the months ahead.&#8221;
Trump also nominated a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, Joshua M. Divine of Missouri, to serve as judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and Western District of Missouri. Divine also previously served as chief counsel to Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley and is currently the Solicitor General of Missouri.
<div id="attachment_917233" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-announces-first-wave-of-judicial-nominees-amid-fury-from-left-wing-activists/neil-gorsuch-is-sworn-in-as-associate-justice-to-supreme-court-2" rel="attachment wp-att-917233"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-917233" class="wp-image-917233 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-666855120-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-666855120-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-666855120-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-666855120-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-666855120.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" /></a>(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)</div>
&#8220;Joshua has devoutly served the Great State of Missouri, as the State’s Solicitor General and, previously, as Chief Counsel to Senator Josh Hawley, a true Patriot,&#8221; the president said in a Truth Social post. &#8220;A former Clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Joshua knows what is required to protect the Rule of Law and Constitutional Rights for the Great People of Missouri. We must have Constitutionalist Judges now, more than EVER BEFORE. Congratulations Joshua!&#8221;
Trump tapped Zachary Bluestone to serve as judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Bluestone (described by Trump as a &#8220;true legal warrior&#8221; as well as &#8220;tough, smart, and LOVES our great country&#8221;) is currently appellate chief and a violent crimes prosecutor in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri and previously served in the Missouri Attorney General’s Office as Deputy Solicitor General.
Maria A. Lanahan, the current principal deputy solicitor general in the Missouri Attorney General&#8217;s Office, has been nominated to serve as a judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, and Cristian M. Stevens, who served as first assistant attorney general and deputy attorney general of the criminal division in the Missouri Attorney General&#8217;s Office, is also nominated to serve as judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Trump described Stevens as &#8220;a Great Patriot,&#8221; and Lanahan as &#8220;a very Smart and Talented Lawyer&#8221; who &#8220;will do GREAT work in this new role.&#8221;
The last Trump nominee is Edward Aloysius O’Connell, whom Trump is nominating to serve as an associate judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. O&#8217;Connell is currently the chief of staff and deputy general council of the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. He has spent the past two decades serving as a prosecutor in the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.
&#8220;Eddie will help fix Violent Crime in the City by restoring the RULE OF LAW to Washington, D.C.,&#8221; Trump posted on Wednesday evening. &#8220;Eddie served for nearly two decades as a Tough on Crime Prosecutor for the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, where he prosecuted many Horrific Crimes, including Homicides, Domestic Violence, Organized Crime, Narcotics Offenses, and more. D.C. could, and should, be a wonderful place, if political hacks would stop making such terrible decisions.&#8221;
&#8220;I know Eddie will help make everyone much safer,&#8221; the president added. &#8220;Congratulations Eddie!&#8221;
Demand Justice, one of the most vocal leftist activism groups opposing the president&#8217;s nominees, this week accused Trump&#8217;s nominees of having  &#8220;extreme backgrounds&#8221; and arguing that their resumes &#8220;signal Trump’s intent to continue to transform the federal judiciary into another arm of the MAGA movement by appointing loyalist judges who will rubber stamp his most controversial and lawless policies.&#8221;
&#8220;These state AGs have aggressively used their offices to advance the MAGA agenda and, in one case, even to protect Trump himself from legal accountability,&#8221; the group argued.
“Trump’s first slate of nominees is exactly what we predicted–it includes loyalists who have a proven record of advocating for the kinds of radical policies featured in the Project 2025 agenda,&#8221; claimed Demand Justice Interim Executive Director Maggie Jo Buchanan. &#8220;While Trump and his allies continue to attack fair-minded jurists, he is also going after the independence of our courts by appointing politically motivated lawyers who will greenlight his extreme agenda from the bench.&#8221;

US-CHINA-POLITICS-DIPLOMACY

Trump Announces First Wave Of Judicial Nominees Amid Fury From Left-Wing Activists

9th Circuit

Amy Coney Barrett

Brett Kavanaugh

Menu