The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that the federal government unconstitutionally applied a gun restriction law to a Texas man who regularly used marijuana, narrowing the reach of the same <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-unanimously-limits-use-gun-law-used-prosecute-hunter-biden">federal statute</a> that was used in the prosecution of Hunter Biden.
In <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_g2bh.pdf">United States v. Hemani</a>, the Court held that prosecutors violated the Second Amendment when they charged Ali Hemani under a federal law prohibiting firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, emphasized that the ruling was limited and did not eliminate the government’s ability to disarm dangerous individuals, addicts, or people actively under the influence.
“We do not address efforts to ban addicts, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm,” Gorsuch wrote.
Hunter Biden was convicted in June 2024 before his father, President Joe Biden, pardoned him. &#8220;Those prosecuted under the law can face up to 15 years in prison and a permanent ban on owning firearms,&#8221; per <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-backs-marijuana-users-challenge-restriction-gun-ownershi-rcna266931">NBC News</a>.
The case centered on Hemani, a 27-year-old man who admitted to smoking marijuana approximately every other day. FBI agents later found a handgun in his home that he said he kept for self-defense.
Prosecutors argued that historical restrictions on so-called “habitual drunkards” justified modern restrictions on firearm ownership by illegal drug users. The Court disagreed.
“The government’s analogy fails under every measure it asks us to consider,” Gorsuch wrote. “The historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways.”
According to the Court, historical laws focused on people whose substance abuse rendered them incapable of managing their lives. The modern federal statute broadly covers regular drug users regardless of whether they pose a threat or not.
Gorsuch also warned that the government’s interpretation could surpass marijuana users.
Under the government’s theory, he wrote, the law could apply to “a college student who routinely uses a friend’s Adderall to cram for exams” or “a husband who regularly takes his wife’s prescription Ambien to sleep.”
The Court noted that prosecutors never alleged Hemani was addicted to marijuana, used a firearm while intoxicated, threatened anyone, or posed a danger to himself or others.
The ruling drew praise from Second Amendment advocates.
<a href="https://judicialnetwork.com/">Judicial Crisis Network</a> President Carrie Severino <a href="https://x.com/JCNSeverino/status/2067611106579718494">called the decision</a> a significant affirmation of constitutional protections.
“Can habitual drug users be disarmed? The Supreme Court, looking to history and tradition *unanimously* says no in United States v. Hemani,” Severino wrote on X. “This case inspired strange bedfellows like pro-drug organizations allying with gun rights groups — and so perhaps it’s not surprising that it’s also a case where Justices Thomas and Jackson can agree.”
Severino also noted that the Court’s decision relied heavily on the historical tradition framework that has become central to recent Second Amendment cases.
The ruling carries additional significance because the same federal statute, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13195">18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)</a>, played a central role in the prosecution of Hunter Biden, who was convicted in 2024 of illegally possessing a firearm while using illegal drugs.
However, the Court stressed that Thursday’s decision was narrowly focused on Hemani’s circumstances and did not invalidate the statute altogether.
In a separate opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, agreed with the outcome and argued that the government simply failed to demonstrate that Hemani resembled the severely impaired individuals historically subject to firearm restrictions.
The justices repeatedly emphasized that the ruling does not prevent the government from restricting firearm possession by dangerous individuals, addicts, felons, or people shown to pose a genuine threat.
Still, the unanimous ruling marks another major Second Amendment decision from a Court that continues to require the government to justify firearm restrictions through the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation.

SCOTUS/Hunter Biden

Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Blow To Gun Law Used In Hunter Biden Case

Gun Laws

Hunter Biden

Neil Gorsuch

Second Amendment

Supreme Court

WASHINGTON—A decade into his political career, Donald Trump is still finding precedents to break.
Trump hinted to reporters earlier this week that he would attend Wednesday&#8217;s Supreme Court session, sitting in the gallery as the justices hear oral arguments surrounding his executive order banning birthright citizenship.
“I’m going,” Trump said Tuesday. “I think so. I do believe.”
No sitting president has ever attended oral arguments, though they are technically permitted to do so. Trump said he was going to attend oral arguments for October&#8217;s &#8220;Liberation Day&#8221; tariffs case, but later <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/02/donald-trump-supreme-court-tariff-arguments-00633159">changed course</a>. When the High Court ruled against Trump in that case in February, the president <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/20/donald-trump-tariff-supreme-court-reaction-00791245">lashed out</a> at the justices — particularly Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, his appointees — calling them a &#8220;disgrace to our nation&#8221; and suggesting they were corrupted by foreign influences.
Trump reiterated that criticism just days ago at a dinner with the National Republican Congressional Committee.
“The Supreme Court, that’s right, of the United States cost our country — all they needed was a sentence — our country hundreds of billions of dollars, and they couldn’t care less,” <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/26/trump-supreme-court-tariffs-barrett-gorsuch-trade-ieepa-ruling.html">Trump said</a>. “They couldn’t care less.”
“They sicken me because they’re bad for our country,” Trump said, once again singling out Gorsuch and Barrett.
Whether or not this heated rhetoric means the president intends to actually attend the session remains to be seen. But Wednesday&#8217;s case, Trump v. Barbara, is at least as important to the president as the liberation day tariffs.
Shortly after returning to office last year, the president signed an executive order barring the children of illegal immigrants or foreigners with temporary visas from receiving citizenship upon birth. The order, &#8220;Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship&#8221; was swiftly challenged in a number of lawsuits arguing the order violated the 14th Amendment, which affords citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
That definition of the 14th Amendment&#8217;s guarantee of &#8220;birthright citizenship,&#8221; while commonly held, has come under scrutiny in recent years. The Claremont Institute, which filed an <a href="https://www.claremont.org/the-claremont-institute-files-amicus-brief-on-birthright-citizenship/">amicus brief</a> in support of Trump&#8217;s order, has been at the forefront of the charge to rethink the automatic granting of birthright citizenship.
&#8220;The notion that foreign nationals can secure American citizenship for their children merely by being present on U.S. soil — lawfully or unlawfully — has no basis in the text, history, or original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment,&#8221; Claremont Institute president Ryan Williams said, saying Trump&#8217;s order promoted &#8220;a constitutional understanding of citizenship — one based on consent, allegiance, and a nation’s sovereign right to define its own political community.”
Opponents say that ending birthright citizenship will be detrimental to around 150,000 children born to foreign parents on American soil every year.
While Trump could become the first president to attend oral arguments, he is not the first executive to clash with the Supreme Court.
In 1832, the Court handed down a landmark ruling on Native American rights in Worcester v. Georgia. Conventional wisdom held that President Andrew Jackson would have to intervene to ensure state governments obeyed the Court&#8217;s ruling.
Faced with this prospect, Jackson — whom Trump idolizes and whose portrait has hung in the Oval Office during both of the president&#8217;s terms — famously, though likely apocryphally, said, &#8220;John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.&#8221;
Oral arguments begin at 10:00 a.m. ET.

President Trump And First Lady Melania Trump Host Women’s History Month Event At The White House

Will Trump Be The First Sitting President To Attend Supreme Court Arguments?

birthright citizenship

Donald Trump

Executive Orders

Illegal Immigation

Tariffs

If you talk to any experienced and honest teacher these days, from elementary school on up, one of the first things they will tell you is how quickly gender ideology has taken hold. Virtually overnight, students began adopting fake pronouns and made-up genders.
To call this phenomenon &#8220;unnatural&#8221; would be a vast understatement. It&#8217;s obviously engineered. Teachers and school boards are pushing this nonsense on children who are far too young to know any better. The public school system has committed itself to indoctrinating children, in many cases without their parents&#8217; knowledge or consent. But after what happened yesterday at the Supreme Court, it&#8217;s very clear that accountability is finally coming for these ghouls.
After many years of spewing LGBT propaganda with total impunity, school districts will soon face major new restrictions on their ability to pollute the minds of elementary-school-age children. Based on how the justices acted during oral arguments yesterday, “Mahmoud v. Taylor” could easily turn out to be one of the most significant Supreme Court rulings of this generation.
Before we review the oral arguments, here is some background. The case began after Montgomery County Public Schools, the largest school district in Maryland — introduced a new &#8220;gender and sexuality curriculum.&#8221; Initially, students (or their parents) could opt out of this curriculum for any reason. But after a short period of time, the school district claimed that it wasn&#8217;t feasible to continue allowing opt outs. So it&#8217;s mandatory now. To give you an idea of what exactly this curriculum entails, here&#8217;s an image from one book that children are introduced to.
<div id="attachment_911559" style="width: 690px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-911559" class="wp-image-911559 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GpJWV7kX0AE7j3U.jpeg" alt="Screenshot: What Are Your Words?" width="680" height="446" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GpJWV7kX0AE7j3U.jpeg 680w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GpJWV7kX0AE7j3U-300x197.jpeg 300w" sizes=" (max-width: 680px) 100vw, 680px" />Screenshot: What Are Your Words?</div>
This is what&#8217;s apparently known as an &#8220;LGBT storybook.&#8221; This one&#8217;s called, “What Are Your Words?” As you can see, one line of dialogue reads, “My pronouns are like the weather. They change depending on how I feel.”
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is a nonprofit, reported on some other books that were included in this <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/will-scotus-back-parents-when-it-comes-to-lgbtq-storybooks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new curriculum</a>:
<blockquote>[O]ne book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes &#8216;intersex flag,&#8217; &#8216;drag queen,&#8217; &#8216;underwear,&#8217; &#8216;leather,&#8217; and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to &#8216;make sense.&#8217; Teachers are instructed to say doctors only &#8216;guess&#8217; when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway.</blockquote>
When parents of varying religious faiths — including Muslims and Christians — objected to the idea that their 5-year-olds needed to be taught about &#8220;sex work&#8221; and &#8220;gender transitioning&#8221; by Left-wing activists posing as teachers, the school district told them they had no recourse. In fact, the district slandered the parents as bigots. All these parents were seeking was the ability to opt out of this indoctrination. They didn&#8217;t even demand that the classes be removed from the curriculum. But the school district denied their request. So the parents sued.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1581-member-exclusive?elementPosition=3&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
Which brings us to yesterday&#8217;s oral arguments. I want to begin with this question from Justice Alito, because it gets to the core of the issue. Alito wants to know why the school district is so hell-bent on forcing children to read books about homosexuality, transgenderism and so on. (To be clear, that&#8217;s what the school district is doing. They&#8217;re not merely providing these books in the school library. Teachers are actively telling students to read the books as part of class.) The truthful answer to Justice Alito&#8217;s question is simple: The Left understands that, if the LGBT movement is going to survive, it needs to indoctrinate new members at a very young age.
But the school district can&#8217;t say that out loud, of course. So instead, the lawyer representing the Montgomery school district&#8217;s superintendent, a man named Alan Schoenfeld, starts talking in circles about how impossible it would be, at a practical level, for the school district to allow students to opt out of this curriculum. But nothing he says actually makes sense. It gets so bad that, at the end of his rambling non-answer, Justice Kavanaugh chimes in to confirm that indeed, no one has any idea what the hell this guy is talking about. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="005 alito, whats the big deal" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q118nmS1g2s?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
As best I can tell, the lawyer for the school district is claiming that, because students might talk among themselves about certain LGBT books that are discussed in this curriculum, it&#8217;s therefore impossible to allow students to opt out of this kind of curriculum. In other words, whether or not students opt out, there&#8217;s a chance that they&#8217;ll hear about the materials that are discussed in these gay adventure books.
But this ignores a couple of obvious points.The big one is that, when a teacher is communicating a lesson to a class, it has a very different effect, as compared to one student talking to another student about a book during recess or whatever. The teacher is in a position of authority. It&#8217;s much easier for a 5-year-old to discount something another 5-year-old says, than it is to discount the wisdom of a 40-year-old teacher he&#8217;s told to trust. If this is an argument for anything, it&#8217;s an argument for not having these materials in the school to begin with. Which of course is the correct answer. But either way, it is not an argument against allowing parents to opt out.
The lawyer for the school district knows this but he can&#8217;t admit it. So he ends up confusing everyone in the room with a bunch of doublespeak. This kept happening throughout the oral arguments. Listen to this moment where Justice Gorsuch points out that, in Montgomery County, teachers are told to actively correct students who dare to suggest that men can&#8217;t become women. Gorsuch then asks the lawyer for Montgomery County whether this could constitute &#8220;coercion.&#8221; The obvious answer is yes. But instead of saying that, here&#8217;s the gibberish that the attorney comes back with:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="006 gorsuch, coercion, correcting himself" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x3sWOLDR4Q0?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Justice Gorsuch gives an example where a student says, &#8220;a boy can&#8217;t be a girl.&#8221; And then the lawyer states that it&#8217;s not &#8220;coercive,&#8221; in any way, for the teacher to correct the student&#8217;s comment, in front of the entire class. He then changes his mind and says the opposite.
Even when he&#8217;s not contradicting himself, the school district&#8217;s lawyer managed to make a mockery of the entire case. 
Here&#8217;s his opening statement, for example:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="007 beginning with mr shonfeld" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xkw27dw9T5g?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Yes, according to this attorney for the school district, there&#8217;s no difference between teaching elementary-school students about wars, and teaching them that boys can become girls. Telling students about the War of 1812 is just like telling them that it&#8217;s totally reasonable to chemically castrate minors.
One of the ways we know this isn&#8217;t true, aside from using basic common sense, is that there&#8217;s no army of parents demanding that schools stop teaching students about wars. That&#8217;s because it&#8217;s understood that teaching students about wars is not a general endorsement of violence. Additionally, everyone agrees that history is important and useful because it&#8217;s grounded in reality. On the other hand, gender ideology is just that — ideological.
This lawyer was not the only person to embarrass himself yesterday. That&#8217;s a given. After all, Ketanji Brown Jackson was also in attendance at the hearing. And as you&#8217;d expect, she did not disappoint. Single-handedly, she dropped the collective IQ in the room by about 10 points, just by opening her mouth. And of course, she opened her mouth on the side of indoctrinating children, because she takes the Left&#8217;s position on every issue. Behold, Ketanji Brown Jackson&#8217;s argument in favor of mandatory indoctrination in public schools:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="008 can just go to private school" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y-FJrhGbwrw?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Yes, you can homeschool, says Ketanji Brown Jackson. You can pay for an expensive private school. Therefore, there&#8217;s no &#8220;burden&#8221; on these parents, apparently. It&#8217;s not a &#8220;burden&#8221; to have to pay more money, and change your child&#8217;s school, because Montgomery County decided to teach LGBT propaganda. And then the lawyer representing the parents responds, and points out that she&#8217;s completely wrong, and many other cases demonstrate why she&#8217;s wrong. And then she goes quiet and they move on.
Here’s one more clip from these arguments, involving Justice Alito questioning the school board&#8217;s lawyer. He follows up on this logic, about how the parents can supposedly just go to a private school. He begins by talking from the perspective of one of these parents:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="009 alito, too bad" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hgRo17KtvU8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
This is what it looks like in the Supreme Court when &#8220;sparks fly,&#8221; so to speak. Alito is making his disdain for the school district&#8217;s argument extremely clear, which is exactly what he should do. They&#8217;re trying to force-feed gender ideology to children, and instead of owning it, they&#8217;re lying and telling the parents to pay more money to find a private school that won&#8217;t interfere with their religious liberties. But the Constitution doesn&#8217;t work that way. And it appears the Montgomery County school district, and school districts all over the country, are about to discover that.
This is not a close case. That&#8217;s why even the far-Left outlet Vox <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250422191725/https://www.vox.com/scotus/409921/supreme-court-dont-say-gay-mahmoud-taylor">reported</a>: 
<blockquote>The Supreme Court’s &#8216;Don’t Say Gay&#8217; argument went disastrously for public schools.</blockquote>
At the moment, the most likely outcome is that, when very young children are involved, parents will retain the right to opt out of curriculums involving gender ideology, or any other extreme ideology that conflicts with their established religion. Everyone can see this coming.
And just to underscore that, yesterday Randi Weingarten, the head of one of the largest teachers&#8217; unions in the country, went on Fox News. And she admitted, right away, that she wouldn&#8217;t read these books in the classroom. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="010 Randi" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/luc0jWbW_HA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
We all know that Randi Weingarten isn&#8217;t saying this because she believes it. She&#8217;s maybe the most calculating political operative in the country, after Nancy Pelosi. But Weingarten understands when the Left is overplaying its hand. She knows that they&#8217;re on the cusp of yet another crushing defeat in their efforts to indoctrinate children, and she&#8217;s trying to soften that blow when it inevitably comes.
Unfortunately for Weingarten, the truth is, there&#8217;s no way to accomplish that. Gender ideology and LGBT activists, as we&#8217;ve discussed many times, are now extremely unpopular. They have alienated the entire country, to the point that they may have cost Democrats the last election. The only way an ideology like this can survive is by targeting children before they&#8217;re able to develop their cognitive abilities. That&#8217;s their only viable play. And in a few short months, after this case is inevitably decided against the public school system of Montgomery County, it&#8217;ll be much, much harder for these people to accomplish that.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Parental Rights Regarding LGBTQ Books In Schools

The Lawyers Promoting Child Indoctrination To SCOTUS Were Absolutely Humiliated

Books

Brett Kavanaugh

Children's Books

Education

Elementary Schools

gender ideology

Ketanji Brown Jackson

LGBTQ

Matt Walsh

Opinion

Parents rights

Samuel Alito

SCOTUS

Virginia

Internet sensation <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/peanut-the-squirrel-marked-for-death-days-before-he-was-seized-in-raid">Peanut the Squirrel’s</a> story got the attention of those in the highest court in the land after Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch gave the animal a shoutout while speaking about government overreach.
During Gorsuch’s appearance on Thursday at the Federalist Society’s annual dinner, the conservative SCOTUS justice referenced the story of the little grey squirrel who last month was seized by New York State authorities from his guardian&#8217;s home and euthanized, along with his pal Fred the Raccoon, to be “tested for rabies,”  <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4992094-gorsuch-invokes-pnut-the-squirrel-in-federalist-society-dinner-keynote/">The Hill</a> reported.
“I’ve just seen too many cases like that. You have just the other day, some of you might have seen one in the newspaper, if the newspapers are to be believed,” Gorsuch told the crowd at the Washington Hilton’s ballroom. “Yes, I’m speaking of P’nut the squirrel.”
Reports have since surfaced that call into question the death of the little animals, showing that the squirrel and raccoon were reportedly marked for euthanasia more than a week before they were seized in a raid at guardian Mark Longo&#8217;s home.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
SCOTUS Justice Neil Gorsuch shout-outs P’Nut the Squirrel in speech about government overreach <a href="https://t.co/3vOw8FSTyk">https://t.co/3vOw8FSTyk</a> <a href="https://t.co/3yHmhVQWIX">pic.twitter.com/3yHmhVQWIX</a>
— New York Post (@nypost) <a href="https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1857331648024519052?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 15, 2024</a></blockquote>
Chemung County Executive Christopher Moss told the <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/11/12/us-news/pnut-the-squirrel-was-marked-for-death-and-decapitation-from-the-start-as-rabies-test-comes-back-negative-in-tragic-twist/?utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=nypost&amp;utm_source=twitter">New York Post</a> that the rabies test for both animals came back “negative” after they were seized on October 30 by officials with the the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and then euthanized.
DEC officials initially said they had received numerous calls about the animals living in the house. The department then got a warrant to search the home for the animals in what Longo described as a drug dealer-type raid at his home, as previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/internet-sensation-peanut-the-squirrel-euthanized-by-new-york-state-government">reported</a>.
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/?_gl=1*jtghwp*_gcl_au*ODQ1NjYzNTg2LjE3Mjg5MDk3OTE.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczMDEyMDgwOS40OS4xLjE3MzAxMjA4MzkuMzAuMC4w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+</a>
At the time, the Associated Press <a href="https://apnews.com/article/peanut-pet-squirrel-seized-euthanized-45a4cba19e1c49cb0cd58fef0f140f0d">reported</a> that the DEC took both animals from the Longos’ home. The agency reportedly said it received complaints that wildlife was potentially at risk and being kept illegally. The Longos told <a href="https://www.tmz.com/2024/11/01/peanut-the-squirrel-seized-killed-new-york-owner-rips-state/">TMZ</a> that they have had Peanut for seven years, after rescuing the squirrel when its mother was killed.
The DEC also said in a statement that Peanut bit an investigator on the hand while the squirrel was being confiscated, sparking the need to test for rabies and “both animals were euthanized…” according to <a href="https://www.mytwintiers.com/chemung-county/peanut-the-squirrel-euthanized-by-dec-to-test-for-rabies/">WETM</a>. In order to test for rabies, decapitation is required so subjects’ heads can be opened and their brains sampled.
However, the Post reported that as far back as a week earlier, a timeline for euthanasia doesn’t match up and the animals were advised to be euthanized by state officials before the raid. One email from the DEC dated October 22 said it recommends “these animals be tested for rabies as a precaution for human safety.”
The State Department of Health letter to the county on October 23 then read,  “Wildlife cannot be confined like domestic animals, and if there was an exposure, the animals would need to be tested for rabies,” <a href="https://www.wbng.com/video/2024/11/12/chemung-county-health-department-clarifies-role-peanut-squirrel-euthanization-2/">WBNG</a> reported.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/peanut-the-squirrel-marked-for-death-days-before-he-was-seized-in-raid" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Peanut The Squirrel Marked For Death Days Before He Was Seized In Raid</a>

The Squirrel

Peanut The Squirrel’s Story Gets Shoutout From Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch

Peanut The Squirrel's Story Gets Shoutout From Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch

Animals

General

New York

U.S.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch highlighted an example from his new book about how having hundreds of thousands of federal laws on the books harms average Americans who have no idea that the laws even exist.
Gorsuch made the remarks about his new book “Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law” during an interview on PBS&#8217;s &#8220;Firing Line with Margaret Hoover&#8221; that aired Friday when asked about how the sheer volume of laws &#8220;present a burden on average Americans&#8221;.
&#8220;Well, let’s do the numbers. In just my lifetime, federal law has grown massively,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We’ve seen maybe a doubling in the number of federal criminal offenses on the books. There are so many regulations now carrying criminal consequences that nobody knows how many there are. There are at least 300,000.&#8221;
Gorsuch then delved into a story from his a book about John and Sandra Yates, a married couple who were high school sweethearts that moved to Florida so John could pursue his passion of wanting to be a fisherman.
&#8220;He worked his way up from deckhand to becoming captain of his own crew,&#8221; Gorsuch said. &#8220;And he’s out one day and an agent comes up and says, I would like to measure your fish. I’m not sure they’re all the right size. They had to be at least 20 inches. He spends the whole day measuring thousands of pounds of red grouper and decides 72 are undersized. He says, put them in a crate and I’ll deal with you when you get back to dock.&#8221;
&#8220;A few days later, he does. He measures them again, but this time only 69 are undersized,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;Now John’s expecting a citation or something and if that’s the way it goes, that’ll be fine. But he hears nothing from the government for three years until one day agents surround his house. They charge him with violating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which was adopted after the Enron financial accounting scandal.&#8221;
&#8220;Now, the statute says if you destroy, intentionally, accounting records, documents, things like that, or other tangible objects, you’re guilty,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;The government’s theory in the case, apparently, was that he intentionally threw overboard 72 red grouper, tangible objects, and replaced them with 69 still undersized fish. Now, John thought that was about the silliest thing he ever heard, but he was found guilty by a jury, appealed and lost, spent Christmas in jail. And he was ready to give up. But Sandra, his wife, said, no, you got to appeal this because this is just wrong. Brought it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States and won, 5 to 4. Sandra was angry that she didn’t get more votes.&#8221;
Gorsuch noted that a Harvard law professor that he cited in his book estimates that the average American commits three felonies a day because of how many laws exist.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
In his new book, &quot;Over Ruled,&quot; Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch tells the story of fisherman John Yates, whose life and career were ruined by an unjustified conviction that was ultimately overturned.
&quot;Sometimes, even when you win, you lose,&quot; Gorsuch tells <a href="https://twitter.com/MargaretHoover?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MargaretHoover</a>. <a href="https://t.co/LUzjWzzUom">pic.twitter.com/LUzjWzzUom</a>
&mdash; Firing Line with Margaret Hoover (@FiringLineShow) <a href="https://twitter.com/FiringLineShow/status/1824146438151868826?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 15, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

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

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch Highlights How Too Many Laws Hurt Average People

On the latest “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/sunday-special" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sunday Special</a>” episode, Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro talked with Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, who warned that the proliferation of complex laws and regulations is threatening Americans&#8217; freedoms and undermining trust in government institutions.
Gorsuch told Shapiro that the U.S. Code has doubled in length since 1980, with Congress adding 2-3 million new words to federal laws annually. He noted that federal agencies have also been prolific, with conservative estimates putting the number of federal crimes buried in regulations at 300,000.
“And, of course, that&#8217;s just the tip of the iceberg. Our federal agencies have been busy, too. There are so many federal crimes now buried in those regulations adopted by agencies, not necessarily by Congress, that nobody knows how many there are,” he said. 

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/the-human-toll-of-too-much-law-justice-neil-gorsuch-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH THE FULL &#8216;SUNDAY SPECIAL&#8217; INTERVIEW WITH NEIL GORSUCH</a>
Gorsuch emphasized the human toll of regulatory overreach, citing examples like a magician who had to obtain a federal license for his rabbit and create a 28-page disaster preparedness plan. He argued that excessive regulation undermines trust in government institutions and disproportionately impacts ordinary Americans trying to comply with complex laws.
“Most people have no idea what the law actually is,” Gorsuch added. “You can hire a lawyer and if you&#8217;re rich enough, then maybe you&#8217;re able to navigate the laws. If you&#8217;re not rich, then you&#8217;re probably screwed, depending on how tightly regulated any particular segment is.” 
The justice expressed hope for bipartisan solutions, highlighting state-level efforts to eliminate unnecessary regulations. He pointed to the deregulation of the airline industry in the 1970s as an example of successful reform at the federal level. Gorsuch also stressed the importance of civic education, stating that &#8220;a third of Americans can&#8217;t name the three branches of government, let alone why we have them.&#8221;
Shapiro chimed in, stating, “When you look at sort of the history of the development of this giant bureaucracy, the amount of rulemaking you trace this this dramatic increase to sort of the latter half of the 20th century. But its roots lie in Wilsonian administrative state theories. And really that comes from German progressivism.” 
“The original checks and balances of the Constitution were largely designed to prevent things from getting done in the absence of a large-scale approval of the things, the American public really had to be nearly unanimous in a lot of ways in order to get big things done,” Shapiro added. “And by the time we got to the early 20th century, Woodrow Wilson famously — and Teddy Roosevelt too — really believed that now the federal government had become unworkable; it just was not able to get the things done that it needed to get done. And so the idea was governance from above by experts who could thwart the checks and balances that were creating such obstruction.” 
The discussion between the Daily Wire host and Justice Gorsuch highlights growing concerns about regulatory overreach and its impact on everyday Americans. Gorsuch’s warnings come at a time of heightened debate over the proper role and scope of government regulation.
At the federal level, Gorsuch noted that both Republican and Democratic administrations have undertaken deregulatory initiatives in recent years. The Supreme Court has shown a willingness to reconsider longstanding doctrines that give agencies broad latitude in interpreting and enforcing regulations. In June, the high court, with the help of Gorsuch, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/massive-conservative-win-supreme-court-overrules-chevron-deference" target="_blank" rel="noopener">overturned</a> the &#8220;Chevron deference&#8221; doctrine, which had required courts to defer to agencies&#8217; reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

Ben Shapiro/Neil Gorsuch

Ben Shapiro Sits Down With Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch In Latest ‘Sunday Special’ Episode’

“There are so many federal crimes now buried in those regulations … that nobody knows how many there are.”

Ben Shapiro

federal regulation

Sunday Special

President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-biden" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Joe Biden</a> should &#8220;be careful&#8221; with his proposal to reform the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> , Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/neil-gorsuch" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Neil Gorsuch</a> suggested in a new interview.
The plan — <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-unveils-plan-to-dramatically-change-the-supreme-court-attacks-recent-decisions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">which includes</a> term limits, an enforceable ethics code, and a push for an amendment to crack down on presidential immunity — came up during an interview conducted by &#8220;Fox News Sunday&#8221; anchor Shannon Bream.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
WATCH: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch responds to President Biden&#39;s proposed reforms. <a href="https://t.co/AwDRHlKTjH">pic.twitter.com/AwDRHlKTjH</a>
&mdash; Fox News Sunday (@FoxNewsSunday) <a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNewsSunday/status/1820112726406111613?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 4, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;You are not in a bubble here at the courts. There are real-world events happening. The president has proposed now changes to the court, supported, it appears, by the vice president who looks like she&#8217;s going to be the Democratic nominee. How does the court feel about potential changes, term limits, ethics codes that are enforced by someone in ways that it isn&#8217;t now?&#8221; Bream asked.
Gorsuch, who was nominated to the high court by former President Donald Trump, replied, &#8220;Shannon, you are not going to be surprised that I&#8217;m not going to get into what&#8217;s now a political issue during a presidential election year. I don&#8217;t think that would be helpful.&#8221;
He added, &#8220;I have one thought to add: It is what the independent judiciary means — what does it mean to you as an American? It means that when you are unpopular, you can get a fair hearing under the law and under the Constitution. If you are in the majority, you don&#8217;t need judges and juries to hear you and protect your rights. You are popular! It&#8217;s there for the moments when the spotlight is on you, when the government&#8217;s coming after you. And don&#8217;t you want a ferociously independent judge and a jury of your peers to make those decisions? Isn&#8217;t that your right as an American? And so I just say, be careful.&#8221;
Biden released his proposal last week after he ended his re-election bid as a growing number of Democrats called on him to step aside following a fumbling debate performance that raised concerns about his mental acuity and electability. Vice President Kamala Harris, whom Biden chose to be his successor, has since clinched the Democratic Party&#8217;s presidential nomination.
While Senate Majority Leader <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/chuck-schumer" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Chuck Schumer</a> (D-NY) has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/schumer-moves-to-blow-up-trump-immunity-ruling" target="_blank" rel="noopener">expressed openness</a> to pursuing at least part of Biden&#8217;s proposed overhaul through legislation, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) responded by calling the plan &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/speaker-johnson-rips-bidens-proposal-to-reform-supreme-court-dead-on-arrival" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dead on arrival</a>&#8221; in the House. Biden shot back, saying Johnson is &#8220;dead on arrival,&#8221; and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-blasted-for-saying-house-speaker-mike-johnson-is-dead-on-arrival" target="_blank" rel="noopener">faced backlash</a> for the comment. Johnson replied by posting a clip to X from the debate that led to Biden dropping out. &#8220;I really don’t know what he said at the end of that sentence,” Trump said of Biden <a href="https://x.com/SpeakerJohnson/status/1818028485702791246" target="_blank" rel="noopener">in the video clip</a>. &#8220;I don’t think he knows what he said either.&#8221;

US Supreme Court Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch (R) and Brett Kavanaugh (L)

‘Be Careful’: Gorsuch Responds To Biden’s Proposed Supreme Court Reforms

'Be Careful': Gorsuch Responds To Biden's Proposed Supreme Court Reforms

Joe Biden

Justice Thomas Attends Forum On His 30 Year Supreme Court Legacy

‘The Left Is Triggered By Justice Thomas’: Mark Paoletta On The Crusade Against The Supreme Court

'The Left Is Triggered By Justice Thomas': Mark Paoletta On The Crusade Against The Supreme Court

Clarence Thomas

Democrats

Leftists

Morning Wire

Readers Pass

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley argued over the weekend that the Supreme Court needed to strike a balance when ruling over whether presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution.
Turley made the remarks during an interview with Shannon Bream on &#8220;Fox News Sunday&#8221;.
&#8220;There is a slippery slope on both sides, but I was surprised with the three justices on the left, is that they didn&#8217;t seem at all concerned about how extreme that argument would be — leaving a president with no protection,&#8221; he said. &#8220;So the question that most of the justices were struggling with, and I thought they were doing in good faith, is how do we find a more balanced, nuanced approach here?&#8221;
&#8220;The government made a major concession to Justice Gorsuch when he said there are things you can&#8217;t criminalize that a president does and the government said yes,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;And he said doesn&#8217;t it sound a lot like immunity? Isn&#8217;t it our job to try to define where that is? It was a devastating moment.&#8221;
He added, &#8220;So there is a real chance that this could be sent back to the trial court, to say we need more information of which of these acts were part of an official function, and which were not. That will take time and likely derail any effort to try Trump before the election in Washington D.C.&#8221;

Jonathan Turley

Jonathan Turley: Supreme Court Needs To Strike A Balance On Presidential Immunity

Immunity

Supreme Court Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/neil-gorsuch" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Neil Gorsuch</a> shredded Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in the Court&#8217;s ruling to strike down a Colorado law that would have punished a Christian graphic designer who declined to design a website for a same-sex wedding that violated her religious beliefs.
In a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-sides-with-christian-graphic-designer-who-refused-to-work-on-same-sex-weddings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">6-3 decision</a> in the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the high court cited the First Amendment in ruling that Lorie Smith could not be forced by state civil rights law to design websites that run counter to her sincerely-held religious beliefs. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, which included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, saying “no public accommodations law is immune from the demands of the Constitution.”
&#8220;It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case,&#8221; Gorsuch said. &#8220;Much of it focuses on the evolution of public accommodations laws, post, at 7–13, and the strides gay Americans have made towards securing equal justice under law, post, at 14–17. And, no doubt, there is much to applaud here. But none of this answers the question we face today: Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?&#8221;
&#8220;When the dissent finally gets around to that question—more than halfway into its opinion—it reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The dissent claims that Colorado wishes to regulate Ms. Smith’s &#8216;conduct,&#8217; not her speech. Post, at 24–29. Forget Colorado’s stipulation that Ms. Smith’s activities are &#8216;expressive,&#8217; App. to Pet. for Cert. 181a, and the Tenth Circuit’s conclusion that the State seeks to compel &#8216;pure speech,&#8217; 6 F. 4th, at 1176. The dissent chides us for deciding a pre-enforcement challenge. Post, at 23. But it ignores the Tenth Circuit’s finding that Ms. Smith faces a credible threat of sanctions unless she conforms her views to the State’s. 6 F. 4th, at 1172–1175. The dissent suggests (over and over again) that any burden on speech here is &#8216;incidental.&#8217; Post, at 24, 26–30, 32–33. All despite the Tenth Circuit’s finding that Colorado intends to force Ms. Smith to convey a message she does not believe with the &#8216;very purpose&#8217; of &#8216;[e]liminating . . . ideas&#8217; that differ from its own.&#8221;
Gorsuch <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-sides-with-christian-graphic-designer-who-refused-to-work-on-same-sex-weddings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">continued</a>:
<blockquote>Nor does the dissent’s reimagination end there. It claims that, “for the first time in its history,” the Court “grants a business open to the public” a “right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” Post, at 1; see also id., at 26, n. 10, 35. Never mind that we do no such thing and Colorado itself has stipulated Ms. Smith will (as CADA requires) “work with all people regardless of . . . sexual orientation.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 184a. Never mind, too, that it is the dissent that would have this Court do something truly novel by allowing a government to coerce an individual to speak contrary to her beliefs on a significant issue of personal conviction, all in order to eliminate ideas that differ from its own.
There is still more. The dissent asserts that we “sweep under the rug petitioners’ challenge to CADA’s Communication Clause.” Post, at 26. This despite the fact the parties and the Tenth Circuit recognized that Ms. Smith’s Communication Clause challenge hinges on her Accommodation Clause challenge. (So much so that Colorado devoted less than two pages at the tail end of its brief to the Communication Clause and the Tenth Circuit afforded it just three paragraphs in its free-speech analysis. See Brief for Respondents 44–45; 6 F. 4th, at 1182–1183.) The dissent even suggests that our decision today is akin to endorsing a “separate but equal” regime that would allow law firms to refuse women admission into partnership, restaurants to deny service to Black Americans, or businesses seeking employees to post something like a “White Applicants Only” sign. Post, at 1, 16–21, 26, 28–29, 32, and n. 13, 37. Pure fiction all.
In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position. For instance: While stressing that a Colorado company cannot refuse “the full and equal enjoyment of [its] services” based on a customer’s protected status, post, at 27, the dissent assures us that a company selling creative services “to the public” does have a right “to decide what messages to include or not to include,” post, at 28. But if that is true, what are we even debating?
Instead of addressing the parties’ stipulations about the case actually before us, the dissent spends much of its time adrift on a sea of hypotheticals about photographers, stationers, and others, asking if they too provide expressive services covered by the First Amendment. Post, at 27–29, 31–32, 37. But those cases are not this case. Doubtless, determining what qualifies as expressive activity protected by the First Amendment can sometimes raise difficult questions. But this case presents no complication of that kind. The parties have stipulated that Ms. Smith seeks to engage in expressive activity. And the Tenth Circuit has recognized her services involve “pure speech.” See supra, at 6, 9. Nothing the dissent says can alter this—nor can it displace the First Amendment protections that follow.
The dissent’s treatment of precedent parallels its handling of the facts. Take its remarkable suggestion that a government forcing an individual to create speech on weighty issues with which she disagrees—all, as the Tenth Circuit found, with the goal of “[e]liminating” views it does not share, 6 F. 4th, at 1178—only “incidental[ly]” burdens First Amendment liberties. Post, at 26–35. Far from embracing a notion like that, our cases have rejected it time after time—including in the context of public accommodations laws. See Parts II–IV, supra; FAIR, 547 U. S., at 61– 64 (no government may affect a “speaker’s own message” by “forc[ing]” her to “accommodate” views she does not hold); Hurley, 515 U. S., at 563, 566 (using a public accommodations law to compel parade organizers to include speech they did not believe was no mere “‘incidental’” infringement on First Amendment rights); Dale, 530 U. S., at 659 (employing a public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to alter their admissions policies had more than “an incidental effect on protected speech”).</blockquote>
Smith said she was willing to work with anyone regardless of their sexual orientation, but objected to being forced to build wedding websites for same-sex couples because same-sex marriage goes against her deeply held beliefs.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-102078">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
“There are some messages I can’t create no matter who requests them,” Smith <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-lorie-smith/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in December.
Smith said she delayed expanding her business to start designing wedding websites because she was worried her beliefs would bump up against a Colorado public accommodations law. Colorado argued that Smith simply wanted to discriminate against same-sex couples and said the public accommodations law governs the conduct, not the speech of a person running a Colorado business.
Mairead Elordi contributed to this report.

Supreme Court Justices Pose For Formal Group Photo

Gorsuch Lambasts Sotomayor’s Dissent In Christian Web Designer Ruling: ‘Opens Fire On Its Own Position’

Gorsuch Lambasts Sotomayor's Dissent In Christian Web Designer Ruling: 'Opens Fire On Its Own Position'

Courts

Sonia Sotomayor

Supreme Court Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/neil-gorsuch" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Neil Gorsuch</a> said Thursday he hopes the report on the leaked draft opinion of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision comes soon.
“Improper efforts to influence judicial decision-making, from whatever side, from whomever, are a threat to the judicial decision-making process and inhibit our capacity to communicate with one another,” Gorsuch <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/09/supreme-court-abortion-leak-gorsuch/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> at a conference for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Colorado. The <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-gorsuch-said-findings-of-probe-into-leaked-roe-draft-opinion-will-be-made-in-report-11662684240?st=6q2jaspsa8jvbky&amp;reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wall Street Journal</a> and <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/top-court-leak-threatens-judicial-decision-making-gorsuch-says" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bloomberg Law</a> reported on his comments.
“I very much hope we get to the bottom of this sooner or later,” he added.
Gorsuch didn’t comment on if the report would be released to the public, and reporters were not allowed to conduct interviews with him or other judges, at the conference’s direction, the Journal reported.
“The chief justice appointed an internal committee to oversee the investigation,” Gorsuch said. “That committee has been busy and we’re looking forward to their report, I hope soon.”
In May, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Supreme Court marshal would be in charge of an investigation to discover where the leak came from, but the high court has been silent on the matter since that time and not discussed the topic with the public. Investigators required the clerks at the high court to take part in interviews and hand over their cellphones this past summer. At the time, many of the clerks sought lawyers of their own due to the requirements.
The Dobbs opinion was leaked prior to the official ruling being released, setting the American public — on both sides of the debate — into a frenzy over the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade. When the majority opinion was released, it was very similar to the leaked draft, resulting in decades of precedent from the Roe v. Wade ruling no longer applying. The decision returned the topic of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/abortion" target="_blank" rel="noopener">abortion</a> back to individual states, allowing them to pass and enact their own laws concerning the controversial procedure.
States have taken action over the past year to eradicate abortion, allow it in certain circumstances, or promote it and attract women from states where it is banned.
At the conference, Gorsuch discussed several topics in a joint public discussion with two circuit judges, including the steps American students must go through to become lawyers.
“That’s something we have to ask ourselves about: Does it really require seven years of collegiate education to become a competent lawyer?” Justice Gorsuch said.

94806F28-C250-41CE-B335-71EC012A8D76_1_201_a

Justice Gorsuch Says He Hopes Report On Dobbs Leak Will Come Soon

Justice Neil Gorsuch Says He Hopes Report On Dobbs V. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Leak Will Come Soon

Abortion

Dobbs

Roe v. Wade's Long And Brutal Legacy

New reports suggest that Chief Justice John Roberts <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-abortion-dobbs/index.html">lobbied hard</a> to prevent the more conservative members of the Supreme Court — namely Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — from voting to <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/pope-says-he-respects-supreme-court-decision-that-overturned-roe/">overturn Roe v. Wade</a>.
Roberts ultimately voted with the six-justice majority upholding a new Mississippi abortion law — capping abortions at 15 weeks — in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, but joined the four-justice minority in voting to uphold Roe. However, he did pen his own dissenting opinion stating that he would have opened the door for states to impose stricter limits on abortions, particularly after the first trimester.
And according to recent reporting, Roberts worked diligently to bring the conservative justices around — until someone leaked an early opinion draft indicating the landmark abortion case, along with the subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey, could be in danger.
<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-abortion-dobbs/index.html">CNN reported</a> that Roberts had been focused on swaying the two newest justices — Kavanaugh and Barrett — but that he had been derailed somewhat when the leaked draft, authored by Justice Alito, became public.
&#8220;Roberts’ persuasive efforts, difficult even from the start, were thwarted by the sudden public nature of the state of play,&#8221; the report stated. &#8220;He can usually work in private, seeking and offering concessions, without anyone beyond the court knowing how he or other individual justices have voted or what they may be writing.&#8221;
The report also concluded that Roberts&#8217; efforts, however fervent, did not appear to be moving the needle with regard to Kavanaugh and Barrett even before the leak — and added that if threats against their families was not enough to sway them from their position, it was unlikely the Chief Justice would have been successful.
CNN&#8217;s &#8220;New Day&#8221; covered the topic on Tuesday morning as well:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
New CNN reporting from <a href="https://twitter.com/JoanBiskupic?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoanBiskupic</a>: Chief Justice John Roberts privately lobbied his fellow conservative justices to preserve Roe v. Wade – but the unprecedented leak of the draft opinion may have doomed his efforts. <a href="https://t.co/g0fKkIT14f">pic.twitter.com/g0fKkIT14f</a>
&mdash; CNN This Morning with Kasie Hunt (@CNNThisMorning) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNNThisMorning/status/1551892687447531522?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 26, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
A number of critics followed the decision overturning Roe with accusations against Kavanaugh and Barrett specifically, claiming that <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/pelosi-blasting-abortion-decision-suggests-kavanaugh-gorsuch-lied-hear-rcna35208">they had lied</a> during their Senate confirmation hearings when they stated that the 1973 decision was &#8220;precedent.&#8221;
But both also declined to answer any questions about how they might vote in future cases — as those questions were rooted in hypotheticals — and precedents have been overturned in the past when the law was later found to be unjust. Examples of those include Plessy v. Ferguson — which allowed racial segregation under the banner of &#8220;separate but equal&#8221; and was later overturned in Brown v. Board of Education — and Korematsu v. United States, under which Japanese Americans were rounded up and placed in internment camps while the United States battled the Empire of Japan in World War II.

Chief Justice Roberts Lobbied Court Conservatives Hard To Salvage Roe: Report

Amy Coney Barrett

John Roberts

Menu