Virginia Democrats just found out the Supreme Court is not in the mood for election-year do-overs.
In a decision that could ripple far beyond the Commonwealth, the United States Supreme Court slammed the brakes on a Democrat-backed effort to redraw Virginia’s congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterms, and it did it without a single justice publicly objecting. No fiery dissents. No dramatic explanation. Just a quiet little order that dropped like a hammer.
The fight centered around a voter-approved map Democrats hoped would help flip four Republican-held House seats and possibly tilt control of Congress. Virginia voters narrowly approved the new map in April after Democrats pushed through a complicated workaround to sidestep the state’s bipartisan redistricting system.
Republicans immediately cried foul, arguing the process violated Virginia’s constitution because lawmakers jammed the proposal forward after early voting had already started in a required election cycle.
Virginia’s Supreme Court agreed in a razor-thin 4-3 ruling, tossing the map out entirely and saying the process was too compromised to stand.
Democrats raced to the nation’s highest court begging the justices to step in and save the plan before the midterms heat up.
But the Supreme Court basically responded with a cold shrug.
Why does this matter? Because this is not just about Virginia. It is part of a nationwide political cage match over congressional maps as both parties scramble to redraw districts before November.
Texas Republicans already moved to strengthen their map. California Democrats fired back with their own redraw.
Now Virginia has become another major battlefield in the redistricting war that could decide who controls Washington.
Republicans currently hold slim majorities in both the House and Senate, and both parties know a few district lines can change the balance of power overnight.
Even more wild? Nearly $100 million was dumped into the Virginia referendum fight alone.
To most Virginians, it probably looked like just another random ballot question buried halfway down the page.
To both parties, though, it was political gold.
But in modern politics, maps are power.
And Friday’s ruling was a reminder that sometimes the most important election battles happen long before anyone actually votes.

GettyImages-1448513952

Supreme Court Has Final Word On Dem Hail Mary Over Virginia Map

Courts

Politics

Redistricting

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

Virginia

WASHINGTON, May 11 (Reuters) &#8211; The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for Alabama Republicans to pursue a congressional voting map more favorable to the GOP ahead of November&#8217;s midterm elections, the latest fallout from the court&#8217;s seismic voting rights ruling.
The justices lifted a lower court&#8217;s decision that had blocked state Republicans&#8217; preferred map as racially discriminatory and for illegally diluting the voting power of black Alabamians.
Federal courts had previously ruled Alabama&#8217;s map likely violated the Voting Rights Act by failing to create a second majority-black district in the state.
The Supreme Court said the lower courts must reconsider previous rulings in light of the high court&#8217;s recent decision in the Voting Rights Act case, Louisiana v. Callais, which struck down a majority-black district in that state as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The ruling limited how race can be used in drawing congressional districts under the Voting Rights Act. President Donald Trump called on states to redraw maps after that decision.
Alabama is expected to revert to a map passed in 2023, which would reduce the number of districts where black voters comprise a majority or near-majority from two to one of the state&#8217;s seven U.S. House districts.
<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-clears-path-alabama-redraw-congressional-map/">According</a> to CBS News, the ruling &#8220;appears to be 6 to 3.&#8221; Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, broke with the majority in a written dissent, arguing the lower court&#8217;s conclusion that Alabama deliberately discriminated against black voters should remain in place. Sotomayor was the only justice to disclose their vote publicly, The Hill <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5873190-supreme-court-alabama-redistricting/">reported</a>.
The ruling could reshape control of the U.S. House by allowing states to redraw maps to reduce minority-opportunity districts.
Alabama is one of several red Southern states attempting to redraw its congressional map before the November midterms.
Tennessee lawmakers approved a congressional map expected to hand Republicans control of all nine of the Volunteer State&#8217;s congressional districts. The map, signed by Republican Gov. Bill Lee, spreads out the heavily Democratic population centers in Memphis and Nashville across multiple Republican-favorable districts and is likely to eliminate the state&#8217;s lone Democratic seat, currently held by Rep. Steve Cohen of Memphis.
In Florida, Republicans led by Gov. Ron DeSantis passed new congressional district boundaries projected to give the GOP four additional House seats.
Lawmakers in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Mississippi are also reviewing potential redistricting plans that could further shift seats to Republicans.
Before the Supreme Court decision last week, Alabama had been required to maintain one majority-black district and a second with a near-majority black population under an interpretation of the Voting Rights Act that has now been ruled an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. After the ruling, Attorney General Steve Marshall, a Republican, <a href="https://www.alabamaag.gov/attorney-general-marshall-applauds-momentous-supreme-court-redistricting-decision/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> the state would move quickly to ensure its maps “reflect the will of the people, not a racial quota system the Constitution forbids.”
“The Court rightly acknowledged that the South has made extraordinary progress, and that laws designed for a different era do not reflect the present reality,” Marshall stated.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Rally over voting rights and redistricting outside the state capitol in Montgomery

Supreme Court Move Puts Alabama Redistricting Back In Play

Alabama

Voting Rights Act

When it comes to the American Left, I sometimes play something I call the “opposite game.” The rules are straightforward: Whatever a far-Left politician or pundit declares bad is almost good, and vice versa. There are times that the game proves too simplistic, but not as often as you’d think. My favorite current example comes from Georgia Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock, who declared that last week’s Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Callais “is nothing less than a massive and devastating blow, not only to our democracy, but particularly to people of color in the South.&#8221;
The Senator has it, of course, exactly backward. Callais is indeed a massive and devastating blow, but it was delivered against the very structures that have marginalized and disempowered black Americans. Callais, as I understand it, restores the nearly forgotten commitment to not just equal opportunity under the law, but equal treatment as well. The future for Americans of all races and ethnic backgrounds is brighter as a result.
That’s quite a claim about a 6-3 high court decision that invalidated legislative districts specifically crafted based on race. Leaving aside the opposite game, Democrats like Senator Warnock are right to be worried that certain safe House seats (traditionally gerrymandered to ensure black majorities) will now be up for grabs in the upcoming midterms. To entrenched incumbents who take black voters for granted, Callais is terrifying. For everyone else — including those black voters — the consequences are much more promising.
Under the race-based districting regime, reliably conservative Southern states would carve out one or two &#8220;black majority&#8221; districts. Black voters got concentrated into those districts. The remaining majority-white districts then had very few black constituents. Politicians in those white districts had no incentive to address black concerns. Meanwhile, black voters found themselves in a political ghetto. They had one or two elected representatives, but no real power.
When you segregate a group of people into an enclave, rigid ideological conformity takes hold. Peer pressure, coercion, shame, and shunning enforce that conformity. Inside a racially gerrymandered district, one party dominates. Power is often passed down within families or social networks — a few benefit at the expense of the many.
In my book “The Political Vise,” I explain how progressive institutions extract power by creating permanent dependency. They build and maintain what I call grievance coalitions. These function in perpetuity because grievances (as we have all seen from social media) can be manufactured and sustained. Over time, those grievances become the glue binding people to a political party. Resentment is a feeling, not an economic state. No matter how prosperous you become, you can be made to believe your skin color has held you back.
The perversion is that race-based districts were sold as protecting black voting power. They accomplished the opposite. They isolated black voters politically, allowed white-majority districts to ignore black concerns, and created exactly the political dependency (sustained by grievance) that the Left relies upon.
Callais changes the incentives. In apportioned districts without racial gerrymandering, black Americans will often be a minority. That’s a simple demographic reality. But as a minority, they can swing an election. Politicians in fairly designed districts will need to address black voters&#8217; concerns. A candidate who ignores those concerns will risk losing their seat.
The diversity across multiple heterogeneous districts also weakens social control. A black voter in a majority-white district may face less peer pressure to vote Democrat. In heavily Republican Southern districts, the outcome of competitive primary races among multiple conservative candidates may hinge on an appeal to black voters. In ruby red states where racial gerrymandering was entrenched, Callais will expand (rather than diminish) black influence. Thomas Sowell, the hugely influential black economic historian, has long implored his fellow African Americans to leave what he calls the “Democrat plantation.” Callais presents an opportunity for millions to do just that.
We&#8217;ve already seen monolithic Democrat voting among black Americans declining under Donald Trump. In 2020, Trump received 8% of the black vote according to AP VoteCast. In 2024, he received 15% according to Pew Research — nearly doubling his support. More dramatically, exit polls showed Trump winning 20% of the black vote overall and 24% among black men specifically. CNN polling analyst Harry Enten <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/cnn-harry-enten-finds-trump-181533399.html?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADD6J2XpmxoeSmtVEFjOKoH18vfQx9S6DNBejCxYPFwiyndUl_jZfBbg8YcXOHit9zlYD9Evy3YghQu17f6YPVD_jTi8kHjcOii88uYZTU0hYY8FXb-dzBOR6qV352ZzFxzjQrIwS5ApKAkXIT-4Lgw4SlpRpK61CP7_OUuhzjVe">reports</a> that in 2026, Trump&#8217;s approval rating among black voters stands at 16% — up from 12% during his first term. These numbers may seem small, but Enten describes them as “generational gains.” When districts are no longer gerrymandered to produce Democratic black grievance candidates, that trend will accelerate.
The Democratic Party has pursued power through racial division since its inception. Democrats defended slavery before the Civil War, imposed Jim Crow after it, and fought integration for a century. When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, he reportedly told an aide, &#8220;I&#8217;ll have those n*****s voting Democratic for 200 years.&#8221; The strategy shifted from physical segregation to political segregation, from controlling black Americans through law to controlling them through dependency.
Race-based Congressional districts served that strategy, functioning as political enclaves where black voters were told their only path to power ran through Democrat politicians fighting for government programs. Republicans, safe in majority-white districts, had no incentive to compete for black votes. Black voters remained captured, dependent, and reliably Democrat.
The Progressive Political Vise depends on racial division. It requires black Americans to believe their interests are fundamentally opposed to white Americans&#8217; interests. When black and white voters share the same representative, attend the same town halls, and voice the same concerns about schools and taxes and public safety, that narrative collapses.
For 60 years, the Left has maintained political segregation through grievance, dependency, and racial gerrymandering. Callais upends a regime, and it breaks a cherished lever of the Progressive Vise. Last week’s Supreme Court decision is indeed “a massive and devastating blow” to those who have run that regime. For everyone else — especially black Americans — Callais marks the start of a new and long-overdue era of opportunity.
***
John Tillman is a political strategist, CEO of the Hall of Giants, and author of The Political Vise (March 2026). He writes at his Substack, The Political Vice.

Supreme Court Weighs Ending Raced-Based Voting Districts As Election Looms

SCOTUS Sends Race Based Democrat Gerrymanders Haywire

black vote

Democrats

DW Opinion

gerrymandering

Democrat abortion extremism lost this week with a Supreme Court decision that reins in blue state lawfare against charitable pregnancy centers. In a 9-0 ruling, First Choice Women’s Center prevailed over former New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin. Platkin had attempted to force the pregnancy center to hand over private donor information and had even gone so far as to coordinate with Planned Parenthood on a “consumer alert” targeting pregnancy centers across the state with false and unsubstantiated accusations. 
The Court’s decision allows First Choice and pregnancy centers across the country to defend their rights and continue serving women and children without fear of government threats or interference. The ruling on First Amendment grounds supported by even Ketanji Brown Jackson is a decisive victory for life.
As many as <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/hidden-epidemic-nearly-70-of-abortions-are-coerced-unwanted-or-inconsistent-with-womens-preferences/">six out of 10 women</a> with a history of abortion say they would have chosen life if they had more support. Today, organizations like First Choice are providing more of this kind of support since Roe v. Wade fell.
For example, the Charlotte Lozier Institute found in 2024 alone, the national network of pregnancy centers provided babies and moms over <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/new-pregnancy-centers-provided-over-452-million-in-services-and-goods-to-families/">$452 million</a> in material, medical, educational and other services and goods. Unlike the abortion industry’s “services,” the overwhelming majority of these gifts were provided completely free of charge. The testimony of the women they support — some who were rescued from domestic violence, sex trafficking, homelessness, and so much more — should warm even the coldest heart.
Interestingly, even Platkin’s typical allies opposed his lawfare. The American Civil Liberties Union, for example, filed an amicus brief in defense of First Choice. Platkin pushed his unconstitutional crusade anyway, showing his determination to bulldoze whatever rights necessary to put local pregnancy centers out of business.
From the beginning, it was obvious that Platkin’s attack on First Choice was politically motivated. His counsel <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/12/02/us-news/scotus-justice-clarence-thomas-forces-nj-attorney-to-admit-state-targeted-pro-life-group-with-probe/">admitted</a> during Supreme Court oral arguments that they had not received any complaints that First Choice was misleading customers. Even so, he chose to initiate an intrusive investigation against the center and to issue a subpoena for donor records and other financial information. According to First Choice’s legal documents, this had the effect that Platkin hoped it would — First Choice donors admitted they would have been “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-781_pok0.pdf">less likely</a> to donate to First Choice if we had known information about the donation might be disclosed.”
Concerningly, pro-abortion radicals have shown they will stop at nothing to push their extremism through. Far gone are the days of the Democrats being the party of “safe, legal, and rare.” Blue state attacks on pregnancy centers reveal the truth: Democrats are not pro-choice, they’re pro-abortion.
Attorney General Platkin’s attacks on First Choice are <a href="https://sbaprolife.org/latest-news/17-insane-things-democrats-have-said-about-pregnancy-centers">just the latest example</a>. States like Colorado and California have cracked down on pregnancy centers providing Abortion Pill Reversal, a safe, effective option that has saved 7,000+ babies. Scores of pregnancy centers around the country were targeted and vandalized in the wake of Dobbs. With the Biden administration more focused on jailing peaceful pro-lifers, most of the perpetrators remain at large. Kamala Harris, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and other Democrats have called for pregnancy centers to be shut down.
It is shocking the lengths Democrats have gone to in abandoning women to promote abortion at all costs. To them, more abortions equal more success, and they know they have to engage in these tactics to prop up Planned Parenthood and Big Abortion. Nationwide, Planned Parenthood locations are closing their doors due to filthy facilities, plummeting income, and too few staff. Meanwhile, pregnancy centers are booming because they are offering women real choices, free of charge. As long as they exist to offer babies and moms support, organizations like First Choice will continue undercutting businesses that the abortion industry needs to thrive. That is an unpardonable offense for abortion extremists.
Across the country, other pro-abortion activists were watching to see if this venture succeeded. They saw Platkin successfully bully pro-life volunteers into courts all the way up to the Supreme Court. Thankfully, every single Supreme Court justice agreed that Platkin was dangerously wielding the government to chill Americans’ rights. While it’s refreshing that the Court smacked Platkin’s attack down, we can’t let our celebration drift into complacency.
If anything, this victory should serve as a sober warning of the lengths that our pro-abortion opponents will go to promote their vision for abortion on demand nationwide. As long as they are in positions of power, blue state politicians will continue wielding their offices against innocent citizens serving their neighbors in need.
***
Marjorie Dannenfelser serves as president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. She has been called “the woman who brought down Roe.”

Pregnant woman undergoing an ultrasound examination with her family.

Unanimous SCOTUS Ruling Smacks Down Blue-State Lawfare Targeting Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers 

Pro-Life Movement

The U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-hands-down-major-conservative-win-in-near-unanimous-decision">ruled</a> on March 31 in <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/chiles-v-salazar/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">Chiles v. Salazar</a> that voluntary conversations between a counselor and her young clients are protected under the First Amendment’s free speech clause. This monumental decision condemned the state’s unlawful and, according to the court, “egregious” attempt to censor discussions about biological reality in the counseling room.
In my role with Alliance Defending Freedom, I had the privilege of standing before the high court last fall and advocating on behalf of licensed Colorado counselor Kaley Chiles, who challenged the state’s counseling censorship law.
Kaley wants to provide what so many children and families are desperate for: A listening ear and compassionate advice as kids talk through what it feels like to wrestle with their identity and body. As more and more young people across the country are becoming distressed about their gender or sexuality, they want a professional to talk to about their feelings and struggles. The young clients who seek out Kaley for advice do so because they want to grow comfortable with their bodies and avoid harmful drugs and procedures.
<div id="attachment_1073215" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1073215" class="size-large wp-image-1073215" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-864x576.jpg" alt="Source: Alliance Defending Freedom" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-2048x1366.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Source: Alliance Defending Freedom</div>
Colorado’s law forbids Kaley from having those voluntary conversations with her clients under age 18. Indeed, the law violates her freedom of speech by prohibiting licensed counselors like her from engaging in voluntary counseling conversations with minor clients who want to change some expression, behavior, identity, or feeling associated with their “sexual orientation or gender identity.”
On the issue of gender identity, the law only censors counseling conversations in one direction. It allows conversations that push young people toward a gender identity different from their sex but forbids conversations that help them grow comfortable with their body and realign their identity with their sex when they desire to do that. The law also threatens severe penalties, including thousands of dollars in fines, suspension from practice, and even revocation of the counselor’s license.
This one-sided censorship comes amidst a growing national mental-health crisis and prevents many Colorado children from obtaining the counseling that they desire and that could help them. Roughly 90% of children who experience gender dysphoria before puberty will regain comfort with their sex if not pushed toward harmful drugs and procedures.
In its opinion, the Supreme Court explained, “We do not doubt that the question ‘how best to help minors’ struggling with issues of gender identity or sexual orientation is presently a subject of ‘fierce public debate.’ But Colorado’s law addressing conversion therapy does not just ban physical interventions. In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint.”
“Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety,” the court continued. “Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth. However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”
<div id="attachment_1073217" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1073217" class="size-large wp-image-1073217" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-864x576.jpg" alt="Source: Alliance Defending Freedom" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-2048x1366.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Source: Alliance Defending Freedom</div>
This is a massive win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children. The decision will help end the authoritarian days of Colorado inserting itself into the counseling room and silencing good counselors from speaking body-affirming messages their clients want to hear. It also takes us a long way down the road to ensuring that kids in Colorado, and around the country, who desire to embrace and live consistent with their sex are free to seek help by talking to licensed counselors like Kaley.
Significantly, the Supreme Court’s ruling will help protect counselors from similar laws in more than 20 states and over 100 localities across the country, giving them a path forward to help struggling youth seeking professional guidance.
From professional groups to medical malpractice verdicts, the tide is turning on how we as a society help young people struggling with gender issues. Those kids need quality counseling, not a one-way path to dangerous body-altering drugs and surgeries. All children deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made. The Supreme Court affirms that the First Amendment protects those messages in the counseling room.
* * *
Jim Campbell is chief legal counsel with <a href="http://www.adflegal.org/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/ADFLegal">@ADFLegal</a>) and argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Kaley Chiles in Chiles v. Salazar.

Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Policy Gets Supreme Court Hearing

The Court Just Said The Government Can’t Control What Your Child’s Counselor Says

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Colorado

Conversion Therapy

Counseling

First Amendment

Free Speech

Gender

LGBTQ

Opinion

President Biden Delivers State Of The Union Address

Ketanji Brown Jackson Needs To Be Impeached. This Dangerously Idiotic Dissent Is Proof.

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Matt Walsh

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled in Chiles v. Salazar. The basic concept of the Supreme Court ruling was that the state of Colorado was wrong to ban what is called conversion therapy. 
The 2019 Colorado law prohibited licensed mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with patients under 18 years of age. They defined conversion therapy to include any practice or treatment that attempts to change an individual&#8217;s sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as any effort to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions toward individuals of the same sex.
That same law allowed counselors to provide “acceptance, support, and understanding for identity exploration and development,” and to assist persons “undergoing gender transition.”
In other words, the Colorado law said that if a kid comes to you with gender confusion, you are not allowed to say, “Boys are boys and girls are girls. Let&#8217;s help you be more comfortable in your body.”
If a boy says, “I&#8217;m a girl, “you have to affirm him. And if you don&#8217;t affirm him, you&#8217;re engaged in conversion therapy, and you can be prosecuted under the law in the state of Colorado.
If a kid comes to you and says, “Listen, I&#8217;m confused about my feelings of sexual attraction,” you&#8217;re not allowed to talk that through and say, “You know what? You&#8217;re 14 years old. A lot of people are confused about sexual attraction at 14 years old. You&#8217;re being hit by hormones that you&#8217;ve never experienced before, and you really don&#8217;t have any sort of clear line as to how to live your life, so let&#8217;s talk this thing through.”
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2400-sub?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
That might be conversion therapy, because that could be construed as an attempt to change behavior, or eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction toward individuals of the same sex.
Instead, you&#8217;re supposed to just give that kid a Pride flag and tell them to get out there and march.
The plaintiff in this case, Kelly Chiles, holds a master&#8217;s degree in clinical mental health and a state counseling license in Colorado.
According to the Supreme Court, Chiles doesn&#8217;t start counseling with any predetermined goals. Instead, she sits down with clients, discusses their goals, and then formulates methods of counseling that will most benefit them, seeking throughout to respect their client&#8217;s fundamental right of self-determination, matters of sexuality and gender. The clients sometimes have different agendas, according to the Supreme Court; some are perfectly happy being gay or lesbian or transgender identifying, and others want to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, or change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with their bodies.
Under Colorado law, those last people are just plumb out of luck. There&#8217;s nothing they can do. Because if you, for example, are a person who has a fetish and you don&#8217;t want to have that fetish anymore, according to Colorado law, you are not allowed as a therapist to try to change an individual&#8217;s behaviors regarding sexual or romantic attraction.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, who is not a strict textualist when it comes to these matters, wrote the opinion, and his basic opinion is pretty simple: The First Amendment allows therapists to say what they want to say during therapy. 
The only person who voted in dissent was, of course — wait for it — Ketanji Brown Jackson, the dumbest person on the Supreme Court.
This is saying a lot because Sonia Sotomayor is also on the Supreme Court.
Gorsuch wrote:
<blockquote>Consistent with the First Amendment’s jealous protections for the individual’s right to think and speak freely, this Court has long held that laws regulating speech based on its subject matter or “communicative content” are “presumptively unconstitutional.” &#8230; We have recognized, as well, the even greater dangers associated with regulations that discriminate based on the speaker’s point of view.</blockquote>
In other words, the big problem here is that it&#8217;s not just that Colorado is putting regulations on speech; those regulations on speech are content-dependent. Colorado says you can say these things that we agree with, but you cannot say these things with which we disagree.
Gorsuch continued:
<blockquote>While the First Amendment protects many and varied forms of expression, the spoken word is perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech. And that is exactly the kind of expression in which Ms. Chiles seeks to engage. As a talk therapist, all Ms. Chiles does is speak with clients; she does not prescribe medication, use medical devices, or employ any physical methods. &#8230;
Consider, too, where the State and dissent’s logic leads. Not long ago, many medical experts and organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association, considered homosexuality a mental disorder. On the view Colorado and the dissent advance, a law adopted during that era prohibiting counselors from engaging in the “substandard care” of affirming their clients’ homosexuality would have been subject to only rational-basis or intermediate-scrutiny review—and likely upheld. Today, tomorrow, and forever, too, any professional speech that deviates from “current beliefs about the safety and efficacy of various medical treatments” could be silenced with relative ease.</blockquote>
In other words, the court is saying, “If Colorado is suggesting that a state can determine what is the best course of care with regard to opinions on open matters of gender and sexuality, and then mandate that sort of stuff on subject matter basis, that is violation of free speech.”
The court goes out of its way to really slap Jackson. That last statement — “Today, tomorrow, and forever, too, any professional speech that deviates from ‘current beliefs about the safety and efficacy of various medical treatments’ could be silenced with relative ease,” is followed by this: “It is a consequence Colorado freely acknowledges. And one the dissent embraces.”
The opinion then cites Buck v. Bell. That is a scathing rebuttal to Jackson, because Buck v. Bell was the case that suggested that you had the ability under the law to sexually sterilize inmates of institutions, because that was the prevailing science of the time. Jackson has said that she liked that law.
Jackson said in the Chiles case that Colorado was simply “restricting a dangerous therapy modality,” adding that the court&#8217;s opinion was “unprincipled and unworkable.” She followed with a long statement about how wonderful the gender orientation of left-wing philosophy is.
Ketanji Brown Jackson&#8217;s dissent is a reminder that if the Left had complete control over the mechanisms of government, it would simply regulate into law all of the most specious and idiotic views about science.
Without President Trump as president, we were super-close to that world, because President Trump is responsible for several selections on the Supreme Court. In this case, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor ruled with the majority. 
But if there were a bunch of Democratic appointees on the court, is that how this would have gone?

Blue Hour, United States Supreme Court Building, Washington DC, America

Supreme Court Ends Colorado’s War On Reality

Ben Shapiro

Mental Health

Teenagers

I have <a href="https://jonathanturley.org/2025/10/16/sixth-circuit/">previously written</a> about D.A. v. Tri-County Area Schools, one of the worst free speech decisions to come out of the appellate courts in years. In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a school ban on high school students wearing “Let’s Go Brandon!” sweatshirts. Sixth Circuit Judge John Nalbandian was joined by Judge Karen Nelson Moore in a deeply flawed holding that, under the “vulgarity exception,” the action was constitutional. The Supreme Court needs to grant review in this case and reverse this obnoxious decision.
As previously discussed, “Let’s Go Brandon!” has become a similarly unintended political battle cry not just against Biden but also against media bias. It derives from an Oct. 2 interview with race-car driver <a href="https://thehill.com/person/brandon-brown">Brandon Brown</a> after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast’s questions were drowned out by loud and clear chants of “F*** Joe Biden.” Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon!’”
“Let’s Go Brandon!” instantly became a type of <a href="https://jonathanturley.org/2021/11/05/yankee-doodling-the-media-how-lets-go-brandon-became-a-rallying-cry-against-news-bias/">“Yankee Doodling” of the political and media establishment.</a>
In this case, an assistant principal (Andrew Buikema) and a teacher (Wendy Bradford) “ordered the boys to remove the sweatshirts” for allegedly breaking the school dress code. However, other students were allowed to wear political apparel supporting other causes, including “gay-pride-themed hoodies.”
The district dress code states the following:
<blockquote>
Students and parents have the right to determine a student’s dress, except when the school administration determines a student’s dress is in conflict with state policy, is a danger to the students’ health and safety, is obscene, is disruptive to the teaching and/or learning environment by calling undue attention to oneself. The dress code may be enforced by any staff member.
</blockquote>
The district reserves the right to bar any clothing “with messages or illustrations that are lewd, indecent, vulgar, or profane, or that advertise any product or service not permitted by law to minors.”
The funny thing about this action is that the slogan is not profane. To the contrary, it substitutes non-profane words for profane words. Nevertheless, “D.A.” was stopped in the hall by Buikema and told that his “Let’s Go Brandon!” sweatshirt was equivalent to “the f–word.”
The district court showed an equally dismissive view of the free speech rights of these students, including that the phrase could “reasonably be interpreted” as profane. That was upheld by the Sixth Circuit in its 2-1 decision.
Judge John Bush offered an excellent dissent, stating:
<blockquote>
[T]he speech here—”Let’s Go Brandon!”—is neither vulgar nor profane on its face, and therefore does not fall into [the Fraser] exception. To the contrary, the phrase is purely political speech. It criticizes a political official—the type of expression that sits “at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.” No doubt, its euphemistic meaning was offensive to some, particularly those who supported President Biden. But offensive political speech is allowed in school, so long as it does not cause disruption under Tinker. As explained below, Tinker is the standard our circuit applied to cases involving Confederate flag T-shirts and a hat depicting an AR-15 rifle—depictions arguably more offensive than “Let’s Go Brandon!” …
The majority says the sweatshirts’ slogan is crude. But neither the phrase itself nor any word in it has ever been bleeped on television, radio, or other media. Not one of the “seven words you can never say on television” appears in it . Instead, the phrase has been used to advance political arguments, primarily in opposition to President Biden’s policies and secondarily to complain about the way liberal-biased media treats conservatives. It serves as a coded critique—a sarcastic catchphrase meant to express frustration, resentment, and discontent with political opponents. The phrase has been used by members of Congress during debate. And even President Biden himself, attempting to deflect criticism, “agreed” with the phrase.
We cannot lose sight of a key fact: the students’ sweatshirts do not say “F*ck Joe Biden.” Instead, they bear a sanitized phrase made famous by sports reporter Kelli Stavast while interviewing NASCAR race winner Brandon Brown at the Talladega Superspeedway. The reporter said the crowd behind them was yelling “Let’s go, Brandon!” She did not report the vulgar phrase that was actually being chanted. The Majority even concedes Stavast may have used the sanitized phrase to “put a fig leaf over the chant’s vulgarity.” That is telling….
</blockquote>
The Sixth Circuit opinion constitutes a significant infringement on the free speech rights of students. I readily admit that I am critical of some past cases, including Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), where the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Juneau-Douglas High School could suspend student Joseph Frederick after he displayed a banner reading “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” across the street from the school during the 2002 Winter Olympics torch relay. In my view, the courts have honored Tinker largely in the breach in such cases.
FIRE has filed the petition below, and hopefully, the justices will add this case to the docket.
Here is the petition: <a href="https://jonathanturley.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-D.A.-v.-Tri-County-Area-Schools.pdf">Petition for Writ of Certiorari – D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools</a>.
 * * *
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He is a New York Times best-selling author of &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1668047047?tag=simonsayscom" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1668047047?tag%3Dsimonsayscom&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1775041193122000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1yfRPM-SD7lTbUvS3kC_vo">The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage</a>&#8221; and &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FCDSN1KR/ref=sr_1_5?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.RRwQP-jxib6FGPIATmKf_-qZ54EqdtHH96MILgFFNEu2d_chUIjFQbBNWZj6-YWIsRTxEeuGYCTw-gDvcdUE1puVoYeX2uBJyqcXA64EqxaA3kXW04dbyRE6t7mOEnrcSOf8BIA7KP47sQttP-6j4qWXwt_gUgP9AJ6jJ1HWnqU62QYxnVkcOQhwCaeyp8o8.-FQ90bYCtRhnfQk9vLhvb1kV2q0kmzaKPZqwWwUateA&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;qid=1749518291&amp;refinements=p_27%3AJonathan+Turley&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FCDSN1KR/ref%3Dsr_1_5?dib%3DeyJ2IjoiMSJ9.RRwQP-jxib6FGPIATmKf_-qZ54EqdtHH96MILgFFNEu2d_chUIjFQbBNWZj6-YWIsRTxEeuGYCTw-gDvcdUE1puVoYeX2uBJyqcXA64EqxaA3kXW04dbyRE6t7mOEnrcSOf8BIA7KP47sQttP-6j4qWXwt_gUgP9AJ6jJ1HWnqU62QYxnVkcOQhwCaeyp8o8.-FQ90bYCtRhnfQk9vLhvb1kV2q0kmzaKPZqwWwUateA%26dib_tag%3Dse%26qid%3D1749518291%26refinements%3Dp_27%253AJonathan%2BTurley%26s%3Dbooks%26sr%3D1-5&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1775041193122000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0iutNbOSt_wYahJ5z1jjFD">Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution</a>&#8220;. 
This article is <a href="https://jonathanturley.org/2026/03/31/supreme-court-asked-to-hear-lets-go-brandon-case/">republished for the Daily Wire</a> with the author’s permission from JonathanTurley.org.

Annual Pro Life Gathering, The March For Life Takes Place In Washington, D.C.

Supreme Court To Rule Whether Schools Can Ban ‘Let’s Go Brandon’

Supreme Court To Rule Whether Schools Can Ban 'Let’s Go Brandon'

Constitutional Law

Jonathan Turley

Let's Go Brandon

The Supreme Court heard more than two hours of arguments Monday in a closely watched case that could reshape how elections are conducted across the country, weighing whether states can count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day.
At the center of the case, Watson v. RNC, is a simple but consequential question: Does federal law require ballots to be received by Election Day or merely sent by then? 
“Ballots must be received by Election Day,” a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee said in a statement ahead of arguments, warning that extended deadlines allow elections to “drag on for days and weeks … causing confusion and undermining our elections.”
The case originates in Mississippi, where a Republican-controlled legislature overwhelmingly approved a five-day grace period in 2020, allowing absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive later.
Now, that same law is being challenged by the Republican National Committee and the Mississippi GOP, creating a rare intra-party split. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, a Republican, is defending the law, warning that striking it down could have &#8220;destabilizing nationwide ramifications&#8221; if left in place. &#8220;The stakes are high: ballots cast by — but received after — election day can swing close races and change the course of the country.&#8221; More than 30 states and Washington, D.C., currently allow some form of late-arriving ballots, typically requiring they be postmarked by Election Day.
When a 15-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered whether to rehear a three-judge panel’s ruling in favor of the Republican National Committee last March, the court split along ideological lines. The panel’s 10 Republican-appointed judges voted against rehearing the case, while the five Democratic-appointed judges dissented. The decision drew attention in part because of its starkly partisan divide, though such splits have become more common in politically charged cases, particularly those involving election law.
During arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch zeroed in on what he viewed as a potential flaw in Mississippi’s position. If casting a ballot simply requires handing it off for delivery by Election Day, Gorsuch asked, where does that logic end? Could a voter give their ballot to a neighbor? A notary? Even a Supreme Court justice? When Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart began to respond, “Two points, Justice Gorsuch —” the justice cut him off: “Pick your best.”
Pressed further on whether a Supreme Court justice would qualify under that logic, Stewart replied, “Pretty official.” Gorsuch scoffed at the reply, underscoring concerns that the state’s rule lacks a clear limiting principle.
Stewart is no stranger to high-profile Supreme Court battles. He previously argued Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the landmark case that overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, delivering a major victory for the conservative legal movement.
A former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, Stewart has quickly become one of the right’s most prominent courtroom advocates. This case marks his second appearance before the justices, with another <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/court-to-hear-case-on-racial-discrimination-in-jury-selection/">scheduled next week</a>.
At the heart of the case is a disagreement over what “Election Day” actually means. The RNC argues that Congress established a single day for federal elections, and that both voting and ballot receipt must be completed within that window. “Elections must end on Election Day,” RNC Chairman Joe Gruters said.
Mississippi and allied voting rights groups counter that an election is defined by when a voter makes their choice, not when election officials receive or count the ballot. “Counting votes is not part of the election,” Fitch argued in court filings, noting that vote tabulation has always extended beyond Election Day.
Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias, representing groups defending the law, argued that historical precedent supports Mississippi’s position and dismissed the lawsuit as a broader effort to restrict mail-in voting.
Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, said the arguments framed what he views as the legal and practical stakes of the case. “Today’s oral arguments in Watson v. RNC clearly shows where the Supreme Court should come down: state laws that count ballots received after Election Day violate federal law, expose elections to delays, invite fraud, and fuel public doubt in the democratic process,” Snead said. He added that “recent polling confirms overwhelming and bipartisan public support for Election Day deadlines,” and argued that “only a ruling ending late ballots can uphold the rule of law and preserve public trust in elections.”
According to election data, hundreds of thousands of ballots in the 2024 election cycle arrived after Election Day but were still counted under existing state laws. Many of those policies were expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, when mail-in voting surged, and postal delays raised concerns about disenfranchisement, particularly for military members and Americans overseas.
A ruling for the RNC could force states to abruptly change those systems just months before voters head to the polls. The Trump administration, while not a party to the case, weighed in forcefully in support of striking down the law. “Ensuring all ballot boxes close on the same day eliminates incentives and opportunities for fraudulent abuse,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in a brief to the court.
President Donald Trump has also made opposition to mail-in voting a central political issue, repeatedly calling for its elimination and pushing congressional Republicans to pass stricter voting laws.
While a majority of Americans <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/08/22/majority-of-americans-continue-to-back-expanded-early-voting-voting-by-mail-voter-id/">support access</a> to mail-in voting, polling shows a sharp partisan split, reflecting broader distrust in election systems that has persisted since 2020. Voting rights advocates warn that eliminating grace periods could result in legally cast ballots being discarded due to postal delays, while Republicans argue that uniform deadlines are essential to restoring confidence in election outcomes.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule in late June, before the court goes on recess for the term.

Voters Across The Country Head To The Polls For The Midterm Elections

How Millions Of Americans Vote Could Be About To Change

Election Day Battle Heard In SCOTUS Over Mail-In Ballots

election day

Mail-In Voting

The U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-case-on-colorado-dispute-over-climate-change/">announced</a> Monday that it will take up a major climate change lawsuit targeting the energy industry — a case that could determine the future of similar lawsuits filed by left-wing states and municipalities across the country.
The Court agreed to review Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. They granted the hearing after the Colorado Supreme Court allowed Boulder County’s state-law claims to proceed, rejecting arguments from energy producers that the lawsuit is preempted by federal law. 
The decision comes amid a wave of nearly three dozen lawsuits brought by leftist jurisdictions seeking to hold oil and gas companies financially liable for alleged climate change damages.
Boulder County’s lawsuit accuses energy companies of knowingly contributing to climate change and claims the resulting environmental effects have caused millions of dollars in damage to local property and residents. Energy producers have countered that such claims attempt to regulate interstate and global emissions through state tort law, an approach they argue is incompatible with the Constitution and federal environmental statutes.
Legal experts say the Supreme Court’s intervention signals concern about allowing state courts to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/woke-lawfare-is-the-latest-frontier-for-the-lefts-antidemocratic-attacks-report-says">set</a> national energy and climate policy.
Christopher Mills, a constitutional attorney and former law clerk to Clarence Thomas, said the Court is correctly recognizing the national stakes involved. “The Court&#8217;s action shows that it rightly recognizes that this is a national issue in need of an immediate national resolution,” Mills <a href="https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_8d590b75-5787-4f63-8784-8a722960477b.html">said</a>. “Letting these copycat lawsuits fester in state courts across the country is a recipe for uncertainty, undermining American energy production and harming consumers.”
Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, described the case as a test of whether local governments can effectively impose national policy through litigation. “For years, trial lawyers and left-wing municipalities have used state law as a backdoor to impose their preferred energy policies on the entire country — without a vote, without Congress, and without accountability,” Zywicki said, adding that the Constitution does not permit such an end run around federal authority.
Former Bush administration official John Shu emphasized that greenhouse gas emissions, by definition, do not respect state borders, placing them squarely within Congress’s regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause and the Clean Air Act.
Boulder County, for its part, argued that Supreme Court review is premature because the case has not reached a final judgment. The justices nevertheless agreed to hear the dispute and directed the parties to address whether the Court has jurisdiction to review the case at this stage. 
The incentive for Boulder to resist Supreme Court review right now is that State and local governments have generally had more success keeping these climate lawsuits alive in friendly state courts, where judges have been willing to treat them as traditional nuisance or consumer-protection cases. Once the Supreme Court weighs in, especially on the federal preemption question, a ruling against Boulder could wipe out not just this case but dozens of similar lawsuits nationwide in one stroke.
Oral arguments are expected in the fall, with a decision likely in 2026, and one that could determine whether state courts may continue serving as battlegrounds for national climate policy or whether such questions must remain with Congress.

Supreme Court Releases Opinions

How The Left-Wing Climate Crusade May Be Nearing Its Breaking Point

Supreme Court Takes Up Case To Determine If States Can Sue Energy Companies Over Climate Change

Climate Change

Energy

The Supreme Court has struck down the Liberation Day tariffs. 
 
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court basically struck down the 10% baseline tariff on all trading partners. It struck down what Trump called reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries. They weren&#8217;t actually reciprocal tariffs because those countries were not actually charging us those tariffs. We were just charging them higher tariffs on the basis of trade deficits. Drug trafficking tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China are gone. And the 145% effective rate on most Chinese goods is gone as well. 
The Supreme Court says that the president does not have the unilateral authority or ability to simply impose broad-scale tariffs. 
The reason I originally said these tariffs were unconstitutional is because Article I “powers of the purse,” belong to Congress. That includes the power to tariff. Article I of the Constitution specifically names the powers of the purse. It says that the Constitution includes the authority to tax, borrow money, regulate commerce, coin money, establish post offices, declare war, and raise armed forces. That is what is in the tax, spend, and commerce powers of Congress.
Now the questions are, what can be delegated? What can&#8217;t be delegated? And what has been delegated? 
So obviously, in certain specified contexts, Congress has delegated specific tariff authority to the president. But at any point, did Congress just say to the president, you can tariff anybody for any reason, interminably at any rate, that you want?
And the answer, says the Supreme Court, is no.
I agree with the decision, legally.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-260220-sub?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
The question under consideration here was whether the president of the United States has the unilateral authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which is the power cited by the president of the United States, to levy tariffs on the entire world at once. That is the question at issue. 
The IEEPA text at issue states: 
<blockquote>At the times and to the extent specified in section 1701 of this title, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise investigate, regulate, or prohibit any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country or a national thereof, the importing or exporting of currency or securities, by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.</blockquote>
What the majority found is that IEEPA does not include broad-scale, unilateral, gigantic tariff power where the president cannot simply wake up one morning, print out a gigantic poster board, and say there is now a 45% tariff on the Solomon Islands that was not delegated in the IEEPA. 
That decision is correct, although I find it somewhat ironic that Justice Roberts claimed that Obamacare was not a tax for purposes of finding it constitutional, but finds that tariffs are in fact a form of tax for purposes of finding them unconstitutional, as promoted by the president. 
There are two arguments made by the majority opinion. One, the IEEPA does not actually authorize tariff power to the president in the way that the president has done. 
This doesn&#8217;t mean the president doesn&#8217;t have alternative tariff power. There are other ways the president can impose tariffs if he wants to.
The second argument is that Congress never delegated this power to the president. If they had, it would be clear, and not some mystery. They would say, “All tariff power belongs to the president.”
They wouldn&#8217;t hide it in the text. That is what&#8217;s called the major questions doctrine. It&#8217;s part of the non-delegation doctrine. The non-delegation doctrine says that unless Congress has delegated a power that it holds to the executive branch, then the executive branch can&#8217;t exercise that power. And there are certain powers that Congress cannot actually just delegate to the executive branch, because those are core powers of Congress.
This is why you can&#8217;t just have Congress become a vestigial organ. It was never supposed to be this way.
If the president actually had the inherent power under his foreign policy powers to just impose tariffs, he wouldn&#8217;t need some sort of emergency declaration. The fact that they use the emergency declaration means this is not predominantly a foreign policy question.
I urge conservatives to think about this very strongly: If the president of the United States can simply declare a national emergency and then tariff the entire planet, what can&#8217;t the federal government do on the basis of an emergency? Many statutes authorize specific delegations of temporary authority under emergency circumstances. If that is broadened out to include things such as tariffing the whole planet, imagine Democrats saying, “Until all countries stop producing oil-powered vehicles, we are tariffing everyone at 70%.” They could do that based on the way the administration is currently interpreting the statute.
If it becomes clear that the Trump administration will let go of this issue, I think you will see the markets begin to climb. There are a lot of businesses in the United States that rely on foreign imports as inputs in their products, and they&#8217;ve been holding off on hiring; they&#8217;ve been holding off on development because they don&#8217;t know what&#8217;s coming down the pike.
I am still a constitutional conservative who likes the balance of powers, the checks and balances, who still remembers when the legislature was not a vestigial organ of government, and would like that to remain the case.
For conservatives, I understand: People love President Trump. I support President Trump as a general rule.
With that said, powers delegated to the executive branch do not flow back to the legislative branch very often. You&#8217;re not going to like those limits when they are applied to a president of a party to which you do not belong.
I&#8217;m finding it kind of ironic today, looking at all the Democrats who are celebrating this as a big victory. They wouldn&#8217;t be celebrating this if they understood it&#8217;s going to apply when a Democrat is in charge.
No one has expanded executive power in my lifetime like Barack Obama. And Joe Biden expanded it even further.
The notion that Democrats are not in love with executive power is insane to me.
It&#8217;s one of the reasons I don&#8217;t like the Democratic Party, because they keep wanting to expand the executive power at the cost of the checks and balances established by the Founders.

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-COURT-TARIFF-TRUMP-BRIEFING

SCOTUS Knocks Down Trump’s Tariffs

Donald Trump

Tariffs

In an era of spiraling political absurdity, America finds itself squandering precious time and resources on what should be one of the most straightforward, apolitical facts of human existence: only women can get pregnant.
Even Democrat strategist James Carville recently <a href="https://x.com/GrabienMedia/status/2012559321582772621">mocked the absurdity</a> of today’s gender politics on Fox News, saying, “I’m not worried about getting pregnant. I have no idea why this is the number one issue in America.”
It’s time to stop pretending this point of view is controversial. As a mom, I’m calling for this political charade to end in 2026.
After many decades of modern scientific consensus, which follows centuries and even millennia of common sense on the subject, we’ve somehow devolved into laughably ridiculous disagreements over gender. This isn’t just science; it is the order of creation itself, designed by God with intention and clarity. But it is politically unserious to convene hearings where elected politicians and sitting Supreme Court Justices go through the motions of grilling so-called experts on a matter that, in terms of objective reality, isn’t even up for debate.
Imagine a congressional hearing on whether gravity affects everyone equally, or if some people can ‘identify’ as not being subject to such a narrow-minded and restrictive force. Or, imagine someone bringing a case before the Supreme Court to decide whether humans require oxygen to live, or if some could ‘identify’ as anaerobic and live on carbon dioxide alone. We, the serious masses, wouldn’t even entertain the conversation. We would turn our attention to real political issues like immigration, national security, or the economy, and not waste our time.
Speaking of which, I don’t have much time to waste these days. I just welcomed our third child in three years into this world. It was beautiful, painful, exhausting, and awe-inspiring; the kind of experience that reminds you just how extraordinary the female body truly is. God entrusted me to carry a child and give birth, something only a woman can do. A man is simply incapable of doing what I did. That isn’t opinion, it’s biological reality.
And as a mother who just gave birth, I’m exhausted that this ever became a political issue. Women shouldn’t have to fight to own something as fundamental as pregnancy.
Which is why I was so disgusted when I watched the congressional hearing where Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) questioned the so-called “expert,” and (somehow) certified OB/GYN, Dr. Nisha Verma.
Dr. Verma testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on abortion pill safety. She represented Physicians for Reproductive Health, and Sen. Hawley asked her a simple question that has an objective, biological, common-sense answer: “Can men get pregnant?”
Dr. Verma, who definitely knows the answer, repeatedly dodged the question — insisting instead that it was a “political tool” that “polarized” the discussion and failed to capture the “complex experiences” of her patients. I wonder if Dr. Verma would also dodge questions about whether people could choose to live without oxygen or decide that gravity doesn’t apply to them. Would she claim such farcical questions are political tools that polarize?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
SPOILER ALERT: Men cannot get pregnant <a href="https://t.co/08JwHUlxIj">pic.twitter.com/08JwHUlxIj</a>
— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) <a href="https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/2011480384467349892?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @HawleyMO/X.com
That is really the crux of the issue here; none of this should be treated as a political issue. A serious nation would not waste another moment nor another taxpayer dollar entertaining such an unserious conversation. The entire premise should be dismissed outright as unworthy of the time it would take to even ask such a ludicrous question. Stop indulging delusion and start governing in reality.
Incredibly, this Senate hearing came just days after the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding men in women’s sports. Ironically, this is the same thing that happened to one of the sitting Justices during her confirmation hearing, when she was unable to answer a similar question — “What is a woman?” More incredible still, she and every other person still hung up on this issue suddenly know what a woman is when it comes to breaking the glass ceiling and placing the first black woman on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Suddenly, they all know what a woman is? Suddenly, that distinction matters? No, not suddenly. They always knew because it’s an objective, reality-based fact that isn’t up for debate, unless we pretend along with those who want to bend reality.
Even James Carville wasn’t just stating a fact; he was calling out how absurd the debate itself has become. His joke on Fox News wasn’t about biology; it was about how fake and manufactured this entire controversy is. But Democrats keep entertaining fiction to pander to rabid extremists and then expect the rest of the country to play along.
The bottom line is simple: there is no debate, so entertaining one is foolish. Polling consistently shows that most Americans are willing to publicly admit that they understand the biological reality of sex. Voters aren’t confused, but Washington is pretending to be. Americans are tired of political grandstanding on issues that don’t matter. And 2026 should be the year this nonsense ends.
It’s time to stop coddling absurdity as though we owe irrationality an esteemed seat at every table. One might say that when you wrestle with a pig in lipstick, it’s still a pig, and you both get dirty. It’s not respect, and it’s not compassion. It’s suicidal empathy. If we let lunacy hijack constructive conversation, we all crash together.
###
Jillian Anderson King is a former Washington Redskins Cheerleader Ambassador and ABC’s The Bachelor and The Bachelor in Paradise contestant. She’s a Mombassador for Moms for America, an ambassador for Turning Point and Turning Point Faith, and a proud Christian Conservative mother and wife. Jillian is also the founder of The Kings Firm, a strategic communications firm.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu