The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Texas could forge ahead with its newly redrawn congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
The <a href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26338616/25a608-order.pdf">initial order</a> was unsigned, and declared that the lower court&#8217;s decision to block the map — which favors Republicans — had been made in error. A brief concurring opinion followed that was joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown-Jackson joined together in dissent.
The order opened with a brief explanation, noting that a three-judge District Court had granted the League of Latin American Voters&#8217; request for an injunction — which would have prevented the state from implementing the new map — and stated that the Court intended to stay the injunction, as requested by the state of Texas. &#8220;The District Court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith by construing ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature,&#8221; the explanation read, in part.
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://DailyWire.com/cyberweek" data-sk="tooltip_parent">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
Justice Alito, in his concurring opinion, argued that the lower court&#8217;s determination — that the Republican-drawn map was based on race rather than politics — was made in error. He wrote that it was &#8220;indisputable&#8221; that the &#8220;impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple&#8221; — and that being the case, the state should be permitted to move forward with that map. Thomas and Gorsuch agreed.
&#8220;When the asserted reason for a map is political, it is critical for challengers to produce an alternative map that serves the State’s allegedly partisan aim just as well as the map the State adopted. Id., at 34; Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U. S. 234, 258 (2001). Although respondents’ experts could have easily produced such a map if that were possible, they did not, giving rise to a strong inference that the State’s map was indeed based on partisanship, not race,&#8221; their concurring opinion continued.
Justice Kagan, in her lengthy dissent, complained that the ruling had declared the redrawn maps to not be based on race, as the lower court had found, but had instead justified them being drawn for political reasons.
The ruling, she said, &#8220;disserves the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race.&#8221;

Greg Abbott

Red State Wins Massive Supreme Court Victory On Redistricting

2026 Midterms

Elections

Politics

Redistricting

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

Texas

President Trump stands by War Secretary Pete Hegseth and the drug boat strikes as the Cabinet convenes once again, the administration threatens to withhold tax dollars over illegal commercial driver&#8217;s licenses, and a New Jersey probe into a pro-life pregnancy center winds up in the Supreme Court.
It’s Wednesday, December 3, 2025, and this is the news you need to know to start your day. Today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below, and the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mrn-251203-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+Show+Episodes+Carousel">video version</a> can be seen on The Daily Wire:
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/trump-defends-hegseth-duffys-minnesota-ultimatum-12-3-25/id1576594336?i=1000739476338" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Trump Backs Hegseth In Cabinet Meeting</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-1008973 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Cabinet-Meeting-No.-9-1024x576.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Cabinet-Meeting-No.-9-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Cabinet-Meeting-No.-9-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Cabinet-Meeting-No.-9-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Cabinet-Meeting-No.-9-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Cabinet-Meeting-No.-9.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />
Topline: President Trump gathered his cabinet Tuesday and defended Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, vowing to continue his strikes against narco-terrorists.
All eyes on Hegseth: The War secretary has come under fire for allegedly ordering airstrikes targeting survivors of a drug smuggling boat that had been destroyed by an initial strike. The White House has rallied around Hegseth, reiterating that these suspected cartel members have been designated as terrorists, and are essentially enemy combatants of the United States. On Tuesday, Hegseth <a href="https://x.com/AndrewKolvet/status/1995921305728942204?s=20">struck</a> a defiant tone, vowing to continue the strikes.
The original reporting on the alleged illegal strike story is now facing a flood of scrutiny. The New York Times published a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/01/us/hegseth-drug-boat-strike-order-venezuela.html">story</a> this week refuting the main allegation against Hegseth — that he specifically ordered a second strike to kill survivors.
The Times cited five anonymous U.S. officials who each said separately that Hegseth did order a strike to kill the drug smugglers, but “his order was not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least two people on the boat survived the first blast,” and he did not address what should be done if there were survivors.
Latest on National Guard Shooting: In one of the cabinet meeting’s more somber moments, Attorney General Pam Bondi honored the life of slain National Guardsman Sarah Beckstrom and offered an update on Andrew Wolfe, the guardsmen fighting for his life in the hospital.
&#8220;I was there where when the surgeons came in and [his parents] wanted you to know this — he&#8217;s a miracle, and if everyone in this country can continue to pray for that family. He&#8217;s got a long road ahead of him, but he is a miracle,” <a href="https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1995918866606698520?s=20">said</a> Bondi.
The alleged shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, appeared virtually in court on Tuesday from a hospital bed, where he was formally charged with murder and a slew of other crimes. Lakanwal pleaded not guilty to all charges. He’ll be held without bond throughout the trial. Bondi said the Justice Department intends to seek the death penalty.
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Minnesota’s Illegal License Loophole</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-1008975 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Minnesotas-CDL-Ultimatum-1024x576.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Minnesotas-CDL-Ultimatum-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Minnesotas-CDL-Ultimatum-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Minnesotas-CDL-Ultimatum-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Minnesotas-CDL-Ultimatum-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Minnesotas-CDL-Ultimatum.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />
Topline: Minnesota is facing federal pressure after an audit found widespread improper licensing of foreign drivers, underscoring broader immigration-oversight issues.
The Trump administration has presented some pretty jaw-dropping findings and is now taking action. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced that the federal government will withhold more than $30 million in highway funding from Minnesota.
The state can avoid the penalty if Democratic Governor Tim Walz revokes a large number of commercial driver’s licenses that were issued illegally to drivers whose immigration or residency status did not comply with federal law. Duffy gave Walz 30 days to fix it, or the funding would be withheld.
What Walz thinks: Officials in the Walz administration say they are reviewing this letter from the Department of Transportation, and claim that they take “safety” on their roads “seriously.” 
Step back: Commercial drivers licenses for illegals or people with improper status have been a focus for months now, due to some devastating crashes that have killed Americans. The Daily Wire’s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/illegal-immigrant-trucker-with-california-license-accused-of-killing-newlyweds-in-tragic-collision?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Jennie+Taer&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=Illegal+Immigrant+Trucker+With+California+License+Accused+Of+Killing+Newlyweds+In+Tragic+Collision">Jennie Taer</a> reported that a newlywed couple was tragically killed in a collision allegedly caused by an illegal immigrant truck driver with a California license. The Indian national involved in the crash has been charged with criminally negligent homicide and reckless endangerment. 
The Department of Transportation has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/illegal-immigrant-trucker-with-california-license-accused-of-killing-newlyweds-in-tragic-collision?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Jennie+Taer&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=Illegal+Immigrant+Trucker+With+California+License+Accused+Of+Killing+Newlyweds+In+Tragic+Collision">found</a> that California authorities have issued some 17,000 non-domiciled Commercial Driver’s Licenses to foreign drivers. The Trump administration is similarly threatening to withhold tens of millions of federal dollars from California. A number of other states, including red states, are being scrutinized over this issue, too.
<h2 style="text-align: center;">SCOTUS Case On Pro-Life Targeting</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-1008977 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/SCOTUS-Presses-Platkin-1024x576.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/SCOTUS-Presses-Platkin-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/SCOTUS-Presses-Platkin-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/SCOTUS-Presses-Platkin-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/SCOTUS-Presses-Platkin-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/SCOTUS-Presses-Platkin.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />
Topline: The Supreme Court heard <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JysOCj6Dq0g">arguments</a> Tuesday on a case involving a state allegedly “intimidating” and “harassing” a pregnancy center for not conducting abortions. The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, could set precedent on states&#8217; ability to similarly target pregnancy centers and pro-life organizations.
Erin Hawley, general counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom and one of the attorneys representing First Choice, spoke to Morning Wire about the case. (The following interview has been edited for clarity.)
Morning Wire: This case stems from New Jersey’s Democrat Attorney General Matt Platkin creating a “strike force” that targeted pregnancy resource centers. He issued a statewide “consumer alert” against them — and then specifically issued a subpoena to First Choice that was extremely intrusive, including asking for donor information. We’ve just heard oral arguments before the Supreme Court. By the line of questioning from the justices, do you have a sense how they appear to be leaning? 
Hawley: I&#8217;ll have to paraphrase an old boss of mine. After arguing, he would say, I would rather be on our side than their side. And I think that&#8217;s definitely true after this oral argument. If you think about some of the questions the justices were asking, Justice Barrett, for example, pointed out the hostility that New Jersey has shown toward pregnancy care centers.
Justice Kagan took a really practical view of the case. She&#8217;s not one that you would maybe expect to be ideologically aligned with First Choice, and yet she made the common sense point, if I receive a subpoena that demands donor names, I don&#8217;t want my name and address and phone number out there. And so she was saying that this is going to chill the First Amendment rights of recipients in sort of a common sense way. It seemed like a majority or certainly several members of the court were really understanding the effect that subpoena had both on First Choice Women&#8217;s Resource Center, as well as its donors.
Morning Wire: That seems pretty promising for First Choice. Were there any particularly surprising moments to you in the arguments — anything you weren’t anticipating? 
Hawley: One kind of highlight of the oral argument was the fact that we had hoped to sort of highlight, but that&#8217;s the fact that the New Jersey attorney general has never said that he received a single complaint against First Choice by anyone. Justice Thomas really leaned into that and asked the New Jersey attorney, why did you investigate First Choice? Did you receive a complaint? Like, did anyone tell you that they didn&#8217;t like them? And the New Jersey attorney general had to answer no. They had received no complaints about First Choice.

MRN_251203_V2

Morning Brief: Trump Backs Hegseth, Minnesota Issues Illegal Licenses, & SCOTUS Takes On Pro-Life Targeting

Morning Brief: Trump Backs Hegseth, MN Illegal License Loophole, And SCOTUS On Pro-Life Targeting

Department of Defense

Donald Trump

Immigration

Minnesota

Morning Wire

Pete Hegseth

White House

U.S. negotiators head to Moscow after huddling over a peace framework with Ukraine officials, Luigi Mangione arrives at a Manhattan courtroom for pre-trial hearings in his murder case, and the Supreme Court hears arguments on who is responsible for music piracy.
It’s Tuesday, December 2, 2025, and this is the news you need to know to start your day. Today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below, and the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mrn-251202">video version can be seen on The Daily Wire</a>:
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/moscow-peace-negotiations-mangione-contests-evidence/id1576594336?i=1000739259937" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">U.S. Negotiators In Moscow, And Trump’s Caribbean Crackdown</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1008293" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Peace-Within-Reach-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Peace-Within-Reach-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Peace-Within-Reach-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Peace-Within-Reach-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Peace-Within-Reach-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Peace-Within-Reach.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Topline: U.S. negotiators are in Moscow on Tuesday to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin as the White House faces growing scrutiny over its drug crackdown in the Caribbean. 
Ukraine peace deal: Last week, a draft of the U.S. peace plan leaked, including significant concessions from Ukraine. After outrage from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and virtually every European head of state, the White House spent the following days meeting with Ukrainian officials who lobbied for more favorable terms.
Specifically, Ukrainian officials want to remove portions of the text that hand over large swaths of land in the East and cap their military at 600,000 personnel. And perhaps most importantly, they want explicit guarantees that if Russia invades in the future, the U.S. and NATO will have their back.
Those talks concluded Sunday in Miami, where three of Zelensky’s top advisers huddled with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Ukraine’s secretary of national security called the meetings productive and said, “The U.S. is hearing us, supporting us, and walking beside us.”
Witkoff to Moscow: Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, are in Moscow on Tuesday for an expected sit-down with Putin. But he’s unlikely to sign on to the current deal if it doesn’t allow him to seize large portions of land in Eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region, including some territory still in Ukrainian hands.
Speaking last week, Putin warned that “when Ukrainian troops leave the territories they hold, then the fighting will stop. If they don’t, then we’ll achieve that through military means.”
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://DailyWire.com/cyberweek" data-sk="tooltip_parent">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
But the reality is, even if Zelensky agreed to hand over land in exchange for peace, which seems unlikely at the moment, there are significant legal hurdles. Under the Ukrainian constitution, any change to the country’s borders must be approved by voters through a nationwide referendum.
Caribbean capers: The administration is facing increased scrutiny over White House <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/5628447-defense-secretary-authorizes-drug-boat-strike/">confirmation</a> that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth authorized, but did not order, a follow-up strike on a suspected drug vessel after at least two people survived the initial strike.
On Monday, Democrats continued to slam Hegseth and the president, accusing them of committing war crimes. Now, Congress is stepping in, with the Republican-led armed services committees in the House and Senate vowing to conduct “vigorous oversight” and a “full accounting” of the alleged incident.
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Luigi Mangione In Court For Pre-Trial Hearings</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1008295" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Evidence-Suppression-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Evidence-Suppression-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Evidence-Suppression-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Evidence-Suppression-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Evidence-Suppression-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Evidence-Suppression.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Topline: Luigi Mangione, the man charged with murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, appeared in a New York City courtroom this week for key pre-trial hearings.
Mangione, a 27-year-old Ivy League grad, has been charged with stalking and killing Thompson in December 2024. Thompson, a father of two, was shot from behind while walking toward a New York City hotel to attend a corporate investor conference.
Prosecutors say Thompson was targeted over the suspect’s grievances with the health insurance industry, citing a “manifesto.” Recovered shell casings also had the inscriptions, “delay,” “deny,” and “depose.” Mangione is facing life in prison for the state case against him, and potentially the death penalty if he’s convicted in the federal case. Mangione has pleaded not guilty on all counts.
The state case: Mangione appeared in a New York City court on Monday to begin a pre-trial evidentiary hearing. His lawyers are asking that key evidence be suppressed at trial, arguing that it was found on Mangione without a warrant and before Mangione was read his Miranda rights.
The evidence in question is crucial to the case, including the 9 mm handgun matching the murder weapon, and a notebook that prosecutors say contains writings revealing Mangione’s motive for the assassination. The defense also wants statements Mangione allegedly made to police, which they say were made before the suspect was read his rights, tossed.
The prosecution’s case: Prosecutors say the search of Mangione’s backpack was lawful and not unreasonable, as officers needed to search the suspect’s bag for safety reasons. Officers needed to ensure there were no weapons or dangerous items on Mangione when they found him at a McDonald&#8217;s in Pennsylvania. That was after a days-long national manhunt.
As far as the statements Mangione made before being read his Miranda rights, the state says Mangione spoke to them voluntarily and before he was in formal custody, so the Miranda requirement doesn’t apply. They also note that the only statement they plan to use is when officers asked Mangione for his name, and he allegedly gave a false name in response.
Looking ahead: Pre-trial hearings in the state case could last several weeks.
As for the federal case, the next court appearance is scheduled for Friday, and a trial date may be set then. Prosecutors have filed a &#8220;notice of intent&#8221; to seek the death penalty.
<h2 style="text-align: center;">SCOTUS Hearing On Music Piracy Case</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-1008297" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Piracy-Penalty-Push-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Piracy-Penalty-Push-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Piracy-Penalty-Push-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Piracy-Penalty-Push-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Piracy-Penalty-Push-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/12/Piracy-Penalty-Push.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Topline: The Supreme Court is stepping into a billion-dollar showdown that&#8217;s pitting the music industry against internet giants. Cox Communications v. Sony Music will decide who’s responsible for illegal downloading of copyrighted content – and whether millions of Americans could lose their broadband access. 
At its core, this case asks whether an internet service provider can be held financially liable for its subscribers&#8217; illegal downloading or sharing of copyrighted material. It’s called “secondary liability.”
This began back in 2018 when major record labels like Sony, Warner Brothers, and Universal first filed a bombshell lawsuit against Cox, the third-largest broadband provider in the country. They accused Cox of ignoring rampant music piracy. This was primarily peer-to-peer file-sharing via BitTorrent. Think sites like The Pirate Bay.
In 2019, a Virginia jury ruled against Cox and awarded the plaintiffs a staggering $1 billion for allowing &#8220;habitual offenders&#8221; to steal more than 10,000 works.
But the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed the damages, so Cox didn’t have to pay the $1 billion. But the Court upheld the liability. Cox appealed, and on Monday, SCOTUS heard oral arguments in the case.
The case: The main question the justices focused on was whether Cox had an obligation to terminate broadband internet provision of content thieves once the music companies had informed them of the theft.
Cox’s attorney argued they can’t set a standard here because there would be no way to isolate and punish a single user when it comes to massive accounts like universities, hospitals, and office buildings.
If the Court sides with Cox, it would reaffirm broad protections for ISPs and possibly constrain how aggressively artists and content creators can pursue copyright claims. But if the Court sides with the record labels, that could have a massive impact on millions of Americans, establishing a standard under which internet service providers are required to police user activity and cut off service to anyone found illegally downloading content.

MRN_251202_V3

Morning Brief: Moscow Peace Talks, Luigi Mangione Back In Court, & SCOTUS Piracy Case

Morning Brief: Witkoff In Moscow, Mangione In Court, And SCOTUS Case On Music Piracy

Luigi Mangione

Marco Rubio

New York City

Ukraine-Russia War

Vladimir Putin

Volodymyr Zelensky

The Supreme Court on Monday <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111725zor_f2bh.pdf">agreed</a> to hear a case challenging a major Ninth Circuit ruling on the government’s former “metering” policy — a system that limited how many asylum seekers could be processed each day at southern border ports of entry. By taking the case, the Court will now consider the government’s argument that the Ninth Circuit’s <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5/364238/20250701145005805_Al_Otro_Lado_Petition.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com">decision</a> has already made it much harder for the Executive Branch to manage the southern border and will continue to do so.
The dispute centers on how federal law defines when a noncitizen “arrives in the United States” for purposes of applying for asylum. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1), any noncitizen “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States … whether or not at a designated port of arrival” may apply for asylum, and § 1225(a)(1) requires inspection of such individuals. From 2016 to 2018, however, the Department of Homeland Security <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/11/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-case-on-border-crossings/">implemented</a> and formalized a “metering” system. During periods of heavy migration, Customs and Border Protection officers stood at the international boundary and turned back individuals without valid travel documents — even those expressly seeking asylum — preventing them from entering U.S. territory to begin the statutory screening process.
Al Otro Lado, an immigrant-rights group, and several asylum seekers challenged the policy in federal court, arguing that it violated statutory duties to inspect and process applicants. The Ninth Circuit, in a 2–1 decision, <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/22-55988/22-55988-2024-10-23.pdf?ts=1729701050">ruled</a> in favor of the plaintiffs. Judge Michelle Friedland’s majority opinion held that asylum seekers who reach the border and encounter U.S. officials have “arrived in” the United States for statutory purposes, even if physically located on the Mexican side of the line. She concluded that once an asylum seeker presents at the border, the government must inspect and process that individual.
A sharply divided Ninth Circuit declined to rehear the case en banc. In dissent from that denial, Judge Daniel Bress — joined by eleven others — argued that the panel’s interpretation “violates clear statutory text,” improperly applies U.S. law extraterritorially, and radically departs from longstanding understandings limiting asylum processing obligations to persons actually within U.S. territory.
The federal government, in its petition for certiorari, echoed those objections. It argued that the Ninth Circuit had effectively rewritten Congress’s chosen phrase “arrives in the United States” to mean merely “presents at the border,” a move dissenting judges called “breathtaking” and “radical.” The Solicitor General warned that, if left intact, the ruling would deprive the Executive Branch of a critical operational tool at the border — namely, the ability to manage migrant surges by preventing entry until capacity exists to process arrivals safely. The government stressed that for decades, administrations of both parties have used such practices during periods of overcrowding.
Although the challengers urged the Court to deny review — emphasizing that the metering policy was rescinded years earlier and that the case has “almost no present implications” — the Supreme Court nonetheless agreed to take up the dispute. By issuing the writ of certiorari, the Court signaled its intention to resolve the statutory meaning of “arrives in the United States” and determine whether the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation improperly expands asylum rights and unduly restricts executive border-management authority.

Migrant Crossings At The Southern Border Continue Despite Title 42 Ruling

Supreme Court To Decide Fate Of Border ‘Metering’ Policy Blocked By Left-Leaning Judges

Asylum

Courts

Southern Border

President Donald Trump announces that Israel and Hamas have agreed to phase one of his Middle East peace plan, authorities arrest a Florida man accused of setting the deadly Palisades Fire, and the Supreme Court hears arguments on Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy.”
It’s Thursday, October 9, 2025, and this is the news you need to know to start your day.
Morning Wire is available on video! You can watch today’s episode here:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Trump Announces Peace Deal &amp; Palisades Arson Arrest" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wdmGyjux9iY?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>
If you would rather listen to your news, today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below:
<div class="ad-wrapper" data-testid="ad-wrapper"><iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/trump-announces-peace-deal-palisades-arson-arrest-10-9-25/id1576594336?i=1000730957612" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Trump: The Peace President</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-983355" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/The-Peace-President-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/The-Peace-President-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/The-Peace-President-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/The-Peace-President-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/The-Peace-President-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/The-Peace-President.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Topline: President Trump announced on Wednesday that Israel and Hamas have agreed to terms on the first phase of a peace deal that could end the war in Gaza.
Trump was hosting a public event with several independent journalists when he was approached by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. After whispering something in Trump’s ear, Rubio then handed the president a handwritten note, which, based on photographs, appeared to say that a deal was “very close.” It then said, “Need you to approve a Truth Social post soon so you can announce the deal first.” 
Moments later, the president’s account published that post, which read: “I am very proud to announce that Israel and Hamas have both signed off on the first Phase of our Peace Plan. This means that ALL of the Hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their Troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps toward a Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace…This is a GREAT Day for the Arab and Muslim World, Israel, all surrounding Nations, and the United States of America…BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS!”
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a> 
As part of the first phase, Hamas plans to release the 20 living hostages this weekend, according to the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/egypt-gaza-talks-kushner-witkoff-israel-hamas-news-10-08-2025-ac80d3ed50ff2a9b4106ab5e13156651" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Associated Press</a>. Hamas is responsible for the bodies of 28 dead hostages, though it is unclear whether the terror group can locate and retrieve them. Once the Israeli cabinet approves the agreement, the terror group has 72 hours to return the hostages.
Israel’s military has 24 hours from the time the Israeli cabinet approves the deal to withdraw from the heart of Gaza to a predetermined boundary.
<h2 style="text-align: center;">SCOTUS Hears Colorado &#8220;Conversion Therapy&#8221; Case</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-983361" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Conversion-Therapy-Hearing-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Conversion-Therapy-Hearing-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Conversion-Therapy-Hearing-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Conversion-Therapy-Hearing-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Conversion-Therapy-Hearing-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Conversion-Therapy-Hearing.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Topline: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in a case addressing the legality of so-called “conversion therapy.” Historically, the term referred to counseling or treatment aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation from gay to straight. However, leftist activists now use the label more broadly, applying it to efforts that encourage transgender individuals to accept their biological sex.
The case: The plaintiff, a Christian counselor named Kaley Chiles, is challenging a law in Colorado that’s been dubbed the “Minor Conversion Therapy Law.” It was passed in 2019 by a Democrat-controlled legislature, and it bans counseling that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” 
The plaintiff: Chiles’ legal team, Alliance Defending Freedom, says Chiles is currently under investigation by the state of Colorado over this law, and they’ve stressed that minors are being deprived of her services. 
The state of Colorado argues that this is not a free speech issue, but rather a matter of regulating conduct and medical treatment—even if that “medical treatment” is only speech, like talk therapy. The law is then constitutional, according to state attorneys. Colorado says that talk therapy that doesn&#8217;t affirm the gender-confused is harmful to children, which the state bases on “experts” and the so-called medical consensus.
SCOTUS watch: The justices appear to be leaning in favor of the plaintiff, and not just the conservatives. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan seemed to side with Justice Samuel Alito when he said the Colorado law seemed like, quote, “blatant viewpoint discrimination.”
A ruling is expected next summer. And if the tea leaves are being read correctly, an overturning of this Colorado law could influence similar laws in dozens of other states.
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Authorities Arrest Suspected Palisades Fire Arsonist</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-983363" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Palisades-Arson-Arrest-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Palisades-Arson-Arrest-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Palisades-Arson-Arrest-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Palisades-Arson-Arrest-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Palisades-Arson-Arrest-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Palisades-Arson-Arrest.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Topline: Authorities have arrested 29-year-old Jonathan Rinderknecht, who they say intentionally sparked the fire that destroyed Pacific Palisades, California, back in January.
The suspect: Rinderknecht is an Uber driver who now lives in Melbourne, Florida. Officials from the Justice Department and the Los Angeles Police Department held a joint press conference on Wednesday to announce the arrest. According to officials, Rinderknecht started the Lachman Fire on New Year’s Day. The Lachman Fire eventually became the Palisades Fire after it was rekindled by severe winds a week later.
What happened: According to U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, Rinderknecht was in Pacific Palisades late on New Year’s Eve after working throughout the evening. He drove toward Skull Rock trailhead, got out of his car, and walked up a trail to a nearby hilltop, where he recorded videos and listened to a rap song. According to Essayli, the song was accompanied by a music video showing objects being set on fire.
In addition to that, Rinderknecht’s phone had images he created with ChatGPT of people fleeing from burning forests. Another ChatGPT search made around the time he called 911 to report the fire said, “Are you at fault if a fire is lit [sic] because of your cigarettes?”
Firefighters were able to suppress the fire shortly after, but it continued to burn underground until strong winds revived it a week later, starting the Palisades Fire.
The blaze eventually became one of the worst in California history. It killed 12 people and destroyed nearly 7,000 structures, resulting in $150 billion in damage. The rebuilding process has been long and difficult. As of last month, the city of Los Angeles had <a href="https://www.carriermanagement.com/news/2025/09/30/279930.htm">approved</a> just over 600 permits to rebuild out of about 1,500 applications.
The charges: Rinderknecht is only charged with destruction of property by means of fire. But prosecutors may add more charges to the indictment later. They accused him of lying to authorities, with Essayli stating that Rinderknecht provided false information to police about the fire when officers interviewed him on January 24. But Essayli made no mention of a charge on that in the indictment. As is, Rinderknecht faces up to 20 years in prison.

MRN_251009_V1

Morning Brief: The Peace President, SCOTUS Takes Up ‘Conversion Therapy,’  & Palisades Fire Arrest

Morning Brief: The Peace President, ‘Conversion Therapy’ At SCOTUS, And Suspected Palisades Arson

California

Colorado

Hamas

Israel

Los Angeles Fires

Media

Wildfires

Questions mount over the DOJ and FBI’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, fueling public suspicion, the Supreme Court clears the way for Trump’s mass government layoffs, and a deadly “screwworm” is spreading through cattle in Mexico.
It’s Thursday, July 10, and this is the news you need to know to start your day.
Morning Wire is available on video! You can watch today’s episode here:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Epstein Questions Remain &amp; Deadly Screwworm Dangers" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xu2kRDcFpl4?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;
If you’d rather listen to your news, today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below:
&nbsp;
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/epstein-questions-remain-deadly-screwworm-dangers-7-10-25/id1576594336?i=1000716643324" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
&nbsp;
<h2>The Curious Case Of Jeffrey Epstein</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-large wp-image-945081" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MRN-7.10.25-Seg-Head-1-1024x576.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MRN-7.10.25-Seg-Head-1-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MRN-7.10.25-Seg-Head-1-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MRN-7.10.25-Seg-Head-1-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MRN-7.10.25-Seg-Head-1-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MRN-7.10.25-Seg-Head-1.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
Topline: Days after the Trump administration declared the Epstein investigation closed, public outrage continues to grow. Now, some Republicans are calling for the removal of Attorney General Pam Bondi.
The Trump administration released a now-infamous <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1407001/dl?inline">memo</a> Sunday night saying the Jeffry Epstein case was closed, but that is clearly not what many in the GOP base wanted to hear. Some conservative radio hosts and influencers, as well as lawmakers on Capitol Hill, have made clear they don’t believe the official story.
According to their memo, the Department of Justice determined that Epstein’s death was a suicide after reviewing the existing evidence in the FBI&#8217;s possession — critics want to know why they didn’t seek to gather more evidence. 
“I&#8217;m not surprised to hear that within the existing case files, they didn&#8217;t find anything,” Mike Howell, President of the Oversight Project, told The Daily Wire. “The FBI didn&#8217;t fulsomely investigate the Epstein [case] &#8230; They should have investigated with this new leadership &#8230; You had the richest and most powerful people in the world descending on an island where a known massive sex trafficker was. This goes out to the nature of the global elites and their relationship with the intelligence community and law enforcement, which appears to be very preferential. These are massive questions about the functioning of our country and the rule of law, not only the safety of young women.”
For years, the president and his allies have vowed to present evidence on this case to the American people. Both President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, for example, said on the campaign trail that they would declassify the “Epstein Files.” FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino also vowed to prioritize transparency on the case. 
But perhaps the most vocal of all was Attorney General Pam Bondi, who made public statements claiming that there were “tens of thousands of videos of Epstein with children or child porn” as well as other co-conspirators in the case whose names would be made public. In an interview with <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/attorney-general-bondi-under-siege-after-doj-reveals-no-epstein-client-list">Fox News</a> earlier this year, Bondi went so far as to claim that she had a list of Epstein’s clients “on my desk” – the DOJ now claims that document does not exist.
&nbsp;
<h2>SCOTUS Sides With Trump Administration, Permits Mass Layoffs</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-large wp-image-945079" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MRN-7.10.25-Seg-Head-2-1024x576.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MRN-7.10.25-Seg-Head-2-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MRN-7.10.25-Seg-Head-2-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MRN-7.10.25-Seg-Head-2-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MRN-7.10.25-Seg-Head-2-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MRN-7.10.25-Seg-Head-2.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
Topline: The Supreme Court this week cleared the way for President Trump to move forward with plans to shrink the federal bureaucracy.
In February, shortly after taking office, President Trump ordered federal agencies to develop plans to implement the recommendations of the DOGE to reduce the size of the federal workforce. Several federal employee unions and activist groups sued, arguing that the executive did not have the authority to restructure the federal workforce without congressional approval. In May, Judge Susan Illston of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California issued a nationwide injunction, pausing the Trump administration’s plans.
In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court stayed the injunction, while it did not preclude future court cases challenging the legality of specific layoffs. The court’s ruling will allow the Trump administration to implement its proposed workforce reductions.
“There are [going] to be more lawsuits, but I do think [Trump’s] got enough running room to really start going forward with this,”  Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Wire. “What people ought to realize is how stupid so many of these lawsuits are. Reductions in force … Almost every president has done that. Heck, Obama did it. And nobody thought it was some kind of legal issue or problem until now, when folks are raving about it and saying that President Trump is somehow doing something wrong.”
Interestingly, the stay appears to have divided the court’s liberal members. While her reasoning differed from the majority decision, Justice Sonya Sotomayor signed a concurrence in favor of it. The court’s most junior member, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, signed a pointed dissent calling the majority decision “not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”
“Brown Jackson is really at the far end of the spectrum and that the other justices are getting tired of her,” von Spakovsky said. “I disagree often with what Justice Kagan and Sotomayor put in their decisions, but they at least try to have a legal basis for what they&#8217;re saying … she just doesn&#8217;t have the legal acumen to be on the court.”
&nbsp;
<h2>Flesh-Eating Maggots Threaten Livestock</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-large wp-image-945083" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MRN-7.10.25-Seg-Head-3-1024x576.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MRN-7.10.25-Seg-Head-3-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MRN-7.10.25-Seg-Head-3-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MRN-7.10.25-Seg-Head-3-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MRN-7.10.25-Seg-Head-3-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MRN-7.10.25-Seg-Head-3.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
Topline: A flesh-eating maggot has appeared in Mexico, with <a href="https://www.chron.com/news/article/screwworm-maggots-flies-texas-20421558.php?utm_source=chatgpt.com">outbreaks</a> within 700 miles of the United States&#8217; southern border. The pests are spiking fears about potential devastation to U.S. cattle and other livestock. 
A species of parasitic fly, the New World screwworm, spread to Mexico late last year after decades of efforts by the United States to keep the pest out of North America. The adult screwworm lays its eggs in the wounds or other openings (eyes, nostrils, etc) of warm-blooded animals like cattle, other livestock, and sometimes even humans, and consumes their flesh, leading to severe tissue damage or even death – the most recent Mexican outbreak has seen at least <a href="https://mexicobusiness.news/health/news/mexico-confirms-eight-screwworm-myiasis-cases#:~:text=Mexico%20confirms%20eight%20cases%20of,often%20causing%20significant%20tissue%20damage.">eight cases</a> of human infections. They wreak havoc on livestock, in particular – a screwworm infestation can kill a cow in a matter of days. 
On May 11, immediately after the outbreaks were detected, the Department of Agriculture <a href="https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/06/18/secretary-rollins-announces-bold-plan-combat-new-world-screwworms-northward-spread">suspended</a> live cattle, horse, and bison imports through America&#8217;s ports of entry along the southern border with Mexico. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has repeatedly said the screwworm <a href="https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/06/18/secretary-rollins-announces-bold-plan-combat-new-world-screwworms-northward-spread?utm_source=chatgpt.com">poses</a> a serious threat “to our livestock industry, our economy, and our food supply chain.” 
After implementing those restrictions, the Department of Agriculture announced its next step to eradicate the screwworm: <a href="https://apnews.com/article/fly-factory-texas-flesheating-screwworm-cattle-5eb62edc42bcfce40cdbea27b5f8b60c">breed billions of flies</a>, sterilize them, and release them into Mexico and southern Texas. Female screwworms only mate once, so flooding an area with sterilized males is an effective way to prevent wild flies from reproducing. The United States has already done this once – the New World screwworm’s historic range extended into much of North America before it was systematically <a href="https://apnews.com/article/fly-factory-texas-flesheating-screwworm-cattle-5eb62edc42bcfce40cdbea27b5f8b60c" target="_blank" rel="noopener">eradicated</a> decades ago – and this method is said to be much safer, more effective, and more environmentally friendly than spraying the pests. 
The Department of Agriculture is also <a href="https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/06/18/secretary-rollins-announces-bold-plan-combat-new-world-screwworms-northward-spread">monitoring</a> Mexico’s animal health controls and improving surveillance and detection of screwworm, including providing traps, lures, and technical expertise to Mexico, among other measures.  In a press release issued on June 30, the department said it&#8217;s now consistently conducting sterile fly dispersal, releasing more than 100 million flies each week. They also have teams working with Mexico to observe this and say they’ve not seen “a notable increase in reported screwworm cases in Mexico, nor any northward movement of the pest over the past eight weeks.” 
However, 19 different cattle groups <a href="https://www.r-calfusa.com/19-cattle-groups-urge-usda-to-maintain-ban-on-mexican-livestock-imports-amid-screwworm-threats/">sent a letter </a>to Rollins, urging the USDA to keep the ban on Mexican imports in place, as they claim this risk still persists.

MRN 7.10.25 Seg Head 3

Morning Brief: Epstein Threatens To Derail Bondi, SCOTUS Hands Trump A Win. Meanwhile, In Mexico …

Morning Brief: Epstein Threatens To Derail Bondi, SCOTUS Hands Trump A Win. Meanwhile, In Mexico ...

brooke rollins

Jeffrey Epstein

Mexico

Pam Bondi

There’s been a great deal of talk about the Trump vs. CASA decision at the Supreme Court. This, as you know, is the decision that put restrictions on universal injunctions against Trump administration policies issued by federal judge James Boasberg while Boasberg was wearing a cardboard Burger King crown and spinning around the room with his black robe flung out as if it were a pair of wings and simultaneously singing, “Look at me, mother. I am the ruler of the universe. Everyone look at me.” The court decided six to three along ideological lines that Boasberg should not only quit with the injunctions but also possibly see a mental health professional or at least turn down the volume in order to stop disturbing the neighbors. Boasberg responded to the decision by sitting curled up in a corner and sucking his thumb while still wearing the Burger King crown and muttering, “I don’t care what they say. I’m the ruler of everybody,” but in a much softer voice so the Supreme Court wouldn’t hear him and take his cardboard crown away and make him go to bed early.
The court’s decision was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and much of the media attention focused on Barrett’s comments about a dissenting opinion written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Many felt that Barrett’s response to Jackson’s dissent was derogatory, disdainful, humiliating, sardonic, mocking, derisive, sarcastic, belittling, disparaging, denigrating, contemptuous, taunting and even humiliating — and I know I already said that, but it was so derogatory it was actually humiliating twice, and possibly vice versa.
Now part of the reaction to Barrett’s comments might have arisen from the fact that, during her confirmation hearing, Barrett answered questions with so much precision and expertise that it gave the impression that she’s a highly intelligent woman and also kind of hot in a wonk-girl Catholic mom sort of way, whereas at her confirmation hearing, Ketanji Jackson couldn’t even say what a woman is, giving the impression that she was a DEI hire, selected because she’s a black woman without taking into account the fact that she’s also a functional idiot.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show">WATCH: The Andrew Klavan Show</a></h3>
But here at the Andrew Klavan show, we feel we should take Justice Jackson’s dissent seriously because, you know, that would be funnier. So after spending a great many minutes reading the dissent in depth… I’m not sure exactly how many minutes, but it was a lot. Maybe ten even. I lost count around six or seven. But anyway, after spending a great many minutes studying Justice Jackson’s dissent, I have some important observations.
Jackson dissents to the court&#8217;s decision on the grounds that it hides behind a “smokescreen” of “legalese,” by comparing the issues involved in the case to legal precedents in American and English jurisprudence. Instead of this process, sometimes known as “applying the law,” or “judging,” Jackson proposes a different standard called the “sassy black woman” test. In this test, also known as the “Jasmine Crockett standard,” all court decisions and other forms of reasoned discourse must be able to withstand a black woman putting her fist against one upraised hip and saying completely incomprehensible things in an aggressive sing-song voice while leaving the g’s off the endings of her words and using foul language to declare herself entitled to be heard despite the fact that she’s obviously a functional idiot. Furthermore, if said sassy black woman ends said tirade with the words “full stop,” any disagreement will immediately be deemed racist even if it can be shown that it’s not her skin color that’s at issue but only her functional idiocy.
Justice Jackson also writes in her dissent — and this is a real quote, “A Martian arriving here from another planet would see these circumstances and surely wonder: ‘what good is the Constitution?’” This, of course, is a reference to the famous Martian clause in the founding documents of Planet Zeebeegununu in the Ratchet and Clank Solana Galaxy, which declares that the opinions of fictional extraterrestrials should be given priority, because, honey-child, these space aliens are way smarter than a fool like you, full stop. 
All in all, I think we can agree that the Jackson dissent is a mind-bogglingly deep dissent, if you spell dissent d-e-s-c-e-n-t.
* * *
This excerpt is taken from the opening satirical monologue of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Andrew Klavan Show</a>.”
Andrew Klavan is the host of “The Andrew Klavan Show” at The Daily Wire. Klavan is the bestselling author of numerous books, including the Cameron Winter Mystery series. The fourth installment, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1613165536?ref_=dbs_m_mng_rwt_calw_thcv_3&amp;storeType=ebooks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Woman Underground.</a>” His most recent nonfiction release is “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Cain-Finding-Literature-Darkness/dp/0310368340/?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_w=nMYjR&amp;content-id=amzn1.sym.bc3ba8d1-5076-4ab7-9ba8-a5c6211e002d&amp;pf_rd_p=bc3ba8d1-5076-4ab7-9ba8-a5c6211e002d&amp;pf_rd_r=133-8344803-2786917&amp;pd_rd_wg=7a8J3&amp;pd_rd_r=5791ea0f-6d96-4732-9d6a-3a4e6b348bb5&amp;ref_=aufs_ap_sc_dsk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Kingdom of Cain: Finding God in the Literature of Darkness.</a>” (May 2025, Zondervan/HarperCollins). Follow him on X: <a href="https://x.com/andrewklavan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@andrewklavan</a>
The views expressed in this satirical article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

President Biden Delivers State Of The Union Address

Justice Jackson Invokes Famous ‘Martian Clause’ In Dissent

Justice Jackson Invokes Famous 'Martian Clause' In Dissent

Amy Coney Barrett

Andrew Klavan

Humor

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Satire

Trump Administration

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases revolving around state laws keeping transgender-identifying males out of women’s sports. 
The court is set to consider cases out of Idaho and West Virginia, where laws banning males who identify as women from participating in women&#8217;s and girls&#8217; sports were blocked by lower courts. The news comes just weeks after the high court ruled 6-3 in favor of a Tennessee law that banned transgender medical procedures on minors. 
At issue in the cases are West Virginia’s “Save Women’s Sports Act” and Idaho’s “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.&#8221;
 In West Virginia, a parent sued to block the 2021 law, arguing that her transgender-identifying son was being discriminated against because he was not allowed on the girls&#8217; cross country team. In Idaho, a transgender-identifying male sued because he wouldn&#8217;t be allowed to join Boise State University&#8217;s women&#8217;s track team under the state&#8217;s law. 
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
West Virginia’s law was blocked by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in April 2024, and Idaho’s law was blocked by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in August 2023. The attorneys general of both states celebrated the court’s decision to take up the case. 
“It’s a great day, as female athletes in West Virginia will have their voices heard. The people of West Virginia know that it’s unfair to let male athletes compete against women; that’s why we passed this commonsense law preserving women&#8217;s sports for women,” said West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey. “We are confident the Supreme Court will uphold the Save Women&#8217;s Sports Act because it complies with the U.S. Constitution and complies with Title IX. And most importantly: it protects women and girls by ensuring the playing field is safe and fair.&#8221;
Idaho was the first state to pass a law intended to exclude males from competing in women&#8217;s sports in 2020.
“Idaho’s women and girls deserve an equal playing field,” added Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador. “I am thrilled the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear our case. For too long, activists have worked to sideline women and girls in their own sports. Men and women are biologically different, and we hope the court will allow states to end this injustice and ensure men no longer create a dangerous, unfair environment for women to showcase their incredible talent and pursue the equal opportunities they deserve.”
More than two dozen states have enacted laws similar to those in Idaho and West Virginia, and courts have blocked full implementation in other states, including New Hampshire, Utah, and Montana.

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

Red States Set To Defend Women’s Sports At Supreme Court

Idaho

Transgender Athletes

U.S.

West Virginia

Women's sports

The &#8220;One Big Beautiful Bill&#8221; moves one step closer to the president’s desk, the Supreme Court hands Trump a major victory, and is transgender-mania coming to an end? Get the facts first with Morning Wire.
It’s Monday, June 30, and this is the news you need to know to start your day.
Morning Wire is available on video! You can watch today’s episode here:
 
<iframe loading="lazy" title="The Big Beautiful Bill Advances &amp; Trump’s SCOTUS Victory | 6.30.25" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Nr17vsGTsfM?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;
If you’d rather listen to your news, today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below:
&nbsp;
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-big-beautiful-bill-advances-trumps-scotus-victory/id1576594336?i=1000715109344" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
&nbsp;
<h2>The &#8216;Big Beautiful Bill&#8217; Advances Through The Senate</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-large wp-image-941037" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/6.30.25-Segment-Header-1-1024x576.png" alt="" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/6.30.25-Segment-Header-1-1024x576.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/6.30.25-Segment-Header-1-300x169.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/6.30.25-Segment-Header-1-768x432.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/6.30.25-Segment-Header-1-1536x864.png 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/6.30.25-Segment-Header-1.png 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
Topline: The &#8220;Big Beautiful Bill&#8221; clears a key hurdle as President Donald Trump touts a trade deal with China.
The &#8220;Big Beautiful Bill&#8221; moved one step closer to passage this weekend as Republican lawmakers push the president’s signature legislation to the finish line. This bill includes the bulk of President Trump’s agenda. Among other things, it will make his first-term tax cuts permanent, eliminate taxes on most tips, overtime pay, and Social Security payouts, increase funding for border security, and remove federal benefits from millions of illegal immigrants.
The House passed its version of the bill back in May, but the Senate has been debating it ever since, with serious fractures emerging, as a few moderate and hardline conservatives held out, debating issues such as Medicaid cuts and deficit spending. But after a number of tweaks and amendments, the &#8220;Big Beautiful Bill&#8221; crossed a major procedural hurdle when the chamber voted 51-49 late Saturday night to advance the bill to the floor for final debates. 
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-75638">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
GOP leaders say the goal is to hold a final vote as early as Monday, but Democrats are doing everything in their power to stall the process. For example, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) utilized an obscure Senate rule to require clerks to read the entire 940-page bill aloud on the floor, which delayed proceedings by approximately 15 hours. Democrats will also introduce a number of amendments on issues such as tax cuts for the wealthy and protections for Medicaid and food stamp funding — they know those measures will likely fail, but want to put Republicans on the record ahead of the midterms. 
Republicans say Democrats can only stall for so long, and they’re confident the &#8220;Big Beautiful Bill&#8221; will pass — at which point it’ll return to the House for another final vote, and then make its way to the president’s desk. Trump has requested that it be ready by the 4th of July.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration announced that a deal had been reached with Beijing that would allow Chinese rare earth minerals to once again be exported to the United States in exchange for Washington easing a number of tariffs and other restrictions on the communist nation. While the White House has rushed to open up domestic mines in the United States, this process will take time, and China accounts for approximately 70% of global rare earth mineral production.
By contrast, tariff negotiations with Canada appear to have soured. On Friday, President Trump announced that he had terminated discussions with Canada “effective immediately” after it announced plans for a new digital tax that will cost American tech companies billions of dollars. In a Truth Social post, the president called the new tax a “direct and blatant attack on our Country” and vowed to “let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States” in the next week. In response, Canada has imposed new quotas on American steel imports and a 50% tariff on any additional steel entering the country.
&nbsp;
<h2>SCOTUS Curbs Nationwide Injunctions From Lower Courts</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-large wp-image-941041" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/6.30.25-Segment-Header-2-1024x576.png" alt="" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/6.30.25-Segment-Header-2-1024x576.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/6.30.25-Segment-Header-2-300x169.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/6.30.25-Segment-Header-2-768x432.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/6.30.25-Segment-Header-2-1536x864.png 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/6.30.25-Segment-Header-2.png 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
Topline: The Supreme Court issues another landmark ruling on judicial overreach.
Trump vs. Casa, nominally a case about birthright citizenship ultimately centered on the authority of lower federal courts to issue nationwide, or “universal” injunctions, which block the federal government from implementing a policy across the entire country rather than providing narrow relief to the specific plaintiffs of a case. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that, at least in most cases, lower courts do not have the power to issue such injunctions.
That has massive implications for the implementation of President Trump’s agenda; more than 100 universal injunctions have been issued against the Trump administration – including 40 in his second term – and the <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/five-liberal-courts-tied-trumps-hands-before-scotus-clipped-power">bulk </a>of those have come from judges appointed by Democrats. Trump has argued that these decisions were politically motivated, that allowing any one of hundreds of federal judges to contradict executive policy violated the constitutional separation of powers, and that activists were deliberately filing cases in districts with left-leaning judges to hamstring his administration. After the ruling, President Trump lauded the “amazing decision,” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-limits-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-fight">saying,</a> “This is a very big moment, and it gives power back to people that should have it.”
Casa began as an attempt to challenge Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. That order is called “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” and it argues that the Fourteenth Amendment “has always excluded” those who were born in the United States “but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’&#8217;’ The most relevant precedent, United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, affirmed that the children of immigrants born on American soil are granted birthright citizenship – generally it has been assumed that that precedent applies to the children of illegal aliens as well, although the Supreme Court has not ruled on that definitively and chose not to in Trump vs. Casa.
In the majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that “federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
&nbsp;
<h2>Title IX Vs Gender Ideology</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-large wp-image-941039" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/6.30.25-Segment-Header-3-1024x576.png" alt="" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/6.30.25-Segment-Header-3-1024x576.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/6.30.25-Segment-Header-3-300x169.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/6.30.25-Segment-Header-3-768x432.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/6.30.25-Segment-Header-3-1536x864.png 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/6.30.25-Segment-Header-3.png 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
Topline: The era of transgender-mania might be waning. We have the latest on the debate over women&#8217;s sports.
The federal government has become far less accommodating to gender ideology since President Trump took office. Earlier this month, the Trump administration renamed June from “Pride Month” to “Title IX Month” — honoring the civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in schools. The president also acknowledged the difference between the sexes with several executive orders when he took office — he barred males in women’s sports at schools, and he prohibited schools from allowing kids to use the bathrooms of the opposite gender.
In a major win for women’s sports advocates, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) changed its transgender athlete policy to allow only biological females to compete in women’s sports.
Public discourse on the issue has also undergone significant changes. Earlier this month, Olympic gymnast Simone Biles got into an online altercation with Riley Gaines, the college swimmer who was forced to give up her trophy to trans-identifying male competitor Lia Thomas. Biles attacked Gaines over her work trying to keep men out of women’s sports, and she even insulted her, telling Gaines she looked like a man. In response, Biles faced a tremendous amount of backlash – she ultimately apologized to Gaines before deleting her X account altogether.
Even leftist enclaves are under increasing pressure, from within and without, to protect women’s sports. Last week, Maine’s Democratic Governor Janet Mills, who has fought the Trump administration to keep trans-identifying athletes in women’s sports, was <a href="https://x.com/TONYxTWO/status/1936968005952630830">booed</a> by residents of her state when she spoke at the annual Maine Moose Lottery. On Wednesday, the Department of Education stated that it has found California to be in violation of Title IX by allowing males to participate in girls’ sports. Education Secretary Linda McMahon stated that California has 10 days to rectify its violations. This comes after even California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom admitted on a podcast that males in women’s sports is “deeply unfair.”

MRN 6.30.25 Thumbnail V1

Morning Brief: Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Nears Finish Line, SCOTUS Reins In Judicial Overreach

Title IX

U.S. Senate

CNN Republican commentator Scott Jennings took a swing at Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, pointing out how quickly she&#8217;d changed her tune on the topic of nationwide injunctions when the party in power had changed.
Jennings raised the point during a panel discussion on &#8220;CNN Newsnight&#8221; with host Abby Phillip, captioning a video of the exchange, &#8220;Does anyone remember Justice Kagan being against nationwide injunctions when we had a DEMOCRAT President? Pepperidge Farms remembers.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Does anyone remember Justice Kagan being against nationwide injunctions when we had a DEMOCRAT President?
Pepperidge Farms remembers. <a href="https://t.co/s31HUKrkNo">pic.twitter.com/s31HUKrkNo</a>
— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) <a href="https://twitter.com/ScottJenningsKY/status/1938988002598101383?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 28, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Phillip began the conversation by noting that both Democrats and Republicans had opposed the idea of nationwide injunctions — a tool used by lower courts to extend what would otherwise be limited rulings to apply across the entire country — mostly when they were being used by the opposition party to restrain an executive with whom they agreed.
&#8220;The nationwide injunction is officially dead and the court taking an opportunity here to do something that a lot of conservatives, perhaps, have wanted for a while. But, as we’ve discussed plenty of times, the nationwide injunction has been sort of the bane of the existence of Democrat and Republican presidents. It’s just that now this court has actually done it,&#8221; Phillip said.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
Jennings, who has said on a number of occasions that the real &#8220;constitutional crisis&#8221; in play at present was a runaway judiciary bent on restraining President Donald Trump by any means necessary. &#8220;Yeah, they’ve finally done something about it. Friday was a great day for Donald Trump. The market ended at all-time highs. He’s breaking peace agreements in the Oval Office on a Friday afternoon. And then the court really clears the way for him to enact the agenda on which he ran.&#8221;
&#8220;I was trying to sort out my feelings on this matter, and I came up with a quote from a very smart lawyer, and I just want to quote it, because I think she was right when she said it. &#8216;It just can’t be right that one District Judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks,'&#8221; Jennings continued, pivoting to reveal his source: &#8220;Justice Elena Kagan in 2022 said that. Of course, when we had a democratic president. Now she voted against the decision on Friday. Just goes to show you that some of these folks really are hacks.&#8221;
&#8220;But as you correctly said, this has been the bane of existence of presidents and I’m glad they went ahead and fixed it because it’s not right that one of these individual district court judges can act like a king or a monarch and stop the elected president from acting,&#8221; Jennings concluded.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan Speaks At George Washington University

‘Some Of These Folks Really Are Hacks’: CNN Republican Hits Kagan For Flip On Nationwide Injunctions

'Some Of These Folks Really Are Hacks': CNN Republican Hits Kagan For Flip On Nationwide Injunctions

Scott Jennings

Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro reacted to three massive Supreme Court rulings that came down in favor of conservatives on Friday, one on birthright citizenship, one on LGBT children&#8217;s books, and the third on a Texas pornography law.
&#8220;The three biggest decisions all came down in favor of President Trump,&#8221; Shapiro said in his video reaction to the news on Friday.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eXGQhV6jA-Q?si=nO16xYGfzQxOjAiu" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
In the first case, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-limits-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-fight?author=Mairead+Elordi&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Supreme+Court+Sides+With+Trump%2C+Limits+Nationwide+Injunctions+In+Birthright+Citizenship+Fight">cracked down</a> on lower courts trying to hamstring President Trump&#8217;s agenda, ruling that Trump may end birthright citizenship in some parts of the country while legal challenges against his order proceed in others. Previously, courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state had issued nationwide injunctions that blocked Trump’s order from taking effect across the country.
The ruling did not address the question of birthright citizenship itself, which is the practice of granting automatic citizenship rights for babies born on United States soil, regardless of their parents’ citizenship status.
Nationwide injunctions by courts blocking Trump&#8217;s agenda have been a &#8220;massive problem&#8221; for his administration since he took office, Shapiro said in his response.
&#8220;The basic issue here is that there is nothing in the history of the U.S. judicial system that suggests universal injunctions from district courts are a thing,&#8221; the host of &#8220;The Ben Shapiro Show&#8221; said. &#8220;You can&#8217;t just randomly make up universal injunctions and then start applying them without any sort of limitation.&#8221;
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-2388">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who penned the court&#8217;s majority opinion, blistered Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent.
&#8220;The court goes out of its way to smack down Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson&#8217;s dissent, which is truly a crazy dissent,&#8221; Shapiro noted. &#8220;I mean, her dissent in this case essentially says that because she feels like it, any district court judge should be able to issue any nationwide injunction against the Executive branch.&#8221;
&#8220;As the court points out, that&#8217;s kind of crazy,&#8221; Shapiro said. &#8220;For the Left, the answer always and forever is more power to whatever branch is useful to them. There is no actual through-line to their jurisprudence. This has always been the problem with constitutional jurisprudence from the Left.&#8221;
The second decision the Supreme Court handed down on Friday was in favor of a group of religious parents who sued over their Maryland school district barring them from opting their children out of LGBT books in the classroom.
Justice Samuel Alito <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-sides-with-parents-says-schools-cant-mandate-lgbt-curricula?author=Mairead+Elordi&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Supreme+Court+Sides+With+Parents%2C+Says+Schools+Can’t+Mandate+LGBT+Curricula">penned</a> the court&#8217;s majority opinion, writing that the school district burdened the parents’ First Amendment rights.
The Maryland parents who sued included Catholics, Muslims, and Ukrainian Orthodox.
The controversial LGBT books included “Prince and Knight” about a prince who falls in love with a knight instead of a princess, and “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” about a girl’s uncle who marries another man.
&#8220;So basically they were just going to force kids to listen to LGBTQ plus, minus, divided-by sign agitprop without notifying parents or allowing them the possibility of opt out,&#8221; Shapiro said.
Shapiro remembered how his own parents were able to opt him out of sex education in middle school.
&#8220;That&#8217;s an extraordinary thing,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I remember, when I went to public middle school, we reached the age where [Los Angeles Unified School District] decided that it was necessary that you be taught sex ed, and my parents, who had already taught me about sex, did not wish to have a bunch of left-wing agitprop shoveled into my brain by a bunch of public school educators, and so they opted me out. And they were allowed to opt me out because religious freedom and all that. Well, this particular school district said no, you cannot opt out no matter what you do.&#8221;
&#8220;Justice Alito goes into excruciating detail, pointing out what exactly happens in these books that are being taught to extremely small children, about sexual fluidity, gender identity, same-sex marriage, and all the rest,&#8221; Shapiro noted. &#8220;It is very, very obvious, very clear, of course, that the goal here is not just to teach what the law is nationally in the United States that men can marry men and women can marry women. The idea here is that it&#8217;s supposed to be upheld as a moral good, and you can&#8217;t opt out.&#8221;
&#8220;If you are teaching third graders that it is a positive good, an excellent positive good for boys to marry boys and girls to marry girls, boys to be girls, girls to be boys, and all the rest, that of course is what Justice Alito calls a chilling vision of the power of the state to strip away the critical rights of parents to guide religious development of their children,&#8221; Shapiro said.
In Friday&#8217;s last major decision, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-upholds-texas-law-requiring-age-verification-to-shield-kids-from-pornography?author=Spencer+Lindquist&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Supreme+Court+Upholds+Texas+Law+Requiring+Age+Verification+To+Shield+Kids+From+Pornography">voted</a> to uphold a Texas law requiring users to verify their age before viewing pornography, ruling against a trade organization for the porn industry.
&#8220;It is not some gigantic burden for somebody who is above the age of 18 to type in their age. That&#8217;s the basic finding,&#8221; Shapiro said. &#8220;The fact that, again, the three liberals on the court found this to be some sort of violation of core First Amendment liberty is insane.&#8221;
Shapiro added that he would have &#8220;gone further.&#8221;
&#8220;Pornography should not be covered by the First Amendment,&#8221; Shapiro said. &#8220;The notion that the Founding Fathers were sitting around talking about the necessity of accessing pornography when they wrote the First Amendment is insane. In fact, there were pornography laws on the books of I believe every state at the time of the founding.&#8221;
Shapiro emphasized that all three decisions tie back to Trump&#8217;s 2016 election.
&#8220;If he had not won the 2016 election, you would have had a left-wing bench cramming down the worst form of left-wing radicalism imaginable via the Supreme Court,&#8221; Shapiro said.

Senate Prepares For Supreme Court Nomination Hearings After Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett For Open Seat

Birthright Citizenship, LGBT Books, Porn Law: Ben Shapiro Reacts To Trump’s Trifecta Of Wins At SCOTUS

Ben Shapiro

LGBTQ

The Ben Shapiro Show

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday to uphold a Texas law requiring users to verify their age before accessing pornography, handing a defeat to a trade organization for the porn industry.
The case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, focused on a requirement for users to demonstrate that they are 18 years old or older to access pornographic websites. The law prompted PornHub to <a href="https://versustexas.com/blog/age-verification-law-texas/">suspend access</a> for all Texas users while claiming that the legislation infringed on free speech.
The ruling affirms a lower court&#8217;s decision against a trade group working on behalf of the pornography industry.
“Age-verification laws … fall within States’ authority to shield children from sexually explicit content. The First Amendment leaves undisturbed States’ traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective,” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf">wrote</a>. “That power necessarily includes the power to require proof of age before an individual can access such speech.”
“The power to verify age is a necessary component of the power to prevent children’s access to content that is obscene from their perspective,” Thomas went on to note, adding that the legislation “falls within Texas’s traditional power to protect minors from speech that is obscene from their perspective.”
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan dissented, alongside Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“For adults cannot be limited to ‘only what is fit for children,’” Kagan wrote in the dissenting opinion. “Their right to view ‘[s]exual expression,’ outside the traditional obscenity category, is ‘protected by the First Amendment,’” she went on to say before charging that Texas’ law “impedes the exercise of that right.”
“It imposes what our First Amendment decisions often call a ‘chilling effect,’” Kagan said of the law.
The Supreme Court’s ruling could clear the way for other states to impose age restrictions on pornographic websites, with 18 states already passing <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/27/supreme-court-decision-porn-website-age-verification-texas/84379183007/">similar legislation</a>.

Supreme Court Justices

Supreme Court Upholds Texas Law Requiring Age Verification To Shield Kids From Pornography

minors

Pornography

Menu