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

Courts

Idaho

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

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

Donald Trump

Media

Morning Wire

Politics

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

Texas

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

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that schools violate religious liberty when they bar parents from opting their children out of classroom instruction involving LGBT-themed books, a major win for religious conservatives.
Justices voted 6-3 along ideological lines to back a group of religious parents affiliated with Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland who argued they should be able to opt their children out of lessons with LGBT themes.
The Maryland parents who sued included Catholics, Muslims, and Ukrainian Orthodox.
The controversial LGBT books included &#8220;Prince and Knight&#8221; about a prince who falls in love with a knight instead of a princess and &#8220;Uncle Bobby&#8217;s Wedding&#8221; about a girl&#8217;s uncle who marries another man.
Justice Samuel Alito penned the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf">opinion</a>, writing that the school district burdened the parents&#8217; First Amendment rights.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/" data-sk="tooltip_parent">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
&#8220;Today, we hold that the parents have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses &#8216;a very real threat of undermining&#8217; the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,&#8221; Alito wrote.
Alito said the &#8220;storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender&#8221; and the school board has &#8220;specifically encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint and to reprimand any children who disagree. That goes far beyond mere &#8216;exposure.'&#8221;
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent that was joined by the other two liberal justices in which she criticized the court allowing &#8220;parental veto power over curricular choices long left to the democratic process and local administrators.&#8221;
&#8220;The reverberations of the Court&#8217;s error will be felt, I fear, for generations,&#8221; Sotomayor wrote.
Rosalind Hanson, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said she is &#8220;thrilled&#8221; with the decision.
&#8220;I am thrilled with the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold religious liberty and parental rights against our authoritarian school district pushing a one-sided agenda,&#8221; Hanson told The Daily Wire.
&#8220;Our children should never have been forced to learn about such sensitive topics without the ability for parents to know or opt them out,&#8221; said Hanson, who also chairs the Moms for Liberty Chapter in Montgomery County.
The legal team for the plaintiffs called the decision a &#8220;historic victory.&#8221;
“Kids shouldn’t be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents’ permission. Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents — not government — have the final say in how their children are raised,&#8221; said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the plaintiffs.
Trump called the decision a &#8220;tremendous ruling for parents.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &quot;I think the ruling was a great ruling, and I think it&#39;s a great ruling for parents&#8230; they lost control of the schools. They lost control of their child, and this is a tremendous victory for parents.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/Pla2qrLE36">https://t.co/Pla2qrLE36</a> <a href="https://t.co/jqySSHA8QM">pic.twitter.com/jqySSHA8QM</a>
&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1938631684284432695?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“I think it’s a great ruling for parents. It’s really a ruling for parents. They lost control of the schools, they lost control of their child, and this is a tremendous victory for parents. And I’m not surprised by it, but I am surprised that it went this far,” Trump said in the White House briefing room on Friday.
Parental rights advocates and religious groups celebrated Friday&#8217;s decision as well.
“Storybooks like those at issue in Mahmoud convey normative messages on sex and gender, and those messages can and often do conflict with the beliefs of parents and their children,&#8221; said Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow at Defending Education.
&#8220;Today&#8217;s ruling should act as a directive to every American school district: notify parents of controversial material, and provide them the opportunity to opt their children out — especially if you provide opt-outs for other curriculum or other reasons,&#8221; Perry said.
Kelsey Reinhardt, president and CEO of CatholicVote said the case was a &#8220;major victory&#8221; but that it should &#8220;alarm every American&#8221; that the high court had to step in.
&#8220;For over two years, Catholic parents alongside parents of other faiths have been forced to defend their constitutional right to opt their pre-K-8th grade children out of radical LGBTQ+ course materials that contradict their own religious beliefs,&#8221; Reinhardt said, adding that Montgomery schools &#8220;insisted on forcing explicit curriculum about gender ideology on children as young as 3 years old.&#8221;
&#8220;The Court’s ruling sends a clear and powerful message: America still respects the rights of parents to raise their children in line with their faith and conscience,&#8221; she said.

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

Supreme Court Sides With Parents, Says Schools Can’t Mandate LGBT Curricula

Supreme Court Rules Schools Must Let Religious Parents Opt Out Of LGBT Books

LGBT

Parents rights

Religious Freedom

Religious Liberty

The Supreme Court handed down an opinion on Friday in a case regarding President Donald Trump&#8217;s executive order on birthright citizenship, ruling that lower courts do not have the unilateral authority to block Trump&#8217;s agenda.
The justices <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf">ruled</a> 6-3 along ideological lines, allowing Trump to try to end birthright citizenship in some parts of the country while legal challenges against his order proceed in others.
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&#8217; citizenship status.
Previously, lower courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state had issued nationwide injunctions that blocked Trump&#8217;s order from taking effect.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett penned the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf">opinion</a> for the majority.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/" data-sk="tooltip_parent">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
She wrote that &#8220;federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.&#8221;
“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Barrett said.
Trump celebrated the ruling on Friday.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &quot;This is SUCH A BIG DAY&#8230; this is a very big moment, and it gives power back to people that should have it&#8230; it only takes bad power away from judges.&quot;
&quot;This is a very monumental decision.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/FTTt8Ur8r9">pic.twitter.com/FTTt8Ur8r9</a>
&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1938639417062892021?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“Big one, wasn’t it? This was a big decision,” Trump said from the White House briefing room, calling the ruling an “amazing decision, one that we’re very happy about.”
Trump said a &#8220;whole list&#8221; of his policies can now move forward thanks to the decision, including ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, and stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries.
Trump also praised Barrett, whom he nominated to the court in 2020.
“I just have great respect for her. I always have. And her decision was brilliantly written today — from all accounts,” the president told reporters.
Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated Friday&#8217;s ruling and said she is “very confident” the Supreme Court will eventually rule in its favor on the merits of Trump&#8217;s order ending birthright citizenship.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump. This would not have been possible without tireless work from our excellent lawyers <a href="https://twitter.com/TheJusticeDept?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TheJusticeDept</a> and our Solicitor General John Sauer.
This…
&mdash; Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) <a href="https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi/status/1938602739157570000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion saying, &#8220;For good reason, the Court today puts an end to the &#8216;increasingly common&#8217; practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions.&#8221;
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan.
Jackson also wrote her own dissent, which stated that &#8220;the Court&#8217;s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.&#8221;
Barrett blistered Jackson&#8217;s dissent in the court&#8217;s opinion.
&#8220;We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Very sharp rebuke of Jackson&#39;s dissent. Last sentence ends: &quot;law against anyone, anywhere.&quot; ACB majority opinion concludes: &quot;JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/CU9Ryss8rq">pic.twitter.com/CU9Ryss8rq</a>
&mdash; Philip Wallach (@PhilipWallach) <a href="https://twitter.com/PhilipWallach/status/1938601818524660079?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Barrett went on to say that Jackson &#8220;skips over&#8221; the &#8220;limits on judicial authority.&#8221;
&#8220;Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring &#8216;legalese,&#8217; &#8230;  she seeks to answer &#8216;a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?'&#8221; Barrett wrote. &#8220;In other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: &#8216;[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.&#8217; That goes for judges too.&#8221;

Supreme Court Sides With Trump, Limits Nationwide Injunctions In Birthright Citizenship Fight

Supreme Court Uses Birthright Citizenship Case To Crack Down On Courts Blocking Trump's Agenda

birthright citizenship

Executive Orders

Anyone following the news in recent months has likely heard that there is a constitutional crisis going on. Anyone paying close attention, not to the hysterical headlines but to the actual legal issues at play, should understand that there is indeed a constitutional crisis, but it has nothing to do with Trump being a tyrant. No, the real crisis is not in the executive branch. The crisis stems from <a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#3">Article III</a> of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” (emphasis added). In case it isn’t clear, judicial power is invested in the Supreme Court. All other federal courts are created by statute (they have no necessary constitutional right to exist) and are inferior to the Supreme Court.
Yet, an observer might be forgiven for thinking this is not the case. The federal district courts (which have jurisdiction over a particular district within a state and are subject to the rulings of the higher courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court) seem to have almost unlimited control over the rule of law in America today. This is indeed a crisis.
It is a problem when district courts, who are supposed to decide particular cases about the parties before them, somehow have jurisdiction to issue nationwide rulings that thwart the president’s agenda all across the country. But it is quite another problem, a more dire and disturbing one, when district courts not only attempt to govern the country but directly subvert the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, to whom these district courts are inferior.
There are many egregious instances of federal district courts running wild. For example, on April 4 the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a910_f2bh.pdf">vacated a decision</a> by a Massachusetts district court. The district court attempted to apply a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Trump administration from terminating various education-related grants. The district court’s order also required “the Government to pay out past-due grant obligations and to continue paying obligations as they accrue.” The Court reasoned that the administration’s order should stay in place until the final resolution of the case, because if the administration prevailed they would never see those grant funds returned and the education programs had sufficient money to continue operating without those disputed grants. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s restraining order and allowed the administration to freeze the grant funds until the final decision was made.
Yet the fight to stop the Trump administration from defunding and dismantling the Department of Education continues. Just a couple weeks later, a Connecticut <a href="https://ctmirror.org/2025/04/24/dei-education-funding-trump/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">district court blocked</a> the Trump administration’s efforts to cut funding to schools that continue to implement DEI programs. And in May, another district judge in Massachusetts <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-blocks-trumps-executive-order-to-dismantle-education-department">blocked</a> the administration’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education.
In the most recent and perhaps most troubling example, on June 23 the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_l5gm.pdf">stayed a preliminary injunction</a>. The injunction attempted to stop the administration from holding suspected illegal immigrants in “third countries” (neither the United States nor the country of origin, which often will not take these people back). Yet after the Supreme Court vacated the district court injunction, the district judge <a href="https://abovethelaw.com/2025/06/sotomayor-outlawyers-supreme-court-majority-in-shadow-docket-deportation-ruling/">immediately &#8220;clarified&#8221;</a> that his pause on these third country deportations is still in effect. How? Well, he relied on Justice Sotomayor’s dissent from the Supreme Court ruling and claimed that his order was not properly before the Supreme Court in the first place.
We are watching a dangerous game playing out here. The Supreme Court (the court with actual judicial authority under the U.S. Constitution) says that a district judge may not stop the Trump administration from freezing Department of Education funds, then district courts continue stopping those types of actions. The Supreme Court says the district court may not stop the removal of illegal aliens to third countries, then the district court claims that its orders preventing those same deportations remain in effect. One can quibble about procedure, but the reality is the Supreme Court’s rulings are being boldly and disturbingly undermined by inferior courts.
Two things to note. First, it is troubling that the lower courts are relying on dissents to thwart the rulings of the Supreme Court. That is not how law works. Dissenting opinions simply do not have force of law and they cannot be relied upon in undermining the majority opinions of the Supreme Court.
Second, the Supreme Court’s actions in these cases are quite modest: the court is vacating the lower courts’ extreme choice to stop the Trump administration’s actions while the cases are still being decided. The Supreme Court is not issuing final decisions; it is simply saying that lower courts need to stop interfering with every action the administration takes until the courts actually rule on these cases. This is a prudent action in the face of activist courts trying to thwart the actions of the people’s president.
The Supreme Court has the power to decide what the law says. The Court is doing just that and, often, what the Court is saying is that the Trump administration has the power to make executive decisions that cannot be stopped by activist district court judges.
Federal district courts are frankly out of control. The U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/122-contempt-of-the-supreme-court">has the power</a> to hold people in contempt who disobey the Court’s orders. That power should extend to lower court judges who are clearly doing just that. Perhaps desperate times call for desperate measures and this is what it will take to rein in the out-of-control actions of renegade district judges.
* * *
Frank DeVito is Senior Counsel and Director of Content at the Napa Legal Institute. His work has previously been published in The American Conservative, the Federalist, Public Discourse, the Daily Wire, First Things, and several other publications. He lives in eastern Pennsylvania with his wife and children. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily his employer.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

U.S. Supreme Court Allows South Carolina To Block Medicaid Funds To Planned Parenthood

Tyranny From Below: How Activist Judges Defy The Supreme Court

Democrats

Judiciary

Leftists

Opinion

President Trump

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that South Carolina is allowed to ban Medicaid funds from going to Planned Parenthood.
Justices voted 6-3 to reverse the Fourth Circuit&#8217;s ruling that an individual Medicaid user could bring a federal civil rights lawsuit over Planned Parenthood being excluded from Medicaid in South Carolina.
Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the court&#8217;s <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1275_e2pg.pdf">opinion</a>, saying that Medicaid law does not clearly give patients the right to sue. He noted that states have the authority to decide which health care providers are &#8220;qualified&#8221; and can participate in Medicaid — for example, doctors who have committed felonies may be excluded. Planned Parenthood can challenge its exclusion from Medicaid through South Carolina&#8217;s administrative process, Gorsuch said.
The decision paves the way for other Republican-led states who may want to exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned a dissent that was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
&#8220;At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them,&#8221; she wrote.
South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, a Republican, previously argued that &#8220;taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize abortion providers who are in direct opposition to their beliefs.&#8221;
&#8220;Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina&#8217;s authority and values – and today, we are finally victorious,&#8221; McMaster said Thursday in a statement after the ruling.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed our right to exclude abortion providers from receiving taxpayer dollars. Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina&#39;s authority and values – and today, we are finally victorious. My statement: <a href="https://t.co/N9fkoPpQ9v">pic.twitter.com/N9fkoPpQ9v</a>
&mdash; Gov. Henry McMaster (@henrymcmaster) <a href="https://twitter.com/henrymcmaster/status/1938246255378854273?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 26, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
South Carolina cited its own state law prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion. Federal law also prohibits Medicaid funds from paying for most but not all abortions — the funds are permitted in the cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.
Planned Parenthood has two clinics in South Carolina, one in Charleston and one in Columbia.
The court&#8217;s decision is yet another loss for the pro-abortion lobby, which saw Roe vs. Wade overturned three years ago this week, nixing the supposed constitutional right to abortion.
Prolife leaders celebrated Thursday&#8217;s ruling.
“Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer-funded gravy train is swiftly coming to an end,&#8221; SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said.
&#8220;Its days of posing as a ‘trusted health care provider’ are over as the truth is exposed — most recently, by revelations of botched procedures, open sewage and other horrifying conditions at their facilities across America and the tragic death of yet another young woman following a late-term abortion,&#8221; she said.
Dannenfelser added that Planned Parenthood is more interested in &#8220;funneling millions into political activism and litigation.&#8221;
Meanwhile, Democrats were incensed.
&#8220;Make no mistake — Senate Republicans own the consequences of this loathsome MAGA Supreme Court decision. They packed our courts with extremists and they’re the chief architects of the dismal state of women’s health care in America,&#8221; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer <a href="https://x.com/SenSchumer/status/1938246865352286407">said</a> in a statement posted to X.

Reproductive Rights Advocates Rally As Supreme Court Hears Planned Parenthood Case

Supreme Court Says States Can Cut Off Medicaid Funds For Planned Parenthood

Supreme Court Rules South Carolina Can Ban Medicaid Funds For Planned Parenthood

Medicaid

Planned Parenthood

South Carolina

Chloe Cole, a detransitioner who has been one of the most outspoken advocates against transgender drugs and surgeries for children, celebrated the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision Wednesday to uphold Tennessee&#8217;s law banning them.
The court ruled 6-3 in United States v. Skrmetti that Tennessee’s law prohibiting transgender surgeries, cross-sex hormones, and puberty blockers for children does not violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, a major win for conservative activists and parent groups.
&#8220;I believe that every child in America deserves the chance to grow up whole and to be given the time to do so, and this is a ruling that is going to allow children that time that I never was given,&#8221; Cole told The Daily Wire.
As a teen, Cole identified as male. She has since detransitioned, but she emphasized that she is still affected by the medical transgender interventions she received.
&#8220;I&#8217;m somebody who went through this as a child, and I&#8217;ve seen just how absolutely horrific it is not to just go through the trend, the process of a medical transition, but to do so while you&#8217;re still developing,&#8221; Cole said. &#8220;I was put on puberty blockers, a chemical castration drug to stop my puberty, and weekly testosterone injections at the age of 13. And at 15 years old, I underwent an irreversible surgery to remove my breasts. Absolutely no child should ever be given the chance to go through any of this because it is abusive, it&#8217;s detrimental to their development, and they deserve better.&#8221;
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent to the court&#8217;s opinion that was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
&#8220;I think it&#8217;s just incredible that there were three justices who voted no against reality, against the protection of American children, because it&#8217;s so clear that there is really not any evidence in support of performing these procedures on children under the age of 18,&#8221; Cole said.
Cole mentioned the recent <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hhs-releases-damning-review-of-gender-treatments-for-minors-the-risks-cannot-be-ignored" target="_blank" rel="noopener">review</a> of transgender drugs and surgeries for children by the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as Britain&#8217;s famous <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/weak-evidence-britains-nhs-to-review-all-transgender-treatment-after-major-report" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cass Review</a>, both of which found that the treatments are not supported by evidence and are risky, especially for children.
Cole said she has been able to bring good out of the harm she suffered as a teen.
&#8220;It&#8217;s been an incredibly transformative experience for me to be able to turn what used to be a very traumatic and painful experience into something for the greater good, where I can help other children, help other families from going through what I did, and helping them to pull them out of it, and to be able to use my lived experience to convince lawmakers and these other people in power to do the right thing, to fight for their constituents, to fight for the families who they are taken care of, who they have responsibility over,&#8221; Cole said.
&#8220;I&#8217;m incredibly grateful to the attorney general for taking a stand for Tennessee families,&#8221; she added. &#8220;I&#8217;m grateful for the parents who have stood up for themselves and their communities, and for everybody who has fought alongside me, and for the other detransitioners who have also chosen to stand up to be brave in the face of major backlash and putting everything they have on the line.&#8221;
Tennessee lawmakers were inspired to introduce and pass the law following Daily Wire host Matt Walsh’s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/this-could-be-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-gender-ideology" target="_blank" rel="noopener">explosive investigation</a> into Vanderbilt University’s gender clinic.
Tennessee’s law blocks all transgender medical treatments on children, including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries. Doctors who offer these treatments risk losing their medical licenses and paying a $25,000 fine. The law also gives children and their families the right to sue if they were harmed by these treatments.
Thursday’s ruling is expected to have broad implications for the other state bans on the same transgender medical interventions for minors. More than 20 states with Republican-led legislatures have similar bans.
Both puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones come with serious health risks. Puberty blockers can <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/in-depth/pubertal-blockers/art-20459075" target="_blank" rel="noopener">affect</a> bone growth and density and cause sexual dysfunction, voice damage, and infertility, among other issues. Cross-sex hormones can <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/transgender-young-people-in-u-s-have-nearly-doubled-recently-report-shows" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cause</a> infertility, deadly blood clots, heart attacks, increased risk of both breast and ovarian cancers, liver dysfunction, worsening psychological illness, and other serious conditions.
Gender surgeries like phalloplasty, vaginoplasty, and double mastectomy are irreversible and often come with <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/phalloplasty#risks-and-complications" target="_blank" rel="noopener">serious</a> complications.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Speaks To The Media On The Protect Children’s Innocence Act

‘I Went Through This As A Child:” Chloe Cole Praises Supreme Court Ruling Against Transgender Drugs

'I Went Through This As A Child:" Chloe Cole Praises Supreme Court Ruling Against Transgender Drugs

Transgender

The Trans Agenda Was Just Dealt A Fatal Blow

Clarence Thomas

Gender

Matt Walsh

Sonia Sotomayor

Tennessee

transgender surgery

WPATH

The Supreme Court upholds Tennessee’s ban on transgender medical procedures for minors. The 6–3 decision is a landmark victory for parents and conservatives, and a defining blow to transgender activism. The United States continues to fortify the Middle East as Trump ramps up the pressure on Iran to surrender. And, as Trump escalates deportation plans, Democrats make headlines by getting themselves arrested.
It’s Thursday, June 19, 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="SCOTUS Upholds Trans Treatment Ban &amp; Iran Strike Looms?" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9OtOZrUF2Wc?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/scotus-upholds-trans-treatment-ban-iran-strike-looms-6-19-25/id1576594336?i=1000713542242" 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>SCOTUS Upholds Gender-Mutilation Ban</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-936581" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_00_21_19.Still001-7.jpeg" alt="" width="640" height="360" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_00_21_19.Still001-7.jpeg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_00_21_19.Still001-7-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>
Topline: In a major win for conservative activists and parent groups, the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee law banning transgender drugs and surgeries for children.
In the case of United States v. Skrmetti — the justices decided that Tennessee’s law does not violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiffs in the case — which included trans-identifying teens and their families — claimed that Tennessee’s law banning puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for minors discriminated against them on the basis of sex. More than 20 states have bans similar to Tennessee’s.
Chief Justice John Roberts penned the court’s <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf">opinion</a> and rejected the plaintiffs’ argument. He also said the plaintiffs “contort the meaning of the term ‘medical treatment,&#8217;” writing, “Notably absent from their framing is a key aspect of any medical treatment: the underlying medical concern the treatment is intended to address.”
“The main argument from the other side when we did the oral argument in front of the court was if you have a boy who wants testosterone to resolve a developmental defect, then they can get it,”  Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti told The Daily Wire. “But a girl who wants testosterone to deepen her voice can&#8217;t. The dissenting justices thought that this was some sort of discrimination. But with any medical treatment, you&#8217;re not just handing someone a drug, you&#8217;re giving them a treatment to treat a specific condition. And different drugs have different effects on different conditions. And we differentiate between those purposes all the time. So I thought that was a fatal flaw in the argument on the other side.”
Roberts noted that the number of minors requesting “sex transition treatments” has increased in recent years, and meanwhile, European countries have cracked down on these procedures and drugs. Medical skepticism around these drugs and procedures is only growing – last month, the <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/gender-dysphoria-report-release.html">HHS</a> released a review saying the “science and evidence do not support” the use of these drugs and procedures for children.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in which he said, “there is no medical consensus on how best to treat gender dysphoria in children,” and “recent revelations suggest that leading voices in this area have relied on questionable evidence, and have allowed ideology to influence their medical guidance.”
Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent joined by the two other liberal-leaning justices, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor claimed that teens needing transgender drugs “can be a question of life or death.” Advocates of these drugs and surgeries have <a href="https://www.heritage.org/gender/report/puberty-blockers-cross-sex-hormones-and-youth-suicide">pushed</a> a similar line to parents of trans-identifying children for years, even as newer evidence has shown that these treatments do not improve children’s mental health.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
<h2>Iran Says It Will &#8216;Never Surrender&#8217; While Trump Teases Possible Strikes</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-936585" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_01_21_16.Still002-2.jpeg" alt="" width="640" height="360" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_01_21_16.Still002-2.jpeg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_01_21_16.Still002-2-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>
Topline:  As the war between Israel and Iran approaches its seventh day, the Ayatollah says his country will never surrender.
On Wednesday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei let the world know he would never agree to President Donald Trump’s demand for an unconditional surrender. In a video statement, Iran’s theocratic leader said, “Those with wisdom who know Iran, its people and its history, never speak to this nation in the language of threats, because the Iranian nation will not surrender…The United States must know that our people will not surrender, and any military intervention by them will lead to irreparable consequences.” 
That video came a day after President Trump threatened to strike the Ayatollah, and as Israel continues to hammer Iranian nuclear and military facilities. To date, the Israelis have killed 11 of Iran’s 12 highest-ranking military leaders.
The expectation from military experts is that if Trump joins Israel’s offensive, the Iranians would respond by launching missiles at American military installations across the Middle East, particularly those in Iraq, Syria, and Kuwait, which are just across the border. 
“I may do it, I may not do it,” Trump <a href="https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1935338837695189018">said</a> at the White House on Wednesday. “Nobody knows what I’m gonna do. I can tell you this, that Iran’s got a lot of trouble. And they wanna negotiate. And I said, &#8216;Why didn’t you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction?'&#8221;
The president also made it clear that whatever course he takes, he intends to avoid a protracted war and is solely focused on preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. In the latest <a href="https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration_second_term/57_favor_u_s_military_action_against_iran_s_nukes">Rasmussen polling</a>, 57% of Americans support American strikes to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, compared to just 30% who oppose them. But 69% of Americans say that even if they support airstrikes against Iran, they prefer the two sides negotiate an agreement.
&nbsp;
<h2>Immigration Pushback Continues As Trump Admin Sticks To Its Guns</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-936587" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_02_17_10.Still003.jpeg" alt="" width="640" height="360" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_02_17_10.Still003.jpeg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_02_17_10.Still003-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>
Topline:  Blue cities are in rebellion against Trump’s immigration agenda. Protests and riots threaten immigration officers, while Democratic officials openly challenge the federal government.
Most of the pushback against immigration enforcement is in major cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York. The resistance involves everything from activist coordination to impeding ICE operations and local officials getting in between ICE and local law enforcement. 
Chicago has suspended an online portal for illegal aliens to apply for IDs. The CityKeys program was shut down after ICE subpoenaed its records. The Chicago city clerk then shut it down and told the <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/06/14/ice-subpoena-chicago-city-clerk-online-municipal-id/">Chicago Tribune,</a> “We’re going to fight giving over any data to the federal government.” Democratic Mayor Brandon Johnson has been adamant that Chicago would “take to the streets” if it had to resist Trump. 
Comments like that haven’t stopped Trump from targeting these cities.
“Biden allowed 21 million people to come into our country,” Trump <a href="https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1934638998640537748">said</a> earlier this week. “Vast numbers of those people were murderers, killers, people from gangs, people from jails. They emptied their jails out into the US. Most of those people are in the cities, all blue cities, all Democrat-run cities, and they think they&#8217;re going to use them to vote. It&#8217;s not going to happen.” 
Local law enforcement is also cracking down on anti-ICE riots  – a bevy of new charges were announced Tuesday from state and federal officials. U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli and Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman outlined dozens of counts from curfew violations to assault of law enforcement. Hochman said that his district attorney’s office has charged at least 30 people. The U.S. attorney has brought an additional 20 counts. 
Lawmakers on both sides have condemned violence, but Democrats also seem to court their own run-ins with law enforcement. Earlier this month, New Jersey Congresswoman LaMonica McIver was charged after chaos erupted at an ICE detention center in Newark. More recently, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who is a candidate for mayor, was arrested outside an immigration court on Tuesday. Police say he was impeding law enforcement. Then last week, Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) had to be forcefully removed from a Homeland Security press conference in Los Angeles.

MRN 6.19.25 Thumbnail_V1

Morning Brief: SCOTUS Makes Trans Ruling, Iran Talks Tough, And Dems On Thin ICE

Menu