The Trump administration is considering multiple different countries that it could potentially deport suspected MS-13 human smuggler Kilmar Abrego Garcia to, naming both Mexico and the African nation of South Sudan as potential destinations for the illegal alien erroneously dubbed a “Maryland man.”
Abrego Garcia was brought back to the United States to stand trial for a human smuggling charge after he was first deported back to his home country of El Salvador. But now the Salvadoran national is expected to be deported yet again if he is let free from jail as he awaits trial.
ICE officials <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/07/10/us-news/trump-admin-still-deciding-where-it-would-deport-kilmar-abrego-garcia-ice-official-tells-judge/">noted</a> that the federal agency would detain Abrego Garcia and deport him to a so-called “third country,” a country other than an alien’s nation of origin that agrees to receive deportees from the United States. Abrego Garcia has claimed that he is at risk of being tortured if he returns to El Salvador.
The third country arrangement was made possible by a Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-admin-secures-victory-in-scotus-ruling-enabling-more-deportations?author=Spencer+Lindquist&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=4&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Trump+Admin+Secures+Victory+In+SCOTUS+Ruling+Enabling+More+Deportations">victory</a> for the Trump administration late last month, which overturned a lower court ruling barring the administration from sending deportees to third countries. Now, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/23/supreme-court-immigrants-deport-torture-sudan/83885228007/">thousands</a> of illegal aliens are expected to be sent to third countries.
The case came after eight criminal illegal aliens, including Cuban and Vietnamese nationals, were <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-deports-murderers-and-rapists-to-south-sudan-but-judge-might-order-their-return-to-u-s">deported</a> to South Sudan after their home nations refused to accept them.
Abrego Garcia is currently awaiting trial in Tennessee as he faces charges for a suspected human smuggling incident. The illegal alien was caught on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/police-suspected-maryland-man-of-getting-paid-to-traffic-illegals-body-cam-footage-shows">body camera footage</a> in 2022 during a traffic stop, in which Tennessee Highway Patrol officers found Abrego Garcia to be driving a modified van with nine men, none of whom spoke English or had driver’s licenses. One officer speculated that Abrego Garcia was “hauling these people for money.”
Abrego Garcia’s case has become a national flashpoint in the immigration debate, with Democrat politicians advocating for the illegal alien and incorrectly referring to him as a “Maryland man,” and Maryland politicians even calling him their constituent.
The illegal alien, who has also been accused of domestic violence, was a member of a far-left organization that advocated for illegal aliens and called for ICE to be abolished, while also receiving federal funding from the Biden administration, The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-belonged-to-a-biden-backed-illegal-alien-advocacy-group?author=Spencer+Lindquist&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=%E2%80%98Maryland+Man%E2%80%99+Kilmar+Abrego+Garcia+Belonged+To+A+Biden-Backed+Group+That+Called+For+Abolishing+ICE">revealed</a>.

Trump with Bukele

Here Are The Countries Kilmar Abrego Garcia Could Be Deported To

Here Are The Countries That Kilmar Abrego Garcia Could Be Deported To

deportation

Immigration

Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Mexico

Supreme Court

Tennessee

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s latest opinion pitted her against her fellow liberals on the bench and revealed her to be far less prepared for her weighty role than her peers, according to a legal expert.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, said Jackson’s dissent in a Wednesday court opinion showed her as unserious and unfit for the role of Supreme Court justice.
“What it tells me is that Brown Jackson is really at the far end of the spectrum and that the other justices are getting tired of her,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Wire.
Jackson was the lone dissenter in a court opinion that cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin crafting plans to downsize the federal workforce. The junior justice wrote that the majority opinion is “not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another liberal on the high court, wrote a concurrence siding with the majority
“I agree with Justice Jackson that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates,” wrote Sotomayor. “Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law’ … and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much.”
The court opinion and the split on the bench suggests that Jackson is ill-equipped to handle the intellectual rigors of the Supreme Court, according to von Spakovsky.
“This case was eight-to-one. Even justices Sotomayor and [Elena] Kagan joined with the majority because they didn&#8217;t want a dissent in this particular case,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Wire. “Only the lone dissenter, Brown Jackson, was once again, you know, engaging in an emotional tirade about the idea that — horror, shock — federal employees might actually lose their jobs.”
Jackson has been singled out in other cases as well. In a court decision last month over “birthright citizenship,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-amy-coney-barrett-lays-the-legal-smackdown-on-justice-ketanji-brown-jackson">suggested</a> that Jackson’s dissenting argument was vacuous, or at least not motivated by any serious legal theory.
“The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity,” wrote Barrett. “JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a ‘mind-numbingly technical query … she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.”
“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’re saying,” von Spakovsky said.
Jackson claims Trump’s plans to downsize the federal government is &#8220;needless&#8221; and &#8220;there’s no need for getting rid of federal employees,&#8221; von Spakovsky added. “That&#8217;s a policy decision. That&#8217;s got nothing to do with the law. That’s got nothing to do with the constitutional authority of the president to run the executive branch.&#8221;
&#8220;I think it&#8217;s just another sign that, frankly, she was a big mistake getting put on the court, and that she just doesn&#8217;t have the legal acumen to be on the court,&#8221; von Spakovsky said. &#8220;Sotomayor, Kagan, they do, even though I think they&#8217;re often wrong, but I don&#8217;t think [Jackson] does.&#8221;

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Even Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Liberal SCOTUS Colleagues Tire Of Her Weak Arguments

Heritage Foundation

Sonia Sotomayor

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

Donald Trump

Jeffrey Epstein

Media

Morning Wire

Pam Bondi

Politics

SCOTUS

This month, America commemorates the 100th anniversary of a landmark cultural event that taught us about the dangers of censorship. July of 1925 witnessed the “Scopes Monkey Trial,” where a Dayton, Tennessee, public school teacher was put on trial for violating a state law that prohibited teaching human evolution.
The teaching of scientific ideas should never be banned, much less criminalized. We like to think of censorship as something from the dark ages of the past, before our modern enlightened era vanquished intellectual intolerance. But 100 years after Scopes, we have what the late Supreme Court Justice Scalia once called “Scopes-in-reverse,” where scientists and scholars face reprisals if they challenge neo-Darwinian evolution.
For about 20 years I’ve been collecting examples of academic speech codes that prevent faculty from discussing scientific alternatives to Darwin. For example:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Back in 2005, Cornell’s interim president devoted a State of the University Address <a href="https://president.cornell.edu/the-presidency/archives/rawlings/20051021-state-of-the-university-address/">to denounce</a> &#8220;intelligent design (ID),&#8221; arguing that it has no place in science classrooms. &#8220;The answer is that intelligent design is not valid as science, that is, it has no ability to develop new knowledge through hypothesis testing&#8230;&#8221;</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Also in 2005, the president of the University of Idaho instituted a campus-wide <a href="https://evolutionnews.org/2008/10/banned_book_week_and_intellige_2/">speech-code</a>, where “evolution” was “the only curriculum that is appropriate” for science classes. This was done in retaliation against biology professor Scott Minnich, who had just testified in favor of intelligent design at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial — a case which ultimately banned ID from public schools in Dover, PA.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Jerry Coyne, a University of Chicago evolutionary biologist and atheist blogger, <a href="https://evolutionnews.org/2011/03/jerry_coyne/">once wrote</a> that “adherence to ID…should be absolute grounds for not hiring a science professor.” In 2013, Coyne attacked Eric Hedin, a physics professor at Ball State University (BSU), for briefly teaching about ID in an honors seminar. BSU’s president then caved, and issued a speech code declaring that “intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses.”</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">In 2020, two Norwegian scientists published <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071">a paper</a> in Journal of Theoretical Biology citing the work of leading ID theorists and arguing for “a Design Science.” Facing pressure, the journal’s editors then issued <a href="https://retractionwatch.com/2020/10/15/editors-say-they-wont-retract-intelligent-design-paper-despite-subject-being-not-in-any-way-a-suitable-topic-for-their-journal/">a disclaimer</a> addressing no substantive arguments in the paper but implementing another speech code, announcing: “intelligent design is not in any way a suitable topic for the Journal of Theoretical Biology.”</li>
</ul>
Perhaps the most ironic recent example of evolutionary censorship will take place this month at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, not far down the road from Dayton, as it celebrates a “<a href="https://www.vanderbilt.edu/evolution/scopes-symposium/">Scopes ‘Monkey’ Trial Centennial Symposium</a>.” Co-organized by <a href="https://www.vanderbilt.edu/evolution/">Vanderbilt’s Evolutionary Studies Institute</a> and the National Center for Science Education, the symposium includes many credible speakers from science, philosophy, and law. Intelligent design is on the schedule, and there is an entire session devoted to the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. Yet exactly zero pro-ID scientists or scholars are slated for the symposium.
In February, and again in May, I emailed the organizers of the Scopes Symposium, offering to provide names of credible pro-ID scientists who would be open to participating in their event. No one even replied.
The irony is palpable: a symposium that is supposed to be remembering the dangers of censorship regarding evolution is itself practicing censorship regarding evolution.
An even worse irony is that Vanderbilt’s website hosts an official <a href="https://www.vanderbilt.edu/dialogue-vanderbilt/free-expression/">“Dialogue Vanderbilt” / “Commitment to Free Expression”</a> page which boasts of the university’s supposed commitment to “bringing together people of differing viewpoints for a common purpose.” The page continues:
<blockquote>Transformative education, pathbreaking research and the timeless search for truth all require a wide variety of viewpoints, the uninhibited exchange of ideas, the persistent challenging of conventional wisdom, and courageous and vigorous debate.
A university that dutifully transmits canonical knowledge, but is not at the same time alive with diverse perspectives, probing critique and the practice of query and argument, is a university in name only.</blockquote>
The page then lauds the importance of “institutional neutrality,” quoting former Vanderbilt Chancellor Alexander Heard stating: “A university&#8217;s obligation is not to protect students from ideas, but rather to expose them to ideas, and to help make them capable of handling and, hopefully, having ideas.”
The one-sided Scopes Symposium completely rejects these ideals, aiming to “protect” students from non-Darwinian viewpoints — directly violating the Chancellor Heard’s warning. By Vanderbilt’s own standards, apparently it is “a university in name only.”
A century ago, religious fundamentalists excluded evolution from education. Yet today, evolution advocates do the same to intelligent design. Vanderbilt’s Scopes symposium is just the latest reminder that in our modern era of “Scopes-in-reverse,” the power dynamic has shifted 180 degrees, but the problem of censorship still remains.
* * *
Casey Luskin holds a PhD in Geology from the University of Johannesburg and a law degree from the University of San Diego. He is Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute and co-author of the book &#8220;Science and Human Origins.&#8221;
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

William Jennings Bryan At Scopes Trial

A Century After The Scopes Trial, Censorship Still Thrives In Evolution Debate

Bible

Charles Darwin

Debate

Opinion

trial

Vanderbilt University

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for President Donald Trump to resume his plans to cut the federal workforce and restructure agencies, a key promise he made on the campaign trail to hack away at the size of the federal government.
The justices lifted San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston&#8217;s May 22 order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called &#8220;reductions in force&#8221; affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds.
Trump in February announced &#8220;a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy&#8221; in an executive order directing agencies to prepare for a government overhaul aimed at significantly reducing the federal workforce and gutting offices and programs opposed by the administration.
Workforce reductions were planned at the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and more than a dozen other agencies.
The Supreme Court, in a brief unsigned order, said Trump&#8217;s administration was &#8220;likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order&#8221; and a memorandum implementing his order were lawful. The court said it was not assessing the legality of any specific plans for layoffs at federal agencies.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole member of the nine-person court to publicly dissent from the decision. Jackson wrote that Illston&#8217;s &#8220;temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this court&#8217;s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this president’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.&#8221;
Illston wrote in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority in ordering the downsizing, siding with a group of unions, non-profits, and local governments that challenged the administration.
&#8220;As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress,&#8221; Illston wrote.
The judge blocked the agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and limited their ability to cut or overhaul federal programs. Illston also ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs, though she delayed implementing this portion of her ruling while the appeals process plays out.
Illston&#8217;s ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul being pursued by Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in the Republican president&#8217;s drive to slash the federal workforce.
Formerly spearheaded by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, DOGE has sought to eliminate federal jobs, shrink and reshape the U.S. government, and root out wasteful spending and fraud. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and subsequently had a public falling out with Trump.
The Left-leaning San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling on May 30, denied the administration&#8217;s request to halt the judge&#8217;s ruling.
The 9th Circuit said the administration had not shown that it would suffer an irreparable injury if the judge&#8217;s order remained in place and that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their lawsuit.
&#8220;The executive order at issue here far exceeds the president&#8217;s supervisory powers under the Constitution,&#8221; the 9th Circuit wrote, calling the administration&#8217;s actions &#8220;an unprecedented attempted restructuring of the federal government and its operations.&#8221;
The 9th Circuit&#8217;s ruling prompted the Justice Department&#8217;s June 2 emergency request to the Supreme Court to halt Illston&#8217;s order.
Controlling the personnel of federal agencies &#8220;lies at the heartland&#8221; of the president&#8217;s executive branch authority, the Justice Department said in its filing to the Supreme Court.
&#8220;The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the president does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers,&#8221; the filing said, referring to the constitution&#8217;s section delineating presidential authority.
The plaintiffs urged the Supreme Court to deny the Justice Department&#8217;s request. Allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its &#8220;breakneck reorganization,&#8221; they wrote, would mean that &#8220;programs, offices and functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs.&#8221;
The Supreme Court in recent months has sided with Trump in some major cases that were acted upon on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January.
It cleared the way for Trump&#8217;s administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own. In two cases, it let the administration end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of migrants.
It also allowed Trump to implement his ban on trans-identifying people in the U.S. military, blocked a judge&#8217;s order for the administration to rehire thousands of fired employees, and twice sided with his Department of Government Efficiency.
In addition, the court curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies.
(Reporting by John Kruzel; Additional reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

Trump Wins At SCOTUS Again: Court Says Admin Can Resume Mass Layoffs Of Federal Workers

Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Federal Government

Trump Administration

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

Satire

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

Transgender Athletes

U.S.

West Virginia

Women's sports

When my school district was forcing children to attend LGBTQ storybook lessons, I banded together with like-minded moms, and we sued the school district. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court.
And we won.
Last week’s Supreme Court ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor has been championed by every common-sense American who, like the Justices in their 6-3 majority opinion, understands that a massive government overreach had violated the religious liberties of families in Montgomery County Public Schools.
The parent plaintiffs, including myself, simply wanted to be able to receive notice and have the ability to opt our children out of the “LGBTQ inclusive” teachings in English class that conflict with our religious beliefs, and we were vindicated. Through the court proceedings, the entire country witnessed the spectacle that had become the one-sided, celebratory introduction of sensitive topics into the education of our young ones.
But how did we arrive at a place where the nation’s high court needed to weigh in on whether our four-year-olds should be required to read about lace, leather, underwear, and drag queens under the guise of “inclusion”? The answer is simple: an erosion of parental rights, contempt for religious beliefs, and a leftist agenda aiming to redefine childhood education into “what to think,” not “how to think”.
Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion, while addressing the larger legal issues, also highlighted the importance of parent advocacy and involvement at the most local level of government to help course correct the significant declines in public education. Whether he was aware of it or not, the public school board testimony he included was that of the then-chair of the Moms for Liberty Montgomery County Chapter.
“Some parents showed up at the Board’s public business meetings to express their concerns about the storybooks’ content,” Alito wrote. “In an early 2023 meeting, for example, one parent represented herself as ‘a voice for parents in [her] community, many of [whom] are actually working today and unable to attend.”
“She said that MCPS parents were ‘frustrated’ because, in their view, ‘educators and administrators are going behind what [parents] are teaching their kids at home, and pushing ideas of gender ideology on their kids’ … The parent felt that the Board was ‘implying to [children] that their religion, their belief system, and their family tradition is actually wrong.’”
When the opt-out was eliminated in the spring of 2023, nearly 70 parents spoke out at school board meetings, passionately advocating for their right to exempt their children from these controversial lessons. Hundreds — if not thousands — of emails flooded the Board of Education inboxes, and rallies drew more than a thousand attendees. While there was overwhelming support for reinstating the opt-out from a diverse coalition of families, several Montgomery County government officials, along with their allies, specifically vilified Moms for Liberty.
Every day, suburban moms like me were blamed by the Montgomery County Council’s Anti-Hate Task Force for “galvanizing the community” with our case. We were accused of “utilizing hate speech and unfortunate religious bias to spread disinformation about the books being introduced into our schools.” According to them, we were apparently so effective that we somehow convinced minority communities, Muslims and Ethiopians among them, to “latch onto this issue because they’ve not had a voice before.”
They can’t be serious, can they?
Some in the faux-tolerant progressive left can’t seem to grasp why a motley crew of religious parents — many of whom are immigrants — would band together and fight tirelessly on this issue. Again, the answer is simple: In America, it’s unconstitutional for a government institution to force its beliefs on others, especially on other people’s children.
Thanks to Friday’s landmark Supreme Court decision, every parent now enjoys the renewed right and responsibility to direct the upbringing of their children — and that doesn’t stop at the classroom door.
As we move forward, I hope that this case will serve as a catalyst for continued efforts to empower parents, protect their rights, and ensure that every child’s education is shaped by the values of their family, not a one-size-fits-all government mandate.
Rosalind Hanson is the Montgomery County Chair of Moms for Liberty
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

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

I’m One Of The Moms Who Just Won At The Supreme Court. Here’s Why We Fought.

Parents rights

Public Schools

Transgender

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a Republican challenge to campaign finance regulations that restricts political parties from coordinating campaign spending with political candidates.
The challenge from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) argues that restricting the amount parties can spend in coordination with candidates violates the First Amendment by restricting speech. The court is expected to hear arguments on the case when its fall 2025 term begins.
&#8220;The government should not restrict a party committee&#8217;s support for its own candidates. These coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment, and we appreciate the Court&#8217;s decision to hear our case,&#8221; <a href="https://x.com/NRSC/status/1939735374395232752" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> NRSC Chair Tim Scott and National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Richard Hudson. &#8220;Coordinated spending continues to be a critical part of winning campaigns, and the NRSC and NRCC will ensure we are in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond.&#8221;
The case was originally brought by the NRSC and now-Vice President J.D. Vance back in 2022 in a challenge to restrictions on coordinated spending introduced by the 1972 Federal Election Campaign Act.
In September 2024, the restrictions were <a href="https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/24a0212p-06.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">upheld</a> by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In its decision, the appeals court said that the NRSC made “fair points” about speech restrictions; it could not side with them because of previous Supreme Court precedent.
The precedent in question was the 2001 FEC vs. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee decision, which ruled that limits on coordinated spending do not violate the First Amendment.
<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>
“The key reality is that the Supreme Court has not overruled the 2001 Colorado decision or the deferential review it applied to these provisions of the Act. In a hierarchical legal system, we must follow that decision and thus must deny the plaintiffs’ First Amendment facial and as applied challenges,” the Sixth Circuit Court wrote in its September decision.
In its December 2024 <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-621/333312/20241204134722325_NRSC%20v.%20FEC%20Cert%20Petition.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">petition</a> to the Supreme Court, the NRSC said that Congress &#8220;has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them.”
“Should this Court decline to take this case, future litigants will interpret that decision as proof that, whatever the Court has said in more recent campaign-finance cases, it is content to leave the political parties as second-class holders of First Amendment rights,” they wrote.
The Trump administration has signaled support for the challenge, while the Supreme Court allowed the Democratic National Committee to intervene in support of the campaign finance restrictions.

Supreme Court Releases Decisions On Final Day Of Term

Supreme Court To Hear GOP Free Speech Challenge To Campaign Spending Restrictions

campaign donation

First Amendment

Free Speech

Republicans

Tim Scott

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

It seems the whole world is rethinking the transgender procedures for kids.
Peer-reviewed studies show their long-term harm. European countries are moving to ban the practice. And just last week, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Skrmetti that Tennessee&#8217;s law banning trans procedures for minors could stand. That landmark decision opens the door for future bans, and even caused The New York Times to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/19/magazine/scotus-transgender-care-tennessee-skrmetti.html?unlocked_article_code=1.QE8.7tVl.6ppovQTiJISu&amp;smid=url-share">warn</a> that the case may have &#8220;set the movement back a generation.&#8221;
But one group simply refuses to back down: the American medical establishment.
The American Medical Association (AMA) recently reaffirmed its commitment to performing transgender procedures on minors, as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/americas-largest-medical-association-sides-with-child-mutilation-after-scotus-ruling">The Daily Wire</a> recently chronicled.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
President Trump tells NATO members to up their defense spending, a Democratic Socialist pulls ahead in NYC’s mayoral race, and the American Medical Association doubles down on transgender medical procedures for minors. Get the facts first with Morning Wire. Reporting from… <a href="https://t.co/RCSuhDIXpW">pic.twitter.com/RCSuhDIXpW</a>
— Morning Wire (@MorningWire) <a href="https://twitter.com/MorningWire/status/1937790366306165242?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 25, 2025</a></blockquote>
They&#8217;re joined by a coalition of groups that essentially represent the entirety of the American medical establishment — including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists — to say nothing of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which has long been at the forefront of the effort to make transgender procedures available to children.
<div id="attachment_940793" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-940793" class="wp-image-940793 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/Screenshot-2025-06-28-at-1.54.13-PM-1024x569.png" alt="" width="1024" height="569" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/Screenshot-2025-06-28-at-1.54.13-PM-1024x569.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/Screenshot-2025-06-28-at-1.54.13-PM-300x167.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/Screenshot-2025-06-28-at-1.54.13-PM-768x427.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/Screenshot-2025-06-28-at-1.54.13-PM.png 1338w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />American Medical Association</div>
The AMA&#8217;s new president, <a href="https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/providers/bobby-mukkamala-sworn-ama-president-william-underwood-iii-chosen-president-elect">Dr. Bobby Mukkamala</a>, condemned Skrmetti, <a href="https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/ama-press-releases/ama-statement-united-states-v-skrmetti">saying</a> without a hint of irony that “all patients deserve access to high-quality, evidence-based medical care.” He added that decisions about medical treatment “must be made through a shared decision-making process between the patient and their physician.”
<div id="attachment_940787" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-940787" class="wp-image-940787 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-1749382842-864x576.jpg" alt="(L-R) Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, President of the American Medical Association; PFLAG National CEO Brian K. Bond; Admiral Rachel L. Levine, MD, the 17th Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH) for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and Charlotte Clymer, writer, transgender activist, and military veteran attend Learning With Love: The 2023 PFLAG National Convention, four days of educating, lobbying, networking, and leading with love, taking place October 19-22, 2023 in Washington, DC. " width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-1749382842-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-1749382842-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-1749382842-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-1749382842.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Paul Morigi/Getty Images for PFLAG National</div>
Though the AMA has new leadership, the support for transgender procedures for children goes back years. About a year and a half ago, the AMA hosted a conversation on “what doctors should know&#8221; about so-called trans teens. The conversation was jarring, with one doctor claiming a child can know their gender is apparently wrong by age four. 
&#8220;What we know about gender formation for all human beings is that young people really do know their gender by about age four,&#8221; Dr. M. Brett Cooper <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nOdEIdwTZY">said</a>. &#8220;It&#8217;s that young female assigned at birth that says, &#8216;Mom, I am a boy,&#8217; or, &#8216;Mom, I&#8217;m like my brother. I&#8217;m a boy too.&#8217; And they keep saying that, over and over and over again. Those are the folks that likely, but not always, will have a very firm gender diverse identity.” 
Notably, in October 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton <a href="https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-stops-texas-doctors-who-illegally-gave-children-gender-transition-drugs">sued</a> Cooper, as well as other doctors, for prescribing “gender transition” drugs to dozens of Texas children in violation of Texas law.
In 2023, the AMA passed a resolution to commit to working with legislators to oppose policies that curb access to these treatments or prioritize parental rights. The resolution also promised collaboration with other organizations to “educate the Federation of State Medical Boards about the importance of gender-affirming care.”
The group also enthusiastically supported Dr. Rachel Levine’s nomination as Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden. Levine, a male who identifies as a woman, is a proponent of all types of trans drugs and procedures for minors, and once talked about children going through the “wrong puberty.” 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Levine — who transitioned *as an adult* — dismisses the question of why children can’t wait until they turn 18 to pursue sex change surgeries:
“Adolescence is hard and puberty is hard. What if you’re going through the wrong puberty?”
This… <a href="https://t.co/vJAIwKE6Vl">pic.twitter.com/vJAIwKE6Vl</a>
— Nicki Neily (@nickineily) <a href="https://twitter.com/nickineily/status/1681291320755617797?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 18, 2023</a></blockquote>
Meanwhile, the gap between the American people and the medical establishment is continuing to widen. According to a recent New York Times and Ipsos <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/us/politics/trump-policies-immigration-tariffs-economy.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&amp;referringSource=articleShare">poll</a>, 71% of Americans believe children under the age of 18 should not be prescribed puberty blockers or hormones. 
Fortunately for them, medical professionals who disagree with their profession&#8217;s trade groups are speaking out, and forming organizations that call for evidence-based medicine.
One group, <a href="https://donoharmmedicine.org/gender-ideology/?gad_source=1&amp;gad_campaignid=20707841002&amp;gbraid=0AAAAAo-mml2sQ9TwnUgwBn1NT5HLq5klM&amp;gclid=CjwKCAjwmenCBhA4EiwAtVjzmuvg61iE0bzkY3AdFxTDzjFXzrKJNEneUCsvx5AOfI8JSZ7LRQu5yxoCM_4QAvD_BwE">Do No Harm</a>, has 16,000 members and is fighting to “curtail the unscientific and individually harmful practice of so-called ‘gender affirming care.’” The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, meanwhile, researches and questions trans procedures for minors and promotes non-invasive approaches for gender confusion, like psychotherapy. 
These groups have a strong ally in President Donald Trump, who ran on this issue, and gained massive support for opposing trans procedures for minors and protecting girls&#8217; sports. During his second week in office, Trump signed an executive order stating the United States will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support gender transitions for children. 
Now, his administration is joining the fight. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr-rescission-february-20-2025-notice-guidance.pdf">rescinded</a> Biden-era guidance that promoted trans procedures for minors. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a memo in April that the Department of Justice would consider prosecuting doctors for mutilating children under the guise of “trans care.” 
And, as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-federal-trade-commission-is-setting-its-sights-on-transgender-procedures-on-kids">The Daily Wire</a> exclusively reported, the Federal Trade Commission will hold a workshop in July on transgender surgeries, hormones, and puberty blockers.
An FTC memo said there’s reason to believe some doctors and medical providers are pushing these treatments on minors while “knowingly deceiving parents by exaggerating ‘benefits’ and downplaying&#8230;harmful side effects.”
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-fda-chief-pushes-for-major-shift-after-maha-report-chronic-disease-children">‘MAHA’ Report On Chronic Disease Will Cause Major Shift In Healthcare, FDA Chief Predicts</a>

Transgender hormone therapy

Inside The American Medical Establishment’s Bitter Refusal To Rethink Trans Procedures For Kids

Medical Establishment Continues To Promote Trans Procedures For Minors

American Medical Association

Skrmetti

Justice Amy Coney Barrett may have penned the majority opinion in the Supreme Court&#8217;s recent case on birthright citizenship and nationwide injunctions. But it was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and her dissent that landed in the spotlight — and not in a good way.
In her opinion for the 6-3 majority in Trump v. Casa, INC, Barrett <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-amy-coney-barrett-lays-the-legal-smackdown-on-justice-ketanji-brown-jackson">jabbed at Jackson</a>, suggesting that her dissent was &#8220;untethered&#8221; to any past precedent and stood in direct opposition to the Constitution.
&#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; Barrett wrote.
<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>
But a closer look at Jackson&#8217;s dissent reveals that Barrett left out some of the strangest rabbit holes down which Jackson attempted to take the Court.
&#8220;A Martian arriving here from another planet would see these circumstances and surely wonder: &#8216;what good is the Constitution, then?'&#8221; Jackson wrote in her dissent.
&#8220;What, really, is this system for protecting people’s rights if it amounts to this—placing the onus on the victims to invoke the law’s protection, and rendering the very institution that has the singular function of ensuring compliance with the Constitution powerless to prevent the Government from violating it? &#8216;Those things Americans call constitutional rights seem hardly worth the paper they are written on!'&#8221;
Jackson was roundly mocked for adding a parenthetical &#8220;wait for it,&#8221; ostensibly to give her dissent a dramatic pause.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
KBJ’s dissent actually includes the phrase…wait for it… <a href="https://t.co/AGMu2KQULB">pic.twitter.com/AGMu2KQULB</a>
— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) <a href="https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1939002006913614116?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 28, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;As I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of Government, the majority sees a power grab — but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are . . . (wait for it) . . . the district courts.&#8221;
Throughout her dissent, Jackson — whom President Joe Biden named to the Court after <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bidens-supreme-court-pick-championed-advocates-of-critical-race-theory-in-lectures-speeches">pledging</a> to nominate a black woman — gives no quarter to the possibility that district courts, by dramatically increasing the power and reach of their own decisions based solely on their demand that it be so, actually are the ones participating in a &#8220;power grab&#8221; — nor does she consider the possibility that an executive acting in a way that she dislikes is not necessarily a lawless one.

President Biden Delivers Remarks On Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Confirmation To Supreme Court

Biden’s Lone SCOTUS Pick Wonders What Aliens Would Think Of The Court’s Latest Decision

Biden's Lone SCOTUS Pick Wonders What Aliens Would Think Of The Court's Latest Decision

Menu