A federal appeals court has ruled that the First Amendment protects the private possession of AI-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM), provided that the images do not depict real children, a decision that exposes a startling gap between decades-old Supreme Court precedent and modern artificial intelligence.
The <a href="https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&amp;Path=Y2026/D08-25/C:25-1354:J:Lee:aut:T:fnOp:N:3597567:S:0">7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled</a> Tuesday that the government cannot prosecute Steven Anderegg for possessing AI-generated images depicting children engaged in sexually explicit conduct because Supreme Court precedent protects the private possession of such material.
Two of the three judges on the panel, in a separate opinion, acknowledged the disturbing implications of a ruling they felt bound by precedent to reach.
&#8220;We now live in an age where GenAI models can render images depicting the abuse of virtual children that are virtually indistinguishable from those depicting the abuse of actual children,&#8221; Judge John Lee wrote in a concurrence joined by Judge Joshua Kolar. &#8220;Given the relentless advancement in artificial intelligence models, we have some concerns about the lines these cases draw, but we are not free to redraw them ourselves.&#8221;
The ruling stems from the prosecution of Anderegg, a Wisconsin man accused of using an AI image generator to create thousands of sexually explicit images depicting children. According to prosecutors, an investigation began after Meta, the parent company of Instagram, reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that an Instagram user had sent apparent AI-generated CSAM to an account belonging to a minor. Anderegg was ultimately charged with producing and distributing the material, transferring it to a minor under 16, and possessing it.
A federal district court dismissed the possession charge, concluding that prosecuting Anderegg for privately possessing the AI-generated images violated the First Amendment. The Justice Department appealed that decision to the 7th Circuit. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal.
Crucially, the decision does not mean that everything Anderegg allegedly did is protected by the First Amendment. The charges involving the production and distribution of the material, as well as allegedly sending it to a 15-year-old boy, remain pending.
Still, the court&#8217;s decision emphasizes a legal distinction: If a person creates or obtains AI-generated CSAM through conduct that is otherwise prosecutable, the government is able to prosecute that conduct, but once purely virtual material is privately possessed inside the home, existing Supreme Court precedent prevents the government from criminalizing the possession itself.
The foundation for the conundrum dates back to 1969, when the Supreme Court ruled in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/293">Stanley v. Georgia</a> that the government generally could not criminalize an individual&#8217;s private possession of obscene material inside his home.
Building on that foundation three decades later, the Supreme Court confronted virtual child pornography in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2001/00-795">Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition</a>. In the 2002 decision, the justices struck down portions of a federal law that prohibited sexually explicit depictions of fictional children when no actual child was involved in their production.
The Supreme Court reasoned that the government&#8217;s strongest justification for prohibiting child pornography — protecting children from being exploited in its production — did not apply when no real child was involved. Those rulings were written long before today&#8217;s generative AI systems could produce photorealistic images with a few prompts.
The 7th Circuit said that distinction has become increasingly difficult to maintain. “Free Speech Coalition” was decided nearly 25 years ago, Lee wrote, and “the image-generation technology available today was likely unimaginable back then.”
The court also pointed to emerging evidence that AI-generated CSAM may not be entirely disconnected from the exploitation of real children. Lee noted that researchers have found CSAM in datasets used to train image-generation models, raising the possibility that some supposedly “virtual” material could ultimately be connected to real-world abuse. That issue, however, was not fully developed by the government in Anderegg&#8217;s appeal, leaving the court unable to resolve it.
The 7th Circuit&#8217;s opinion also revived a warning made by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas more than two decades ago. In his 2002 concurrence in Free Speech Coalition, Thomas warned that technological advances could eventually make it difficult to enforce laws against child pornography involving actual victims if virtual images became sufficiently realistic.
Thomas wrote that if technological advances prevented prosecutors from effectively enforcing laws against illegal material, the government might eventually have a compelling interest in regulating a narrow category of otherwise lawful speech. “According to some experts, that day may have arrived,” Lee concluded, citing the growing volume of AI-generated material reported to the CyberTipline and the difficulties it presents for law enforcement.
The judges ultimately concluded that it is not their role to overrule or rewrite Supreme Court precedent. “The stakes are high,” Lee wrote, “and we must be mindful of the ever-accelerating advancements in image generation technology.” The decision therefore leaves the issue squarely in the Supreme Court&#8217;s hands.

Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Policy Gets Supreme Court Hearing

You Can’t Be Charged For Possessing AI Child Porn, Court Rules

AI Generated Content

AI Policy

Artificial Intelligence

Child pornography

Clarence Thomas

Court

Courts

Judges

Online porn

Porn

Pornography

Privacy

Sexual Abuse

sexual content

Supreme Court

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that Nevada can enforce its gambling laws against sports-related prediction contracts, rejecting challenges from Kalshi and Crypto.com and dealing a major blow to the rapidly growing industry. 
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Kalshi&#8217;s argument that its sports contracts are federally regulated financial instruments under the Commodity Exchange Act. The court also rejected an appeal from Crypto.com.
“The sports event contracts were not ‘swaps’ because they were sports bets,” the unanimous three-judge <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/28/25-7516.pdf">panel wrote</a>.
The decision conflicts with an earlier Third Circuit ruling that found New Jersey could not apply its gambling laws to Kalshi. The split raised the possibility that the Supreme Court could eventually decide whether sports-event contracts are financial instruments under federal jurisdiction or wagers subject to state gambling laws.
The court rejected Kalshi’s argument that the contracts should be treated as swaps — a type of derivative regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission — simply because they are structured as financial instruments. 
“The CFTC is not a national gambling regulator,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote for the panel. “No one suggested it was until over a decade after the law was passed.”
The CFTC told <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/28/appeals-court-rules-against-prediction-markets-tees-up-scotus-fight.html?taid=6a91d4a06aa06700017f3eaf&amp;utm_campaign=trueanthem&amp;utm_content=main&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CNBC</a> that it has exclusive authority over prediction markets operating under the Commodity Exchange Act and has previously sued states to prevent them from regulating the platforms under state gambling laws.
State regulators have pushed back aggressively. Dozens of states have argued that sports-related prediction contracts are effectively sports wagers and should be subject to the same laws and taxes as traditional gambling. 
“The substance of the sports event contracts offered on Kalshi’s exchange is sports gambling, regardless of whether Kalshi calls them swaps,” the Ninth Circuit said.
The court also pointed to Kalshi’s own marketing, noting that the company had advertised itself as “the first app for legal sports betting” in all 50 states.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision upheld a lower-court ruling in Nevada that allowed state gaming authorities to regulate Kalshi’s sports contracts. 
“This is sports betting and needs to be properly regulated by the state,” Nevada Gaming Control Board Chairman Mike Dreitzer wrote in a <a href="https://www.gaming.nv.gov/siteassets/content/about/press-release/ninth-circuit-rules-in-favor-of-nevada.pdf">statement</a> after the decision.
Kalshi argued that the ruling did not eliminate federal protections for federally regulated exchanges and said it intends to continue fighting.
“The Ninth Circuit agreed with the Third Circuit on a fundamental point: Federal law prevents states from regulating trading on a federally licensed exchange, like Kalshi,” Kalshi spokeswoman Dani Lever said in an email to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kalshi-appeals-court-nevada-gambling-ruling/">CBS News</a>. 
Lever added that the company believes the CFTC’s regulations permit sports contracts and that it will seek further review.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling immediately reverberated through the gambling industry. According to CNBC, shares of DraftKings and Flutter Entertainment, the parent company of FanDuel, rose following the decision as investors assessed the implications for the increasingly competitive prediction-market sector.
“This is a classic circuit split,” Columbia Law School professor Joshua Mitts told CNBC. “Ultimately, this is the kind of legal controversy or legal difference of opinion which will make its way to the Supreme Court.”

Criminal Charges Amp Up Growing State Resistance To Kalshi

Prediction Markets Dealt Major Blow In State Gambling Fight

federal judge

gambling

Judge

Kalshi

Nevada

New Jersey

Online Gambling

Prediction

Sports gambling

In a blow to election integrity, a federal judge on Thursday temporarily <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-temporarily-blocks-new-postal-service-rules-for-mail-voting-trump/">blocked</a> the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing its proper new requirements for mail-in voting for the November midterm elections.
Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, blocked the Postal Service’s fresh rules just days after they were announced, issuing a 14-day temporary restraining order that halts mandatory compliance for the upcoming November 3 elections. Days before Talwani’s ruling, the Supreme Court had <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-makes-decision-in-mail-in-ballot-fight-ahead-of-midterms">handed</a> the Trump administration a major procedural victory, lifting a previous injunction against the president&#8217;s executive order because the states had sued before final rules were issued.
The Department of Justice is expected to appeal Talwani&#8217;s ruling immediately, setting up yet another potential showdown before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court battle stems from an <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/03/2026-06601/ensuring-citizenship-verification-and-integrity-in-federal-elections">executive order</a> signed by President Donald Trump at the end of March aimed at tightening ballot integrity and preventing illegal noncitizen voting. The Postal Service published a <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/06/02/2026-10968/ballot-mail-for-federal-elections">rule</a> mandating that states submit specific ballot envelope designs for federal approval, print unique trackable barcodes on envelopes, and upload sensitive voter information directly to a brand-new electronic clearinghouse portal.
Under the agency&#8217;s plan, the postal system would <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-trump-mail-voting-order-usps-dhs/">cross-reference</a> state submissions to build official participation lists designed to help law enforcement spot suspicious activity.
A coalition of 24 state attorneys general led by blue-state prosecutors joined Left-leaning voting rights groups to take the issue to court. They claimed the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to oversee election procedures, saying that election administration belongs strictly to state legislatures and Congress.
Judge Talwani sided with the plaintiffs, <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.305406/gov.uscourts.mad.305406.31.0.pdf">writing</a>, &#8220;Based on the record presently before the court, Plaintiff States face irreparable harm where they are required to comply with a likely unconstitutional regulation for which compliance is practically impossible.”
Solicitor General D. John Sauer had told the Supreme Court, &#8220;The Executive Order functions only to direct the President&#8217;s subordinates to take appropriate and lawful action to implement the President&#8217;s policy objectives. By stopping the relevant agencies and officials from implementing that Order with respect to the November 2026 federal election, the injunction operates as &#8216;an improper intrusion by a federal court into the workings of a coordinate branch of the Government.'&#8221;

Trump/mail-in voting

Trump’s Mail Ballot Fight Just Got More Complicated

2026 Midterms

Donald Trump

mail in ballots

A Boston federal judge on Wednesday lifted her remaining block on key portions of President Donald Trump&#8217;s executive order seeking to tighten mail-in voting rules ahead of the midterm elections.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s decision <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-makes-decision-in-mail-in-ballot-fight-ahead-of-midterms?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=6&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Supreme+Court+Makes+Decision+In+Mail-In+Ballot+Fight+Ahead+Of+Midterms">comes two days</a> after a divided Supreme Court stayed a previous ruling from Talwani that blocked the Trump administration from implementing portions of the order.
In her <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.298449/gov.uscourts.mad.298449.204.0.pdf">nine-page order</a>, Talwani, an Obama appointee, expressed frustration with the Supreme Court&#8217;s intervention and cited Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent but said she was “compelled” to lift the injunction in light of the high court’s ruling.
The development allows the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to move forward for now with new requirements for mail ballots in federal elections, even as Democratic-led states challenge the new rule in a <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.305406/gov.uscourts.mad.305406.1.0.pdf">separate lawsuit.</a>
“This is a major win for the security of American elections,&#8221; White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis told The Daily Wire. &#8220;These are commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans are electing American leaders. This Administration will continue to lawfully enact the agenda President Trump was elected on — which includes the safety and security of our elections.”
The Supreme Court&#8217;s unsigned 6-3 decision Monday marked an interim victory for Trump but did not resolve the order’s underlying legality.
The justices found that the Trump administration was likely to prevail on its argument that the states challenging the order lacked standing because they had not demonstrated the concrete and imminent injuries necessary to bring their claims at this stage.
“The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell,” the court wrote. “But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.”
In March, Trump signed an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/03/ensuring-citizenship-verification-and-integrity-in-federal-elections/">executive order</a> directing the Department of Homeland Security to create and distribute “State Citizenship Lists” identifying residents who are U.S. citizens and will be at least 18 years old by the next federal election. 
A separate provision directed the U.S. Postal Service to establish new procedures for mail-in and absentee ballots in federal elections.
Last Friday, the USPS issued a <a href="https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-17238.pdf">final rule</a> establishing new standards for mail-in ballots in federal elections. Under the rule, election officials would have to submit voters’ names, addresses, and unique ballot-envelope barcodes through a federal portal before handing ballots over to the Postal Service. Ballots in violation would be rejected and returned to the authorized ballot mailer.
All three liberal justices dissented from Monday&#8217;s Supreme Court decision. Justice Jackson wrote a solo dissent to blast the court’s order.
“This is not a close call. The Government suffers no harm from an injunction limiting unlawful actions, much less ‘hypothetical’ and ‘speculative’ acts that the Government says it was not even sure it would take,” Jackson wrote. 
“When the Government’s obvious goal is to interfere with the Plaintiff States’ practices and prerogatives in a manner that the Constitution does not authorize, it is both a serious legal error and a grave misuse of our equitable emergency powers to let the Executive proceed even one step further,” Jackson added.

IMG_6319

Trump Scores Second Major Win In Mail-In Voting Fight

2026 elections

ballots

Elections

Executive Orders

Mail-In Voting

Midterms

News

Politics

President Trump

Trump Administraiton

Voting

voting restrictions

WASHINGTON — Just days after a man was sentenced for planning to kill Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, authorities arrested another suspect near the U.S. Capitol — a man with a guillotine in the back of his truck.
Thirty-five-year-old Philan-Tam-Duy Le of Julian, California, had illegally parked his car along the 100 block of East Capitol Street, near the U.S. Supreme Court and the Capitol building. The U.S. Capitol Police said that they seized a guillotine spotted in the bed of his pickup truck on Tuesday afternoon around 3 p.m. after they noticed his car was illegally parked.
The suspect drove from California to Washington, D.C., and was arrested for carrying a dangerous weapon, according to the department.
&#8220;USCP investigators are going through the suspect’s background to learn more about why he came to Washington, DC,&#8221; Capitol Police said in a <a href="https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/uscp-arrests-driver-guillotine-truckbed">statement</a>.
Photos provided by the police show a tall, apparently life-sized, guillotine sitting in the back of a black pickup truck. A family member told The Los Angeles Times that he recognized the truck as his brother&#8217;s vehicle.
&nbsp;
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/man-arrested-with-guillotine-outside-united-states-supreme-court/photo-courtesy-of-the-united-states-capitol-police-2" rel="attachment wp-att-1165819"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-1165819 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/08/Photo-courtesy-of-the-United-States-Capitol-Police-2.png" alt="" width="480" height="270" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/08/Photo-courtesy-of-the-United-States-Capitol-Police-2.png 480w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/08/Photo-courtesy-of-the-United-States-Capitol-Police-2-300x169.png 300w" sizes=" (max-width: 480px) 100vw, 480px" /></a>
&nbsp;
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/man-arrested-with-guillotine-outside-united-states-supreme-court/photo-courtesy-of-the-united-states-capitol-police" rel="attachment wp-att-1165821"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-1165821 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/08/Photo-courtesy-of-the-United-States-Capitol-Police.png" alt="" width="480" height="270" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/08/Photo-courtesy-of-the-United-States-Capitol-Police.png 480w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/08/Photo-courtesy-of-the-United-States-Capitol-Police-300x169.png 300w" sizes=" (max-width: 480px) 100vw, 480px" /></a>
&nbsp;
The Secret Service told The Daily Wire that it is not involved in investigating the matter, and Capitol Police said they do not yet know the suspect&#8217;s motive.
The suspect&#8217;s brother told the Los Angeles Times that the guillotine was probably a &#8220;symbol of disapproval&#8221; and that Le was generally happy about the state of American politics and disliked both Donald Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom. The suspect&#8217;s brother, Kelvin Le, described his brother as a free spirit who funded his travels around the country by working as a tattoo artist and doing piercings.
Le is one of several individuals who have been arrested after traveling across the country with a dangerous weapon.
Last week, 25-year-old Ryan Michael English (who goes by Reily or Raleigh Jane English) of South Deerfield, Massachusetts, was sentenced to 73 months in prison and 36 months of supervised release for plotting to kill Bessent, according to the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/massachusetts-resident-sentenced-attempt-assassinate-cabinet-member-nominee-us-capitol" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Justice Department.</a> English identified as a transgender woman and is one of a number of trans-identifying attempted assassins who have made headlines in recent years.
Nicholas Roske, the man who attempted to kill Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh (another individual who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-attempted-kavanaugh-assassin-identifies-as-transgender-woman-legal-filings-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">identifies as a transgender woman),</a> traveled from California to the D.C. area to kill the justice. According to prosecutors, Roske sought to keep Roe v. Wade from being overturned.
The Supreme Court did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story. In October 2025, police arrested a man who had hundreds of explosive devices with him outside a Mass in honor of the Supreme Court at St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington, D.C. He had a manifesto indicating he was targeting the Supreme Court and Catholics, according to court papers obtained by The Daily Wire.
The manifesto “revealed his significant animosity towards the Catholic church, members of the Jewish faith, members of SCOTUS and ICE/ ICE facilities,” police said.

Photo courtesy of the United States Capitol Police

Man Arrested With Guillotine Outside United States Supreme Court

Capitol Police

Secret Service

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump to begin enforcing parts of an executive order aimed at restricting mail-in voting ahead of the midterm elections.
In an<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a124_hgci.pdf"> unsigned order</a>, a majority of the justices agreed to pause a lower-court ruling by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston that blocked the Trump administration from carrying out portions of a March executive action. Monday’s order allows the Department of Homeland Security to move forward with creating and distributing “State Citizenship Lists” cataloging adult U.S. citizens in each state ahead of federal elections.
Monday’s decision is an interim victory for Trump but does not resolve the order&#8217;s underlying legality,<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/24/supreme-court-mail-voting-trump.html"> CNBC reported.</a>
The Supreme Court found that the Trump administration was likely to prevail on its argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction to block the order, concluding that the states challenging it had not shown the concrete and imminent injuries required to bring their claims at this stage.
“The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell,” the court wrote. “But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.”
A separate injunction Talwani issued on Aug. 11 still bars the Postal Service from implementing procedural changes ahead of the Nov. 3 elections, meaning the administration would need to overcome that order before the USPS changes could take effect for the midterms.
In March, Trump signed an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/03/ensuring-citizenship-verification-and-integrity-in-federal-elections/">executive order </a>directing the Department of Homeland Security to take steps to create and distribute “State Citizenship Lists” cataloging residents who are U.S. citizens and will be over the age of 18 at the time of an upcoming federal election. The order also directed the U.S. Postal Service to begin a rulemaking process involving new procedures for mail-in and absentee ballots.
Last Friday, the USPS issued a<a href="https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-17238.pdf"> final rule</a> establishing new standards for mail-in ballots used in federal elections. Among other requirements, election officials would have to submit voter names, addresses, and unique ballot-envelope barcodes through a federal portal before outbound ballots are presented to the Postal Service. Mailings that fail to comply with the rule’s requirements would not be accepted and would be returned to the authorized ballot mailer. The USPS rule remains subject to the separate federal injunction blocking its implementation ahead of the midterms.
All three liberal justices dissented. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a solo dissent to blast the court’s order.
“This is not a close call. The Government suffers no harm from an injunction limiting unlawful actions, much less ‘hypothetical’ and ‘speculative’ acts that the Government says it was not even sure it would take,” Jackson wrote.
This is a developing story. Stay with The Daily Wire for updates.

Supreme Court Makes Decision In Mail-In Ballot Fight Ahead Of Midterms

Trump Administration

The Supreme Court on Friday temporarily cleared the way for President Donald Trump’s administration to continue construction of the White House ballroom, pausing a lower court order that would have halted above-ground work on the controversial project.
Chief Justice John Roberts issued an <a href="https://x.com/JordanOnRecord/status/2090863977840459889?s=20">administrative stay</a> Friday, preventing a federal district court’s injunction from taking effect while the Supreme Court considers the Trump administration’s emergency request. The order does not resolve the underlying legal dispute or determine whether Trump had the authority to construct the ballroom without congressional approval.
The move is nevertheless a significant victory for the administration, which has argued that construction should be allowed to continue as the case makes its way through the courts. The dispute is likely to head to the full Supreme Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trumps-white-house-ballroom-plans-just-hit-a-major-legal-roadblock">ruled</a> earlier this month that Trump could not proceed with the project without authorization from Congress.
That 2-1 ruling by the appeals court held that the decision to construct the massive addition to the White House was ultimately Congress’ to make. “Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help,” the appeals court majority wrote.
The court, however, paused its ruling for two weeks to give the administration time to seek relief from the Supreme Court. The Trump administration subsequently asked the justices to intervene. Roberts’ Friday order keeps construction moving while the justices consider that request. The order is an administrative stay, meaning it is temporary and procedural rather than a ruling on the merits of the case. The full Supreme Court could ultimately lift the stay, leave it in place while the case proceeds, or take up the underlying dispute.
The administration has urged the Supreme Court to allow construction to continue, arguing that the project is already substantially underway and that stopping it would interfere with national security.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/08/supreme-court-allows-white-house-ballroom-construction-to-continue-for-now/">described</a> the project in a filing as an “integrated military complex” that includes a secure ballroom space that is “vitally required by national security.” The administration has also argued that the White House requires additional security infrastructure, including facilities designed to protect the president and other officials from potential attacks.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which brought the lawsuit against the administration, has taken the opposite position. The group argues that Trump cannot unilaterally demolish portions of the White House and construct a 90,000-square-foot addition without congressional authorization and other required reviews. The trust has accused the administration of attempting to “outrun judicial review” by moving construction forward as quickly as possible.
The administration said in court filings that the project is already roughly 65% complete, with crews working 20 hours a day, seven days a week. About $200 million in private donations has reportedly already been spent or committed to the project. Trump first announced the ballroom project after returning to the White House, describing it as a roughly $400 million project that would be financed primarily through private donations. The administration subsequently demolished the White House’s East Wing last year to clear the site.
The legal battle escalated after U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued an injunction blocking most above-ground construction. Leon permitted underground work related to security facilities, including bunkers and other national security infrastructure, to continue.
The D.C. Circuit subsequently upheld Leon’s ruling, with Democratic-appointed judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia forming the majority. Trump-appointed Judge Neomi Rao dissented, arguing that the lower court had improperly intervened in the president’s management of the White House.
“Each president is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House and its executive residence,” the majority wrote. Rao countered that the lower court had exceeded its authority. “The district court seized supervision of construction at the White House, and my colleagues affirm this judicial overreach,” Rao wrote.
The Supreme Court’s Friday order does not indicate when the justices will decide whether to take further action. But with the Trump administration appealing the D.C. Circuit ruling, the legal dispute is now positioned to potentially become a full-fledged Supreme Court case.
For now, however, construction continues. The Trump administration has argued that halting the project would jeopardize both the construction schedule and national security, while preservationists maintain that allowing construction to proceed could effectively make the courts’ eventual ruling meaningless if the ballroom is completed before the legal dispute is resolved.
Friday’s order leaves that larger question unresolved: whether Trump has the unilateral authority to transform the White House’s East Wing into a 90,000-square-foot ballroom without first obtaining Congress’ approval.

White House Construction Exterior

SCOTUS Gives Trump Green Light To Keep Building White House Ballroom For Now

Ballroom

John Roberts

President Donald Trump

White House Ballroom

President Donald Trump on Saturday named White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf as his next White House Counsel, elevating one of the lawyers behind his Supreme Court immunity victory to the West Wing&#8217;s top legal job.
Scharf will replace David Warrington effective September 1, Trump announced on Truth Social, saying Warrington — a Marine veteran who served as general counsel for Trump&#8217;s 2024 campaign — did a &#8220;truly outstanding job&#8221; and is headed to the private sector.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<a href="https://t.co/eM484FFJNv">pic.twitter.com/eM484FFJNv</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/2086566025286332841?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 9, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The promotion caps a rapid rise for Scharf and puts a lawyer with a demonstrated willingness to tell the president &#8220;no&#8221; in charge of the office that vets the administration&#8217;s legal strategy. In a confidential April 2025 memo to Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/06/15/us/politics/trump-miller-habeas-corpus.html">revealed</a> in June by The New York Times, Scharf argued against a proposal championed by Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to suspend habeas corpus to speed deportations, writing that the denial of habeas rights &#8220;was a key grievance underlying the American Revolution&#8221; and that courts have almost uniformly held only Congress can suspend the writ. A second memo cautioned against invoking the Insurrection Act in response to immigration protests. The administration ultimately did neither.
That counsel evidently cost Scharf nothing with the president. &#8220;I know Will well!&#8221; Trump wrote Saturday, crediting him with representing him &#8220;in numerous cases, including at the Supreme Court, during the Biden Administration&#8217;s corrupt and illegal campaign of Weaponization.&#8221; Scharf joined Trump&#8217;s legal team in October 2023 and worked on his gag order appeals, civil fraud appeal, and the presidential immunity case that produced Trump v. United States.
As staff secretary, Scharf controlled the flow of documents and decisions to the Oval Office and was among the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/06/politics/trump-proximity-to-power-white-house-dg">few aides with walk-in privileges</a> — a fixture at the Resolute Desk during executive order signings. A former federal prosecutor who clerked for two federal appeals court judges, he also helped run the Kavanaugh and Barrett confirmation efforts before joining the campaign.
&#8220;Will is Tough, Strong, and Smart!&#8221; Trump wrote.

Trump Tries To Curb Birthright Citizenship Anew After Court Loss

Lawyer Behind Trump’s Immunity Win Named White House Counsel

Immunity

White House

WASHINGTON—Ken Martin began the year with high hopes of rebuilding the Democratic Party. Today, the Democratic National Committee chairman is likely more concerned with keeping his job.
Morale is low at the DNC, the New York Times reported last month, in large part because Martin is acting as if the walls are closing in. The chairman reportedly makes macabre jokes about how he&#8217;s not long for the job. He landed in hot water when he reportedly threw his phone at a staffer&#8217;s desk during a tense exchange that resulted in a human resources complaint. Martin has also, the Times reports, grown increasingly frustrated by leaks and negative press surrounding the committee.
And then there&#8217;s the money. The DNC finished June with just $16.3 million cash on hand and $18.5 million in debt, according to Federal Election Commission filings. Things are so bad that Democratic Party officials have privately asked vendors to delay sending invoices until after the midterm elections, according to the Times.
The DNC disputes this report, but the party&#8217;s money troubles are real in other ways. Unlike its counterpart, the Republican National Committee is living large with $128.5 million in cash and no debt — and that&#8217;s just the tip of the iceberg.
According to recent FEC filings, Republican Party committees and their allied congressional super PACs held roughly $657 million in cash on hand at the end of June, compared to about $334 million for Democratic committees and their allied organizations. The gap grows even larger when including MAGA Inc., President Donald Trump&#8217;s allied super PAC, which alone reported having more than $400 million available for future spending.
For much of modern campaign history, that imbalance would have been significant. Today, it may be decisive.
In June, the Supreme Court ruled in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-supreme-court-restores-some-common-sense-to-campaign-finance" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NRSC v. FEC</a> that limits on coordinated expenditures between political parties and candidates violated the First Amendment.
&#8220;It doesn&#8217;t change the money that&#8217;s available to party committees,&#8221; Jessica Furst Johnson, partner and co-chair of the political law practice at Lex Politica and counsel for the petitioners in NRSC v. FEC, told The Daily Wire. &#8220;It changes how party committees are able to spend it.&#8221;
That distinction substantially increases the value of institutional fundraising — precisely where Republicans currently hold their largest advantage.
Ironically, Democratic candidates themselves are hardly struggling. Several marquee Senate candidates continue <a href="https://rollcall.com/2026/07/16/democratic-candidates-sustain-fundraising-pace-as-gop-strains-to-keep-up/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posting enormous fundraising numbers</a>. Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff has built a sizable financial advantage over Republican challenger Rep. Mike Collins, and former North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper has likewise amassed an impressive war chest for his Senate campaign.
But those individual successes increasingly mask a broader weakness.
Historically, national party committees existed to do more than simply pay campaign bills. They recruited candidates, coordinated messaging, directed resources toward vulnerable races, elevated lesser-known challengers, and built a unified national political strategy.
Without a financially healthy national committee, those responsibilities increasingly fall on individual candidates. Instead of one cohesive fundraising operation supporting dozens of competitive races, Democrats increasingly resemble a collection of independently wealthy campaigns.
The &#8220;haves&#8221; are nationally recognizable candidates capable of raising tens of millions of dollars on their own. The &#8220;have-nots&#8221; are first-time challengers, vulnerable incumbents, and down-ballot candidates who traditionally depended on the party machinery and allied organizations to amplify their campaigns.
One longtime Democratic strategist warned that Republicans now possess enough institutional money to execute &#8220;a Cadillac plan everywhere,&#8221; while Democrats increasingly must decide which candidates deserve outside investment and which will largely fend for themselves.
&#8220;Party committees have incredibly talented staff — very experienced, very strategic, working hard and long hours — and they add a lot to the overall political ecosystem,&#8221; Furst Johnson said. &#8220;But if you truly view parties as just bill payers, then it&#8217;s no wonder you&#8217;re looking at this fundraising disparity.&#8221;
That disparity may prove lethal for Martin. Democratic strategist Eddie Vale recently told <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5992626-democrats-patience-dnc-ken-martin-midterms/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Hill</a> that the DNC chair&#8217;s poor fundraising is &#8220;hurting the other committees and candidates,&#8221; while former Kamala Harris campaign finance chair Rufus Gifford declared there is &#8220;no saving Martin&#8217;s chairmanship.&#8221;
Martin&#8217;s critics also point to his handling of the party&#8217;s delayed 2024 election autopsy, which many Democrats criticized after its eventual release for containing major omissions and errors, along with recent reports that the committee lost roughly $29,000 in an email scam last year.
But those arguments may matter less than the broader structural reality now confronting Democrats. The party still has candidates capable of raising enormous sums of money, but it increasingly lacks a national organization capable of turning those isolated fundraising successes into a coordinated national strategy.
Now, after the Supreme Court made party committees substantially more valuable, that institutional weakness may prove far more damaging than any individual candidate&#8217;s fundraising deficit.

US-VOTE-POLITICS-DEMOCRATIC-CONVENTION

What The Democrats’ Cash Crunch Means For 2026 And Beyond

2028 presidential election

campaign funds

Democratic Party

fundraising

Ken Martin

A new proposal from Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) seeks to keep gender-confused boys off of girls&#8217; sports teams and out of their locker rooms.  
The <a href="https://www.blackburn.senate.gov/services/files/9DB266B1-2A2D-4FCF-B948-A031AC31AB5C">bill</a> introduced Tuesday by Blackburn and 10 other GOP senators would tie federal funding to whether schools protect girls from discrimination based on biological reality. The bill seeks to codify language into federal law that makes it clear that discrimination protections under Title IX are based on sex and not sexual orientation or so-called gender identity. 
“The Biden administration weaponized Title IX to force women to compete with men in sports and allow men to invade women’s spaces,” Blackburn told The Daily Wire. “Thankfully, President Trump restored common sense in Title IX, and now Congress must codify these protections for women into law to prevent future abuse.”
Blackburn’s proposal, called the “Title IX Clarification Act,” would ensure that discrimination under the provision is based “on the biological reality of sex” and would make federal funding contingent on recognizing that understanding. 
The bill’s introduction comes amid a nationwide controversy fueled by WNBA player Sophie Cunningham’s stance on keeping gender-confused boys out of girls&#8217; sports. 
“I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men,” Cunningham said in a recent interview with ESPN, drawing backlash from fellow WNBA players and coaches.
Her comments have angered WNBA fans and even led to pro-trans advocacy from Minnesota Lynx head coach Cheryl Reeve, who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/wnba-coach-protests-sophie-cunningham-with-pro-trans-shirt?author=Drew+Berkemeyer&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=10&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=WNBA+Coach+Protests+Sophie+Cunningham+With+Pro-Trans+Shirt">recently</a> wore a “Trans Kids Belong” shirt during a game. 
The Biden administration attempted to <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/03/11/2021-05200/guaranteeing-an-educational-environment-free-from-discrimination-on-the-basis-of-sex-including">expand</a> the traditional understanding of Title IX to include “gender identity” as being protected under the definition of sex. Critics argued that interpretation would force schools from keeping sports teams, bathrooms, and locker rooms separate on the basis of sex. 
Shortly after taking office, President Donald Trump officially <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/initial-rescissions-of-harmful-executive-orders-and-actions/">rescinded</a> Biden’s interpretation of Title IX and <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/">directed</a> federal agencies to protect from sex-based discrimination, not gender identity. The Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-protects-womens-sports-in-landmark-ruling">recently held</a> in a landmark decision that states did not violate Title IX if they had laws in place keeping boys out of girls’ sports. 
“They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America.”
Blackburn said her legislation would bring common sense back to federal discrimination law. 
“The Title IX Clarification Act would ensure that common sense, not leftist ideology, governs federal education funding tied to Title IX requirements to protect young women,” she said. 
Other lawmakers backing the proposal are Senators Katie Britt (R-AL), Jim Justice (R-WV), Ted Budd (R-NC), Jim Risch (R-ID), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Rick Scott (R-FL), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Steve Daines (R-MT), and Tim Sheehy (R-MT).
A House version of the proposal was introduced in May 2026 by Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX) and advanced through the Committee on Education and Workforce. It is backed by conservative groups like the Family Research Council, Alliance Defending Freedom, and the American Principles Project.

Indiana Fever v Golden State Valkyries

Sophie Cunningham’s Trans Sports Stance Could Become Federal Law

Joe Biden

Marsha Blackburn

Sophie Cunningham

Title IX

Transgender Athletes

WNBA

Women's sports

Despite its many groundbreaking victories for originalism and textualism, the Supreme Court’s term closed with a barrage of vitriol from some conservatives aimed at Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The biggest trigger was the Court’s birthright citizenship decision, <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6Nzo5OWU0Ojc2NDE4MWI0MTg2M2EzYjM4NTc2YTM4YTcwNDEwYzcyYTBlMTg5OTZjYmI3YzJkNWNmNWVlOWE2NTJmZGU5OTU6cDpGOkY">Trump v. Barbara</a>, which came on the Court’s last day. Social media lit up with barbs declaring that Barrett had veered Left. The College Republicans from her alma mater and former employer, Notre Dame, <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/x.com/NDRepublicans/status/2071981700813377755___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6ZjIwMWYwZGQxYzJhNjhiMGM1YTg3NzgxNTUyMzQ1ZTg6NzpjZWJkOjkzOGM0ZmI2MTY0Y2E4NmY0NzYyYjBlNDE0OWQwYTc3NmY1MmM2MDM0ZDkzNGRkYTI1NGQ3NGJmYjA2ZjY1NmI6cDpUOkY">called</a> her an “absolute disgrace” and Rep. Nancy Mace <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/x.com/NancyMace/status/2071979617569636863?s=20___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6ZjIwMWYwZGQxYzJhNjhiMGM1YTg3NzgxNTUyMzQ1ZTg6NzoxODVhOjQzNWRhYmEzNTcyMTMzZGRiNDk1MzczMjEzM2RhMTM2YjU2MzQyODI4MGI5NzBlMDc1MWFkMGI0NzYzMTc2ZDU6cDpUOkY">declared</a> that she “should be removed from the Bench.” Missing from the pile-on was any contextual analysis of Barrett’s full track record on the Court.
Frustration over Barbara is understandable. Conservatives (including me) care about immigration enforcement and hoped for a different outcome. But the justices do not cast votes on outcomes, and it’s a mistake to judge them solely by the question, “Did my side win or lose?” Fidelity to the Constitution is what matters. We should credit the originalist majority for its good-faith effort to apply originalism and textualism in difficult cases. No approach does better at reading the law as it is rather than as judges wish it to be.
The Court regularly wrestles with hard methodological questions, and even principled originalists sometimes err. Take Justice Antonin Scalia, who more than anyone else steered the Court — and legal scholarship generally — toward originalism. He wrote the Court’s decision in <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep494/usrep494872/usrep494872.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6Nzo1M2QyOmI3ZmZmYzc1MDIzZTc5YzkwZWQzZTg1OGU4NTJmNjA5NmM2MTI1ODZhNDFhOGU5NTRhMDQwNjVkMDVjYThiYzM6cDpGOkY">Employment Division v. Smith</a> (1990), gutting free-exercise protections so badly that Congress had to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to fix it. He spent years championing Chevron deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous laws. And in <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep545/usrep545001/usrep545001.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6NzpmMDc5OmQ0NDdiZTUxNTBkNmU5ZmM2ZWZhZTAyYTA3MTUwYmI4ZTNjZjIwYTE1YjQxYjUzZTg2NzFmM2JiNThmNTEzYzg6cDpGOkY">Gonzales v. Raich</a> (2005), he provided a concurring vote for a sweeping reading of the Commerce Clause that let the federal government prohibit local cultivation of marijuana — an affront to federalism.
Justice Clarence Thomas, a favorite of mine and of many other originalists, dissented in Raich. But weeks later, he wrote the Court’s opinion in <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep545/usrep545967/usrep545967.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6NzoxZDk0OjYzOTFjNTBmZTRlYWUzM2ExNGFlYTljYWQ4NDhhYmMzY2NkNjY4ZjQyZjhiYzBhNTc4NmM2NGM2NmRiNzc2ZTg6cDpGOkY">National Cable &amp; Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services</a>, which expanded Chevron deference over Scalia’s dissent. (In 2020, Thomas <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-402_o75p.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6Nzo4ZGJiOjQ0YTI3ZTlkZTA1ZjYxZjRlZWE1YTUzMWQyNGU0N2NjMjk5ZDMwYTA2YjU4YjdlMzc0MjRlYWU5ZjJjZGUxOTY6cDpGOkY">changed his position</a>.) Justice Samuel Alito, another towering originalist, balked at perhaps the <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/fragmented-gundy-court-suggests-the-nondelegation-doctrine-might-have-a-future/___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6ZjIwMWYwZGQxYzJhNjhiMGM1YTg3NzgxNTUyMzQ1ZTg6NzpkOGI5OmM2OWE5ZGQzYTNiZmE2ODk3YWJlNTgzMGIyODU4OWZlMzZhYjFiODM4MjY1MDU2NWI4MWRmZmExMTdiMjk2ZWY6cDpUOkY">best opportunity</a> over the past decade to revive the nondelegation doctrine, the separation-of-powers principle under which Congress is prevented from transferring its legislative power to another branch. Those are long-serving judicial superstars.
Of course, many Republican appointees drifted leftward over time, embracing the bald judicial activism of “living Constitution” liberals: Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. Justice Barrett is not one of them. In fact, she helped clean up the jurisprudential mess those justices had made — most notably voting to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6NzpjMWM0OjkxODNiZmRhMmYzMzM3MDJjMDQ1ZGYwZDZkY2E3YmQwNjY4MWIxOTM3Nzk1MzdjZTI0M2ExYjI1ZWJjZGFjOTE6cDpGOkY">Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization</a> and to overturn racial preferences in education in <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6Nzo3MTFjOjY1ZDI3NGZiZTFjZDgwMzc5NmM5Mjk4YmNkZjU2ODk1NmQ0YTkyMTk5ZTRjOTZhZjY0NzVhOGUyMDQ2MDQyM2E6cDpGOkY">SFFA v. Harvard</a>. She also voted to end Chevron deference in <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6Nzo0ZjA5OmMyMGZlMjlhZDUxZmQwZDAzNmFjZjNhNWQ5M2I1YzZhMDQxNDk3NDdhNmI1NTVkOGVjODk5NTI4ZDE3MzIwYzY6cDpGOkY">Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo</a>. 
Apart from those jurisprudential earthquakes, she has been a reliable originalist vote in hard-fought First Amendment cases, on both speech and free exercise — supporting a web designer’s <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6NzplZDRjOmZmMjEwMWFhZGYxZjkzMzAwMzM5Zjk0ZTNhOGEzNWI5NjBkN2FlNzI5NjI4MWVkM2U4YmFmNWQwYmIzMDk0YjI6cDpGOkY">ability to refuse websites</a> that violate her religious beliefs, protecting parents’ <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6Nzo1MDZhOmMxNTI1MTdmZGJjNzdjMzc4ZTM4ZTFiNDU3YTliM2ZiZjM3OTdjM2Q1ZjIzMzhhNmU3Mjg4NzI0OWIwYzVhZTc6cDpGOkY">right to opt out</a> of sexual material in public schools, upholding states’ ability to require <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6NzpkZjE2OjRjNTk4NzMyYTAwYzJkNGM5YTZhOWFiZmMzZDkzNmM5ZWNmMTY5YjJlNTNlNzE1ZWJjYWYyNTNmYjNhOWZlNTc6cDpGOkY">age verification</a> for pornography, <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-621_h315.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6NzpmYjlkOjU1OWQ5NzYyN2UyODBlOTdiNzYxNzA2YmM5M2Y4MWQxNjgwYzRlNGVlMzhlNjIwNjY5OWNiYTA5OGY0MTU5YmQ6cDpGOkY">safeguarding political speech</a>, and striking down Colorado’s <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6NzoyNTM5OmRjOTg5MDkzMzgwMDRhYTJlNmU0YmVmNzk1N2QxMDQ0ODBjZWYwMGY3ZTcyZjRlZGMxZWJlMTRmOTRlMGZhNTA6cDpGOkY">“conversion therapy” ban</a>. The same holds for Second Amendment protections of the individual right to bear arms in cases from <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6NzowMjRhOjA2OTA2ZjBlYTA5ZTg5YTNhNDA2YzdmNzY3ZWU5NDcxODQ5NWM0MGRjMjc2MWRmOTIwNDAyMDkzYjEwNjZlZDY6cDpGOkY">New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Assn. v. Bruen</a> in 2022 to <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6NzplMGY3OmNjMjRiNDJkMGJiM2YwM2Q1ODIyY2FhOGI5NTA1MTU3OGM5Y2M2MDU5MjJiYmIwMDMxMTZhMTI3ZDBkYTY1NzY6cDpGOkY">Wolford v. Lopez</a> this term.
Barrett helped the Court reject activist contortions of the Equal Protection Clause — efforts to stop states from <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6Nzo1ZjAwOjhjZTNkYTY3YzFkMGE4NmI4ODE3YjgxZTFmZGI2MjlmNWFjZTYwYTQ2NDQ3ZDI0MTQ5ZDIzYmU2MTIzYjhjYmI6cDpGOkY">prohibiting transitioning procedures</a> for minors and <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-43_2b35.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6Nzo0NjllOjJlYjcwMDUwNGQ0Y2Y5ODBmOGU4MjQ0MzJkYzI5MmFmNDE3YTQxNjEwOWJmMzVmMjhhMDUxZjNjZTc2ZTNjMWU6cDpGOkY">limiting women’s sports</a> to biological females. She supported extending the colorblind principle to <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6Nzo0MDM4OmU4OTRjNjdhMmYyMDFhNDdlNTQxODUwOWY5YThkYTI4ZTJlOGMzOTY0ZjY0NzBhOGQxNmZkZjczOTA5NmYzNDE6cDpGOkY">racial gerrymandering</a> cases.
A strong protector of the separation of powers, Barrett <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-332_qn12.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6NzoxNTgwOmY5MWJjY2JiOWE4MTRlZDJiOTNhMzg4M2U4YzM1YjE1OWIxYTBlMzBmN2FiMTllOGMyMjRiMmIyYzZhZjkyYzc6cDpGOkY">defended</a> the president’s ability to fire heads of “independent” commissions — overturning a 91-year-old precedent that had <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/farewell-humphreys-executor/___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6Nzo3NjFhOmQxZjNiMjRlZGRmMmVmNzFkMTNhM2VhNWE2OGZjZGZjN2VjODhlNmRhYWJjY2I4ZTFhYTg2Zjk2NjJlNmY1NTE6cDpGOkY">fueled</a> the modern unaccountable administrative state — and dissented with other conservatives when the majority declined to apply the same principle to the Federal Reserve. She has also invoked the major questions doctrine to check executive overreach involving draconian <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6Nzo5NmQ5OmQxNWNiYjZlZWZmODVhNzAzZTA0NTAyM2M3Zjg2ZGRlYjYyNzk5M2Y3MGI4YmVhYzY3YjZjOWE2YmNlYjI5OTE6cDpGOkY">carbon mandates</a> and <a href="https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r01/___https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf___.YXAzOmNyY2E6YzpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6YjhhOWQ2MmM2OTYyMjMzYTViODE4Y2NhZmQ2NWRhYzY6NzozMGNmOmM4NjU5MTQ2Zjk4Y2IzZjU1Njk2MjJmMGFmMjMzZWI4NjE0YzRjN2VkNjExZWYyZTIxYTk3ODQzM2Q1YTRkMzk6cDpGOkY">student loan forgiveness</a>. Yet all these strong rulings risk being overshadowed by the online fury over Barbara, a challenging case in which originalists differed over the text and history of the Citizenship Clause. Barrett’s critics selectively ignore this term’s other textualist victories, several of which she joined on the side of immigration enforcement, including the president’s termination of Temporary Protected Status.
The major originalist and textualist victories in the six years since Barrett joined the Court seemed completely out of reach a generation ago. That is not a record of a justice, let alone a majority of the Court, slouching leftward. This is one of the greatest Courts in American history, and Justice Barrett is an instrumental part of it.
***
Carrie Severino is the President of the Judicial Crisis Network.

Senators Meet With Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett

The Barrett ‘Betrayal’ Myth

Amy Coney Barrett

Anthony Kennedy

Antonin Scalia

Dobbs v. Jackson

DW Opinion

Equal Protection Clause

First Amendment

Harry Blackmun

John Paul Stevens

Roe v. Wade's Long And Brutal Legacy

Sandra Day O’Connor

Second Amendment

Trump v. Barbara

President Donald Trump ordered a probe over the weekend as he said federal judges have been unduly influenced by a taxpayer-funded science organization pushing “discredited” climate activism. 
Trump lambasted the National Academy of Sciences on Sunday as he said guidebooks produced by the organization had been used to hand massive legal wins to climate activists and created “huge losses” for the country. The academy, which has received tens of millions of dollars in federal grants, has a history of publishing research closely linked to <a href="https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/the-climate-science-controversy/">climate activists</a>. 
“The National Academy of Sciences has historically published analytical Scientific Manuals expressly for our Federal Judiciary,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Of course, the Academy has been run by Radical Left Dumocrats who, it turns out, published fraudulent, biased, and misleading Manuals on Climate Change. These bogus Manuals were used by Judges to decide massive ‘Climate Change’ Cases, and have created huge losses across our Country.”
Trump added that he asked federal officials to review the details around what role manuals published by the academy had on the judiciary.  
“These Manuals have been totally DISCREDITED. Our Nation’s Federal Judges deserve Facts and Science, not Political Fraud and False Science on Climate. With this TRUTH, I hereby order Federal Suspension and Debarment Officials to review this conduct,” Trump said. “Our Taxpayers should not be funding Climate Fraud, and Judges should never have relied upon it.”
The National Academy of Sciences did not respond to a request for comment.
Trump&#8217;s post comes as the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments this year in a case that will <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/25-00170qp.pdf">focus</a> on whether federal law preempts state-level claims for supposed injuries caused  by “the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.” The case centers on a lawsuit by the city of Boulder, Colorado, that alleges multiple oil companies have knowingly caused harm.
In recent months, the National Academy of Sciences has frequently faced criticism from Republican officials who argue it is pushing biased science. The claims stem from a report <a href="https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/28590/chapter/3#13">released</a> earlier this month on “attribution science,” or the argument that human activity can directly impact frequency and severity of extreme weather. Additionally, its recent “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Fourth Edition” contains a chapter on climate science authored in part by two leftist activists who have advocated ending the use of fossil fuels. 
The Federal Judicial Center, which co-produced the manual, removed the climate-focused chapter from its version earlier this year after scrutiny from Republican officials. 
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/1010506858/AG-Letter-To-DOT-DOW-And-DOE?utm_source=chatgpt.com">argued</a> that the manual “was designed to influence judges in multi-billion-dollar climate cases, was funded by climate litigation funders, was written by academics with little relevant scientific expertise and documented financial and institutional ties to climate litigation advocacy.”
The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gop-officials-demand-trump-admin-suspend-funding-of-science-org-over-climate-activism">reported</a> in March that over a dozen Republican attorneys general asked the Departments of Energy, War, and Transportation to cut funding to the National Academies.
In 2024, the National Academies received $84 million in contracts or grants from the Department of Transportation, $7 million from the Department of Energy, and $33 million from the Department of War.

Menu