From blocking deportations of gang members to keeping men in women&#8217;s prisons, activist judges have taken up the mantle of leftist resistance during the first 100 days of President Donald Trump&#8217;s second term.
Trump opened his second administration with a rapid series of executive orders aimed at reducing the size of government and addressing the crises spurred on by the Biden administration. Judges responded by issuing a record number of national injunctions blocking those orders. These injunctions have touched nearly every aspect of Trump&#8217;s agenda, leading conservatives to call for action from Congress and the Supreme Court to rein in activist judges.
&#8220;Over 77 million people decided to elect Donald Trump as the 47th president of the United States,&#8221; South Carolina Republican Rep. Russell Fry, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, told The Daily Wire. &#8220;And the frustrating part of that is that in pursuing the policies that he campaigned on you got radical district court judges, who are not elected, who are not on a court of appeals or the Supreme Court, who are superseding the authority of the executive branch and imposing their own partisan views on this administration.&#8221;
Here are just a few of the orders federal judges issued to disrupt Trump&#8217;s agenda:
<ul>
<li>Judge Royce Lamberth blocked the dismantling of the United States Agency for Global Media.</li>
<li>Judge Indira Talwani said Trump could not end President Joe Biden&#8217;s parole program that let 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela into the country.</li>
<li>Judge John Woodcock Jr. said that the Department of Agriculture could not freeze funding to Maine over its decision to let boys play in girls&#8217; sports.</li>
<li>Judge Edward Chen said the Department of Homeland Security could not revoke the protected status of 348,202 Venezuelans who were shielded from deportation by Biden.</li>
<li>Judge Stephanie Gallagher said the Trump administration must facilitate the return of a suspected gang member from El Salvador who was deported.</li>
<li>Judge William H. Orrick said Trump could not pull funding from sanctuary cities that defy federal immigration law.</li>
<li>Judge Royce Lamberth said the Trump administration was not allowed to move male prisoners who identify as women from female prisons.</li>
<li>Judges Benjamin Settle and Ana Reyes said the Defense Department had to allow people who identify as transgender in the military.</li>
<li>Judge James Boasberg said Trump could not deport gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.</li>
<li>Judge Paula Xinis said Trump must return suspected MS-13 member Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States.</li>
<li>Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said Trump could not implement an executive order that requires voters to show documentation proving their U.S. citizenship to cast a ballot in federal elections.</li>
<li>Judge Amir Ali said the Trump administration could not put a blanket pause on foreign aid funding.</li>
</ul>
Many of the judges issuing these rulings have strong ties to the Democratic Party. For example, Judge Indira Talwani has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-who-prevented-trumps-deportation-of-500k-migrants-volunteered-for-obama-elizabeth-warren?author=Spencer+Lindquist&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=13&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Judge+Who+Prevented+Trump’s+Deportation+Of+500k+Migrants+Volunteered+For+Obama%2C+Elizabeth+Warren" target="_blank" rel="noopener">volunteered</a> for and donated to prominent Democrat politicians, including former President Barack Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA). She blocked Trump&#8217;s efforts to revoke the temporary legal status of half a million migrants.
Judge Patricia Millett, who upheld the injunction blocking the Trump administration’s expedited removal of Tren de Aragua gang members,<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-who-upheld-block-of-trumps-deportation-flights-is-a-major-dem-donor?author=Spencer+Lindquist&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Judge+Who+Upheld+Block+Of+Trump’s+Deportation+Flights+Is+A+Major+Dem+Donor" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> both donated to</a> and volunteered for Obama’s presidential campaign. She gave more than $31,000 to Democrat politicians and the party itself from 2008 to 2012.
Judge James Boasberg, who has threatened the Trump administration over its use of the Alien Enemies Act for Deportation, has a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/meet-the-obama-appointed-judge-trying-to-stop-trump-from-deporting-criminal-illegals" target="_blank" rel="noopener">history</a> of anti-Trump rulings. His wife, Elizabeth Manson, has also been involved in partisan political activity and donated over $11,000 to Democratic candidates, <a href="https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=Elizabeth+Manson">federal data</a> shows. Manson gave a combined $3,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and Hillary for America when the Democratic candidate was facing off against Trump in the 2016 election.
Rep. Fry told The Daily Wire that the judicial rulings pertaining to national security decisions were particularly troubling.
&#8220;Courts have been very hesitant to supersede the commander in chief authority of the president historically, until it comes to this president when you&#8217;ve got district court judges that think they know best,&#8221; he said.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Wire he believes many of the federal judges issuing injunctions against the Trump administration were &#8220;going far outside their jurisdiction and far outside their authority.&#8221;
He noted that a similar phenomenon took place during the first Trump administration, saying that the vast majority of the decisions were coming from judges appointed by Democrats. Von Spakovsky said that the ruling from Judge Ana Reyes mandating that transgender troops be kept in the military was especially egregious.
“I don’t think she’s qualified to be a federal judge given the vindictiveness and illogic of the decision that she issued,&#8221; he said. &#8220;She has no military experience whatsoever and yet she is telling the Department of Defense what their standards should be for us to have the most effective, most dangerous warriors in the world.”
Both Fry and von Spakovsky urged the Senate to pass Rep. Darrell Issa&#8217;s (R-CA) &#8220;No Rogue Rulings Act,&#8221; which would amend federal code to block solo federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. The proposal, which <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-curb-nationwide-injunctions-anti-trump-judges" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed</a> the House earlier this month, is now in the Republican-controlled Senate.
The proposal would allow for injunctions from a panel of three randomly-selected judges when the overarching case is brought by two or more states in multiple circuits and make room for appealing directly to the Supreme Court.
Fry said the No Rogue Rulings Act was a good first step, but that lawmakers should also look for other ways to practice oversight over the courts and look at utilizing the power of the purse. He also said he hoped Chief Justice John Roberts would act to rein in the courts.
Von Spakovsky said the court should issue guidelines to make clear that the power of district court judges is limited.
“The Supreme Court needs to act,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The next time they get a case before them with one of these nationwide injunctions issued by a single district court judge, they need to come down severely and very hard on that judge, explain to him why he or she is acting outside of their legal authority and jurisdiction, and frankly, put in some very tough, clear rules to tell these judges that they cannot do what they are doing.”
The Trump administration has already asked the Supreme Court to intervene in multiple battles with federal judges.
“This is no way to run a government,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/doj-asks-supreme-court-to-end-ongoing-assault-on-constitution-by-federal-judge?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=DOJ+Asks+Supreme+Court+To+End+‘Ongoing+Assault’+On+Constitution+By+Federal+Judge" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> in a brief last month. “This Court should stop the ongoing assault on the constitutional structure before further damage is wrought.”

Untitled design (25)

Here’s How Activist Judges Fought Trump’s Agenda In The First 100 Days

Courts

Donald Trump

Judges

Supreme Court

<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments in a case to decide whether an Oklahoma Catholic school can participate in the state&#8217;s charter school program, pitting the school against the state&#8217;s Republican attorney general.
The controversy arose after the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board approved a charter application from the Oklahoma City-based St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. After taking office, Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued to block the school from being eligible for the program, saying that Oklahoma law mandated charter schools be &#8220;nonsectarian.&#8221;
The Oklahoma Supreme Court <a href="https://dm1l19z832j5m.cloudfront.net/2024-06/Drummond-v-OK-SVCSB-2024-06-25-Majority-Decision.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">agreed</a> with Drummond and blocked St. Isidore from receiving more public funds for its school. Represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the charter board argues that St. Isidore&#8217;s First Amendment rights are being discriminated against.
“Instead of embracing schools like St. Isidore who are stepping up to provide solutions are discriminating against them just because of their faith,&#8221; charter board chair Brian Shellum said in a press call attended by The Daily Wire. &#8220;That’s not just unfair, it&#8217;s unconstitutional. Parents understand what’s at stake in this case. They are seeking results not roadblocks.&#8221;
Oklahoma charter schools, which are free and open to all students, are privately run but publicly supported.
In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and will look at <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/24-00394qp.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">two questions.</a> The first is &#8220;whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students.&#8221; The second is whether Oklahoma is violating the Free Exercise Clause by excluding St. Isidore.
A win for St. Isidore would strike down a provision of the Oklahoma Charter School Act that expressly forbids religious charter schools and could open the door for more religious charter schools across the country.
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="page" title="Page 34">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
&#8220;A ruling for Petitioners will promote parental choice, individual liberty, educational diversity, and student achievement. It will also improve the lives of economically disadvantaged families and children by creating high-quality educational opportunities that are currently out of their reach,&#8221; lawyers for Alliance Defending Freedom wrote in a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-394/356083/20250421111247727_24-394%20Reply%20Brief.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">brief</a>. &#8220;Excluding religious groups from Oklahoma’s charter-school program denies these opportunities and causes real harm. The Court should uphold the First Amendment and end this discrimination.&#8221;
Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer Jim Campbell pointed The Daily Wire to three recent Supreme Court cases — Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, and Carson v. Makin — as examples of the high court siding with religious organizations that had been locked out of state programs. In Carson, the Supreme Court struck down a ban in Maine on vouchers from going toward religious schools.
Drummond also says that religious liberty is at stake, saying that it would be wrong to make the public fund religious schools that they are opposed to.
&#8220;As a committed Christian, the last thing I want is for my tax dollars to be used to fund the radical teachings of Sharia or the demonic worship of Satan. Thankfully, the Court agreed with my position and our religious liberty is protected — for now,&#8221; he said in July. &#8220;Let me be clear: Religious liberty means every citizen is free to worship as he or she believes. Religious liberty does not mean that the government should fund religious indoctrination with our tax dollars.&#8221;
He reiterated that argument in an <a href="https://www.oklahoman.com/story/opinion/2025/04/27/ag-st-isidore-schools-ok-would-threaten-religious-liberty-opinion/83193358007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">op-ed</a> published on Monday in The Oklahoman, where he said that he supported religious private schools, but did not want the government to fund them in any form.
&#8220;I swore an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, and I believe our Founding Fathers knew best how to protect religious liberty: by preventing the government from funding any religion at all. I do not want Oklahoma schoolchildren indoctrinated in public schools — I want them educated,&#8221; he wrote.
A spokesman for Drummond told The Daily Wire that the op-ed summarized the heart of his arguments and pointed to <a href="https://oklahoma.gov/oag/news/generally-speaking/2024/july-a-triumph-for-religious-liberty.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">comments</a> he made after he won at the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Other top Oklahoma GOP officials, including Governor Kevin Stitt and Oklahoma State School Superintendent Ryan Walters, disagree with Drummond.
&#8220;Oklahomans know the Bible and Christian values shaped our nation — and they’re tired of seeing faith driven out of our schools,&#8221; Walters said. &#8220;AG Drummond is out of step with Oklahoma conservatives who know what made America great.&#8221;
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Block Order To Return Mistakenly Deported Man

Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Landmark Case On School Choice And Religious Liberty

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Catholic Church

Charter Schools

Education

Oklahoma

Religious Liberty

Speaking on MSNBC over the weekend, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) railed against President Donald Trump and his administration, saying they were “trying to intimidate judges.”
Schumer spoke as the two discussed the case of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, whom the Trump administration charged with two felonies for obstructing immigration agents. In mid-April, when immigration, DEA. and FBI agents came to apprehend Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal in Dugan’s courtroom to face domestic violence charges — and Dugan had been notified that there was an administrative warrant for the Flores-Ruiz’s arrest — “Judge Dugan then escorted Flores-Ruiz and his counsel out of the courtroom through the ‘jury door,’ which leads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse,” the<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/us/politics/fbi-arrest-judge.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> criminal complaint</a> stated.
“Trump wants to be king,” Schumer whined to MSNBC host Al Sharpton. “A king doesn’t have a Constitution. A king just does whatever he wants. And [Attorney General Pam] Biondi (sic) just goes along with him. They’re trying to intimidate judges. This is not the first time or the second. They’ve said they want to impeach judges. They said they’re going to go after judges who don’t agree with them. That is so against the Constitution. The Constitution believes and has been written with the wisdom of the founding fathers, that we should have separation of powers.”
“There should be an independent judiciary,” he continued. “When you go before a judge, you think that you hope and believe that that judge is impartial. What Trump, Biondi (sic), and the whole Justice Department are trying to do is push that judge, threaten that judge, so the judge is no longer impartial. &#8230; I don’t believe ICE or anything they say, because they’ve made up things so many times in the past. This is a constitutional crisis. You cannot have a — you cannot have a democracy without an independent judiciary. And they’re trying to clip the wings of that independence.”
Schumer’s hypocrisy knows no bounds. In March 2020, he threatened conservative members of the Supreme Court for considering abortion rights cases, shouting at an abortion rights rally:
<blockquote>Inside the walls of this court, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments, as you know, for the first major abortion rights cases since Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch came to the bench. &#8230; I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.</blockquote>
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), who was critically injured when shot by a Bernie Sanders supporter, called Schumer&#8217;s comments “unhinged,&#8221; adding, &#8220;This rhetoric has dangerous consequences.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨 UNHINGED → Schumer threatened conservative justices Kavanaugh &amp; Gorsuch on the steps of the Supreme Court:
&quot;You have released the whirlwind &amp; you will pay the price. You won&#39;t know what hit you.&quot;
Enough. This rhetoric has dangerous consequences. Where&#39;s the media outrage? <a href="https://t.co/SiGNHxG0iX">pic.twitter.com/SiGNHxG0iX</a>
&mdash; Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveScalise/status/1235299202542063616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
2025: Chuck Schumer says Trump wants to intimidate and threaten judges.
2020: Chuck Schumer tries to intimidate and threaten Justices of the Supreme Court. <a href="https://t.co/FdisnZKk0I">pic.twitter.com/FdisnZKk0I</a>
&mdash; Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) <a href="https://twitter.com/WesternLensman/status/1916594680260968939?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer

Hypocrite: Schumer Wails Trump ‘Trying To Intimidate Judges.’ He Threatened SCOTUS In 2020.

Chuck Schumer

Immigration

If you talk to any experienced and honest teacher these days, from elementary school on up, one of the first things they will tell you is how quickly gender ideology has taken hold. Virtually overnight, students began adopting fake pronouns and made-up genders.
To call this phenomenon &#8220;unnatural&#8221; would be a vast understatement. It&#8217;s obviously engineered. Teachers and school boards are pushing this nonsense on children who are far too young to know any better. The public school system has committed itself to indoctrinating children, in many cases without their parents&#8217; knowledge or consent. But after what happened yesterday at the Supreme Court, it&#8217;s very clear that accountability is finally coming for these ghouls.
After many years of spewing LGBT propaganda with total impunity, school districts will soon face major new restrictions on their ability to pollute the minds of elementary-school-age children. Based on how the justices acted during oral arguments yesterday, “Mahmoud v. Taylor” could easily turn out to be one of the most significant Supreme Court rulings of this generation.
Before we review the oral arguments, here is some background. The case began after Montgomery County Public Schools, the largest school district in Maryland — introduced a new &#8220;gender and sexuality curriculum.&#8221; Initially, students (or their parents) could opt out of this curriculum for any reason. But after a short period of time, the school district claimed that it wasn&#8217;t feasible to continue allowing opt outs. So it&#8217;s mandatory now. To give you an idea of what exactly this curriculum entails, here&#8217;s an image from one book that children are introduced to.
<div id="attachment_911559" style="width: 690px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-911559" class="wp-image-911559 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GpJWV7kX0AE7j3U.jpeg" alt="Screenshot: What Are Your Words?" width="680" height="446" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GpJWV7kX0AE7j3U.jpeg 680w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GpJWV7kX0AE7j3U-300x197.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 680px) 100vw, 680px" />Screenshot: What Are Your Words?</div>
This is what&#8217;s apparently known as an &#8220;LGBT storybook.&#8221; This one&#8217;s called, “What Are Your Words?” As you can see, one line of dialogue reads, “My pronouns are like the weather. They change depending on how I feel.”
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is a nonprofit, reported on some other books that were included in this <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/will-scotus-back-parents-when-it-comes-to-lgbtq-storybooks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new curriculum</a>:
<blockquote>[O]ne book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes &#8216;intersex flag,&#8217; &#8216;drag queen,&#8217; &#8216;underwear,&#8217; &#8216;leather,&#8217; and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to &#8216;make sense.&#8217; Teachers are instructed to say doctors only &#8216;guess&#8217; when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway.</blockquote>
When parents of varying religious faiths — including Muslims and Christians — objected to the idea that their 5-year-olds needed to be taught about &#8220;sex work&#8221; and &#8220;gender transitioning&#8221; by Left-wing activists posing as teachers, the school district told them they had no recourse. In fact, the district slandered the parents as bigots. All these parents were seeking was the ability to opt out of this indoctrination. They didn&#8217;t even demand that the classes be removed from the curriculum. But the school district denied their request. So the parents sued.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1581-member-exclusive?elementPosition=3&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
Which brings us to yesterday&#8217;s oral arguments. I want to begin with this question from Justice Alito, because it gets to the core of the issue. Alito wants to know why the school district is so hell-bent on forcing children to read books about homosexuality, transgenderism and so on. (To be clear, that&#8217;s what the school district is doing. They&#8217;re not merely providing these books in the school library. Teachers are actively telling students to read the books as part of class.) The truthful answer to Justice Alito&#8217;s question is simple: The Left understands that, if the LGBT movement is going to survive, it needs to indoctrinate new members at a very young age.
But the school district can&#8217;t say that out loud, of course. So instead, the lawyer representing the Montgomery school district&#8217;s superintendent, a man named Alan Schoenfeld, starts talking in circles about how impossible it would be, at a practical level, for the school district to allow students to opt out of this curriculum. But nothing he says actually makes sense. It gets so bad that, at the end of his rambling non-answer, Justice Kavanaugh chimes in to confirm that indeed, no one has any idea what the hell this guy is talking about. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="005 alito, whats the big deal" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q118nmS1g2s?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;
As best I can tell, the lawyer for the school district is claiming that, because students might talk among themselves about certain LGBT books that are discussed in this curriculum, it&#8217;s therefore impossible to allow students to opt out of this kind of curriculum. In other words, whether or not students opt out, there&#8217;s a chance that they&#8217;ll hear about the materials that are discussed in these gay adventure books.
But this ignores a couple of obvious points.The big one is that, when a teacher is communicating a lesson to a class, it has a very different effect, as compared to one student talking to another student about a book during recess or whatever. The teacher is in a position of authority. It&#8217;s much easier for a 5-year-old to discount something another 5-year-old says, than it is to discount the wisdom of a 40-year-old teacher he&#8217;s told to trust. If this is an argument for anything, it&#8217;s an argument for not having these materials in the school to begin with. Which of course is the correct answer. But either way, it is not an argument against allowing parents to opt out.
The lawyer for the school district knows this but he can&#8217;t admit it. So he ends up confusing everyone in the room with a bunch of doublespeak. This kept happening throughout the oral arguments. Listen to this moment where Justice Gorsuch points out that, in Montgomery County, teachers are told to actively correct students who dare to suggest that men can&#8217;t become women. Gorsuch then asks the lawyer for Montgomery County whether this could constitute &#8220;coercion.&#8221; The obvious answer is yes. But instead of saying that, here&#8217;s the gibberish that the attorney comes back with:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="006 gorsuch, coercion, correcting himself" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x3sWOLDR4Q0?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;
Justice Gorsuch gives an example where a student says, &#8220;a boy can&#8217;t be a girl.&#8221; And then the lawyer states that it&#8217;s not &#8220;coercive,&#8221; in any way, for the teacher to correct the student&#8217;s comment, in front of the entire class. He then changes his mind and says the opposite.
Even when he&#8217;s not contradicting himself, the school district&#8217;s lawyer managed to make a mockery of the entire case. 
Here&#8217;s his opening statement, for example:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="007 beginning with mr shonfeld" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xkw27dw9T5g?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;
Yes, according to this attorney for the school district, there&#8217;s no difference between teaching elementary-school students about wars, and teaching them that boys can become girls. Telling students about the War of 1812 is just like telling them that it&#8217;s totally reasonable to chemically castrate minors.
One of the ways we know this isn&#8217;t true, aside from using basic common sense, is that there&#8217;s no army of parents demanding that schools stop teaching students about wars. That&#8217;s because it&#8217;s understood that teaching students about wars is not a general endorsement of violence. Additionally, everyone agrees that history is important and useful because it&#8217;s grounded in reality. On the other hand, gender ideology is just that — ideological.
This lawyer was not the only person to embarrass himself yesterday. That&#8217;s a given. After all, Ketanji Brown Jackson was also in attendance at the hearing. And as you&#8217;d expect, she did not disappoint. Single-handedly, she dropped the collective IQ in the room by about 10 points, just by opening her mouth. And of course, she opened her mouth on the side of indoctrinating children, because she takes the Left&#8217;s position on every issue. Behold, Ketanji Brown Jackson&#8217;s argument in favor of mandatory indoctrination in public schools:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="008 can just go to private school" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y-FJrhGbwrw?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;
Yes, you can homeschool, says Ketanji Brown Jackson. You can pay for an expensive private school. Therefore, there&#8217;s no &#8220;burden&#8221; on these parents, apparently. It&#8217;s not a &#8220;burden&#8221; to have to pay more money, and change your child&#8217;s school, because Montgomery County decided to teach LGBT propaganda. And then the lawyer representing the parents responds, and points out that she&#8217;s completely wrong, and many other cases demonstrate why she&#8217;s wrong. And then she goes quiet and they move on.
Here’s one more clip from these arguments, involving Justice Alito questioning the school board&#8217;s lawyer. He follows up on this logic, about how the parents can supposedly just go to a private school. He begins by talking from the perspective of one of these parents:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="009 alito, too bad" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hgRo17KtvU8?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;
This is what it looks like in the Supreme Court when &#8220;sparks fly,&#8221; so to speak. Alito is making his disdain for the school district&#8217;s argument extremely clear, which is exactly what he should do. They&#8217;re trying to force-feed gender ideology to children, and instead of owning it, they&#8217;re lying and telling the parents to pay more money to find a private school that won&#8217;t interfere with their religious liberties. But the Constitution doesn&#8217;t work that way. And it appears the Montgomery County school district, and school districts all over the country, are about to discover that.
This is not a close case. That&#8217;s why even the far-Left outlet Vox <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250422191725/https://www.vox.com/scotus/409921/supreme-court-dont-say-gay-mahmoud-taylor">reported</a>: 
<blockquote>The Supreme Court’s &#8216;Don’t Say Gay&#8217; argument went disastrously for public schools.</blockquote>
At the moment, the most likely outcome is that, when very young children are involved, parents will retain the right to opt out of curriculums involving gender ideology, or any other extreme ideology that conflicts with their established religion. Everyone can see this coming.
And just to underscore that, yesterday Randi Weingarten, the head of one of the largest teachers&#8217; unions in the country, went on Fox News. And she admitted, right away, that she wouldn&#8217;t read these books in the classroom. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="010 Randi" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/luc0jWbW_HA?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;
We all know that Randi Weingarten isn&#8217;t saying this because she believes it. She&#8217;s maybe the most calculating political operative in the country, after Nancy Pelosi. But Weingarten understands when the Left is overplaying its hand. She knows that they&#8217;re on the cusp of yet another crushing defeat in their efforts to indoctrinate children, and she&#8217;s trying to soften that blow when it inevitably comes.
Unfortunately for Weingarten, the truth is, there&#8217;s no way to accomplish that. Gender ideology and LGBT activists, as we&#8217;ve discussed many times, are now extremely unpopular. They have alienated the entire country, to the point that they may have cost Democrats the last election. The only way an ideology like this can survive is by targeting children before they&#8217;re able to develop their cognitive abilities. That&#8217;s their only viable play. And in a few short months, after this case is inevitably decided against the public school system of Montgomery County, it&#8217;ll be much, much harder for these people to accomplish that.

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

The Lawyers Promoting Child Indoctrination To SCOTUS Were Absolutely Humiliated

Books

Brett Kavanaugh

Children's Books

Elementary Schools

gender ideology

Ketanji Brown Jackson

LGBTQ

Matt Walsh

Neil Gorsuch

Opinion

Parents rights

Samuel Alito

SCOTUS

Virginia

The conservative majority on the Supreme Court indicated that it would side with parents who want the option of keeping their children away from LGBTQ-themed books in schools.
The justices offered their comments during <a href="https://www.c-span.org/event/public-affairs-event/supreme-court-hears-case-on-lgbtq-books-in-public-schools/432473" target="_blank" rel="noopener">oral arguments</a> in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, which revolves around parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, near Washington, D.C. In 2022, the county’s school board approved LGBTQ-themed books for its language arts curriculum. In 2023, the board refused parents the option of having their children excused from such instruction.
“One book describes the story of a girl attending her uncle’s same-sex wedding, for example, while another book, Pride Puppy, tells the story of a puppy that gets lost during a Pride parade,” <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-likely-to-rule-for-parental-opt-out-on-lgbtq-books-in-schools/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SCOTUSblog</a> noted.
A lower court ruled that the school board did not have to notify parents when the storybooks would be used, as such notification would have allowed parents to opt their children out of the curriculum. “A federal appeals court reasoned that on the ‘threadbare’ facts before it, the parents had not demonstrated that exposing their children to the storybooks compelled the parents to violate their religion,” SCOTUSBlog reported.
Eric Baxter, an attorney for the parents, told Justice Clarence Thomas that teachers were required to use the books and the school board suggested they do so five times in the school year. Justice Samuel Alito bluntly stated the county’s policy permitted schools to teach children moral principles that were “highly objectionable to parents and they can’t opt out,” and asked simply, “What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?” while pointing out that students could opt out of health classes.
Meanwhile, the defendants’ attorney argued there was a difference between “exposure” and “coercion.” Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch contended that the presentation of the curriculum was more than just exposing children to the ideas, making coercion a possibility. Gorsuch asked the attorney for the school board, “The exposure versus coercion line that you ask us to draw, how does that play out in the case of the Mohammed image for the Muslim student?”
“In those circumstances, the school is coercing the individual to act contrary to a religious belief,” the attorney replied.
“Just being exposed to the image? The exposure there is coercion, in your view?” Gorsuch asked.
“I think it’s the difference between exposure to ideas and activity that coerces you to engage in conduct that is in violation of your belief,” the attorney answered.
“So the idea is the image of the prophet?” Gorsuch asked. “So it’s the image that makes the difference, rather than an idea?”
“I think it’s conduct that makes the difference. &#8230; So if there were a book that described someone making an image of the prophet Mohammed, I don’t think the parent would have the ability to object, even given the religious prohibition at issue, on simply being exposed to the idea that people might depict the image of Mohammed. Being required to view the image of the prophet Mohammed in contravention of a religious objection, is being required to engage in conduct,” the attorney replied.
“The child is sitting passively and the teacher’s just reading a storybook,” Gorsuch pointed out, prompting the attorney to admit, “I think if the storybook features the depiction of the prophet Mohammed, that is a compulsion to engage in conduct that violates your religious belief.”
Gorsuch pointed out, “You say this is only about exposure, but we also have in the records some guidance materials for teachers, one of which is if a students says that a boy says a boy can’t be a girl because if he was born a boy, a teacher is to respond, ‘That comment is hurtful, and we shouldn’t use negative words to talk about people’s identities.’ Is that exposure, or is that something else for a 3 to 5-year-old?”
Chief Justice John Roberts declared that even if the school did not require students “to affirm what is being taught in books or lessons,” that may not be “a realistic concept for a five-year-old.”
Meanwhile, leftist Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson “asked how far the parents’ rule would extend. For example, she inquired, could a parent ask to have her child not placed in a classroom with a gay teacher who has pictures of her same-sex wedding in the classroom?” SCOTUSblog reported.

Preschool children playing with colorful shapes

SCOTUS Hints It Will Side With Parents Who Want Opt-Out For Kids Exposed To LGBT Materials

U.S.

President Donald Trump said Tuesday that it would be impossible to give a trial to each one of the millions of migrants who illegally entered the country under former President Joe Biden, adding that he hoped he would get cooperation from the courts for his mass deportation plans.
Trump said that he won the election on his promises to deport illegal migrants and that the country would be very &#8220;dangerous&#8221; if his administration were blocked from carrying out those deportations. Various federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scotus-blocks-trump-from-deporting-alleged-tren-de-aragua-gang-members" target="_blank" rel="noopener">bogged down</a> the administration&#8217;s efforts to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected gang members.
“We’re getting them out. I hope we get cooperation from the courts, because we have thousands of people that are ready to go out and you can’t have a trial for all of these people,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “It wasn’t meant. The system wasn’t meant. And we don’t think there’s anything that says that.”
“A judge can’t say, ‘You know, you have to have a trial.’ The trial is going to take two years,&#8221; Trump added. &#8220;No, we’re going to have a very dangerous country if we’re not allowed to do what we&#8217;re entitled to do. And I won an election based on the fact that we get them out.” 
Trump also said that there was &#8220;virtually&#8221; no one crossing the border illegally under his watch, stating that the border was &#8220;a tad stronger&#8221; than it was during his first term in office.
The comments come after Trump made multiple posts on Truth Social talking about how long it would take to give a trial to the more than 10 million illegal migrants in the United States.
&#8220;How can Biden let Millions of Criminals into our Country, totally unchecked and unvetted, with no Legal authority to do so, yet I, in order to make up for this assault to our Nation, am expected to go through a lengthy Legal process, separately, for each and every Criminal Alien. As usual, TWO DIFFERENT STANDARDS, only leading to the Complete and Total Destruction of the U.S.A,&#8221; Trump <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114378317437182332" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>.
In a second post, he said it would take 200 years to give trials to everyone.
&#8220;If we don’t get these criminals out of our Country, we are not going to have a Country any longer. We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years,&#8221; he <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114377993807616549" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. &#8220;We would need hundreds of thousands of trials for the hundreds of thousands of Illegals we are sending out of the Country.&#8221;
The Trump administration has been locked in a battle with the courts on numerous immigration actions, including the deportation of suspected MS-13 member Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to his home country of El Salvador. A federal judge has ordered that Garcia be returned to the United States due to an &#8220;administrative error,&#8221; but the Trump administration has so far resisted these orders. The Supreme Court has also limited immigration enforcement, blocking the administration from deporting alleged Tren de Aragua members to Venezuela.

US-POLITICS-ECONOMY-MARKETS-SECURITIES

Trump: Illegal Migrants Let In By Biden Should Not Get Trials Before Deportation

Deportations

Executive

Illegal Immigation

Joe Biden

Politics

President Trump’s signal policy — and the one that is working the best for him — is immigration.
Polling shows that President Trump&#8217;s immigration policy is highly popular. It&#8217;s not just because Americans are sick and tired of the open borders policy of the Biden administration. It&#8217;s also because Democrats continue to take the worst possible tack when it comes to this sort of stuff.
The tack they should be taking on immigration right now is that President Trump is right to close the border, that he is correct to unleash ICE, to go find criminal illegal immigrants and deport them — but we need to obey the law.
That would be the intelligent approach to this particular issue. But Democrats have decided that the smart approach is to shove their heads directly up their own a**es. What that means is that they are instead going out of their way to praise MS-13 members and suggest that President Trump is wrong to try and deport all of those people.
This led to the awkward situation of absolute dolt Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland — who has the IQ of a turnip — going down to El Salvador to meet with a man named Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who is a suspected MS-13 member and whose wife accused him of allegedly beating her.
Garcia was deported to El Salvador, but the Trump DOJ said it was a processing issue mistake. Thus, Democrats should have said, “Listen, everyone deserves due process. If you are here on a green card, you deserve whatever the due process is for a green card holder. If you are here as an illegal immigrant, you deserve whatever due process is available to you under the law. Due process shouldn&#8217;t be violated; it&#8217;s sacrosanct in the United States.”
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2183-pope-francis-dead-what-comes-next-member-exclusive?elementPosition=2&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
That&#8217;s the argument they should have made. Instead, because they have an internal emotional necessity to valorize people who are “victims” of the Trump administration, they&#8217;ve decided to treat people who are actually quite bad with Sympathy. This led to the awkward spectacle of Chris Van Hollen being asked if the person he visited down in El Salvador and had drinks with was a member of MS-13.
And he couldn’t answer the question.
“What Donald Trump is trying to do here is change the subject,” Van Hollen <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/tv/van-hollen-deflects-twice-after-cnns-dana-bash-asks-point-blank-if-abrego-garcia-is-a-member-of-ms-13/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told CNN’s Dana Bash</a>. “The subject at hand is that he and his administration are defying a court order to give Abrego Garcia his due process rights. They are trying to litigate on social media what they should be doing in the courts. They need to put up or shut up in the courts.”
“But since you were the one person to have met with him and since this is a thing, you say, on social media, it&#8217;s what we hear from Donald Trump and Republicans every day all day long, you didn&#8217;t ask him?” Bash asked.
“I didn&#8217;t ask him that because I know what his answer is,” Van Hollen answered. “What he told me was he was sad and traumatized that he was being imprisoned because he has committed no crimes.”
“Sad and traumatized,” says the likely MS-13 member. You can see Van Hollen trying to backtrack and turn it into a due process argument, which is a better argument for Democrats. 
The Supreme Court, over the course of the last 72 hours, handed out <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/19/politics/supreme-court-alien-enemies-act-order/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an order</a> for the Trump administration to respond to an emergency appeal and stated, “The government is directed not to remove any members of the putative class detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.”
Those would be the people being detained under the so-called Alien Enemies Act, which is an 18th-century law designed to allow the expeditious removal of people who are declared wartime enemies by the executive branch of the government.
There was <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_22p3.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a dissent</a> by Justices Alito and Justice Thomas, saying:
<blockquote>Shortly after midnight yesterday, the Court hastily and prematurely granted unprecedented emergency relief. &#8230; Although the order does not define the “putative class,” it appears the Court means all members of the class that the habeas petitioners sought to have certified, namely “all non-citizens in custody in the Northern District of Texas who were, are, or would be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua and/or its implementation.</blockquote>
Alito and Thomas criticized the Court for doing all this by saying that even though it&#8217;s not clear the court had jurisdiction, it&#8217;s questionable whether the applicants complied with their obligation to seek emergency injunctive relief in the district court, and that the Court of Appeals is already considering the issue of emergency relief.
They wrote:
<blockquote>The papers before us, while alleging that the applicants were in imminent danger of removal, provided little concrete support for that allegation. …In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order. I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate. </blockquote>
I think what the rest of the Court would say is, “We wouldn&#8217;t think that was necessary or appropriate either, except for the fact that we&#8217;ve now had situations in which the Trump administration has allegedly ignored the orders of lower courts not to do a deportation and, instead, went ahead with the deportation.”
That&#8217;s the argument being made on the other side of the aisle.
One of the things that should become clear to Republicans at this point is that doing things in meticulous fashion is likely to lead to longer-lasting victories than doing them as one-offs and in quick fashion. That’s because, when it comes to morality, the Trump administration is not only correct, they are unbelievably correct.
Tom Homan, our bulldog border czar, slammed Van Hollen for his sympathy for MS-13 members, <a href="https://grabien.com/story?id=523850" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying</a>, “What shocks me is that he’s remained silent on the travesty that happened on our southern border. Many people die. Thousands of people die. I met with hundreds of angel moms and dads who buried their children that were murdered by an illegal alien. How many angel moms and dads has he met in the state of Maryland? That&#8217;s what concerns me.”
When it comes to the politics of immigration, Republicans are absolutely right.
But, in addition, if they practice the law correctly, they’ll have longer-lasting victories, because otherwise many of the things they are trying to do might get reversed on appeal, and that would be bad for the Trump administration.
I&#8217;m rooting for the Trump administration to do everything correctly so its policies work to their utmost.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen Meets With Wrongly Imprisoned Man Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia in El Salvador

Deportation, Due Process, And Democrat Delusions

Ben Shapiro

Democrats

Due Process

El Salvador

Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Maryland

U.S. Senate

In 2007, when Hillary Clinton was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/us/politics/26DEBATE-TRANSCRIPT.html">asked</a> in a Democratic primary debate whether she would be comfortable having “King and King” — a children’s picture book about a prince who marries another man — read to her second-grade child as part of the school curriculum, she responded that it was a “matter of parental discretion.”
It’s remarkable how far off the deep end the Left has gone in just a few short years.
This week, the Supreme Court will <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalApril2025.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hear a case</a> brought by a group of parents claiming what Clinton argued years ago: Parents should be able to decide whether or not their children read LGBTQ storybooks at school.
Oral arguments will be heard for the parental rights case Mahmoud v. Taylor, which <a href="https://becketfund.org/media/religious-parents-ask-supreme-court-to-restore-opt-outs-for-pride-storybooks/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">originated</a> when the Montgomery County Board of Education introduced LGBTQ storybooks to the elementary school curriculum and revoked its existing parental notice and opt-out policies. Muslim, Jewish, and Christian parents challenged the school district’s ban on elementary school opt-outs on the grounds that the policy burdened their constitutional right to free exercise of religion.
The diverse coalition of parents isn’t asking the school district to remove the LGBTQ storybooks from classrooms. They simply want the option to remove their children from the classroom when content is taught that conflicts with their religious beliefs. Parents are the primary educators of their children, and that vocation doesn’t stop when kids begin to attend school.
The board of education added storybooks that introduce gender ideology and sexuality to children as young as three or four years old. These storybooks are transparently part of an activist push to introduce children to same-sex relationships, transgender ideology, and LGBTQ vocabulary at a startlingly young age.
“Born Ready” features a female main character who repeatedly claims, “Inside, I’m a boy,” and whose parents immediately start treating her like a boy. “Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love,” Penelope’s mom tells her confused older brother. The book’s author, Jodie Patterson, serves on the board of the Human Rights Campaign, a radical LGBTQ advocacy group.
Another book in the Montgomery County curriculum, <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/wu2be63z1cfa0jg6fq3je/APiCjohPQCCnkdX6jXcrOIE/Book%20Covers%20%2B%20Pages/Storybooks%20(Full%20text)?dl=0&amp;e=3&amp;rlkey=te8vom170eoxvb57ivge6ecue&amp;subfolder_nav_tracking=1">titled</a> “My Rainbow,” is about a transgender-identifying boy’s desire to have long hair to fit in with “cisgender girls.” Trinity Neal, a transgender-identifying boy, and his mother, DeShanna, a nonbinary activist, wrote the story based on their experiences. DeShanna <a href="https://history.delaware.gov/lgbtq/my-rainbow-and-trinity-neals-rainbow-wig/">advocated</a> for Medicaid coverage of Trinity’s puberty blockers, resulting in the first Medicaid coverage of transgender medical procedures in their home state of Delaware. Subsequently, Trinity <a href="https://history.delaware.gov/lgbtq/my-rainbow-and-trinity-neals-rainbow-wig/">became</a> the first minor in the state to change his birth certificate’s gender marker from male to female.
“Jacob’s Room to Choose,” about a cross-dressing boy whose school accommodates him by abolishing gendered bathrooms, was <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/wu2be63z1cfa0jg6fq3je/APiCjohPQCCnkdX6jXcrOIE/Book%20Covers%20%2B%20Pages/Storybooks%20(Full%20text)?dl=0&amp;e=3&amp;rlkey=te8vom170eoxvb57ivge6ecue&amp;subfolder_nav_tracking=1">published</a> through the American Psychological Association’s children’s book imprint. APA has prominently <a href="https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2024/02/policy-supporting-transgender-nonbinary#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAPA%20also%20affirms%20the%20essential,appropriate%20youth%20self%2Dadvocacy.%E2%80%9D" target="_blank" rel="noopener">supported</a> transgender medical procedures for minors and advocated for so-called “gender-affirming care.”
The other books at the heart of Mahmoud v. Taylor are similarly written at an elementary school reading level but focus on complex adult topics of sexuality and gender identity. “Love, Violet” <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/wu2be63z1cfa0jg6fq3je/APiCjohPQCCnkdX6jXcrOIE/Book%20Covers%20%2B%20Pages/Storybooks%20(Full%20text)?dl=0&amp;e=3&amp;rlkey=te8vom170eoxvb57ivge6ecue&amp;subfolder_nav_tracking=1">focuses</a> on a same-sex relationship between elementary school classmates. “Pride Puppy” <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/wu2be63z1cfa0jg6fq3je/APiCjohPQCCnkdX6jXcrOIE/Book%20Covers%20%2B%20Pages/Storybooks%20(Full%20text)?dl=0&amp;e=3&amp;rlkey=te8vom170eoxvb57ivge6ecue&amp;subfolder_nav_tracking=1">instructs</a> readers to identify leather, underwear, a lip ring, an intersex flag, and a drag king in its illustrations.
“What Are Your Words?” <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/wu2be63z1cfa0jg6fq3je/APiCjohPQCCnkdX6jXcrOIE/Book%20Covers%20%2B%20Pages/Storybooks%20(Full%20text)?dl=0&amp;e=3&amp;rlkey=te8vom170eoxvb57ivge6ecue&amp;subfolder_nav_tracking=1">encourages</a> kids to change their pronouns, promoting confusing pairs like “ey/em,” “ze/zir,” and “xe/xir,” and using they/them pronouns to refer to individuals in the story. And “Intersection Allies,” another book <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/wu2be63z1cfa0jg6fq3je/APiCjohPQCCnkdX6jXcrOIE/Book%20Covers%20%2B%20Pages/Storybooks%20(Full%20text)?dl=0&amp;e=3&amp;rlkey=te8vom170eoxvb57ivge6ecue&amp;subfolder_nav_tracking=1">featured</a> in the case, includes a foreword by critical race theorist and activist Kimberle Crenshaw.
These storybooks are examples of radical propaganda written by progressive activists to shape the hearts and minds of the next generation. Kids may not know better than to believe what they’re taught, but American adults aren’t so convinced by these woke storybooks. Only 3% of Americans <a href="https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/20250115160612/Religious-Freedom-Index-2024-Report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">believe</a> that instruction on human sexuality and gender identity is appropriate for pre-K or kindergarten-aged children. And 77% of Americans <a href="https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/20250115160612/Religious-Freedom-Index-2024-Report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">believe</a> that parents should be able to opt their children out of gender and sexuality instruction.
Just a few years ago, I pulled my children out of Fairfax County Schools because of the progressive garbage they were being exposed to in their classrooms on a daily basis. My family is not alone. There is a large movement of parents who have made the same decision we have, but not every family is in a position to do so. Parents should undoubtedly have the right to opt their children out of reading these radical activist storybooks: Children are not wards of the state.
When public schools add storybooks that teach gender ideology as truth, the state has violated the right of parents to raise their children in their religious tradition, along with teaching them the corresponding religious beliefs about gender, human sexuality, and the meaning of marriage.
The government has no business mandating that elementary students learn radical gender ideology. Fortunately, parents will do whatever it takes to protect their children and exercise their parental rights — even if it means taking the case to the Supreme Court.
* * *
Terry Schilling is a parental rights advocate and president of the American Principles Project.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Mixed race teacher reading to class

Will SCOTUS Back Parents When It Comes To LGBTQ Storybooks?

Children

Gender

Parental Rights in Education

Parenting

Public Schools

Schools

The United States Supreme Court early Saturday morning blocked President Donald Trump from deporting illegal Venezuelan immigrants who are suspected of being in the brutal gang Tren de Aragua.
Trump promised during his campaign to deport criminal illegal aliens, and has invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to help fulfill that promise. The high court, though, sided with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), arguing that the administration did not give the suspected gang members proper notice.
&#8220;Without this Court&#8217;s intervention, dozens or hundreds of proposed class members may be removed to a possible life sentence in El Salvador with no real opportunity to contest their designation or removal,&#8221; the suit from the ACLU said.
&#8220;The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court,&#8221; the court wrote.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were the only two judges to dissent from the majority opinion.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czd3rdjn81lo" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> that Trump could use the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members, but said potential deportees must be given a chance to challenge such removal.
The ACLU claims the illegals, who are being detained in Texas, were given notices about their deportation in English, despite one detainee only speaking Spanish, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czd3rdjn81lo" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to a BBC report. The challenge also said the suspected gang members hadn&#8217;t been told about their right to contest the decision in court.
The Trump administration says it has already deported 137 suspected Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.
The Supreme Court ruled on April 7 that Trump could use the act for such deportations, if he gives proper notice. The case landed at 5-4, with all but Justice Amy Coney Barrett from the court’s conservative wing ruling in the majority. Barrett partially dissented from the majority. The court’s three liberal justices dissented together, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-venezuelan-deportations.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The New York Times</a>.
The order reversed a lower court ruling from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. Boasberg temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing the <a href="https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter3&amp;edition=prelim" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alien Enemies Act</a> in a case involving five Venezuelan nationals, as well as on anyone else who may be affected.
Tim Pearce contributed to this report.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gop-leaders-deny-taxpayer-money-for-dems-to-make-el-salvador-prison-trip?author=Daniel+Chaitin&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=GOP+Leaders+Deny+Taxpayer+Money+For+Dems+To+Make+El+Salvador+Prison+Trip" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GOP Leaders Deny Taxpayer Money For Dems To Make El Salvador Prison Trip</a>

US deports 17 gang-linked criminals in joint operation with El Salvador

SCOTUS Blocks Trump From Deporting Alleged Tren De Aragua Gang Members 

Supreme Court Blocks Trump From Deporting Alleged Tren De Aragua Gang Members 

Illegal Immigration

Tren De Aragua

Trump Administration

The Supreme Court announced on Thursday it will hear arguments next month on whether judges overstepped by blocking President Donald Trump&#8217;s birthright citizenship policy with sweeping nationwide injunctions.
The high court will <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041725zr1_4gd5.pdf">hear</a> arguments on May 15 on whether judges overstepped their authority in issuing sweeping nationwide injunctions, but opted to delay addressing the legal merits of Trump&#8217;s birthright citizenship plan, which remains blocked while litigation continues.
Then-acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, with the backing of 21 other states, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/justices-will-hear-arguments-on-trumps-effort-to-end-birthright-citizenship/">asserted</a> in court papers that judges lack the authority to issue nationwide injunctions and that the suing states have no legal standing.
Harris argued that the far-reaching injunctions “transgress constitutional limits on courts’ powers” and “compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions.”
She urged the justices to “declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched.”
Trump’s January executive order seeks to grant citizenship only to children born with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
The order was immediately <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-hear-oral-arguments-whether-trump-can-implement-birthrig-rcna199498">challenged</a> in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state, with courts consistently blocking its implementation on the basis that it violated the 14th Amendment, per NBC News.
Central to the dispute is the 14th Amendment&#8217;s text: &#8220;All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.&#8221;
The traditional interpretation has granted citizenship to virtually everyone born on United States soil except children of diplomats.
However, the Trump administration <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-hear-trump-bid-enforce-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-04-17/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">contends</a> the phrase &#8220;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&#8221; creates a narrower scope for birthright citizenship than previously recognized.
They argue that this clause excludes children born to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas, asserting that such individuals are not fully subject to United States jurisdiction.
The 21 states supporting Trump&#8217;s policy include Texas, Florida, and Georgia, which argue that unlimited birthright citizenship creates incentives for illegal immigration and places financial burdens on their resources.
The administration argues that nationwide injunctions allow a single district judge to effectively veto presidential actions, pointing out that such injunctions have been used to derail the agendas of presidential administrations regardless of party.
If the Supreme Court rules in Trump&#8217;s favor on the injunction question, the administration could implement the policy in states that haven&#8217;t secured injunctions while litigation on the underlying constitutional question continues, according to NBC News.
The high court&#8217;s decision on nationwide injunctions could have implications far beyond immigration policy, potentially affecting how future presidential administrations implement controversial executive actions across numerous policy areas.

The Supreme Court of the United States

SCOTUS To Hear Case On Judges Blocking Trump’s Plan To End Birthright Citizenship

birthright citizenship

The Trump administration is in the middle of a very hot fight with regard to a deported Salvadoran migrant, Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Abrego Garcia, an illegal immigrant, had a deportation order placed on him. Then there was a withholding order that suggested he could not be sent back to El Salvador because Abrego Garcia claimed he feared for his life, that he would be killed in El Salvador because he&#8217;s a Salvadoran migrant with possible gang ties.
The court said the executive branch of the United States government had good cause to believe that Abrego Garcia might be a member of MS-13, a gang that President Trump has declared a terrorist organization.
Therefore, due to the withholding order, Abrego Garcia was not supposed to be on that plane, being deported back to El Salvador.
On April 4, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland directed the government to “facilitate and effectuate the return [of Abrego Garcia] to the United States.”
The Trump administration immediately filed an application to vacate the order.
The Supreme Court then ruled that the district court had the power to say that the United States government ought to “facilitate” his return to the United States, but they didn&#8217;t define the term “facilitate.” The Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf">order stated</a>:
<blockquote>The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. &#8230;
The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.</blockquote>
If that sounds vague, that’s because it&#8217;s incredibly vague. The government, under the Supreme Court order, apparently has a duty to “facilitate” his release from custody. But how exactly it&#8217;s effectuated, how that doesn&#8217;t infringe on the executive branch&#8217;s ability to perform deportations, is unclear.
That left the door open for the administration to claim, “When you say we need to ‘facilitate,’ we asked the Salvadorans and they said, ’No.’ So, I guess that&#8217;s us ‘facilitating.’”
The opposite case would be to basically demand that the Salvadoran government return this person to the United States, where he might get deported again.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2180-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=The+Ben+Shapiro+Show&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Carousel">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Things are getting very hot because the case has been remanded back to the district court for clarification. That very often happens. The higher court will say that a lower court needs to look at a case again and clarify what exactly it meant before the Supreme Court decides whether it was right or whether it was wrong.
Xinis has now called for the testimony of Trump administration officials who work for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security, and the State Department.
Many people across the political spectrum are saying Abrego Garcia deserves due process. And if you do the process wrong, and the court says you did the process wrong, you do actually have to facilitate his release back to the United States, not into the general population, but back to the authorities of the United States for more due process so they can check the boxes. Then the guy can be deported again.
Vice President Vance is taking the position that the administration is totally right not to facilitate due process in this particular case, essentially due to hardship.
Two things can be true at the same time: The Federal government should deport anybody who&#8217;s connected with MS-13, anybody who does not have American citizenship, who&#8217;s engaged in sympathy for anti-American views, or engages in action that is anti-American.
At the same time, there should be due process. Because if due process can be curbed for noncitizens, then due process could conceivably be curbed for citizens as well.
The question here is whether this legal fight is the fight that the administration wants to have.
It would be easy to tell the Salvadoran president to return Abrego Garcia, give him his day in court, and ship him out again. But the administration and the entire political Right have been conditioned to take the view that even admitting a mistake or doing a course-correction is a sign of weakness. That makes sense because the legacy media are willing to attack the Trump administration on any basis.
But sometimes it is better to just do the quick and easy thing and then move on to the actual priorities. In this case, it’s vital because with regard to immigration, there are important priorities.
The administration can take a legally dicey position and a politically popular position at the same time. Those two things can live in perfect harmony. Legally dicey and politically popular are constant aspects of many of the policy decisions made by leaders on both sides.
It&#8217;s a political winner for the Trump administration to say, “We want to deport illegal immigrants,” and force the Democrats into the position of defending illegal alien gang members or suspected gang members. That is a politically winning position.
But if you&#8217;re setting up a precedent where you actually want to get things done, you should be doing things the right way because it&#8217;s faster and easier to do it the right way than it is to do it the wrong way and then fight it out in the courts every step of the way.
You can win legally. You can do the right legal thing, which continues to give people the assurance that due process is carried out, gives the courts the assurance that due process is carried out, and also win the political fight.
One of the reasons I say the Trump administration should get out of its own way is that, legally, more pressing issues are occurring on the immigration front.
According to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/04/15/doge-ssa-immigration-trump-housing/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Washington Post</a>, “The Trump administration is using personal data normally protected from dissemination to find undocumented immigrants where they work, study and live, often with the goal of removing them from their housing and the workforce.”
This is good and necessary. Those are the big battles the Trump administration needs to win.
Fighting the due process considerations for Abrego Garcia should not take precedence over the rest of the Trump agenda on immigration.

President Trump Meets With El Salvador President Nayib Bukele At The White House

Immigration Fight: Will The Salvadoran Illegal Immigrant Return?

gangs

illegal immigrants

JD Vance

MS-13 Gang

President Trump

The United States and China continue their tariff war, the Supreme Court rules on several emergency requests, and El Salvador’s president is set to visit the White House.
It’s Monday, April 14, and this is the news you need to know to start your week. 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/china-escalates-trade-war-trump-scotus-victories-4-14-25/id1576594336?i=1000703434916" 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>Trade Negotiations Continue</h2>
<div id="attachment_902939" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-902939" class="size-large wp-image-902939" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-2208185431-864x576.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 02: U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during a “Make America Wealthy Again” trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025 in Washington, DC. Touting the event as “Liberation Day”, Trump is expected to announce additional tariffs targeting goods imported to the U.S." width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-2208185431-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-2208185431-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-2208185431-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-2208185431.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)</div>
Topline:  President Donald Trump will host a number of foreign leaders for trade negotiations this week as Congress prepares to pass a crucial spending package. Meanwhile, China has cut off shipments of rare earth minerals and magnets after Trump paused most tariffs for everyone but them.
Beijing predictably responded by raising its own tariffs on U.S. goods from 84% to 125%. The communist nation went a step further Sunday, halting the export of rare earth minerals and magnets.
For context, China produces upwards of 60% of the world’s rare earth minerals and 90% of all rare earth magnets, which are crucial for high-tech chips, semiconductors, batteries, and car manufacturing. That pause could have significant impacts on the American auto and tech industries. The White House says the fact that America is so reliant on Chinese products shows how crucial it is to increase American manufacturing and form stronger trade alliances elsewhere. 
Stateside, President Trump made big news over the weekend, announcing that electronics like smartphones and laptops will temporarily be exempt from tariffs. That’s a major relief to tech giants like Apple, Nvidia and Microsoft. The White House said those exemptions would be temporary — presumably, they’re sending a message to Beijing that they better make a deal before they become permanent. 
Public Perception: A <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-trump-tariffs-13-04-2025/">CBS</a> poll this weekend showed that just 42% of Americans favor tariffs on imported goods, compared to 58% who oppose them, while Trump&#8217;s approval rating on the economy fell to 44%. Similarly, the University of Michigan’s closely watched <a href="https://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/">Consumer Sentiment Index</a> fell 11% to its lowest point since the COVID lockdowns. Americans cited the potential for rising inflation and unemployment as their biggest areas of concern.
In better news for the president, that same CBS poll found that nearly 60% of Americans believe Trump is using tariffs as a negotiating tool — so that message seems to have gotten through. <a href="https://x.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1910714949418045563?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">Quinnipiac</a> found that Republicans and Democrats are now tied on the question of “Which party cares more for the needs of people like you.” For decades, Democrats have had a massive, oftentimes twenty-point lead on that question. It now appears that more and more Americans view Republicans as caring about the needs of average people. That is a generational shift indicative of where Trump is taking the party economically. 
&nbsp;
<h2>Supreme Court Scoreboard</h2>
<div id="attachment_907193" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-907193" class="size-large wp-image-907193" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/SCOTUS-Facade-1-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/SCOTUS-Facade-1-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/SCOTUS-Facade-1-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/SCOTUS-Facade-1-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/SCOTUS-Facade-1-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/SCOTUS-Facade-1-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/SCOTUS-Facade-1-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/SCOTUS-Facade-1-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />(Al Drago/Getty Images)</div>
Topline: The Supreme Court weighs several of Trump’s executive actions. How is his agenda faring – and what’s next on the docket? 
The Trump administration is at the center of several high-stakes battles before the Supreme Court. The rulings are testing the limits of executive power on issues ranging from deportations to federal regulations. At this point, SCOTUS has ruled on six emergency applications, and thus far, the president is faring well. 
One of the most significant rulings we’ve seen has been on the Alien Enemies Act. It’s a somewhat unique legal case where both sides—the Trump administration and the ACLU—are claiming victory. The administration argued that Venezuelan gangs like Tren de Aragua pose such a national security threat, and under the authority of that 1798 Act, they can remove alleged gang members rapidly, without hearings, because they’re not U.S. citizens. Last week, SCOTUS lifted a lower judge’s block on those deportations, but it did add some guardrails. Detainees must now receive notice and due process. 
In addition, the Supreme Court also overturned a lower court decision ordering Trump to rehire 16,000 probationary federal employees. In a 7-2 ruling, SCOTUS found the organizations suing lacked standing since individual workers weren’t part of the lawsuit.
On the Docket: Next week, the court will hear arguments regarding the president&#8217;s claim of immunity from prosecution over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. There are also challenges to executive orders on birthright citizenship and federal funding cuts in the pipeline. But so far, the court has been notably restrained. Many analysts are pointing out that Chief Justice Roberts is steering the court toward narrow, technical rulings to avoid blockbuster showdowns with Trump.
&nbsp;
<h2>Bukele Visits the White House</h2>
<div id="attachment_907027" style="width: 875px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-907027" class="size-large wp-image-907027" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1171054018-865x576.jpg" alt="US President Donald Trump and President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador shake hands as they hold a meeting in New York, on September 25, 2019, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)" width="865" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1171054018-865x576.jpg 865w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1171054018-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1171054018-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GettyImages-1171054018.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 865px) 100vw, 865px" />(SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)</div>
Topline:  President Trump is set to welcome El Salvador’s president to the White House on Monday – after what Trump’s calling a “model” deal to deport alleged violent gang members.
The president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, arrived in Washington, D.C. on Sunday. The administration has worked closely with the Salvadoran leader on immigration and the detainment of suspected foreign gang members. The United States has sent about 250 illegal immigrants with suspected gang ties to a high-security prison in El Salvador. The two leaders have been on remarkably positive terms; White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the relationship has “become a model for others to work with” the Trump administration.
“I think [Bukele]&#8217;s doing a fantastic job and taking care of a lot of problems that we really wouldn’t be able to take care of from a cost standpoint,” Trump <a href="https://x.com/Karla_veron1/status/1911444833874424126">told</a> reporters over the weekend.
In addition to immigration, trade may also be on the agenda. Trump and Bukele haven’t mentioned this publicly, but El Salvador is technically under a blanket 10% tariff that Trump put into place last week. Roughly a third of El Salvador’s exports are sent to the United States, meaning the impact of the tariff on their economy could be significant.
&nbsp;

Trump-greets-Jordan-King-and-Crown-Prince-at-White-House

Morning Brief: China Escalates Trade War, SCOTUS Scoreboard & Trump Hosts Bukele

Menu