NBC News gave viewers a trigger warning on Tuesday before quoting the phrases &#8220;biological male&#8221; and &#8220;biological female&#8221; from the Supreme Court&#8217;s landmark transgender athlete ruling.
A majority of the justices ruled that states have the constitutional power to ban men from women’s sports, dealing another blow to the transgender movement. 
“Just a quick note here. The terms that we’re using here during our reporting, biological male, biological female, the high court put those terms in quotations in their decision and their dissent,” NBC News anchor Craig Melvin said.
“But just so you know, we’re using those terms from the decision itself, biological male, biological female,” he added. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
Liberal media corporation NBC warns its viewers that they are reading quotes from the Supreme Court majority ruling that states can ban male participation in competitive female sports in schools and universities. Leftists find “biological male” triggering. <a href="https://t.co/lx1j7cA7L4">pic.twitter.com/lx1j7cA7L4</a>
— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) <a href="https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2072003498158309814?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2026</a></blockquote>
The network’s White House correspondent, Kelly O’Donnell, downplayed the political salience of the issue, <a href="https://x.com/CurtisHouck/status/2071988378023731485?s=20">saying</a>, “the numbers of transgender athletes &#8230; is a very small pool, in many ways.” 
NBC was not the only network to frame the ruling sympathetically toward transgender-identifying athletes. Over on ABC, the network&#8217;s Supreme Court reporter, <a href="https://x.com/CurtisHouck/status/2071973340399407287?s=20">Devin Dwyer</a>, praised the transgender-identifying plaintiffs, saying they “bravely brought this case” and said the high court’s ruling reflected  “a blow” to transgender-identifying people everywhere &#8220;on this last day of Pride Month.&#8221; 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
WATCH: ABC News is very sad about the Supreme Court keeping biological men out of women’s sports, denying trans kids who “bravely brought this case” and “a blow” to trans people everywhere “on this last day of Pride Month”&#8230; <a href="https://t.co/CRIsKmOIvM">pic.twitter.com/CRIsKmOIvM</a>
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) <a href="https://x.com/CurtisHouck/status/2071973340399407287?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2026</a></blockquote>
ABC’s Mary Bruce shifted the focus to President Donald Trump, <a href="https://x.com/CurtisHouck/status/2071973644155150824?s=20">saying</a>, “rarely does a day go by here at the White House when the president doesn’t rail against the participation of transgender female athletes in girls and women’s sports.”
In a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-43_2b35.pdf">ruling</a> authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and joined by the other conservative justices, the Supreme Court held that Title IX  allows schools to determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with parts of the majority opinion and dissented on other parts.
“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.”
In a solo concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas went a step further.
&#8220;Men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe they are,&#8221; he wrote.
The landmark decision centered on laws passed by Idaho and West Virginia restricting transgender-identifying athletes from competing in female athletics. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/13/us/politics/state-restrictions-trans-athletes-school-sports.html">More than half the states</a> have enacted similar laws to protect female sports and locker rooms. The justices upheld those bans and left for another day the question of whether Title IX requires states to prohibit transgender-identifying athletes from competing against women.
Beyond the screens of mainstream media, Tuesday’s ruling did not sit well with leftist politicians, including California state Sen. Scott Weiner, who is running to succeed Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in November. 
“In upholding trans sports bans, the Supreme Court has once again fueled the campaign to erase and dehumanize trans people,” Weiner said on social media. “And the way the Court wrote the decision opens the door for other efforts to eliminate trans people from public life.”
Back in DC, Tuesday’s ruling represents a momentous victory for the Trump administration, which issued an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/keeping-men-out-of-womens-sports/">executive order</a> in February 2025 directing the federal government to strip funding from schools that allow transgender-identifying students to compete in female athletics, calling the practice “demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls.”
“BIG WIN: The United States Supreme Court just RULED AGAINST MEN PLAYING IN WOMEN’S SPORTS,” Trump celebrated on <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116839596876971289">Truth Social.</a> “Wow! That takes that ridiculous situation off the table!!!

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

NBC News Issues Trigger Warning Before Quoting ‘Biological Male’ In Trans Ruling

ABC News

Legacy Media

Media

NBC News

Politics

Supreme Court

Transgender

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump celebrated a massive Supreme Court ruling on men in women&#8217;s sports on Tuesday, heralding the landmark decision as a &#8220;BIG WIN.&#8221;
The president reacted to news Tuesday morning that the Supreme Court had ruled that states have the power to ban men from women&#8217;s sports.
&#8220;BIG WIN,&#8221; he posted on Truth Social. &#8220;The United States Supreme Court just RULED AGAINST MEN PLAYING IN WOMEN’S SPORTS.&#8221;
&#8220;Wow,&#8221; he added. &#8220;That takes that ridiculous situation off the table!!!&#8221;
That post is reminiscent of the president&#8217;s messaging throughout his 2024 campaign cycle, during which he <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-trump-learned-to-embrace-the-transgender-culture-wars">repeatedly reminded the public</a> that gender ideology and the movements advocates were &#8220;crazy&#8221; and out of touch with American sentiment.
Trump has long promised to remove men from women&#8217;s sports, pouring millions into television ads during the campaign cycle that highlighted Kamala Harris’s promotion of far-left policies, including taxpayer-funded transgender surgeries for illegal immigrants and federal prisoners.
The Daily Wire reported shortly before the election that transgenderism had become &#8220;the 2024 sleeper issue,&#8221; and the president had harnessed that momentum.
&nbsp;
<div id="attachment_1125991" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-trans-ruling-fulfills-trumps-campaign-promise/president-trump-signs-no-men-in-womens-sports-executive-order-6" rel="attachment wp-att-1125991"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1125991" class="wp-image-1125991 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-2197854021-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-2197854021-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-2197854021-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-2197854021-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-2197854021.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" /></a>(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)</div>
Activists and operatives close to Trump world said that the events of the four years leading up to the election, including the grassroots uprising of parents against ideology in schools, the Loudoun County, Virginia, sexual assault of a young girl by a trans-identifying student, and the emergence of fighters like former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines — all these incidents convinced Trump that he needed to be at the forefront of the transgender culture war.
Trump messaged throughout his campaign that Harris and the Democrats were pushing dangerous ideology that Americans didn’t want, arguing repeatedly that the far-Left policies of the Democratic Party were “crazy.” Those assertions were based on polling, both internal and external, showing that Americans don’t want these radical transgender policies.
That messaging <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-exposed-kamalas-radical-stances-on-gender-americans-voted-against-it">paid off when Americans voted</a> against Harris — and for Trump — in the 2024 election.
Shortly after he took office, Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/president-trump-to-sign-executive-to-keep-men-out-of-womens-sports">signed an executive order</a> banning men from women&#8217;s sports, surrounded by advocates who fought against gender ideology and for the preservation of women’s spaces, including activist Riley Gaines.
“We are fighting for the bare minimum here,” Gaines <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/fighting-for-the-bare-minimum-riley-gaines-speaks-out-before-scotus-trans-case">said</a> ahead of the Supreme Court ruling. “Can we allow ourselves to be vulnerable in an intimate area of undressing such as a locker room without having to fear a man walking into that space? Can we do those things?”
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the opinion in Tuesday&#8217;s ruling, stating that Title IX allows schools to determine eligibility for female sports teams based on biological sex. He was joined by the other conservative justices, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with a few parts of the majority opinion but dissented on others.
The decision specifically dealt with laws passed in Idaho and West Virginia banning males from female sports. More than half the states in the country have passed similar laws protecting the integrity of girls&#8217; sports and spaces. The Supreme Court upheld those laws Tuesday, though it left the question of whether Title IX requires states to ban trans-identifying athletes from competing against girls.
“They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex,” Kavanaugh wrote. “The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America.”

Donald Trump Campaigns For President In Georgia Ahead Of November Election

Supreme Court Trans Ruling Fulfills Trump’s Campaign Promise

Donald Trump

WASHINGTON — As reporters across the nation scrambled to publish multiple massive Supreme Court stories on Tuesday morning, one newsroom&#8217;s error brought the news cycle to a grinding halt.
NPR mistakenly published a story claiming that the famed Justice Samuel Alito was retiring, citing a Supreme Court announcement. Within minutes, the outlet clarified that this was an error and retracted the story. The Supreme Court quickly denied that Alito was retiring. But the story&#8217;s publication prompted Washington to wonder: Is Alito pondering retirement? And how soon would that retirement come?
The justice has already chosen his clerks for the next term, a person familiar with the matter told The Daily Wire. Alito&#8217;s clerks will include Marisa Sylvester, Zach Gluckow, and Bradley Larson. This doesn&#8217;t mean that the justice cannot retire; however, Alito&#8217;s clerks could be reassigned to other justices if he decided to leave.
Court watchers have pointed to possible signs that the justice may retire in the near future, including the legacy of the historic opinion he authored deciding the fate of Roe v. Wade, and his upcoming book, set to go on sale in October 2026 (the day after the court&#8217;s next term begins), <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/aging-us-supreme-court-justices-politics-retirement-looms-large-2026-04-11/">Reuters reports</a>.
But people close to Alito have suggested that he&#8217;s not yet ready to leave the Supreme Court. Neither is Justice Clarence Thomas, for that matter.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t see Thomas or Alito retiring this term,” a person close to Thomas told The Daily Wire.
<div id="attachment_1125855" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/will-justice-alito-actually-retire-heres-what-we-know/president-bush-swears-in-samuel-alito-at-white-house" rel="attachment wp-att-1125855"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1125855" class="wp-image-1125855 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-56724980.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="746" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-56724980.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-56724980-300x219.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-56724980-791x576.jpg 791w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-56724980-768x560.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>Samuel Alito (L) is sworn in as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court as his wife Martha-Ann Bomgardner holds a Bible during a ceremony in the East Room at the White House February 1, 2006, in Washington, DC. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)</div>
President Donald Trump addressed the matter in February, telling reporters, &#8220;I hope they&#8217;re going to be around a long time,&#8221; when asked about Thomas or Alito retiring. &#8220;I hope they&#8217;re going to stay healthy. They&#8217;re great people.&#8221;
If he did decide to retire while President Donald Trump is in office, Trump would choose Alito&#8217;s replacement. Trump&#8217;s past nominees to the court have prompted a firestorm from leftist activists and lawmakers, most notably over the appointment of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, who were seen as the tipping point in overturning Roe v. Wade.
&#8220;The window for Trump to nominate a Supreme Court justice, ​or any federal judge, with a friendly Republican Senate could be closing by the end of this year,&#8221; Bush-era DOJ lawyer John Yoo <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/aging-us-supreme-court-justices-politics-retirement-looms-large-2026-04-11/">told Reuters earlier this year</a>.
&#8220;I think a conservative justice would want to retire during a time when an originalist would follow him or her,&#8221; he added, &#8220;and that ​is most likely with Trump as president and the Senate controlled by Republicans.&#8221;
So far, the White House hasn&#8217;t shown much appetite for a Supreme Court vacancy — though legacy media and activist groups on the Left have been chomping at the bit for such a moment.
“The White House hasn’t been publicly pressuring the justices to retire,” the source close to Thomas noted. “They’re respecting the justices’ decisions on how and when they would retire.”
If Alito actually retired, there are several possible candidates that the president could nominate in his place. One prominent option is Andy Oldham, a former Alito clerk who sits on the Fifth Circuit. Another is James Ho, a former Thomas clerk who is also from the Fifth Circuit. Emil Bove, a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, has also been floated.
&#8220;One of the best things about Trump&#8217;s position right now is all his previous appeals court nominees are in great position in terms of age and time on the lower court bench,&#8221; a person close to the conservative justices shared. &#8220;It&#8217;s a deep bench.&#8221;
A White House official told The Daily Wire that they wouldn&#8217;t speculate on potential vacancies at any level, but noted: &#8220;The President is always prepared to nominate highly qualified judges who will uphold the Constitution and rule of law.&#8221;

Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito Meets With Senators

Will Justice Alito Actually Retire? Here’s What We Know

Brett Kavanaugh

Courts

Justice Alito

SCOTUS

President Donald Trump reacted on Tuesday to the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision on birthright citizenship and congratulated Chinese President Xi Jinping on a ruling that he said would ultimately benefit other nations more than the United States.
&#8220;I would like to congratulate President Xi, and the Great Country of China, on their massive Birthright Citizenship WIN!&#8221; Trump declared via his Truth Social platform.
The court&#8217;s decision protects, for now, the practice of &#8220;birth tourism,&#8221; which is used by many wealthy Chinese nationals who travel to the United States to give birth to their children.
In an <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116839981384247632">earlier post</a>, the president&#8217;s first reaction to the decision was slightly more subdued as he called on Congress to take legislative action on birthright citizenship.
&#8220;The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!&#8221;
The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-rules-against-trump-in-birthright-citizenship-case">high court</a>, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that children born in the United States — regardless of their parentage — were American citizens under the 14th Amendment.
&#8220;Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land,'&#8221; Roberts wrote, adding, &#8220;We keep that promise today.&#8221;
In a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf">separate opinion</a>, partly concurring and partly dissenting, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that he disagreed with the majority in holding that Trump&#8217;s executive order banning birthright citizenship ran afoul of the 14th Amendment. Instead, he argued that the order was at odds with current federal statutes, meaning that if Congress were to take legislative action, that could change.
In a scathing dissent, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “The court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens. In doing so, the court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.”

U.S. President Trump Meets With China’s President Xi And Attends State Banquet

Trump Congratulates Xi Jinping On Major Win At SCOTUS

birthright citizenship

Communist China

Global Politics

This piece is part of MI x DW, a collaboration that brings Daily Wire readers exclusive commentary and research from the Manhattan Institute’s world-class team of scholars.
***
The Supreme Court today restored an old-fashioned constitutional idea: if a principal federal officer exercises executive power, the president must be able to remove him. The justices’ 6–3 ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, which struck down a law prohibiting the president from firing members of the FTC except for cause, is the logical endpoint of a 15-year series of cases that have steadily chipped away at Humphrey’s Executor, the 1935 decision that blessed for-cause removal protections for the heads of so-called independent agencies.
The court didn’t mince words. Chief Justice John Roberts <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-332_qn12.pdf">wrote</a> that “Humphrey’s framework, in short, has not withstood the test of time.” Then came the sentence that will launch a thousand administrative-law articles: “If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.” The New Deal compromise that invented quasi-legislative agencies has finally met Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
That’s good, because the Federal Trade Commission isn’t a debating society. It, along with its alphabet-agency brethren, writes rules with the force of law, investigates private parties, adjudicates violations, and sues in federal court on behalf of the United States. Whatever labels Congress attached to that body in the Progressive Era, the FTC — like the FCC, SEC, NLRB, and so on — today exercises executive power. And the Constitution vests “the executive power” in one president, not in commissioners serving staggered terms, answerable to no one whom voters can fire.
<a href="https://manhattan.institute/subscribe?utm_source=DailyWire&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=reihan">Click here for more Manhattan Institute content.</a>
This ruling isn’t a gift to Donald Trump or his successors. It’s a restoration of constitutional accountability. Congress can create executive-branch agencies and specify what they may do, but it cannot create a fourth branch of government and then pretend its officers are independent of the only person the Constitution makes responsible for executing federal law.
Roberts put the point crisply at the end of Slaughter: “Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him.” That’s a unitary, not an imperial, presidency, and it’s a hallmark of republican government. The president remains constrained by statutes, appropriations, courts, Congress, elections, and the Constitution itself. If the people dislike how the FTC enforces the law, they should be able to blame — and replace — the president, not chase a goulash of insulated mandarins.
Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurrence adds the important next step. Killing Humphrey’s Executor doesn’t cure every constitutional disease in the administrative state. It simply reallocates the power Congress poured into independent agencies. As Gorsuch warned, “the fourth branch’s powers still exist; they have just been reassigned to the President.” If agencies possess vast legislative and judicial authority, the answer isn’t to hide those powers from presidential control, but to restore legislative powers to Congress. Make Congress great again!
<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a312_5468.pdf">Trump v. Cook</a>, decided alongside Slaughter, is the necessary complication. By a 5–4 vote, the court blocked, for now, Trump’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The Fed is different — not because central bankers are philosopher-kings, but because central banking has a historical pedigree unlike that of modern enforcement agencies. The court held that the Fed follows the tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States, whose independence was tied to Founding-era concerns about political manipulation of monetary policy. Monetary policy is not antitrust enforcement or securities regulation.
Still, Cook is an unsatisfying resolution. The court denied the government’s stay application and left Cook on the board for now, but it didn’t finally decide whether Trump had cause to remove her. Indeed, the majority emphasized that “the ultimate question of whether the President can remove Cook for cause will depend in part on the underlying facts,” which have not yet been found. Nor did it bless the government’s process. Cook was entitled, the court said, to “some explanation of the evidence at issue, some avenue for a response, and a deadline by which a response would be due.”
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Gorsuch, had the better procedural point. This was a stay application, not a merits case. As Alito wrote, the court should have granted or denied it “in a brief order last fall.” Instead, the justices took full briefing, held argument, deliberated for months, and produced an opinion that still sends the factual dispute back where it belonged all along: the trial court. The emergency docket has become the interim-relief docket, and sometimes interim relief requires interim modesty.
Taken together, Slaughter and Cook draw the right constitutional map. The FTC and similar agencies sit within the executive branch and must answer to the president. The Federal Reserve remains a narrow historical exception, and even there President Trump can try again if he supplies process and proves cause.
In a republic, the people whom we elect should govern. The buck should stop with the president, not assorted boards of independent bureaucrats.
***
This is republished with permission from the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. The original can be found <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/supreme-court-trump-v-slaughter-humphreys-executor">here</a>.
<a href="https://www.city-journal.org/person/ilya-shapiro">Ilya Shapiro</a> is director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, contributing editor of City Journal, senior counsel at Burke Law Group PLLC, and author, most recently, of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Lawless-Miseducation-Americas-Ilya-Shapiro/dp/0063336588">Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites</a>. He also writes the <a href="https://ilyashapiro.substack.com/">Shapiro’s Gavel</a> newsletter.

Supreme Court motto

Off With Their Heads! Did The Supreme Court Finally Kill The Administrative State?

Administrative state

executive power

federal agencies

MI x DW

Trump v. Slaughter

The Supreme Court got this one right. In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, decided today, the court struck down the federal limits on coordinated expenditures between political parties and their candidates. The vote was 6–3, with Justice Kavanaugh writing for the majority, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. For decades, these restrictions rested on a bizarre fiction, that a political party could somehow corrupt the very candidate it nominates. Nobody who has ever worked in politics believes that. Parties exist to elect candidates. The court has now said what practitioners have known all along: the government cannot punish them for doing so.
The court did not mince words. Justice Kavanaugh wrote that Colorado II’s “reasoning has been rejected by subsequent cases and is no longer good law in light of the court’s more recent precedents. To the extent that Colorado II has retained any vitality, it is now overruled.” That 2001 decision, FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, had upheld the coordinated-expenditure limits by a 5–4 vote over a powerful dissent by Justice Thomas — the only member of that court still serving. Twenty-five years later, his dissent has been vindicated. As the majority acknowledged, Justice Thomas “explained that ‘the ordinary means for a party to provide support is to make coordinated expenditures’” and that “‘breaking the connection between parties and their candidates inhibits the promotion of the party&#8217;s message.’”
I have some stake in saying so. As a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, I was at the commission when this litigation began. The Biden administration chose to defend the restrictions. When President Donald Trump returned to office, the solicitor general shifted the government’s position, rightly, in my view, and conceded the limits were unconstitutional. That was not a political stunt. It was an honest acknowledgment of what the First Amendment requires. Because the government declined to defend the law, the court appointed Roman Martinez, a former clerk to both Chief Justice Roberts and then-Judge Kavanaugh, as amicus curiae to argue in defense of the statute.
The history matters. When the case went to the en banc Sixth Circuit, a majority of the judges questioned the continued validity of Colorado II, considering later Supreme Court decisions, particularly McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate (2022), but felt bound by the 2001 precedent. The Supreme Court freed them, and us, from that constraint.
Look at what these coordination limits did. They did not reduce the amount of money spent on politics. They just pushed spending away from political parties and toward outside groups. The court recognized this directly: the coordinated-expenditure limits imposed a “stifling effect on the ability of the party to do what it exists to do.” Meanwhile, donors sent their funds to Super PACs and other outside groups with a First Amendment right to spend unlimited money. The numbers are staggering: in the 2024 cycle, PACs raised over $15.7 billion, compared to $2.7 billion by political parties. A Super PAC run by consultants could spend without limit, but the Republican or Democratic party committee could not coordinate a mail piece with its own nominee. The First Amendment does not require that absurdity.
The majority applied what it called the “closely drawn” scrutiny from McCutcheon and Cruz, requiring that any restriction on political speech be “necessary,” “narrowly tailored,” and not “disproportionate” to the government’s interest. The only permissible interest in campaign finance restrictions, the court reaffirmed, is “preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption” — and only the narrow, quid pro quo kind. Not “influence.” Not “access.” Not “ingratiation.” The court wrote plainly: “Ingratiation and access &#8230; are not corruption,” but instead “embody a central feature of democracy.”
As for the government’s circumvention argument, the idea that donors would funnel money through parties to evade contribution limits, the court concluded that three existing tools already address that concern: base contribution limits to candidates, earmarking rules that treat directed contributions as direct donations, and robust disclosure requirements. The coordinated-expenditure limits were a “fourth line of defense” — a “prophylaxis-upon-prophylaxis” that was disproportionate to the interest it served. The majority pointedly observed that a majority of states “largely give parties free rein to make coordinated expenditures on behalf of their state-level nominees,” and yet “no evidence of corruption” via circumvention “has materialized.”
It is important to remember: parties disclose their donors. Their leadership is public. They file detailed reports with the FEC. The court itself emphasized that disclosure “offers much more robust protections against corruption” today than ever before, because of advances in technology and the Internet. If you care about transparency in elections, you should want more money flowing through parties, not less.
Critics will say this opens the floodgates. It does not. Contribution limits to the political parties still exist. Parties still cannot raise unlimited money the way Super PACs can. What changes is that parties can now spend what they raise in coordination with their candidates instead of pretending they operate independently. As the court stressed, the decision “treats all political parties equally” and will “allow all political parties, including the DNC and RNC and the respective Senate and House campaign committees, to participate more freely and compete more fully in the political process.” Some money will migrate back from Super PACs to party committees. That means more disclosure, more accountability, and more coherent campaigns.
Campaign finance reformers have spent decades getting this wrong. Every time Americans find a way to participate in political speech, the reformers’ knee-jerk response is the same: restrict it. They pushed for the coordinated-expenditure limits. They got them. The predictable result was that money flowed to outside groups while parties withered. The court has now corrected part of the problem by eliminating the coordination restriction, but the underlying contribution limits, themselves an unconstitutional restraint on political association, remain in place because the same misguided reform impulse that created them still dominates the conversation in Washington.
At bottom, this case asked a simple question: Can the government restrict political speech because regulators think there is too much of it? The answer is no. It has always been no. As the court reminded us, the “Framers were even more famously suspicious of government suppression of political speech” than they were of political parties. And it closed with the most powerful point of all: “For nearly 200 years after the ratification of the First Amendment, parties could spend on campaigns in coordination with candidates,” and no one suggests “that these elections were not functional or that they were marred by corruption.” The First Amendment is not a suggestion, and it does not come with a carve-out for election season.
That should not be a controversial statement. But in Washington, apparently it still is. Credit the court for moving the conversation in the right direction — toward freedom, and away from the reflexive assumption that government knows best when Americans speak about politics.
***
Trey Trainor is a partner at Dhillon Law Group, Inc., board certified in Legislative and Campaign Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, and former Commissioner and Chairman of the Federal Election Commission.

Insider Trading

The Supreme Court Restores Some Common Sense To Campaign Finance

DW Opinion

Federal Election Commission (FEC)

First Amendment

Free Speech

political speech

Special Reporting

NPR <a href="https://www.npr.org/2026/06/30/nx-s1-4622951/samuel-alito-retires">published and then retracted</a> a fake story on Tuesday claiming conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is retiring. 
The piece from the Left-leaning outlet, authored by longtime SCOTUS reporter Nina Totenberg, 82, claimed Alito was leaving the court right after justices handed down landmark cases on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-protects-womens-sports-in-landmark-ruling?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=SCOTUS+Protects+Women%E2%80%99s+Sports+In+Landmark+Ruling%C2%A0">transgender athletes</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-rules-against-trump-in-birthright-citizenship-case?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=Supreme+Court+Rules+Against+Trump+In+Birthright+Citizenship+Case">birthright citizenship.</a>
Published at 10:51 a.m. ET, the bogus article had the following lede: “Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the Supreme Court&#8217;s opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, is retiring, the court announced Tuesday.” 
However, the photo caption in NPR&#8217;s story said that Alito retired Friday.
&nbsp;
<div id="attachment_1125727" style="width: 462px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1125727" class="wp-image-1125727 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/HMEf5l3XUAAR0wT-452x576.jpg" alt="" width="452" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/HMEf5l3XUAAR0wT-452x576.jpg 452w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/HMEf5l3XUAAR0wT-235x300.jpg 235w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/HMEf5l3XUAAR0wT-768x979.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/HMEf5l3XUAAR0wT.jpg 1179w" sizes=" (max-width: 452px) 100vw, 452px" />Screenshot: NPR</div>
&nbsp;
<div id="attachment_1125729" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1125729" class="wp-image-1125729 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/Untitled-design-2026-06-30T104821.082-1024x181.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="181" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/Untitled-design-2026-06-30T104821.082-1024x181.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/Untitled-design-2026-06-30T104821.082-300x53.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/Untitled-design-2026-06-30T104821.082-768x136.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/Untitled-design-2026-06-30T104821.082.jpg 1226w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Screenshot: NPR</div>
Minutes later, social media erupted with the possibility that one of the most conservative justices in modern history was leaving the bench, and President Donald Trump would have the chance to nominate a fourth justice to the nation’s highest court months before the November midterm elections. 
With no formal announcement from the high court, NPR retracted the entire story, leaving thousands of court watchers on edge with a terse editor’s note: “Earlier today, we erroneously published a story saying that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was retiring. Neither Alito nor the court&#8217;s public information office has announced his retirement, and we have retracted the story.”
NPR released a statement later on Tuesday, attempting to clarify how the report was published.
&#8220;Due to a misunderstanding, NPR&#8217;s Supreme Court and Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg incorrectly reported that Justice Samuel Alito had retired. Neither Justice Alito nor the Supreme Court Public Information Office has announced his retirement,&#8221; NPR Editor in Chief Tommy Evans <a href="https://x.com/davidfolkenflik/status/2071987251442078035?s=20">said</a>. &#8220;As soon as the error was realized, the story was retracted and removed from NPR&#8217;s website and an on-air correction was broadcast.&#8221;
Evans added that Totenberg has reached out to Alito to apologize for the fake news story, and she will appear on NPR&#8217;s show &#8220;All Things Considered&#8221; to &#8220;explain what happened.&#8221;
The fake news sparked strong reactions online.  
“My life just flashed before my eyes,” one X user <a href="https://x.com/joshsorbe/status/2071975153739747735?s=20">said</a>. 
“If anyone needs to retire, it is Nina Totenberg,” Washington Free Beacon reporter Chuck Ross <a href="https://x.com/ChuckRossDC/status/2071975866129625450?s=20">added</a>.
President Trump moved to end federal funding for NPR last year, saying the outlet has &#8220;spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as ‘news.'&#8221; Congress also passed legislation cutting taxpayer dollars from NPR and PBS.
Alito, 76, has given no formal indication that he plans to step down, but a recent hospitalization and the growing possibility that Republicans could lose control of the Senate have heightened the stakes surrounding any potential vacancy.
GOP Senate leaders have said they’re ready to fill a vacancy before the midterm elections. 
“That’s a contingency, I think, around here you always have to be prepared for,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) <a href="https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/04/14/congress/thune-ready-to-fill-possible-scotus-vacancy-00871750">told reporters in April</a>. “And if that were to happen, yes, we would be prepared to confirm.”
President Trump previously responded to speculation of a possible vacancy. 
“It could be two, could be three, could be one. I don’t know, I’m prepared to do it,” Trump said in an <a href="https://x.com/FoxNews/status/2044375293930951005?s=20">interview</a> with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo. “When you mention Alito, he’s a great justice.”

Supreme Court Justice Alito Gives Talk At Georgetown Law School

NPR Retracts Fake Bombshell On Samuel Alito Retirement

News

Justice Clarence Thomas torched the Supreme Court’s <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf">ruling</a> on Tuesday that birthright citizenship should apply to the children of illegal immigrants and people living temporarily in the United States. 
Thomas said that he did not believe the decision would hold up to the test of time and argued that it devalued American citizenship. The case revolved around an executive order issued by President Donald Trump which argued that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of illegal immigrants or those temporarily in the United States. 
“The court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens,” Thomas wrote in a dissent. “In doing so, the court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.”
Thomas argued that the 14th Amendment was designed to apply to freed slaves and their children, who owed no allegiances to foreign countries. 
“The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors were attached to their home country, lacked similar bonds to this country, and would not be called upon in time of war. Americans, consistent with their settler ethos, believed that citizens were the people who called a place home,” he said. 
“I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship,’” Thomas added. “Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.”
In a separate dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said he thought the court made a “serious mistake.” 
“As interpreted by the court today, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home,” Alito wrote. “Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”
Alito added that the court’s ruling would keep a key incentive for illegal immigration in place. 
“The court’s interpretation preserves a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally. Immigrants naturally prefer affluent countries where economic opportunities are available,” he said. “Other than Canada, the United States will be the only affluent nation where birth alone is enough to establish citizenship.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred with Thomas and added his own dissenting opinion.

Warsh To Be Sworn In As Fed Chief During White House Ceremony

Clarence Thomas Torches SCOTUS Decision On Birthright Citizenship

Clarence Thomas

Neil Gorsuch

Samuel Alito

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday permanently blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship, dealing a significant blow to his immigration agenda and preventing a sweeping overhaul of who qualifies for U.S. citizenship.
<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf">In a landmark ruling</a> authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court held that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
&#8220;Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to &#8216;every free-born person in this land,'&#8221; Roberts wrote. &#8220;We keep that promise today.&#8221;
<div style="max-width: 728px; margin: 0 auto;">
<iframe style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; max-width: 100%; width: 100%; margin: 20px auto 5px; border: 0;" src="https://player.mux.com/THAd4G4u6fo4iLoHH4dT47OONXExTerJ?metadata-video-content-type=embed_video&amp;metadata-video-id=d650aed7-67c8-42a2-a654-3f2265617d56&amp;metadata-video-stream-type=on-demand&amp;metadata-video-title=2026-06-30%20Both%20Supreme%20Court%20Rulings&amp;poster=https%3A%2F%2Fdailywireplus-v2.imgix.net%2Fimages%2Fembedded-videos%2F589c8eb4-ce24-4ca8-b8ea-61ef65660ae3.png&amp;autoplay=false&amp;accent-color=%23DB3D3B&amp;primary-color=%23ffffff&amp;secondary-color=%23000000" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Credit: Daily Wire News
</div>
Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in part and dissented in part. He disagreed with the court&#8217;s holding that Trump&#8217;s executive order violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Instead, he argued that the order violated other federal statutes, saying only Congress can enact new exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
&#8220;The Court has repurposed the Fourteenth Amendment to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot find support in its text,&#8221; Thomas wrote. &#8220;Today, the Court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.&#8221;
Tuesday&#8217;s ruling ends a dramatic legal saga and campaign promise that could’ve redefined who qualifies for U.S. citizenship ahead of the country’s 250th anniversary. On his first day back in office, President Trump signed the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/">long-promised order</a>, which faced immediate legal challenges and was never implemented. The White House has argued that children born to illegal immigrants or to parents with temporary legal status, such as tourists or foreign students, are not &#8220;subject to the jurisdiction&#8221; of the United States and not entitled to automatic citizenship.
“The United States of America cannot live with the shackles of Birthright Citizenship. It is not economically, or otherwise, sustainable, and no other Country in the World, of consequence, does it,” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/americas-biggest-legal-bombshells-are-still-ahead?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=34&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=America%E2%80%99s+Biggest+Legal+Bombshells+Are+Still+Ahead">Trump said</a> in a June 11 Truth Social post. 
Those challenging Trump’s order agreed that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” sets up limited exceptions for children of foreign diplomats and babies born to enemies during an invasion. Ratified in 1868, three years after the end of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was adopted in part to guarantee citizenship for formerly enslaved people and their descendants.
During oral arguments in April, which Trump attended, the three liberal justices quickly signaled their opposition to the executive order, and Chief Justice John Roberts, along with conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, expressed some skepticism about the administration’s historical arguments.
Roberts expressed confusion about some of the Trump administration’s arguments, telling Solicitor General John Sauer that he was relying on “very quirky” exceptions to birthright citizenship. 
The Chief Justice also pushed back on Sauer after raising the issue of birth tourism, arguing, “It’s a new world where eight billion people are a plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.”
“Well, it’s a new world; it’s the same Constitution,” <a href="https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2039388217430925717?s=20">the Chief Justice replied</a>.
Last week, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller previewed the potential consequences of continuing birthright citizenship.
“If this country doesn&#8217;t, one way or another, end birthright citizenship, this country doesn&#8217;t have a future,” Miller said. “Citizenship has to be sacred and precious.” 
“And as we stand here on the 250th anniversary of America&#8217;s founding, the idea that we wouldn&#8217;t have in this country respect and sanctity for citizenship for the voting franchise is such an insult to generations of Americans who spilled their blood for our freedom,” <a href="https://x.com/DefiantLs/status/2070608034972217615?s=20">he added</a>. 
This is a breaking story. Stay with The Daily Wire for updates.

President Trump Participates In The Faith & Freedom Coalition’s 2026 Policy Conference

Supreme Court Rules Against Trump In Birthright Citizenship Case

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that states have the constitutional power to ban men from women’s sports, dealing another blow to the transgender movement. 
In a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-43_2b35.pdf">ruling</a> authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and joined by the other conservative justices, the Supreme Court held that Title IX  allows schools to determine eligibility for women&#8217;s and girls&#8217; sports teams based on biological sex. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with parts of the majority opinion and dissented on other parts.
&#8220;They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex,&#8221; Justice Kavanaugh wrote. &#8220;The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America.&#8221;
<div style="max-width: 728px; margin: 0 auto;">
<iframe style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; max-width: 100%; width: 100%; margin: 20px auto 5px; border: 0;" src="https://player.mux.com/THAd4G4u6fo4iLoHH4dT47OONXExTerJ?metadata-video-content-type=embed_video&amp;metadata-video-id=d650aed7-67c8-42a2-a654-3f2265617d56&amp;metadata-video-stream-type=on-demand&amp;metadata-video-title=2026-06-30%20Both%20Supreme%20Court%20Rulings&amp;poster=https%3A%2F%2Fdailywireplus-v2.imgix.net%2Fimages%2Fembedded-videos%2F589c8eb4-ce24-4ca8-b8ea-61ef65660ae3.png&amp;autoplay=false&amp;accent-color=%23DB3D3B&amp;primary-color=%23ffffff&amp;secondary-color=%23000000" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Credit: Daily Wire News
</div>
The landmark decision centered on laws passed by Idaho and West Virginia restricting transgender athletes from competing in female athletics. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/13/us/politics/state-restrictions-trans-athletes-school-sports.html">More than half the country</a> has enacted similar laws to protect female sports and locker rooms. The justices upheld those bans and left for another day the question of whether Title IX requires states to prohibit transgender athletes from competing against women.
Tuesday&#8217;s ruling is also a win for the Trump administration, which issued an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/keeping-men-out-of-womens-sports/">executive order</a> in February 2025 directing the federal government to strip funding from schools that allow transgender students to compete in female athletics, calling the practice “demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls.”
It’s a crushing blow for transgender athletes and liberal activists, who chose to take the fight to the Supreme Court, arguing that Idaho and West Virginia’s policies discriminated based on sex and transgender status. In January, the justices heard two different sets of oral arguments in the cases of West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox. 
Idaho’s 2020 law, known as the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, was the first of its kind in the country, according to <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/the-transgender-athlete-cases-an-explainer/">SCOTUSblog</a>. It bans transgender students from competing on girls’ and women’s school sports teams, from elementary through college.
The West Virginia law, the Save Women’s Sports Act, was enacted in 2021. It bars transgender individuals from competing on women’s and girls’ sports teams in public secondary schools and colleges, according to <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/the-transgender-athlete-cases-an-explainer/">SCOTUSblog</a>.
Ahead of oral arguments, Republican officials and prominent female athletes like Riley Gaines held a press conference, saying the Supreme Court case would have far-reaching consequences for women’s privacy and safety, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/fighting-for-the-bare-minimum-riley-gaines-speaks-out-before-scotus-trans-case">The Daily Wire</a> reported. 
“The reason that we are here is because Idaho and West Virginia passed common-sense laws that delineate the athletic playing fields in our states between the sexes,” said West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey.
Gaines, the University of Kentucky swimmer who rose to national prominence for speaking out after being forced to compete against male University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas, said she was “pissed” off that the country had reached the point where it was even a debate whether women can have their own sports teams.
“I’m pissed off that we’ve reached a point where we seemingly have an entire political party who has diminished and erased our rights as women. That’s exactly what this is. Don’t let them frame it any other way,” Gaines said.
The Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling stops short of requiring states to separate sports teams by sex — it simply allows them to do so.
“We are fighting for the bare minimum here,” Gaines said. “Can we allow ourselves to be vulnerable in an intimate area of undressing, such as a locker room, without having to fear a man walking into that space? Can we do those things?”

President Trump Signs No Men In Women’s Sports Executive Order

SCOTUS Protects Women’s Sports In Landmark Ruling 

Outraged over the Supreme Court’s decision to allow states to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day, Republicans are doubling down on their push to pass the SAVE America Act to “uphold election integrity.” 
Missouri Republican Senator Eric Schmitt <a href="https://x.com/SenEricSchmitt/status/2071598452698456132?s=20">called</a> the court&#8217;s decision on Monday “shockingly wrong.&#8221;
“A shockingly wrong opinion. Justice Barrett joins with the liberal justices to hold that federal election law does not preempt states who allow late mail-in ballots to be counted.” He added, “This is terrible for election integrity. Another reason we must pass the full SAVE American Act.”
The SAVE America Act would require proof of citizenship to vote and would add restrictions to mail-in ballots, including new ID requirements. In its decision on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law does not bar states from counting ballots that arrive after Election Day, so long as they are postmarked on time.
Congressman Greg Steube (R-FL) echoed Schmitt’s urgency for the Save America Act to be passed. Steube <a href="https://x.com/RepGregSteube/status/2071611241198485944">called</a> on the Senate to “nuke” the filibuster to allow the bill to be passed. “The House already passed the SAVE Act to fix this. The Senate filibuster is the only thing standing in the way. Nuke it,&#8221; he said. 
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said that while the decision is &#8220;a loss for election integrity,&#8221; his state &#8220;will continue to only count mail ballots that arrive by Election Day.&#8221;
RNC Chairman Joe Gruters added, &#8220;If we want fair and secure elections, Election Day should mean exactly what it says, which is why this decision makes it even more imperative that Congress pass the Save America Act.&#8221; Gruters argued that by allowing mail-in ballots post-election day, &#8220;Democrats are inviting chaos at the ballot box by allowing elections to drag on for days and weeks after voters cast their ballots.&#8221;
The 5-4 ruling says states can count ballots as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Recently, the mail-in counting process led to L.A. mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt being edged out of the November runoff by City Councilmember Nithya Raman, who overtook him for second place behind incumbent Mayor Karen Bass as late-arriving mail ballots were counted.
In his <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1260_g3cn.pdf">dissent</a>, conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “It opens up and fails to resolve a host of questions for state election officials and courts. And it creates a serious risk of further undermining public confidence in our elections and our system of self-government.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) praised the court&#8217;s decision and hinted that Senate Democrats would work to stop the SAVE America Act.
“The Supreme Court just upheld this bedrock American principle: if you cast your ballot on time, your vote will count. Participation in democracy should never be limited — not by your race, where you live, or how you vote,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Senate Democrats will continue to do everything we can to protect free and fair elections, where everyone’s voice is heard.&#8221;
Schumer and other Democrats have specifically raised concerns that the SAVE America Act could restrict married women from voting if they changed their last names but have not received a new passport or driver’s license to match. 
Ken Martin, chairman of the DNC, <a href="https://x.com/kenmartin73/status/2071613468575236267">said</a> Republicans&#8217; decision to challenge Mississippi’s mail-in voting was an attempt to “rig the system.” 
“Trump and Republicans are attacking our elections and trying to rig the system in their favor because they know the American people are ready to reject their chaos and corruption this November,” he said. “The DNC is proud to have stood with the state of Mississippi to defeat the RNC’s latest attack on Americans’ voting rights.”

Republicans Draw Up Game Plan To Address ‘Shockingly Wrong’ SCOTUS Ruling

Democrats

Republicans

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would not hear President Donald Trump&#8217;s appeal in the $5 million sex abuse and defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll.
The high court&#8217;s refusal to hear the case means that Trump is on the hook to pay out $5 million to Carroll, 82, pursuant to the case that was decided in May of 2023. Carroll — who claims that Trump sexually abused her in the fitting room of a Bergdorf Goodman in the 1990s — argued that he had also defamed her by denying he did so, declaring that she was &#8220;not his type,&#8221; and suggesting that she&#8217;d invented the claim in order to drive book sales.
Trump made it clear immediately that the fight was not over. &#8220;Surprisingly, the Supreme Court declined to &#8216;review&#8217; a Fake Case brought against me by a woman I never met (Decades old celebrity photo line, standing with her husband, does not count!),&#8221; <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116834055569312013">Trump said</a> via his Truth Social platform.
&#8220;I will continue the fight against this Weaponization and Lawfare Case against me, including the ridiculous claim of Defamation, with all of my power and strength,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;This Case is really against the United States of America, and all it stands for, and should never be allowed to happen to another President, or Candidate to be! New York State created a Law, for an instant speck of time, going back many decades, in order to wrongfully &#8216;nab&#8217; me. It was tailormade, and this Injustice cannot be allowed to stand!&#8221;
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-e-jean-carroll-rabbit-hole-goes-deeper-than-you-think">Trump and Carroll</a> are still involved in another lawsuit that could potentially result in a much higher payout. A January 2024 verdict ordered Trump to pay out more than $83 million in additional damages. The jury in that case determined that Trump should pay Carroll $65 million in punitive damages, $11 million to help her rebuild her reputation, and $7.3 million for pain and suffering.
The two cases, in an interesting twist, were actually decided out of order: the $5 million ruling (2023) stemmed from a case initially filed in 2022, while the $83 million ruling (2024) was the result of a suit filed in 2019. As Trump pointed out in his post, Carroll had only been able to file the second suit because of a new law enacted in New York that allows sex abuse victims to file new civil claims related to previous incidents.

Jury Selection Begins In Magazine Columnist E. Jean Carroll’s Rape Allegation Trial Against Donald Trump

Menu