The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to quickly take up a case on President Donald Trump&#8217;s wide-ranging tariffs, setting up a major decision on one of the biggest policies of Trump&#8217;s second term, NBC News <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-agrees-consider-whether-trumps-tariffs-are-legal-rcna229069">reported</a>.
The Supreme Court will hear the case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled late last month that Trump overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on imports from dozens of countries. Last week, the Trump administration <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-asks-scotus-to-take-swift-action-to-save-his-tariffs">asked</a> the Supreme Court to begin hearing arguments in the case as soon as November, arguing that the Appeals Court&#8217;s decision “gravely undermines the President’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy and his ability to protect the national security and economy of the United States.”
The Supreme Court agreed to enter a streamlined process and will begin hearing oral arguments the first week of November.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-against-trump-tariffs-could-trigger-1-trillion-economic-disaster-bessent-warns">warned</a> on Monday that if Trump&#8217;s tariffs are stopped, the United States would have to refund around $1 trillion to importers, a development that Bessent said would &#8220;cause significant disruption&#8221; to the U.S. economy. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer agreed, saying, “With tariffs, we are a rich nation; without tariffs, we are a poor nation… The economic consequences would be ruinous.”
Trump also blasted the decision from the Appeals Court, arguing that “it would be a total disaster for the Country” if his tariffs were rescinded.
“If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” he added.
The Appeals Court delayed implementation of its order until October 14, giving the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Many of Trump&#8217;s tariffs went into effect in early August before the the U.S. Court of Appeals stepped in and ruled that Trump does not have the authority to impose them. The Appeals Court ruled, “Absent a valid delegation by Congress, the President has no authority to impose taxes. Given these considerations, we conclude Congress, in enacting IEEPA, did not give the President wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs of the nature of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs simply by the use of the term ‘regulate … importation.’”
“The core Congressional power to impose taxes such as tariffs is vested exclusively in the legislative branch by the Constitution,” the court added.
The issue centers on the IEEPA, which was enacted in 1977 and allows the president to impose tariffs on any import to the United States after declaring a national emergency. On April 2, Trump “<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-declares-national-emergency-to-increase-our-competitive-edge-protect-our-sovereignty-and-strengthen-our-national-and-economic-security/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">declared</a> that foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency,” adding that he would impose “responsive tariffs to strengthen the international economic position of the United States and protect American workers.”
If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, his administration has been looking into other ways to impose tariffs, NBC News <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/white-house-exploring-keep-trumps-tariffs-supreme-court-strikes-rcna229175">reported</a>. Trump could rely on laws under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which gives the president power to levy some tariffs. Some of the president&#8217;s tariffs already in effect fall under this law and would not be affected by a Supreme Court decision shooting down Trump&#8217;s tariffs under the IEEPA.

Donald Trump

SCOTUS Agrees To Hear Case On Trump’s Tariffs After Admin Asks For ‘Swift’ Action

Courts

Economy

Politics

Supreme Court

Tariffs

Trump Administration

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett defended the 2022 decision overturning landmark abortion cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey during a recent interview — and also admitted that the public protest in reaction to that case caused her to invest in a bulletproof vest for her own protection.
Barrett, in her first interview since joining the court in 2020, told CBS anchor Norah O&#8217;Donnell that the Court&#8217;s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization had not outlawed abortion at all, but rather had returned it to the democratic process. She also said that both Roe and Casey had wrongfully defended a &#8220;right&#8221; that did not exist under the Constitution.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Must Watch: Justice Amy Coney Barrett sets the record straight on the majority&#8217;s message to the American people in the Dobbs decision:
“The central message of Dobbs: Dobbs did not render abortion illegal. Dobbs did not say anything about whether abortion is immoral. Dobbs said… <a href="https://t.co/isFjhf8NdM">pic.twitter.com/isFjhf8NdM</a>
— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) <a href="https://twitter.com/JCNSeverino/status/1965062438266527828?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;The central message of Dobbs: Dobbs did not render abortion illegal. Dobbs did not say anything about whether abortion is immoral. Dobbs said that these are questions that are left to the states. &#8230; What Dobbs says is that those calls are properly left to the democratic process, and the states have been working those out,&#8221; Barrett said.
&#8220;The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs gave that decision to the democratic process and to the states,” Barrett said. “It didn’t roll back rights. It didn’t render abortion illegal, unconstitutional, or anything else. And in effect, many states very fully protected abortion rights, more than under the regime of Roe since the time of the decision in Dobbs.&#8221;
O&#8217;Donnell pushed back, arguing that overturning Roe had stripped away &#8220;a federal right to abortion. A constitutional right to an abortion.&#8221;
Barrett argued that such a right had never existed in the first place — and that both Roe and Casey &#8220;had been in error&#8221; to assert that it had.
&#8220;Well, what it said is that the Constitution had not protected the abortion right under the Due Process Clause. And it said that Roe had been an error and Casey had been in error to hold otherwise,&#8221; she said.
The protests that erupted both before and after the decision was rendered — particularly after a leaked draft of the decision went public — prompted Barrett to take action to protect herself. She told O&#8217;Donnell that she&#8217;d purchased a bulletproof vest — and then had to explain to her own children why she&#8217;d felt the need to do so.

Supreme Court Justices Pose For Formal Group Photo

Justice Barrett Defends Dobbs Decision, Admits She Had To Buy Bulletproof Vest Afterward

Abortion

Amy Coney Barrett

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that the U.S. could be on the hook for a staggering $1 trillion in tariff refunds if the Supreme Court sides against President Trump’s trade agenda — a decision that could cripple the Treasury and kneecap America’s economic leverage.
At the heart of the legal battle is the Trump administration’s broad use of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), particularly the so-called “reciprocal tariffs” that have imposed sweeping levies on imports. Two lower courts have declared the tariffs unconstitutional, contending they overstepped executive authority and amounted to taxation without congressional approval.
Bessent made it clear: If the Supreme Court rules against the administration, the U.S. government will be forced to refund as much as $1 trillion to importers, a move he called “terrible” for the Treasury and the economy, the New York Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/09/09/business/us-could-be-forced-to-refund-1-trillion-if-supreme-court-overturns-trumps-tariffs/">reported</a>.
“We’d have to do it,” Bessent <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-september-7-2025-n1312693">told</a> NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “But it would be terrible.”
According to court filings, the administration has already collected tens of billions in tariff revenue since Trump’s “Liberation Day” in April, with $30 billion in July alone, a 242% spike year-over-year. The total potentially owed could reach up to $1 trillion if the Supreme Court delays action.
Bessent did not mince words about the dangers of reversing the tariffs. “Unwinding them could cause significant disruption,” he said, emphasizing that economic benefits such as record stock market highs, increased capital expenditures, and strong GDP growth are largely due to the Trump tariff strategy.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer echoed Bessent, writing: “With tariffs, we are a rich nation; without tariffs, we are a poor nation… The economic consequences would be ruinous.”
Bessent was pressed repeatedly on “Meet the Press” on whether the administration would honor the court’s ruling if the tariffs were struck down.
“I mean, there’s no ‘be prepared,’” he said. “If the court says it, we’d have to do it.”
He cautioned that such a refund would not only harm the nation financially but also undermine the U.S. negotiating position globally, slow the progress made on rebalancing trade, and potentially reverse the economic momentum Trump has established.
Bessent dismissed complaints from corporations like John Deere and Nike, who blame the tariffs for profit losses and layoffs, calling them cherry-picked examples. He emphasized that Treasury is hearing a “record amount” of positive feedback from companies that support the tariffs.
Bessent rejected claims from Goldman Sachs and The New York Times that consumers are bearing the brunt, insisting that many foreign manufacturers are “eating the tariffs,” and that American economic strength is a direct result of the policy.
“This isn’t about the dollars,” Bessent said. “This is about balance. The dollars are an after amount.”
Bessent and President Trump see the court battle not just as a legal fight, but as a referendum on America’s right to defend its economic sovereignty.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent Interview

Supreme Court Ruling Against Trump Tariffs Could Trigger $1 Trillion Economic Disaster, Bessent Warns

Bessent Warns Supreme Court Ruling Against Trump Tariffs Could Trigger $1 Trillion Economic Disaster

Scott Bessent

The brutal murder of a Ukrainian refugee in Charlotte highlights the deadly consequences of &#8220;soft-on-crime&#8221; policies in Democrat-run cities. The Supreme Court gives the green light for Trump&#8217;s ICE raids in Los Angeles as the U.S. and its allies coordinate on a global immigration crackdown. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fires back at Democrats who are demanding his resignation, vowing to continue his &#8220;Make America Healthy Again&#8221; agenda.
It’s Tuesday, September 9, 2025, and this is the news you need to know to start your day.
Morning Wire is available on video! You can watch today’s episode here:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Charlotte Tragedy Fallout &amp; LA ICE Raids Enabled" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wxxC88rvvUE?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>
If you’d rather listen to your news, today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below:
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/charlotte-tragedy-fallout-la-ice-raids-enabled-9-9-25/id1576594336?i=1000725677207" 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>
<h2>Charlotte Murder Highlights Failures of ‘Soft-on-Crime’ Policies</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-large wp-image-969907" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MRN-9.9.25-Tue-SH-1024x576.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MRN-9.9.25-Tue-SH-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MRN-9.9.25-Tue-SH-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MRN-9.9.25-Tue-SH-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MRN-9.9.25-Tue-SH-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MRN-9.9.25-Tue-SH.jpg 1920w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
Topline: The brutal, unprovoked murder of a Ukrainian refugee on a light rail train has left the city of Charlotte in shock and anger, putting a national spotlight on the deadly consequences of Democrat-led &#8220;soft-on-crime&#8221; policies. 
Iryna Zarutska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee, was stabbed to death last month by DeCarlos Brown Jr., a homeless man with a lengthy and violent criminal record. The horrific attack took place in what was once a safe, trendy part of the city, but residents say rising crime and a growing homeless population have made them feel unsafe. Charlotte saw a 25% increase in its homicide rate last year, and robberies in the city center are up 54%. 
The city&#8217;s Democratic mayor, Li Vyles, responded to the murder by calling for empathy for the perpetrator&#8217;s mental health issues, and did not mention the victim in her initial statement. Brown was on the streets despite at least 14 previous arrests for crimes, including armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. A judge gave him pre-trial release on his most recent arrest in January, and police had referred him &#8220;to resources&#8221; rather than jail after three other encounters in 2024. The policies that kept Brown out of jail were recommended by a &#8220;Task Force for Racial Equity in Criminal Justice,&#8221; which was created by North Carolina&#8217;s now-Governor, Democrat Josh Stein, in 2020. 
<h2>Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s ICE Raids in Los Angeles</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-large wp-image-969905" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MRN-9.9.25-Tue-SH2-1024x576.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MRN-9.9.25-Tue-SH2-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MRN-9.9.25-Tue-SH2-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MRN-9.9.25-Tue-SH2-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MRN-9.9.25-Tue-SH2-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MRN-9.9.25-Tue-SH2.jpg 1920w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
Topline: The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a major victory on Monday, ruling that federal immigration officials can continue their sweeping raids in the Los Angeles area and can consider factors like ethnicity and accent when detaining suspected illegal immigrants. 
The Court’s ruling overturns a lower court judge’s decision that had blocked the raids. Writing for the liberal minority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dramatic dissent, claiming the court was subjecting people to the &#8220;indignities&#8221; of being handcuffed &#8220;simply because of their looks, their accents.&#8221; 
Border Czar Tom Homan pushed back on that characterization, stating that ICE is focused on public safety. &#8220;Seventy percent of everybody ICE is arresting is a criminal,&#8221; Homan said. The raids have yielded significant results, with over 1,600 arrests in D.C. alone, many of whom are suspected gang members and other violent offenders. 
The ruling comes as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem meets with the &#8220;Five Eyes&#8221; intelligence alliance in London to coordinate a global crackdown on human smuggling. The U.K.&#8217;s new Home Secretary has signaled a tougher stance on immigration that is more aligned with the Trump administration&#8217;s policies. 
<h2>RFK Fires Back as Democrats Demand His Resignation</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-large wp-image-969909" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MRN-9.9.25-Tue-SH3-1024x576.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MRN-9.9.25-Tue-SH3-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MRN-9.9.25-Tue-SH3-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MRN-9.9.25-Tue-SH3-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MRN-9.9.25-Tue-SH3-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MRN-9.9.25-Tue-SH3.jpg 1920w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
Topline: HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is pushing back against a coordinated campaign by Democrats demanding his resignation, vowing to continue his &#8220;Make America Healthy Again&#8221; (MAHA) agenda and restore integrity to public health. 
At least a dozen Democratic senators, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have signed a letter calling Kennedy’s agenda &#8220;dangerous&#8221; and &#8220;anti-science.&#8221; Former Republican Chris Christie also attacked Kennedy, calling him a &#8220;joke&#8221; and a &#8220;human middle finger to everybody who opposed&#8221; Trump. 
Blue state governors are also pushing back against Kennedy&#8217;s reforms. New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed an executive order to override new FDA guidance on COVID shots, and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed legislation to ensure access to the abortion pill mifepristone, regardless of future FDA safety assessments. 
Kennedy, who enjoys broad public support for his agenda, has fiercely defended his actions. He has accused major medical organizations of being compromised by their Big Pharma sponsors and has vowed to bring in &#8220;new blood&#8221; and people &#8220;who are committed to public health, and integrity, and gold-standard science.&#8221; His department has already reformed baby formula standards, required drug price transparency, and stopped federal funding for gender surgeries for minors, among other changes.

MRN 9.09.25 Thumbnail V1

Morning Brief: Charlotte Train Murder, SCOTUS Upholds ICE Raids, Dems vs MAHA

Charlotte

Crime

Democrats

Illegal Immigration

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Murder

North Carolina

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Within hours of the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to resume sweeps in Los Angeles, California, several prominent Democrats across the city and the state issued statements complaining about the ruling.
Fox News National Correspondent Bill Melugin shared a few of their comments — from Los Angeles Democratic Mayor Karen Bass, Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) — in a post on X.
&#8220;Reactions to SCOTUS allowing immigration sweeps to restart in LA: Mayor Bass: &#8216;Today&#8217;s ruling is not only dangerous, it&#8217;s un-American.&#8217; Gov. Newsom: &#8216;Trump&#8217;s hand-picked SCOTUS majority just became the Grand Marshal for a parade of racial terror in LA.&#8217; ACLU: &#8216;Outrageous.'&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Reactions to SCOTUS allowing immigration sweeps to restart in LA:
Mayor Bass: &#8220;Today&#8217;s ruling is not only dangerous, it&#8217;s un-American&#8221;.
Gov. Newsom: &#8220;Trump&#8217;s hand-picked SCOTUS majority just became the Grand Marshal for a parade of racial terror in LA&#8221;.
ACLU: &#8220;Outrageous&#8221;
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) <a href="https://twitter.com/BillMelugin_/status/1965132720113418548?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Newsom&#8217;s full statement went a bit further, claiming that the Trump administration planned to hunt down anyone who looked Latino: &#8220;Every person is now a target.&#8221;
&#8220;@realDonaldTrump&#8217;s hand-picked SCOTUS majority just became the Grand Marshal for a parade of racial terror in LA. His administration is targeting Latinos — and anyone who doesn’t look or sound like @StephenM&#8217;s idea of an American — to deliberately harm our families and economy.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Trump&#8217;s private police force now has a green light to come after your family.
Every person is now a target.
California will continue to do all we can fight these abhorrent attacks on Californians.
— Governor Gavin Newsom (@CAgovernor) <a href="https://twitter.com/CAgovernor/status/1965127262531092507?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Trump&#8217;s private police force now has a green light to come after your family. Every person is now a target. California will continue to do all we can fight these abhorrent attacks on Californians,&#8221; Newsom continued.
&#8220;I want the entire nation to hear me when I say this isn’t just an attack on the people of LA, this is an attack on every person in every city in this country. Today’s ruling is not only dangerous – it’s un-American and threatens the fabric of personal freedom in the U.S.,&#8221; Mayor Bass said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I want the entire nation to hear me when I say this isn’t just an attack on the people of LA, this is an attack on every person in every city in this country.
Today’s ruling is not only dangerous – it’s un-American and threatens the fabric of personal freedom in the U.S. <a href="https://t.co/mFU4ZCh93L">https://t.co/mFU4ZCh93L</a>
— Mayor Karen Bass (@MayorOfLA) <a href="https://twitter.com/MayorOfLA/status/1965129986307936354?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
At the nation&#8217;s highest court, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor registered her complaint as well, sounding quite a bit like the elected Democrats who object to federal immigration agents being permitted to enforce federal immigration laws.
&#8220;Instead of allowing the District Court to consider these troubling allegations in the normal course, a majority of this Court decides to take the once-extraordinary step of staying the District Court’s order. That decision is yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket,&#8221; Sotomayor protested. &#8220;We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sotomayor dissent on SCOTUS decision on ICE raids in LA: “We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I…
— Jesse Rodriguez (@JesseRodriguez) <a href="https://twitter.com/JesseRodriguez/status/1965094959817572823?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

California Governor Newsom Announces Lawsuit Challenging Trump Tariff Authority

SCOTUS Decision On LA ICE Raids Triggers All The Right People

ACLU

Gavin Newsom

Karen Bass

Sonia Sotomayor

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Trump administration can arrest anyone it suspects of being in the United States illegally, lifting a U.S. District Court judge&#8217;s order barring immigration agents from conducting &#8220;roving patrols.&#8221;
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court said that immigration officers have the right to detain people for questioning if they are suspected of being an illegal immigrant, The Los Angeles Times <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-09-08/supreme-court-immigration-stops-los-angeles">reported</a>. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, wrote a 10-page opinion explaining the high court&#8217;s decision, saying that immigration officers have a reasonable and legal basis to detain suspected illegal immigrants in Los Angeles based on the “totality of the circumstances.&#8221;
&#8220;Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English,&#8221; Kavanaugh added.
The Department of Homeland Security said last week that over 5,000 immigration arrests have been made in the &#8220;Los Angeles region&#8221; since June 6, the Associated Press <a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-immigration-stops-los-angeles-trump-57cc1f85ceafda0f11052b326c8b7173">reported</a>. Gregory Bovino, the chief Border Patrol agent in charge of the L.A. operation, said that the Trump administration has been successful &#8220;in getting the worst of the worst out&#8221; of the area. Much of the immigration crackdown in the L.A. area has focused on arresting suspected illegal immigrants in Home Depot parking lots, at car washes, and at farms. Immigration agents have also nabbed people while they were on the street and in their vehicles.
On July 11, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order that stopped Trump&#8217;s immigration agents from detaining suspected illegal immigrants over their race, ethnicity, language, location, or employment, the Times reported. Two weeks later, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district judge&#8217;s ruling.
In an appeal to the Supreme Court, Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued, &#8220;Reasonable suspicion is a low bar — well below probable cause.&#8221; Sauer said that immigration agents can look at &#8220;the totality of circumstances&#8221; to detain someone suspected of entering the country illegally, adding that “illegal presence is widespread in the Central District [of California], where 1 in every 10 people is an illegal alien.”
Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority ruling, arguing that Kavanaugh&#8217;s conclusions are incorrect.
“Immigration agents are not conducting ‘brief stops for questioning,’ as the concurrence would like to believe. They are seizing people using firearms, physical violence, and warehouse detentions,” she wrote. “Nor are undocumented immigrants the only ones harmed by the Government’s conduct. United States citizens are also being seized, taken from their jobs, and prevented from working to support themselves and their families.”

ICE in Little Tokyo

SCOTUS Lifts Lower Court Order, Allows Trump To Restart ‘Roving’ Immigration Operations In L.A.

SCOTUS Lifts District Court Order, Allows Trump To Restart 'Roving' Immigration Operations In L.A.

Border Patrol

California

Deportations

Los Angeles

In 10 years, The Daily Wire has put up some incredible wins, and over the next few weeks, we’re looking back at 10 of our greatest victories — none of which could have happened without the support of our loyal members and fans. 
One of our biggest victories occurred over the summer as the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling upholding a Tennessee law protecting children from surgical and chemical gender mutilation. The ruling allowed states across the country to keep in place laws protecting children from life-altering transgender procedures. 
The Tennessee law at the center of ruling was inspired by an investigation from Daily Wire host Matt Walsh. In September 2022, Walsh released an investigation revealing that the pediatric transgender clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center was removing the breasts of girls who identified as boys and prescribing cross-sex hormones to gender-confused children.
“My team and I have been investigating the transgender clinic at Vanderbilt here in Nashville. Vanderbilt drugs, chemically castrates, and performs double mastectomies on minors,” Walsh <a href="https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1572313369528635392">reported</a> at the time. “They now castrate, sterilize, and mutilate minors as well as adults, while apparently taking steps to hide this activity from the public view. This is what ‘health care’ has become in modern America.”
In the days following the investigation, Walsh met with top Tennessee lawmakers who vowed to introduce legislation to ban transgender procedures on kids and Tennessee Republican Governor Bill Lee <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tennessee-looking-at-child-gender-transition-legislation-after-vanderbilt-transgender-videos-released">called</a> for an immediate end to the procedures. 
A month after the investigation broke, Walsh led a rally in Nashville attended by top Tennessee Republicans like Senator Marsha Blackburn and others like Tulsi Gabbard calling for an end to child mutilation. 
Walsh later testified before state lawmakers in favor of the Republican-backed bill to ban transgender procedures on kids in Tennessee. 
“We should be able to agree that it is never OK to chemically castrate, sterilize, butcher, or mutilate a child. And in fact, all decent people do agree on this point,” Walsh said during his testimony. “But many of the people who hold power in this country and who run our institutions — including our medical institutions — do not pass this basic test of decency.” 
After Tennessee’s law was passed in March 2023, over a dozen other states moved to enact similar legislation to protect kids. Tennessee’s law was challenged by leftist activists and the Biden administration, bouncing through the federal court system before the Supreme Court agreed to take it up. Walsh also <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1498-on-demand">spoke</a> at a rally in front of the Supreme Court in December 2024, continuing to push for an end to transgender procedures on children. 
In June 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in United States v. Skrmetti that states were allowed to protect kids from transgender procedures under the Constitution. 
Walsh said that the decision was a “fatal blow” to transgender ideology. 
“Three years ago, we launched our investigation into Vanderbilt’s child mutilation practices,” he <a href="https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1935345883769430153">said</a>. “We rallied in the state capital. Our lawmakers responded with a law banning child mutilation in the state. Today the Supreme Court upheld our law, which means child mutilation can be banned anywhere and everywhere in the country. And should be. This is a truly historic victory and I’m grateful to be a part of it, along with so many others who have fought relentlessly for years.”

Matt Walsh/Supreme Court

Decade Of Daily Wire: How We Fought Back Against Child Mutilation And Won

Children

Daily Wire

Matt Walsh

transgender surgery

Legacy media made another feeble attempt to malign Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the eve of the release of her new book. But contrary to the whispers of palace intrigue surrounding the Court’s Dobbs decision, her book, &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Listening-Law-Reflections-Court-Constitution/dp/0593421868/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ILSOy3KahPQkW1N9rrNO_q4yhhX-A5gHnGstjpJkVxIJEAnrRe9w_lF2EUAzY8ASQZ9CZqVDHgKZt8ve0nfVVfwqI92ZVk_q0-xS0_0MvGjhlohklgHmlqVEi16JQXap9StaJ9rMCJYS5c-zfbRU2u7nrMK7Ps-ryfWBC5LGZTDLoJ6JVQxpOU7zm2FeSFITwHaNi6WP9-IfOtCiQoJ3-HjnOJseV05XFTe7FBtb5Jo.5_511Qkt6JuwwSSsSnxDilB7c5pvyEXA08tcA6xNPMM&amp;qid=1757008559&amp;sr=8-1">Listening to the Law</a>,&#8221; is a window into the careful legal reasoning and conscientious commitment to the law that has defined her career. It reminds us that liberty depends on intellect, conscience, and the steady moral vision women of faith uniquely bring to public life. Barrett embodies these traits, and they are mirrored in women across the country who refuse to be cowed. 
Barrett’s convictions never wavered when she was maligned for her Catholic faith. During her Seventh Circuit confirmation, Senator Dianne Feinstein warned of the “dogma living loudly” in Barrett — a jab she met with intelligence, poise, and unflinching calm. Her Supreme Court confirmation displayed the same razor-sharp clarity. While many American women see in Barrett traits they recognize in themselves — dedication, moral clarity, and attention to conscience — there will only ever be one ACB. I recognized it in small, ordinary ways, too. A friend once gave me a coffee mug that read, “The Dogma Lives Loudly Within Me”—a playful badge of honor. Even when the mug was accidentally shattered by a child unloading the dishwasher, the sentiment remained intact, much like the enduring faith of women who live their convictions quietly but resolutely, holding conscience above convenience.
In &#8220;Listening to the Law,&#8221; Barrett reflects on family, faith, and the role of law in society. She recalls her great-grandmother, a widowed mother of thirteen during the Depression, noting that “No generation starts afresh; each is shaped by its predecessors.”
<div id="attachment_968825" style="width: 394px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Listening-Law-Reflections-Court-Constitution/dp/0593421868/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ILSOy3KahPQkW1N9rrNO_q4yhhX-A5gHnGstjpJkVxIJEAnrRe9w_lF2EUAzY8ASQZ9CZqVDHgKZt8ve0nfVVfwqI92ZVk_q0-xS0_0MvGjhlohklgHmlqVEi16JQXap9StaJ9rMCJYS5c-zfbRU2u7nrMK7Ps-ryfWBC5LGZTDLoJ6JVQxpOU7zm2FeSFITwHaNi6WP9-IfOtCiQoJ3-HjnOJseV05XFTe7FBtb5Jo.5_511Qkt6JuwwSSsSnxDilB7c5pvyEXA08tcA6xNPMM&amp;qid=1757008559&amp;sr=8-1"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-968825" class="size-large wp-image-968825" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-384x576.jpg" alt="Credit: Sentinel Books" width="384" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-384x576.jpg 384w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-200x300.jpg 200w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-768x1152.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-1024x1536.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-1365x2048.jpg 1365w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-1360x2040.jpg 1360w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-scaled.jpg 1707w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 384px) 100vw, 384px" /></a>Credit: Sentinel Books</div>
She observes that “Law is but one piece of what it takes to make a healthy society, and it (like everything else in life) exists in the midst of relationships.” She underscores that the Constitution commits us to pluralism through protections like those guaranteed by the First Amendment, which “requires the government to tolerate all opinions and all religions.” To critics who “suggest that people of faith have a particularly difficult time following the law rather than their moral views,” Barrett reiterates her understanding that “the guiding principle in every case is what the law requires, not what aligns with the judge’s own concept of justice.” Such resolve, she shows, can be met exactly because of the humility that derives from faith. And her own grounding in a large, loving family shines through — the book is dedicated simply to “Jesse,” her husband — a tribute both understated and profound.
When it comes to safeguarding America’s first freedom, Barrett’s rigor is urgently needed. Sooner rather than later, the Supreme Court will revisit Employment Division v. Smith. Authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom Barrett clerked, Smith held that sincerely held religious objections do not exempt people from complying with “neutral and generally applicable laws.”
In practice, Smith has often crushed religious liberty, particularly regarding anti-discrimination laws tied to sexual orientation and gender identity. Barrett’s careful attention to conscience — the “feminine genius” St. John Paul II celebrated—is precisely what the Court needs to craft a workable framework for protecting the free exercise rights of those whose beliefs are countercultural. The stakes are far from abstract: the religious convictions of real women hang in the judicial balance.
Consider Cathy Miller, a Christian baker from California, fined for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, who has asked the Court to hear her case this term. Or the Little Sisters of the Poor, who still refuse to include abortifacients or contraceptives in their health care plans despite the authoritarian demands of the Affordable Care Act’s “contraceptive mandate,” holding fast to Church teaching. Lori Smith, a Colorado website designer, refused to create speech she did not believe in — and won at the Supreme Court. Jessica Bates, a widowed Oregon mother, was blocked from fostering children because she would not embrace gender ideology — until the Ninth Circuit, of all places, vindicated her. These women were not seeking to impose beliefs on others, but to defend the right of all Americans to live out their faith without government coercion. They stand as sentinels between the state and the citizen’s conscience.
Backing them are brilliant women lawyers and scholars who turn principle into action. Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, has argued multiple Supreme Court cases. Lori Windham of the Becket Fund shields institutions and individuals from government overreach. Legal scholars like Mary Ann Glendon, Nicole Garnett, Helen Alvaré, and Stephanie Barclay provide indispensable intellectual firepower. Protecting religious liberty is neither abstract nor optional. It demands moral clarity, expert advocacy, and strategic rigor.
&#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Listening-Law-Reflections-Court-Constitution/dp/0593421868/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ILSOy3KahPQkW1N9rrNO_q4yhhX-A5gHnGstjpJkVxIJEAnrRe9w_lF2EUAzY8ASQZ9CZqVDHgKZt8ve0nfVVfwqI92ZVk_q0-xS0_0MvGjhlohklgHmlqVEi16JQXap9StaJ9rMCJYS5c-zfbRU2u7nrMK7Ps-ryfWBC5LGZTDLoJ6JVQxpOU7zm2FeSFITwHaNi6WP9-IfOtCiQoJ3-HjnOJseV05XFTe7FBtb5Jo.5_511Qkt6JuwwSSsSnxDilB7c5pvyEXA08tcA6xNPMM&amp;qid=1757008559&amp;sr=8-1">Listening to the Law</a>&#8221; shows that defending liberty requires both intellect and conscience. Barrett’s reflections illuminate the careful reasoning and moral clarity she brings to public life. Just as the other women highlighted here confront cultural and legal pressures with courage and fidelity, Barrett’s reflections on the law remind us that protecting religious freedom — our First Freedom — depends on women of faith. Through courage, attention to conscience, and steadfast commitment to the common good and the rule of law, they ensure liberty endures for generations to come.
* * *
Andrea Picciotti-Bayer is Director of the <a href="https://conscience-project.org/">Conscience Project.</a>
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Correction: A previous version of this article stated Kristen Waggoner was the former president of Alliance Defending Freedom. She is, in fact, the current president of the ADF.

MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-28-PM-1170

The Dogma Still Lives Loudly: Amy Coney Barrett And The Witness Of Women Of Faith

Books

Dobbs

First Amendment

Women

The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to quickly review a lower court ruling that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/appeals-court-strikes-down-sweeping-trump-tariffs-setting-up-battle-at-supreme-court">invalidated</a> the president’s tariffs.
President Donald Trump wants the Supreme Court to begin hearing arguments in the case as soon as November, a major request for the justices who typically wait until as late as next summer to make a decision, CNBC <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/03/trump-tariffs-trade-supreme-court.html">reported</a>. The Trump administration argues that the 7-4 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling “gravely undermines the President’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy and his ability to protect the national security and economy of the United States.”
&#8220;That decision casts a pall of uncertainty upon ongoing foreign negotiations that the President has been pursuing through tariffs over the past five months, jeopardizing both already-negotiated framework deals and ongoing negotiations,&#8221; the administration added in its filing. &#8220;Few cases have so clearly called out for this Court’s swift resolution.&#8221;
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Trump overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy tariffs.
“Absent a valid delegation by Congress, the President has no authority to impose taxes. Given these considerations, we conclude Congress, in enacting IEEPA, did not give the President wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs of the nature of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs simply by the use of the term ‘regulate … importation,’” the ruling stated.
“The core Congressional power to impose taxes such as tariffs is vested exclusively in the legislative branch by the Constitution,” the court added.
The <a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45618">IEEPA</a>, enacted in 1977, allows the president to impose tariffs on any import to the United States after declaring a national emergency. On April 2, Trump &#8220;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-declares-national-emergency-to-increase-our-competitive-edge-protect-our-sovereignty-and-strengthen-our-national-and-economic-security/">declared</a> that foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency,&#8221; adding that he would impose &#8220;responsive tariffs to strengthen the international economic position of the United States and protect American workers.&#8221;
The appeals court delayed implementation of its order until October 14, giving the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court. If the ruling goes into effect, Trump&#8217;s sweeping &#8220;Liberation Day&#8221; tariffs that hit numerous countries around the world would be rescinded, dealing a significant blow to one of the president&#8217;s top priorities during his second term.
Attorney Jeffrey Schwab, whose libertarian-leaning firm Liberty Justice Center represented the plaintiffs in the case, said he is &#8220;confident&#8221; that the legal arguments against Trump&#8217;s tariffs &#8220;will prevail.&#8221;
&#8220;Both federal courts that considered the issue agreed that IEEPA does not give the President unchecked tariff authority,&#8221; Schwab said. A federal trade court also ruled in May that Trump did not have the authority to impose his &#8220;Liberation Day&#8221; tariffs.
Trump ripped the “Highly Partisan Appeals Court” following the decision last week, arguing that &#8220;it would be a total disaster for the Country&#8221; if his tariffs were rescinded.
&#8220;If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,&#8221; he added.

Trump Asks SCOTUS To Take ‘Swift’ Action To Save His Tariffs

Executive

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled against many of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, saying the president abused his authority under the emergency powers he cited to enact them.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105.159.0_1.pdf">ruled</a> 7-4 that Trump overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). While the court struck down most of Trump’s sweeping tariff regime, it delayed implementation of its order until October 14 to give time for the administration to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
“We are unpersuaded by the Government’s argument that it is ‘particularly inappropriate to construe narrowly a delegation of power in the arena of foreign affairs and national security,’” the court wrote. “While the President of course has independent constitutional authority in these spheres, the power of the purse (including the power to tax) belongs to Congress.”
“Absent a valid delegation by Congress, the President has no authority to impose taxes. Given these considerations, we conclude Congress, in enacting IEEPA, did not give the President wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs of the nature of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs simply by the use of the term ‘regulate … importation,’” the ruling states.
The decision sets up the possibility that the United States may have to pay back billions of dollars of duties that have been taken in under Trump’s tariff regime, according to <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/29/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-major-chunk-of-trumps-tariffs-00537643">Politico</a>.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener">End of Summer Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
The ruling could nullify sweeping tariffs the president placed on dozens of countries as part of his Liberation Day tariff announcement. It would also rescind tariffs that Trump has unilaterally placed on Canada, China, and Mexico during ongoing negotiations around immigration and drug trafficking.
Trump responded to the ruling in a <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115114339832960282">post</a> on Truth Social, blaming a “Highly Partisan Appeals Court” for an “incorrectly” decided case. The president said that “it would be a total disaster for the Country” if his tariffs were canceled.
“The U.S.A. will no longer tolerate enormous Trade Deficits and unfair Tariffs and Non Tariff Trade Barriers imposed by other Countries, friend or foe, that undermine our Manufacturers, Farmers, and everyone else,” wrote Trump. “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America.”
The appeals court ruling follows a ruling from a federal trade court in May that found similarly that Trump had overstepped his bounds in invoking the IEEPA.
The appeals court ruling noted that never before had the IEEPA been invoked to impose tariffs on imports.
“The invocation of IEEPA to impose tariffs on nearly every country in the world is undoubtedly a significant departure from these previous invocations,” it said, before adding that the lack of precedent is an indication that the president may have overstepped.

Appeals Court Strikes Down Sweeping Trump Tariffs, Setting Up Battle At Supreme Court

Federal Court Strikes Down Sweeping Trump Tariffs, Setting Up Battle At Supreme Court

U.S.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita and 22 other states filed an <a href="https://image.subscription.in.gov/lib/fe2e11747364047b721071/m/1/e5f8c381-d0e3-4279-8119-87188632cab2.pdf">amicus brief</a> on Friday, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow a South Carolina school to maintain its policy of separate bathrooms and locker rooms for boys and girls.
The amicus brief notes that the Fourth Circuit has been “mandating policies that deprive schoolchildren of privacy during vulnerable moments. In Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, a sharply divided panel of the Fourth Circuit required a school to let a girl access a multi-occupancy restroom reserved for the opposite sex because the student, though female, identified as a boy. And the Fourth Circuit has since expanded Grimm, wielding its logic to invalidate regulations on gender-transition procedures and providing for sex-separated sports teams.”
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener">End of Summer Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
“From the start, Grimm was wrongly decided. As Judge Niemeyer explained, the Grimm majority disregarded well ‘established principles’ and Title IX’s text to ‘advance[] policy preferences,’” the brief notes. “In United States v. Skrmetti, this Court rejected Grimm’s view that any rule referencing sex-related concepts contains a sex-based classification, even if the rule applies equally to all children. In Department of Education v. Louisiana, this Court let stand injunctions that blocked the federal government from forcing States to adopt the very type of bathroom-access policies that Grimm requires schools to adopt. And, of course, this Court recently granted certiorari to review another Fourth Circuit decision adopting Grimm’s logic. (Jackson v. W. Va. State Bd. of Education.)”
“No child should fear for their safety or privacy when using a bathroom, changing in the locker room, or showering after sports,” Rokita stated. “Forcing schools to mix boys and girls in these types of spaces shouldn’t be allowed or tolerated, and we’re going to continue fighting to stop it.”
“Under the Equal Protection Clause, this should be a simple case,” the amicus brief contends. “The Fourth Circuit agrees that schools can maintain separate bathrooms for boys and girls. It thus follows that schools can enforce policies providing for single-sex bathrooms against students who would prefer to use a bathroom designated for the opposite sex.”
“The Fourth Circuit claims that enforcing such policies against all students offends heightened scrutiny. As this Court’s decision in Skrmetti explains, however, a policy that applies to boys and girls alike does not classify on sex or transgender identity. South Carolina did not draw any impermissible lines when it decided that no one should be able to use a bathroom designated for the opposite sex,” the amicus brief concludes.

All Gender Bathroom Sign

23 States Urge Supreme Court To Uphold Sex-Specific Bathroom Policies

Bathrooms

Indiana

Locker Rooms

Transgender

A devout Christian baker in California — harassed by the state for eight years over her refusal to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple — is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to put an end to lower courts defying rulings that protect people of faith from being forced to violate their religious beliefs.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Cathy Miller, a devout Christian baker, asked the Supreme Court to protect her right to create custom-designed wedding cakes aligned with her faith. After nearly a decade of California punishing Cathy’s religious beliefs about marriage, it’s time for the Supreme Court to let… <a href="https://t.co/HRrpNu7Gl8">pic.twitter.com/HRrpNu7Gl8</a>
&mdash; BECKET (@becketfund) <a href="https://twitter.com/becketfund/status/1960773247076852191?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Catherine Miller was sued by the California Civil Rights Department in 2017 for alleged violations of the state’s public accommodation laws after she refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. In the aftermath of her decision, her bakery, Tastries, was flooded with angry social media posts, death threats, and harassing emails and phone calls.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener">End of Summer Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
After a week-long bench trial, the state trial court ruled in favor of Miller under the Free Speech Clause, but the state appeals court reversed the decision. The state’s Supreme Court then declined to review the case. Miller is represented by the Becket law firm.
The <a href="https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/20250827094241/Tastries-Cathy-Miller-Cert-Petition.pdf">petition</a> explains:
<blockquote>
After Miller opened her bakery in 2013, she began receiving requests for custom projects that “were not in line with” her faith. These requests included “gory” cakes, “marijuana” cakes, “adult” cakes and cookies featuring genitalia, and a cake announcing a divorce that a husband was going to surprise his (then) wife with. Miller turned these requests down. She then consulted with her pastor to create Tastries’ Design Standards, which she uses to communicate her policies to both employees and customers.
The Design Standards refer to Miller’s mission to create “custom designs that are Creative, Uplifting, Inspirational and Affirming,” and that are “lovely, praiseworthy, or of good report.” Miller’s mission is rooted in the Bible. The Design Standards state that Tastries “do[es] not accept requests” for baked goods “portraying explicit sexual content,” “promoting marijuana or casual drug use,” “featuring alcohol products or drunkenness,” “depicting gore, witches, spirits, and satanic or demonic content,” or “that violate fundamental Christian princip[les].”    
</blockquote>
“California still wants to put Cathy Miller to the test,” the petition to the Supreme Court states. “If she does not agree to design and create cakes for same-sex wedding ceremonies despite her undisputedly sincere religious objections, California says she must give up her cake-design business altogether.”
The petition refers to “two well-established splits of authority among the lower courts. The first is a 3-3 split over whether compelled speech must be viewed as an endorsement by a reasonable observer in order to qualify for First Amendment protection, or whether all compelled speech triggers strict scrutiny. &#8230; The second split divides the lower courts 7-4 over whether, when determining general applicability under the Free Exercise Clause, courts must consider all secular exemptions to the relevant law.”
“Without this Court’s intervention, these splits will continue to vex lower courts and litigants alike,” the petition warns. “A litigant’s First Amendment rights will vary dramatically by location, even between state and federal courts within California. Failing to resolve the splits will not just needlessly prolong the national battle over accommodations for religious believers when it comes to same-sex wedding ceremonies—it will make those conflicts worse, because it will reward government officials for continuing rather than resolving these conflicts.”

Newlyweds cutting wedding cake

Christian Baker Persecuted By California For 8 Years Urges Supreme Court: Protect People Of Faith

Bakersfield

Bakery

California State University

Christianity

Menu