Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 87, has been hospitalized for a &#8220;possible infection&#8221; after experiencing a fever and chills.
&#8220;Justice Ginsburg was admitted to The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland early this morning for treatment of a possible infection,&#8221; the Supreme Court said in a statement. &#8220;She was initially evaluated at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C. last night after experiencing fever and chills.&#8221;
&#8220;She underwent an endoscopic procedure at Johns Hopkins this afternoon to clean out a bile duct stent that was placed last August,&#8221; the statement added. &#8220;The Justice is resting comfortably and will stay in the hospital for a few days to receive intravenous antibiotic treatment.&#8221;
Ginsburg has been hospitalized with health problems numerous times in recent months including once in  May for an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-hospitalized-with-infection-supreme-court-says">infection</a> she sustained from a gallbladder condition and once in November after <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-again-admitted-to-hospital/">experiencing</a> flu-like symptoms.
The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-hospitalized-with-infection-supreme-court-says">highlighted</a> Ginsburg&#8217;s numerous battles with cancer:
<blockquote>In 1999, Ginsburg was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/29/us/ginsburg-leaves-hospital-prognosis-on-cancer-is-good.html">diagnosed</a> with colon cancer and had to undergo surgery. In 2009, Ginsburg underwent <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/washington/06ginsburg.html">surgery</a> for early-stage pancreatic cancer. In 2018, Ginsburg underwent surgery to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/21/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-cancer.html">remove</a> two cancerous nodules from her left lung. In 2019, underwent three weeks of radiation treatment to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/08/23/753699013/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-underwent-another-round-of-cancer-treatment-this-sum">treat</a> a localized cancerous tumor on her pancreas.</blockquote>
“Ginsburg has faced a slew of hurdles concerning her health, fueling speculation that her possible exit from the court could provide an opportunity for President Trump to appoint a third justice to the bench,” Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-hospitalized-with-infection-court-announces">reported</a> earlier this year. “However, she consistently has slapped down any notion that her departure from the nation’s highest court was imminent, insisting that she’d like to remain on the bench until she’s 90 years old.”
Ginsburg is not the only justice to be hospitalized in recent days.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was hospitalized late last month after he fell and reportedly hit his head at a country club.
In a statement, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathleen Arberg told The Post:
<blockquote>The Chief Justice was treated at a hospital on June 21 for an injury to his forehead sustained in a fall while walking for exercise near his home. The injury required sutures, and out of an abundance of caution, he stayed in the hospital overnight and was discharged the next morning. His doctors ruled out a seizure. They believe the fall was likely due to light-headedness caused by dehydration.</blockquote>
“Roberts has not released detailed information about his health or whether he takes medication because of those incidents,” The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/john-roberts-hospitalized-supreme-court/2020/07/07/6bc230ae-c0a0-11ea-b4f6-cb39cd8940fb_story.html">reported</a>. “The nine members of the court generally decide for themselves how much information to release about their health.”
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Presents Inaugural Woman Of Leadership Award To Agnes Gund

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Hospitalized With ‘Possible Infection’

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Supreme Court

The federal government executed an inmate for the first time in nearly two decades on Tuesday morning.
Daniel Lewis Lee was convicted on May 4, 1999, of killing three members of an Arkansas family: William Frederick Mueller, his wife Nancy Ann Mueller, and his 8-year-old stepdaughter Sarah Elizabeth Powell. The Department of Justice executed Lee at the federal prison near Terre Haute, Ind., on Tuesday, the first federal execution carried out since 2003.
Lee was scheduled to die at 4 p.m. on Monday, but a federal court delayed his execution in a last-minute ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court resolved the issue at 2 a.m. on Tuesday morning, putting out an unsigned 5-4 ruling overturning the Monday stay, according to <a href="https://apnews.com/638826b00bba1b389756126e4cfae97a">The Associated Press</a>.
“I didn’t do it,” Lee said in his final remarks. “I’ve made a lot of mistakes in my life, but I’m not a murderer … You’re killing an innocent man.”
Lee’s attorney Ruth Friedman released a <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g9E242X4gkZUJ1iOg_R-2ebCe5If0-VH/view">statement</a> following her client’s execution. Friedman said that amid the chaos of the court rulings and confusion in the Department of Justice on whether Lee could be executed or not, the death-row inmate laid strapped to a gurney for roughly four hours. At 4 a.m., federal agents called media and witnesses back to the prison and moved forward with Lee’s death sentence.
“It is shameful that the government saw fit to carry out this execution during a pandemic. It is shameful that the government saw fit to carry out this execution when counsel for Danny Lee could not be present with him, and when the judges in his case and even the family of his victims urged against it,” Friedman said. “And it is beyond shameful that the government, in the end, carried out this execution in haste, in the middle of the night, while the country was sleeping. We hope that upon awakening, the country will be as outraged as we are.”
The family of Lee’s victims had pushed to postpone his execution because of the pandemic and the risk to family members of attending. None of the victims&#8217; family members were present at the execution.
Attorney General William Barr released a <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-william-p-barr-execution-daniel-lewis-lee">statement</a> detailing Lee’s crimes and announcing that he received the “justice he deserved.”
“Lee, a member of a white supremacist organization, brutally murdered William Frederick Mueller and Nancy Ann Mueller, along with her eight-year-old daughter, Sarah Elizabeth Powell,” Barr said. “After robbing and shooting them with a stun gun, Lee duct-taped plastic bags around their heads weighed down each victim with rocks and drowned the family in the Illinois bayou. On May 4, 1999, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas found Lee guilty of numerous offenses, including three counts of murder in aid of racketeering, and he was sentenced to death.”
“Today, Lee finally faced the justice he deserved,” Barr added. “The American people have made the considered choice to permit capital punishment for the most egregious federal crimes, and justice was done today in implementing the sentence for Lee’s horrific offenses.”
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Federal prison near Terre Haute

Feds Carry Out First Execution In 17 Years Against Man Who Murdered Arkansas Family

Death Penalty

The Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf">ruled 5-4</a> Thursday that a substantial portion of Oklahoma, roughly 19 million acres in total including Tulsa, officially still belongs to Native American tribes because Congress never officially declared that it no longer did.
“The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority. “Over time, Congress has diminished that reservation. It has sometimes restricted and other times expanded the Tribe’s authority. But Congress has never withdrawn the promised reservation.”
“As a result, many of the arguments before us today follow a sadly familiar pattern. Yes, promises were made, but the price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind eye. We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so,” reads the decision.
Gorsuch wrote that to rule “otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law.”
According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/us/supreme-court-oklahoma-mcgirt-creek-nation.html">The New York Times</a>, the case was brought to the Supreme Court after Jimcy McGirt, a Native American man who was convicted of sex crimes against a child in state court, argued that his conviction should be overturned, and that he be tried in federal court instead, because he committed his alleged crimes on Indian land.
The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-much-of-eastern-oklahoma-remains-indian-land/2020/07/09/7bdc42d4-c1e2-11ea-9fdd-b7ac6b051dc8_story.html">reports</a> that the court’s ruling also addressed a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1107_o759.pdf">similar case</a> overturning the conviction of Patrick Murphy, a Native American man who was sentenced to death for the murder of another Native American man nearly 20 years ago. (Gorsuch, who heard the case as an appeals court judge, recused himself when the case reached the Supreme Court last year.)
Like McGirt, Murphy argued that he had been wrongly tried in Oklahoma state court, reports <a href="https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/tribal_control_oklahoma_royal_murphy">ABA Journal</a>.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who was left unconvinced with the majority ruling, wrote for the minority in a dissenting opinion that the court had purportedly discovered, “unbeknownst to anyone for the past century, a huge swathe of Oklahoma is actually a Creek Indian reservation.”
“Across this vast area, the State’s ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out. On top of that, the Court has profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma,” wrote Roberts, remarking that the ruling created “significant” legal uncertainty “over any area that touches Indian affairs.”
After the Supreme Court released its ruling, a group of Native American nations issued a joint statement with Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter saying they were committed to “resolving any significant jurisdictional issues” that result from the ruling.
“The Nations and the State are committed to ensuring that Jimcy McGirt, Patrick Murphy, and all other offenders face justice for the crimes for which they are accused. We have a shared commitment to maintaining public safety and long-term economic prosperity for the Nations and Oklahoma,” reads the joint statement.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Senate Holds Confirmation Hearing For Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch

Supreme Court Rules 5-4 Significant Portion Of Oklahoma Is Indian Land

Native Americans

Oklahoma

On Wednesday, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden responded to the Supreme Court ruling that exempted religious organizations from covering their employees’ contraception. Biden said he was “disappointed in today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision” in the case Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, adding, “I will restore the Obama-Biden policy that existed before the Hobby Lobby ruling.”
Biden accused the Trump administration of continuing to “strip health care from women,” adding, “I will restore the Obama-Biden policy that existed before the Hobby Lobby ruling: providing an exemption for houses of worship and an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious missions. The accommodation will allow women at these organizations to access contraceptive coverage, not through their employer-provided plan, but instead through their insurance company or a third-party administrator.”
As John McCormack of <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/biden-says-he-would-rescind-exemption-for-little-sisters-of-poor/">National Review</a> pointed out, “The so-called ‘accommodation’ is the very policy that the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns that provide care to the elderly, were fighting in court on the grounds that the policy still required them to violate their moral and religious convictions.”
McCormack cited columnist Charles Krauthammer <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-overreach--obamacare-vs-the-constitution/2012/02/16/gIQAmupcIR_story.html">writing</a> in 2012:
<blockquote>President Obama’s birth control “accommodation” was as politically successful as it was morally meaningless. It was nothing but an accounting trick that still forces Catholic (and other religious) institutions to provide medical insurance that guarantees free birth control, tubal ligation and morning-after abortifacients — all of which violate church doctrine on the sanctity of life. The trick is that these birth control/abortion services will supposedly be provided independently and free of charge by the religious institution’s insurance company. But this changes none of the moral calculus. Holy Cross Hospital, for example, is still required by law to engage an insurance company that is required by law to provide these doctrinally proscribed services to all Holy Cross employees.</blockquote>
Biden’s full statement read:
<blockquote>Health care is a right that should not be dependent on race, gender, income or zip code. Yet as a result of today’s decision, countless women are at risk of losing access to affordable, preventive care.
I am disappointed in today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that will make it easier for the  Trump-Pence Administration to continue to strip health care from women – attempting to carve out broad exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s commitment to giving all women free access to recommended contraception.
As a result of the Affordable Care Act, more than 60 million women – including at least 32 million women of color – gained access to this preventative health care. The Obama-Biden Administration did this while also providing an exemption for houses of worship and an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious missions.
As disappointing as the Supreme Court’s ruling is, there is a clear path to fixing it:  electing a new President who will end Donald Trump’s ceaseless attempts to gut every aspect of the Affordable Care Act.  If I am elected, I will restore the Obama-Biden policy that existed before the Hobby Lobby ruling: providing an exemption for houses of worship and an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious missions. The accommodation will allow women at these organizations to access contraceptive coverage, not through their employer-provided plan, but instead through their insurance company or a third-party administrator.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
No mercy for cultural enemies. <a href="https://t.co/7oPmKRIXMe">https://t.co/7oPmKRIXMe</a>
&mdash; Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) <a href="https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1281241311996239878?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Not sure how he would do that. 
Ignore the Supreme Court? <a href="https://t.co/8lX7U9O6Mo">https://t.co/8lX7U9O6Mo</a>
&mdash; Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) <a href="https://twitter.com/Neoavatara/status/1281243223726477312?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

President Obama attends the National Prayer Breakfast &#8211; DC

Supreme Court Rules For Trump Administration And Religious Organizations. Biden: ‘I Will Restore The Obama-Biden Policy’

Joe Biden

Little Sisters of the Poor

In two 7-2 opinions issued Thursday, the Supreme Court led again by Chief Justice John Roberts, determined that President Donald Trump is not immune from subpoenas requesting access to his tax returns from before he won the White House, but did not immediately hand over the financial documents to either New York City&#8217;s District Attorney or House Democrats, sending both requests back to lower courts for further litigation.
The Manhattan District Attorney had &#8220;subpoenaed Trump&#8217;s records as part of a criminal investigation into potential wrongdoing by the president and his organization. Multiple House committees had subpoenaed Trump&#8217;s records ostensibly as part of an effort at oversight and to inform potential legislation,&#8221; <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-records-vance-subpoena">Fox News reported</a>.
In both cases, though, the Supreme Court declined to simply force Trump to hand over the documents, instead remanding both cases to lower courts to review again in light of the Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling that Trump does not enjoy immunity from investigation for potential incidents that occurred before he was president.
Both of President Trump&#8217;s Supreme Court appointees, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, agreed with the decision but wrote their own concurring opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Fox News noted that &#8220;[t]he court limited its ruling and the arguments before it to whether Trump has &#8216;absolute immunity,&#8221; as well as to whether &#8220;state prosecutors are required to show a &#8216;heightened need&#8217; in order to obtain documents as part of investigations into a president.&#8221;
&#8220;President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need,&#8221; Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.
In the second case, determining whether the House Democrats could seek Trump&#8217;s financial records, Roberts noted that the case touches on preserving the House&#8217;s subpoena power but balanced against the Constitutional separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches.
&#8220;Without limits on its subpoena powers, Congress could &#8216;exert an imperious control&#8217; over the Executive Branch and aggrandize itself at the President’s expense, just as the Framers feared,&#8221; he wrote.
That said, though, Roberts added that when &#8220;Congress seeks information &#8216;needed for intelligent legislative action,&#8217; it &#8216;unquestionably&#8217; remains &#8216;the duty of all citizens to cooperate.'&#8221; Investigations into the president, though, &#8220;implicate special concerns regarding the separation of powers,&#8221; he said, suggesting, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-records-vance-subpoena">per Fox</a>, that lower courts had not adequately analyzed the Congressional investigation&#8217;s impact on the office of the president.
To that end, both cases &#8212; the Manhattan DA&#8217;s and the Congressional case &#8212; were referred back to lower courts where both parties will be able to make new and renewed arguments. Ultimately, the timeline benefits President Trump and the Trump re-election campaign, who were concerned that a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court would put Trump&#8217;s tax returns at the center of the 2020 presidential election.
Thursday&#8217;s ruling will likely keep the issue in the courts for at least several more months.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

President Trump

Supreme Court Says Trump Does Not Have Immunity Against Tax Doc Subpoena But Won’t Give House Dems Access

Donald Trump

John Roberts

In a 7-2 decision, issued Wednesday, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration and the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Catholic nuns, in ruling that the administration acted properly when it extended an exemption from Obamacare&#8217;s birth control mandate to religious organizations.
The Affordable Care Act, or &#8220;Obamacare,&#8221; requires that employers of a certain size that offer health insurance subscribe to policies that allow workers to obtain birth control free of charge. But some religious groups &#8212; most notably, Catholics &#8212; object to the use of chemical birth control to prevent pregnancy, leaving Catholic and other religious employers in a situation of having to defy the edicts of their faith and openly pay for birth control for employees.
The exemption, issued by the Trump administration, allows religious employers to opt-out of the mandate, simply shifting the burden of paying for contraception to the employee.
The Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Catholic nuns, have been the leading plaintiff on cases involving the Obamacare contraception mandate, and after achieving a previous, limited win at the Supreme Court, the group received a much larger victory Wednesday with seven of the nine justices agreeing that religious exemptions to the contraceptive mandate are proper.
&#8220;The court ruled 7-2 in favor of the Trump administration and the Catholic charity that cares for the elderly in two related disputes against Pennsylvania, which sued over the validity of a rule from the Trump administration that allowed religious-affiliated groups and some for-profit companies to opt-out of providing contraception coverage to employees,&#8221; <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-upholds-religious-exemptions-to-obamacare-contraception-coverage">Fox News reported</a>.
&#8220;The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, ruled that the Trump administration&#8217;s challenged rulemaking was aboveboard, and hailed the work of the Little Sisters of the Poor,&#8221; the outlet continued.
&#8220;For over 150 years, the Little Sisters have engaged in faithful service and sacrifice, motivated by a religious calling to surrender all for the sake of their brother,&#8221; Thomas wrote in the opinion. &#8220;But for the past seven years, they—like many other religious objectors who have participated in the litigation and rulemakings leading up to today’s decision— have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.&#8221;
&#8220;We hold today that the Departments had the statutory authority to craft that exemption, as well as the contemporaneously issued moral exemption. We further hold that the rules promulgating these exemptions are free from procedural defects,&#8221; he concluded.
Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer sided with the court&#8217;s conservatives in the majority opinion, although they issued their own, separate explanation. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
Ginsburg was particularly incensed at the court&#8217;s ruling, accusing her colleagues of trampling women&#8217;s rights in pursuit of a religious agenda.
&#8220;Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree,&#8221; Ginsburg wrote. &#8220;Destructive of the Women’s Health Amendment, this Court leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets.&#8221;
Kagan and Breyer were clear that they judged the Trump administration&#8217;s authority alone and made no comment on its impact on other, unenumerated rights.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Activists Rally Outside Supreme Court Hearing On Religious Non-Profits Abiding To ACA

Supreme Court Sides With Trump Admin, Catholic Nuns In Obamacare Contraception Mandate Case

Catholicism

Christianity

freedom of religion

Religion

States can pass laws that punish so-called &#8220;faithless electors&#8221; who refuse to cast an official ballot for the winner of that state&#8217;s popular vote, the Supreme Court said Monday, in a unanimous 9-0 decision authored by Justice Elena Kagan.
Members of the Electoral College are selected on a state-by-state basis and, according to the United States Constitution, are bound to cast their official state ballots for whichever presidential candidate wins their state&#8217;s popular vote.
&#8220;In 2016,&#8221; CNN reports, &#8220;10 of the 538 presidential electors went rogue, attempting to vote for someone other than their pledged candidate. In all, 32 states and the District of Columbia have laws that are meant to discourage faithless electors. But until 2016, no state had ever actually punished or removed an elector because of his or her vote.&#8221;
The anti-Trump &#8220;resistance&#8221; was particularly concerned with this decision, as they had hoped to pressure members of the Electoral College to declare themselves &#8220;faithless&#8221; and cast ballots for President Donald Trump&#8217;s opponent in November if Trump were to lose the national popular vote.
In 2016, as CNN noted, several electors tried to defect from their state delegations over similar concerns &#8212; that Trump had lost the national popular vote to the then-Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. At least three electors went completely rogue in 2016, casting ballots for Colin Powell, John Kasich, and Native American rights activist Faith Spotted Eagle.
Those rogue electors eventually brought the suit that landed at the Supreme Court, after receiving fines.
On Monday, though, &#8220;resistance&#8221; hopes were dashed by left-leaning members of the court.
&#8220;Today, we consider whether a State may also penalize an elector for breaking his pledge and voting for someone other than the presidential candidate who won his State&#8217;s popular vote. We hold that a State may do so,&#8221; Kagan wrote for the majority. &#8220;The Constitution&#8217;s text and the Nation&#8217;s history both support allowing a State to enforce an elector&#8217;s pledge to support his party&#8217;s nominee &#8212; and the state voters&#8217; choice &#8212; for President.&#8221;
&#8220;The Constitution is barebones about electors,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint, in whatever way it likes, as many electors as it has Senators and Representatives.&#8221;
While most Constitutional scholars agreed that the outcome of the case was &#8220;not surprising,&#8221; at least according to CNN, many were shocked that the court was unanimous in its decision to uphold laws punishing &#8220;faithless electors.&#8221;
&#8220;The only surprise is the unanimous vote in cases at least some expected to divide the Court,&#8221; one expert told the network. &#8220;Here, at least, concern over the consequences of a contrary ruling appears to have united the Justices.&#8221;
Kagan was careful not to suggest that states must bind electors to the outcome of a state&#8217;s popular vote, Fox News notes. Instead, Kagan said, states may outline for themselves the role of electors.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers with the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe"> member</a>.

supreme court

Unanimous Supreme Court Decision Upholds State Laws Punishing ‘Faithless Electors’

Electoral College

Believe it or not, John Roberts handed conservatives two big wins at the Supreme Court last week, just not the win they wanted. Roberts gutted the Consumer Financial Protection Board and beefed up the argument for the unitary executive. Roberts, in effect, expanded the power of presidents to exercise control over appointees of independent executive branch agencies. The long-term ramifications are significant and structural. He also led the Court in striking down a Montana Supreme Court decision that barred religious schools in Montana from taking advantage of public tax dollars for tuition payments. Nonreligious private schools could participate, but religious ones could not. This is a big religious liberty win.
But Roberts also sided with the Court&#8217;s liberals to strike down an abortion case in Louisiana. He would concur not in their reasoning but in their judgment. Roberts took a position based on stare decisis and essentially argued that legislatures putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of exercising rights must be restrained by courts. We will see him pull that language back out in a Biden presidency when the Democrats want to curtail the Second Amendment.
To understand Roberts, understand his handling of the &#8220;Obamacare&#8221; case. In that case, leading up to the 2012 election, Roberts upheld the Affordable Care Act on grounds no other justice on the Court agreed with but used reasoning that would make it easy for a President Mitt Romney to sabotage the Affordable Care Act. He chose to be the ultimate unaccountable politician by doing so in a way that took the Supreme Court out of the fighting.
Roberts, as chief justice, is more about protecting his turf than preserving an ideology. If you understand that Roberts views his role as restraining the prevailing powers, his jurisprudence makes more sense.
Consider the census case.
Roberts wrote that opinion two years ago and argued that the Trump administration could ask about citizenship on the census but needed a clear reason for doing so. Roberts essentially said he did not believe the Trump administration but provided them a helpful roadmap for future administrative decisions.
Fast forward to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, and again Roberts wrote the decision. He again said what Trump wanted was fine, but Trump failed to adhere to the roadmap Roberts had set out, so Trump&#8217;s rule had to go.
Now, with the abortion decision, Roberts gives the left their win against Trump on abortion, the biggest issue of the day. It sucks some of the energy away from those who would want to pack the courts and demonstrates the independence of the federal judiciary. In other words, Roberts has played politics to insulate the judiciary from conservatives who claim they own it and progressives who want to pack the Supreme Court.
The troubling thing here is not that Roberts is not a conservative or that he is a liberal. It is that he views his role as restraining Trump. He will do that with Joe Biden as well. He did that in the Obama administration. Even when giving Barack Obama wins, like with &#8220;Obamacare,&#8221; Roberts was signaling paths forward for conservatives electorally.
Roberts is playing politics to protect his institution. He can keep this up for years. In doing so, while trying to restrain the other branches and preserve his own, he is muddying jurisprudence. Because of John Roberts, abortion jurisprudence in America is extremely convoluted.
Because the right has been so aggressive in stockpiling conservatives on the courts, Roberts felt he needed to side with the left to take the Supreme Court off the table in the election. If Biden wins, the conservative legal advancement will start up again with Roberts delivering wins for the right. As long as Trump is there, however, Roberts sees his job as restraint.
Going back to the Affordable Care Act case, Roberts&#8217; message to the right seems clear: Don&#8217;t expect big wins in courts if you don&#8217;t want to try big wins in Congress. I&#8217;m not sure why John Roberts should be the pro-life warrior Republicans expect him to be while a Republican Congress long ago gave up trying to defund Planned Parenthood.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

ERICKSON: Restrainer In Chief

Major broadcast networks devoted time to covering Supreme Court decisions that aligned with liberal values while ignoring wins that favored conservatives.
A <a href="https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2020/06/30/scotus-study-nets-spent-25-minutes-extolling-dem-wins-zero">new study</a> from the conservative NewsBusters found that the big networks – ABC, CBS, and NBC – spent nearly 25 minutes covering Supreme Court decisions that were considered wins for liberals and absolutely no time covering the decisions that were considered wins for conservatives. In the past two weeks, the Supreme Court issued six major rulings, three of which were considered positive for conservatives and three that were considered positive for liberals.
“[A]s a Media Research Center study discovered, the broadcast evening newscasts only focused on the wins for Democrats. Those wins were on gay rights in the workplace, keeping Obama&#8217;s executive order on illegal immigrants who arrived as children, and striking down [a] Louisiana abortion law requiring hospital admissions privileges. In all, they gave the liberal wins almost 25 minutes (24:55) of airtime,” NewsBusters reported. “Contrast that with the rulings the networks completely blacked out: quick deportations for failed asylum seekers (June 25), executive branch control over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (June 29), and religious freedom via school choice (June 30).”
Further, the amount of airtime dedicated to each of the liberal wins “shows us who they prioritized in the left’s identity politics hierarchy,” the outlet added.
<blockquote>On gay rights, one of the points the liberal networks reveled in was conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch siding with the liberal justices, even writing the opinion. Each network gave their win a full report. ABC’s World News Tonight dedicated two minutes, one second; CBS Evening News gave it two minutes, 39 seconds; NBC Nightly News had two minutes, 12 seconds.
It was similar with DACA as Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberals in the majority. ABC’s report lasted three minutes, 55 seconds; CBS had two back-to-back reports that ate up six minutes, nine seconds; NBC had the least with two minutes, 18 seconds. And as <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2020/06/18/nets-boast-scotus-loss-trump-victory-dreamers">NewsBusters noted at the time</a>, the networks first celebrated the DACA decision as a “big blow” to President Trump before saying it was a win for the so-called “Dreamers.”
…
The Supreme Court striking down Louisiana’s protections for mothers and the unborn got the least amount of airtime out of their wins, but still received full reports from all three. ABC gave it one minute, 47 seconds; CBS clocked in at two minutes, six seconds; and NBC inched out ABC with one minute, 48 seconds.</blockquote>
Not only did the networks champion the liberal-leaning decisions, they made sure to note when conservative justices sided with liberal justices (while ignoring the decisions where liberal justices sided with conservative justices).
“The math was simple: three wins for liberals and three wins for conservatives. But only one batch was even noted, let alone celebrated by the broadcast networks,” NewsBusters concluded.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers with the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe"> member</a>.

SCOTUS

Networks Covered Liberal SCOTUS Wins, Ignored GOP Wins

Media Bias

Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision announced Monday striking down Louisiana&#8217;s abortion clinic restrictions, siding with the court&#8217;s four liberal justices in the landmark case.
The case, June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, centered around whether Louisiana could place &#8220;health and safety&#8221; restrictions on abortion clinics operating within the state, requiring, among other things, that doctors operating at those clinics have admitting privileges at a local hospital so that patients experiencing a medical emergency, above and beyond what an outpatient or ambulatory care clinic could handle, could effectively treat or consult on that patient in a hospital setting.
The majority said the law, similar to a Texas law struck down in 2016, runs afoul of the court&#8217;s standard in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which noted that a government could not place an &#8220;undue burden&#8221; on those seeking an abortion.
&#8220;We have examined the extensive record carefully and conclude that it supports the District Court’s findings of fact,&#8221; Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion. &#8220;Those findings mirror those made in [2016 Texas case] Whole Woman’s Health [ v. Hellerstedt] in every relevant respect and require the same result. We consequently hold that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional.&#8221;
&#8220;Under the applicable constitutional standards set forth in the Court’s earlier abortion-related cases, particularly Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, and Whole Woman’s Health, ‘[u]nnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right’ and are, therefore &#8216;constitutionally invalid,&#8217;” Breyer argued.
Roberts authored his own opinion, arguing that Whole Woman&#8217;s Health set the standard for how the court treats such restrictions and he was required to follow it.
“The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike,” he wrote. &#8220;The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.&#8221;
Oddly, Roberts was among the dissenters in Whole Women&#8217;s Health.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the dissent issued Monday, maintaining that the majority ignored a number of problems, including whether the clinics themselves even had standing to challenge the Louisiana rule, in its haste to preserve abortion rights.
&#8220;Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction,&#8221; Thomas wrote.
&#8220;The plurality and THE CHIEF JUSTICE ultimately cast aside this jurisdictional barrier to conclude that Louisiana’s law is unconstitutional under our precedents,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;But those decisions created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution’s text. Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled.&#8221;
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

SUPREME COURT ABORITON

John Roberts Casts Deciding Vote As Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions

Abortion

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has come under fire from conservatives for his opinion in the Bostock case, the decision that declares that the law forbidding employer discrimination on the basis of sex protects homosexuals and transgenders.
The opinion is absurd, but not for the reasons some conservatives think. The popular Christian website World, for instance, says the decision “expands the definition of sex…to include sexual orientation and gender identity.” That’s not quite right. What the decision does is strip the word sex of any real-world meaning whatsoever.
Gorsuch writes: “An employer violates [the law] when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex… Because discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex, an employer who intentionally penalizes an employee for being homosexual or transgender also violates [the law].”
In other words, if Mary sleeps with John, and Bob sleeps with John, and you fire Bob, the only reason you are firing him is because of his sex. After all, he has only performed the same action as Mary.
For Gorsuch, to say that you can’t discriminate on the basis of sex is to say that you can’t admit that sex is a category of person with its own traits and nature. His opinion is pure “textualism” in that it treats the text as an entity separate from the real world. It is not “originalism,” because no person could have originally used the word “sex” expecting it to have no real-world meaning.
The opinion has internal logic but, as anyone who has studied logic even for ten minutes knows, logic means nothing if your premise is false. If pigs have wings, then cows are frogs — that’s a logical truth, but it’s not going to help you much down on the farm. So too with Gorsuch’s opinion. If men and women are the same, heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same. But they’re not, so they’re not.
Interestingly, because Gorsuch accepts the irrational premises of leftist gender movements, he exposes their irrationality as well. For instance, the transgender movement claims that transgender women are women in fact. But Gorsuch says, essentially, if Mary says she’s a woman and Bob says he’s a woman, and I fire Bob, I’m only firing him because he’s a man. So it turns out a transgender woman is not a woman, after all.
Gorsuch can’t help but walk into this buzzsaw because leftist gender theory is internally contradictory. The Left wants to have its materialism and eat its spiritualism too. They want to say that there is no difference between men and women, that they have the same desires, propensities, talents, abilities, and sense of the world. But they also want to say that a man can become a woman by having the interior experience of being a woman. But if men and women are the same, how could one have the interior experience of being the other? How would he even know he was having the experience, if the two genders are the same?
The person who understands this unsolvable paradox is Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling. Rowling is currently the target of the hate-filled, logic-free cancel mob because she refuses to admit that transgender “women” are women. She’s right, of course. Transgender women and women can’t possibly be the same thing. If the word same has any meaning, it can’t be the same to feel like a woman when you were born a woman, and to feel like a woman when you were born a man.
“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction,” Rowling has written. “If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth.”
Men and women are different, and one cannot become the other. This is not a statement of “hate” or “prejudice.” It’s a description of reality. Without reality, language describes nothing, logic applies to nothing, and the law means nothing.
The movie “Blow-Up” was made in the 1960s and was a comment on the leftist culture on the rise then as now. In the final scene, the photographer hero watches a group of hippie clowns play tennis with an imaginary ball. Ultimately, the clowns hit the “ball” his way. They demand that he pick it up.
He finally gives in. He picks it up. And he disappears.
Neil Gorsuch has picked up the left’s irrational tennis ball. He’s gone.

Neil Gorsuch

KLAVAN: Neil Gorsuch’s Opinion Is Insane, But Not For The Reason You Think

As legal scholars debate the consequences of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to invent new legal protections by re-legislating from the bench the Civil Rights Act of 1964, what concerns me is a more pressing matter: Justice Neil Gorsuch owes me money.
Last year, Gorsuch published a <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07LDTJ5R9/ref=as_li_ss_tl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;btkr=1&amp;linkCode=sl1&amp;tag=michaeljknowl-20&amp;linkId=56e3dedaa675f6976dc0dfd86a5715a9&amp;language=en_US">book</a> on his legal philosophy in which he encouraged judicial restraint. He described himself variously as a textualist and an originalist in the mold of Justice Scalia, who is no doubt rolling in his grave after Gorsuch’s overreach this week.
I encourage anyone else who bought the Justice’s book to join me in demanding a refund by mailing the book to the Justice’s chambers with a letter along the following lines:
<blockquote>June 17, 2020
The Hon. Justice Neil Gorsuch
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Dear Justice Gorsuch,
I write to request a refund for your book A Republic, If You Can Keep It, based on your false premise that the book promotes judicial modesty. 
In your book, you lambast judges who “pretend to be philosopher-kings with the right or ability to pronounce judgment on all of society’s problems” and praise those who “apply the law’s terms as faithfully as possible.” 
You insist, “A judge’s task is not to pursue his own policy vision for the country, whether in the name of some political creed, social science theory, or…to represent (or bend to) popular will” but rather to “apply the Constitution or a congressional statute as it is.” 
Yet in your recent majority opinion in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County you have practiced precisely the opposite of what you preached in your book.
You attempted to pass off your decision, in the words of your colleague Justice Alito, “as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation championed by [your] late colleague Justice Scalia,” but your opinion in fact represents “a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated.” 
Indeed, you excoriated that theory in your own book.
The hardcover lists for $30. Please return that amount to the address enclosed. 
I look forward to donating every dollar to the campaign of any presidential or senatorial candidate who can promise the appointment and confirmation of an actual textualist to the Court.
Sincerely
Michael Knowles</blockquote>
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

KNOWLES: Justice Gorsuch Owes Me A Refund, So I Wrote Him A Letter

Gender

Sexuality

Justice Roberts has reaped a whirlwind of criticism this week after siding with the Supreme Court&#8217;s liberal wing this week on two major decisions: the rescinding of DACA and workplace protections for LGBT individuals on the basis of sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) has gone as far to call on Justice Roberts to resign for showing himself to be a political actor rather than an impartial jurist.
&#8220;It cannot be the law that what Barack Obama has unlawfully done, no president may undo,” Cotton said in a statement, as reported by <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/18/cotton-if-john-roberts-wants-to-write-laws-he-should-resign-and-run-for-office/">The Federalist</a>. &#8220;John Roberts again postures as a Solomon who will save our institutions from political controversy and accountability. If the Chief Justice believes his political judgment is so exquisite, I invite him to resign, travel to Iowa, and get elected. I suspect voters will find his strange views no more compelling than do the principled justices on the Court.&#8221;
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) was equally vocal in his criticism of the Supreme Court.
“Judging is not a game. It’s not supposed to be a game but sadly over recent years more and more, Chief Justice Roberts has been playing games with the court to achieve the policy outcomes he desires,” Cruz said.
In the 5-4 decision on Wednesday, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in which he said that President Trump could not rescind the Obama administration’s Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Act with an executive order, alleging that the president did not reverse the program in their preferred way.
“We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. ‘The wisdom’ of those decisions ‘is none of our concern,&#8217;” Roberts <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-rules-against-trump-admin-on-daca-roberts-strikes-casts-swing-vote">wrote in the opinion</a>. “We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.”
The Roberts opinion further alleged that the Trump administration &#8220;failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance,” demanding that the Department of Homeland Security take up the issue if DACA were to come to an end.
“That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner,” Roberts wrote. “The appropriate recourse is, therefore, to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.”
Trump, who took a beating in the Supreme Court this week, blasted the justices for their jurisprudence on Twitter while demanding we get new justices on the court.
“The recent Supreme Court decisions, not only on DACA, Sanctuary Cities, Census, and others, tell you only one thing, we need NEW JUSTICES of the Supreme Court. If the Radical Left Democrats assume power, your Second Amendment, Right to Life, Secure Borders, and &#8230; Religious Liberty, among many other things, are OVER and GONE!”  he tweeted.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Senate Select Intelligence Committee

Tom Cotton Calls On Justice Roberts To Resign Following DACA Ruling

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

Tom Cotton

President Trump has promised to release a new list of conservative Supreme Court picks after the High Court blocked his administration from rescinding former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals order.
The Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-rules-against-trump-admin-on-daca-roberts-strikes-casts-swing-vote">issued</a> a Thursday ruling that the Department of Homeland Security violated the Administrative Procedure Act and moved to rescind DACA too quickly. The court did not say that Trump lacks the authority to eventually repeal the order, and Trump pledged to continue repealing the Obama-era directive.
The court decision was a surprise win for progressive immigration advocates and a loss for the Trump administration. The court was largely split between its ideological blocs except for Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with the four liberal justices.
“The recent Supreme Court decisions, not only on DACA, Sanctuary Cities, Census, and others, tell you only one thing, we need NEW JUSTICES of the Supreme Court,” Trump tweeted after the decision. “If the Radical Left Democrats assume power, your Second Amendment, Right to Life, Secure Borders, and Religious Liberty, among many other things, are OVER and GONE!”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&#8230;Religious Liberty, among many other things, are OVER and GONE!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1273665329416286219?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 18, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Trump pledged to come out with a new list of potential Supreme Court picks similar to the list he released in the run-up to the 2016 election. During the 2016 campaign, the list of potential picks Trump released helped shore up support among some skeptical conservatives.
“I will be releasing a new list of Conservative Supreme Court Justice nominees, which may include some, or many of those already on the list, by September 1, 2020. If given the opportunity, I will only choose from this list, as in the past, a Conservative Supreme Court Justice,” Trump said. “Based on decisions being rendered now, this list is more important than ever before (Second Amendment, Right to Life, Religous Liberty, etc.) – VOTE 2020!”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&#8230;Based on decisions being rendered now, this list is more important than ever before (Second Amendment, Right to Life, Religous Liberty, etc.) – VOTE 2020!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1273667868362768386?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 18, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Trump’s loss over DACA follows an earlier defeat on how to interpret Civil Rights Act Title VII protections against discrimination. The Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-rules-lgbt-individuals-protected-from-job-discrimination-under-title-vii">voted</a> 6-3 on Monday to include protections for gay, lesbian, and transgender people into the law. Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts sided with the court’s liberal bloc to make up the majority.
The court opinion, written by Gorsuch, said that discrimination based on sexual orientation is the same as discrimination based on sex. The decision could have wide-ranging implications for religious institutions and businesses.
Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, criticizing the majority for folding together two separate and distinguishable terms.
“The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous,” Alito said. “Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of ‘sex’ is different from discrimination because of ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity.’”
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

President Trump, Neil Gorsuch

Trump Promises New List Of ‘Conservative’ Justices After SCOTUS Rules Against Him

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts dealt a blow to the Trump administration Thursday morning, authoring a 5-4 decision reversing the administration&#8217;s effort to bring an end to the Obama administration&#8217;s Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Act with an executive order.
In the decision, the court appeared to suggest that the Trump administration moved too quickly to strike the program and did not go about reversing DACA in the correct matter, though it does not outline what it believes to be the right procedure.
<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-against-trump-administration-over-move-to-end-daca-program">Fox News reports</a> that &#8220;the court said the move to eliminate the program that grants privileges to children who entered the U.S. illegally as minors was &#8216;arbitrary and capricious,&#8217; although they did not rule on the merits of the program itself.&#8221;
&#8220;We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. &#8216;The wisdom&#8217; of those decisions &#8216;is none of our concern,'&#8221; Roberts writes in the opinion, in which he sided with the court&#8217;s four left-leaning justices. &#8220;We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.&#8221;
Roberts went on to say that the administration &#8220;failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance,&#8221; and specifically how to tie up loose ends related to the program, including what would happen to DACA recipients who would have their benefits stripped after relying on them for a period of time.
The court then demanded the Department of Homeland Security re-address the issue if they still believe that DACA should come to an end.
&#8220;That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner,&#8221; Roberts wrote. &#8220;The appropriate recourse is, therefore, to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.&#8221;
The DACA program began as the result of an executive order issued by then-President Barack Obama. President Donald Trump rescinded the program with his own executive order, which, to the Trump White House, appeared to be the correct way to undo the measure. The Supreme Court, though, said Thursday that the president was required to consider procedural and ancillary issues attendant to rescinding the program in addition to issuing an executive order ending DACA.
The dissent, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, focused on the majority&#8217;s decision to take issue with the effects of eliminating DACA rather than the legal procedure used to end the program.
&#8220;These cases could—and should—have ended with a determination that his legal conclusion was correct. Instead, the majority today concludes that DHS was required to do far more,&#8221; Thomas writes.
&#8220;Without grounding its position in either the APA or precedent, the majority declares that DHS was required to overlook DACA’s obvious legal deficiencies and provide additional policy reasons and justifications before restoring the rule of law,&#8221; he continues. &#8220;This holding is incorrect, and it will hamstring all future agency attempts to undo actions that exceed statutory authority. I would, therefore, reverse the judgments below and remand with instructions to dissolve the nationwide injunctions.”
The Supreme Court issued only this decision Thursday. At least one decision remains outstanding before the court adjourns for this session.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

DACA supreme court

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Against Trump Admin On DACA, Roberts Strikes Casts Swing Vote

In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes heretofore unimagined employment protections on the basis of sexual preference and “sexual identity.” Neil Gorsuch, appointed to replace the late originalist Antonin Scalia, wrote the majority opinion, joined by squish John Roberts and the rest of the Court’s liberals. Conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Gorsuch’s liberal judicial activism has in effect rewritten the most consequential law of the twentieth century and redefined a fundamental aspect of our nature. No ruling that he might make in the future could counteract that kind of radicalism. Conservatives must now count Scalia’s successor among the worst jurists in our history.
It comes as no surprise that a legal establishment confounded by the difference between men and women would be likewise flummoxed by the insistence of criminals on committing crimes. According to Michael LiPetri, chief of Crime Control Strategies for the NYPD, at least 250 of the 2,500 convicts sprung from Rikers Island over coronavirus fears have reoffended and been rearrested 450 times so far. It turns out that law enforcement exists because of crime and not the other way around. Leftists from Gracie Mansion in New York to the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle have fallen for the same error that ideologues have believed since at least the French Revolution: namely, that politics can perfect human nature. The journalist Irving Kristol famously described neoconservatives as liberals who had been “mugged by reality.” Many idealistic liberals once again stand to be mugged, either by reality or by the thugs they themselves let loose.
In Brooklyn, thousands of leftist activists gathered over the weekend to support “black trans lives” after two black men who identified as women were murdered last week. The protesters sought to tie the demonstration to the nation’s broad racial, anti-police protests. But in the case of one murder, the two suspects were both themselves black, and in the case of the second, the Philadelphia Police Department was already at work investigating the crime. The protesters would not let facts get in the way of the narrative, and neither would the mainstream media, which turned from stoking racial resentment to ginning up fear of the sometime coronavirus pandemic. Within the span of just one hour, NBC News tweeted approvingly that a “rally for Black trans lives draws packed crowd to Brooklyn Museum plaza” before warning that “health experts are questioning” President Trump’s decisions to restart his campaign rallies.
Scientific data seem not to have played a role in the media’s reaction to the two mass gatherings, nor crime statistics in the City government’s decision to release thousands of criminals, nor the plain meaning of the Civil Rights Act in the Supreme Court’s ruling to redefine sex. Ideology long ago determined those outcomes. And while we argue against the nonsense, the revolution marches on.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

KNOWLES: The Revolution Marches On

Black Lives Matter

Defund The Police

Law Enforcement

LGBT

Race

Hollywood celebrities, from Ellen DeGeneres to Cynthia Nixon, celebrated the Supreme Court&#8217;s 6-3 ruling on Monday stating that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination.
&#8220;This is just incredible news! A bright spot in a dark time,&#8221; tweeted actress Mandy Moore.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This is just incredible news! A bright spot in a dark time. <a href="https://t.co/SVUpOIL7LC">https://t.co/SVUpOIL7LC</a>
&mdash; Mandy Moore (@TheMandyMoore) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheMandyMoore/status/1272531887047598083?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 15, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;HUGE VICTORY FOR LGBTQ RIGHTS!!! Happy Pride Everybody &#8212; the Supreme Court has decided LGBTQ people can sue for workplace bias,&#8221; tweeted &#8220;Sex &amp; The City&#8221; star Cynthia Nixon.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
HUGE VICTORY FOR LGBTQ RIGHTS!!!
Happy Pride Everybody &#8212; the Supreme Court has decided LGBTQ people can sue for workplace bias.🏳️‍🌈⚖️
Thank you to <a href="https://twitter.com/LambdaLegal?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@LambdaLegal</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/ACLU?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ACLU</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/chaifeldblum?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@chaifeldblum</a>, trans leaders and litigants. <a href="https://t.co/CFMuikumxy">https://t.co/CFMuikumxy</a>
&mdash; Cynthia Nixon (@CynthiaNixon) <a href="https://twitter.com/CynthiaNixon/status/1272536993084444675?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 15, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Today the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which banned employee discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, also protects LGBTQ employees from workplace discrimination!&#8221; tweeted model Karlie Kloss.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Today the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which banned employee discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, also protects LGBTQ employees from workplace discrimination! ❤️💚💜💛💙🧡
&mdash; Karlie Kloss (@karliekloss) <a href="https://twitter.com/karliekloss/status/1272574415130279936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 15, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;This is astonishing and very welcome news. It’s a game changer,&#8221; tweeted &#8220;Star Trek&#8221; actor and activist George Takei.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This is astonishing and very welcome news. It’s a game changer. <a href="https://t.co/Kg2YtQAVsJ">https://t.co/Kg2YtQAVsJ</a>
&mdash; George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) <a href="https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/1272533339824697345?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 15, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Comedienne Ellen DeGeneres declared the moment &#8220;historic.&#8221;
Despite being appointed by President Donald Trump and being hailed by conservatives as an originalist, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in the case.
&#8220;An employer who fired an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,&#8221; Gorsuch wrote. &#8220;Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.&#8221;
&#8220;Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result,&#8221; he added, &#8220;But the limits of the drafters&#8217; imagination supply no reason to ignore the law&#8217;s demands. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.&#8221;
Since the ruling became public, gay rights advocates have hailed it as the biggest landmark decision since Obergerfell legalized same-sex marriage.
“The Supreme Court’s clarification that it’s unlawful to fire people because they’re LGBTQ is the result of decades of advocates fighting for our rights,&#8221; said James Esseks, director of the American Civil Liberties Union&#8217;s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender &amp; HIV Project. &#8220;The court has caught up to the majority of our country, which already knows that discriminating against LGBTQ people is both unfair and against the law.”
&#8220;The decision gives us hope that as a country we can unite for the common good and continue the fight for LGBTQ acceptance,&#8221; said Sarah Kate Ellis, the president and CEO of GLAAD, as reported by <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-existing-civil-rights-law-protects-gay-lesbian-n1231018">NBC News</a>.
Gerald Bostock, a plaintiff in the case who lost his county job in Georgia after joining a gay softball team, said he hoped the decision delivers some light to America during these dark times.
&#8220;In this this time of uncertainty, and certainly some dark days with a civil unrest going on around us, my hope is that this this brings a little bit of sunshine to these dark days, because what it tells me is there is hope,&#8221; Bostock said told NBC&#8217;s Katy Tur. &#8220;I had faith in the system and I had faith that the justices would do the right thing. And I think this is just one step in laying the groundwork, though, because it underscores given everything going on in our country today that we still have more work to do.&#8221;
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Supreme Court Issues Orders And Releases Opinions

Hollywood Praises SCOTUS Decision On LGBT Discrimination

Discrimination

LGBTQ

In a landmark 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court decided Monday that Title VII, which protects workers from employment discrimination on the basis of gender, can be interpreted to include discrimination based on sexual orientation, extending the protections of federal employment law to LGBT individuals.
The ruling was unexpected, given the largely conservative makeup of the Supreme Court, and will likely give rise to further cases testing the limits of Title VII protections for LGBT workers, <a href="https://apnews.com/ef3c19a79b65c060fd9e82b9dd87a1d9?utm_source=Twitter&amp;utm_medium=AP&amp;utm_campaign=SocialFlow">The Associated Press reports</a>.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, wrote for the majority, which included the four &#8220;liberal&#8221; Justices &#8212; Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg &#8212; and Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, as did the court&#8217;s most recent addition, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote his own dissenting opinion separate from the other two.
“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in his opinion. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”
Alito and Thomas argued that, while the Court may believe it is achieving a judicious result, that same result could have &#8212; and should have &#8212; come through legislation and a specific, Congressional change to Title VII, rather than through the courts, and that the word &#8220;sex&#8221; cannot be read to include &#8220;sexual orientation&#8221; or &#8220;gender identity.&#8221;
“The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous,” Alito wrote. “Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of ‘sex’ is different from discrimination because of ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity.’”
&#8220;During the Obama years, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had changed its longstanding interpretation of civil rights law to include discrimination against LGBT people,&#8221; the AP adds. &#8220;The law prohibits discrimination because of sex but has no specific protection for sexual orientation or gender identity.&#8221;
The decision covers only those employees who claim to have been fired for their sexual orientation in jobs with no other conditions for employment. The plaintiffs whose cases were joined under the Bostock v. Clayton County decision include Donald Zarda, a former skydiving instructor who claimed to have been fired after his employers discovered he was gay; Gerald Bostock, a civil employee of Clayton County, Georgia; and Aimee Stephens, a transgender individual who was fired from a job at a Detroit-area funeral home after coming to work wearing women&#8217;s clothing.
The court did not specifically address whether religious organizations, many of whom prohibit openly gay individuals from serving as employees, will receive a carve-out exception to the ruling, or whether transgender individuals who have not had gender-reassignment surgery can be considered members of the opposite sex &#8212; an issue at the forefront of women&#8217;s athletics.
There are cases pending in lower courts on both of those issues, and both could come before the Supreme Court as early as next term.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Gorsuch Sides With Liberal Justices In Landmark LGBT Case; Alito Slams Ruling: ‘Preposterous’

Brett Kavanaugh

Transgender

It’s always fun when our elderly Supreme Court Justices reference pop culture.
During oral arguments on a case about members of the Electoral College breaking with the popular vote and voting for a different candidate, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas brought up the popular “Lord of the Rings” character Frodo Baggins, the New York Post reported.
An attorney for what the Post referred to as one of the “faithless electors” was arguing that electors should be allowed to ignore the popular vote and choose a candidate based on their conscious. Thomas interrupted the lawyer to make his “Lord of the Rings” reference.
“The elector who had promised to vote for the winning candidate could suddenly say, you now, I’m going to vote for Frodo Baggins. I really like Frodo Baggins. And you’re saying, under your system, you can’t do anything about that,” Thomas said, according to the Post.
Josh Harrow, the attorney who was making the argument, quickly noted the fictional limit of Frodo Baggins.
“Your honor, I think there is something to be done, because that would be a vote for a non-person. No matter how big a fan many people are of Frodo Baggins,” Harrow said.
“I do think the important point is that the framers hashed out these competing concerns,” he added. “They understood the stakes and they said among these competing hypotheticals, electors are best placed to make the ultimate selection. That hasn’t changed.”
More from the Post:
Baggins made another appearance during closing rebuttal from opposing counsel Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who is defending the state’s move to kick out an elector who defied pledges to vote for Hillary Clinton after she won the state in 2016.
“My friends on the other side have failed to offer any viable theory on how to address the spectacle of a bribed elector, an elector who votes for Frodo Baggins, or one who would perpetrate a bait-and-switch on the people of the state,” Weiser said.
It should be noted that while “Lord of the Rings” is considered pop culture, Frodo made his first appearance in the book “The Fellowship of the Ring,” which was published in 1954, when Justice Thomas was about six years old. Justice Thomas is now 71.
The case being argued relates to presidential electors in 2016 who ignored the popular vote in their states to vote for a different candidate. As I <a href="https://observer.com/2016/12/developing-more-electors-attempted-to-defect-from-clinton-than-trump/">reported</a> back in 2016, more of those who defected did so to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton, rather than Donald Trump.
The media had predictably hoped that enough members of the Electoral College would defect from Trump to make Clinton president, but in the end, seven electors attempted – successfully or not – to defect from Clinton, while only two defected from Trump.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Clarence Thomas

Clarence Thomas Mentions ‘Frodo Baggins’ In SCOTUS Case About The Electoral College

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on Tuesday regarding whether congress can subpoena eight years of President Donald Trump’s personal financial records, including tax returns.
The New York Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/05/12/supreme-court-to-hear-arguments-in-trump-tax-return-cases/">reported</a> that the court “will hear two cases which deal with Democrat-led committees subpoenaing the sitting president’s records, including <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/08/23/deutsche-bank-capital-one-refuse-to-admit-if-they-have-trumps-tax-returns/">tax returns from Trump’s banks</a> and records from the Trump Organization.” Trump requested the Supreme Court take the case after the Second Circuit Court of Appeals – which covers six districts in liberal New York, Connecticut, and Vermont – declared Congress does have a right to subpoena the president’s personal financial records.
Trump obviously wants to keep these records away from House Democrats, who want to use them to find dirt on the president. Democrats used a claim from proven liar Michael Cohen – Trump’s former “fixer” – that the president lied on his tax returns as the basis for one subpoena.
“The House Intelligence and Financial Services Committees also subpoenaed two banks used by Trump and his business over allegations that he had accepted money from Russia,” the Post reported. “Lawyers for Trump argue that state courts should not be allowed to investigate a sitting president, while Trump himself has accused the committees of trying to expose his personal information.”
The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments via conference call due to the coronavirus shutdown, The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/12/trump-taxes-scotus-hearing-live/">reported</a>. The Post reported that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito “expressed concern about what he called the lack of limits on the House’s subpoena powers that could be used to harass the president” during oral arguments, saying that if the House can subpoena anything related to any legislation, there isn’t “much protection; in fact that’s no protection.”
House General Counsel Douglas N. Letter argued that there was “ample protection” and that House Democrats weren’t simply trying to harass the president, adding that four lower courts – in liberal New York – all agreed with Democrats.
“If it’s solely for harassment,” Letter said, “it wouldn’t meet the standard.”
Chief Justice John Roberts also disagreed with Letter’s attempts to say Congress can subpoena records for anything relating to legislation that might be written.
“Your test is not really much of a test. It’s not really a limit,” Roberts said. “Do you have any alternative to that limitless test?&#8221;
Letter suggested the subpoena power could be limited if it interfered with the president’s ability to do his job, but insisted this was not the case, as the subpoenas were to third parties and not to Trump himself, even though the documents pertained to Trump.
The Justice Department argued House Democrats simply wanted to find something to attack Trump, not to create legislation.
“If you look at what they say about intended legislative proposals and why they need the documents, it’s paper-thin,” Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall said, according to the Post.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Menu

Supreme Court

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Hospitalized With ‘Possible Infection’

Feds Carry Out First Execution In 17 Years Against Man Who Murdered Arkansas Family

Supreme Court Rules 5-4 Significant Portion Of Oklahoma Is Indian Land

Supreme Court Rules For Trump Administration And Religious Organizations. Biden: ‘I Will Restore The Obama-Biden Policy’

Supreme Court Says Trump Does Not Have Immunity Against Tax Doc Subpoena But Won’t Give House Dems Access

Supreme Court Sides With Trump Admin, Catholic Nuns In Obamacare Contraception Mandate Case

Unanimous Supreme Court Decision Upholds State Laws Punishing ‘Faithless Electors’

ERICKSON: Restrainer In Chief

Networks Covered Liberal SCOTUS Wins, Ignored GOP Wins

John Roberts Casts Deciding Vote As Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions

KLAVAN: Neil Gorsuch’s Opinion Is Insane, But Not For The Reason You Think

KNOWLES: Justice Gorsuch Owes Me A Refund, So I Wrote Him A Letter

Tom Cotton Calls On Justice Roberts To Resign Following DACA Ruling

Trump Promises New List Of ‘Conservative’ Justices After SCOTUS Rules Against Him

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Against Trump Admin On DACA, Roberts Strikes Casts Swing Vote

KNOWLES: The Revolution Marches On

Hollywood Praises SCOTUS Decision On LGBT Discrimination

Gorsuch Sides With Liberal Justices In Landmark LGBT Case; Alito Slams Ruling: ‘Preposterous’

Clarence Thomas Mentions ‘Frodo Baggins’ In SCOTUS Case About The Electoral College

Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments About Whether Congress Can Subpoena Trump’s Financial Records

Menu

Supreme Court

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Hospitalized With ‘Possible Infection’

Feds Carry Out First Execution In 17 Years Against Man Who Murdered Arkansas Family

Supreme Court Rules 5-4 Significant Portion Of Oklahoma Is Indian Land

Supreme Court Rules For Trump Administration And Religious Organizations. Biden: ‘I Will Restore The Obama-Biden Policy’

Supreme Court Says Trump Does Not Have Immunity Against Tax Doc Subpoena But Won’t Give House Dems Access

Supreme Court Sides With Trump Admin, Catholic Nuns In Obamacare Contraception Mandate Case

Unanimous Supreme Court Decision Upholds State Laws Punishing ‘Faithless Electors’

ERICKSON: Restrainer In Chief

Networks Covered Liberal SCOTUS Wins, Ignored GOP Wins

John Roberts Casts Deciding Vote As Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions

KLAVAN: Neil Gorsuch’s Opinion Is Insane, But Not For The Reason You Think

KNOWLES: Justice Gorsuch Owes Me A Refund, So I Wrote Him A Letter

Tom Cotton Calls On Justice Roberts To Resign Following DACA Ruling

Trump Promises New List Of ‘Conservative’ Justices After SCOTUS Rules Against Him

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Against Trump Admin On DACA, Roberts Strikes Casts Swing Vote

KNOWLES: The Revolution Marches On

Hollywood Praises SCOTUS Decision On LGBT Discrimination

Gorsuch Sides With Liberal Justices In Landmark LGBT Case; Alito Slams Ruling: ‘Preposterous’

Clarence Thomas Mentions ‘Frodo Baggins’ In SCOTUS Case About The Electoral College

Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments About Whether Congress Can Subpoena Trump’s Financial Records

Don't miss a beat of our coverage.