Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/samuel-alito" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Samuel Alito</a> revived the legal debate about fetal personhood this week during oral arguments for the Idaho abortion case currently before the Supreme Court.
The Idaho case deals with whether Idaho emergency room doctors are required by federal law to perform abortions to stabilize pregnant women in medical crises. Idaho bans all abortions except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest.
The case is the first time the high court has considered whether a state abortion ban is constitutional since the demise of Roe v. Wade.
In the Idaho case, the Biden administration is arguing that Idaho’s abortion ban flies in the face of a federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment &amp; Labor Act, known as EMTALA, which requires hospitals receiving federal funds to provide patients with stabilizing care. Hospitals that flout the law are at risk of losing their Medicare funding.
Meanwhile, Idaho officials counter that the Biden administration is simply trying to undermine the state’s abortion ban.
Alito drew the court&#8217;s attention to the federal law’s reference to the “unborn child.”
“Isn’t that an odd phrase to put in a statute that imposes a mandate to perform abortions?” Alito <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4622500-alito-fetal-rights-idaho-abortion-case/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">asked</a> Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“The hospital must stabilize the threat to the unborn child, and it seems that the plain meaning is that the hospital must try to eliminate any immediate threat to the child, but performing an abortion is antithetical to that duty,” Alito said.
The Justice Department pushed back on Alito&#8217;s argument, saying hospitals only have a duty to stabilize pregnant women, not their unborn children.
Prelogar said Congress amended the law to add the phrase “unborn child” in order to better protect pregnant women.
“Congress wanted to be able to protect her in situations where she’s suffering some kind of emergency and her own health isn’t at risk, but the fetus might die,” she said.
The focus on fetal personhood was a concern abortion supporters had before the Idaho case reached the high court — they hoped the case would not be used to advance fetal rights.
The case is being closely watched since the justices’ decision could potentially have broad implications for the more than a dozen states that have enacted strict state abortion bans.
Back in 2022, Alito penned the court&#8217;s opinion in the Dobbs case overturning Roe vs. Wade. His opinion sparked speculation about whether he was trying to bring forth the issue of fetal personhood.
&#8220;Our opinion is not based on any view about if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth,&#8221; he <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> in that opinion. &#8220;The dissent, by contrast, would impose on the people a particular theory about when the rights of personhood begin. According to the dissent, the Constitution requires the States to regard a fetus as lacking even the most basic human right—to live—at least until an arbitrary point in a pregnancy has passed.&#8221;

Supreme Court Justices Pose For Formal Group Photo

Justice Alito Revives Fetal Personhood Debate In Idaho Abortion Case

Abortion

Health Care

Idaho

Pro-Life Movement

Samuel Alito

Social Issues

Supreme Court

U.S.

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> is set to hear oral arguments on Thursday about whether former President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/donald-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Donald Trump</a> can invoke presidential immunity to shield himself from federal prosecution. 
The court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-takes-up-trump-immunity-claim" target="_blank" rel="noopener">agreed</a> to take the case in February after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit panel <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/appeals-court-denies-trumps-immunity-claim-in-2020-election-interference-case" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled against</a> an immunity claim Trump had asserted to shield himself from special counsel Jack Smith&#8217;s 2020 election case. Trump has contended that presidential immunity is necessary to ensure that presidents are able to do their jobs without fear of political retaliation. 
“If a President does not have Immunity, the Opposing Party, during his/her term in Office, can extort and blackmail the President by saying that, ‘if you don’t give us everything we want, we will Indict you for things you did while in Office,’ even if everything done was totally Legal and Appropriate. That would be the end of the Presidency, and our Country, as we know it, and is just one of the many Traps there would be for a President without Presidential Immunity,” Trump <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112298099795296351" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted</a> on Truth Social last Friday. 
“Obama, Bush, and soon, Crooked Joe Biden, would all be in BIG TROUBLE. If a President doesn’t have IMMUNITY, he/she will be nothing more than a ‘Ceremonial’ President, rarely having the courage to do what has to be done for our Country,” the former president added. “This is not what the Founders had in mind! Protect Presidential Immunity.”
The Supreme Court will hear <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/25/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-immunity-case.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">arguments</a> on “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
The former president has been <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hear-arguments-trump-presidential-immunity-case" target="_blank" rel="noopener">blocked</a> from attending the Supreme Court arguments because a judge has ordered that he must stay in New York for his trial over alleged payments made to porn actress Stormy Daniels. 
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1714129450076000&amp;usg=AOvVaw11MUL_oXewNl-yGfGqnuu8">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“A president has to have immunity,” Trump said Thursday morning outside of the courtroom for Bragg’s case. “If you don’t have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
President Trump on today’s Supreme Court arguments: “A president HAS to have immunity” <a href="https://t.co/bXzBLNlbbs">pic.twitter.com/bXzBLNlbbs</a>
&mdash; RSBN 🇺🇸 (@RSBNetwork) <a href="https://twitter.com/RSBNetwork/status/1783445200020414801?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 25, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Smith, who accused Trump of engaging in an illegal effort to challenge the outcome of the 2020 election, previously hoped the Supreme Court would weigh in on the issue in December, hoping to fast-track the case. The Supreme Court denied that effort, and its decision to hear the case in April will likely make it difficult for a trial to be scheduled prior to the 2024 presidential election if they rule against Trump. 
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1714074641207000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0TPXL7MyqvoOZpo3dQ8NTe">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Trump is <a href="https://apnews.com/live/trump-supreme-court-immunity-updates#0000018f-14f9-d5aa-a3df-97f97d240000" target="_blank" rel="noopener">represented</a> by D. John Sauer, who was previously Missouri’s Solicitor General and Deputy Attorney General for special litigation in Missouri. Sauer also clerked for former conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. 
Former U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben, who was part of Smith’s team that investigated Trump over the 2020 election charges, will argue against Trump&#8217;s assertion of presidential immunity. Dreeben was also part of special counsel Robert Mueller&#8217;s probe into whether Trump&#8217;s 2016 presidential campaign conspired with Russia to influence the election.

Donald Trump Makes An Appearance In Manhattan Ahead Of Court

Supreme Court To Hear Arguments On Whether Trump Has Immunity From Federal Prosecution

2020 Election

Alvin Bragg

Department of Justice

Donald Trump

Immunity

Jack Smith

New York

The Supreme Court is considering a challenge to Idaho&#8217;s abortion ban this week, the first time the court has considered whether a state abortion ban is constitutional since the demise of Roe v. Wade.
The court <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/24/supreme-court-abortion-five-questions-00153965" target="_blank" rel="noopener">heard</a> oral arguments on Wednesday in a case known as Moyle v. United States, which deals with whether Idaho emergency room doctors are required by federal law to perform abortions to stabilize pregnant women in medical crises.
Idaho bans all abortions except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest. Doctors who perform abortions can face criminal penalties, including up to five years in prison and the loss of their medical license.
The Biden administration is arguing that Idaho&#8217;s abortion ban flies in the face of a federal law, the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment &amp; Labor Act, known as EMTALA, which requires hospitals receiving federal funds to provide patients with stabilizing care. Hospitals that flout the law are at risk of losing their Medicare funding.
The federal law requires hospitals to care for people with an “emergency medical condition,” including pregnant women in situations where “the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in” putting “the health of the woman or her unborn child” in “serious jeopardy.”
The administration claims the federal law should override Idaho&#8217;s abortion ban since, in some cases, stabilizing care will mean an emergency room abortion.
Meanwhile, Idaho officials counter that the Biden administration is simply trying to undermine the state&#8217;s abortion ban. Idaho’s attorney general, Raúl Labrador, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-726/301167/20240222152045736_Main%20Document%2023-727.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">alleged</a> in a brief that the administration is attempting to use federal law to turn Idaho emergency rooms into “abortion enclaves in violation of state law.”
The administration&#8217;s interpretation of the federal law would make it easier for women to obtain medically unnecessary abortions, state officials argued. One of Idaho&#8217;s lawyers <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-idaho-abortion-ban-federal-law-emergency-care/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> a pregnant woman could potentially claim that her mental health required her to get an abortion.
The case is being closely watched since the justices&#8217; decision could potentially have broad implications for the more than a dozen states that have enacted strict state abortion bans.
On Wednesday, justices appeared divided on the case mainly along ideological lines. The court currently has a majority of six conservative justices.
However, there appeared to be a split along gender lines as well. The court&#8217;s four female justices, including conservative Amy Coney Barrett, pushed back on Idaho&#8217;s claim that its abortion ban supersedes the federal law.
Barrett&#8217;s <a href="https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/abortion-supreme-court-idaho-04-24-24/h_28e59414f20bb545e081e85aecc69ccf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">criticism</a> was less about the abortion issue itself and more about how much discretion doctors have to make decisions in emergency medical situations. She appeared frustrated with Idaho&#8217;s attorney and accused him of “hedging” in his answers.
The Biden administration initially sued Idaho in August 2022. The case wound its way up to the 9th Circuit appeals court, which upheld a lower court&#8217;s ruling allowing doctors to perform abortions in emergency situations while the case continues.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
As the election cycle heats up, Democrats have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-newsom-shares-wild-abortion-ad-showing-alabama-police-pulling-woman-over-asking-for-pregnancy-test" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hammered</a> the abortion issue and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jill-biden-will-bring-kate-cox-who-left-texas-for-abortion-to-state-of-the-union" target="_blank" rel="noopener">seized</a> on personal stories of women who were prevented from obtaining an abortion in their home state.
Misinformation has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ap-article-makes-dubious-suggestion-abortion-bans-caused-ers-to-turn-women-away" target="_blank" rel="noopener">spread</a> about women allegedly suffering miscarriages or other adverse outcomes due to state abortion bans.
The Idaho case is the second major abortion case the high court has considered this month. The court is also handling a case involving the availability of the abortion drug mifepristone. At issue is the Food and Drug Administration&#8217;s (FDA) recent moves to make mifepristone more accessible, including allowing it to be taken later in pregnancy and mailed without an in-person doctor&#8217;s visit.

Close up Belly of Asian mother pregnant 40 weeks ready to give birth

Here’s What’s Happening In The Idaho Abortion Case At The Supreme Court

Here's What's Happening In The Idaho Abortion Case At The Supreme Court

Courts

Pregnancy

SCOTUS

The Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing Starbucks&#8217; challenge to the federal labor agency that forced the coffee giant to rehire seven workers who tried to unionize.
In the summer of 2022, Starbucks fired seven baristas who were organizing a union at their Memphis location, arguing the workers violated company policy by having a television news crew come to the store after hours.
However, the National Labor Relations Board obtained a court order to reinstate the terminated baristas, agreeing with the workers that they were fired over their union activities. An appeals court later upheld that decision.
Starbucks argues that federal courts should have stricter standards for reinstating fired employees. Currently, a court may grant an injunction against a company if it is deemed &#8220;just and proper.&#8221;
During the first day of arguments, some of the justices appeared to agree with Starbucks.
Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out that other federal agencies are subject to a stricter standard.
&#8220;In all sorts of alphabet soup agencies, we don&#8217;t do this. District courts apply the &#8216;likelihood of success&#8217; test as we normally conceive it. So why is this particular statutory regime different than so many others?&#8221; Gorsuch <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-examines-firings-pro-union-starbucks-workers-2024-04-23/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">asked</a>.
Starbucks has a notoriously fraught relationship with its union, Starbucks Workers United, but tensions have recently cooled somewhat.
Starbucks and union representatives announced in February that they would resume talks. They were set to meet on Wednesday for a bargaining session, the first in close to a year, with the goal of getting a contract by the end of 2024.
Nevertheless, Starbucks has decided to plow ahead with its case before the high court to the dismay of union officials.
“The day [Starbucks] committed to a new path should’ve been the day that they pulled back the case before SCOTUS,” Lynne Fox, president of Workers United, the parent union of Starbucks&#8217; union, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/04/23/starbucks-union-supreme-court/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> The Washington Post.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Twelve current and former Starbucks baristas also wrote to the Supreme Court to claim they had been fired or punished for supporting union activity. Some said they had lost their health insurance or had their electricity cut because they could not pay their bills.
If the court decides in favor of Starbucks, the decision could discourage union activity at other companies. Union activity has <a href="https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/union-petitions-up-35-unfair-labor-practices-charge-filings-up-7-in-the" target="_blank" rel="noopener">surged</a> across the country this year.
Amazon, SpaceX, and Trader Joe’s have also recently challenged the National Labor Relations Board.
SpaceX filed a federal lawsuit in Texas earlier this year against the agency after the labor board accused the company of illegally firing eight employees for criticizing Elon Musk, the company&#8217;s founder.

Starbucks Coffee shop

Starbucks Challenges Federal Labor Board Before Supreme Court

Business

Labor Unions

Starbucks

Much to the annoyance of the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA), <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-school-teacher-with-no-interest-in-defunding-the-police-takes-stand-for-first-amendment-rights" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Glenn Laird</a> refuses to go away quietly.
After decades as a Los Angeles teacher, Laird is involved in a messy <a href="https://www.freedomfoundation.com/labor/la-teacher-sues-utla-says-demand-to-defund-police-was-the-last-straw/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> with the union over its reluctance to allow him to opt out of membership and dues as prescribed by law. Last week, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 
What makes his experience so compelling for the public — and embarrassing for UTLA — is that Laird is neither a malcontent nor a union-basher by inclination. He is, in fact, a much-decorated educator who served for many years as UTLA campus chapter co-chair.
But when the union began advocating several years ago to “defund the police” and put students’ and teachers’ lives at risk, he’d had enough.
Over the years, Laird has witnessed countless violent acts on campus, including the death of a former student, and was outraged that UTLA would call for the removal of law enforcement from the district’s schools.
“I couldn’t in good conscience continue to pay dues to an organization that was campaigning against something that is so personal to me,” explained Laird. “I support fully funding the police to keep our students safe.”
He responded by opting out of his UTLA membership and requesting it stop taking his money to fund messaging with which he disagrees.
His legal right to do so is unequivocal. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in Janus v. AFSCME that unions could no longer take public employees’ money for use in political speech without their consent.
The ruling also specified that by agreeing to give money to a public labor union, workers are waiving their First Amendment right against compelled speech.
In the case of Glenn Laird, UTLA tried to have it both ways.
They told Laird his previous agreement was an effective waiver of his First Amendment rights, even though he signed it before Janus was even decided.
Even more to the point, the union refused to honor the terms of Laird’s actual agreement, which allowed him to end the deduction of his money. He specifically objected to the last union agreement he signed with UTLA by striking out the language supposedly restricting his ability to end his membership at any time with a felt marker.
UTLA kept taking his money without his consent anyway.
In other words, the First Amendment did not matter.
Left with no alternative, Laird took UTLA and the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) to federal court. Represented pro bono by the Freedom Foundation, he asked the court to rule on the scope of his constitutional rights, and to acknowledge UTLA’s violations.
But UTLA doesn’t want a judge to decide the constitutional claims.
Instead, its leaders cut him a check for the money deducted from his pay without his consent and asked him to please drop the case.
This tactic has become all too common among public unions trying to avoid their responsibilities under the First Amendment.
Laird refused to dismiss his lawsuit, and with good reason. Because his case is about more than the return of his money. In fact, Laird is donating the entire amount he received from UTLA to a nonprofit group that helps disadvantaged students in the Los Angeles area.
When judges at both the lower court level and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the union, the Freedom Foundation filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in.
Glenn Laird’s case is about a judicial acknowledgment and vindication of his First Amendment rights by a federal judge. As long as unions can cut checks using their members’ dues dollars to make lawsuits disappear, judges will never have the opportunity to rule on the actual constitutional issues, rendering the First Amendment and Janus decision meaningless.
“Hopefully the Supreme Court will find my case worthy of making a ruling,” concluded Laird. “Janus set the stage, but now we need to build on that precedent so unions and lower court judges don’t continue to ignore the Supremes.”
While it should not take a federal lawsuit for unions to recognize their responsibilities under the Constitution, UTLA doesn’t get to put a price tag on the First Amendment and cannot kill a case by simply doing the right thing after the fact.
For one principled Los Angeles teacher, the fight is far from over.
* * *
Timothy R. Snowball is a civil rights attorney with Freedom Foundation, where his practice is focused on protecting the First Amendment rights of government workers to make their own decisions about whether to join or support public sector unions.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Supreme Court and Cherry Blossoms

L.A. Teacher’s Fight With Union Appealed To Supreme Court

L.A. Teacher's Fight With Union Appealed To Supreme Court

Defund The Police

Education

Los Angeles

Police

Readers Pass

Teachers Unions

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider the Biden administration’s appeal of a decision that rejected the administration’s regulation of ghost guns.
In 2022, the Biden administration’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives broadened the interpretation of the definition of “firearm” in the Gun Control Act of 1968. “The 1968 Gun Control Act, the 1988 Undetectable Firearms Act and other federal laws all govern firearms produced by a 3D printing process or any other process, just as they apply to conventional manufacturing processes using machine tools,” NSSF <a href="https://www.nssf.org/government-relations/factsheets/ghost-guns-undetectable-firearms-explained-2/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">notes</a>. The Gun Control Act interpreted “firearm” to mean “any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” and “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.”
The rule claimed that the parts in ghost guns lay under the rubric of “firearm” under the federal Gun Control Act so the federal government could regulate them. It required “manufacturers and sellers to obtain licenses, mark their products with serial numbers and conduct background checks,” The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/22/us/supreme-court-ghost-guns.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>.
In August 2023, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court allowed the Biden administration’s rule to stay in effect despite the fact that it had been challenged. In November, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the Biden administration’s regulation unlawful. “Only Congress may make the deliberate and reasoned decision to enact new or modified legislation regarding firearms,” the court <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/04/22/supreme-court-biden-ghost-gun-background-checks/73280704007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>. “Because Congress has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct, the proposed rule constitutes unlawful agency action, in direct contravention of the legislature’s will,” they <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-decide-biden-administration-can-regulate-ghost-guns-rcna147065" target="_blank" rel="noopener">added</a>.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar countered that if the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision were implemented, “Anyone could buy a kit online and assemble a fully functional gun in minutes — no background check, records, or serial number required. The result would be a flood of untraceable ghost guns into our nation’s communities, endangering the public and thwarting law-enforcement efforts to solve violent crimes.”
“If a state placed a tax on the sale of home goods, such as tables, chairs, couches and bookshelves, Ikea surely could not avoid that tax by claiming that it does not sell any of those items and instead sells ‘furniture parts kits’ that must be assembled by the purchaser,” she argued. “So too with guns: An ordinary speaker of English would recognize that a company in the business of selling kits that can be assembled into firearms in minutes — and that are designed, marketed and used for that express purpose — is in the business of selling firearms.”
A brief for the Supreme Court asserted, “Consistent with Congress’s decision not to interfere with the making of firearms by private citizens, commercial production and sale of other items that may be used by private citizens to make firearms for their own use is outside the scope of the Act.”
Additionally, it offered another perspective, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A82/274511/20230802162019194_2023-08-02%20VanDerStok%20-%20Resp%20in%20Oppn%20to%20Stay%20vf.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stating</a>:
<blockquote>
A better analogy would be to a “taco kit” sold as a bundle by a grocery store that includes taco shells, seasoning packets, salsa and other toppings, along with a slab of raw beef. No one would call the taco kit a taco. In addition to “assembly,” turning it into one would require cutting or grinding and cooking the meat — and until that was done, it would be nonsensical to treat it as food and the equivalent of a taco.
</blockquote>

OPED-SCOTUS-GHOST-GUNS-EDITORIAL-1-NY

SCOTUS Will Consider Challenge To Biden’s ‘Ghost Gun’ Regulations

Biden Administration

Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)

firearms

Ghost Guns

The Supreme Court on Wednesday made a decision that has largely flown under the radar, but has big implications for employers who have diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
The Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-193_q86b.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> 9-0 in favor of St. Louis Police Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, who sued the St. Louis Police Department (SLPD) after she was transferred from one department to another against her wishes. Muldrow worked for nearly 10 years in the SLPD’s specialized Intelligence Division, but in 2017, the new Intelligence Division commander requested she be transferred from the unit so she could be replaced with a man.
The request was approved and Muldrow was transferred to a position where she was now “supervising the day-to-day activities of neighborhood patrol officers,” instead of working in the Intelligence Division. While her rank and pay remained the same, her job changed and she lost the use of an unmarked take-home vehicle, as well as a more regular schedule where she had weekends off.
Muldrow sued, claiming she was discriminated against because she was a woman, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. A lower court found she had not been discriminated against because she did not show that she had been “significantly” harmed by the transfer, so Muldrow appealed, eventually getting her case before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court determined that there was no threshold for harm, and that someone alleging discrimination “does not have to show … that the harm incurred was significant. Or serious, or substantial, or any similar adjective.”
Typically, Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” when it comes to “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1713611654298000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3YPWSe9w05H79aayRzLC1M">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
With the Supreme Court decision stating that an employee doesn’t have to show “significant” harm, many have taken the new ruling to mean it will be easier for women and minorities to sue based on alleged discrimination.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), for example, <a href="https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-delivers-big-win-for-workplace-equality-in-muldrow-v-city-of-st-louis-ruling" target="_blank" rel="noopener">touted</a> the ruling as “a huge victory for workers and workplace equality.”
But some conservatives have noted that this ruling could make it easier to sue employers who have DEI programs that favor women and minorities.
The Daily Signal <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/04/17/supreme-court-just-made-easier-sue-employers-dei-policies/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a> that it’s “fashionable for corporate employers to create race- and sex-based employment conditions and privileges as part of their DEI initiatives.” The outlet pointed to LinkedIn’s “employee resource groups,” which provide mentoring and training programs for “systemically marginalized” groups. The outlet suggests that these programs would fall under the “privileges of employment,” mentioned under Title VII, and that the additional pay given to leaders of these groups would count as “compensation” under the law.
The ACLU pushed back on this notion, with Ming-Qi Chu, the deputy director of the organization’s Women’s Rights Project, dismissing the idea as “fearmongering.”
“The fearmongering of DEI opponents has no basis in law and fundamentally misunderstands how most DEI programs work. The purpose of DEI and other remedial workplace programs is to improve the process by which employment decisions are made and close the gap in opportunities among workers. They do not disadvantage any particular worker. This is why they have long been held lawful. These scare-tactics are trying to chill employers’ commitment and investment in expanding workplace opportunity. We won’t let them,” she said in the ACLU’s statement regarding the Supreme Court decision.

Diversity Equity And Inclusion

Supreme Court Makes It Easier To Sue Employers Over DEI Claims

Civil Rights

Discrimination

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

The Supreme Court ruled Monday to allow an Idaho law protecting children from life-altering transgender procedures to go into effect while the law is challenged in lower courts. 
The law, passed last year, bans procedures like double mastectomies on girls who identify as boys and giving children puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, which have been linked to bone development issues and heart problems. The law also stipulates that doctors who perform transgender procedures on kids could go to prison for 10 years. The decision means the law will go into effect for the state except for two families who say their children identify as transgender who sued with the help of the ACLU claiming the law was discriminatory. 
Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett all <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a763_n7io.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sided</a> with Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador who appealed to the court to turn back a sweeping injunction placed on the law by a federal judge who completely blocked the law. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan all dissented.
Gorsuch said that Judge B. Lynn Winmill, who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-blocks-idaho-law-protecting-kids-from-transgender-procedures" target="_blank" rel="noopener">blocked</a> Idaho’s law back in December, went too far in her decision.
&#8220;Ordinarily, injunctions like these may go no further than necessary to provide interim relief to the parties,&#8221; he <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/supreme-court-allows-idaho-enforce-ban-gender-affirming/story?id=108711989" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>. &#8220;In this case, however, the district court went much further, prohibiting a State from enforcing any aspect of its duly enacted law against anyone.&#8221;
The ruling was the first time for the Supreme Court to weigh in on a state law shielding children from life-altering transgender procedures. Labrador <a href="https://www.ag.idaho.gov/newsroom/us-supreme-court-allows-idaho-to-enforce-law-protecting-vulnerable-children/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">celebrated</a> the ruling, saying it was a major win for children in his state. Litigation will continue and the Supreme Court will likely hear the case on its merits at some point after the appeals process. 
“I’ve witnessed firsthand the devastating consequences of drugs and procedures used on children with gender dysphoria. And it’s a preventable tragedy,” Labrador said. “The state has a duty to protect and support all children, and that’s why I’m proud to defend Idaho’s law that ensures children are not subjected to these life-altering drugs and procedures.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1712932862202000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0plT8RRdMy9XUpIhocnjQS">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“Those suffering from gender dysphoria deserve love, support, and medical care rooted in biological reality,” he added. “Denying the basic truth that boys and girls are biologically different hurts our kids. No one has the right to harm children, and I’m grateful that we, as the state, have the power — and duty — to protect them.”
Labrador’s appeal to the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/red-states-urge-scotus-to-back-idahos-transgender-surgery-ban-cite-daily-wires-bombshell-report" target="_blank" rel="noopener">was backed</a> by 19 Republican attorneys general, who argued that it would be a “devastating medical scandal” if Idaho was not allowed to protect children from transgender procedures. In recent years, over 20 states have enacted laws shielding children from transgender surgeries, puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormone regimens.

Washington, D.C., scenes

Supreme Court Allows Idaho Law Protecting Children From Transgender Procedures To Go Into Effect

transgender surgery

&#8220;The View&#8221; co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Sunny Hostin attempted to rewrite history during a live television segment, claiming repeatedly that it was always Republicans, not Democrats, who &#8220;stacked&#8221; the Supreme Court.
The conversation began with ousted MSNBC host <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/01/for-the-sake-of-all-of-us-sonia-sotomayor-needs-to-retire-from-the-us-supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Mehdi Hasan</a>, who recently called on liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor to step aside &#8220;for the sake of all of us.&#8221;
Despite <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/01/for-the-sake-of-all-of-us-sonia-sotomayor-needs-to-retire-from-the-us-supreme-court#:~:text=It%20is%20Sonia%20Sotomayor%20who,highest%20bench%20in%20the%20land.">referring</a> to Sotomayor as the &#8220;greatest liberal to sit on the Supreme Court in my adult lifetime,&#8221; he argued that she should do what the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not — much to the dismay of many liberals — and retire when she was guaranteed that a Democratic president and Senate would rubber-stamp a liberal replacement.
Goldberg was not impressed with Hasan, arguing that he should be going after Justice Clarence Thomas instead.
&#8220;Getting her off doesn&#8217;t mean somebody else is going to get on and be better,&#8221; she said.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/TheView?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TheView</a> shrieked at fellow left-winger <a href="https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mehdirhasan</a> for calling on Justice Sonia Sotomayor to step down <a href="https://twitter.com/DailyCaller?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DailyCaller</a> <a href="https://t.co/6HLjGJdRcg">pic.twitter.com/6HLjGJdRcg</a>
&mdash; Nicole Silverio (@NicoleMSilverio) <a href="https://twitter.com/NicoleMSilverio/status/1775908580832465325?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 4, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Goldberg went on to claim that Democrats did not &#8220;stack the court,&#8221; arguing that Republicans were the only ones guilty of such action.
&#8220;Democrats, we don&#8217;t stack the court. We don&#8217;t. We don&#8217;t do that,&#8221; she said. &#8220;A lot of us wanted [Biden] to do that but he won&#8217;t do that because that&#8217;s not how you run the government, that&#8217;s his feeling.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Revisionist history and lies from ABC News. Whoopi Goldberg declares: &quot;Democrats, we don&#39;t stack the court. We don&#39;t. We don&#39;t do that.&quot; FACT CHECK: False. Democratic President FDR stacked the court. Sunny Hostin claims the GOP &quot;stacked the court&quot; by filling vacant seats. <a href="https://t.co/gzz0OAq8iZ">pic.twitter.com/gzz0OAq8iZ</a>
&mdash; Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1775909946053271987?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 4, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Goldberg and Hostin then claimed that by filling empty seats, the Republicans had &#8220;stacked the court.&#8221;
Despite their claims, the only real attempt at &#8220;stacking&#8221; or &#8220;packing&#8221; the Court came from the late Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the form of his <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-fdr-lost-his-brief-war-on-the-supreme-court-2#:~:text=The%20plan%20was%20to%20pass,own%20justices%20to%20the%20court." target="_blank" rel="noopener">Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937</a>. If that bill had passed, FDR would have been able to appoint one new Justice for every sitting justice who reached the age of 70 and did not retire.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1712245447014000&amp;usg=AOvVaw259gdy9LGyeAJghxwMwQqU">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
&#8220;This plan of mine is not attacking of the court; it seeks to restore the court to its rightful and historic place in our system of constitutional government and to have it resume its high task of building anew on the Constitution &#8216;a system of living law,'&#8221; Roosevelt said at the time.
The Senate Judiciary Committee delivered a scathing review of the plan, however, stating, &#8220;The bill is an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country &#8230; It is essential to the continuance of our constitutional democracy that the judiciary be completely independent of both the executive and legislative branches of the government. &#8230; It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.&#8221;

Fashion Group International’s 39th Annual Night of Stars

Whoopi Goldberg And Sunny Hostin Rewrite History On Live TV, Claim Republicans ‘Stacked The Court’

Whoopi Goldberg And Sunny Hostin Rewrite History On Live TV, Claim Republicans 'Stacked The Court'

Democrat

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR)

Media

Politics

Sunny Hostin

The View

Whoopi Goldberg

Democrats in the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/u-s-senate" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Senate</a> are expressing concerns about the possibility of a scenario that echoes <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/ruth-bader-ginsburg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ruth Bader Ginsburg</a> suddenly dying and giving way to a conservative majority during Donald Trump&#8217;s presidency.
A report from <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/top-democrats-wont-join-calls-justice-sotomayor-retire-still-fear-ruth-rcna145912" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NBC News</a> explored how this anxiety is centered on Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/sonia-sotomayor" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sonia Sotomayor</a>, the oldest liberal member of the court at 69 and a lifelong diabetic, not stepping down while President Joe <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-biden" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Biden</a> is in office and Democrats control the Senate.
&#8220;I’m very respectful of Justice Sotomayor. I have great admiration for her. But I think she really has to weigh the competing factors,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) told the news outlet. &#8220;We should learn a lesson. And it’s not like there’s any mystery here about what the lesson should be. The old saying — graveyards are full of indispensable people, ourselves in this body included.&#8221;
Though Blumenthal said Sotomayor is &#8220;a highly accomplished and, obviously, fully functioning justice right now,&#8221; he noted that &#8220;justices have to make their personal decisions about their health, and their level of energy, but also to keep in mind the larger national and public interest in making sure that the court looks and thinks like America.&#8221;
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), the second-ranked Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said he is &#8220;not joining any calls&#8221; for Sotomayor to step down but warned of an &#8220;extremist wing&#8221; if the 6-3 conservative majority created during Trump&#8217;s presidency is allowed to expand further.
&#8220;Run it to 7-2 and you go from a captured court to a full MAGA court,&#8221; Whitehouse added. &#8220;Certainly I think if Justice Ginsburg had it to do over again, she might have rethought her confidence in her own health.&#8221;
Biden has been able to nominate just one person to the high court during his presidency. He selected <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ketanji-brown-jackson-sworn-in-as-supreme-court-justice" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ketanji Brown Jackson</a> to replace Stephen Breyer, who retired <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-stephen-breyer-reveals-when-he-will-retire-from-scotus" target="_blank" rel="noopener">under pressure</a> from the Left.
Ginsburg long resisted a push by <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0G12UZ/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">liberals</a> who wanted her to retire as she reached her 80s and experienced <a href="https://people.com/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-health-ups-downs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">health scares</a>. She <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-from-cancer-complications" target="_blank" rel="noopener">died</a> of pancreatic cancer at the age of 87 in 2020, paving the way for Trump-nominated Amy Coney Barrett to take her place.
Some <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/should-sotomayor-retire-biden_n_66032a7ae4b006c3905731dd" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legal scholars</a> are now pushing for Sotomayor to step down, but the NBC News report claimed there are no signs that Sotomayor has plans to retire. However, <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/sotomayor-says-surprised-by-supreme-court-pace-tougher-workload" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to Bloomberg Law</a>, she said in January that she was &#8220;tired&#8221; by the workload. Sotomayor has served on the high court since 2009 during the Obama administration.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1712234347815000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1G-VkjVO0p4qoEkiCI9cqF">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Biden is running for a second term, paving the way to a 2020 general election rematch against Trump. White House spokesman Andrew Bates said Biden &#8220;believes that decisions to retire from the Supreme Court should be made by the justices themselves and no one else.&#8221;
One Republican lawmaker quoted in the new report was Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who is 90 and has already <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3740578-grassley-has-already-filed-for-reelection-bid-in-2028/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">filed paperwork</a> to run for a ninth term in 2028. &#8220;Everybody’s got to make that personal decision,&#8221; Grassley said. &#8220;And I wouldn’t comment on it for somebody else, because that’s their decision. Just like it’s my decision to run for re-election.&#8221;

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Dem Senators Get Anxious Over Prospect Of Another Ginsburg Situation On SCOTUS

2024 Election

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Senate Democrats

Sonia Sotomayor

U.S. Senate

A coalition of 20 Republican state attorneys general filed an <a href="https://www.alabamaag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024.04.01-Amici-States-Brief-in-Honolulu.pdf">amicus brief</a> with the U.S. Supreme Court this week, asking it to take up a major leftist climate case against energy companies that could have serious ramifications for the entire country.
The city of Honolulu claimed in a lawsuit that oil companies like Exxon and Chevron should pay billions of dollars because they were responsible for weather events caused by climate change, including sea level rise, heat waves, flooding, and global warming.
The oil companies initially appealed the ruling with the Hawaii Supreme Court, noting that federal law prevents states from shaping policies for all states, but Hawaii&#8217;s top court sided with the city of Honolulu.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall <a href="https://www.alabamaag.gov/attorney-general-marshall-files-amicus-brief-with-supreme-court-to-stop-cities-and-states-from-crippling-the-energy-industry/">led the coalition</a> in filing the amicus brief with support from Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
“If Hawaiians want to rely on solar power, I have no problem with that,” said Marshall. “But Honolulu cannot force its views onto Alabama—or any other State. Major decisions about our national energy policy must be made at the federal level, not dictated by one lawsuit brought by one city in its own courts.” He added, “It is especially hypocritical for Honolulu, which has reaped tremendous benefits from fossil fuels for travel and the tourism industry, to try to impose costs on the rest of the Nation, which also depends on energy to meet day-to-day needs.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1711847459151000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3OccKYAVbZP-9J-sgruazM">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
The amicus brief argues that cases involving interstate emissions must be brought under federal law, not state law.
&#8220;Otherwise, one State’s actions could violate the sovereignty of every other State to set its own energy and environmental goals,&#8221; Marshall&#8217;s office said in a <a href="https://www.alabamaag.gov/attorney-general-marshall-files-amicus-brief-with-supreme-court-to-stop-cities-and-states-from-crippling-the-energy-industry/">statement</a>. &#8220;The brief further argues that Hawaii’s lawsuit creates an interstate controversy, which must be resolved by the federal courts. The Supreme Court must intervene before a state judge in Hawaii has the chance to impose what would be a massive tax on the energy system.&#8221;

Ketanji Brown Jackson Confirmation Hearing TW

GOP State AGs Push Supreme Court To Intervene In Hawaii’s Drastic Climate Case Against Energy Companies

Attorney General

Climate Change

Hawaii

Experts are warning that the state of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/hawaii" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hawaii&#8217;s</a> ruling against oil companies is a &#8220;stalking horse&#8221; for effectively forcing Americans to live under the Green New Deal.
The warnings come as the U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/oil-majors-take-hawaii-court-climate-decision-to-supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">considers</a> taking up the case after the companies filed an appeal over the ruling. Some of the justices on the Hawaii Supreme Court have cited the &#8220;spirit of Aloha&#8221; in their rulings, which critics say is clear mockery directed at the U.S. Constitution.
The city of Honolulu claimed in its lawsuit that oil companies like Exxon and Chevron should pay billions of dollars because they were responsible for weather events that it claimed were caused by climate change, including sea level rise, heat waves, flooding, and global warming.
Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hawaiis-big-oil-suit-stalking-horse-green-new-deal-push-nationwide-experts-say" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> that the oil companies initially appealed the ruling with the Hawaii Supreme Court, noting that federal law prevents states from shaping policies for all states.
Carrie Severino, president of Judicial Crisis Network (JCN), said &#8220;one rogue state court in Hawaii can’t dictate climate policy for the nation&#8221; and that &#8220;it’s Congress’ job to set national policy in this area.&#8221;
Former Arizona Solicitor General O.H. Skinner, the CEO of Alliance for Consumers, said that the ruling was &#8220;a stalking horse for the Green New Deal, with lefty enclaves looking to strong-arm progressive lifestyle choices onto an otherwise unwilling public by targeting industries that have yet to fall in line with the progressive ideal.&#8221;
&#8220;The hyper-ideological justices on the Hawaii Supreme Court seem to want to bankrupt fossil fuel companies and see this lawsuit as a magical key that unlocks unlimited power and a lot of money for progressive agendas,&#8221; Skinner said.
The report noted that Hawaii Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald has worked in collaboration with a hard-Left judicial advocacy group called the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) that exists to indoctrinate judges on &#8220;how to handle climate change litigation that comes before them.&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Other justices on Hawaii&#8217;s top court have questioned the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that &#8220;the Aloha Spirit inspires constitutional interpretation.&#8221;
Justices have also allowed their personal feelings to help dictate their rulings, including one who said in the ruling that in her &#8220;view,&#8221; climate change was &#8220;the most important issue facing all courts in the world at this point. It’s an existential threat.&#8221;
Skinner noted that the ruling that Hawaii wants will have a profound impact on Americans&#8217; ability to live, especially in the era of having to deal with high costs due to the inflation that President Joe Biden caused with his American Rescue Plan in early 2021.
&#8220;Honolulu’s proverbial ‘spirit of Aloha’ assault here, if left unchecked, will actually bore a hole in the pockets of Americans as it marches across industry after industry, increasing the costs of food, cars, travel, and all the other basic building blocks of the modern American life at a pace that everyday Americans won’t be able to afford,&#8221; he said. &#8220;This is the high court’s problem because it will have compounding impacts on everyday Americans who are already struggling to keep up with the rising costs just to live a decent life.&#8221;

Climate Activists Protest Outside The Annual White House Correspondents Dinner

Experts Warn Hawaii’s Extreme Climate Ruling Is A ‘Stalking Horse’ For Green New Deal

Energy

Green New Deal

Menu