Investigators questioned the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> justices as they sought to track down the person who leaked Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization last year, but did not force them to sign affidavits.
Alito said late last year that the leak of the draft in May 2022 made the “majority in support of overruling Roe and Casey targets for assassination because it gave people a rational reason to think they could prevent that from happening by killing one of us.”
Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley said in a statement on Friday that she &#8220;spoke with each of the Justices, several on multiple occasions.&#8221;
&#8220;The Justices actively cooperated in this iterative process, asking questions and answering mine,&#8221; she claimed. &#8220;I followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the Justices or their spouses.&#8221;
&#8220;On this basis, I did not believe that it was necessary to ask the Justices to sign sworn affidavits,&#8221; she said.
The statement from Curley comes after the Supreme Court released a statement Thursday saying that investigators could not figure out who leaked the draft to Politico.
A total of 97 individuals were interviewed in the probe, which focused primarily on &#8220;Court personnel — temporary (law clerks) and permanent employees — who had or may have had access to the draft opinion during the period from the initial circulation until the publication,&#8221; the report said.
Those employees were asked to sign an affidavit “affirming that he or she did not disclose the Dobbs draft opinion to any person not employed by the Supreme Court.” It appears that only the Justices were not asked to sign an affidavit.
“Some individuals admitted to investigators that they told their spouse or partner about the draft Dobbs opinion and the vote count, in violation of the Court’s confidentiality rules,” the report added.
The Marshal’s report said that investigators continue to analyze some electronic data that has been collected and that there are still some outstanding inquiries at this time.
“To the extent that additional investigation yields new evidence or leads, the investigators will pursue them,” the report said. “If a Court employee disclosed the draft opinion, that person brazenly violated a system that was built fundamentally on trust with limited safeguards to regulate and constrain access to very sensitive information.”
The report said that the following federal statutes were relevant to the investigation:
<ul>
<li>18 U.S.C. § 371 prohibits two or more persons from conspiring to commit an offense against the United States or to defraud the United States in any manner or for any purpose.</li>
<li>18 U.S.C. § 401 states that “[a] court of the United States shall have power to punish . . . such contempt of its authority . . . as . . . [m]isbehavior of any person in its presence of so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice” and “[m]isbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions.”</li>
<li>18 U.S.C. § 641 prohibits the disposition “without authority” of any record or thing of value of the United States.</li>
<li>18 U.S.C. § 1030 prohibits intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access and thereby obtaining information from any department or agency or the United States.</li>
<li>18 U.S.C. § 1503 prohibits “corruptly . . . endeavor[ing] to influence, intimidate, or impede any . . . officer in or of any court of the United States . . . in the discharge of his duty . . . or corruptly . . . influenc[ing], obstruct[ing], or imped[ing], or endeavor[ing] to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”</li>
<li>18 U.S.C. § 1905 prohibits disclosure by federal government employees of information that comes to them in the course of their employment that is known by them to be confidential, including the “identity” of “any person.”</li>
<li>18 U.S.C. § 2071 prohibits unlawful removal of any record filed or deposited with any judicial officer of the United States.</li>
</ul>

Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Investiture Ceremony

SCOTUS Marshal Didn’t Force Justices To Sign Affidavit Over Leak; Employees ‘Admitted’ Telling Spouses

SCOTUS Marshal Didn’t Force Justices To Sign Affidavit Over Leak; Employees 'Admitted' Telling Spouses

Abortion

Courts

Supreme Court

U.S.

Washington D.C.

George Washington University law professor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/jonathan-turley" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jonathan Turley</a> laid into the Supreme Court on Thursday after reports revealed that they had been unable to determine who leaked an early draft of their decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization.
The court released a <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-releases-final-report-from-investigation-into-who-leaked-dobbs-draft/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> Thursday afternoon — and despite calling the leak a &#8220;misguided attempt at protest&#8221; and a &#8220;grave assault on the judicial process,&#8221; they said that investigators had analyzed evidence and interviewed anyone who may have had or seen a copy of the draft, yet still came up empty: &#8220;The team has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.&#8221;
Turley made it clear that he was not impressed, saying in a brief Twitter thread that he believed a failure to identify and punish whoever had leaked the draft would only lead to more leaks in the future.
&#8220;The Supreme Court&#8217;s report indicates that they cannot isolate the culprit among the over 80 possible suspects for the Dobbs leak. It is an admission that is almost as chilling as the leak itself,&#8221; Turley began.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&#8230;It will likely revive concerns over whether the FBI should have been asked to take the lead on the investigation. The Court is only a few blocks from the world&#39;s leading forensic investigatory body&#8230;
&mdash; Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1616159583348875264?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;It will likely revive concerns over whether the FBI should have been asked to take the lead on the investigation. The Court is only a few blocks from the world&#8217;s leading forensic investigatory body,&#8221; he added.
Turley went on to say that anyone who might feel compelled to leak a future decision would not have any reason to fear repercussions, adding, &#8220;Thus far, the culprit succeeded in not just leaking the opinion but evading detection.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&#8230;The proposed changes in security are unlikely to meaningfully reduce the danger of such leaks. The nature of the Court&#39;s work requires a free flow of drafts and memoranda. That is why we hope to achieve through deterrence what was not achieved through ethics&#8230;
&mdash; Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1616160499955126272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
He then argued that the court&#8217;s suggested security changes would not do much to prevent similar leaks in the future — but it might discourage the justices and clerks from freely circulating memos and decision drafts as they have in the past.
Turley&#8217;s <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1616160850246791169" target="_blank" rel="noopener">overall conclusion</a> was simple: a failure to find and punish the leaker would only make future leakers feel as though they are justified in taking similar actions whenever they saw fit to do so.
&#8220;In this age of rage, this danger will only grow. Someone felt that they had license to leak. Some others may now feel that they have the impunity to do so,&#8221; he said.

House Hearing On U.S. Park Police Attack On Protesters At Lafayette Square Park

‘This Danger Will Only Grow’: Jonathan Turley Takes Supreme Court Apart Over Failure To Find Leaker

Jonathan Turley Takes Supreme Court Apart Over Failure To Find Leaker

Dobbs

Jonathan Turley

Leak

The U.S. Supreme Court released a statement Thursday afternoon announcing that investigators could not determine who was behind the leak of Justice Samuel Alito&#8217;s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization last year.
Alito said late last year that the leak of the draft in May 2022 made the &#8220;majority in support of overruling Roe and Casey targets for assassination because it gave people a rational reason to think they could prevent that from happening by killing one of us.&#8221;
The Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/Dobbs_Public_Report_January_19_2023.pdf">released</a> the report along with an unsigned statement that called the leak &#8220;one of the worst breaches of trust&#8221; in the court&#8217;s history. &#8220;The leak was no mere misguided attempt at protest,&#8221; the statement said. &#8220;It was a grave assault on the judicial process.&#8221;
&#8220;The Chief Justice assigned the task to the Marshal of the Supreme Court and her staff,&#8221; the statement continued. &#8220;After months of diligent analysis of forensic evidence and interviews of almost 100 employees, the Marshal’s team determined that no further investigation was warranted with respect to many of the &#8217;82 employees [who] had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion.'&#8221;
&#8220;In following up on all available leads, however, the Marshal’s team performed additional forensic analysis and conducted multiple follow-up interviews of certain employees,&#8221; the statement continued. &#8220;But the team has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.&#8221;
The Marshal’s report states that investigators continue to analyze some electronic data that has been collected and that there are still some outstanding inquiries at this time.
“To the extent that additional investigation yields new evidence or leads, the investigators will pursue them,” the report said. “If a Court employee disclosed the draft opinion, that person brazenly violated a system that was built fundamentally on trust with limited safeguards to regulate and constrain access to very sensitive information.”
The report said that the following federal statutes were relevant to the investigation:
<ul>
<li>18 U.S.C. § 371 prohibits two or more persons from conspiring to commit an offense against the United States or to defraud the United States in any manner or for any purpose.</li>
<li>18 U.S.C. § 401 states that “[a] court of the United States shall have power to punish . . . such contempt of its authority . . . as . . . [m]isbehavior of any person in its presence of so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice” and “[m]isbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions.”</li>
<li>18 U.S.C. § 641 prohibits the disposition “without authority” of any record or thing of value of the United States.</li>
<li>18 U.S.C. § 1030 prohibits intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access and thereby obtaining information from any department or agency or the United States.</li>
<li>18 U.S.C. § 1503 prohibits “corruptly . . . endeavor[ing] to influence, intimidate, or impede any . . . officer in or of any court of the United States . . . in the discharge of his duty . . . or corruptly . . . influenc[ing], obstruct[ing], or imped[ing], or endeavor[ing] to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”</li>
<li>18 U.S.C. § 1905 prohibits disclosure by federal government employees of information that comes to them in the course of their employment that is known by them to be confidential, including the “identity” of “any person.”</li>
<li>18 U.S.C. § 2071 prohibits unlawful removal of any record filed or deposited with any judicial officer of the United States.</li>
</ul>
This report has been updated to include additional information.

US-JUSTICE-SUPREME-COURT-GROUP-PHOTO

Supreme Court Releases Final Report From Investigation Into Who Leaked Dobbs Draft

Politics

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> has <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011323zr_e1p3.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">agreed</a> to take up a case about a postal worker who was forced out of his job when he did not want to work on Sundays due to his religious convictions.
“It is unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of religion,” Kelly Shackelford, President, CEO, and Chief Counsel for First Liberty, one of the firms representing Groff, said in a press release provided to The Daily Wire. “It’s time for the Supreme Court to reconsider a decades old case that favors corporations and the government over the religious rights of employees.”
In 2012, Gerald <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-takes-christian-postal-workers-religious-claim-rcna65544" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Groff</a> <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/scotus-to-hear-case-of-christian-postal-worker-who-quit-rather-than-deliver-amazon-packages-on-sundays/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">began</a> <a href="https://firstliberty.org/groff/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">working</a> for the United States Postal Service in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, after looking for a job that wouldn’t make him work on Sundays. In accordance with his religious beliefs, Groff wanted to keep the Christian Sabbath.
The post office began package delivery on Sundays for Amazon, leading Groff to decide to be moved to a different branch, although it hurt his employment standing.
The post office then began to make deliveries on Sundays, so Groff requested a religious accommodation in order to keep the Sabbath on Sunday. At first, he was given the accommodation and permitted to work more on other days. The postal service then only gave him options that would still make him work on Sundays.
Groff stepped down and sued the United States Postal Service (USPS).
In a May <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/usps-doesnt-have-exempt-carrier-who-wont-deliver-packages-sunday-2022-05-25/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruling</a>, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court’s findings favoring USPS.
According to the appeals court&#8217;s <a href="https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znpneojzyvl/EMPLOYMENT_RELIGIOUS_POSTAL_decision.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">decision</a>, a district court &#8220;found that USPS provided evidence&#8221; in various areas showing &#8220;undue hardship.&#8221; It also said giving Groff Sundays off “was an undue hardship” in part because it would make the sole other substitute carrier work all Sundays with no time off, even though those workers work “as needed.”
Groff’s attorneys <a href="https://firstliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Groff-Cert-Petition_Redacted.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">petitioned</a> the Supreme Court to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-asked-revive-postal-workers-religious-bias-claim-2022-08-23/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">consider</a> the case and answer two questions.
One was regarding if an employer can show that there is “undue hardship” on their business because a “requested accommodation” places a burden on a worker’s co-workers instead of the business.
They also asked the Supreme Court to question if it should “disapprove” a prior decision <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-religion/u-s-supreme-court-rebuffs-claims-of-workplace-religious-bias-idUSKBN2BS18G" target="_blank" rel="noopener">made</a> in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/432/63/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison</a> (1977) wherein the “more-than-de-minimis-cost test” was established for not granting religious accommodations. In that <a href="https://blog.shrm.org/blog/accommodating-religious-beliefs-and-de-minimis-cost" target="_blank" rel="noopener">case</a>, the high court essentially <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/high-court-declines-to-examine-religious-accommodations-at-work" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> that an undue hardship <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/432/63/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">amounted</a> to <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-1126" target="_blank" rel="noopener">making</a> a company take on “more than a de minimis cost.”

88F2EA2A-6722-4ABA-8B12-8BC62E23D4E5_1_201_a

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Case Of Postal Worker Forced Out Of Job After Requesting To Observe Sabbath

Christianity

Religion

U.S. Postal Service

The Supreme Court investigation into who leaked a draft opinion indicating Roe v. Wade would be overturned last year has narrowed down the list of suspects, according to a new report.
The Wall Street Journal, which <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-investigators-have-narrowed-leak-inquiry-to-small-number-of-suspects-11673635774?mod=e2tw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">broke the news Friday</a>, cited sources who stressed that officials have not yet settled on a specific suspect.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced that he had tasked the Supreme Court&#8217;s marshal, Gail Curley, with investigating how the draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito had leaked the day after POLITICO published it in May 2022.
&#8220;To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way,&#8221; <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_05-03-22" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Roberts said in a statement</a>.
More than a month later, on June 24, the Supreme Court released Alito&#8217;s majority opinion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, which overturned the 1973 Roe decision and returned the issue of abortion to the states.
Curley leads a force of 189 officers, but because it has little experience in complex investigations the court brought in outside help and made strides in narrowing down the list of suspects by early summer, sources told The Wall Street Journal. An insider said interviews were sometimes short and included pointed questions such as &#8220;Did you do it? Do you know anyone who had a reason to do it?”
Fox News host Shannon Bream <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/supreme-court-leak-investigators-narrowed-shannon-bream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported in late July</a> that her sources were telling her the group of suspects had been whittled down from about 70 people, including law clerks working with the justices.
&#8220;Thanks to our amazing producer Bill Mears, [we] have been digging around and found that they have started this group of essentially about 70 or so that would have had access to that document,&#8221; Bream said at the time. &#8220;They have narrowed it down. They did ask the clerks who were then working at the court. And listen, their one-year contract is basically up mid-July. So most of them have moved on. They did ask them to turn over cellphones and sign affidavits. They asked some of those similar things also of permanent court employees.&#8221;
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said in September that he hoped a report on the leaked draft would be completed in the near future, though he did not comment on whether it would be released to the public. “The chief justice appointed an internal committee to oversee the investigation,” Gorsuch <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-gorsuch-says-he-hopes-report-on-dobbs-leak-will-come-soon" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said at a conference</a>. “That committee has been busy and we’re looking forward to their report, I hope soon.”
This is a breaking news story; refresh the page for updates.

Suspects In Supreme Court Leak Narrowed Down: Report

John Roberts

The <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> permitted a <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/new-york" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York</a> law restricting the concealed carry of <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/guns" target="_blank" rel="noopener">firearms</a> to stay in force as challenges to the statute move through the legal system.
An emergency request from plaintiffs to pause the law was rejected; Justice Samuel Alito wrote a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23569915-22a557-order" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a> endorsed by Justice Clarence Thomas respecting the denial while stressing that the viability of the case was not in question.
“I understand the Court’s denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case,” Alito said. “Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.”
The court case follows the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-scotus-strikes-down-new-york-concealed-carry-restrictions-restrictions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruling</a> last summer in a six-to-three decision against longtime restrictions on concealed carry in New York. The state law in question had conditioned the right to a concealed carry permit on “good moral character” and “proper cause.” The Supreme Court majority opinion written by Thomas took issue with the latter condition, which unlawfully forced New Yorkers to demonstrate “a special need for self-defense.”
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” he contended. “That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”
More recently, however, officials in New York greenlit the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, which prohibits guns in certain locations, demands gun owners request a property owner’s consent to carry on their premises, and requires a social media review ahead of gun purchases, according to a <a href="https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2022/attorney-general-james-takes-action-maintain-concealed-carry-gun-laws-and-protect#:~:text=The%20law%20strengthens%20requirements%20for,of%20certain%20gun%20purchases%2C%20and" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a> from the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James. Six residents challenging the law recently <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A557/250597/20221221121323672_Antonyuk%20Application%20to%20Vacate%20Stay%20FINAL.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">asked</a> the Supreme Court to intervene.
Republican lawmakers say that the Concealed Carry Improvement Act stands in defiance of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling last year. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) introduced a <a href="https://stefanik.house.gov/2022/10/stefanik-tenney-introduce-resolution-condemning-new-york-s-concealed-carry-law-as-unconstitutional" target="_blank" rel="noopener">resolution</a> to the House of Representatives condemning the new legislation as a violation of the Second Amendment and encouraging all states to pass laws supporting the right to bear arms.
Several other states and localities controlled by Democratic officials have introduced restrictions on gun ownership in recent years. A law in Oregon <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/oregon-judge-freezes-gun-control-law-over-questions-about-fundamental-constitutional-rights" target="_blank" rel="noopener">bans</a> the sale of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 bullets and includes a permit-to-purchase requirement that requires all customers to get a background check and attend gun safety training before acquiring a firearm. An executive order from Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-blocks-liberal-mayors-gun-ban" target="_blank" rel="noopener">outlawed</a> firearms at city recreational facilities despite state law barring such restrictions. Both measures were challenged in the court system and blocked by judges.
Some 81.4 million Americans own firearms, representing 31.9% of the adult population, according to <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887145" target="_blank" rel="noopener">data</a> from the most recent National Firearms Survey. The average gun owner has five firearms, with handguns as the most common type of weapon owned.

NY Supreme Court building

Supreme Court Allows New York Gun Control Law To Remain In Force As Legal Challenges Persist

Supreme Court Lets New York Gun Control Law Stay In Force

Concealed Carry

Guns

New York

Second Amendment

The decision by a federal appeals court Friday to uphold a Florida school district&#8217;s policy barring trans students from using the restroom corresponding to their chosen sex could set up a showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court over the contentious issue.
<a href="https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201813592.2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">In a 7-4 decision</a>, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the St. Johns County School Board policy that barred a biological female who identifies as male from using a high school’s boys’ restroom violates neither the student’s constitutional right to equal protection nor Title IX, the federal law against discrimination by schools based on sex. The court’s ruling differs on substance from a 2020 decision by the 4th Circuit striking down a similar policy in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/if-youve-got-that-much-of-a-problem-hold-it-ma-dem-governor-candidate-told-critics-of-transgender-bathroom-bill/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gloucester</a> County, Virginia.
“Given the countervailing decision of the Fourth Circuit in G.G. v. Gloucester County, there is now a conflict in the circuits that could prompt a Supreme Court review,” said George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The court ruled 7-4 against a statutory and constitutional challenge of a transgender student to a district policy requiring students to use bathrooms corresponding to their biological sex&#8230; <a href="https://t.co/YppVW9Kius">https://t.co/YppVW9Kius</a>
&mdash; Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1609165783120375809?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 31, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In the decision handed down Friday, the court ruled against plaintiff Drew Adams, who was required to use a gender-neutral, single-stall bathroom or girls’ bathrooms while attending Nease High School. Judge Barbara Lagoa, a former Florida state Supreme Court justice, wrote in the majority opinion that the policy was implemented to protect the privacy of students.
“The school board’s bathroom policy is clearly related to — indeed, is almost a mirror of — its objective of protecting the privacy interests of students to use the bathroom away from the opposite sex and to shield their bodies from the opposite sex in the bathroom, which, like a locker room or shower facility, is one of the spaces in a school where such bodily exposure is most likely to occur,” Lagoa wrote.
The decision broke down on partisan lines as Republican appointees Chief Judge William Pryor and judges Elizabeth Branch, Andrew Brasher, Britt Grant, Robert Luck, and Kevin Newsom all joined Lagoa’s opinion. All four dissenters were appointed by Democratic presidents.
In one dissenting opinion, Judge Jill Pryor wrote that the policy meant Adams was “was forced to endure a stigmatizing and humiliating walk of shame — past the boys’ bathrooms and into a single-stall ‘gender neutral’ bathroom.” She said the court majority “labels Adams as unfit for equal protection based on his transgender status.”
In her opinion, Pryor adopted the gender theory argument that biological sex and gender identity are not the same thing.
“To start, the majority opinion simply declares — without any basis — that a person’s ‘biological sex’ is comprised solely of chromosomal structure and birth-assigned sex,” Pryor wrote.
Judge Charles Wilson, in a separate dissent, claimed that the policy was rooted in the “medically and scientifically flawed” idea that people can’t change their sex.
The school’s policy provided for a gender-neutral restroom and could also trans students who had documentation of their altered status prior to enrollment to use the restroom of their choice.
The ruling reversed an earlier one in the case by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. A three-judge circuit court panel initially upheld the lower court’s decision over Pryor’s dissent, but then vacated that decision and held an en banc hearing, or one before the entire circuit.
The U.S. Supreme Court expressly stated that it was not ruling on transgender restroom issue in its 2020 decision in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17-1618" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bostock v. Clayton County</a>. In that case, a 6-3 majority ruled that it is impossible to discriminate against a person based on their sexual orientation or gender identity without discriminating based on sex. Adams relied on that ruling in bringing the case against the Florida school district, even though the high court explicitly stated it did not apply to school restroom policies.
“We do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind,” the high court wrote in Bostock. “The only question before us is whether an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or transgender has discharged or otherwise discriminated against that individual “because of such individual’s sex.”
The Florida majority said that Title IX allows the district to have separate restrooms for biological girls and boys, pointing out that the statute’s reference to “sex” is not synonymous with “gender identity” or “transgender status.”
“Affirming the district court’s order and adopting Adams’s definition of “sex” under Title IX to include “gender identity” or “transgender status” would have had repercussions far beyond the bathroom door,” Lagoa wrote.
A policy allowing students to use the restroom of their choice would open sports, living facilities, showers, and locker rooms up to the same rules, Lagoa said. That could defeat one of the original purposes of Title IX, which was to give girls and women a chance to compete at sports, Lagoa said.
&#8220;A definition of &#8216;sex&#8217; beyond &#8216;biological sex&#8217; would not only cut against the vast weight of drafting-era dictionary definitions … but would also force female student athletes to compete against students who have a very significant biological advantage, including students who have the size and strength of a male but identify as female,” she wrote.

Transgender restrooms

Federal Appeals Court Ruling On Transgender School Bathroom Policy May Trigger SCOTUS Showdown

Transgender

U.S. Supreme Court justices scheduled a criminal appeal for a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/texas" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Texas</a> inmate facing the death penalty after a court used footage of comedian Jeff Ross roasting the convicted prisoner in a Comedy Central special.
Gabriel Paul Hall, who was convicted in 2015 of murdering a retired Texas A&amp;M University professor and disabled veteran Edwin Shaar and stabbing Sharr&#8217;s disabled wife Linda in their College Station home in 2011, received a death sentence after the court used the footage from &#8220;Jeff Ross Roasts Criminals: Live At Brazos County Jail&#8221; as evidence against him in the penalty phase of the trial.
Hall was an 18-year-old student at A&amp;M Consolidated High School at the time of the murder.
&#8220;Ross interviewed Petitioner [Hall], who was awaiting trial after being indicted on a high-profile capital murder charge,&#8221; the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-5487/236605/20220829155728025_2022.08.29%20Hall%20-%20cert%20petition%20FINAL.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">petition</a> reads. &#8220;Petitioner&#8217;s counsel were not advised of the interview, despite having previously sent the Sheriff a &#8216;no contact&#8217; letter instructing him to give no one access to Petitioner without their consent.&#8221;
Law and Crime <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/a-texas-jail-taped-a-comedy-central-roast-of-a-murderer-now-scotus-will-decide-whether-the-footage-could-be-used-to-sentence-him-to-death/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> that court documents showed the judge admitted the footage during the penalty phase of Hall&#8217;s case.
The footage contained recorded interviews of Ross and Hall at the detention center, which permitted the comedian to speak with any inmate on camera that signed a release form.
During the exchange between Ross and Hall, the comedian asked why the inmate was in jail.
&#8220;Hacking somebody&#8217;s computer?&#8221; Ross said.
&#8220;Something like that, yes,&#8221; Hall responded.
Another inmate said, “‘Hacking&#8217; being the operative word.&#8221;
&#8220;Yeah,&#8221; Hall said. &#8220;Yeah, used a machete on someone&#8217;s screen, so.&#8221;
Ross later referred to the prisoner as &#8220;a scary dude,&#8221; to which Hall responded that he &#8220;wouldn&#8217;t hurt a fly.&#8221;
“Really?&#8221; Ross said. &#8220;What about a human?”
&#8220;Eh, they&#8217;re annoying,&#8221; Hall responded. &#8220;We&#8217;ll leave &#8217;em to their own devices, so.&#8221;
Attorneys for Hall said the interview, which prosecutors played twice for the jury, included &#8220;numerous vulgar provocations by Ross and damaging responses from Petitioner.&#8221;
They said the video portrayed Hall in a &#8220;highly prejudicial&#8221; way that mocked Hall&#8217;s appearance, demeanor, and ethnic Asian heritage, where he was referred to as &#8220;Slim Sushi.&#8221;
However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Hall&#8217;s appeal, saying his comments showed a lack of remorse.
Ross has not responded to requests for comment by media outlets.
McKenzie Edwards, Hall&#8217;s attorney, tweeted Wednesday that the counsel team has asked the nation&#8217;s highest court to review the constitutionality of her client&#8217;s sentence.
“A Texas jail volunteered to let Comedy Central comedian Jeff Ross roast its inmates,&#8221; Edwards said. &#8220;It encouraged inmates to participate. Texas then used the footage to sentence my client, Gabriel Hall, to death.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
A Texas jail volunteered to let Comedy Central comedian Jeff Ross roast its inmates. It encouraged inmates to participate. Texas then used the footage to sentence my client, Gabriel Hall, to death. 
We’re asking <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> to review the constitutionality of Mr. Hall’s sentence. <a href="https://t.co/JFNFskKHDw">pic.twitter.com/JFNFskKHDw</a>
&mdash; McKenzie Edwards (@mckeds) <a href="https://twitter.com/mckeds/status/1608111423795695617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 28, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Hall has asked SCOTUS to overturn the death sentence because he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Supreme Court justices are set to discuss Hall&#8217;s appeal and decide whether to consider the case on January 6.

Comedy Central Roast Of Alec Baldwin – Inside

Comedian Jeff Ross Named In Death Row Inmate SCOTUS Review After Prosecutors Used Jailhouse Roast Footage During Sentencing

Comedy

Death Penalty

SCOTUS

Texas

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday to keep the pandemic-era limit on immigration, referred to as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/title-42" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Title 42</a>, in place indefinitely, which allows officials to turn away migrants at the border to prevent the spread of COVID.
Customs and Border Protection officials warned lawmakers that approximately 50,000 foreigners were waiting to cross into the United States once Title 42 ended. However, according to <a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-politics-united-states-government-donald-trump-immigration-0494c30834fad66ce9c6057ea1605d89" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Associated Press</a>, an order from Chief Justice John Roberts stayed a lower court&#8217;s ruling, which justices extended to give the court time to consider both sides&#8217; arguments.
Justice Neil Gorsuch the only dissenting conservative justice to join all of the Supreme Court’s liberal justices in Tuesday’s ruling said “the current border crisis is not a COVID crisis.”
“And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency,” he wrote, according to <a href="https://ktla.com/news/nexstar-media-wire/nationworld/supreme-court-orders-title-42-border-restrictions-to-remain-in-place/">KTLA</a>. “We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort.”
The statute, which gives commanders-in-chief the power to shut down immigration as an emergency action to keep communicable diseases out of the United States, was last used by former President Donald Trump in reaction to the COVID outbreak. Families seeking asylum had filed a lawsuit, which led Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to order the Biden administration to lift Title 42 by Wednesday.
Sullivan said in his November ruling that the use of Title 42 to stop migrants from entering the United States for asylum is an “arbitrary” use of the law.
“It is unreasonable for the CDC to assume that it can ignore the consequences of any actions it chooses to take in the pursuit of fulfilling its goals, particularly when those actions included the extraordinary decision to suspend the codified procedural and substantive rights of non-citizens seeking safe harbor,” he <a href="https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/opinion_-_huisha-huisha_v._mayorkas.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>.
According to The Associated Press, immigration advocates sued to end Title 42, arguing that the policy is outdated — as COVID treatments have improved — and that it “goes against American and international obligations to people fleeing to the U.S. to escape persecution.&#8221;
Federal officials said ending the restrictions would likely lead to &#8220;disruption and a temporary increase in unlawful border crossings.&#8221; However, they still asked the nation&#8217;s highest court to reject the request from 19 Republican state attorneys general to maintain the policy.
Leaders in border cities had been bracing for an influx of immigrants. Oscar Leeser, the Democratic mayor of El Paso, Texas, declared a state of emergency on Saturday in anticipation of the end of Title 42. “Our asylum seekers are not safe,” the official <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/12/17/el-paso-mayor-oscar-leeser-declares-state-of-emergency-ahead-of-title-42-lifting/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> at a press conference. “We have hundreds and hundreds on the street and that’s not the way we treat our people.”
More than 80,000 migrants have entered El Paso in the last four months; approximately 678,000 people currently reside in the city, where temperatures can drop below freezing during winter nights. Leeser did not rule out the option of using a nearby military base to temporarily house migrants, adding that officials were discussing options with state and federal authorities.
The Department of Homeland Security previously vowed to continue enforcing Title 42 until the policy ended. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/12/13/statement-secretary-mayorkas-planning-end-title-42" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> last week that the agency would “process individuals encountered at the border without proper travel documents using its longstanding Title 8 authorities, which provide for meaningful consequences, including barring individuals who are removed from re-entry for five years.”
Ben Zeisloft and Dillon Burroughs contributed to this report.

The U.S. Supreme Court building stands in Washington

Supreme Court Rules To Keep Title 42 In Place Indefinitely

Supreme Court Rules To Keep Pandemic-Era Immigration Policy Title 42 In Place Indefinitely

Border Crisis

Immigration

Title 42

Significant changes to the retirement system are included in the $1.7 trillion omnibus bill moving through <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/congress" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Congress</a>.
The 4,155-page piece of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pork-parks-and-woke-all-the-fun-features-in-1-7-trillion-omnibus" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legislation</a> could codify $858 billion in defense spending and nearly $773 billion for discretionary programs. Among other provisions, the bill funds border security for foreign nations, offers contributions for LGBTQ pride centers, and christens various federal properties with the names of powerful lawmakers. Secure Act 2.0, an overhaul to the current retirement savings regime, is also buried in the bill, which members of Congress must pass by Friday to fund the government through the current fiscal year.
Among the most significant changes is the automatic enrollment of employees in 401(k) or 403(b) programs for companies that offer matching benefits, according to a <a href="https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Secure%202.0_Section%20by%20Section%20Summary%2012-19-22%20FINAL.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">summary</a> from the Senate Finance Committee. Workers would be required to enroll at a rate of 3% before contributions automatically increase by 1% each year until a 10% threshold is reached.
Employees could choose to opt-out of the program at any time, while exemptions exist for small businesses with 10 or fewer employees, church programs, and government plans. The Senate Finance Committee said that automatic enrollment would boost “participation by eligible employees generally, and particularly for Black, Latinx, and lower-wage employees.”
One portion of the bill would allow companies to make matching 401(k) contributions on behalf of employees attempting to pay off student loans rather than making deposits into their retirement savings accounts. The measure is “intended to assist employees who may not be able to save for retirement because they are overwhelmed with student debt, and thus are missing out on available matching contributions for retirement plans.”
The new provision occurs as a policy from the Biden administration to forgive as much as $20,000 in student loan debt per borrower awaits a ruling from the Supreme Court. The program is now <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-federal-court-freezes-bidens-student-loan-bailout" target="_blank" rel="noopener">on hold</a> after a ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which granted standing to a lawsuit from multiple Republican state attorneys general who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/unfair-unconstitutional-and-unwise-two-more-lawsuits-hit-biden-over-student-debt-cancellation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">contended</a> that the White House illegally bypassed Congress while drafting the policy.
Another portion of the Secure Act 2.0 would allow employers to offer “small immediate financial incentives” for contributing to a retirement plan. Though current law bars employers from offering gift cards and similar incentives to boost participation, the new legislation would remove such restrictions.
The bill would also allow savers to pull $1,000 from their 401(k) or IRA account to meet an emergency expense without incurring the 10% penalty for early withdrawals. Only one such withdrawal could occur each year, while savers could only be eligible for other emergency funds in the subsequent three years if they return the original $1,000 withdrawal.
Insured Retirement Institute Chief Government and Political Affairs Officer Paul Richman asserted in a <a href="https://www.irionline.org/news/article/statement-of-the-insured-retirement-institute-on-the-inclusion-of-secure-2-0-provisions-in-omnibus-appropriations-legislation/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a> that the Secure Act 2.0, which follows the Secure Act passed three years ago, would “help millions more workers and retirees with significant improvements to the nation’s private retirement system” and add “billions to the retirement savings for small business workers, part-time workers, employees with student loan debt, military spouses, low-income workers, and others.”

Savings from broken piggy bank.

Massive Changes To Retirement System Buried In Behemoth Omnibus Bill

Retirement System Changes Coming If Congress Passes Omnibus Bill

Congress

Joe Biden

Vox writer Ian Millhiser slammed late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg&#8217;s &#8220;arrogance&#8221; and called on sitting Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to consider retiring rather than risk the possibility of an unfavorable Senate makeup later.
&#8220;Sotomayor and Kagan need to think about retiring,&#8221; the <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23507944/supreme-court-sonia-sotomayor-elena-kagan-ruth-bader-ginsburg-retire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">headline read</a>, and the sub-headline added the reason for his deep concern. The Senate, he alleged, was a &#8220;fundamentally broken institution&#8221; — and for that reason, Democratic justices needed to plan accordingly.
&#8220;We have now lived with the consequences of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s late-life arrogance for more than two years,&#8221; Millhiser wrote to open the piece, and then he went on to detail why he believed Ginsburg should have retired while former President Barack Obama was still in the White House and had a friendly Senate.
The problem he outlined — at least as far as Sotomayor, 68, and Kagan, 62, are concerned — was that Democrats could very well lose the Senate in two years&#8217; time, and he worried that it would be a long time before the <a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/21/should-justices-sotomayor-and-kagan-retire/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">balance of power</a> shifted in their favor again.
But then Millhiser got to the crux of the matter, revealing that his real problem was not actually the &#8220;so brutal&#8221; Senate map expected in 2024 — rather, he took issue with the Senate&#8217;s designated role as it was written into the U.S. Constitution: to balance the power of the states with the power of the people.
Calling the Senate &#8220;<a href="https://dailywire.com/news/democrats-are-going-about-house-and-senate-popular-ashe-schow/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">malapportioned</a>,&#8221; he argued that the Constitution gave &#8220;extra representation to Republicans in small states&#8221; — and that was the real reason that Democrats were unlikely to regain the majority (according to his math) until 2030 or even later.
&#8220;If Sotomayor and Kagan do not retire within the next two years, in other words, they could doom the entire country to live under a 7–2 or even an 8–1 Court controlled by an increasingly radicalized Republican Party’s appointees,&#8221; Millhiser complained.
Slate&#8217;s Mark Joseph Stern agreed with Millhiser, saying, &#8220;I think Sotomayor and Kagan are brilliant justices and I’d be sad to see them go. But Ian is indisputably correct about the political calculus here. After 2025, Democrats may not hold the White House and the Senate for a decade+. This argument should be taken seriously.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I think Sotomayor and Kagan are brilliant justices and I’d be sad to see them go. But Ian is indisputably correct about the political calculus here. After 2025, Democrats may not hold the White House and the Senate for a decade+. This argument should be taken seriously. <a href="https://t.co/VU0vQWPCxa">https://t.co/VU0vQWPCxa</a>
&mdash; Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) <a href="https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1605654255678984209?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 21, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
And while a fair number of Democrats agreed with his assessment, some also pointed out the fact that Ginsburg had been older and her health had not been as good when she opted to remain on the bench. The late justice had also <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-ginsburg/u-s-justice-ginsburg-hits-back-at-liberals-who-want-her-to-retire-idUSKBN0G12V020140801" target="_blank" rel="noopener">made it clear</a> that she would not bow to popular opinion when it came to calls for her retirement, saying, &#8220;So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?&#8221;

U.S. Supreme Court Women Justices Are Honored On Capitol Hill For Women’s History Month

Vox Writer Slams RBG ‘Arrogance,’ Says Kagan And Sotomayor Should Take One For The Team And Retire

Vox Writer Slams 'Arrogant' RBG, Says Kagan And Sotomayor Should Retire

Media

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Sonia Sotomayor

The <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> on Monday blocked the lifting of key immigration policy <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/title-42" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Title 42</a>.
The statute, which gives commanders-in-chief the power to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/texas-governor-predicts-total-chaos-when-title-42-border-rule-ends" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shut down immigration</a> as an emergency action to keep communicable diseases out of the United States, was last used by former President Donald Trump in reaction to the COVID outbreak. Families seeking asylum had filed a lawsuit which led Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to order the Biden administration to lift Title 42 by Wednesday.
Customs and Border Protection officials warned lawmakers that approximately 50,000 foreigners were waiting to cross into the United States once Title 42 ended. An <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1604959650788659200" target="_blank" rel="noopener">order</a> from Chief Justice John Roberts, however, stayed the ruling of the lower court.
“Texas and other states are insisting that the Court leave Title 42 in place. Today&#8217;s order is a step in that direction,” Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) <a href="https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1604959009987264514" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in reaction to the move. “This helps prevent illegal immigration.”
Leaders in border cities had been bracing for an influx of immigrants. Oscar Leeser, the Democratic mayor of El Paso, Texas, declared a state of emergency on Saturday in anticipation of the end of Title 42. “Our asylum seekers are not safe,” the official <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/12/17/el-paso-mayor-oscar-leeser-declares-state-of-emergency-ahead-of-title-42-lifting/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> at a press conference. “We have hundreds and hundreds on the street and that’s not the way we treat our people.”
More than 80,000 migrants have entered El Paso in the last four months; approximately 678,000 people currently reside in the city, where temperatures can drop below freezing during winter nights. Leeser did not rule out the option of using a nearby military base to temporarily house migrants, adding that officials were discussing options with state and federal authorities.
As many as 4.9 million migrants have crossed into the United States under the administration of President Joe Biden, according to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bidens-press-secretary-on-illegal-immigration-its-not-like-somebody-walks-over-actually-millions-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener">data</a> from the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Some 66 individuals from the terror watchlist crossed the border between October 2021 and July 2022; in the previous five years combined, only 30 aliens from the terror watchlist had been apprehended.
Sullivan said in his November ruling that the use of Title 42 to stop migrants from entering the United States for asylum is an “arbitrary” use of the law. “It is unreasonable for the CDC to assume that it can ignore the consequences of any actions it chooses to take in the pursuit of fulfilling its goals, particularly when those actions included the extraordinary decision to suspend the codified procedural and substantive rights of non-citizens seeking safe harbor,” he <a href="https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/opinion_-_huisha-huisha_v._mayorkas.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>.
The Department of Homeland Security previously vowed to continue enforcing Title 42 until the policy ended. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/12/13/statement-secretary-mayorkas-planning-end-title-42" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> last week that the agency would “process individuals encountered at the border without proper travel documents using its longstanding Title 8 authorities, which provide for meaningful consequences, including barring individuals who are removed from re-entry for five years.”
Policies from the Biden administration meant to decrease illegal crossings have emphasized “root causes” such as economic instability in some Latin American nations rather than increased security at the border.
Dillon Burroughs contributed to this report.

El Paso migrants

Supreme Court Blocks Key Immigration Policy Title 42 From Ending

Menu