A couple who won a landmark Supreme Court victory in favor of parental rights said their Christian faith helped them through the dramatic ordeal that began when their daughter took a book pushing transgender ideology home from her Maryland school.
In April, Chris and Melissa Persak, a Catholic family, found themselves and other allied parents arriving at the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in their case against the Montgomery County Board of Education over whether they had the right to opt their kids out of instruction on transgender ideology. In June, the Persaks, who were represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, won a decisive 6-3 victory with the Supreme Court majority declaring that they and other parents had expansive oversight over what their children were taught at schools.
“We said prayers of the Holy Spirit, and just felt this unbelievable calmness as we&#8217;re walking in. Even with the protesters, even with members of the leadership of Montgomery County, who were protesting against us live that day,” Chris told The Daily Wire.
“We just felt like this was the right thing that God was saying, ‘Yep, this is exactly what I asked you to do. It&#8217;s been 24 months, and I know you guys have taken shrapnel and things that have come at you and people threaten your children, and you and your friends, and it was vindication day,” he added.
On Tuesday, the Persaks <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfCn1zWnXGQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">appeared</a> on Becket’s “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfCn1zWnXGQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Stream of Conscience</a>” podcast alongside Jeff and Svitlana Roman, another family who challenged Montgomery County’s opt-out policies.
The legal battle began in March 2023, when the school board said that it would no longer let parents opt out of books pushing transgender and queer ideology. In response, a group of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish parents challenged the county in Mahmoud v. Taylor.
Svitlana said during her appearance on the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfCn1zWnXGQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">podcast</a>, which was previewed by The Daily Wire, that she became involved in the legal fight because she just wanted parents like her to have the option to opt their elementary-aged kids from sexualized materials in the classroom.
“All I would like to ask is, one, to make it very clear that the teachers have an optionality to teach it or not, and then two, give the choice to parents to opt in,” she said.
Melissa Persak echoed that sentiment.
“This whole lawsuit was we just wanted the rights to our own children and what they&#8217;re gonna learn,” she said. “It has nothing to do with anybody else&#8217;s kids, but, you know, obviously, in the process, now, we want to protect everyone, all the parents, and all of their children.”
<div id="attachment_1002015" style="width: 1952px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1002015" class="size-full wp-image-1002015" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-17-at-3.44.53-PM.png" alt="" width="1942" height="1089" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-17-at-3.44.53-PM.png 1942w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-17-at-3.44.53-PM-300x168.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-17-at-3.44.53-PM-1024x574.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-17-at-3.44.53-PM-768x431.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-17-at-3.44.53-PM-1536x861.png 1536w" sizes=" (max-width: 1942px) 100vw, 1942px" />The Romans and Persaks appear on the Becket podcast.</div>
Chris, her husband, added that the entire saga revealed how citizens could fight for their rights under the Constitution. He described being at the Supreme Court as a “powerful moment” because “citizens can stand up for what we believe protected under the Constitution by a system that was essentially set up nearly 250 years ago.”
“We just want the best for our kids and our families and have access to the freedoms granted under the Constitution,” he added. “And the ability to see that happen in real time at the political level has been awesome, it&#8217;s been awe-inspiring.”
When the decision was announced, Chris said the “jubilation was unbelievable.”
Becket Lawyer Will Haun told The Daily Wire that the decision in Mahmoud came 100 years after the Supreme Court issued a decision protecting the rights of parents to send their kids to religious schools.
“It took a long time for the Supreme Court to confirm that parents don&#8217;t lose that freedom when they send their children to public schools,” he said. “But thanks to the heroic example of Chris and Melissa and all the parents who stood with us, that is confirmed in the law now as well.”
In light of the decision, Montgomery County has rolled out a system known as &#8220;refrigerator curriculum,” giving parents broad access to essentially every material used in the classroom. The breadth of material has prompted some parents to worry they might miss something, but Haun said it was a sign that things were changing.
“Business as usual in Montgomery County when it came to opt outs was not acceptable anymore,” he said. “And I think that became abundantly clear with the Supreme Court&#8217;s decisive victory for the parents.”

Mahmoud v. Taylor

Caught In A SCOTUS Clash Over Trans Ideology, Parents Turned To Faith And The Constitution

Education

Maryland

Parental Rights in Education

Religious Liberty

Schools

Supreme Court

Transgender

The Supreme Court on Monday <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111725zor_f2bh.pdf">agreed</a> to hear a case challenging a major Ninth Circuit ruling on the government’s former “metering” policy — a system that limited how many asylum seekers could be processed each day at southern border ports of entry. By taking the case, the Court will now consider the government’s argument that the Ninth Circuit’s <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5/364238/20250701145005805_Al_Otro_Lado_Petition.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com">decision</a> has already made it much harder for the Executive Branch to manage the southern border and will continue to do so.
The dispute centers on how federal law defines when a noncitizen “arrives in the United States” for purposes of applying for asylum. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1), any noncitizen “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States … whether or not at a designated port of arrival” may apply for asylum, and § 1225(a)(1) requires inspection of such individuals. From 2016 to 2018, however, the Department of Homeland Security <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/11/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-case-on-border-crossings/">implemented</a> and formalized a “metering” system. During periods of heavy migration, Customs and Border Protection officers stood at the international boundary and turned back individuals without valid travel documents — even those expressly seeking asylum — preventing them from entering U.S. territory to begin the statutory screening process.
Al Otro Lado, an immigrant-rights group, and several asylum seekers challenged the policy in federal court, arguing that it violated statutory duties to inspect and process applicants. The Ninth Circuit, in a 2–1 decision, <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/22-55988/22-55988-2024-10-23.pdf?ts=1729701050">ruled</a> in favor of the plaintiffs. Judge Michelle Friedland’s majority opinion held that asylum seekers who reach the border and encounter U.S. officials have “arrived in” the United States for statutory purposes, even if physically located on the Mexican side of the line. She concluded that once an asylum seeker presents at the border, the government must inspect and process that individual.
A sharply divided Ninth Circuit declined to rehear the case en banc. In dissent from that denial, Judge Daniel Bress — joined by eleven others — argued that the panel’s interpretation “violates clear statutory text,” improperly applies U.S. law extraterritorially, and radically departs from longstanding understandings limiting asylum processing obligations to persons actually within U.S. territory.
The federal government, in its petition for certiorari, echoed those objections. It argued that the Ninth Circuit had effectively rewritten Congress’s chosen phrase “arrives in the United States” to mean merely “presents at the border,” a move dissenting judges called “breathtaking” and “radical.” The Solicitor General warned that, if left intact, the ruling would deprive the Executive Branch of a critical operational tool at the border — namely, the ability to manage migrant surges by preventing entry until capacity exists to process arrivals safely. The government stressed that for decades, administrations of both parties have used such practices during periods of overcrowding.
Although the challengers urged the Court to deny review — emphasizing that the metering policy was rescinded years earlier and that the case has “almost no present implications” — the Supreme Court nonetheless agreed to take up the dispute. By issuing the writ of certiorari, the Court signaled its intention to resolve the statutory meaning of “arrives in the United States” and determine whether the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation improperly expands asylum rights and unduly restricts executive border-management authority.

Migrant Crossings At The Southern Border Continue Despite Title 42 Ruling

Supreme Court To Decide Fate Of Border ‘Metering’ Policy Blocked By Left-Leaning Judges

Asylum

Courts

Politics

SCOTUS

Southern Border

President Donald Trump issued a <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115529446165908851">Truth Social post</a> on Monday that centered on a major Supreme Court case that could reshape the limits of presidential power over U.S. trade policy.
President Trump warned that the U.S. Supreme Court “was given the wrong numbers” regarding the economic stakes of the pending tariff case. He stated that if the Court rules against him, the resulting “unwind” of the tariff system — reversing investments, refunds, and related measures — would exceed $3 trillion. He characterized that scenario as an “insurmountable National Security Event,” warning it could devastate the U.S. economy and threaten the country’s sustainability.
Trump’s statement is both an economic and political message, emphasizing that the stakes of the Supreme Court’s decision extend well beyond trade law. He suggests that an unfavorable ruling could require returning massive tariff revenues collected under his administration’s 2025 “reciprocal tariffs,” potentially exceeding $3 trillion when including lost investment and refunds. This would unwind a significant source of federal revenue and destabilize fiscal planning.
Trump is also framing tariffs as essential to protecting U.S. manufacturing and reducing dependence on foreign suppliers. Therefore, reversing them would not only hurt the economy but also compromise U.S. national security. By calling it a “national security event,” Trump connects trade policy to his broader presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), arguing that tariffs are a legitimate tool for addressing threats tied to trade deficits and foreign economic influence.
Trump’s claim that the Supreme Court “was given the wrong numbers” implies he believes the economic consequences have been understated to the justices, a move aimed at shaping public perception and potentially influencing the Court’s understanding of the stakes.
The Supreme Court case, Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., consolidates challenges to Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose wide-reaching tariffs without explicit congressional approval. The Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit <a href="https://www.swlaw.com/publication/what-if-the-supreme-court-overrules-the-reciprocal-tariffs-plan-now-for-refunds-protests-and-contract-reconciliation/">ruled</a> that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Lower courts have ruled against Trump, saying that IEEPA does not authorize open-ended tariffs and that such economic measures require a clear congressional delegation. If the justices affirm those rulings, it could force the government to refund hundreds of billions — possibly trillions — in tariff payments, upend trade contracts, and reshape the executive’s emergency powers. On the other hand, if the Court rules in favor of the administration, it will dramatically expand the president&#8217;s authority to set trade policy under emergency declarations.
The federal government <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/trump-warns-supreme-court-tariff-ruling-could-trigger-3t-unwind">collected about $213 billion</a> in tariffs through September 2025, with monthly records of more than $31 billion in late summer.  Some forecasts <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/trump-tariff-revenue-fiscal-year-2025-soars-10948543">project</a> around $3 trillion in tariff revenue over a decade. The Congressional Budget Office estimates these tariffs reduce deficits by $2.8 trillion over ten years but slightly dampen GDP and increase inflation by 0.4% by 2027.
According to a <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inflation-tariffs-trump-prices-consumers/">study</a> by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, tariffs haven&#8217;t driven up consumer prices as much as some critics have predicted, because businesses want to see where tariff rates settle before they adjust their prices.

President Trump Takes Part In Swearing In Of US Ambassador To India

Trump Sounds Alarm: SCOTUS Tariff Ruling Could Trigger $3 Trillion Economic ‘Unwind’

Donald Trump

Executive

Tariffs

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case that will decide whether states can count mail-in ballots received after Election Day. 
The case could have widespread implications for the 2026 midterm elections, as 17 states currently allow mail-in ballots postmarked on or before Election Day to be counted several days after the election. Justices will <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/24-01260qp.pdf">consider</a> “whether the federal election-day statutes preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.”
The case comes after the Mississippi Republican Party and the Republican National Committee (RNC) sued Mississippi over a state law that allowed mail-in ballots to be counted if received up to five days after Election Day. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Mississippi, saying that federal law preempted state law and required all ballots to be received by Election Day. 
After the decision from the 5th Circuit, Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue. Watson argued to the court that the 5th Circuit’s decision “defies statutory text, conflicts with this Court’s precedent, and — if left to stand — will have destabilizing nationwide ramifications.”
He said that as long as the ballots had been filled out by Election Day, they should be counted. Nineteen mostly blue states and the District of Columbia are supporting Mississippi in its efforts to reverse the lower court’s decision. 
The RNC had asked the Supreme Court not to take up the case, saying that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to side against Mississippi was correct and did not need review. 
“A post-election receipt deadline for mail ballots thus extends ‘the election’ beyond the ‘day’ set by Congress. Text, history, and precedent all confirm this conclusion,” the RNC wrote in a brief to the court. “In no sense is the ‘election’ over when ballots are still coming in.”
The RNC also noted that the policy of accepting ballots after Election Day could delay election results for weeks. 
“Many States can’t conclude their elections for weeks after election day because they’re still receiving ballots from voters. Weeks after the ‘day for the election’ has come and gone, the elections in those States continue,” they wrote in a brief. 
President Donald Trump has <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preserving-and-protecting-the-integrity-of-american-elections/">called</a> for an end to mail-in voting, saying that it opens the door to election fraud. 
In an executive order earlier this year, Trump directed the Justice Department to take action against states that count “absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day in the final tabulation of votes for the appointment of Presidential electors and the election of members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives.”

Voters Across The Country Head To The Polls For The Midterm Elections

Supreme Court To Hear Critical Challenge To Mail-In Ballots

Supreme Court To Consider Challenge To Mail-In Ballots Counted After Election Day

Election Fraud

Elections

Mail-In Voting

Mississippi

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with President Donald Trump late Friday night, temporarily blocking an order for the administration to somehow fully fund food stamps while Senate Democrats keep the government shut down.
The administration already planned to tap into emergency funds to partially pay out Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments to the tune of billions of dollars. Administration officials said it would be impossible to provide the remaining billions needed to fully fund the program without congressional action, noting that the shortfall was the fault of Congress, not the executive branch.
SNAP payments are made to a stunning 42 million Americans every month.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Judicial activism at its worst.
A single district court in Rhode Island should not be able to seize center stage in the shutdown, seek to upend political negotiations that could produce swift political solutions for SNAP and other programs, and dictate its own preferences for…
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) <a href="https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi/status/1986940990146449762?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 7, 2025</a></blockquote>
&#8220;Given the imminent, irreparable harms posed by these orders, which require the government to transfer an estimated $4 billion by tonight, the Solicitor General respectfully requests an immediate administrative stay of the orders pending the resolution of this application by no later than 9:30pm this evening,&#8221; the administration&#8217;s request said.
&#8220;Congress has failed to appropriate funds to pay for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for this fiscal year,&#8221; the request continued. &#8220;The Executive Branch has since exhausted the entirety of its SNAP contingency reserve, which amounted to over $5 billion. But that will be only enough to cover partial payments for the month of November. Such a funding lapse is a crisis. But it is a crisis occasioned by congressional failure and one that can only be solved through congressional action.&#8221;
SCOTUS sided with Trump, and agreed to temporarily block the lower court order for 48 hours. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/07/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court-snap-benefits-ruling-00643639?utm_source=chatgpt.com">issued</a> the stay.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
More from the administration&#8217;s <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> filing over <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SNAP?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SNAP</a> benefits &#8211; putting blame squarely on lawmakers:
&#8220;Congress has failed to appropriate funds to pay for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for this fiscal year. The Executive Branch has 
since…
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) <a href="https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/1986950886644486149?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
🚨SNAP UPDATE: The Supreme Court has issued a temporary stay.
The Federal Government can&#8217;t just create money for food stamps when Democrats CHOOSE to not fund the government (14 times and counting🤦🏻‍♀️).
Activist judges have ordered reckless and unconstitutional legal maneuvers… <a href="https://t.co/kbh2izckOz">pic.twitter.com/kbh2izckOz</a>
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) <a href="https://twitter.com/SecRollins/status/1987166731081498904?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
“The core power of Congress is that of the purse, while the Executive is tasked with allocating limited resources across competing priorities,&#8221; the Department of Justice argued. &#8220;But here, the court below took the current shutdown as effective license to declare a federal bankruptcy and appoint itself the trustee, charged with picking winners and losers among those seeking some part of the limited pool of remaining federal funds.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">
As our Supreme Court brief puts it:
“The core power of Congress is that of the purse, while the Executive is tasked with allocating limited resources across competing priorities. But here, the court below took the current shutdown as effective license to declare a federal…
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) <a href="https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi/status/1986940996899262542?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 7, 2025</a></blockquote>
&#8220;The Supreme Court just granted our administrative stay in this case,&#8221; Attorney General Pam Bondi posted to X on Friday night. &#8220;Our attorneys will not stop fighting, day and night, to defend and advance President Trump’s agenda.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The Supreme Court just granted our administrative stay in this case.
Our attorneys will not stop fighting, day and night, to defend and advance President Trump’s agenda. <a href="https://t.co/VJnf2GwPLk">https://t.co/VJnf2GwPLk</a>
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) <a href="https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi/status/1986985866900738242?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
Currently, the main webpage of the U.S. Department of Agriculture says that SNAP delays are due to Democrats, who have now voted 14 times to keep the government closed.
&#8220;Senate Democrats have voted 14 times against reopening the government. This compromises not only SNAP, but farm programs, food inspection, animal and plant disease protection, rural development, and protecting federal lands,&#8221; the USDA message reads. &#8220;Senate Democrats are withholding services to the American people in exchange for healthcare for illegals, gender mutilation, and other unknown &#8216;leverage&#8217; points.&#8221;

Group Photograph Of U.S. Supreme Court Justices

SCOTUS Sides With Trump On Food Stamp Funding During Shutdown

Congress

Food Stamps

Government Shutdown

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Pam Bondi

Trump Administration

When Californians voted to pass Proposition 50 this week, it did more than give Democrats additional House seats. It also launched a new phase of the redistricting wars.
The ballot measure itself marked an escalation in the fight. The California Democratic Party put forth the measure as &#8220;a direct response to a Republican power grab orchestrated by President Trump and state leaders in Texas, who redrew congressional district lines to gain five more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.&#8221;
California Governor Gavin Newsom celebrated Proposition 50&#8217;s passage in explicitly partisan terms Tuesday night, boasting that &#8220;in every critical category, Donald Trump is underwater.&#8221;
Things don&#8217;t show any signs of cooling off. On Wednesday, the California Republican Party sued in federal court to block Proposition 50.
“Dear Gavin Newsom, I hate to rain on your parade but your celebration over the passage of Prop 50 will need to wait a few days,” Mark Meuser, an attorney with Dhillon Law Group, posted to X. “You have been sued. Your unconstitutional racial gerrymandering is now heading to a federal three-judge panel and maybe to the SCOTUS to determining if your use of race in drawing congressional districts should be enjoined.”
“We are asking the court to require the old maps to be in effect while we litigation your unconstitutional actions,” he continued.
In response, Newsom&#8217;s office said it had not &#8220;reviewed the lawsuit&#8221; and <a href="https://x.com/ZavalaA/status/1986137689935257929" target="_blank" rel="noopener">offered</a> best wishes to the opposition: &#8220;good luck, losers.&#8221;
But California isn&#8217;t the only front in the redistricting war. Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe signed off on a map in September adding one seat favoring Republicans, and North Carolina Republicans also made a move for another seat to likely favor their party last month.
However, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/nov/02/us-redistrcting-congressional-map" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Guardian</a> reported that across the 16 states where mid-decade redistricting could happen in at least some capacity, it could ultimately help Republicans grow their numbers in the House of Representatives.
Notably, Ohio was required to do mid-decade redistricting anyway, which also ended up giving Republicans an advantage.
Still, a potential legal earthquake could make everything even more complicated.<a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/10/15/nx-s1-5567801/supreme-court-louisiana-redistricting-voting-rights-act" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> NPR</a> recently reported that a Supreme Court case, Louisiana v. Callais, could scrap a section of the Voting Rights Act over how race is considered in the drawing of congressional maps, which could lead to roughly 19 seats being shifted to favor Republicans.
“Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been a critical tool in safeguarding the promise that people of color can participate in our democracy on equal terms,” Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, said in an Oct. 15 statement. “It has been our shield against discriminatory maps and our answer to laws designed to suppress the vote.&#8221;
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Wire that Republicans could end up getting the last laugh.
&#8220;I think the Republicans will, and the reason for that is that, you know, with a few exceptions, Democratic-controlled states have already gerrymandered their states pretty much to the maximum you can,&#8221; he said.
&#8220;So, I actually think even if California is successful, I think with what the other states are doing, I still think Republicans may come out slightly ahead,&#8221; the legal expert continued.
&#8220;Look, what&#8217;s at stake in the Louisiana case is actually very simple: it&#8217;s the conflict between the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment,&#8221; he said regarding the Supreme Court battle.
Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA) told The Daily Wire that the mid-decade or &#8220;rolling redistricting&#8221; runs the risk of being &#8220;incredibly destabilizing for the folks who represent these areas and for their constituents.&#8221;
&#8220;I am continuing to advocate for my legislation to stop this whole redistricting domino effect. I think it&#8217;s a really bad thing for the country. I think it is degrading democracy in every state where it happens. I think gerrymandering is wrong, and we need to just put an end to this,&#8221; Kiley explained regarding his legislative pitch to end mid-decade redistricting.
&#8220;I&#8217;m continuing to call for a vote on that bill. I think if it did receive a vote it would pass, and I&#8217;m also working on legislation to just end gerrymandering altogether by the time of the next redistricting after the 2030 census,&#8221; the Republican said.
Kiley added that &#8220;it&#8217;s really hard to say at this point&#8221; whether or not one party will benefit more from the redistricting battle, saying that &#8220;the whole thing might come out to be a wash anyway.&#8221;
Republicans have a 219-213 majority in the House. Three seats are currently empty.

California Governor Newsom Makes Announcement On Gerrymandering In Response To Trump’s Efforts In Texas

America’s Redistricting Battle Keeps Getting Messier

California

gerrymandering

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration can move forward with plans to remove the &#8220;X&#8221; option on passports and require Americans to mark their biological sex on passports.
In a 6-3 unsigned <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a319_i4dj.pdf">opinion</a>, the Supreme Court froze a lower court&#8217;s order that stopped the Trump administration from enforcing the passport gender policy. The court&#8217;s ruling was not a final decision on the case, but the majority of justices agreed that the Trump administration is likely to succeed on the merits of the case.
&#8220;Displaying passport holders&#8217; sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth — in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment,&#8221; the court wrote. &#8220;And on this record, respondents have failed to establish that the Government&#8217;s choice to display biological sex &#8216;lack[s] any purpose other than a bare &#8230; desire to harm a politically unpopular group.'&#8221;
The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing in a dissenting opinion that &#8220;the plaintiffs will be subject to imminent, concrete injury if the policy goes into effect.&#8221;
&#8220;The Court nonetheless fails to spill any ink considering the plaintiffs, opting instead to intervene in the Government’s favor without equitable justification, and in a manner that permits harm to be inflicted on the most vulnerable party,&#8221; Jackson added in her dissent, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
U.S. passports have had only male and female designations throughout the country&#8217;s history until the Biden administration <a href="https://2021-2025.state.gov/x-gender-marker-available-on-u-s-passports-starting-april-11/">created</a> the &#8220;X&#8221; category to represent &#8220;unspecified or another gender identity&#8221; in 2022. The administration at the time framed it as a &#8220;milestone&#8221; that would &#8220;better serve all U.S. citizens.&#8221;
Since the 1990s, the State Department has allowed Americans, in some circumstances, to choose the gender option on passports that does not align with their biological sex. The Trump administration also wants to put a stop to that practice.
The Trump policy was blocked by a federal judge in Massachusetts after a trans-identifying woman from West Virginia sued when she was prevented from choosing the male option on her passport, NBC News <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-trump-enforce-passport-restrictions-targeting-tra-rcna235999">reported</a>. In the Trump administration&#8217;s filing with the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-trump-administration-new-passport-policy-x-marker/">wrote</a>, &#8220;Private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person&#8217;s biological sex — especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the President&#8217;s constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments.&#8221;
Since taking office for a second term on January 20, President Donald Trump has issued numerous orders recognizing biological reality and pushing back against leftist gender theories. In Trump&#8217;s <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/">executive order</a> on &#8220;Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,&#8221; the president told the Secretary of State to require that passports &#8220;accurately reflect the holder’s sex.&#8221;

U.S. Passport

‘Historical Fact’: SCOTUS Allows Trump Admin To Require Passport Holders To Mark Biological Sex

'Historical Fact': SCOTUS Allows Trump Admin To Require Passport Holders To Mark Biological Sex

Gender

LGBT

Passport

President Donald Trump claimed on Thursday that Democrats, if they returned to power, would waste no time in remaking the Supreme Court in its entirety. Two key figures on the Left — former Attorney General Eric Holder and longtime Democratic strategist James Carville — appear to be on the same page.
&#8220;The Democrats will terminate the Filibuster in THE FIRST HOUR, if and when they assume &#8216;control&#8217; or power. Republicans have what the Democrats want — We should do it, NOW, and have the greatest three years in History!&#8221; Trump said Thursday via his Truth Social platform, largely in an effort to prompt Republicans to force an end to the ongoing government shutdown.
Carville essentially predicted exactly that on his &#8220;Politics War Room&#8221; podcast Thursday morning.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨NEW: James Carville says he&#8217;d &#8220;BET A LOT OF MONEY&#8221; that Dems will *PACK SUPREME COURT* if they regain power in 2028🚨<a href="https://twitter.com/DailyCaller?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DailyCaller</a> <a href="https://t.co/SQRQntC6Nj">pic.twitter.com/SQRQntC6Nj</a>
— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonJournoDC/status/1986454405042843670?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;I want to talk to Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Barrett, Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Gorsuch, I might be forgetting one,&#8221; Carville began, likely omitting Justice Clarence Thomas from his list of more conservative members of the Supreme Court.
&#8220;I&#8217;m gonna tell you what&#8217;s gonna happen. A Democrat is gonna be elected in 2028, you know that, I know that,&#8221; he declared. &#8220;There&#8217;s gonna be a Democratic House, there&#8217;s gonna be a Democratic Senate. The Democratic president is gonna announce a special transition advisory committee on the reform of the Supreme Court.&#8221;
Carville said they would claim that the Supreme Court &#8220;has lost the faith and trust of the American people&#8221; and use that to justify recommending packing the court to restore &#8220;balance&#8221; and thus restore faith in the institution. And while he did not explicitly predict the end of the filibuster, it is far more likely that Democrats would have a simple majority in the Senate rather than a filibuster-proof majority going into 2028 — meaning that in order to pass such a controversial measure, they might be forced to first address the filibuster.
&#8220;They&#8217;re going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court Justices go from nine to 13. That&#8217;s gonna happen, people,&#8221; he insisted. &#8220;That&#8217;s gonna happen to you. They&#8217;re going to win, they&#8217;re gonna do some blue ribbon panel of distinguished jurists, and they&#8217;re going to recommend 13 and a Democratic Senate and House are going to pass it and the Democratic president is going to sign it, because they have to do an intervention so we can have a Supreme Court that the American people trust again.&#8221;
&#8220;I would bet a lot of money that that&#8217;s gonna happen,&#8221; he said.
Holder said something similar just two days earlier, claiming that the district court judges had been doing a great job in trying to check President Trump — but that the Supreme Court was damaging its own reputation.
&#8220;It pains me to do this, but I think the Supreme Court is a broken institution,&#8221; he said, and much like Carville said, he argued that if Democrats control the House, Senate, and White House, they would have to do something to address the fact that the court persists in ruling against Democrat interests.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Former AG Eric Holder says that SCOTUS is a &#8220;broken institution&#8221; now that they&#8217;ve ruled in favor of the Trump administration on key cases.
Translation: When/If Democrats retake control of DC, they will immediately move to abolish the filibuster and pack the court.
Dangerous. <a href="https://t.co/J2BNTP3Akm">pic.twitter.com/J2BNTP3Akm</a>
— Media Lies (@MediasLies) <a href="https://twitter.com/MediasLies/status/1985732240781799445?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Politicon 2019 – Day 1

Two Key Leftists Predict Dems Will Obliterate Supreme Court As We Know It

Democrats

Filibuster

The Supreme Court considers President Donald Trump’s authority to impose tariffs, a standoff is brewing in New York City between Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani and ICE, and the battle to shift the balance of power in Congress through redistricting ratchets up.
It’s Thursday, November 6, 2025, and this is the news you need to know to start your day. Today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below, and the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mrn-251106-member-exclusive">video version can be seen on The Daily Wire</a>:
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/scotus-weighs-tariff-authority-ice-checks-mamdani-11-6-25/id1576594336?i=1000735534304" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">SCOTUS Hears Trump&#8217;s Tariff Case</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-996895" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Trumps-Tariff-Tightrope-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Trumps-Tariff-Tightrope-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Trumps-Tariff-Tightrope-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Trumps-Tariff-Tightrope-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Trumps-Tariff-Tightrope-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Trumps-Tariff-Tightrope.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Topline: The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case challenging Trump’s authority to impose broad tariffs. The ruling will have a significant impact on Trump’s signature trade policy.
The case is Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. In total, seven businesses argue that Trump doesn&#8217;t have the legal authority to impose his sweeping tariffs and that these tariffs have caused them significant financial harm.
The tariffs at issue cover a wide range of imported goods, with many set at around 10%, on nearly every U.S. trading partner. Those were enacted due to the trade deficit and the declining American industrial base, which the administration said constituted an emergency. The other set of tariffs is more targeted. They relate to border protection and the illegal flow of drugs into the United States. China, Canada, and Mexico were <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tariffs-february-1-canada-mexico-china/">hit</a> with varying rates.
The arguments: The plaintiffs argued that tariffs are taxes, and the power of the purse belongs to Congress, not the president. They claim the statute Trump cited to enact the tariffs, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), doesn’t explicitly allow the president to impose tariffs, though it does give him other powers when it comes to foreign trade during a declared emergency. It’s typically been used for sanctions.
The Trump administration argued that IEEPA does allow the president to impose tariffs, even though it’s never been used for that purpose. They say that the issue at the border constitutes an emergency, thereby allowing the tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico. Similarly, they argue the trade deficit, among other reasons, is an emergency that justifies additional tariffs.
The Court: The response from the bench was nuanced, and opinions seemed to cut both ways.
“Your interpretation of the statute would allow the president to shut down all trade with every other country in the world, or impose some significant quota on imports from every other country in the world – but would not allow a 1% tariff. And that leaves, in the government’s words, an odd donut hole in the statute,” Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh <a href="https://x.com/cspan/status/1986131942094319755">said</a>. “That doesn&#8217;t seem to have a lot of common sense behind it.”
In another moment, judges focused on what exactly constitutes an emergency, and if there are limits. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that if the Court broadly sides with the Trump administration, it would give future administrations significant power.
“Could the president impose a 50% tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to deal with the ‘unusual and extraordinary threat’ from abroad of climate change? … I think that has to be the logic of your view,” Gorsuch <a href="https://x.com/Acyn/status/1986101846285668665">said</a>.
View from the Oval: Trump very much believes in tariffs – he has spoken about tariffs and trade policy for decades and believes that Americans have been taken advantage of for too long. He framed this case as “literally life or death for our country.” In a <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115493671705492320">Truth Social post</a> on Tuesday, he said a victory in court would mean financial and national security for America, but a loss would mean the U.S. being taken advantage of again. 
<h2 style="text-align: center;">ICE Undaunted By Mamdani</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-996893" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Sanctuary-City-Standoff-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Sanctuary-City-Standoff-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Sanctuary-City-Standoff-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Sanctuary-City-Standoff-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Sanctuary-City-Standoff-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Sanctuary-City-Standoff.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Topline: With Mamdani’s victory in the New York City mayoral election, how will immigration raids in the city look?
Trump border czar Tom Homan told The Daily Wire that nothing will change on the administration’s end and that “operations will continue.” He is undaunted by Mamdani, who has pledged to keep NYC a sanctuary city that refuses to work with ICE. For years, this has looked like illegal immigrant criminals benefitting from NYC’s lax-on-crime laws getting released from local jails only to walk free and end up in the revolving door of justice. ICE has to then go out into the communities, rather than have the jail contact them, to inform them that these criminals are being released.
<h2 style="text-align: center;">The Growing Redistricting War</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-996887" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/The-Race-To-Redistrict-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/The-Race-To-Redistrict-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/The-Race-To-Redistrict-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/The-Race-To-Redistrict-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/The-Race-To-Redistrict-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/The-Race-To-Redistrict.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Topline: Proposition 50 passed by an overwhelming margin in California on Tuesday. It&#8217;s just the latest in what&#8217;s likely to become a messy nationwide redistricting battle.
Challenges moving forward: The biggest issue is that voters gave the state permission to redraw up to five congressional districts to favor Democrats. This was meant to counter the state of Texas&#8217;s effort to create a map that gives the GOP the same advantage. But this could trigger redistricting efforts all around the country. Missouri, North Carolina, and other states have already launched redistricting efforts.
There’s a possibility that, through the wave of redistricting, California’s efforts are more than canceled out in other states. But while this battle plays out, there will be many court cases and different actions at the state level across the country that could influence the final tally.
For example, the California Republican Party just announced a federal-level lawsuit against Prop 50 on Wednesday, calling it unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. And that could also create sweeping implications if it goes up through the federal court system.
Other factors influencing 2026 maps: Louisiana is arguing a major Supreme Court case attempting to get rid of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2, to an extent, removes the race factor from how congressional maps are redrawn. If that happens, it could benefit Republicans in the South and lead to redistricting that favors the GOP in that region. Even with Democratic backlash in other states, by and large, that would be strong news for Republicans.

MRN_251106_V1

Morning Brief: SCOTUS Takes Up Trump Tariffs, ICE Checks Mamdani, & Dems Rig Maps In California

Morning Brief: SCOTUS Takes Up Tariffs, ICE Faces Down Mamdani, And Redistricting In CA

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Morning Wire

New York City

Texas

Tom Homan

Zohran Mamdani

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday that will determine the fate of President Donald Trump’s tariffs that he has used to bring countries around the world, including China, to the negotiating table. 
The arguments, which stretched on for over two-and-a-half hours, focused on complex questions on the meaning of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Trump administration has cited the law as justification for the tariffs it has imposed on over a hundred countries. 
Solicitor General John Sauer said that the fentanyl emergency and the declining American industrial base were the impetus for the tariffs. 
“President Trump has declared that these emergencies are country killing and not sustainable, that they threaten the bedrock of our national and economic security, and that fixing them will make America a strong, financially viable, and respected country again,” he said in his opening argument. “Due to IEEPA tariffs, President Trump has negotiated agreements worth trillions of dollars with major trading partners, including most recently China.”
The key questions at issue in the case revolve around the meaning of the phrase “regulate importation” in the law, whether a tariff can be considered a tax, and the tension between the president’s broad authority over foreign policy and Congress’s authority over taxation. 
The tariffs have been challenged by a group of businesses represented by Neal Katyal, who served as acting solicitor general under former President Barack Obama. A group of largely Democratic-led states has also challenged the tariffs. 
The justices&#8217; responses to the arguments were mixed, with some appearing to agree with the Trump administration and others asking more adversarial questions. 
The court’s three liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — all were skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments that they had the authority to impose broad tariffs across the world. 
Both Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito challenged Neal Katyal, the former acting solicitor general during the Obama Administration, who argued on behalf of businesses affected by the tariffs. 
Justice Brett Kavanaugh was focused on the historical precedent for the case, asking the lawyers about what they made of President Richard Nixon’s decision to impose 10% global tariffs back in the 1970s as a tool of trade negotiation. 
Kavanaugh also appeared sympathetic to the administration, noting that the law allows the president to completely cut off trade with countries. He said that the position of the challengers was &#8220;unusual&#8221; because it was “taking away the president&#8217;s suite of tools when the one is much more extreme that is authorized.”
Kavanaugh noted that Trump has placed tariffs on India with the intent of ending the Russia-Ukraine War. 
Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared to see the question come down to the issue of Congressional authority over taxation. He said the key context was “the constitutional assignment of the taxing power to Congress, the power to reach into the pockets of the American people is just different, and it&#8217;s been different since the founding and the Navigation Acts were part of the spark of the American Revolution.”
Justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett appeared skeptical of some of Sauer’s arguments but also pressed Katyal on his claims. 
“The vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress,” Roberts said. “So to have the president’s foreign affairs power trump that basic power for Congress seems to me to kind of at least neutralize between the two powers, the executive power and the legislative power.”
Trump, on Tuesday, <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115493671705492320">wrote</a> on Truth Social that upholding his tariffs was a matter of “life and death.” 
“With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, Financial and National Security. Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other Countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us,” Trump wrote. “Our Stock Market is consistently hitting Record Highs, and our Country has never been more respected than it is right now. A big part of this is the Economic Security created by Tariffs, and the Deals that we have negotiated because of them.”

Supreme Court Confronts Trump’s Power To Disrupt Global Economy

Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ Tariffs Face Skepticism Among Some Supreme Court Justices

Trump's 'Liberation Day' Tariffs Face Final Test At Supreme Court As Some Justices Skeptical

WASHINGTON—Congressman Chip Roy on Monday filed articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, who sentenced Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s attempted assassin to only eight years in prison — significantly lower than what federal sentencing guidelines and prosecutors called for.
Nicholas Roske, a 29-year-old trans-identifying man who now goes by Sophie, was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/transgender-man-who-planned-to-assassinate-brett-kavanaugh-gets-off-easy-will-serve-just-8-years">sentenced</a> October 3 for attempting to kill the Supreme Court justice in 2022.
In an exclusive statement to The Daily Wire, Roy said Boardman &#8220;deserves to be impeached for her absurd eight-year-sentence.&#8221;
&#8220;Our nation’s judicial system is structured to administer proper and equal treatment under the law; it is not a system where a member of the Judiciary is to allow their personal feelings or political ideology to influence their decision-making — oftentimes resulting in more criminals on the street,&#8221; the Texas Republican said.
Roske faced up to life in prison under federal sentencing guidelines. Prosecutors asked for 30 years.
Roy noted the assassin &#8220;went to great lengths to methodically plan for the attack by spending months researching the private residence of a sitting Supreme Court Justice and obtaining countless weapons and other instruments to fulfill his plot to kill.&#8221;
Roske meticulously planned the assassination for months but had a change of heart outside the conservative justice’s home and called the police to turn himself in.
Roy, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the judge &#8220;unequivocally based this weak sentence on the attempted assassin&#8217;s &#8216;gender identity,&#8217; as the attempted assassin expressed that he views himself as a woman.&#8221;
&#8220;Instead of doing what the Judiciary calls for and sentencing this man to the base 30-year sentence recommended by the Department of Justice, Judge Boardman purposefully allowed this man off easy,&#8221; Roy said.
The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/transgender-man-who-planned-to-assassinate-brett-kavanaugh-gets-off-easy-will-serve-just-8-years">previously</a> reported Boardman, a Joe Biden appointee to Maryland federal court, acknowledged there was “a whopping 22-year difference” between that and the minimum of 30 years called for by federal sentencing guidelines.
In a seven-hour sentencing hearing, Boardman focused heavily on Roske&#8217;s gender identity. “Let’s talk about the fact that Ms. Roske is a transgender woman … Should I take into consideration at all that Ms. Roske is transgender?” she asked prosecutors.
“That should not be taken into account or play a large role in the court’s sentencing,&#8221; prosecutor Coreen Mao replied.
Boardman said that because President Donald Trump had issued an executive order aimed at transgender prisoners, she would hand down a lighter sentence — even though parts of that executive order are not currently in place due to an injunction imposed by a different judge.
“She will be imprisoned at a male facility even though she is a transgender prisoner, pursuant to an executive order from the president. Prior to the executive order, that wasn’t the case. With the injunction in place, Ms. Roske could receive gender-affirming care, but if that injunction goes away, she could be denied it. So when I sentence her, I take into account that she is a transgender woman who will be sent to a male facility,” Boardman said.
Boardman also implied that a lack of acceptance of transgender people, including by Roske&#8217;s family, may have been partly to blame for the crime. Roske&#8217;s sister Olivia told the judge that years prior, Olivia had come out as gay to her family shortly after being discharged from a mental institution. Boardman said that Nicholas &#8220;saw that their parents struggled to reconcile her sexuality with their religious beliefs,&#8221; and that Roske&#8217;s mother &#8220;had not been open to her daughter’s gender identity.&#8221;
In court, Roske&#8217;s mother, Colleen, told the judge that she had reformed her ways.
&#8220;I have attended PFLAG [Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays] meetings and learned more about the LGBTQ+ community. I am committed to going on this journey with Sophie,&#8221; she said tearfully.
Judge Boardman said she was &#8220;heartened&#8221; that the attempted assassination had led to increased acceptance of Roske&#8217;s transgenderism.
“After her daughter’s arrest, Colleen discovered that her daughter was transgender. When she was cleaning out her room, she found hospital discharge paperwork that described her as Sophie. I am heartened that this terrible infraction has helped the Roske family get the help she needs and accept their daughter for who she is,” she said.
Boardman acknowledged that Roske&#8217;s plot to kill Kavanaugh was explicitly so “he would be replaced by someone Biden picks so they wouldn’t repeal gay rights or abortion.” Roske&#8217;s defense attorneys acknowledged that the &#8220;terrorism enhancement&#8221; should apply, but Boardman chose to waive some of the increased penalty that it triggers, saying “Any prison time in punishment for her. The length doesn’t need to be particularly long to punish her, and the length isn’t the only factor — unduly harsh conditions make a difference too.”
In Reddit posts, Roske described himself as a transgender woman who is attracted to women, not men; he appeared entirely male in court.
Following the sentencing, Attorney General Pam Bondi said <a href="https://x.com/AGPamBondi/status/1974254662971756551">on X</a> that the Justice Department would appeal the “woefully insufficient sentence.”
Roy believes the judge violated her oath of office by not administering her sentencing &#8220;impartially&#8221; and by &#8220;not upholding the &#8216;good behavior&#8217; that Judges must abide by.&#8221;
&#8220;Judge Boardman should be impeached swiftly and without reservation,&#8221; Roy added.
Republican Senators Ted Cruz (Texas) and Mike Lee (Utah) have called for Boardman&#8217;s impeachment. Shortly after the sentence, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) introduced a bill that would &#8220;Prevent judges from using perceived gender-identity as a factor when determining the length of a sentence,&#8221; and another that would prohibit housing transgender inmates with members of the opposite biological sex.

Roske DOJ

Chip Roy Moves To Impeach Judge Over ‘Absurd’ Sentence For Attempted Kavanaugh Assassin

Brett Kavanaugh

Terrorism

The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the ongoing legal battle over the deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago.
“This case presents what has become a disturbing and recurring pattern. Federal officers are attempting to enforce federal immigration law in an urban area containing significant numbers of illegal aliens,&#8221; Solicitor General John Sauer <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/934568050/25A443">wrote</a>. &#8220;The federal agents efforts are met with prolonged, coordinated, violent resistance that threatens their lives and safety and systematically interferes with their ability to enforce federal law.&#8221;
Judge April Perry of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois initially <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5560445-trump-national-guard-chicago-illinois/">blocked</a> the deployment of the National Guard to Chicago. Her ruling was upheld by a three-judge federal appeals court on Thursday. The judges claimed there was “insufficient evidence of rebellion or a danger of a rebellion” and that with “regular forces,” the president could still maintain the law.
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.
Sauer argues that the resistance forces federal agents to “scramble to protect themselves and federal property” in the face of “violent, hostile mobs.” Thus, presidential authority is warranted.
“Federal officers in Chicago have been threatened and assaulted, attacked in a harrowing pre-planned ambush involving many assailants, rammed in their government vehicles, shot at with fireworks and other improvised weapons, injured and hospitalized, and threatened in person and online, including by a $10,000 bounty for the murder of a senior federal official,” he wrote.
“This court should stay the district court&#8217;s October 9 injunction in its entirety, the injunction improperly impinges on the President&#8217;s authority and needlessly endangers federal personnel and property.”
The Supreme Court has <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5561225-national-guard-deployment-chicago/">told</a> state and city officials to respond to the Trump administration’s arguments by Monday night.

Trump/National Guard

Trump Admin Asks SCOTUS To Intervene After Judicial Block Of National Guard Deployment

Chicago

National Guard

Menu