The Supreme Court’s liberal justices delayed releasing their dissents on the 2022 landmark abortion decision, brushing aside requests from conservative justices who faced threats following the leak of the draft decision, according to a new book from conservative author Mollie Hemingway.
In <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Alito-Justice-Reshaped-Restored-Constitution/dp/1541607139" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution</a>, which was released on Tuesday, Hemingway lays out how Justice Samuel Alito’s balance of principles and pragmatism delivered one of the most important Supreme Court rulings in American history. She also goes behind the scenes following the shocking leak of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision.
On May 12, 2022 — 10 days after POLITICO published the leaked majority opinion in Dobbs — justices met in conference to set the dates for the release of looming decisions. The Dobbs ruling was at the top of conservative justices’ minds during the conference.
“The majority opinion had been done for more than three months and was waiting only for the dissents,” wrote Hemingway, the editor-in-chief of The Federalist. “Alito asked the dissenters to make the completion of their dissents their priority because delay of the decision was a security threat. Abortion supporters had an incentive to kill one or more of the justices in the majority to change the outcome. The dissenters demurred.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed the liberal justices to give a date when they could expect the dissents to be completed, but the liberals refused to set any date, according to Hemingway.
“Following the conference, Justice Elena Kagan visited Justice Stephen Breyer’s office,” Hemingway continued. “Though he had not yet said he would accommodate the justices whose lives were at risk by getting out a dissent, he was the member of the liberal bloc most willing to do so … Kagan remonstrated with Breyer not to accommodate the majority, screaming so loudly, observers noted, that the ‘wall was shaking.’”
In an interview with The Daily Wire, Hemingway called the liberal justices’ stunt “outrageous.”
“You had the actual justices having their lives threatened multiple times a day, their children&#8217;s lives threatened, their spouses&#8217; lives threatened. They had to move out of their homes. They had to wear bulletproof vests,” she added. “There was a man who was arrested for trying to kill Brett Kavanaugh and his family, and he said he wanted to take out three justices.&#8221;
&#8220;Delaying a decision because even though you know that abortion is not really mentioned in the Constitution you wish it were, even if it costs the lives of your colleagues, it&#8217;s outrageous and shocking behavior.”
<div style="max-width: 728px; margin: 0 auto;">
<iframe style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; max-width: 100%; width: 100%; margin: 20px auto 5px; border: 0;" src="https://player.mux.com/j01VS5d1ROn8wmWlKfmIrFMIoo95wJ77p?metadata-video-content-type=embed_video&amp;metadata-video-id=694ecbf8-acb5-4def-89ad-56d466eb0de5&amp;metadata-video-stream-type=on-demand&amp;metadata-video-title=2026-04-21%3A%20Mollie%20Hemingway%20On%20Liberal%20Justices&amp;poster=https%3A%2F%2Fdailywireplus-v2.imgix.net%2Fimages%2Fembedded-videos%2Fc782a11f-e5e3-46b5-bc8b-726526c53048.png&amp;autoplay=false&amp;accent-color=%23DB3D3B&amp;primary-color=%23ffffff&amp;secondary-color=%23000000" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
</div>
Just over a month after the liberal justices denied conservatives’ requests to release the opinion quickly, a man who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/police-arrest-armed-man-near-brett-kavanaughs-home-who-allegedly-wanted-to-kill-the-justice-report" target="_blank" rel="noopener">plotted to assassinate </a>Kavanaugh was arrested near the justice&#8217;s home.
Hemingway told The Daily Wire that if a plot to murder a Supreme Court justice had succeeded, any pending decisions would have been disrupted.
“It&#8217;s important that people know, had one of the left-wing activists succeeded in assassinating a Supreme Court justice, it would have changed the decision because a ruling is only official when it&#8217;s handed down publicly,” Hemingway said.
After weeks of threats against conservative justices and their families forced some, including Alito and his wife, to move to secret locations, the Dobbs decision was officially handed down on June 24 in a 6-3 majority ruling, with five of the conservative justices agreeing to overturn the precedent set by Roe v. Wade.
Alito penned the majority opinion that overturned the infamous Roe decision that found a Constitutional protection for abortion. Hemingway explained why Alito was the perfect justice to write the opinion for conservatives. Since Chief Justice John Roberts did not sign onto the majority opinion overturning Roe, Justice Clarence Thomas, the longest-serving justice, chose who would write the opinion.
“Thomas knew that it had to be done perfectly. It had to keep a majority together,” Hemingway wrote. “There had been previous efforts at the court to overturn Roe that had fallen apart. And so he chose Alito because he knew he would do it in a masterful way and that he would keep the majority together. One of Alito&#8217;s specialties is keeping a majority together even if that means sacrificing some of what he would want to happen in a decision.”
Hemingway&#8217;s book hits the shelves as rumors about a potential Alito retirement swirl around Washington, D.C., but Hemingway told The Daily Wire that she does not believe Alito will step down anytime soon.
&#8220;I think there are so many people who are trying to get Alito in particular to retire,&#8221; Hemingway said, adding, &#8220;I find pressure campaigns to be somewhat obnoxious and I don&#8217;t know why people do them exactly, but if you&#8217;re going to pressure, I think that people should consider pressuring the chief, John Roberts. He&#8217;s in his 70s. He&#8217;s the second longest-serving justice on the court after Thomas. And it would be probably better for the conservative legal movement to replace John Roberts than to replace either Thomas or Alito.&#8221;

Supreme Court

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Had A ‘Shocking’ Post-Dobbs Breakdown

Abortion

Samuel Alito

Nearly one in ten children born in the United States is born to an illegal alien mother — or, in colloquial terms, would be considered an &#8220;anchor baby.&#8221;
According to <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/31/about-9-of-us-births-in-2023-were-to-unauthorized-or-temporary-legal-immigrant-mothers/">data published</a> in late March by the Pew Research Center, Illegal immigrant mothers were responsible for approximately 9% of the 3.6 million babies born in the United States in 2023. Of the 320,000 babies born, the data indicates that nearly 260,000 would not be eligible for citizenship if President Donald Trump&#8217;s executive order ending birthright citizenship had already been in place.
The breakdown of some of those numbers showed several different scenarios: first, 60,000 of the babies born to illegal immigrant mothers had fathers who were living in the United States legally and would thus qualify for citizenship through their fathers. Another 15,000 babies were born to mothers whose legal status in the United States was temporary and fathers who were either not citizens or not in the United States legally. The remaining 245,000 were born to mothers and fathers who had no legal statues in the United States.
Trump signed Executive Order (EO) 14160 on January 20, 2025, in an attempt to put an end to birthright citizenship. The Trump administration has argued that his order sought to &#8220;restores the original meaning&#8221; of the citizenship clause — which was to determine the citizenship of freed slaves — and therefore it should not be applied to babies born of parents who are either in the United States temporarily or unlawfully.
While the support for Trump&#8217;s order is almost solely from Republicans, that has not always been the case. In 1993, for example, former Senate Majority Leader <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/resurfaced-clips-top-democrats-echoing-trump-birthright-citizenship-spark-online-uproar-wow">Harry Reid</a> (D-NV) called for an end to birthright citizenship, saying that it had been a mistake.
&#8220;If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn’t enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant?&#8221; Reid said at the time. &#8220;No sane country would do that. Right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and [a] guarantee of full access to all public and social services this society provides — and that’s a lot of services.&#8221;
The Democratic Party has shifted its stance dramatically in the years since, and challengers to Trump&#8217;s order have argued that illegal aliens, despite not having legal status in the United States, were nonetheless living in the country and subject to its laws.
The order, which never went into effect due to the numerous legal challenges, was argued before the Supreme Court in early 2026, and a decision is expected sometime in late June or early July.

Anchor Baby

America’s Birth Trend Sparks Alarm As A Controversial Slice Nears 1 In 10

birthright citizenship

Donald Trump

Illegal Immigration

Politics

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday handed energy companies a significant procedural victory, ruling that Chevron may move a long-running Louisiana environmental lawsuit from state to federal court and, in doing so, broadened the scope of a key federal jurisdiction statute.
In a 7–1 decision in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-813_3e04.pdf">Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish</a>, the Court held that companies acting under federal authority may remove cases to federal court if the claims are meaningfully connected to their federal duties—even if the government did not directly control the specific conduct at issue. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion.
The dispute originated in 2013, when Louisiana parishes sued several oil companies, alleging that historic production activities—specifically those during World War II—damaged the state’s coastline. The parishes cited the use of earthen pits, vertical drilling, and the dredging of canals as violations of state law. Chevron sought to &#8220;remove&#8221; the case to federal court, arguing that during the war, it acted as a federal contractor producing high-octane aviation gasoline (&#8220;avgas&#8221;) for the U.S. military. Since the crude oil produced in Louisiana was the essential &#8220;feedstock&#8221; for that gas, Chevron claimed the lawsuit &#8220;related to&#8221; its federal duties.
The core legal question centered on whether a lawsuit challenging raw material production &#8220;relates to&#8221; a federal contract to refine those materials into a military product. The Fifth Circuit had previously ruled against Chevron, suggesting the government had not specifically directed the methods of oil extraction.
Justice Thomas, however, rejected this narrow interpretation. He emphasized that the 2011 congressional amendments to the statute replaced a strict &#8220;causal nexus&#8221; test with a much broader standard.
As Thomas noted: &#8220;The phrase &#8216;relating to&#8217; sweeps broadly. It means &#8216;to stand in some relation; to have bearing or concern; to pertain; refer; to bring into association with or connection with.'&#8221;
While Thomas acknowledged that the connection cannot be &#8220;tenuous, remote, or peripheral&#8221;—famously quipping that &#8220;ordinary readers would not understand the statement that someone is &#8216;related to Joe&#8217; to refer to &#8216;a mutual tie to Adam and Eve'&#8221;—he found that Chevron’s wartime activities were deeply intertwined with federal mandates.
The Court highlighted the &#8220;all-hands-on-deck&#8221; nature of the WWII effort, where the federal government pressured companies to maximize production &#8220;day and night.&#8221; Because the specific Louisiana crude was a &#8220;preferential&#8221; grade for avgas, the extraction methods used were not independent business choices, but were driven by the need to satisfy military demand. Thomas wrote, &#8220;In this all-hands-on-deck, wartime context, Chevron needed to produce more crude oil as quickly as possible to facilitate more avgas refining, including its own. &#8230; This suit implicates acts by Chevron that are closely connected to the performance of its federal duties.&#8221;
This ruling is widely seen as a win for energy companies because it lowers the threshold for removing cases to federal court. By allowing indirect but meaningful connections to suffice, the decision strengthens a key procedural tool that can shape where—and potentially how—major environmental and climate lawsuits are litigated.

Chevron Corp. Jack/St. Malo Platform As Big Oil Rivals Shale In Gulf

Supreme Court Ruling In WWII-Era Oil Dispute Drives Major Win For American Energy

Courts

Energy

Oil companies

U.S.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Wednesday decried &#8220;progressivism,&#8221; saying the political ideology threatens the foundational principles and values of the United States.
During a lecture at the University of Texas School of Law, Thomas participated in an event <a href="https://www.fox7austin.com/news/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-speaks-ut-austin">marking the 250th anniversary</a> of the signing of the United States Declaration of Independence.
He warned that a political ideology of &#8220;cynicism, rejection, hostility, and animus&#8221; is consuming Americans and taking over the country&#8217;s way of life.
&#8220;Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence, our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government,&#8221; Thomas said. &#8220;It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a Constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
🚨 JUST IN: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is being praised nationwide for dropping this TRUTH on leftism and &#8220;progressivism&#8221;
&#8220;Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights… <a href="https://t.co/pVRS8AuwwL">pic.twitter.com/pVRS8AuwwL</a>
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2044821167328878610?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
Thomas, one of the most influential conservatives on the Supreme Court, argued progressive ideals are on a collision course with the nation’s founding values.
&#8220;Since Woodrow Wilson&#8217;s presidency, progressivism has made many inroads into our system of government,&#8221; Thomas said. &#8220;It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
Justice Thomas: &#8220;Since Woodrow Wilson&#8217;s presidency, progressivism has made many inroads into our system of government. It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/7Z08ZnNR0H">pic.twitter.com/7Z08ZnNR0H</a>
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) <a href="https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/2044793679009689802?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
<div dir="auto" lang="en" data-testid="tweetText">
Thomas slammed elitism in Washington and accused policymakers of being &#8220;so swept up in the euphoria of acclamation and acceptance that they put aside their convictions.&#8221;
&#8220;They fall prey to the enchanting siren songs of flattery and become so bewitched by praise that they will desperately seek to conform accordingly,&#8221; he said.
&#8220;They water down their message, negotiate against themselves, vote against their principles, and hide in the tall grass,&#8221; Thomas asserted. &#8220;They recast themselves as institutionalists, pragmatists, or thoughtful moderates, all as a way of justifying their failures to themselves, their consciences and their country.&#8221;
The broadside against progressivism comes amid rising tensions at the Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a rare public apology for personal criticism directed at Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
The controversy began in Kansas, where she criticized Kavanaugh for his <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">concurring opinion</a> in an immigration case involving ICE raids.
</div>
“I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these are only temporary stops,” Sotomayor said, according to a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-08/sotomayor-faults-kavanaugh-over-immigration-stops-concurrence" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bloomberg report</a>. “This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.”
“At a recent appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law, I referred to a disagreement with one of my colleagues in a prior case, but I made remarks that were inappropriate,” Sotomayor said in a statement. “I regret my hurtful comments. I have apologized to my colleague.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
NEW: Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor publicly apologizes for comments suggesting Justice Brett Kavanaugh was privileged and out of touch for his concurrence in an immigration case greenlighting warrantless ICE stops in LA. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> <a href="https://t.co/6kLLuHol5d">pic.twitter.com/6kLLuHol5d</a>
— Katie Buehler (@bykatiebuehler) <a href="https://twitter.com/bykatiebuehler/status/2044528919785750761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 15, 2026</a></blockquote>
During a speech on Monday at Yale Law School, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stepped up her criticism of the court&#8217;s conservative majority, calling their handling of the emergency docket &#8220;corrosive,&#8221; <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/justice-jackson-says-us-supreme-courts-use-emergency-docket-is-corrosive-2026-04-15/">according to Reuters</a>.
In Texas, Justice Thomas urged Americans frustrated with the country&#8217;s direction to get off the sidelines.
&#8220;I think if we don’t stand up and take ownership of our country, and take responsibility for it, we are slowly letting others control how we think and what we think,&#8221; Thomas said. &#8220;It&#8217;s our country.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
Justice Clarence Thomas on rebuilding public trust in government: &#8220;I think if we don&#8217;t stand up and take ownership of our country, and take responsibility for it, we are slowly letting others control how we think and what we think.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/4bho06ftMX">pic.twitter.com/4bho06ftMX</a>
— CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/2044604183077061074?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 2026</a></blockquote>

The U.S. Supreme Court Poses For Official Group Photo

Clarence Thomas Issues Stark Warning About America’s Survival Under The Left

Clarence Thomas

Washington D.C.

Speculation is growing in legal and political circles about whether or not Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito might retire before the midterm elections, sparking questions about who could replace one of the court’s most influential conservative jurists. 
Alito, 76, has given no formal indication that he plans to step down, but a <a href="http://rch">recent hospitalization</a> and the growing possibility that Republicans could lose control of the Senate have heightened the stakes surrounding any potential vacancy.
GOP Senate leaders appear ready to fill a vacancy before the midterm elections. 
“That’s a contingency, I think, around here you always have to be prepared for,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) <a href="https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/04/14/congress/thune-ready-to-fill-possible-scotus-vacancy-00871750">told reporters on Tuesday</a>. “And if that were to happen, yes, we would be prepared to confirm.”
An Alito retirement would give President Donald Trump the chance to nominate a fourth Supreme Court Justice, cementing the court’s conservative majority for several years to come. 
President Trump on Wednesday responded to speculation of a possible vacancy. 
“It could be two, could be three, could be one. I don’t know, I’m prepared to do it,” Trump said in an <a href="https://x.com/FoxNews/status/2044375293930951005?s=20">interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo</a>. “When you mention Alito, he’s a great justice.” 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
JUST IN: President Trump responds to speculation that he could be nominating another Supreme Court justice if Justice Alito or Justice Thomas decides to retire.
&#8220;It could be two, could be three, could be one. I don&#8217;t know, I&#8217;m prepared to do it.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/XG66jw5ReR">pic.twitter.com/XG66jw5ReR</a>
— Fox News (@FoxNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/2044375293930951005?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 15, 2026</a></blockquote>
“Justice Alito is an unbelievable justice and a brilliant justice, and he gets the country,” <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5831975-trump-prepared-name-supreme-justice/">Trump said</a>. “He does what’s right for the country.” 
Charles Stimson, the acting director of the Institute for Constitutional Government at the Heritage Foundation, said an Alito retirement would shake up the high court. 
“Justice Alito has penned significant decisions and has been the heir apparent to his dear friend Justice Scalia, and has really been a lion in the movement to preserve originalism,” Stimson said in an interview with The Daily Wire. “It would be a thunderbolt if he did.”
President George W. Bush appointed Alito to the Supreme Court in 2005 to replace moderate Sandra Day O’Connor. Alito, in many cases, has led the conservative majority and shifted the court rightward, helping shape rulings that <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/08-1521/index.pdf">nationalized gun rights</a>, <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/13-354/case.pdf">expanded religious liberty protections</a>, and <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf">overturned the case that labeled abortion as a constitutional right</a>.
Any replacement, Stimson said, would likely fall into the originalist judicial mold of Justices Alito or Thomas, adding that the president has “an embarrassment of riches to choose from.” He added that the president may be looking for a younger nominee who could serve up to thirty years on the court. 
The possible nominees include: 
Andrew Oldham, who clerked for Justice Alito and was appointed by Trump to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
James Ho, who clerked for Justice Thomas and was appointed by Trump to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. 
Neomi Rao, who clerked for Justice Thomas and was appointed by Trump to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 
Amul Thapar, who was Trump’s first Court of Appeals appointment and serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. 
Patrick J. Bumatay, who was appointed by Trump to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Kyle Duncan, who was appointed by Trump to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
Rebecca Taibleson, who clerked for Justice Scalia and was appointed by President Trump to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. 
“So he has a tremendous bench that he has built,” Stimson said. “When you have these lifetime appointments, especially to the Supreme Court, that is really part of your legacy. 
Those aren’t the only names in the mix. 
The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley (R-IA), suggested on Tuesday that Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah could fill a vacancy, <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/grassley-wants-lee-or-cruz-for-supreme-court-if-vacancy-arises">according to Bloomberg Law. </a>
In February, Trump teased the possibility of nominating Texas Senator Ted Cruz to the high court.
“I’m thinking about putting him in the Supreme Court,” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-floats-idea-for-his-next-supreme-court-appointment-as-rumors-swirl-about-possible-retirements">Trump said</a>. “I’m thinking because it’s very hard, getting these nominations through is tough.”
Alito has not yet hired his next round of law clerks, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/11/us/politics/alito-trump-retirement-supreme-court.html">according to the New York Times</a>. His <a href="https://www.amazon.com/So-Ordered-Originalists-Constitution-Country/dp/1541608259">new book</a>, “So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of the Constitution, the Court and Our Country,” is set to be released in October, which is when the court’s new term begins.  
Stimson described Supreme Court justices as “human beings” who sometimes weigh political factors — such as which party controls the White House and Congress — when deciding whether to retire.
“You should not be naive to think that isn&#8217;t a calculation,” Stimson said. “But for many of them, this is their dream job, and they don&#8217;t want to step down, because as long as they can serve competently, and they all are doing, you know, the best job they can, there&#8217;s no reason to believe that anyone is going to step down anytime soon.”

Who Could Replace Justice Alito?

President Trump

Showing why her own colleagues have long viewed her as the abrasive outlier of the High Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor — who said in 2001, &#8220;I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn&#8217;t lived that life&#8221; —  recently decided that the hallowed traditions of Supreme Court protocol are secondary to her own progressive &#8220;lived experience.&#8221;
Speaking at the University of Kansas, the &#8220;Wise Latina&#8221; took a <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/sotomayor-faults-kavanaugh-over-immigration-stops-concurrence">verbal sledgehammer</a> to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, violating the unwritten rule that judicial disagreements stay within the mahogany walls of One First Street.
Sotomayor’s target was a concurrence Kavanaugh wrote regarding an emergency order on immigration enforcement. While Kavanaugh noted that brief stops for legal residents are typically just that—brief—Sotomayor went for the jugular, and she made it personal. Mocking Kavanaugh’s upbringing, she sneered, “This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.”
It was a stunningly low blow, even for Sotomayor. By attacking Kavanaugh’s class and background rather than his legal reasoning, she didn&#8217;t just breach collegiality; she set it on fire. Supreme Court protocol dictates that justices attack the argument, not the man. But for Sotomayor, identity politics is the only North Star, even if it means suggesting a colleague is too &#8220;privileged&#8221; to understand the plight of the working man.
Of course, this isn&#8217;t Sotomayor’s first time playing the role of the &#8220;grating&#8221; colleague. Her history on the bench is littered with instances where her peers—on both sides of the aisle—have cringed at her antics. Even the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a fellow traveler on the Left, was known to <a href="https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/supreme-court/is-sotomayor-finding-her-voice-or-alienating-her-colleagues/#:~:text=(His%20entire%20concurrence%20is%20a,for%20Jim%20Crow%20%22shameful.%22">trade barbs</a> with Sotomayor in footnotes, frequently questioning her interpretation of the law.
In the Schuette case, Sotomayor’s fifty-eight-page dissent was so vitriolic that Chief Justice John Roberts felt compelled to write a separate concurrence just to call her out for making legal disagreements personal. At the time, even The New York Times admitted her voice was grating on her colleagues. Antonin Scalia was even less diplomatic, famously labeling her comparisons of certain modern policies to Jim Crow as &#8220;shameful.&#8221;
The Supreme Court relies on &#8220;institutional glue&#8221;—the handshake, the shared meals, the omertà of the conference room—to function. Sotomayor, however, seems intent on dissolving that glue. While Justice Amy Coney Barrett <a href="https://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/engaged-in-a-common-enterprise-u-s-supreme-court-justice-amy-coney-barrett-reflects-on-judicial-independence-transparency/#:~:text='An%20act%20of%20the%20will,do%20with%20time%20spent%20together.%E2%80%9D">recently noted</a> that collegiality is an &#8220;act of the will,&#8221; Sotomayor appears to have willed herself into a state of permanent grievance. By publicly slamming Kavanaugh’s character, she has signaled that she is no longer interested in being a judge among peers, but rather an activist-in-exile, writing children’s books and airing dirty laundry because she can&#8217;t win the legal argument.

The Constitutional Court Celebrates Women’s Day

‘Wise Latina’ Sotomayor Breaks SCOTUS Protocol To Trash Kavanaugh’s Pedigree In Public

Brett Kavanaugh

Sonia Sotomayor

Meta has begun scrubbing ads offering legal help for damages related to social media addiction and the associated harmful behaviors.
According to a <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/04/09/meta-social-media-addiction-ads">report</a> from Axios on Thursday, Meta has begun pulling ads — from both Facebook and Instagram — that provide users with information about getting legal advice or taking legal action against social media platforms.
Axios quoted an example of one of the ads that was pulled: &#8220;Anxiety. Depression. Withdrawal. Self-harm. These aren&#8217;t just teenage phases — they&#8217;re symptoms linked to social media addiction in children. Platforms knew this and kept targeting kids anyway.&#8221;
Meta has acknowledged that some ads are being removed from the social media platforms, saying that the law firms placing such ads should not be allowed to benefit from the use of Meta&#8217;s platforms while claiming at the same time that Meta was responsible for creating addicts and causing mental health problems.
&#8220;We&#8217;re actively defending ourselves against these lawsuits and are removing ads that attempt to recruit plaintiffs for them. We will not allow trial lawyers to profit from our platforms while simultaneously claiming they are harmful,&#8221; a Meta spokesperson told the outlet.
The report comes just two weeks after a California jury found that both <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/verdict-reached-in-landmark-social-media-media-addiction-trial">Meta</a> and YouTube had contributed to a number of mental health problems — including addiction and related behavior — in a landmark case before the California Superior Court.
A Meta spokesperson protested the verdict, saying at the time, &#8220;We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal. We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online.&#8221;
As The Daily Wire previously reported, social media platforms — including Meta and YouTube — have often touted online safety features in recent years, such as Instagram’s “Teen Accounts” and YouTube “Kids,” which are meant to create safer and more controlled experiences for children. Critics argue that kids — sometimes with willing parents or other adults helping them — are able to bypass those controls and gain access to the full platforms anyway.

Social Media

Meta Shuts Down Ads From ‘Trial Lawyers’ Targeting Social Platform Over Addiction

Meta Doesn't Want Users To Know They May Be Able To Sue For Social Media Harm

Big Tech

Lawsuit

President Biden Delivers State Of The Union Address

How The Supreme Court Dismantled The ‘Conversion Therapy’ Lie

Colorado

MI x DW

Transgender

The U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-hands-down-major-conservative-win-in-near-unanimous-decision">ruled</a> on March 31 in <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/chiles-v-salazar/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">Chiles v. Salazar</a> that voluntary conversations between a counselor and her young clients are protected under the First Amendment’s free speech clause. This monumental decision condemned the state’s unlawful and, according to the court, “egregious” attempt to censor discussions about biological reality in the counseling room.
In my role with Alliance Defending Freedom, I had the privilege of standing before the high court last fall and advocating on behalf of licensed Colorado counselor Kaley Chiles, who challenged the state’s counseling censorship law.
Kaley wants to provide what so many children and families are desperate for: A listening ear and compassionate advice as kids talk through what it feels like to wrestle with their identity and body. As more and more young people across the country are becoming distressed about their gender or sexuality, they want a professional to talk to about their feelings and struggles. The young clients who seek out Kaley for advice do so because they want to grow comfortable with their bodies and avoid harmful drugs and procedures.
<div id="attachment_1073215" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1073215" class="size-large wp-image-1073215" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-864x576.jpg" alt="Source: Alliance Defending Freedom" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-2048x1366.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Source: Alliance Defending Freedom</div>
Colorado’s law forbids Kaley from having those voluntary conversations with her clients under age 18. Indeed, the law violates her freedom of speech by prohibiting licensed counselors like her from engaging in voluntary counseling conversations with minor clients who want to change some expression, behavior, identity, or feeling associated with their “sexual orientation or gender identity.”
On the issue of gender identity, the law only censors counseling conversations in one direction. It allows conversations that push young people toward a gender identity different from their sex but forbids conversations that help them grow comfortable with their body and realign their identity with their sex when they desire to do that. The law also threatens severe penalties, including thousands of dollars in fines, suspension from practice, and even revocation of the counselor’s license.
This one-sided censorship comes amidst a growing national mental-health crisis and prevents many Colorado children from obtaining the counseling that they desire and that could help them. Roughly 90% of children who experience gender dysphoria before puberty will regain comfort with their sex if not pushed toward harmful drugs and procedures.
In its opinion, the Supreme Court explained, “We do not doubt that the question ‘how best to help minors’ struggling with issues of gender identity or sexual orientation is presently a subject of ‘fierce public debate.’ But Colorado’s law addressing conversion therapy does not just ban physical interventions. In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint.”
“Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety,” the court continued. “Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth. However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”
<div id="attachment_1073217" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1073217" class="size-large wp-image-1073217" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-864x576.jpg" alt="Source: Alliance Defending Freedom" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-2048x1366.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Source: Alliance Defending Freedom</div>
This is a massive win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children. The decision will help end the authoritarian days of Colorado inserting itself into the counseling room and silencing good counselors from speaking body-affirming messages their clients want to hear. It also takes us a long way down the road to ensuring that kids in Colorado, and around the country, who desire to embrace and live consistent with their sex are free to seek help by talking to licensed counselors like Kaley.
Significantly, the Supreme Court’s ruling will help protect counselors from similar laws in more than 20 states and over 100 localities across the country, giving them a path forward to help struggling youth seeking professional guidance.
From professional groups to medical malpractice verdicts, the tide is turning on how we as a society help young people struggling with gender issues. Those kids need quality counseling, not a one-way path to dangerous body-altering drugs and surgeries. All children deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made. The Supreme Court affirms that the First Amendment protects those messages in the counseling room.
* * *
Jim Campbell is chief legal counsel with <a href="http://www.adflegal.org/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/ADFLegal">@ADFLegal</a>) and argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Kaley Chiles in Chiles v. Salazar.

Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Policy Gets Supreme Court Hearing

The Court Just Said The Government Can’t Control What Your Child’s Counselor Says

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Conversion Therapy

Counseling

First Amendment

Free Speech

Gender

LGBTQ

Opinion

SCOTUS

The first sentence of Section I of the 14th Amendment — a small piece in our grand Constitutional puzzle  — has left Justice Samuel Alito and his colleagues considering it a puzzle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a mystery — along with the rest of America.
It reads: &#8220;All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.&#8221;
As the Supreme Court hears arguments in Trump v. Barbara — the birthright citizenship case now before the nation’s highest court — America is finally confronting a constitutional question that should have been settled long ago: Who, exactly, is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States?
Under the prevailing interpretation of this clause, any child born on U.S. soil is automatically an American citizen — full stop. It doesn’t matter whether the mother is a permanent resident, a tourist on a 90-day visa, or someone who crossed the border illegally last Sunday. Born here, citizen here, benefits and rights that come with an American citizenship — activated.
On his first day back in office in January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, directing federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents to children born here to parents who are either unlawfully present or lawfully present only on a temporary basis. Essentially, if neither of your parents is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, the Trump administration says the 14th Amendment does not guarantee your child citizenship simply by virtue of being born on American soil.
Predictably, lower courts blocked the order. Now it’s before the Supreme Court.
Regardless of the outcome, it’s a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/officialbenshapiro/videos/us-district-judge-temporarily-blocks-president-trumps-executive-order-to-end-bir/1118885666149694/">legal win</a> for the Trump administration — but the broader debate placed a spotlight on a flaw the Founders and post-Civil War Congress never contemplated: the deliberate weaponization of birthright citizenship by adversarial nations.
One slice of the problem reveals the amendment&#8217;s most cynical exploitation: birth tourism, especially by China.
This is an organized, for-profit industry that treats American passports as a commodity. Author and political consultant Peter Schweizer recently documented what he describes as a &#8220;massive effort&#8221; by Chinese nationals — many with Communist Party ties — to secure U.S. citizenship for children raised entirely in China. He estimates that between 750,000 and 1.5 million Chinese-born U.S. citizens are currently being educated under CCP indoctrination.
The business model is brazen. Chinese companies advertise packages costing $40,000 to $80,000. Pregnant women fly in, stay at maternity hotels — often in California — deliver in American hospitals, obtain U.S. birth certificates and passports, and return home. Federal prosecutors have worked to dismantle high-profile rings: in one Southern California case, operators of USA Happy Baby and similar outfits were convicted of conspiracy and money laundering for running maternity houses that served thousands of Chinese clients. The U.S. government has identified hundreds of such firms operating inside China with the sole purpose of gaming our immigration system.
Birth tourism is not the numerical majority — illegal residents produce far more births — but it’s uniquely corrosive. These children are raised abroad with zero lived connection to America. At 21, they gain full voting rights, access to classified jobs, and the power to sponsor their parents for green cards. It is demographic arbitrage. Beijing is cultivating a reserve of future &#8220;anchor citizens&#8221; capable of influencing American elections and policy from within, while owing their primary loyalty elsewhere.
The clause that has long been glossed over — &#8220;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&#8221; — will be central to the administration in oral arguments. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to overturn the Dred Scott decision and secure citizenship for the children of freed slaves. Its authors understood “jurisdiction” to mean full political allegiance, not mere physical presence. Diplomats’ children, children of invading armies, and those whose parents owed no permanent duty to the United States were explicitly excluded.
The Supreme Court’s 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision granted citizenship to the child of legal, domiciled Chinese immigrants, but nothing about illegal entrants or short-term visitors. Illegal immigration on today’s scale and the jet-age business of birth tourism simply did not exist.
As Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro has argued, the phrase &#8220;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&#8221; means you are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign nation. He makes the point — if an illegal immigrant from Mexico gives birth on U.S. soil, that child remains a Mexican citizen under Mexican law — the child is NOT solely subject to American jurisdiction.
As of 2023, the Pew Research Center estimates roughly 320,000 children are born each year to unauthorized or temporary-migrant mothers, meaning approximately 1 in 10 children born in the United States is born to an illegal immigrant mother.
The vast majority of these children are born to parents who intend to stay and raise them here. Those children receive the same benefits as any other American citizen, and they can eventually sponsor their parents for legal residency — a process commonly known as chain migration. In the meantime, 59% of non-citizen households use one or more major federal welfare programs, compared to 33% of native-born households. It is these citizen children — not their illegal parents, who are often eligible for direct benefits — who strain schools, hospitals, and education services.
The Supreme Court may rule that the executive branch cannot, for now, rewrite 150 years of precedent. But the debate itself has been clarifying. The 14th Amendment was not written to hand foreign nationals a backdoor into American democracy nor to grant them a nine-month maternity vacation.
It’s long past time to unravel that mystery.

Fran Martinez, front, and other protesters gather outside San Bernardino County Superior Court as a

China’s Birth Tourism Profits From Our Constitutional Confusion

14th Amendment

China

Illegal Immigation

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A man and a woman who entered the United States illegally three decades ago were arrested by the Department of Homeland Security after their children brought an explosive device to a military base, The Daily Wire can first report.
Qiu Qin Zou and Jia Zhang Zheng illegally entered the United States in the &#8217;90s, were denied asylum, but remained in the country for several decades, The Daily Wire has learned. They had two children as they illegally resided in the country — Ann Mary Zheng and Alen Zheng.
Last week, the Department of Justice <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/land-olakes-woman-charged-assisting-after-fact-and-evidence-tampering-related-attempt">charged 27-year-old Ann Zheng</a> with her part in attempting to explode an IED at MacDill Air Force Base Visitor’s Center in Tampa.  She was arrested as she returned to the United States from China, where authorities believe her brother remains.
DHS arrested the duo&#8217;s parents on March 18 for illegal entry.
Qiu Qin Zou and Jia Zhang Zheng remain in ICE custody. They had applied for asylum in 1993 but their applications were denied by an immigration judge, who ordered their removal from the U.S. in 1998. DHS says that the Board of Immigration Appeals repeatedly denied their attempts to have their case reopened. Despite this, they remained in the United States for decades.
The arrests come as the Supreme Court mulls President Donald Trump&#8217;s executive order banning birthright citizenship.
&#8220;Automatically granting citizenship to children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. is based on a historically inaccurate interpretation of the Citizenship Clause and poses a major national security risk,&#8221; argued Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis.
&#8220;That reality became apparent last week when two U.S.-born children of Chinese illegal aliens were indicted for planting a potentially deadly explosive device outside MacDill Air Force Base in Florida,” Bis explained. “This incident underscores the severe national security threat that illegal immigration and birthright citizenship pose to the United States.”
<div id="attachment_1071667" style="width: 471px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-chinese-americans-accused-of-terrorism-were-anchor-babies-for-illegal-parents/image001-7" rel="attachment wp-att-1071667"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1071667" class="wp-image-1071667 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/image001-461x576.png" alt="" width="461" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/image001-461x576.png 461w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/image001-240x300.png 240w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/image001-768x960.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/image001.png 860w" sizes=" (max-width: 461px) 100vw, 461px" /></a>Ann Mary Zheng, photo courtesy of DHS.</div>
DOJ said in a release that both Ann Zheng and her brother had &#8220;attempted to damage government property by fire or explosion&#8221; and that Ann Zheng helped her brother &#8220;in order to hinder and prevent his apprehension, trial, and punishment.&#8221;
Ann Zheng is also charged with &#8220;corruptly altering, destroying, mutilating, and concealing a 2010 black Mercedes-Benz GLK 350 with the intent to impair its integrity and availability for use in the federal prosecution of Alen Zheng.&#8221;

Untitled design (6)

EXCLUSIVE: Chinese-Americans Accused Of Terrorism Were Anchor Babies For Illegal Parents

After the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on President Donald Trump&#8217;s attempt to limit birthright citizenship, law professor and commentator Jonathan Turley pointed out that the court&#8217;s three liberal justices sounded like Constitutional originalists when approaching the issue.
Turley told Fox News host Laura Ingraham that a &#8220;hilarious aspect&#8221; of the oral arguments was &#8220;to hear the liberal justices, who rarely allow the language of the Constitution to stand in the way of a preferred interpretation.&#8221; Turley added that the court&#8217;s three liberal justices &#8220;seemed to be channeling&#8221; the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia when they pushed back on the Trump administration&#8217;s arguments.
Turley said liberal Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson often argued on Wednesday that the court must look at &#8220;original intent.&#8221;
&#8220;That obviously played to the conservative justices,&#8221; Turley continued, arguing that the way the arguments played out &#8220;is benefitting the Left here.&#8221;
The high court appeared skeptical of the administration&#8217;s defense of Trump&#8217;s executive order limiting birthright citizenship. Even conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett pushed back on some of Solicitor General John Sauer&#8217;s arguments.
The case centers on the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, with the White House arguing that the amendment “has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.&#8217;”
The groups challenging Trump&#8217;s executive order on birthright citizenship argued that the 14th Amendment&#8217;s exclusions for birthright citizenship only apply to children of foreign diplomats and babies born to enemy invaders or occupiers. The White House views the phrase &#8220;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&#8221; as providing a more expansive definition of who is excluded from birthright citizenship.
Trump, who attended the oral arguments on Wednesday, said, “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” Birthright citizenship often benefits migrants who cross the border illegally and give birth to children on U.S. soil.
Turley agreed with Trump&#8217;s assessment, calling America&#8217;s birthright citizenship policy &#8220;perfectly insane.&#8221;
&#8220;That&#8217;s why very few countries accept birthright citizenship,&#8221; he added. &#8220;The difficulty with this case is that it&#8217;s hard to really justify the policy when you look at what&#8217;s happening. In China alone, hundreds of these tourism sites are sending people over for the sole purpose of having children here. Only a moronic nation would allow that type of industry to flourish.&#8221;
Much of Wednesday&#8217;s arguments focused on the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the court ruled 6-2 that a man born in the United States to Chinese-citizen parents automatically became a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. While the 1898 ruling went in favor of applying the 14th Amendment to babies of foreigners, the Trump administration has argued that the court&#8217;s decision in Wong Kim Ark set up a clear distinction between legal “resident aliens” and illegal immigrants who are domiciled in a foreign nation and subject to deportation.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan

Jonathan Turley Highlights ‘Hilarious Aspect’ Of How Liberal Justices View Birthright Citizenship

Jonathan Turley

Menu