In a high-stakes legal challenge that could reshape American voting procedures, the Republican National Committee (RNC) has filed a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1260/395791/20260209131726304_Watson%20v.%20RNC%20-%20Red%20Brief.pdf">final brief</a> urging the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted up to five days after Election Day.
The case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, centers on whether federal law requires voter ballots to be physically received by officials on the designated election day to count, rather than merely postmarked by that date.
At the heart of the RNC’s argument is a trio of federal statutes dating back to the 19th century. These laws mandate that the &#8220;day for the election&#8221; for the Presidency, Senate, and House be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
&#8220;When Congress designated a single &#8216;day for the election,&#8217; it set a deadline,&#8221; the RNC argues in its brief. &#8220;If a state law extends the election after that deadline, &#8216;it conflicts with&#8217; Congress’s timing decision, “and to that extent is void.”
The RNC asserts that an &#8220;election&#8221; is not merely the individual act of a voter marking a choice, but a public process that is only &#8220;consummated&#8221; when the state takes custody of the ballots. By allowing a five-day grace period for mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day, the RNC claims Mississippi is effectively extending the federal election beyond the period authorized by Congress.
The brief frames the issue as a matter of public trust, arguing that prolonged ballot receipt windows fuel national anxiety.
&#8220;These post-election receipt deadlines invite &#8216;the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election,'&#8221; the brief states.
The RNC highlights a growing divide in the American voting experience: while some states provide immediate results, others remain in a state of &#8220;limbo&#8221; for days or weeks. The brief argues that as long as ballots are still arriving at counting centers, &#8220;the election isn’t over&#8221; in any ordinary sense of the word.
The Republican plaintiffs point to the 1997 Supreme Court case Foster v. Love, which held that any state law conflicting with the uniform national election day is preempted by federal law. They further argue that for over a century, the historical consensus was that the &#8220;ballot box&#8221; closed on Election Day.
The RNC argues that modern &#8220;experiments&#8221; with late-arriving ballots are a radical departure from this tradition. They dismiss arguments that a ballot is &#8220;cast&#8221; the moment it is mailed, noting that U.S. Postal Service regulations theoretically allow senders to recall mail, meaning a vote isn&#8217;t truly final until the state has secured it.
A ruling in favor of the RNC would have immediate consequences far beyond Mississippi. Currently, 15 other states and the District of Columbia allow some form of post-election ballot receipt for the general public, while nearly 30 states permit it for military and overseas voters.
Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson has defended the law, arguing that &#8220;election&#8221; refers to the voters making their choice, not the administrative act of receipt. However, a unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously sided with the RNC, ruling that &#8220;the election concludes when the final ballots are received.&#8221;
The Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on November 10, 2025, is expected to hear oral arguments in early 2026, with a final decision likely by June.

Mississippi Voters Head To The Polls

Republicans Urge Supreme Court To Shut Down Mississippi’s Absentee Voting Fiasco

RNC Urges Supreme Court To Shut Down Mississippi’s Post-Election Ballot Counting

Mail-In Voting

Mississippi

Republican National Committee (RNC)

Supreme Court

The Trump administration accused UCLA’s medical school of discriminating against white and Asian students by defying a Supreme Court decision banning affirmative action in school admissions. 
In a Wednesday <a href="https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1425726/dl">motion</a> to join a lawsuit against the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, the Justice Department said that the institution was violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The original suit was filed by a woman who says she was denied admission into the school because she was white, alongside the groups Do No Harm and Students for Fair Admissions. 
“Even after the Supreme Court banned race-balancing, the Geffen School kept discriminating by using illegal DEI preferences in admissions,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “As the Supreme Court stated more than 80 years ago, a free people, founded on the doctrine of equality, regard distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry as inherently odious.”
The complaint filed by the Justice Department argued that the school gathers racial data from its applicants and creates workarounds to factor race into the admissions process. 
This includes a question the DOJ said was asked by UCLA as part of the 2024 admissions process on whether an applicant was a member of a “marginalized” group, and then asked the applicant to explain “how this inequity has impacted you or your community and how educational disparity, health disparity and/or marginalization has impacted you and your community.”
“On its face and by design, this question asks Black applicants to reveal their race so that UCLA Med can know and consider it,” the complaint said. 
Data obtained by the Justice Department shows that white and Asian students are held to higher academic standards than black and Hispanic students. For the 2024 incoming class of students at the medical school, the median MCAT scores were widely different for black students (508), Hispanic students (506), white students (513), and Asian students (515). The MCAT is the test aspiring doctors and medical professionals take before going to medical school. 
The Justice Department&#8217;s complaint identified three “disastrous consequences” of race-based admissions. These were the lowering of academic standards, the suspicion cast on minority doctors because of the lower standards, and the denial of equal treatment to people of all races.  
“There is but one legal avenue for a public or publicly funded medical school to pursue diversity in medicine: admit the most qualified candidates regardless of race, and expect that those most qualified candidates will come from every race, because they do,” the complaint said. 
The Justice Department asked a judge to declare the school’s admissions practices unconstitutional and to bar it from considering race in any fashion when considering prospective students. 
A school spokesman told The Daily Wire that the school doesn’t comment on pending litigation. 
“UCLA’s medical school is committed to fair processes in all of our programs and activities, including admissions, consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination laws,” the spokesman said. 
Do No Harm welcomed the Justice Department’s involvement in the case. 
“The United States was right in its move to join this case, which is of great public importance,” said Do No Harm Executive Director Kristina Rasmussen. “We look forward to the Justice Department’s additional efforts here to get to the bottom of what appears to be an effort by UCLA to continue a race-based medical school admissions process in contravention of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions.”
As The Daily Wire has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ben-shapiro-reveals-how-ucla-med-students-are-taught-anti-white-anti-american-hatred">previously reported</a>, UCLA’s school of medicine makes first-year students learn about “colonialism” and “liberation” as part of their coursework. Daily Wire host Ben Shapiro obtained emails in 2024 documenting how med students have to take a <a href="https://medschool.ucla.edu/sites/g/files/oketem456/files/media/images/UCLA-DGSOM-Heals-Curriculum-Schematic.png">class</a> called “Structural Racism and Health Equity,” which teaches them about “Indigenous resistance” and “white colonialism.”

Close Up Of Student Dentist Taking Notes Using Laptop

Justice Department Accuses Med School Of Discriminating Against White And Asian Students

Affirmative Action

Department of Justice

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

medical school

Trump Administration

UCLA

In an era of spiraling political absurdity, America finds itself squandering precious time and resources on what should be one of the most straightforward, apolitical facts of human existence: only women can get pregnant.
Even Democrat strategist James Carville recently <a href="https://x.com/GrabienMedia/status/2012559321582772621">mocked the absurdity</a> of today’s gender politics on Fox News, saying, “I’m not worried about getting pregnant. I have no idea why this is the number one issue in America.”
It’s time to stop pretending this point of view is controversial. As a mom, I’m calling for this political charade to end in 2026.
After many decades of modern scientific consensus, which follows centuries and even millennia of common sense on the subject, we’ve somehow devolved into laughably ridiculous disagreements over gender. This isn’t just science; it is the order of creation itself, designed by God with intention and clarity. But it is politically unserious to convene hearings where elected politicians and sitting Supreme Court Justices go through the motions of grilling so-called experts on a matter that, in terms of objective reality, isn’t even up for debate.
Imagine a congressional hearing on whether gravity affects everyone equally, or if some people can ‘identify’ as not being subject to such a narrow-minded and restrictive force. Or, imagine someone bringing a case before the Supreme Court to decide whether humans require oxygen to live, or if some could ‘identify’ as anaerobic and live on carbon dioxide alone. We, the serious masses, wouldn’t even entertain the conversation. We would turn our attention to real political issues like immigration, national security, or the economy, and not waste our time.
Speaking of which, I don’t have much time to waste these days. I just welcomed our third child in three years into this world. It was beautiful, painful, exhausting, and awe-inspiring; the kind of experience that reminds you just how extraordinary the female body truly is. God entrusted me to carry a child and give birth, something only a woman can do. A man is simply incapable of doing what I did. That isn’t opinion, it’s biological reality.
And as a mother who just gave birth, I’m exhausted that this ever became a political issue. Women shouldn’t have to fight to own something as fundamental as pregnancy.
Which is why I was so disgusted when I watched the congressional hearing where Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) questioned the so-called “expert,” and (somehow) certified OB/GYN, Dr. Nisha Verma.
Dr. Verma testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on abortion pill safety. She represented Physicians for Reproductive Health, and Sen. Hawley asked her a simple question that has an objective, biological, common-sense answer: “Can men get pregnant?”
Dr. Verma, who definitely knows the answer, repeatedly dodged the question — insisting instead that it was a “political tool” that “polarized” the discussion and failed to capture the “complex experiences” of her patients. I wonder if Dr. Verma would also dodge questions about whether people could choose to live without oxygen or decide that gravity doesn’t apply to them. Would she claim such farcical questions are political tools that polarize?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
SPOILER ALERT: Men cannot get pregnant <a href="https://t.co/08JwHUlxIj">pic.twitter.com/08JwHUlxIj</a>
— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) <a href="https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/2011480384467349892?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @HawleyMO/X.com
That is really the crux of the issue here; none of this should be treated as a political issue. A serious nation would not waste another moment nor another taxpayer dollar entertaining such an unserious conversation. The entire premise should be dismissed outright as unworthy of the time it would take to even ask such a ludicrous question. Stop indulging delusion and start governing in reality.
Incredibly, this Senate hearing came just days after the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding men in women’s sports. Ironically, this is the same thing that happened to one of the sitting Justices during her confirmation hearing, when she was unable to answer a similar question — “What is a woman?” More incredible still, she and every other person still hung up on this issue suddenly know what a woman is when it comes to breaking the glass ceiling and placing the first black woman on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Suddenly, they all know what a woman is? Suddenly, that distinction matters? No, not suddenly. They always knew because it’s an objective, reality-based fact that isn’t up for debate, unless we pretend along with those who want to bend reality.
Even James Carville wasn’t just stating a fact; he was calling out how absurd the debate itself has become. His joke on Fox News wasn’t about biology; it was about how fake and manufactured this entire controversy is. But Democrats keep entertaining fiction to pander to rabid extremists and then expect the rest of the country to play along.
The bottom line is simple: there is no debate, so entertaining one is foolish. Polling consistently shows that most Americans are willing to publicly admit that they understand the biological reality of sex. Voters aren’t confused, but Washington is pretending to be. Americans are tired of political grandstanding on issues that don’t matter. And 2026 should be the year this nonsense ends.
It’s time to stop coddling absurdity as though we owe irrationality an esteemed seat at every table. One might say that when you wrestle with a pig in lipstick, it’s still a pig, and you both get dirty. It’s not respect, and it’s not compassion. It’s suicidal empathy. If we let lunacy hijack constructive conversation, we all crash together.
###
Jillian Anderson King is a former Washington Redskins Cheerleader Ambassador and ABC’s The Bachelor and The Bachelor in Paradise contestant. She’s a Mombassador for Moms for America, an ambassador for Turning Point and Turning Point Faith, and a proud Christian Conservative mother and wife. Jillian is also the founder of The Kings Firm, a strategic communications firm.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

27th SCAD Savannah Film Festival – Portraits

Men Can’t Get Pregnant. Even James Carville Knows That.

Gender

gender ideology

Josh Hawley

Mothers

Opinion

Pregnancy

SCOTUS

Transgender

Women

On Tuesday, there was a hearing at the Supreme Court regarding a law in Hawaii that bans guns from being carried into supermarkets, gas stations, and other public locations without the property owner’s permission.
Instead of property owners issuing a statement saying, “You can&#8217;t come in here with a gun,” the idea would be that you wouldn&#8217;t be able to walk in with a gun unless the shop owner gives you explicit permission.  
This is the opposite of how the Second Amendment is supposed to work. It is quite possible under the Second Amendment for people to say, “You can&#8217;t come into my establishment carrying a gun,” but this argument would reverse that presumption.
Justice Samuel Alito said the state was relegating the Second Amendment to second-class status.
The Supreme Court ruled that people have a constitutional right to carry outside the home for self-defense in 2022, but now lawmakers are attempting some sort of back door to prevent people from doing that. The law is similar to restrictions that already exist in California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey as well.  
A truly bizarre moment in the hearing came when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — who&#8217;s become infamous for making dumb comments in the middle of oral arguments — decided that she was going to talk about the “Black Codes.” The codes were legitimately created by racists in order to prevent black people from owning guns. She was talking about them as precedent.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
SCOTUSBlog <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/court-to-hear-oral-argument-on-law-banning-guns-on-private-property/">noted</a> the argument against the law made by its opponents:
<blockquote>In upholding Hawaii’s ban, they say, the court of appeals relied on two laws, neither of which is analogous. The first was a 1771 New Jersey law that barred poaching on lands that were closed to the public. But that law, the challengers wrote, “simply codified the American rule that hunters could hunt on unimproved lands not their own, while improved lands remained off limits. That is a trespass law,” they concluded, rather than a law that – like Hawaii’s – generally prohibits “carrying firearms on any and all private property without advance express consent.” 
And the second, the challengers continue, was an 1865 Louisiana law, enacted as part of that state’s Black Codes to restrict the rights of formerly enslaved people, that barred the carrying of guns on “premises or plantations” – that is, private property – without the owner’s consent.</blockquote>
Jackson said, “The fact that the Black Codes were, at some later point, determined, themselves, to be unconstitutional, doesn&#8217;t seem to me to be relevant to the assessment that Bruen is asking us to make. So, can you say more about that?”
Sarah Harris, the U.S. Principal Deputy Solicitor General, responded, “Absolutely. Black Codes were unconstitutional from the moment of their inception, because they are pretextual laws that are designed to ensure that newly-freed slaves are returned to a condition of sharecropping.”
Jackson: “Okay, let me stop you there. They were not deemed unconstitutional at the time that they were enacted. They were part of the history and tradition of the country. And when we have a test now that&#8217;s asking us to look at what people were doing back then, I don&#8217;t understand why they should be excluded.”
Harris: “Because they are outliers. They are, by definition, unconstitutional.”
Jackson: “Afterwards, not at the time. And if the test says what is happening at the time tells us what’s constitutional for this purpose, why aren’t they in?”
Harris: “Respectfully, a law is always unconstitutional from its inception.”
Jackson: “So the history doesn&#8217;t matter. We shouldn’t care about the history, then.”
Jackson seems to be making the argument that when Dred Scott was ruled unconstitutional, the reversal of the decision doesn’t mean that Dred Scott was ever wrong.
This is a truly bizarre agreement she’s making.
She’s implying that Plessy v. Ferguson, which said that segregation under the Equal Protection laws was fully legal, was good constitutional law, and only later was reversed. That means that if there was a subtextual or secondary part of that law, we should look to it as good law even though the Supreme Court’s ruling was a bad decision.
This is absolutely incoherent and nonsensical.

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

Justice Jackson Defends Racist Black Codes As Constitutional History

Ben Shapiro

Blacks

Guns

Hawaii

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Leftists

Second Amendment

WASHINGTON, Jan 21 (Reuters) — Conservative and liberal U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled skepticism on Wednesday toward President Donald Trump&#8217;s bid to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in a case with the central bank&#8217;s independence at stake.
During about two hours of arguments in the case, the justices indicated they were unlikely to grant the Trump administration&#8217;s request to lift a judge&#8217;s decision barring ​the Republican president from immediately firing Cook while her legal challenge continues to play out.
Some of the justices pressed D. John Sauer, the U.S. solicitor general arguing for Trump&#8217;s administration, about why Cook was not given a chance to formally respond to the unproven mortgage fraud allegations — which she has denied — that the president cited as justification to oust Cook. They also raised concerns about the effect on the economy of such a first-ever presidential firing from the central bank and the implications for the Fed&#8217;s cherished independence from political influence.
The case represents the latest dispute to come to the top U.S. judicial body involving Trump&#8217;s expansive view of presidential powers since returning to office 12 months ago.
When the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, agreed in October to hear the case, they left Cook in her job for the time being.
&#8220;This case is about whether the Federal Reserve will set key interest rates guided by evidence and independent judgment or will succumb to political pressure,&#8221; Cook, who attended the arguments, said in a statement afterward.
&#8220;For as long as I serve at the Federal Reserve, I will uphold the principle of political independence in service to the American people,&#8221; Cook added.
&#8216;DECEIT OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE&#8217;
Sauer told the justices that the allegations against Cook impugn her &#8220;conduct, fitness, ability or competence to serve as a governor of the Federal Reserve.&#8221;
&#8220;The American people should not have their interest rates determined by someone who was, at best, grossly negligent in obtaining favorable interest rates for herself,&#8221; Sauer said.
&#8220;Deceit or gross negligence by a financial regulator in financial transactions is cause for removal,&#8221; Sauer added, arguing that the allegations require immediate removal.
Cook has called the allegations against her a pretext to fire her over monetary policy differences as Trump heaps pressure on the central bank to cut interest rates and lashes out at Fed Chair Jerome Powell for not doing so more quickly.
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts asked Sauer to explain whether his argument that Cook should be immediately removed applies if the basis of the mortgage allegations — that she cited two different properties as a principal residence — is an &#8220;inadvertent mistake contradicted by other documents in the record.&#8221;
Sauer responded that, even if Cook made a mistake on mortgage paper, &#8220;it is quite a big mistake.&#8221;
Roberts seemed skeptical, telling Sauer &#8220;we can debate that.&#8221;
Paul Clement, the lawyer arguing for Cook, told the justices that the allegations against Cook arise from &#8220;at most an inadvertent mistake&#8221; on a mortgage application concerning a vacation property.
Trump&#8217;s move against Cook is seen as the most consequential challenge to the Fed&#8217;s independence since it was formed in 1913. Until now, no president had sought to oust a Fed official.
A Supreme Court ruling is expected by the end of June.
&#8216;A MILLION HARD QUESTIONS&#8217;
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito expressed concern that the administration had handled the case &#8220;in a very cursory manner.&#8221; Though the case involves Trump&#8217;s asserted cause to fire Cook, Alito said, &#8220;No court has ever explored those facts.  Are the mortgage applications even in the record in this case?&#8221;
&#8220;There&#8217;s a million hard questions in this case,&#8221; Alito said.
In creating the Fed, Congress passed a law called the Federal Reserve Act that included provisions meant to insulate the central bank from political interference, requiring governors to be removed by a president only &#8220;for cause,&#8221; though the law does not define the term nor establish procedures for removal.
Clement told the justices that Trump&#8217;s position would transform tenure protections for Fed governors into &#8220;at-will employment.&#8221;
&#8220;That makes no sense,&#8221; Clement said. &#8220;There&#8217;s no rational reason to go through all the trouble of creating this unique, quasi-private entity that is exempt from everything from the (congressional) appropriations process to the civil service laws, just to give it a removal restriction that is as toothless as the president imagines.&#8221;
Roberts expressed doubts about Sauer&#8217;s arguments that the president&#8217;s assertion of a cause is not reviewable, or that judges cannot reinstate a fired officer.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed doubts about the real-world effects of the administration&#8217;s arguments.
&#8220;Your position,&#8221; Kavanaugh told Sauer, &#8220;that there&#8217;s no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available, very low bar for cause that the president alone determines — I mean, that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.&#8221;
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett also questioned why the Trump administration has denied Cook a hearing to defend herself, saying that it &#8220;would not have been that big of a deal&#8221; for Trump to sit down with Cook and lay out the alleged evidence against her.
Barrett also asked Sauer about the practical implications of allowing Trump&#8217;s firing of a Fed governor.
&#8220;We have amicus (friend-of-the-court) briefs from economists who tell us that if Governor Cook is (fired), that would trigger a recession. How should we think about the public interest in a case like this?&#8221; Barrett asked, adding: &#8220;If there is a risk (at this preliminary stage of the case) doesn&#8217;t that counsel caution on our part?&#8221;
Sauer said that Cook was notified in August of her termination, and that has not affected the markets. Sauer urged the justices to weigh the predictions of doom for the U.S. economy by economists in briefs submitted in the case supportive of Cook with a &#8220;jaundiced eye.&#8221;
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in September ruled that Trump&#8217;s attempt to remove Cook without notice or a hearing likely violated her right to due process under the U.S. Constitution&#8217;s Fifth Amendment. Cobb also found that the mortgage fraud allegations likely were not a legally sufficient cause to remove a Fed governor under the law, noting that the alleged conduct occurred before she served in the Fed post.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined Trump&#8217;s request to put Cobb&#8217;s order on hold.
&#8216;YOU&#8217;RE FIRED&#8217;
Conservative and liberal justices alike posed sharp questions to Sauer on his contention that Cook was not entitled to formal notice and a hearing before removal by the president.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Sauer what such a hearing would look like and whether Cook would have a right to legal counsel. Sauer responded that the court in the past has been very reluctant to &#8220;dictate procedures to the president&#8221; and that it would be up for Trump to decide.
&#8220;Calling Ms. Cook into the (White House) Roosevelt Room, sitting across a conference table, listening for, I don&#8217;t know how long, how much evidence is a lawyer required, and then making a decision? Could that suffice?&#8221; Gorsuch asked, adding: &#8220;Just a meeting across a conference table finished with, &#8216;You&#8217;re fired&#8217;?&#8221;
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas asked Sauer on what basis should the justices conclude that the Fed is &#8220;an executive branch agency and hence that the president does have a removal authority.&#8221;
&#8220;There&#8217;s an academic dispute about whether or not the Federal Reserve&#8217;s Open Market operations constitute executive power or something else, essentially private conduct. However, Congress has over the years kind of packed on traditional executive powers on the Federal Reserve,&#8221; Sauer replied.
As a Fed governor, Cook helps set U.S. monetary policy with the rest of the central bank&#8217;s seven-member board and the heads of the 12 regional Fed banks. Her term in the job runs to 2038. Cook was appointed in 2022 by Democratic former President Joe Biden as the first Black woman to serve in the post.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Sauer to reconcile two seemingly conflicting positions: his claim the president has broad discretion to remove a Fed governor and his recognition that Congress included tenure protections for Fed governors to shield the Fed&#8217;s independence from White House interference.
&#8220;How does that further the aims of the statute?&#8221; Jackson asked.
Alito voiced skepticism toward Clement&#8217;s argument that a Fed governor&#8217;s conduct before taking office cannot provide a basis for removal by the president, asking Cook&#8217;s attorney to address a series of increasingly egregious hypothetical scenarios.
&#8220;How about if, after the person assumes office, videos are disclosed in which the office holder is expressing deep admiration for Hitler or for the Klan?&#8221; Alito asked.
AGENCY INDEPENDENCE
In prior cases, the Supreme Court chipped away at the independence of various federal agencies from presidential control, and could soon overrule a key precedent that has shielded the heads of independent agencies from removal since 1935.
But the court last year signaled it may view the central bank as an exception, noting in a May ruling that let Trump remove two Democratic members of federal labor boards that the Fed possesses a unique structure and historical tradition.
The Supreme Court has backed Trump in a series of emergency rulings since he returned to the presidency on immigration, mass federal layoffs, cutting foreign aid, dismantling the Education Department and other matters.
The president sought to fire Cook on August 25 by posting a termination letter on social media citing the mortgage fraud allegations disclosed by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee.
The administration ‍this month opened a criminal investigation into Powell over remarks he made to Congress last year about a Fed building project, a move he similarly called a pretext aimed at gaining influence over monetary policy.
(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by Jan Wolfe, John Kruzel and David Lawder in Washington and Ann Saphir in San Francisco; Editing by Will Dunham)

SCOTUS, Lisa Cook, Donald Trump

Supreme Court Appears Reluctant To Let Trump Fire Fed’s Lisa Cook

Donald Trump

Federal Reserve

The Supreme Court this week heard major cases on whether men who think they’re women because they’re mentally ill should be able to play sports with women who think they’re women because they’re women. The cases were a chance for the court to explore the question: is it fair for men who feel like women to play women’s sports or are we living in reality where that would be the sort of question only a nerdy nine-year-old boy would ask just before cracking up at his own joke and then making a series of snorting noises that ends with his accidentally blowing snot on his I Heart Stranger Things T-shirt?
In the event, the case was argued before a gathering of fine legal minds and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The trans-athletes were represented by the famous attorney Foster Closterfockolus who was hired by the Roland Dinghead Memorial Fund, which was named in honor of the famous trans-athlete, a girl who identified as male and joined a men’s boxing club, then sadly died.
Mr. Closterfockolus made the argument that — in theory — there are no real advantages to men who play women’s sports, so we should all live in theory instead of on earth where the idea is completely absurd. Judging by their responses to his argument, the justices seemed divided between those justices with IQ’s higher than a bowl of Cheerios and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The highlight of Mr. Closterfockolus’s argument was when he conjured up the cherished memory of transgender athletes from the past, like Abner Skullfog, a girl who identified as male and joined the local men’s ice hockey team, then, sadly, died. Mr. Closterfockolus said that to ban boys who identify as girls from girls’ sports would be to betray the memory of such pioneers who gave the last measure of devotion to free us from the shackles of sanity and common sense. Mr. Closterfockulus actually fought back tears as he went on to tell the story of another historic transgender innovator, Henry Blither, a woman who identified as a man and managed to join an NFL football team, then, sadly, died — though not before breaking through the Steelers’ offensive line to sack Aaron Rodgers.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1262-the-andrew-klavan-show?elementPosition=1&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974735 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-1024x171.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-1024x171.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-768x128.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-1536x256.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now.jpg 1800w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
When Mr. Closterfockolus concluded his arguments, he was peppered with incisive questions by the brilliant justices and one from Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson asked, “If a man wears a skirt that’s a really soft shade of pink and has girly pleats with maybe a flower pattern, like little roses weaving in a kind of floaty, dream-like feminine way, and that skirt makes him very attractive to the sort of burly man who walks around with his shoulders and arms swinging, and then suddenly he sees this boy in his pretty pink skirt, and okay, it doesn’t develop into anything, but he takes a second look before becoming disgusted with himself, couldn’t we then say that the first boy is as much a female as that gruff detective on the HBO show about Easttown or is the whole scenario of three different local women getting kidnapped by the same man just too unbelievable?”
The next probing question came from Justice Alito who asked the attorney, “What the hell is that moron talking about and how in God’s name did she get on the Supreme Court?”
Throughout the questioning, the Justices tried to be respectful to the defendants by using their preferred pronouns without giggling, which unfortunately proved impossible.
After the question period was over, the attorney for the states banning men in women’s sports, Joan Dark, stood before the justices and wept quietly for twenty minutes before answering questions, including another intricate inquiry from Alito, who said, “Why couldn&#8217;t that dementia-riddled puddlehead of a president find a black woman who had been to law school, or could at least form an English sentence?”
But the final argument startled the justices when it came from a resonant disembodied voice that shook the courtroom, saying, “I created mankind in my image, male and female, and if you’re wondering why I didn’t ask your opinion about it, it’s because I’m omniscient and I knew there would one day be a justice on the Supreme Court who was dumber than a bowl of Cheerios.”
* * *
This excerpt is taken from the opening satirical monologue of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Andrew Klavan Show</a>.”
Andrew Klavan is the host of “The Andrew Klavan Show” at The Daily Wire. Klavan is the bestselling author of numerous books, including the Cameron Winter Mystery series. The fifth installment, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/After-That-Cameron-Winter-Mysteries/dp/1613166869/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3EGZUC370LG46&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Y_NI0mDOKeowShheDQTVx5NH-fAeimJoCD56_T0Acpl8C0mup7uJf-nGGSRLEItaaekoDnvS2vWLMa4Zd2UBXQ8Y-g-P502jOWz-Y8IX3ZQsdlO7WMLrg1xIhNoKmjCorSWUR4C2l_RbiZ7apJ1MfPzGOrrEf7AdAXX6xwnJRVP_XqUfWuMuVthTWscaU3P4vgmS86-96n-721enHfX12CFQWTajqFbVnrsDkexfUf4.6_gTH6h1Bb9Pn375QdF_VAVZSayDvjQBBKGXE-MTiFo&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=klavan&amp;qid=1754049918&amp;sprefix=%2Caps%2C80&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">After That, The Dark,</a> is NOW AVAILABLE. Follow him on X: <a href="https://x.com/andrewklavan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@andrewklavan</a>.
The views expressed in this satirical piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

SCOTUS II

The Supreme Court Finally Has A Justice Dumber Than A Bowl Of Cheerios

Andrew Klavan

Humor

Samuel Alito

Satire

Transgender Athletes

Most Americans want more faith in the public square and want to have more say over what their children learn in the classroom, according to a new survey of attitudes toward religious liberty released Friday.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty released its annual Religious Freedom Index, documenting a rise in support for Americans to practice their faith in public and private. The index surveyed over 1,000 Americans and asked them for their opinions on a range of topics from curriculum opt-outs to sharing faith in public.
“This year’s Index shows that Americans – and especially younger generations – increasingly share a vigorous vision of religious liberty, one that is not confined to churches and private homes but expressed openly in the public square,” Becket wrote in its report, which was first obtained by The Daily Wire.
Becket found that 73% of Americans believe that parents should be able to opt their kids out of public school curriculum. That is a ten point increase since 2021 and comes after the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-sides-with-parents-says-schools-cant-mandate-lgbt-curricula">ruled</a> last year that a group of Maryland parents should be allowed to take their kids out of classroom instruction involving LGBT and sexuality-focused materials. That case was brought by Becket on behalf of a coalition of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim parents.
The survey found that 62% of Americans supported that decision.
“When it comes to raising children, mom and dad know best. That common-sense idea commands overwhelming support, with nearly three-quarters of Americans agreeing that parents should have the final say on what their children are taught in public school. It’s a powerful reminder that in our nation, families—not government officials—are the primary educators of the next generation,” Eric Baxter, the vice president and senior counsel at Becket, told The Daily Wire.
More Americans also believe that Americans should be free to share their faith in public, including at work and school.
“[Fifty-seven percent] of Americans agree that religious freedom is inherently public, and that Americans should be free to share their faith in public spaces, such as at school, work, or on social media — a five-point rise since 2020,” the index found.
Notably, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-trump-guidance-allows-federal-employees-to-debate-religion-with-co-workers">new guidance</a> issued by the Trump administration last year made it clear that federal workers are allowed to invite their co-workers to church and share their religious beliefs with them.
The survey also found that a plurality of Americans (47%) believe that Christian counselors should be allowed to guide children away from gender-confusion, 58% say that bakers and cake artists should not be forced to create a product that violates their conscience, and 65% approved of a recent Supreme Court decision that sided with a Catholic charity that sued Wisconsin after it made it pay certain taxes that other religious organizations were exempt from.

Beautiful White Baptist Church in Crawfordville, George built in 1889

Americans Want More Faith In The Public Square, Back Parental Rights

Christianity

Education

Religion

Religious Freedom

Justices Reenter Transgender Rights Debate With Student Athletes

My Reaction To The Trans Athlete SCOTUS Hearing

custom

Matt Walsh

What Is A Woman

In a 7-2 decision that had resounding import for election integrity, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling that Congressman Michael Bost and two other candidates lacked standing to challenge the Illinois law that allows election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day if they are received within 14 days thereafter.
Bost and the two other plaintiffs argued that the process of an “extended” counting period violates federal statutes (2 U.S.C. §7 and 3 U.S.C. §1), which establish a single “Election Day” as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The District Court and the Seventh Circuit dismissed the case, concluding that the petitioners lacked standing under Article III because they could not prove the rule would cause them to lose or significantly harm their campaigns.
But the Supreme Court held that a candidate for office has standing to challenge the rules governing their own election based on their unique status and interest in the process.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which invoked a standing rule for candidates, emphasizing that they are not “mere bystanders” in the electoral process. The Court argued that while voters have a general interest in election integrity, a candidate’s interest is “different in kind.” Candidates spend vast resources seeking to represent the people and have a concrete stake in ensuring the results accurately reflect the people&#8217;s will.
Roberts noted that rules undermining election integrity also undermine the winner’s political legitimacy. For an elected official, a loss of public confidence — even if they win — is a “reputational harm” which constitutes a classic Article III injury. The Court refused to require candidates to prove they would likely lose in order to gain standing. Roberts argued that forcing candidates to wait until an election is close or finished to sue would lead to “late-breaking, court-ordered rule changes” that cause voter confusion and undermine democratic stability.
The Court warned that requiring proof of a “substantial risk of loss” would turn judges into “political prognosticators,” a role outside their judicial expertise.

US-NEWS-ILL-VOTER-DATA-LAWSUIT-TB

Voter Integrity Win: Supreme Court Affirms Standing To Challenge Extended Ballot Counting

Illinois

Voter Integrity

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court appears poised to allow states to keep men out of women’s sports after the majority of justices seemed favorable towards laws from West Virginia and Idaho that make participation in women’s sports contingent on sex.
After three and a half hours of arguments on Tuesday, the justices seemed skeptical of claims from transgender-identifying athletes that laws keeping them off women’s sports teams violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and Title IX. The outcome of the cases could have far-reaching implications for protecting women’s privacy in bathrooms, locker rooms, and other sensitive spaces.
The justices heard the cases of West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox. Both cases revolve around laws in West Virginia and Idaho that prohibit men from competing on women’s sports teams.
The strongest pushback against the arguments made against the laws came from Justice Samuel Alito, who pressed lawyer Kathleen Hartnett, an attorney representing a transgender-identifying male athlete from Idaho, about what her definition of sex was.
“Is it not necessary for there to be, for Equal Protection purposes, if that is challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?” he asked.
“We do not have a definition for the court, and we don&#8217;t take issue with the … we&#8217;re not disputing the definition here. What we&#8217;re saying is that the way it applies in practice is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women&#8217;s teams, and that there&#8217;s a subset of those birth sex males where it doesn&#8217;t make sense to do so, according to the state&#8217;s own interest,” Hartnett replied.
“How can a court determine whether there&#8217;s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for Equal Protection purposes?” Alito followed up. He also asked Hartnett if she thought female athletes worried about fair competition were bigots.
In a different section of arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts joined in Alito’s skepticism about ACLU lawyer Joshua Block’s reluctance to provide a definition of sex for the court.
&#8220;Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. It&#8217;s a statutory term, it must mean something,&#8221; Roberts said. &#8220;You&#8217;re arguing here there is discrimination on the basis of sex, and how can we decide that question without knowing what sex means in Title IX?&#8221;
Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared inclined to let the debate play out at the state level, noting that 27 states have protected women’s sports while the other 23 allow males who identify as females to compete in the women’s division.
“Why would we, at this point, just the role of this court, jump in and try to constitutionalize the rule for the whole country while [there&#8217;s] still, as you say, uncertainty, debate — while there are still strong interests on the other side?” he said.
Kavanaugh also noted that sports are often a “zero-sum game” and that even one transgender-identifying athlete allowed on a women’s team could have an outsized impact.
At a press conference after the case, Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer John Bursch told The Daily Wire that he believes the issue should be national and that women in California and Massachusetts should not have their right to fair competition taken away.
During arguments, demonstrators on both sides held competing rallies. One woman from North Carolina who was holding a sign in favor of protecting women&#8217;s sports told The Daily Wire that she got on a bus at 3:00 a.m. to travel up to Washington, D.C., for the demonstration.

Trans Athletes Supreme Court Case

SCOTUS Leans Toward Protecting Women’s Sports While ACLU Can’t Define ‘Woman’

Courts

Social Issues

U.S.

The steps of the Supreme Court were the backdrop for hundreds of women and men who showed up on Tuesday to protect the sanctity of women&#8217;s sports.
For the first time, the Court heard cases on whether men could compete in women&#8217;s sports. While arguments occurred inside the courtroom, a rally could be heard outside the building, where the women leading the movement made their voices heard.
The two cases presented to the Supreme Court on Tuesday won&#8217;t have a decision for months. But Kaitlynn Wheeler is hopeful the outcome will ensure that women — and only women — can compete in women&#8217;s sports for generations to come. Wheeler, alongside other women, has fought for years to keep men out of women&#8217;s sports.
At Kentucky, Wheeler competed against Lia Thomas, the man who infamously tied with Riley Gaines, igniting the movement to save women&#8217;s sports
&#8220;I&#8217;m optimistic that it will be in our favor, in the favor of common sense, and in the favor of the overwhelming majority of the American people,&#8221; Wheeler said.
Trump signed the &#8220;Keeping Men Out Of Women&#8217;s Sports&#8221; executive order last February, but Wheeler wants federal law to reflect it so it cannot be so easily reversed.
&#8220;This is something that we need to get codified into law,&#8221; Wheeler explained. &#8220;We need to really look at Title IX, too, and even add on to Title IX, and make it into law because again, it can be taken down just as quickly as it was put up.&#8221;
Wheeler, like the defendants in court Tuesday, believes Title IX defines sex by biological sex, and it needs to reflect that.
&#8220;I think Title IX needs to define them, that way we eliminate the confusion,&#8221; Wheeler said.
&#8220;Everyone is so excited to be together because we have all been fighting for this for years now,&#8221; Payton McNabb, another one of the women at the frontlines of the movement, told The Daily Wire.
McNabb was severely injured by a man on a high school girls&#8217; volleyball team just before she turned 18. She couldn&#8217;t drive for months. She couldn&#8217;t finish out her volleyball season because she suffered a concussion and a neck injury from the spike.
&#8220;This stuff is just so insane that it doesn&#8217;t even sound real, but that&#8217;s actually a reality,&#8221; McNabb said.
<div id="attachment_1027361" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1027361" class="size-large wp-image-1027361" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/Untitled-design-56-1-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/Untitled-design-56-1-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/Untitled-design-56-1-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/Untitled-design-56-1-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/Untitled-design-56-1.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Credit: Payton McNabb</div>
These women, along with Gaines, former gymnast Jennifer Sey, former ESPN anchor Sage Steele, and others, have spearheaded the fight, but men have joined the battle too.
Dakota Meyer is a girl dad, a Marine, and an ambassador with Sey&#8217;s clothing brand, XX-XY. He told The Daily Wire that more men need to speak up against males competing in the women&#8217;s category.
&#8220;My daughters are tall, so like they&#8217;re taller than a lot of the boys their age, but when they play a boys team, even at eight and nine years old, my daughters cannot keep up with them,&#8221; Meyer said.
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/fighting-for-the-bare-minimum-riley-gaines-speaks-out-before-scotus-trans-case?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=23&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=%E2%80%98Fighting+For+The+Bare+Minimum%E2%80%99%3A+Riley+Gaines+Speaks+Out+Before+SCOTUS+Trans+Case">‘Fighting For The Bare Minimum’: Riley Gaines Speaks Out Before SCOTUS Trans Case</a>
Tuesday saw many protesters oppose keeping men out of women&#8217;s sports, but the majority of the people present were there to back the movement to protect women. McNabb said she&#8217;s been most surprised by support from Democrats, even though she thinks that stating biology shouldn&#8217;t be a partisan issue.
&#8220;They understand that this issue is so real and it means so much to them because everyone has a woman in their life and this affects them ultimately in some way,&#8221; McNabb said.
The Tuesday rally in Washington, D.C., was a success on all accounts, according to McNabb. The now 20-year-old waits with the rest of the country on the high court&#8217;s ruling.
&#8220;I&#8217;m praying for a good outcome here,&#8221; McNabb said. &#8220;I&#8217;m praying over all the Supreme Court justices, but also everyone that&#8217;s been affected, and that the other side will have clarity and understand that they are loved and created in God&#8217;s image.&#8221;

llustration by Daily Wire staff

Women Rally At Supreme Court Steps As Justices Weigh Landmark Cases To Protect Female Athletes

Women Stand For Truth On Supreme Court Steps As Court Hears Case On Protecting Women's Sports

News

Women's sports

MixCollage-09-Jan-2026-12-50-PM-1486

LIVE UPDATES: Supreme Court Hears Landmark Women’s Sports Cases

Riley Gaines

Menu