Tag Archive for: Supreme court

U.S. Supreme Court Gives Hamas-Linked CAIR a 9-0 Thumbs-Up

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) files many lawsuits, but actually wins comparatively few. So when it does receive a favorable decision, its operatives crow about it loudly. In the latest example, CAIR is calling a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling in its favor a “historic milestone for American Muslims.”

However, a simple reading of the Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Bureau of Investigation et al. v. Fikre, or of any of the many media reports on that decision, show that CAIR is overstating the victory.

See, for example, “Supreme Court Says ‘No Fly List’ Suit Can Proceed Against FBI, for Now”, by Jimmy Hoover, Law.com, March 19, 2024. In essence, the court ruled:

Yonas Fikre, a U.S. citizen from Sudan, can—for now—pursue his claim that the FBI violated his constitutional right to due process when it placed him on the list roughly eight years ago. He says the placement left him stranded abroad for four years and led to his torture in the United Arab Emirates.

The Government had tried to have Mr. Fikre’s case dismissed as moot, since the FBI had already removed Fikre from the No-Fly list, and as a result, there was no more damage to him. However, the Supreme Court did not accept this reasoning. From FBI vs Fikre:

In May 2016, the government notified Mr. Fikre that he had been removed from the No Fly List and sought dismissal of his suit in district court, arguing that its administrative action had rendered the case moot.”

Mootness is defined in Maniar v. Mayorkas, Civil Action 19-3826 (EGS), 36 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2023), as

[a] change in factual circumstances[,] . . . such as when the plaintiff receives the relief sought.

Additionally,

the party urging mootness bears a heavy burden.

However, in the present case, according to FBI vs. Fikre:

The government has failed to demonstrate that this case is moot.

Were the rule more forgiving, a defendant [FBI] might suspend its challenged conduct after being sued, win dismissal, and later pick up where it left off; it might even repeat “this cycle” as necessary until it achieves all of its allegedly “unlawful ends.” Already, 568 U. S., at 91. A live case or controversy cannot be so easily disguised, and a federal court’s constitutional authority cannot be so readily manipulated. To show that a case is truly moot, a defendant must prove “‘no reasonable expectation’” remains that it will “return to [its] old ways.”

The government had failed to meet its burden because the declaration did not disclose the conduct that landed Mr. Fikre on the No Fly List and did not ensure that he would not be placed back on the list for engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future.

Again, the court’s ruling means Fikre’s suit against the FBI can continue. But as Justice Gorsuch says in the court’s decision:

This case comes to us in a preliminary posture, framed only by uncontested factual allegations and a terse declaration. As the case unfolds, the complaint’s allegations will be tested rather than taken as true, and different facts may emerge that may call for a different conclusion.

CAIR’s very well-established pattern of overstating the results of court decisions in its favor really should be more widely discussed.

  • When Judge Anthony Trenga ruled in CAIR’s favor, saying that the terror watch list was unconstitutional, CAIR hailed this as the greatest legal decision the history of the country. Indeed, CAIR’s victory was widely reported in the mainstream media. However, when the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Judge Trenga’s decision, sending the case back with instructions to rule properly, there was little word from CAIR on that.
  • More recently, CAIR was very proud of a favorable ruling in the case A & R Engineering and Testing, Incorporated vs. John Scott, Attorney General of Texas. But CAIR minimized the fact that the judge’s ruling applied to just this one case, and only to the plaintiff, Rasmy Hassouna.
  • In the article “Why a Texas Court Ruling on Israel Boycott Was No Victory for CAIR” by Erielle Davidson, which appeared in The Algemeiner on February 4, 2022, there is this statement: “But CAIR is patently wrong in its legal analysis, rendering the recent victory lap is nothing short of bizarre. While the opinion does deem a fraction of the language in the Texas law unconstitutional, the opinion itself explicitly asserts that most of the language in the Texas statute — including the central element prohibiting economic boycotts of Israel — is constitutional.”

CAIR is, among other things, a public relations firm with itself as its biggest client. As a result, any event which is favorable to the organization and its goals is exaggerated out of all proportion, while incidents that do not fit a favorable narrative are whitewashedhushed up, or simply ignored completely.

Although the FBI is certainly no friend of Jihad Watch, and the terror watch list may be a necessary evil, it does have value. Already, the DHS has stopped at least 160 people on the watch list from entering the U.S.’s porous border. Additionally, Project Veritas has reported that many of the Afghan refugees on the terror watch list are roaming free in the U.S.

As Justice Gorusch wrote in the court’s decision:

The government does not generally disclose the full reasoning for why people are placed on the list, and the Justice Department expressed concerns that allowing cases such as Fikre’s to move forward would needlessly force the government to reveal its sometimes-classified explanations.

Of course, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations appears to have absolutely no regard for the national security of the United States of America.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Great Betrayal: Bidenite Follies at the UN

Full-blown global antisemitism on display as UN votes on Gaza ceasefire, tacitly supported by Biden regime

Kamala Has ‘Studied the Maps’

Gaza, Sudan, and the Media’s Selective Sympathies 

Chicago Politician Stands in Front of PLO, Iraqi Flag, After U.S. Flag Burned

What Percentage of Those Killed by the IDF in Gaza were Civilians? 

Hamas Just Brought to Life These Cartoons About Hiding Behind Babies

Were the Early Christians Nonviolent Solely Because They Didn’t Have State Power?

North Carolina: Migrant on terror watch list fires rifle outside convenience store, attacks sheriff’s deputies

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Supreme Court Lets Texas Enforce Law Allowing Police To Arrest And Deport Illegal Immigrants

The Supreme Court allowed Texas’ law enabling local police to arrest illegal migrants to take effect Tuesday.

After extending a pause on the law multiple times, the Supreme Court allowed Texas’ SB 4 to take effect Tuesday, declining the Biden administration’s effort to halt it while litigation continues. The Department of Justice (DOJ) first filed its lawsuit against Texas to prevent enforcement of the law in January.

“The Court gives a green light to a law that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos, when the only court to consider the law concluded that it is likely unconstitutional,” Justice Sonia Sotomyaor wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “This law implicates serious issues that are subject to ongoing political debate, and Texas’s novel scheme requires careful and reasoned consideration in the courts to determine which provisions may be unconstitutional.”

Justice Elena Kagan also wrote in a dissent that she would not have allowed the law to take effect.

U.S. District Court Judge David Alan Ezra, a Reagan appointee, blocked Texas’ law from taking effect in February, finding it “threatens the fundamental notion that the United States must regulate immigration with one voice.” The Fifth Circuit issued an administrative stay early March allowing the law to take effect while it considered the appeal, prompting the Biden administration to file an emergency application with the Supreme Court.

“So far as I know, this Court has never reviewed the decision of a court of appeals to enter—or not enter—an administrative stay,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in a concurrence joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “I would not get into the business.”

“Texas’s motion for a stay pending appeal was fully briefed in the Fifth Circuit by March 5, almost two weeks ago,” Barrett wrote. “Merits briefing on Texas’s challenge to the District Court’s injunction of S. B. 4 is currently underway. If a decision does not issue soon, the applicants may return to this Court.”

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Federal Judge Blocks Texas Law That Would Allow Law Enforcement To Arrest Illegal Migrants

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Supreme Court Schedules Date To Hear Trump’s Presidential Immunity Appeal

The Supreme Court announced it will hear former President Donald Trump’s immunity appeal on April 25.

Trump’s election interference case in Washington, D.C. is on hold until the Supreme Court rules on his appeal, making the trial unlikely to conclude before the election. Trump’s presidential immunity appeal is one of multiple high-profile cases the Supreme Court is considering this term involving the former president.

“The Special Counsel’s request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and that petition is granted limited to the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office,” the Supreme Court wrote in an order last week agreeing to take up Trump’s case.

In April, the Supreme Court is slated to hear another case, Fischer v. United States, dealing with the scope of an obstruction statute used to charge hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants, which could also have a major impact on Trump’s case, as the statute is connected to two of the charges in his indictment.

The Supreme Court also ruled Monday that Trump could not be disqualified from Colorado’s ballot. It held that Congress, not states, is responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which restricts individuals who took an oath to the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

“In light of the Supreme Court taking up the presidential immunity case, I seriously doubt the D.C. federal trial will take place before the election,” John Malcolm, vice president for the Heritage Foundation’s Institute for Constitutional Government and former deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s Criminal Division, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “In addition to the fact that the Supreme Court will have to issue its decision in that case and the Fischer case – both of which will likely occur in late June – and assuming that the Supreme Court rules against former President Trump, there are still several pretrial matters pending before Judge Chutkan that would have to be resolved before a trial could begin.”

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan initially rejected Trump’s bid to dismiss his case based on presidential immunity in December. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in February that he is not immune from prosecution.

Over the past months, Special Counsel Jack Smith has sought to speed up the process to keep Trump’s trial on track. The Supreme Court rejected his request in December to take up the question before letting the appeals court weigh in.

Malcolm noted there is also a “DOJ policy that says that the Justice Department should not do anything close to an election that might impact that election” that would “likely come into play for any trial that would begin in the fall.”

“And there is the issue that the classified documents case in Florida may be going on this summer, which will last a few weeks,” he added.

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Supreme Court Rules Trump Cannot Be Removed From Colorado Ballot

Donald Trump Will Take on Pro-Abortion Radical Joe Biden

LAWFARE 101: Blue Laws for Red Citizens

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Supreme Court Rules Trump Cannot Be Removed From Colorado Ballot

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump cannot be removed from Colorado’s 2024 ballot.

The Colorado Supreme Court found Trump ineligible for the state’s ballot in December, ruling he was disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The Civil-war era provision bars individuals who took an oath to the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

“Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse,” the court’s ruling stated.

A group of Colorado voters, backed by the left-wing group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, sued to remove Trump in September, arguing his role in “recruiting, inciting and encouraging a violent mob” on Jan. 6, 2021 was disqualifying. Maine and, just last week, Illinois, followed by also finding Trump ineligible.

Over 60 challenges have been filed in various states challenging Trump’s eligibility for the ballot, according to court documents.

During oral arguments, nearly every justice expressed reservations about allowing a single state to remove Trump from the ballot.

In April, the Supreme Court will hear another consequential case considering whether Trump is immune from prosecution in his federal election interference case. The trial in Washington, D.C., is currently on hold pending the decision on Trump’s appeal.

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Supreme Court Takes Up Trump Presidential Immunity Appeal

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Supreme Court Takes Up Trump Presidential Immunity Appeal

The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to take up former President Donald Trump’s presidential immunity appeal.

The decision to hear Trump’s appeal means the trial in his election interference case in the lower court will remain on hold. The justices scheduled oral arguments for the week of April 22, 2024.

“The Special Counsel’s request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, and that petition is granted limited to the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office,” the order states. “Without expressing a view on the merits, this Court directs the Court of Appeals to continue withholding issuance of the mandate until the sending down of the judgment of this Court.”

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found early February that Trump was not immune from prosecution in his election interference case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. Trump asked the Supreme Court earlier this month to stay the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision.

Smith responded by telling the justices further delay in Trump’s trial violates the public interest in a “speedy and fair verdict.” The case is on hold in the lower court pending the resolution of Trump’s appeal.

The presidential immunity appeal marks the second time this year that the Supreme Court agreed to consider a high-profile issue involving the former president. The justices considered Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 ballot under the 14th Amendment on Feb. 8 after the former president appealed a Colorado ruling disqualifying him from the ballot.

In April, the justices will also hear a case considering the scope of an obstruction statute used to charge hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants, which is also connected to two of the four charges in Trump’s indictment.

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Nearly Every Supreme Court Justice Seems To Have Doubts About Kicking Trump Off The Ballot

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Abbott Delivers Blistering Statement To Biden, Insists Texas Has Authority To Repel Border ‘Invasion’

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott doubled down Wednesday on the state’s “constitutional right to self-defense” days after the Supreme Court ordered the Texas National Guard to remove barbed wire to keep illegal migrants out.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision Monday, agreed to vacate an injunction that temporarily blocked Border Patrol from cutting wire Texas had placed along the border. Texas authorities appeared to ignore the ruling, with a video circulating on social media showing authorities setting up razor wire for the border in Eagle Pass, Texas.

The case made its way to the high court after the Biden Administration sued.

Abbott doubled down on the state’s response, invoking the Founding Fathers.

“The federal government has broken the compact between the United States and the States. The Executive Branch of the United States has a constitutional duty to enforce federal laws protecting States, including immigration laws on the books right now,” Abbott said in a statement. “President Biden has ignored Texas’s demand that he perform his constitutional duties.”

“James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the other visionaries who wrote the U.S. Constitution foresaw that States should not be left to the mercy of a lawless president who does nothing to stop external threats like cartels smuggling millions of illegal immigrants across the border,” Abbott continued, citing Article IV Section 4 which says the federal government “shall protect each [State] against invasion” and Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 which says the states have a “sovereign interest in protecting their borders.”

“The failure of the Biden Administration to fulfill the duties imposed by Article IV, § 4 has triggered Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which reserves to this State the right of self-defense. For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border.”

Border Patrol agents have recorded a record-breaking amount of illegal migrants. More than 2.2 million illegal migrant encounters were recorded in fiscal year 2022 at the southern border and more than 2 million in fiscal year 2023, federal data shows.

Texas authorities took control of Shelby Park in Eagle Pass on Jan. 11 after Abbott declared an emergency. The Department of Homeland Security then alleged that Texas prevented Border Patrol agents from responding to a drowning two days later. Biden’s Department of Justice then admitted in a Jan. 15 court filing that by the time federal authorities were notified of the drownings, the incident had already occurred.

AUTHOR

BRIANNA LYMAN

News and commentary writer. Follow Brianna on Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLE: Agents ‘Absolutely’ Don’t Want To Cut Greg Abbott’s Razor Wire, Border Patrol Union President Says

RELATED VIDEO: Rep. Chip Roy Calls on Texas to Disregard the SCOTUS’s Ruling on the Invasion at Our Border

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

President Of Left-Wing Group Behind Trump’s Colorado Ballot Removal Visited Biden White House Multiple Times

The CEO of the left-wing legal group behind former President Donald Trump’s removal from the Colorado ballot went to the Biden White House multiple times last year, visitor logs show.

Noah Bookbinder, president and CEO of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), visited the White House twice in 2023, visitor logs from January to September 2023 indicate.

He first visited on Jan. 6, 2023, the two-year anniversary of the 2021 Capitol riot, to watch Biden award the Presidential Citizens Medal to law enforcement officers who responded to the unrest, a CREW spokesperson told the Caller. The visitor logs appear to confirm Bookbinder’s attendance at the event.

Bookbinder began working for the Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in March 2022 as part of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC), according to his bio on the DHS website. His name no longer appears on the HSAC membership list.

Bookbinder appeared at the White House a second time in March for a presentation by the HSAC’s Openness and Transparency DHS Subcommittee, the CREW spokesperson said. White House visitor logs indicate that Bookbinder was also among a group of individuals who met with Commerce Department official Maya James.

Bookbinder did not discuss the Trump ballot case with Biden officials during either visit, the spokesperson added.

Records of White House visits from October to December 2023 have yet to be released. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

CREW orchestrated the legal challenge to Trump’s ballot eligibility in Colorado, culminating in a 4-3 state supreme court ruling in December disqualifying Trump from the Republican primary ballot. The left-wing organization fundraised off the Colorado decision immediately after it was announced.

Colorado’s supreme court ruling is based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifying individuals from holding office if they have engaged in insurrection. Democratic Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows made similar arguments when she issued a ruling later in December that barred Trump from the state’s primary ballot.

Trump is the clear frontrunner to win the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, according to the RealClearPolitics state and national polling averages.

The former president has not been charged with or convicted of insurrection.

Trump and the Colorado Republican Party have appealed the Colorado decision to the U.S. Supreme Court and has appealed Bellows’ ruling.

Trump remains on the Colorado primary ballot while the legal challenge proceeds.

AUTHOR

JAMES LYNCH

Investigative reporter. James Lynch can be reached on Twitter @jameslynch32.

RELATED ARTICLES:

There’s A Direct Line Between Joe Biden’s Deep State And Trump Getting Removed From Colorado’s Ballot

Judge Blocks Trump From Giving Closing Argument At Own Trial

Editor Daily Rundown: Trump Says He Has A VP — But Keeps His Choice A Secret

Fox News Host Tells Nikki Haley Point-Blank ‘Average’ GOP Voters Don’t Have An ‘Appetite’ For Her Campaign

Wife Of Fulton County Trump Prosecutor Alleges He Took Money From Her Account, Left Her In ‘Dire Need’

New Michigan Poll Shows Dem, GOP Candidates Neck And Neck For Open Senate Seat

RELATED VIDEOS:

Alina Habba: I can’t believe what I’m seeing

Peter Doocy UTTERLY SMOKES Joe Biden during LIVE Press Briefing

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Abortion, Trump And Censorship Headline Supreme Court’s Docket In The New Year

  • The Supreme Court will grapple with issues involving former President Donald Trump, the Biden administration’s communication with social media companies to censor speech online and the abortion pill in the lead up to the 2024 election. 
  • Abortion is back at the Supreme Court just two years after it issued a major ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, with two cases on the issue.
  • The justices will hear oral arguments on Trump’s eligibility for office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in February.

Issues involving the chemical abortion pill, former President Donald Trump and the Biden administration’s encouragement of censorship online top the Supreme Court’s docket in the New Year.

Though only one decision has been released so far this term, the justices have already heard arguments on gun restrictions for subjects of domestic violence restraining orders, government officials blocking constituents on social media and Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy settlement. Other pending cases will require the Supreme Court to grapple with multiple hot-button issues in the lead up to the 2024 election.

Abortion

Just two years after overturning Roe v. Wade in June 2022, the justices agreed to hear another major abortion case challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of the chemical abortion pill mifepristone.

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled in April that the FDA must reverse its approval of the pill. The Fifth Circuit later declined to fully remove the pill from the market, but upheld the portion of the decision rolling back FDA rules issued in 2016 and 2021 that had expanded access, allowing the pill to be sent via mail and used later in pregnancy.

However, due to an emergency order issued by the Supreme Court in April, both decisions are paused until the Supreme Court rules on the case.

The Supreme Court also agreed Friday to hear a second big case considering whether the federal law requires emergency room doctors to perform abortions in violation of Idaho’s law, which prohibits abortions unless the mother’s life is in danger. The Biden administration argues the that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which instructs doctors not to turn away patients in need of “emergency stabilizing care,” preempt’s Idaho’s ban and requires doctors to perform emergency abortions.

On Friday, the Court agreed to allow Idaho’s ban to remain in effect until it could hear the case in April.

Censorship

The Supreme Court will weigh in on the Biden administration’s coordination with social media companies to suppress speech online in Murthy v. Missouri. District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty called the government’s censorship efforts “Orwellian” in his July 4 ruling finding the Biden administration likely violated the First Amendment, noting the Republican attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri “produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.”

The Supreme Court paused the ruling in October pending its consideration of the appeal. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, writing the decision could be construed in the meantime as “giving the Government a green light to use heavy handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news.”

Election officials in eight states filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to reject the appeals court’s ruling, expressing dismay that communications made with platforms during the 2020 and 2022 election season have “essentially ended” ahead of “a critical and hotly contested 2024 election season.”

The Supreme Court will also hear a case considering former superintendent of New York’s Department of Financial Services Maria Vullo pressuring banks and insurance companies not to do business with the National Rifle Association. Aaron Terr, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) director of Public Advocacy, told the Daily Caller News Foundation in November there are “clear parallels” between the cases.

“Each case involves government officials exceeding constitutional boundaries by coercing private companies to censor or dissociate from speakers expressing views those officials dislike,” he said.

Trump

As the 2024 election draws near, issues surrounding former President Donald Trump are creeping into the court’s docket.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Feb. 8 to consider Trump’s appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision finding him ineligible to appear on the state’s primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The justices decision will clarify whether other states can take similar actions to remove Trump from the ballot, as Democratic Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows did in a Dec. 28 ruling finding Trump ineligible to appear.

The justices also agreed to hear a case on the scope of an obstruction statute used to charge hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants, as well as Trump.

The statute, Section 1512(c)(2), threatens fines or up to 20 years in prison for anyone who “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding.” It is connected to two of the four charges in Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump for alleged election interference.

If the Supreme Court limits the scope, it could shake up Jan. 6 cases along with impacting the former president’s case.

Special counsel Jack Smith already asked the justices in December to consider Trump’s presidential immunity appeal before the lower court had a chance to weigh in, a request they ultimately denied. Still, the issue will likely be back before the justices soon, as the D.C. Circuit is slated to hear oral arguments on the issue Jan. 9 and issue a decision sometime after.

Other coming cases to watch

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Jan. 17 for a pair of cases that challenge “Chevron deference,” a legal doctrine that instructs courts to defer to executive agency interpretations of statutes when the language is ambiguous. Critics argue the doctrine enables federal agencies to adopt expansive interpretations of statutes that broaden their power while evading the checks and balances of the judicial branch.

In February, the Supreme Court will hear a case challenging a Trump-era federal ban on bump stocks, along with a pair of cases considering red state laws aimed at preventing viewpoint censorship on social media.

AUTHOR

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

Dems Seek To ‘Affect The Outcome’ Of Key 2024 Cases Through Public Pressure On SCOTUS, Legal Experts Say

Here’s The Legal Question That Could Determine The 2024 Election

Judge Denies Trump’s Team From Referencing E. Jean Carroll’s Rape Claim For Future Defamation Trial

RELATED VIDEO: Epstein Files Clear President Trump of Involvement (Duh) | TIPPING POINT

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Trump’s Appeal Of Decision Removing Him From Colorado Ballot

The Supreme Court agreed to hear former President Donald Trump’s appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to kick him off the state’s ballot.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Dec. 19 that Trump is ineligible to be on the state’s primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court set oral arguments to consider Trump’s appeal for Feb. 8, 2024.

Trump appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The Colorado Republican Party previously filed a separate appeal Dec. 27.

“The question of eligibility to serve as President of the United States is properly reserved for Congress, not the state courts, to consider and decide,” Trump’s petition stated. “By considering the question of President Trump’s eligibility and barring him from the ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court arrogated Congress’ authority.”

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prevents individuals who took an oath to the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from holding office.

Trump’s brief, along with any other friend-of-the-court briefs, must be filed by Jan. 18. The respondent’s brief is due by Jan. 31, and Trump’s reply brief is due by Feb. 5, according to the Court’s order.

Twenty-seven states filed an amicus brief Friday urging the Supreme Court to reverse the Colorado ruling.

The Colorado Supreme Court acknowledged that they traveled in “uncharted territory” when it issued the decision in December.

“The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot,” the Colorado Supreme Court wrote in its opinon.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows also issued a ruling Dec. 28 finding Trump was ineligible to appear on the state’s ballot, which he appealed Tuesday.

Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated accordingly.

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Poll: Biden Holds Worst Net Approval Rating for a President in Modern History at This Time in Office

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Top 10 Underreported Stories of 2023

Although the legacy media lift up non-stories every year, they offset the spilled ink by underreporting stories of great national importance. Here are 10 of the most significant stories ignored by the legacy media in 2023.

1. The Nashville Shooter’s Manifesto

On March 27, Audrey Elizabeth Hale entered Nashville’s Covenant School and murdered six innocent people: three nine-year-old children and three adults. Although school shootings have become distressingly commonplace, elements of this atrocity set it apart from other mass shootings: Hale identified as a transgender male named “Aiden,” and her target was a Christian school.

“One day, this will make more sense,” Hale texted her former middle school basketball teammate, Averianna Patton, on the morning of the shooting. “I’ve left plenty of evidence behind.”

Yet the government-media industrial complex has assured that day has not come. The Metropolitan Nashville Police Department has continued to withhold Hale’s manifesto nine months after the shooting — and the legacy media largely ignored leaked pages of Hale’s diary, posted on social media by talk show host Steven Crowder on November 6.

Crowder obtained only three pages of Hale’s diary, but reading Hale’s words, it’s easy to see why the media suppressed them: They shatter the media narrative about mass shooters. “Wanna kill all you little crackers” with “your white privileges,” wrote Hale. “I hope I have a high death count.”

“God let my wrath take over my anxiety,” she mock-prayed.

The New York Times and The Washington Post reported on the leaked diary pages — without quoting a single word of their content. (The Post story quoted the manifesto … of Payton Gendron, a teenage white supremacist who targeted black shoppers in a supermarket in Buffalo in 2022.) NBC News covered the police investigation into the leak, not Hale’s words. When news leaks thwart conservative aims, they’re news; when leaks harm liberal causes, they’re prosecutions. (See Daleiden, David.)

What’s more, the media know the profound pain their silence has caused the people of Nashville. “Spiritually it’s eating me, it’s eating me alive right now right now [sic], because I’m trying to make God help me wrap my mind around what, what is this God?” said Patton shortly after Hale’s rampage. The media could have answered her question and assuaged her existential angst, but they let her suffer for political ends.

2. Studies Show the Dangers of Transgender Surgeries and the LGBTQ Lifestyle

When historians look back, they may say 2023 marked a turning point when the harms of transgender surgeries became public knowledge. Several studies this year revealed the dangers of the LGBT lifestyle.

Perhaps most dramatically, the chair of a transgender surgery department found that people who have transgender surgeries are lonelier and more depressed than those who do nothing — as are trans-identified people who play on sports teams of the opposite sex. “[H]igher loneliness levels were significantly associated with … already having a gender reassignment surgery [and] more than 4 [hours] a week of sports activities,” as “compared to no sports activity,” said a study by Dr. Marco Blessmann, the founding chair of University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf’s plastic surgery department. The German facility carries out such common transgender procedures as “labiaplasty” and “breast augmentation,” as well as “other surgical services,” and has every financial incentive to come to different conclusions, yet its peer-reviewed studies detail the harm its own procedures cause.

A different study found a majority (55%) of women who had vaginoplasty experienced pain, sometimes for years after the procedure, and one in three has difficulty urinating and having sex. The data come from a study of patients who underwent “bottom surgery” from the Postoperative Care Clinic at the Women’s College Hospital (WCH) in Ontario between 2018 and 2020. Media reported the study, sparsely, in January.

Among the unlikely sources contradicting the LGBTQ narrative that all lifestyles are equally healthy, the Biden administration noted the deep ties between identifying as LGBT and mental illness. As this author reported:

“‘Female students, LGBQ+ students, and students who had any same-sex partners were more likely than their peers to experience poor mental health and suicidal thoughts and behaviors,’ said a Biden administration report released in February by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“Teenagers who identified as LGBTQ were twice as likely to report ‘poor mental health’ as those who identified as heterosexual, three times as likely to have ‘seriously considered attempting suicide’ or ‘made a suicide plan,’ and 366.6% more likely to have attempted suicide. Not only do they contemplate suicide more frequently, but they are 700% more likely to have injured themselves in a suicide attempt. While only three out of every 100 straight students have been injured in a suicide attempt, the number soars to one out of every seven teens who identifies as LGBTQ.

“‘Nearly 70% of LGBQ+ students experienced persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness … and more than 20% of LGBQ+ students attempted suicide,’ said the CDC report.”

3. Who Leaked the Dobbs Decision?

Weeks before the Supreme Court acted to right a legal and historical wrong by overturning Roe v. Wade, something truly unprecedented happened: Someone leaked a draft copy of the decision in the case — Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — to Politico. The activist Left exploded in rage. A year-long campaign of violence targeted pro-life churches and pregnancy resource centers, while an armed man traveled to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home intent on shooting him. The Supreme Court launched an investigation but officially announced in January that it could not determine who leaked the report.

“I personally have a pretty good idea who is responsible, but that’s different from the level of proof that is needed to name somebody,” said Justice Samuel Alito, the author of the Dobbs decision, in April. (The International Business Times has noted many conservatives believe the leaker is Amit Jain, a clerk for Sonia Sotomayor with a history of contacting Politico.) But to their shame, the media — which took pains to identify every individual within miles of the U.S. Capitol on January 6 — did not pursue the story doggedly, because it did not fit their narrative.

Another honorable mention in this category is, “Who brought cocaine to the White House?” Like the leaked Dobbs decision, the identity of the individual who left a bag of cocaine in the West Wing this July remains officially unsolved.

4. Our Open Border Transforms America

Joe Biden has set a number of records; unfortunately, they are all for new national humiliations. Among his worst failures is the open U.S. border with Mexico, where illegal immigration has broken all U.S. records each successive year of the Biden administration. In all, a reported 10 million illegal entries have taken place since Biden took office — and they have radically and deliberately transformed the nation we live in, against the will of the American people.

Thanks to this influx, the United States now has the largest number and percentage of foreign-born residents in American history: 49.5 million people, or 15% of the U.S. population. The illegal population grew so precipitously in part, because the Biden administration has failed to remove 99% of the illegal immigrants released into the United States. Among these illegals is a record number of border-crossers whose names are on the terrorist watchlist. Yet the Biden administration has reduced criminal alien deportations.

The problem has finally reached America’s “sanctuary cities,” as Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) sent busloads of illegal immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard, Chicago, Los Angles, and the Big Apple. New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) has said the problem will “destroy” his city and implored the Biden administration to send illegal immigrants to every city, town, and village in America. (Which, for all we know, the administration is already doing.) No one knows where the planeloads of illegal immigrants Biden flies around the country are going.

The Left plans to withhold border security until Republicans give in and approve another 1986-style amnesty plan, which will transform the electorate into what SEIU and socialist organizer Eliseo Medina called “a governing coalition for the long-term.” (See my previous writing on the topic — which includes Democrats discussing their plans to win by relying on voting demographics as far back as 2002 — in this article.) If the corporate GOP rewards the Democrats’ lawless behavior, it will assure America’s permanent transformation.

5. The LGBT Agenda Is Losing Support

Although the legacy media give the LGBTQ political agenda uniformly positive coverage and focus on the group far out of proportion to that demographic’s share of the population, this year they omitted several salient stories: Multiple polls found the LGBTQ cause has lost political support in 2023, even among its most supportive generation.

Among Americans born since 1997, known as Gen Z, support for same-sex marriage fell by a whopping 11 percentage points since 2021, according to a study released in November by AEI’s Survey Center on American Life. Broadly, the percentage of Americans who believe same-sexual relationships are “morally acceptable” fell by 7% this year, the largest decrease of any of the moral issues posed by Gallup pollsters in their annual Values and Beliefs poll, released in June. Most Americans do not see “a married gay or lesbian couple raising children together” as “completely acceptable” (47% do), and even fewer believe an unmarried same-sex couple should raise a child (41%), the Pew Research Center found in September.

Even the Biden administration’s U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) admitted people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual are far more likely to suffer from major depression, abuse illegal drugs, and are up to six times as likely to attempt suicide. Transgender ideology also lost support, with a 55% majority of Americans saying “changing one’s gender” is morally wrong, according to a Gallup poll in June — a 4% increase in two years. Transgender extremism was one of the major issues that brought down the leader of Scotland, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, in February.

These results may seem counterintuitive, since Americans said to identify as LGBTQ more than ever, according to the same polling firms. It could be polling agencies, which are masters at manipulating results, wish to create a sense of complacency in the midst of a social revolution. Or something more ominous may be occurring: Americans may be moving in both directions at the same time. It could be that more young people are caving to social pressure to identify as LGBTQ, while older people (and members of Gen Z who do not buy in to the latest trends) resist the bandwagon effect, which they see will harm themselves and their loved ones.

6. Biden Family Corruption

Even as much as conservative media reported the ever-growing evidence that Joe Biden and his family prospered from deals intended to influence The Big Guy, the broader media have presented the story as a vengeful, political witch hunt waged without evidence. Yet the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability’s wealth of evidence has earned a dearth of coverage, often being falsely presented as “debunked” and “refuted.”

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) has noted that Biden made Ukraine’s firing of prosecutor Viktor Shokin a U.S. priority only after receiving a pay-off. Even the first U.S. hostage released by Hamas had a relative who bought Hunter Biden’s artwork. Biden seems to have used the resources of the U.S. government to further an influence-peddling scheme. As Barack Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden sent thousands of pseudonymous emails under such names as Robert Peters, including informing Hunter Biden about news regarding nations his son was doing business with.

Like Hunter, Joe’s brother Frank Biden also interrupted calls with VIPs to take calls from then-Vice President Joe Biden, referring to the veep as “The Big Guy.” Frank Biden exploited his surname to take a position promoting Mavericks In Education, a charter school chain intended to cater to at-risk students, but which was accused of lying about membership to increase taxpayer funding. He reportedly did this again while taking a job at Berman Law Firm. James Biden has reportedly traded on his brother’s name since the 1970s to gain everything from a night club to foreign deals to legally dubious schemes involving health care companies treating cancer patients. (Note: Many of these stories were originally reported by the legacy media … during the 2020 Democratic primaries. After clinching the nomination, the Biden stories seemed to dry up.) Biden family corruption allegations have led the House to an impeachment inquiry. (For an hour-long discussion of the proof in the Biden family’s scandals, listen to this episode of the “Outstanding” podcast.)

7. The Biden Administration Tells Title X Recipients to Talk to Minors about Sex Behind Their Parents’ Backs

Biden doesn’t simply seek to corrupt his own family; his administration would like to corrupt yours, as well. Taxpayer-funded guidelines encourage Title X providers — those who dole out contraception to those who ask at taxpayer expense — to talk about sex with minors behind their parents’ back, even describing ways to get their parents out of the room. As The Washington Stand reported exclusively:

“Federally-funded guidelines instruct adults to pause before discussing sex with minors and to ask, ‘Are you alone in the room?’ These instructions specify tactics to follow ‘if you’re really having a hard time getting a parent’ to leave the room during the sex talk. They suggest children as young as 13 discuss sex with groups like Planned Parenthood in a parked car or communicate in writing, so their parents cannot hear the adults’ side of the conversation. And they encourage offices to have vans roam neighborhoods giving minors federally funded contraceptives; to mail birth control to adolescents in ‘plain, unmarked packaging’; and/or to have teenagers receive contraceptives at public meet-up places.”

Protecting children against the mental and physical harms of early sexual initiation is hard enough for parents without their government undermining parents’ authority — and forcing them to pay for it.

8. Churchgoers and Married People are Happier

Despite an endless barrage of negative media about the drudgeries of married life and the pointlessness of faith, multiple studies this year verified the benefits of both. Americans who believe in God and value marriage are more likely to be “very happy” than non-believers and single people, according to a Wall Street Journal-NORC poll taken in March. Practicing Christians who regularly read the Bible report a higher score on the Human Flourishing Index — which measures “happiness & life satisfaction,” “mental & physical health,” “meaning & purpose,” “character & virtue,” “close societal relationships” and “financial & material stability.”

Active Christians score 7.8, compared to 6.9 for inactive Christians and 6.7 for religious unaffiliated, according to an American Bible Society report released this June. The biggest difference between active Christians and non-Christians came in “meaning & purpose.” (They’re also far more likely to vote Republican.) The aforementioned AEI study also found that “Overall, religious Americans tend to believe their life is meaningful more often than do those who are not religious.” Evangelical Christians are 33% more likely than unbelievers to say their actions matter in the grand scheme of things.

Even the Biden administration issued a warning this year saying Americans’ health may be undermined by not attending church. A report from Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, which was released in May, says loneliness harms physical health “even greater than [the risk] associated with obesity and physical inactivity” and is as bad for your health as smoking 15 cigarettes a day.

“Religious or faith-based groups can be a source for regular social contact, serve as a community of support, provide meaning and purpose, create a sense of belonging around shared values and beliefs, and are associated with reduced risk-taking behaviors,” Murthy writes. “As a consequence of this decline in participation, individuals’ health may be undermined.”

When a Balaam like Biden blesses church attendance, Christians should listen.

9. COVID-19 Lockdowns Are Still Hurting America

Locking down the entire population over a virus with a near-100% survival rate may prove to be the most misguided decision in 21st century domestic policy — an arena with stiff competitors. To this day, Americans of all ages continue to pay the price for this policy error, chief among them children.

An analysis from the Associated Press found 50,000 children remain missing from school two years after the end of the COVID-19 pandemic (which the World Health Organization only declared ended on May 5). An incredible 35% of children in kindergarten through second grade fell “below benchmark” in reading (placing them at “high risk for persistent reading difficulties”) in Fall 2021, according to a University of Virginia analysis. These gaps will impact their development as human beings, stifling their cognitive faculties, limiting their lifetime income and fulfillment, and capping their ability to make a difference for Christ and the church.

U.S. taxpayers also literally paid the price for the bipartisan consensus to roll out $5 trillion in COVID emergency relief. The Justice Department announced this summer it had arrested nearly 3,200 people for defrauding U.S. COVID relief funds; at the time, it was investigating $8.6 billion in fraud. The nation’s largest abortion chain, Planned Parenthood, received $90.41 billion in COVID relief, although the CARES Act seemed to be written to exclude it; indeed, taxpayer funds continued to trickle down to abortionists this year.

In reality, we have no idea how much fraud was committed in the name of COVID-19 relief — and we won’t for at least a century. Small Business Administration Inspector General Hannibal “Mike” Ware said his COVID fraud hotline got an immense number of tips about COVID fraud, “more than 90,000 have been identified as actionable leads, which amount to more than 100 years of investigative case work.” Funding those investigations alone will cost American taxpayers for years to come.

10. Huge Increase in Homeschooling, Stay-at-home Moms

According to The Washington Post, homeschooling has become the “fastest-growing form of education” in the United States. The United States has seen a 51% increase in homeschooling in five years — between the 2017-2018 school year and this school year. With school strikes, lower educational standards, and teachers hiding children’s transgenderism and teaching Woke curricula (repeating the lies of the 1619 Project and stocking school libraries with gay pornographic books), it’s easy to see why.

At the same time, the number of stay-at-home mothers has increased, according to two studies released this year. The number of stay-at-home moms skyrocketed from 15% in 2022 to 25% in 2023, according to Motherly’s Annual State of Motherhood survey. The Pew Research Center said 26% of mothers worked exclusively in the home in 2022, up from a low of 23% two decades ago.

The children raised by mothers who care enough to sacrifice their career advancement for their children’s development and education may just offset the kids neglected by the public school system since COVID-19 (at the latest). They will be our nation’s greatest hope, and the source of our nation’s good news stories, for years to come.

The legacy media have not given these stories the exposure they deserve but, Lord willing, The Washington Stand’s coverage of newsworthy stories in the pivotal election year of 2024 will prove out-Stand-ing.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump Appeals Ruling Disqualifying Him From Colorado 2024 Ballot To Supreme Court

Former President Donald Trump appealed a ruling disqualifying him from Colorado’s 2024 election ballot to the Supreme Court Wednesday.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 4-3 Dec. 19 that Trump is ineligible to be on the state’s primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Trump asked the Supreme Court Wednesday to determine whether the court erred in excluding him.

“The question of eligibility to serve as President of the United States is properly reserved for Congress, not the state courts, to consider and decide,” the petition states. “By considering the question of President Trump’s eligibility and barring him from the ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court arrogated Congress’ authority.”

The Colorado Republican Party previously appealed the ruling Dec. 27, putting the decision on hold and requiring Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold to include Trump’s name on the ballot if the justices take no action by the ballot certification deadline, Jan. 5.

The Colorado Supreme Court previously put a hold on its decision until Jan. 4 to allow time for Trump to appeal, acknowledging that they traveled in “uncharted territory.”

“The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot,” the opinion states.

Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace found in November that Trump was not an “officer of the United States” who could be disqualified under the 14th Amendment, though she concluded he had “engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement.”

“Crooked Joe Biden’s comrades, including the Colorado Supreme Court and CREW, a radical, left-wing activist group, are doing all they can to disenfranchise all American voters by attempting to remove President Trump, the leading candidate in the 2024 Presidential Election, from the primary ballot,” Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement. “Democrats are obsessively violating the American voters’ Constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choice. This is an unAmerican, unconstitutional act of election interference which cannot stand.”

The Supreme Court rejected in October the appeal of little-known 2024 Republican presidential candidate John Anthony Castro’s bid to remove Trump from the ballot in Florida after a lower court judge found he lacked standing to sue. Castro has brought a number of lawsuits in other states, including in Arizona and Rhode Island, where they have been similarly shot down by federal judges.

Last week, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows issued a ruling disqualifying Trump from the state’s ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Trump filed an appeal of the ruling with a Maine court on Tuesday.

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Lacks Any Limiting Principles’: Colorado’s Ruling Kicking Trump Off Ballot Violates Constitution, Legal Experts Say

RELATED VIDEO: Ingrassia: SCOTUS Needs To Rule Quickly On 14th Amendment Issue

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Religious Liberty Had Major Court, Legislative Wins In 2023

  • Religious Americans had several major legislative and legal victories in 2023.
  • The Supreme Court’s June decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis secured a victory for a Christian wedding photographer, and Jake Warner, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, said he believes it will help Christian baker Jack Phillip’s case, as well.
  • The government can’t force anyone to express messages that goes against their beliefs and because we appealed Jack Phillip’s case to the Colorado Supreme Court before 303 Creative was decided the state Supreme Court will be the first to be able to apply that decision in Jack’s current case,” Jake Warner, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Advocates for faith won several major victories this year through the legislature and the court, despite a growing hostility toward religious communities.

There were several examples of anti-religious sentiment over the past year, some of which included an FBI-drafted memo targeting traditional Catholics as “potential domestic terrorists” and the University of West Virginia’s transgender training labeling Christians as oppressors. However, 2023 also boasted several victories for religious Americans in schools, the workplace and the pro-life movement.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Christian web designer Lorie Smith, who sued the state of Colorado over a law that would have compelled her to create wedding websites for same-sex couples in violation of her religious beliefs. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices wrote that “tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer” and that all Americans, including religious ones, should be able to freely express their beliefs as they see fit and “not as the government demands.”

As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Attorney General Jason Miyares of Virginia agreed to settle a lawsuit in November with Christian wedding photographer Bob Updegrove, who sued in September 2020 over a similar state law that would have prevented him from promoting his belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The case will also likely have a significant effect on another religious case that has been going on for a decade involving Christian baker Jack Phillips, who initially won at the Supreme Court in 2018 after he refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Phillips was sued again in 2021 for refusing to bake a cake for a gender transition party, and his attorney previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation that he believed Smith’s case would be key to defending free speech for religious Americans in Phillip’s lawsuit.

“The government can’t force anyone to express messages that goes against their beliefs and because we appealed Jack’s case to the Colorado Supreme Court before 303 Creative was decided the state Supreme Court will be the first to be able to apply that decision in Jack’s current case,” Jake Warner, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom and Phillips’ attorney, told the DCNF.

The Colorado Supreme Court announced in October that it would hear Phillip’s case next year.

In March, Mecklenburg County in North Carolina agreed to settle with the Christian pro-life groups Cities4Life and Global Impact Ministries after several members were arrested in 2020 for praying and counseling women outside an abortion clinic. The county agreed to pay the plaintiffs $20,000 for damages, attorney fees and any costs incurred by the pro-life groups, as well as acknowledge that the groups have the right to “peaceful advocacy on public sidewalks and public streets.”

“The courts have upheld religious freedom in several important court cases recently,” Arielle Del Turco, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, told the DCNF. “This is very encouraging and it affirms our First Amendment rights.”

Schools also saw improvements in religious freedom this year. Texas lawmakers passed a bill in May allowing schools to hire chaplains for the position of school counselors.

The bill was signed into law by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in June and went into effect on Sept. 1, according to KXAN, an NBC affiliate.

In June, the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved the first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in a 3-2 decision. The online school will be run by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa.

The proposal was supported by Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, who previously told the DCNF that “those dollars should flow wherever a parent, a school district, a charter wants to set up.” The state’s Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond, however, responded to the decision by filing a lawsuit in October, claiming that the charter violates state and federal Constitutions.

Coach Joe Kennedy, who won a lawsuit at the Supreme Court in 2022 after being fired for his public demonstrations of faith during football games, was rehired by Bremerton School District and prayed on the field for the first time since 2015 after the season-opening game in September.

Kennedy resigned from his position later that month, noting that an out-of-state family member’s health was declining and that he wished to move full-time into advocating for religious freedom.

“I believe I can best continue to advocate for constitutional freedom and religious liberty by working from outside the school system so that is what I will do,” Kennedy wrote.

Del Turco said that though she was pleased with the progress made in 2023, there are still serious areas of concern for the year ahead.

“Threats to religious freedom in the private sector are concerning. We’ve seen several instances in which Christian or conservative organizations and individuals have had their bank accounts or credit cards closed without any explanation,” she said. “This is something to keep an eye on. Someone’s religious beliefs should not get them blacklisted from financial institutions in a free society. When the mainstream media goes out of its way to mock and slander someone like Speaker Mike Johnson, who by all accounts is a decent human being and effective political leader, it seems to signal growing intolerance of faithful Christian leaders.”

AUTHOR

KATE ANDERSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Pastoral Confusion’: Conservative Church Leaders Reject Vatican’s Blessing For Same-Sex Couples

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Air Force Academy Privately Fretted The End Of Race-Based Admissions Would Hamstring ‘Diversity’ Goals

The Air Force Academy’s top official worried the Supreme Court’s decision that race-based admissions were unconstitutional would set back the service’s “warfighting imperative” of building a racially diverse military, according to emails obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

On June 30, 2023, Lt. Gen. Richard Clark, the Air Force Academy’s superintendent, wrote a preview of the consequences that the Supreme Court’s decision striking down affirmative action could have for service academies’ abilities to judge candidates on the basis of race, according to emails the DCNF obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. Although the justices did not overtly apply the decision to military schools, the records show how the Air Force Academy scrambled to minimize the impact of the June 29 decision on racial diversity goals.

“If we lose our limited window to reshape the racial diversity of each incoming class, it would affect our ability to meet the warfighting imperative of fielding a diverse, inclusive force,” Clark wrote.

The names of recipients of Clark’s email were redacted.

Clark noted that the Air Force Academy itself has limited discretion over the composition of each year’s incoming class. Congressional appointments, when U.S. senators and representatives nominate young members of their constituencies for attendance, determine more than half of entrants, with another 25% or so allotted to athletic recruitment.

After that, the academy is only able to “shape” the remaining 10% to 20% of officer candidates, Clark said. The academy could consider a variety of factors, including their potential to become pilots — for which the Air Force is experiencing a severe shortage — socio-economic status, gender and race.

“If [the U.S. Air Force Academy] were to voluntarily comply with the Supreme Court decision, our ability to shape a diverse class would become more limited,” Clark wrote.

Two candidates presenting similar overall qualifications might be judged based on those factors, he wrote, allowing for the possibility that a candidate’s race could be the determining factor. He noted that the Air Force Academy has outperformed other services in terms of racial and ethnic diversity.

“These factors are used to design a class of diverse backgrounds in accordance with [the Department of the Air Force’s] broad definition of diversity and operational needs,” Clark wrote. “As such, not being able to consider race in a holistic review would further hinder DAF diversity, moreso than civilian universities.”

The Air Force’s definition of diversity includes race, ethnicity, gender, personal life experience, cultural knowledge, prior education, work experience and “spiritual perspectives,” department guidance states.

Chief Justice John Roberts punted the question of whether the Supreme Court’s ruling on race-based admissions should apply to service academies to a later date, noting that the military may have “potentially distinct” reasons related to national security for considering race as a factor in admissions.

Following the court’s decision, Students for Fair Admissions sued the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and the Naval Academy at Annapolis to prove their race-based admissions policies are discriminatory. In mid-December, a federal judge blocked an injunction that would have put a temporary stay on the Naval Academy’s use of race in admissions.

Department of Defense (DOD) service academy officials argued in July that the military does not entertain illegal racial quotas but does angle recruiting efforts at specific populations to meet racial, ethnic and gender diversity goals.

An email to Clark, dated Oct. 31, 2022, the day after oral arguments began, noted that the academy had worked extensively with the unnamed solicitor general, likely referring to U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar on the case to furnish her with the military’s perspective on the importance of considering race in admissions decisions. Representatives from the academy and members of other federal agencies attended two practice debates with the solicitor general, the records show.

The sender’s list was redacted, but language in the email suggests the sender was affiliated with the Air Force Academy.

“If what you’re asking me is whether we think the military has distinctive interests in this context, I would say yes,” Prelogar told the Supreme Court in October, a transcript shows. “And I think it’s critically important for the Court in its decision in these cases to make clear that those interests are, I think, truly compelling with respect to the military.”

The Air Force Academy would endeavor to remain in lockstep with its Army and Navy counterparts as well as guidance from the Secretary of Defense, Clark said in the June email.

Prior to a decision on the outcome of the case, however, the Air Force seemed confident the ruling would not meaningfully impact the Academy “since they do admission differently from Harvard/UNC,” an unnamed sender wrote in a June 29 email to Clark. That is, “as long as it didn’t ban targeting recruiting efforts.”

However, the sender noted that the Department of Defense and the academy would need some time to fully parse out the ramifications of whatever the Supreme Court decides.

The Air Force said it withheld some records from the DCNF’s request “as it is considered privileged in litigation” per United States Code, Title 5, Section 552 (b)(5) covering documents “which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.”

The Air Force Academy did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

MICAELA BURROW

Investigative reporter, defense.

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: Here’s What They’re Teaching In The Naval Academy’s Gender And Sexuality Class

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

This Gov’t Program May Be Next On The Chopping Block In The Aftermath Of Landmark SCOTUS Affirmative Action Ruling

The Biden administration’s Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) is currently facing a legal challenge for giving assistance to Americans based on race, and it may suffer the same fate at the Supreme Court as colleges and universities did earlier this year in the court’s affirmative action ruling.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) filed the suit in March in a federal court in the Northern District of Texas, representing three different clients from Texas, Wisconsin and Florida, according to an announcement from WILL. The suit alleges that the MBDA, which helps minority-run businesses apply for federal grants and get other forms of capital, violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution by giving some races preferential treatment and will likely win in court, following similar rulings like the Supreme Court’s decision in June to end the practice of race-based admissions at both public and private higher education institutions in a pair of cases involving Harvard and the University of North Carolina, according to experts who spoke to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The agency was enshrined into law in 2021 through the Minority Business Development Act (MBDA) under the Biden administration but has been around since 1969 through an executive order issued by former President Richard Nixon, according to the Washington Post. Judge Mark T. Pittman, appointed by former President Donald Trump, is overseeing the case and has already issued an injunction, noting that the case is likely to succeed.

The final ruling from Pittman is expected to determine the constitutionality of the MBDA and whether the agency will be blocked from using racial categories to determine eligibility and the use of the word “minority” in its name, according to The Washington Post.

“The Minority Business Development Agency, its Business Center Program, and their differential treatment of Americans based on race are extremely vulnerable in WILL’s ongoing litigation,” Dan Morenoff, lawyer and executive director at the American Civil Rights Project, told the DCNF. “I expect that the Court will rule them unconstitutional when it issues a final opinion. The agency and its program expressly classify Americans by race and treat them differently based on that classification. At least eight of the nine justices of the Supreme Court have held that the Constitution bars the federal government from discriminating to exactly the same extent, and under the same analysis, that the equal protection clause bars the states from discriminating.”

The MBDA reports that it helped minority businesses receive $1.6 trillion in contracts in 2022, with $319 billion coming from the federal government, $860 billion from the private sector, $75 billion from state governments and $306 billion from local governments, according to the agency’s 2022 performance summary. Black Americans received the most in contracts, with $680 billion going to the group, followed by Hispanic Americans receiving $526 billion, Native Americans receiving $243 billion and Asian Americans receiving $138 billion.

“I fully expect the District Court to maintain in its final ruling the substance of its ruling on the preliminary injunction motion, that the program unconstitutionally ‘provides services to certain races and ethnicities but not to others,’” William Jacobson, a law professor at Cornell and president of the Legal Insurrection Foundation, told the DCNF. “The District Court rendered the preliminary injunction about three weeks before the Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions ruling on affirmative action. That Supreme Court ruling buttresses the District Court’s ruling on the scope of the Equal Protection Clause, so I would not expect the District Court to back off its preliminary ruling.”

The agency also touts creating 7,904 jobs and retaining another 7,514 jobs in 2022 for minorities, according to the report. Minority companies in the construction sector reaped 43% of the monetary benefits, followed by the services sector and the finance and insurance sector at 19% and 12%, respectively.

“Either this case or one of the many parallel cases contesting intentional discrimination by the Biden administration will eventually make it to the Supreme Court,” Morenoff told the DCNF. “Those cases (and I’m not speaking comprehensively) have already seen lower courts ban racial discrimination in the distribution of: COVID-aide to farms, loans to small businesses, and — here — a myriad of business coaching supports. Each of these cases reiterates the legal point that the federal government cannot pick winners and losers based on race.”

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to end race-based admissions in higher education, conservatives have set their targets on companies’ use of racial preferences and quotas, with a group of Republican attorneys general sending letters to dozens of employers warning them that they were violating the law in August.

A federal court in 2021 put a hold on a similar program that would have provided $4 billion in debt relief to minority farmers but was later forced to be reworked to include white farmers, according to NBC News. Another case in 2021 stopped the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, which aimed to give $28.6 billion in aid to restaurants, from prioritizing applicants based on race and gender, according to The New York Times.

“America must continue to advance towards a colorblind society where every person is judged on their merit and not the color of their skin,” Dan Lennington, deputy counsel at WILL, said in the announcement. “The Biden Administration’s choice to create this race-based agency is a step back for civil rights, and we aim to correct that misstep.”

The Department of Justice and the MBDA did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.

AUTHOR

WILL KESSLER

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Dem Senators Earmark $1 Million For LGBT Center Hosting ‘Anti-Capitalist’ Financial Planner

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Federal Judge Rejects Bid To Remove Trump From West Virginia Ballot

A federal judge rejected a bid Thursday to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot in West Virginia.

Obama-appointed district judge Irene Berger ruled that John Anthony Castro, the little-known presidential candidate who brought the lawsuit to remove Trump, lacked standing to sue. The decision comes days after Colorado’s Supreme Court found Trump was ineligible to appear on the state’s ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, likely setting up Supreme Court review of the issue.

“The evidence establishes that [Castro] has no campaign offices, staff, or advertising in West Virginia, does not appear in polling, has little name recognition among West Virginia Republican primary voters, and has extremely minimal campaign funds, vastly insufficient to run an actual campaign,” Berger wrote. “If there were any question as to whether the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to overcome a facial challenge, the evidentiary submissions remove any doubt that Mr. Castro’s purported ‘campaign’ exists as a vehicle for pursuing litigation, not votes.”

Federal judges in Arizona and Rhode Island likewise found Castro lacked standing because he is not seriously running for office. The Supreme Court declined in October to hear the appeal of a case Castro brought in Florida.

“This is a big win for the integrity of our elections,” said Republican West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey in a statement, according to News and Sentinel. “This lawsuit was frivolous to begin with and without merit – it had no basis in either law or fact. Any eligible candidate has the right to be on the ballot unless legally disqualified, and we will defend the laws of West Virginia and the right of voters and candidates to the fullest.”

The Colorado Supreme Court put its ruling against Trump on hold until Jan. 4. If Trump files an appeal before that date, the ruling will remain paused and the Secretary of State will be required to place his name on the ballot on the Jan. 5 certification deadline, as long as the justices do not intervene.

In Colorado, the lawsuit to remove Trump was brought by the left-wing donor backed group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Chief Justice John Roberts Has A Major Trump Problem On His Hands

DEROY MURDOCK: Mess Around And Find Out: If Dems Remove Trump From Ballots, GOP Must Do The Same To Biden

Projected 2030 Congressional Map Features Plenty Of Good News For Republicans

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.