New York Post
David and Victoria Beckham use Father’s Day to make another public plea to estranged son Brooklyn
On Sunday, the fashion designer took to Instagram to send a special Father's Day shoutout to the former soccer pro.
Right
Reason.com
A Supreme Court Decision Restricting Appeal Waivers Underlines the Injustice of Coercive Plea Bargaining
Center Right
The Supreme Court ruled that "an agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice."
Compare Perspectives
Found 8 stories
Latest Political News on Fox News
Biden scores temporary court victory as Trump appointed judge delays release of Hur investigation materials
Former President Biden wins a three-week injunction blocking release of audio recordings from Special Counsel Hur's classified documents investigation.
Right
News
Larry Krasner Tried to Free a Convicted Murderer. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Just Stopped Him.
The justices delivered a stunning rebuke to Philadelphia’s progressive prosecutor.
Center Right
Reason.com
Today in Supreme Court History: June 20, 1837
6/20/1837: Justice David Josiah Brewer's birthday. The post Today in Supreme Court History: June 20, 1837 appeared first on Reason.com.
Center Right
WorldNetDaily
State Supreme Court justices admit they WANT racism used in America
'We have failed to fully recognize how societal and governmental practices have long continued to enforce a preference for white Americans'
Far Right
WorldNetDaily
State’s pro-LGBT fanaticism takes direct hit in fight at appeals court
Panel of judges issues injunction against state demands, citing related Supreme Court decision
Far Right
Blaze Media
Appeals court SLAPS DOWN California on parental rights and trans-identifying students
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction Friday against a California law that allowed children to hide their transgender status from their parents.The law required teachers and others to withhold information from parents related to their children identifying as transgender or asking to be called by a different name.'The Constitution is clear — parents have the right to know what is happening with their children and make decisions regarding their mental health, and no state law can override that fundamental protection.'The three-judge panel initially rejected the lawsuit from residents of Huntington Beach but relented after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a similar case on the side of parental rights.The appeals court recognized that the law would likely violate parents' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.America First Legal, the organization that represents the parents, called the ruling a major victory in a statement on its website."California cannot use state law to force schoolteachers and administrators into a conspiracy of silence against parents," AFL senior counsel Nick Barry said. "California's law, and similar school policies, use state coercion to intentionally interfere with the parent-child relationship and separate a child from their parent. That is wrong and unlawful."AFL added that the state of California "sought to prevent parents from obtaining information about 'gender transitions' of their own children without the child's consent."Proponents of these types of laws say they are necessary to protect children who may have feelings that would lead them to identify as transgender from parents who may oppose their wishes. Critics say cutting out parents puts children at risk of grooming and abuse by far-left teachers and other school officials.RELATED: Supreme Court sides with Catholic parents against California on student gender notification — for now "The Constitution is clear — parents have the right to know what is happening with their children and make decisions regarding their mental health, and no state law can override that fundamental protection," Barry continued.California Attorney General Rob Bonta has not commented on the ruling yet. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Right
Raw Story
Trump DOJ thrashes court's demand to officially declare that 'slush fund' is dead
President Donald Trump's Department of Justice thrashed a federal judge in a new court filing for demanding that DOJ officials and two Trump cabinet secretaries officially declare that Trump's "anti-weaponization" slush fund is officially dead. Last month, the Trump administration announced plans to create a $1.776 billion fund to pay claims from people who allege they were wrongfully prosecuted by the federal government. Several of Trump's allies, including formerly convicted members of the Proud Boys, declared that they would seek restitution from the fund, which sparked significant bipartisan pushback. Political analysts and experts have described the fund as a "slush fund" because the Trump DOJ would have full control over who is eligible for payments, and the legal paperwork establishing the fund states that the federal government bears no responsibility if crimes are committed by people who receive payments. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told the House and Senate judiciary committees that the administration is no longer pursuing the fund, but has refused to put that in writing. On Friday, the Trump DOJ told a judge in the Eastern District of Virginia that it won't abide by a demand to declare the fund dead. The DOJ argued in the filing that multiple Trump administration officials have said the fund is not moving forward, and those past statements should satisfy the court's demand. It also attached a copy of Blanche's testimony to Congress as evidence of its claims. "Such declarations are unnecessary, and the compelled testimony of senior officials from the Executive Branch implicates serious separation of powers concerns," the DOJ wrote in its filing. "Nor is there any basis for the court to compel testimony from the Associate Attorney General and two Cabinet members. The point of Article III limitations on judicial review is to prevent such overreach," it added.
Far Left