Once again, the Court deals in reality on sex differences instead of ideology.
A favorable ruling from the “hyper-partisan” Supreme Court didn’t stop the left from returning to their court-packing narrative with full-throated fearmongering. “In the party of socialists and […]
Republicans scored a victory Tuesday at the Supreme Court, and Vice President J.D. The post Supreme Court Gives Republicans a Big Win with Campaign Finance Ruling appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The recent SCOTUS case greatly increased the power of the executive branch
The Supreme Court ended its most recent term on Tuesday with an announcement that it has “agreed to hear a case that asks them to determine whether bans on AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles are constitutional,” wrote former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, who then warned that the end of controversial rulings has not come to an end.As she noted on her Substack platform, the Supreme Court is never really dormant and less so recently, using the so-called "shadow docket" to excess in the service of Donald Trump. With that in mind, she raised a red flag over a case involving the availability of assault-style weapons, which could lead to another controversial ruling.The significance is unmistakable, Vance wrote, explaining, "The Court doesn’t take cases like this just to pat a state on the head and sign off on its ban—it has bigger fish to fry than affirming the status quo."According to Vance, the case marks a dramatic reversal from just last year. In June 2025, the court declined to hear Snope v. Brown, a direct challenge to Maryland's semiautomatic rifle ban. But that decision masked a deeply fractured court teetering on the edge of upheaval.At the time, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an eight-page dissent from the denial, explaining: “This petition presents the question whether this ban is consistent with the Second Amendment. The Fourth Circuit held that it is, reasoning that AR–15s are not 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment … I would grant certiorari to review this surprising conclusion.”"That’s not the kind of language you use if you intend to affirm the ban," Vance suggested before noting that now the case will be taken up after getting the needed fourth vote to grant cert, pointing out that Justice Brett Kavanaugh once wrote, "a denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review," before adding, "...in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.” "We don’t know if the four Justices picked up a fifth vote along the way that convinced Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh this was 'the right time,'” Vance warned.
The Court determined that biological sex should not give way to gender identity.
President Trump has trumpeted his victories and sought workarounds for his losses.
In a decisive ruling Tuesday, the Supreme Court has settled the most consequential legal question for women's sports in a generation — affirming what biology and fairness have always made clear: Women's sports must remain protected spaces for female athletes.The court ruled 9-0 that Title IX — the federal law that ensures equal opportunities for women in education and sports — and 6-3 that the Equal Protection Clause allow states to protect female athletes with sex-based categories in sports.Changing the culture means rejecting the lie that biology is bigotry.The decisions in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. mark a watershed. The court recognized that sex is a biological fact, not a feeling, and that it shapes athletic performance in ways no paperwork or policy can undo.Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh held that Title IX "cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex."By upholding the constitutionality of state laws safeguarding sex-based categories in athletics, the court has reinforced the rights of girls and women in the 27 states that have already passed protective legislation. This is a win worth celebrating.No longer will biological males like B.P.J. dominate girls’ shot-put competitions in West Virginia next season. The ruling draws a firm line: Sex is not a feeling, and paperwork and lip gloss cannot rewrite reality.Female athletes deserve fair competition, safe locker rooms, and equal opportunity — the principles Title IX was built to protect and that reflect simple scientific truth. The majority opinion emphasizes immutable biological differences in strength, speed, and physiology and rejects the claim that gender identity can override sex in the context of physical athletics.Yet this victory, meaningful as it is, remains incomplete.In the remaining 23 states — California chief among them — business as usual persists. Biological males can still claim girls’ and women’s titles, taking podium spots from female athletes they outperform.The patchwork nature of this decision means fairness remains geographically contingent. But a girl’s right to compete on a level playing field should not depend on her zip code.We have made progress. President Trump’s 2025 executive order provided critical momentum, functioning with the force of law and prompting the NCAA to reaffirm that women’s categories are for women. The International Olympic Committee has committed to protecting the female category starting with the 2028 Los Angeles Games. Ballot initiatives in blue states like Colorado and Washington this November will let voters decide directly whether girls deserve their own sports. In Maine, fathers have mobilized to put the Protect Girls’ Sports in Maine initiative on the ballot so their daughters can have the same opportunities their mothers did.These developments are encouraging. But the challenges remain formidable.The NWSL and the WNBA still operate without meaningful sex verification. Professional leagues, private events such as the Boston Marathon, and college athletics remain fractured. Birth certificates — the only proof of sex required by the NCAA — can be changed in 44 states. Given the fungible nature of paperwork and other IDs, documents cannot substitute for actual biological testing at the highest levels of sport.Blue states continue to defy federal guidance, treating fairness as optional. Interstate competition creates impossible inconsistencies. A female athlete protected in Tennessee could still face unfair qualification scenarios against out-of-state males if she advances to national competition.How is that fair?The deeper truth is that a Supreme Court ruling can set a legal boundary, but it cannot change the culture by itself. That work falls to all of us — parents, athletes, coaches, journalists, and everyday citizens who refuse to stay silent.RELATED: Democrats can’t escape their trans problem Kirby Lee/Getty ImagesFor too long, institutions have prioritized feelings, optics, and activist pressure over the safety, dignity, and opportunity of girls and women. We saw a version of the same pattern in the gymnastics sex abuse scandals I helped expose decades ago: Adults in power looked the other way while vulnerable athletes paid the price.The Safe Sport Act now exists to protect young athletes from abuse, but the coaching culture has not changed enough, and abuse still occurs. SafeSport faces a four-year backlog of abuse reports.Changing the culture means rejecting the lie that biology is bigotry.It means parents showing up at school board meetings, statehouses, and ballot initiatives with unrelenting clarity. It means athletes — female and male — finding the courage to speak the truth even when it costs them.
The court neither asserted states’ control over elections nor blessed the slow counting of ballots.