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
Center Right
6/20/1837: Justice David Josiah Brewer's birthday. The post Today in Supreme Court History: June 20, 1837 appeared first on Reason.com.
Compare Perspectives
Found 8 stories
Reason.com
A Supreme Court Decision Restricting Appeal Waivers Underlines the Injustice of Coercive Plea Bargaining
The Supreme Court ruled that "an agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice."
Center Right
Washington Examiner
The most radical idea in American history wasn’t democracy
As America celebrates its 250th birthday, we will hear familiar tributes to democracy, freedom, and self-government. All deserve recognition. But the most revolutionary American idea may have been something else entirely. It was the idea that birthplace should not determine destiny. That statement sounds ordinary today. For most of human history, it would have sounded […]
Center Right
Washington Examiner
Third round of June Social Security payments goes out in four days
The third round of June Social Security payments for retirees, now capped at $5,181, will be issued in four days. When will payments arrive? Retirees born on or after the 21st of a month will receive this payment on Wednesday, June 24. The first round went out on June 10 to those born on or […]
Center Right
US news | The Guardian
The week around the world in 20 pictures
Ukrainian strikes on a Moscow oil refinery, protests at the G7 summit, wildfires in Spain and Messi at the World Cup – the past seven days as captured by the world’s leading photojournalistsWarning: this gallery contains images some readers may find distressing Continue reading...
Center Left
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
New York Post
USA makes World Cup history not seen since 1930
The United States men's national team made history with a 2-0 win over Australia Friday.
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