5/3/1802: Washington D.C. incorporated as the capital of the United States. Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress to "To exercise… The post Today in Supreme Court History: May 3, 1802 appeared first on Reason.com.
Banning “anti-competitive” hospital contracting practices could help bring down healthcare costs across the U.S., according to a White House Council of Economic Advisers report released Thursday. The […]
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!
The United States men's national team made history with a 2-0 win over Australia Friday.
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.
The Court of Appeals shot down a bid by three elderly jurists challenging an 1869 law that sets the mandatory retirement age at 76, saying it violates their rights.
Americans don't need cameras in the courtroom. What they need is a Congress that functions like a serious body.
The hags on ABC's The View lost it on Thursday over the NBA Champion Knicks accepting President Trump's invitation to visit the White House after their first Championship win in 53 years. The Knicks defeated the San Antonio Spurs 4-1 in the Finals, and owner James Dolan will take his team to the White House to celebrate. The post (VIDEO) Whoopi Goldberg Says Black New York Knicks Players Should Go to White House and “Remind Those People” – Says Trump “Destroying All of Our Histories” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
A Wisconsin grant program intended to benefit minority students was struck down by the state's supreme court as discriminatory on Thursday.The court relied heavily on a previous U.S. Supreme Court opinion against race-based admission programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.'This is also a big win for taxpayers, who can now challenge many other race-based programs in state court.'The Minority Undergraduate Retention Grant Program targeted black, Hispanic, and Native American students, as well as immigrants from Cambodia, Laos, or Vietnam who migrated to the U.S. since 1975.Assistant Attorney General Charlotte Gibson argued that the state program was not restricted by the higher court order and met the standards set forth by the court.The court disagreed."The Constitution requires that every person 'must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race,'" the ruling of the court reads.During the hearing, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky challenged the plaintiff attorney by citing a post from President Donald Trump about former President Barack Obama that many saw as racist."Just last week, the president of the United States posted a remarkably and insanely racist video of President and Michelle Obama depicted as apes," Karofsky said."In this state, people of color contribute to the vitality of our state, and they are thanked by facing disparities when it comes to housing, access to medical care, transportation, incarceration, financial stability, and education," she added. "Do you take issue with anything I just said up to that point?”Luke Berg, of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, responded that the worst discrimination is "when the law treats individuals differently based on their race."RELATED: Supreme Court hands huge victory to Trump over DEI funding — John Roberts sides with liberal justices The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty's managing vice president, Dan Lennington, praised the ruling."This is a major win for students," he said. "Race cannot be used to dole out scholarships and other financial aid. This is also a big win for taxpayers, who can now challenge many other race-based programs in state court. WILL is proud to stand for equal rights and make that case everywhere we can."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!