This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A court has been asked to determine that a California school district is in contempt of court for refusing to reinstate several whistleblower teachers – which it has failed to do despite a court determination it was violating their constitutional rights.

The report comes from the Thomas More Society, which is fighting on behalf of the teachers.

The school involved is the Escondido Union School District and Rincon Middle School.

Officials there have refused to allow teachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West to safely return to work.

It was six months ago they were placed on administrative leave and two months ago a federal court held that the district was violating their rights, the report said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Christian evangelist Hal Lindsey is going on the attack against rampant anti-Semitism, comparing what's happening to Jewish people worldwide as something "as evil as the seven deadly sins."

"People are using Israel's war with Hamas as an excuse to hate Jews, something common in humans and as evil as the seven deadly sins," writes Lindsey, author of "The Late, Great Planet Earth," the best-selling nonfiction book of the 1970s that sold an estimated 35 million copies by 1999.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to take up the case of an unarmed Arkansas mother who was threatened with a Taser by a police officer who already had ordered her two young sons onto the ground and handcuffed them.

The actions by the officer, he claimed, were because he was looking for three adult males and a woman who had fled from police earlier.

The fight now is whether that officer was justified in attacking the boys, attacking the mother, and threatening her.

The Institute for Justice is working on the case involving Casondra "Cassi" Pollreis.

She brought a case against the officer for unlawfully threatening her with a Taser, but lower court judges have claimed being unarmed, and being out of her house, and asking questions of the officer, could be perceived as a threat.

"The petition raises important questions concerning the Fourth Amendment’s protections against excessive force and the separate roles judges and juries play in deciding cases," the IJ reported.

Cassi’s case began on a cold winter’s night in 2018. Her two young boys were walking home from their grandparents’ house when a police car stopped in front of them and an officer emerged with his gun drawn. Within moments, the officer started shouting “get on the ground” and proceeded to handcuff the boys and hold them at gunpoint.

Cassi noticed the commotion, and—as any mother would—attempted to defuse the situation. With her boys lying face down on the ground and the officer’s gun drawn on their backs, Cassi calmly attempted to reason with the officer. “They are my boys ... Are you serious? They are 12 and 14 years old,” she said.

He replied: “And I’m looking for two kids about this age right now.” But he wasn’t; he was looking for three grown men and a woman who’d fled from police earlier in the evening. The boys and Cassi were completely innocent, but that didn’t stop him. “Get back!” he shouted as he drew his Taser on her. “I want you to get back in your house,” he demanded. Cassi complied, not wanting to make the situation worse.

Eventually, the officer’s sergeant arrived, assessed the scene, and quickly realized a mistake had been made. Minutes later he let the boys go.

The IJ said that Pollreis decided that the officer should be held to account for "threatening her with a Taser as she attempted to protect her children and defuse a tense situation."

At the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, two judges used an inconclusive dashcam video that showed only a little of what happened to decide against her.

The IJ said such issues should be presented at trial, and decided by jurors who can watch videos, hear testimony, and decide which side to believe.

"Juries are supposed to decide the facts, and judges are supposed to decide the law,” said Keith Neely, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, which represents Cassi. “The video in this case would be incredibly important evidence at a trial, but a jury will never get to see it because the appeals court denied Cassie her right to a trial of her peers."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Pro-family activists in the far-left community of San Francisco have forced drag queen radicals to clean up their plans for a story hour, according to a report from the organization Mass Resistance.

"Instead of men in drag reading offensive LGBT books to kids … an actual woman showed up and read normal children's books," the organization confirmed.

The pro-family organization reported, "Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is a loathsome propaganda routine where men dress up in garish women’s clothes and read offensive LGBT story books to young children. It’s showing up across America in public libraries and other venues. Its stated goals are to push 'gender fluidity' on kids, give them 'glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models,' and help them be 'their true selves' with 'no gender restrictions.'"

The story hour ideology and campaign "originated" in San Francisco.

The most recent fight arose in Redwood City, near San Francisco, a "very liberal and strongly pro-LGBT area."

But there also are "pro-family conservatives" there too, the report said.

"Last month when word got out that the Redwood City Public Library was holding a Drag Queen Story Hour, local conservatives decided it was time to do something effective. One of them contacted us. She told us that last year, some locals showed up and protested outside the library to voice their disapproval when the toxic event took place. But it had no effect."

That's when Mass Resistance offered some advice.

"This time, we made it very clear to the library staff and the event’s organizers that pro-family activists in town were planning something in opposition. First, one of our people specifically asked the library staff to give us as much information as possible about the event. Who was going to be the drag queen? (We wanted to do a background check.) Who else was going to be involved? What books would be read? What else was going to take place?"

The library stonewalled, but, the report said, "Just asking those questions alarmed the organizers. They surely already knew that MassResistance had a history of success derailing DQSH events across the country."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

An appeals court has vetoed an attempt in the state of New York to demand that all churches go gun-free on their campuses.

The ruling from the 2nd U.S., Circuit Court of Appeals said "that houses of worship have a constitutionally protected freedom to decide for themselves whether to allow otherwise legally possessed firearms into their facilities," said Erin Murphy, a lawyer at Clement & Murphy.

The report comes from First Liberty Institute which worked on the dispute.

The organization explained that the ruling "rejected the state of New York’s unconstitutional attempt to make His Tabernacle Family Church ('His Tabernacle')—and all houses of worship in New York—gun-free zones."

That church was one of several groups and people in multiple court battles fighting the state. It is a nondenominational church in Hoseheads, N.Y., founded by Pastor Michael Spencer.

The court affirmed a preliminary injunction blocking the law in December which the state of New York appealed in January of 2023.

Jeremy Dys, of First Liberty Institute, said, "The court made it clear that the U.S. Constitution grants the right of self-defense for all Americans and houses of worship cannot be disarmed. No American should be forced to sacrifice one constitutionally protected freedom to enjoy another."

Spencer noted, "We are grateful that the court protected our First Amendment freedoms to make decisions about the safety of our congregation."

The court decision pointed out it was "hard to see how the law advances the interests of religious organizations, as a whole, by denying them agency to choose for themselves whether to permit firearms."

The state had claimed the authority to prohibit the possession of firearms on those private properties, controlled by houses of worship, or in other "sensitive" areas.

The ruling explained it was the church, several individuals, and a couple of advocacy groups that contested the state's "Concealed Carry Improvement Act."

It cited the Supreme Court's Heller, McDonald, and New York Rifle precedents.

The state, after the New York Rifle decision which struck the government's demand for "proper cause" for a gun permit, the state adopted the CCIA. That scheme made it illegal to carry in "sensitive locations" even if individuals held concealed-carry permits.

In that action, the state specified a lengthy list of those "sensitive" locations to include all government locations, all schools, anything used as a polling place, any "health" organization, any location serving alcohol, any "performance" locations like a theater, private property and more.

The various organizations challenged it as unconstitutional. The lower courts had ruled for the church on Free Exercise, Establishment, and Second Amendment grounds.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A lawsuit challenging a teachers' contract in a Minnesota school district that provides special privileges and protections for members of SOME races, but not others, has been resurrected.

A district court earlier attempted to kill the dispute raised by Judicial Watch, but the organization now is reporting that a state Court of Appeals ruling means the controversy will be heard.

The government watchdog organization had filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Minneapolis taxpayer "over a teachers' contract that provides discriminatory job protections to certain racial minorities."

It now will proceed, the organization said, after the appeals judges blocked an attempt by a Hennepin County district judge to get rid of the dispute without hearing evidence.

"The Minnesota Court of Appeals overturned the lower court’s decision, ruling that Judicial Watch’s client does have standing as a taxpayer who helps fund Minneapolis Public Schools through property taxes, and her claims are ripe because the lawsuit alleges an actual future controversy using public funds," the report said.

The case against the Minneapolis scheme came after it provided special privileges for minorities not given to others, in violation of the Equal Protection Guarantee of the Minnesota Constitution.

The racism was instituted formally after a 2022 teachers' strike.

But it's being challenged because, "the contract provides preferences, protections, and privileges for MPS teachers of certain races and ethnicities under a section entitled 'ARTICLE 15. PROTECTIONS FOR EDUCATORS OF COLOR.' There is no similar provision covering educators who are not 'of color.'"

The report said it exempts "teachers of color" from the district's "seniority-based layoffs and reassignments."

It means a senior teacher who is not of the right race would be laid off while a junior teacher who is of the right race would be kept on staff during layoffs.

The report noted, "Upon information and belief, before the contract, teachers were laid off or reassigned in order of seniority, with the least senior teachers laid off or reassigned first, without regard to race or ethnicity. Similarly, teachers were reinstated in order of seniority, with the more senior teachers reinstated first, without regard to race or ethnicity."

But the state constitution requires, "no member of this state shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers."

The case now returns to the district court and seeks a judicial determination that actions taken under the racist policy are illegal.

"This is a big court victory for taxpayers who are outraged that Minneapolis’ school system would engage in blatant racial discrimination in employing teachers," stated Judicial Watch chief Tom Fitton. "Judicial Watch will move with all due speed to gather evidence in discovery. This lawsuit aims to shut down this extreme leftist attack on the bedrock constitutional principle that no one can be denied equal treatment under the law on account of race."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Illinois Policy Institute is reporting that Stacey Davis Gates, the chief of the Chicago Teachers Union, has been unable to pay utility bills that now have accumulated to $5,579, even though she controls a salary of $289,000.

And a report at the Gateway Pundit noted the institute found: "In July 2022, the Chicago City Council passed an ordinance prohibiting water shut-off for non-payment. It followed a 2019 moratorium on residential shut-offs implemented by former Mayor Lori Lightfoot to 'protect Chicago residents’ fundamental right to water access.' It raises the question of whether Davis Gates – whose own income tops $289,000 a year – is using an ordinance intended to benefit lower-income residents for her own personal record-high gain."

The Gateway Pundit poked fun at Davis Gates for her "latest installment of 'Rules for thee but not for me.'"

The Pundit report said, "According to a Chicago Sun-Times analysis, Davis Gates’ debt is part of over $6.4 billion in unpaid fees, fines, and other debts left uncollected since 1990. City Comptroller Chasse Rehwinkel told the Sun-Times that collection efforts are focusing on debt less than five years old owed by those with the means but who are skirting responsibility."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The city council has lifted from a church founded by freed slaves the threat it had created earlier about the future of the facility.

According to First Liberty Institute, the council in Addison, Texas, now has approved a zone application for White Rock Chapel, which has been a historic site since its designation by the Texas Historical Commission in 2000.

"This small, African American church is a reminder to everyone in Addison that unity, diversity, and religious freedom are core values that strengthen all communities," James Grossman, of McDermott Will and Emery LLP, said. "We are thrilled that the chapel will be free to continue to serve its community."

The chapel, founded by formerly enslaved men and women – purchased land and built the very first church out of rough-hewn logs near White Rock Creek following emancipation. In 1918, after enduring years of devastating flash floods, the congregation moved to higher ground at the current location," the legal team explained.

"In August 2018, the current owners of White Rock Chapel purchased the property and brought it out of receivership. By doing so, they saved this historic church from demolition and preserved its rich history and legacy. They then sought building permits to restore the property. The city council denied the permits even after they were advanced by the city’s planning and zoning commission. Monday night’s vote provides the permit necessary for the church to continue to exist in Addison."

"We are pleased that the Addison City Council recognizes the rights of this historic African American church to remain at this location as it has for more than 100 years and continue to serve the needs of people in the surrounding areas," said Jeremy Dys, of First Liberty.

WND had reported weeks ago the church has endured flash floods, the destruction of a building in a storm, a fire, and more.

The opposition to the church came from its neighbors.

A report from First Liberty Institute at the time said they objected to "the church's right to exist."

The legal team then advised the city to "ignore the heckling of a handful of neighbors and allow this small, African American church to exemplify the core values of unity, diversity, and religious freedom that strengthen all communities."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Joe Biden's HHS secretary, Xavier Becerra, a radical abortion promoter, is launching a stealth attack on pro-life pregnancy centers in four states, according to the SBA Pro-Life America organization.

He plans to ban the use of TANF dollars, those available under the program for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, in pro-life pregnancy centers.

According to SBA's Katie Daniel, such a move goes directly against the support among the American people for the centers.

The rule change, proposed "stealthily" by Becerra weeks ago, would ban the use of TANF funding for pregnancy resource centers in Missouri, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Indiana.

Those four states, individually, use some $1 million to $7 million for those centers now.

Daniel said the funding is only a drop in the bucket next to the $670 million taxpayer dollars that went to the abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood in 2021-2022.

"Biden’s twisted attempt to hinder pregnancy centers’ ability to serve women in need demonstrates his administration is not pro-choice, but pro-abortion. Sixty percent of women who have had abortions say they would have preferred to give birth if they had more financial or emotional support. Yet, Democrats have gone out of their way to ensure women facing unexpected pregnancies are steered toward only one option – abortion," she said.

Becerra has chosen to single out pregnancy centers in his ideological move, the SBA report said.

"On its face, the rule is not viewpoint neutral. . . HHS scrutiny of a state including Pregnancy Resource Centers in its TANF program seems tied to a Center’s disfavored (by the current administration) views rather than whether it is a good partner that is successfully effectuating the purposes of TANF," explained SBA and the Charlotte Lozier Institute in comments on the plan.

Lawmakers from those states already have objected.

"The proposed rule suggests PRCs are not good partners for state-run TANF programs. We disagree with that assertion and contend this is for the states to decide. As elected officials, voted for and held accountable by our neighbors, we are closest to the people and know which entities within our communities can best fulfill the goals of TANF to help families flourish," they said.

One executive of a pregnancy center, who requested anonymity, said, "Our clinic serves over 150 families each year. When a woman with an unexpected pregnancy first walks through our doors we welcome her with open arms and assist her in every way we can for almost two years – from free ultrasounds, medical exams, and counseling, to food, diapers, furniture, and clothing after her baby is born. We offer mentoring, educational programs, and financial assistance during that time – help with housing, transportation, utilities, and even college tuition. Unfortunately, this new policy harms the women and families TANF was created to help."

The latest move is just a continuation of Biden's war against such centers.

"In 2022, Yelp placed a discriminatory warning label on centers, a move which 14 Democrat attorneys general praised in a recent letter. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats have called for pregnancy centers to be shut down. Colorado, this year, passed a law banning abortion pill reversal (APR) treatment. Additionally, California Attorney General Rob Bonta is suing two pregnancy centers for helping women save the lives of their babies with APR," SBA said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The American Freedom Law Center has decided to push state COVID mandates, those thought to violate the constitutional rights of residents, up to the Supreme Court.

The AFLC has filed a petition asking the court to overturn a decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The original case challenged Pennsylvania's COVID rules and dates back to 2020 already.

In it, four state residents objected to "the Orwellian contact tracing program and mandate to wear masks, claiming that these restrictions violate fundamental constitutional rights."

The petition explained, "The COVID-19 pandemic created a constitutional crisis. For years, American citizens, including Petitioners, were subject to constantly changing orders that imposed burdens on fundamental freedoms in a way that our nation has never experienced in its history. The cost of these burdens is incalculable. Unfortunately, many courts did nothing, abdicating their duty to say what the law is and allowing this assault on liberty to proceed largely unchecked."

It continued, "'Determination by the [government] of what constitutes proper exercise of police power is not final or conclusive but is subject to supervision by the courts.' However, this supervision is only effective if the courts are willing to exercise their authority to decide important constitutional questions. Unfortunately, the Courts’ justiciability doctrines (standing, ripeness, mootness) have become convenient excuses for lower courts to surrender their duty to say what the law is, particularly when dealing with the draconian and historic restrictions imposed during the recent pandemic."

The case was against the governor, the attorney general, and the secretary of health.

"After denying a request for a preliminary injunction, the district court dismissed the lawsuit, claiming that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the contact tracing program (even though they were subject to its restrictions and harmed by them) and that their challenge to the mask mandate was moot as the Department of Health unilaterally rescinded the mandate in June 2021, which was eight months after the lawsuit was filed, the AFLC reported.

The petition continues, "While the fear engendered by war, pandemic, or some other crisis might lead politicians, their attorneys, and yes, even judges of the highest order, to assert that patent violations of the Constitution are acceptable (or beyond judicial scrutiny) because public safety interests demand an exception to our most fundamental liberties, history teaches that we will look back on these arguments as 'gravely wrong . . . overruled in the court of history . . . and . . . [having] no place in law under the Constitution.'"