President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to partially lift the ban on his order to end birthright citizenship, claiming that it is overly broad because it applies nationwide rather than only to the lawsuit's parties.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris said in the filing that the administration's request was a "modest" one, to “limit the pause to ‘parties actually within the courts’ power.'”
Federal courts in three states, Massachusetts, Maryland and Washington, issued orders pausing Trump's executive order, “Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship,” temporarily until the full case can be heard.
The executive order ended automatic birthright citizenship, which doesn't mean that no one born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents can get citizenship, but that it isn't automatic.
Trump's order argued, “the privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift.”
The "Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States,” it continued.
The main argument against allowing all children born to illegal immigrants in the United States to become citizens automatically is that the 14th Amendment says that the child must be "subject to" the laws and jurisdiction of the country.
Arguably, the children of illegal immigrants are under the care of their parents, who are not "subject to" U.S. laws if they are citizens of another country.
The courts have not yet ruled on that interpretation; meanwhile, the ruling means that potentially, every day more children will be born who get automatic citizenship until the case is resolved.
Trump is even willing to accept this outcome for the three states that have filed the lawsuit, but has argued that in the other 47 states that have not filed lawsuits, his order should take effect.
It seems a little bit like the old Solomon story of splitting the baby, but we will see whether the Supreme Court agrees.
Both Democrats and Republicans have used this argument to limit the scope of court actions that challenge executive orders in the past.
An Emerson College poll showed that 44.6% strongly or somewhat supported changing automatic birthright citizenship, while 36.6% strongly or somewhat opposed ending it.
Clearly, Trump has read the tea leaves on immigration and knows more people support his actions than oppose them.
The Supreme Court agreed to take up a First Amendment case over Colorado's right to outlaw so-called conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ youth, The Denver Post reported. Monday's decision means the courts will hear arguments over whether Christian counselors can guide young patients away from the lifestyle.
Colorado is one of several states that have barred licensed counselors in the state from offering anything but affirmation in their lifestyle choices. A lower court upheld the ban, but the high court will get its say during the new term beginning in October.
The plaintiff, Kaley Chiles, is represented by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom. Her attorneys argue that the care Chiles wishes to offer won't "seek to ‘cure’ clients of same-sex attractions or to ‘change’ clients’ sexual orientation."
The state's attorneys counter that Colorado has the right to prohibit options that counter affirmative care "based on overwhelming evidence that efforts to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity are unsafe and ineffective." It's unknown how the Supreme Court will decide.
According to Fox News, the high court declined to hear the case in a similar challenge to a Washington state law two years ago. Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision and said they would have been eager to review the law.
The newest case, Chiles v. Salazar, offers that chance. "A practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex," the writ of certiorari said, making this case both a freedom of speech and religion case.
"Many of her clients seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires. But Colorado bans these consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express," the Supreme Court's explanation for accepting the case went on.
The case hinges on "whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause," the writ said. Sarah Parshall Perry, a legal scholar for the Heritage Foundation, noted that this case will serve as a "constitutional challenge based on viewpoint discrimination," she said.
"The state of Colorado has averred that the legislature has determined that the standard of care for these individuals should not be anything other than affirmation of their desires for homosexual orientation or a divergent gender identity, and this herein really lies the rub...She said, essentially, in layman's terms, on the one side, you're allowing conversations to do nothing but affirm," Perry said of Chiles.
Although the facts of this case appear to be a slam dunk in favor of Chiles, the state vehemently disagrees with her assertions. The Colorado Attorney General’s Office supported the 2019 Minor Conversion Therapy Law in an amicus brief filed with the court.
That law bans "conversion therapy" through a broad definition. "Conversion therapy" encompasses any practitioner's treatment that "attempts or purports to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex."
The legislation excluded counseling that helps one settle into gender identity or sexual orientation in a positive way. It also allows for counseling for those seeking to change their gender as long as it doesn't stop them from the drugs or mutilation.
"In Colorado, we are committed to protecting professional standards of care so that no one suffers unscientific and harmful so-called gay conversion therapy. Colorado’s judgment on this is the humane, smart, and appropriate policy and we’re committed to defending it," a statement from Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser claimed.
Colorado and other states like it are trampling on the rights of counselors and their patients. Young people should be free to seek the care they feel necessary for their predicament, including overcoming their disordered sexual desires or identity issues.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Lawsuit targets officials for allowing a male to be on the women's volleyball team at San Jose State
A federal judge based in the leftist enclave of Colorado has refused to remove himself from a case concerning transgenderism despite his own court rules that call for all participants in cases to use the "proper" pronouns in his courtroom. And his decision should be appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs say.
The issue of "proper" pronouns is one of the strategic points used by advocates for transgenderism, in which various authorities require others to call a man who says he is a woman "she."
The report comes from the Cowboy State Daily about the advocacy for transgenderism adopted by S. Kato Crews, a judge based in Colorado, who has imposed those pronoun requirements in his court.
At the same time, he is refusing to remove himself from a lawsuit by members of the University of Wyoming volleyball team who are among multiple plaintiffs suing the Mountain West Conference and its officials for allowing a male to be on the women's volleyball team at San Jose State.
The report explained, "The women are now trying to appeal that decision to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, according to an argument they filed Wednesday."
They had charged, based on his expression of his ideology, that Crews was harboring bias and infringing on their speech.
The report notes: "Crews' rule required parties in his court to refer to people by their preferred pronouns. But Crews told the plaintiffs early in the case, at a Nov. 20 status conference, that he wouldn't require them to call Fleming 'she' in accordance with the rule. He only asked them to be professional and respectful when speaking about Fleming, according to the judge's order."
The order concerned Blaire Fleming, a man who presents himself as a woman, who was on the San Jose State team.
Crews imposed his requirements, with, "I do want to make clear, though, that the parties should not construe my use of she/her pronouns (for Fleming) as any indication that the Court has prejudged any issues in this case."
He claimed that courts all over use "preferred pronouns" "out of courtesy."
But Crews' ruling has a "chilling effect' on speech in the courtroom, the plaintiffs argue.
Their lawyer told the court that the ruling is unconstitutional, whether it's enforced or not, the report explained.
He said, "The court's statements do not eliminate or address the constitutional questions raised by plaintiffs."
There are issues, the plaintiffs explained, of viewpoint discrimination, prior restraint and more.
The White House is not ruling out foul play in a disastrous oil tanker collision in the North Sea - as the Russian captain of the other vessel is arrested for manslaughter.
One person is presumed dead as investigators probe what caused a foreign cargo ship to smash into a U.S.-flagged tanker Monday off the coast of Yorkshire, England.
The oil tanker Stena Immaculate was anchored 10 miles off the coast and was waiting for a berth on the River Humber, the ship's operator, Crowley, said.
Around 10 a.m. local time, the tanker was struck on its port side, causing "multiple explosions," Crowley said. The Stena was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel, and an unknown quantity was released into the sea.
While the extent of environmental damage is unknown, Crowley said the impact appears "limited" because the fire caused the oil to evaporate. Meanwhile, the fire on board has "greatly diminished with no visible flames."
The 23 crew members on the Stena - all Americans - are accounted for, but one of the crew members on the Portuguese cargo ship Solong went missing and is presumed dead.
It is possible that foggy conditions contributed to the crash. Conditions on the North Sea were so foggy on Monday that rescuers could not "see a thing," a rescuer told the Times.
The flames were still burning on the Solong Wednesday. The German company that owns the vessel, Ernst Russ, expressed "deepest sympathy to the family of the missing crew member, mindful that the search has been called off."
The company confirmed that the ship's captain, a 59-year-old Russian national, was taken into custody - as British police said a man was under arrest for "gross negligence manslaughter."
"Following inquiries undertaken by my team, we have arrested a 59-year-old man on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter in connection with the collision," Humberside Police Chief Superintendent Craig Nicholson said.
"This follows the conclusion of search operations by HM Coastguard for the missing crew member of the Solong."
"Our thoughts are with the family of the missing crew member, and I have appointed family liaison officers to make contact and provide support to the family."
The U.K. authorities do not suspect foul play, but a senior white House official told gCaptain that the possibility is not being ruled out by the United States.
The Stena plays a role in U.S. national security as part of the Tanker Security Program, in which commercial vessels contract with the U.S. military to carry fuel when needed.
The Supreme Court ruled against two veterans who were denied disability benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder.
In a 7-2 decision, the court held that the petitioners' claims went through the legally required review process. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) applies a special "benefit of the doubt" rule, which tips the scales in favor of veterans when evidence for and against them is in "approximate balance."
The Supreme Court considered what degree of deference veterans should receive under the rule. The majority took a narrow view, arguing "benefit of the doubt" only requires a veteran's court to look for "clear error" in the VA's determination.
“We hold that the VA’s determination that the evidence is in approximate balance is a predominantly factual determination reviewed only for clear error,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote.
Both veterans had their claims denied by the VA, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, and the U. S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court).
Petitioner Joshua Bifkin served in the Air Force from late 2005 to early 2006. He requested and obtained a nonprejudicial hardship discharge after his wife threatened to commit suicide if he stayed in the military. Years later, he applied for disability benefits, citing PTSD, but his claim was denied.
The second veteran, Norman Thornton, served in the Army from 1988 to 1991. He received benefits for PTSD, but the VA denied his request to raise his disability rating beyond 50%.
The two veterans said they are entitled, under the "benefit of the doubt" rule, to a thorough review of the facts. They pointed to Congress' instruction for the Veterans Court to "take due account" of the VA's application of the benefit of the doubt rule.
Clarence Thomas, writing for the Supreme Court, said Congress never intended to create a new standard of review with its "take due account" language. Since the balancing of evidence in disability cases is primarily a factual issue, the Veterans Court should apply the "clear error" standard normally used when reviewing factual findings by lower courts, Thomas wrote.
"However labeled, the directive to 'take due account' does not do the work that petitioners envision. Had Congress intended to impose a new standard of review for challenges to the VA’s application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule, it would have clearly named a standard," he wrote.
Dissenting, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that that the "clear error" standard is not appropriate.
Whether the VA correctly followed the "benefit of the doubt" rule is a legal - not a factual - question subject to a higher standard of review, they said.
The majority's reading of the "take due account" language trivializes Congress' intentions and treats the Veterans Court like a "rubber stamp," Jackson wrote.
“In short, the court today concludes that Congress meant nothing when it inserted [take due account] in response to concerns that the Veterans court was improperly rubber-stamping the VA’s benefit-of-the-doubt determinations, and also that the Veterans court is not obliged to do anything more than defer to those agency decisions notwithstanding Congress’s ‘take due account’ direction,” Jackson said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court has agreed to review Colorado's censorship of a licensed counselor.
In dispute is the leftist state's demand that only its messaging can be given to patients.
Colorado, which after years of swinging back and forth between Republicans and Democrats, suddenly some years ago took an abrupt left turn and has been an extremist ever since. And it has lost in multiple recent attempts to control residents' speech.
It tried to force a baker, at Masterpiece Cakeshop, to express a pro-LGBT message that violated his religious faith and ended up being scolded by the U.S. Supreme Court for its "hostility" to Christianity.
It tried the same scheme against a web designer, at 303 Creative, and took a major loss, again, from the Supreme Court.
The latest campaign by the state, under the leadership of homosexual Gov. Jared Polis, was to censor the information counselors are allowed to provide clients in private consultations, if the topic is sexual orientation and gender identity.
According to the ADF, which has been handling the case involving counselor Kaley Chiles, Colorado's censorship "violates licensed counselor Kaley Chiles' freedom of speech and infringes on her free exercise of religion and that of her clients by censoring and prohibiting certain private client-counselor conversations regarding sexual orientation and gender identity that the government disfavors while allowing – even encouraging – conversations the government favors."
"The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors, nor should a counselor be used as a tool to impose the government's biased views on her clients," explained ADF spokeswoman Kristen Waggoner.
"There is a growing consensus around the world that adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria need love and an opportunity to talk through their struggles and feelings. Colorado's law prohibits what's best for these children and sends a clear message: the only option for children struggling with these issues is to give them dangerous and experimental drugs and surgery that will make them lifelong patients. We are eager to defend Kaley's First Amendment rights and ensure that government officials may not impose their ideology on private conversations between counselors and clients."
The high court confirmed Monday in will hear Chiles v. Salazar, where Chiles wants to help clients with various issues, including gender identity.
The ADF explained, "Many of Chiles's clients come to her because they share her Christian worldview and faith-based values. These clients believe their lives will be more fulfilling if they are aligned with the teachings of their faith. Yet Colorado law censors Chiles from speaking words her clients want to hear because the government does not like the view she expresses."
It was the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, an often overturned panel, that affirmed the Colorado scheme to censor Christian perspectives.
The ADF explained, Colorado's law violates Chiles's freedom of speech by prohibiting licensed counselors from having any conversation with clients under age 18 that 'attempts or purports to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity.'"
The law, however, only prohibits the Christian perspective. It allows counselors to promote the LGBT ideologies.
Punishment for violating the censorship agenda can include suspension or revocation of a license.
Though liberals in Congress have been dissatisfied with just about all of President Donald Trump's picks for key administration and agency roles, many have a particular dislike for his choice to serve as Washington D.C. United States Attorney.
As such, a group of Democrats from the Senate Judiciary Committee are now calling for a disciplinary probe -- and potential suspension -- of Ed Martin by the D.C. Bar, the professional body of which he is a member, as the Washington Examiner reports.
The Democrats pushing for an investigation of Martin is led by the committee's ranking member, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).
According to the group, Martin is abusing the authority of his role by using potential prosecution as a method of intimidation against government employees.
The Durbin-led cadre of lawmakers has also suggested that Martin has taken improper steps in an effort to limit the speech of private citizens, also alleging that he has wrongfully continued to communicate with prior Jan. 6-related clients and defendants after assuming his new position, according to the Washington Times.
In their letter to the D.C. Bar, the Democrats declare, “Mr. Martin's conduct not only speaks to his fitness as a lawyer; his activities are part of a broader course of conduct by President Trump and his allies to undermine the traditional independence of Department of Justice investigations and prosecutions and the rule of law.”
The communication continued, “When a government lawyer, particularly one entrusted with a leadership role in the nation's foremost law enforcement agency, commits serious violations of professional conduct, it undermines the integrity of our justice system and erodes public confidence in it.”
Having clearly drawn the ire of the Democrats during the first weeks of the Trump administration, Martin has made no bones about his aggressive approach to his work, going so far as to use the nickname "The Eagle," as CBS News notes.
Martin's nomination to permanently serve as U.S. attorney for D.C. remains under consideration by the Senate, and in the meantime, he has been staking out a position as the sort of tough-on-crime prosecutor Republicans say the capital has long needed, given the role's unique jurisdiction that allows its occupant to tackle not just federal crimes but also offenses committed within the District of Columbia.
Taking seriously his ability to crack down on the rampant crime that has plagued D.C. in the last several years, Martin recently took to social media to warn, “Hey, thugs with guns, you hear that? Yup, we comin,” a reference to a memo he issued indicating that assistance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was imminent.
Martin has also drawn criticism from Democrats for having instructed his staff members to comply with a Department of Government Efficiency request for them to send a list of five things they had accomplished the week prior, an initiative that has courted controversy across the federal bureaucracy but is wholeheartedly supported by the president.
While Trump appears to have full confidence in Martin, given that he wants him to move from interim to permanent status in his current role, Democrat Rep. Gerry Connolly has also launched a probe of the prosecutor, complaining that his statements “are directed exclusively at opponents of and express support for the Trump Administration, explicitly criticize the Biden Administration, publicize pending investigative activity by your office, and make assertions of fact for which there exists no evidence.”
The Durbin-led investigation request has been filed with the D.C. Bar's Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and thus far, that entity has not weighed in on its status, with its representative stating that “all matters in this office are confidential unless and until we bring formal charges.”
Whether the various complaints and probes of Martin's conduct ultimately go anywhere is something that remains to be seen, but it is clear that he is committed to furthering the Trump agenda in his unique, dual-jurisdictional role, and that is something the Democrats are sure to oppose at every turn.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The court fight that could end up being the vehicle through which the egregious Obergefell ruling from the Supreme Court, which fabricated the "right" to same-sex marriage like Roe fabricated a federal "right" to abortion, is one step closer to the Supreme Court.
That's after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unleashed a ruling in Kim Davis' appeal.
The former Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk withheld marriage licenses from everyone for a short time after the Obergefell opinion, which Supreme Court justices themselves admitted was unrelated to the U.S. Constitution, fabricated same-sex "marriage" all across America.
That ruling infringed on her religious beliefs and a biased federal judge, while Davis was working to obtain recognition of a religious exemption to the processing of those licenses, put her in jail.
She later was sued by two same-sex duos for "damages" when she didn't immediately grant them licenses.
One jury awarded $50,000 in damages to both David Ermold and David Moore for "emotional distress" based on "hurt feelings," while the other jury considering the same facts announced there was no evidence of damages.
The ruling from the 6th Circuit "indicated this is potentially a case of 'first impression,' where a question regarding an interpretation of the law that has never arisen before is first presented to the court," according to Liberty Counsel, which has represented Davis.
"The 6th Circuit affirmed the jury verdict against her, but did so in a way that provides Davis with excellent grounds to appeal the decision to the full 6th Circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States," the Liberty Counsel report said.
"On appeal, Davis argued that she was entitled to First Amendment protections in her position as county clerk, and that the jury was prohibited from issuing any damage award against her. According to legal precedent, the First Amendment prohibits imposing liability on an individual for the exercise of their sincerely held religious beliefs. While most of the cases holding establishing this position were based on the Free Speech Clause, there is no reason to make a distinction between the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses for this purpose," the legal team explained.
The court, however, claimed, "Writing on this blank slate, we are wise to tread lightly. To that end, the fact-specific nature of our holding again bears emphasis: a government employee, acting in the scope of that employment, does not have a unilateral free exercise right to use an arm of the state to infringe on a clearly established equal protection right of the public. Change the factual setting, and a free exercise defense to a civil rights lawsuit may have more traction. It is always the case that '[a] later court assessing a past decision must . . . appreciate the possibility that different facts and different legal arguments may dictate a different outcome.'"
The ruling found, essentially, that government officials lose their conscience protections when they are government officials. That was after evidence showed the LGBT duos did not go to nearer clerks who would have given them licenses, but instead specifically targeted Davis.
One of the panel's judges, Chad Readler, admitted that the legal precedents in the fight are "not entirely settled."
Liberty Counsel explained, "The court found that the 2015 Obergefell 5-4 opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Friday, June 26, 2015, 'clearly established' that Davis as the Rowan County Clerk in Kentucky must issue licenses to same sex couples when she commenced work on Monday, June 29. The problem with this ruling, however, is that Davis' function is totally defined by state law. To issue a license to someone not authorized to receive one under state law could subject Davis to criminal prosecution."
At the time of the Obergefell ruling, same-sex marriage was illegal in many states.
Liberty Counsel said it would seek further answers on topics including the Free Exercise defense for individual capacity claims against government officials, whether Obergefell was wrongly decided, and even if the court does not want the Obergefell question, whether it created a clearly established right to obtain a marriage certificate from a specific government official.
Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel chief, said, "The full 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will have a chance to give Kim Davis justice in this case since the emotional distress damage award against her in her individual capacity is barred by the First Amendment. This case underscores why the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, because that decision threatens the religious liberty of many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. The First Amendment precludes making the choice between your faith and your livelihood."
The legal team previously has noted the path to overturning Obergefell could follow the same path as that was used to overturn Roe: that the Constitution does not even mention same-sex marriage and thus, under the Constitution, the issue must be left to states.
Further, the organization MassResistance has confirmed that there are at least six state legislatures that have considered a resolution encouraging the high court to reverse itself..
The organization recently confirmed it has drafted sample language and resolutions are pending in Idaho, North Dakota, Montana, Michigan, Iowa and Kansas.
"The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was passed by a slim 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices," MassResistance reported. "It has caused immense societal havoc across the country. States have been forced to ignore their legitimate laws and constitutional amendments regarding marriage. Governments, businesses, and even schoolchildren have been forced to accept same-sex 'marriage' – and by extension homosexual behavior – as normal, under pain of punishments, fines, and even imprisonment."
"The First Amendment guarantees free speech, freedom of assembly, religious liberty, and the right to petition government for redress of grievance. By forcing same-sex 'marriage' on the country in this way, Obergefell challenged all those rights," the group reported.
And unlike in 2015, when the Supreme Court was dominated by leftist ideologues, there now is a majority of constitutionalists on the bench, the report said.
"In order to invent a previously unknown constitutional 'right' to same-sex marriage, the 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices used a strategy concocted by the LGBT lawyers. They redefined the Fourteenth Amendment to allow them to effectively change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to 'two people who love each other,'" the group reported.
But the 14th Amendment actually states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," and does not mention marriage.
The Obergefell promoters at the time also cited "substantive due process," which is not in the Constitution, a maneuver that was caught by Justice Clarence Thomas, who said that use in Obergefell, like Roe, "is faulty, and a basis for revisiting those cases."
He said, "We should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."
The decision was biased because two justices, Ruth Ginsberg and Elena Kagan, who joined in creating the new right, already had officiated at same-sex weddings, indicating they had a clear bias in favor.
Liberty Counsel already has argued, "Obergefell was not grounded in the nation's history or traditions, nor could it have been because it was not rooted in any nation's history or traditions. As Chief Justice Roberts noted, the right that the Obergefell majority created out of whole cloth was inconsistent with 'the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history.' Indeed, 'marriage has existed for millennia and across civilizations [and] [f]or all those millennia, across all those civilizations, marriage referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a woman.'"
In fact, WND later reported that the Davis case got a "Told you so," from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas after the high court declined to review one issue of the attacks on Davis.
In a statement then, Thomas said Davis "may have been one of the first victims" of the Supreme Court's "cavalier treatment of religion" when it issued its same-sex marriage ruling, "but she will not be the last."
Thomas called Davis a "devout Christian" who "found herself faced with a choice between her religious beliefs and her job."
"Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws," Thomas wrote. "Moreover, Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss."
In fact, since then the state of Colorado twice has launched attacks on Christians who failed to promote the state's messaging on same-sex unions, a baker and a web designer. And both times it has suffered defeat at the Supreme Court, including once when the justices scolded the state for its hate of Christianity.
Thomas said, "Several members of the court noted that the court's decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. If the states had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs. The court, however, bypassed that democratic process. Worse still, though it briefly acknowledged that those with sincerely held religious objections to same-sex marriage are often 'decent and honorable' … the court went on to suggest that those beliefs espoused a bigoted worldview…"
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a last-minute appeal to halt the execution of Brad Sigmon, an inmate scheduled to die by firing squad in South Carolina, marking the first use of this method in 15 years.
The Supreme Court's decision paves the way for Sigmon's execution on Friday evening, after his emergency motion was rejected, allowing the practice of execution by firing squad to occur once more in the United States, The Hill reported.
Brad Sigmon, who is 67, was found guilty in 2002 for the brutal murders of his former girlfriend’s parents, David and Gladys Larke. The grisly crime involved Sigmon fatally bludgeoning the couple with a bat. He also attempted to end the life of his ex-girlfriend, Rebecca Barbare, but she managed to escape.
The option of choosing a firing squad over other methods of execution was Sigmon's. He bypassed both electrocution and lethal injection. His execution was initially planned for 6 p.m. EST on a recent Friday. However, this decision was contingent upon Governor Henry McMaster's choosing not to intervene with a last-minute reprieve.
Sigmon's conviction was scrutinized over the years by numerous courts, all of which upheld the judgment. Even the highest court in South Carolina has thoroughly examined and confirmed the decision, reinforcing the legality of his sentence.
The recent appeal filed by Sigmon’s public defenders focused on what they labelled as an urgent issue. They argued that Sigmon faced a denial of due process because of what they described as a "compressed election timeline and arbitrary denial of information." Essentially, they contended, the rapid pace left Sigmon without a genuine opportunity to make use of state-granted rights regarding choosing a humane execution method.
The defenders went on to articulate that if his execution proceeded without a pause, it would occur without the highest court having had the chance to thoroughly examine his claims. Sigmon's representatives highlighted these serious concerns in their application.
The state's attorney general's office countered the appeals with an observation about timing. They noted that Sigmon had consistently delayed making these arguments up until right before his planned execution date. In a statement, the prosecutors emphasized the delay strategy: Sigmon "has litigated claims ever since," and if allowed, would continue indefinitely. "At some point," they added, "the delays must end."
The case hasn't been devoid of broader implications, either. The Supreme Court's history shows a leniency toward denying stays of execution for death row inmates, having turned down at least ten such applications since October. This statistic casts some light on the broader context within which Sigmon’s last appeal found itself.
The case also saw the country's highest court recently grant a fresh trial to another inmate, Richard Glossip, based on previously undisclosed evidence. Still, Sigmon's case followed a harsher trajectory, leading up to his impending execution.
The debate surrounding Sigmon's execution method highlights complex issues inherent in the American judicial system. Especially with a seldom-seen return to the use of a firing squad, the ethical and legal implications have been at the forefront of discussions.
The path to this moment was marked by significant legal battles. Sigmon’s crimes, committed over two decades ago, have kept his case in the public eye and court dockets. The double murder, followed by the prolonged legal process, emphasizes the tension between justice for victims and concerns over execution methods.
As the countdown to his execution continued, the fate of Sigmon stood as a testament to the complexities of the justice system. South Carolina's first firing squad execution in 15 years would not only mark an endpoint for Sigmon but would also punctuate a contentious chapter in capital punishment’s evolving narrative.
At this point, everyone knows that President Joe Biden was cognitively challenged for most of his presidency and especially toward the end.
That's why some top officials now want to know exactly how far gone Biden was at the end, especially when he signed a flurry of pardons in his final days and hours in office, according to The Western Journal.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) wrote in an X post that he wants the Department of Justice to investigate what exactly was happening behind closed doors in the White House during Biden's final days in the White House.
AG Baily suggested that it's possible that "unelected staff" pushed through "radical" decisions during Biden's last weeks and days in the Oval Office, also suggesting that such actions should be voided.
AG Baily made his thoughts on the matter clear in his X post, holding nothing back regarding what he thinks could have happened during that time, especially given Biden's obvious cognitive decline.
"I am demanding the DOJ [investigate] whether President Biden’s cognitive decline allowed unelected staff to push through radical policy without his knowing approval,” Baily posted.
He added, "If true, these executive orders, pardons, and all other actions are unconstitutional and legally void."
🚨BREAKING: I am demanding the DOJ investigated whether President Biden’s cognitive decline allowed unelected staff to push through radical policy without his knowing approval.
If true, these executive orders, pardons, and all other actions are unconstitutional and legally void. pic.twitter.com/pOhATRfw2j
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) March 5, 2025
The Western Journal noted:
In his post, Bailey attached a copy of a letter he wrote to Michael Horowitz, the inspector general of the Department of Justice.
In the letter, Baily said there were “ profound reasons to suspect that Biden’s staff and political allies exploited his mental decline to issue purported presidential orders without his knowing approval.”
Even Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) had trouble meeting with Biden in the White House in his final days, raising more questions as to how bad the former president was at the time.
Users across social media reacted to Bailey's post, with most cheering him on in his attempt to find out how bad things really were.
"If they wouldn’t bring charges against him due to his cognitive decline then yes he is incapable and incompetent," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "It is about the right time to question all policies changes in the past 4 years!"
Only time will tell if Trump's DOJ will open up such an investigation.