This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Congress should offset 'that wasted $2 billion from the federal judiciary's $9.5 billion budget'
The U.S. Supreme Court, which stunningly and deliberately interfered in President Donald Trump's management of the executive branch, over which he is given authority by the U.S. Constitution, is facing a backlash over its decision.
"We're now urging Congress to offset that wasted $2 billion from the federal judiciary's $9.5 billion FY2025 discretionary budget," announced a spokesman for the Article III Project, Mike Davis.
The dispute is over just a portion of the massive spending fraud and waste that Trump's Department of Government Efficiency found in its agenda to eliminate fraud, waste and criminal activities in federal spending.
Ordered halted were payments of some $2 billion that had been authorized by Joe Biden, but reversed by President Trump.
The groups that were to get the funds sued, and the Supreme Court, 5-4, said those payments should go forward.
Davis' organization pointed out that Justice Samuel Alito expressed that he was "stunned" by the decision.
"In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS sided with an activist D.C. judge to sabotage the presidency and spend $2 billion in foreign-aid money over the President's objection. According to SCOTUS, the waste, fraud, and abuse at USAID must continue," the organization said.
"The D.C. District Court is out of control. This radical Biden judge and his fellow tyrants-in-robes need to be reined in. If SCOTUS won't do it, we will. The Article III Project will draft legislation to bring much-needed reforms to the D.C. District Court. That court's authority needs to be delegated to local D.C. crimes and not national policies."
A commentary at Federalist went even further.
It suggested that since the ruling was so far out of alignment with the Constitution, Trump might ignore it.
"The Supreme Court's shocking decision on Wednesday to allow a D.C. district court judge to order the Trump administration to disburse $2 billion in federal grant money is a major blow to the separation of powers undergirding our constitutional system of government," the commentary said. "But the thing about separation of powers is that they stand or fall together. All three branches of our government — legislative, executive, and judicial — have to respect the Constitution's clear separation of powers. If one of them doesn't, there's no reason that the others should."
It continued, "Put another way, if the Supreme Court can simply disregard the Executive branch's constitutional authority and allow it to be usurped by an inferior federal court, which is what happened, then there's no reason the executive branch under Trump should pay any attention to what the Supreme Court says in this case, because it's trying to assert an authority it simply doesn't have."
The Federalist explained that what had happened was purely routine: "As part of an administration-wide effort to crack down on fraudulent and wasteful federal spending, President Trump ordered a review of all federal grants, and also ordered that payments on all grants should be paused while the review is ongoing."
But the lawsuit was filed and the Supreme Court divided 5-4, insisting that those cash troves be handed out.
The decision was by three leftists on the Supreme Court plus Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
"The majority didn't give a reason for this denial, which is too bad, because the ruling should trigger a constitutional crisis," the report said.
But Alito's "blistering dissent" was clear: "Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No,' but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned."
It was the district judge, Amir Ali, who claimed "for himself executive authority to disburse federal funds and determine the time and manner in which the funds will be disbursed — powers clearly vested not in the judiciary but in the executive branch, that is, with President Trump."
That alone, the report said, should be enough for Trump to ignore the ruling.
"But there's other problems too, like the fact that the lower federal court in this case lacks jurisdiction. Contract disputes with the federal government are only supposed to be heard by the Court of Federal Claims, not a D.C. district judge. Among other things, this means Ali's order requires President Trump to violate existing federal law."
And it noted that "the most serious problem," stems from "this pernicious notion that any district judge, anywhere in the country, can dictate to the executive branch what it must or must not do, under the guise of issuing a temporary restraining order or a universal injunction in a pending case."
This is the reason that leftists go judge-shopping when they have a case, to find an activist who already agrees with their agenda.
Years ago already, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that violates the Constitution.
"District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief," wrote Thomas at the time. "These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system — preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch."
He said it appears the Supreme Court must address the schemes.
There's already a recent precedent for the president to ignore a Supreme Court ruling: Joe Biden did it with his massive cash-handout scheme in which he relieved borrowers of the responsibility of paying back student loans, instead demanding that taxpayers shoulder that financial burden.
Hunter Biden has asked a court to drop a costly legal battle that he can no longer afford, citing "significant" debt to the tune of millions.
The extent of Biden's financial problems was shared in a court document asking to end a lawsuit against Garrett Ziegler. Biden sued Ziegler, a former Trump White House aide, for publishing the contents of Biden's infamous laptop online.
Dwindling book and art sales, along with fire damage to his Los Angeles rental home, have left Biden in "significant" debt, leaving him unable to litigate the case further, his attorneys said.
“[Hunter] has suffered a significant downturn in his income and has significant debt in the millions of dollars range,” Biden's motion said.
It's a dramatic change in circumstances for the former president's son, who was scrutinized for years over his extravagant lifestyle and lucrative foreign business dealings that eventually led to criminal charges for tax evasion.
Biden received the lucky break of a lifetime when his father, former president Joe Biden, granted a blanket pardon in December, extending retroactively to 2014, the year Hunter Biden started working for the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings.
While he may be clear of legal jeopardy, Biden's financial situation has taken a downturn with the end of his father's political career, on which Hunter had long been reliant for employment.
As Biden explained to the court, profits from his memoir, Beautiful Things, and sketchy art career have dried up.
“In the 2 to 3 years prior to December 2023, I sold 27 pieces for art at an average price of $54,481.48, but since then I have only sold 1 piece of art for $36,000,” Biden said.
Additionally, Biden said he expected paid speaking engagements to be forthcoming based on "positive reviews" of his book and art, but "that has not happened."
While changed political fortunes appear to have hurt his financial situation, Hunter Biden was also impacted by the wildfires in Los Angeles, which left his rental home in Malibu "unlivable."
As a result, Biden "has had difficulty in finding a new permanent place to live as well as finding it difficult to earn a living." With his financial means significantly reduced, Biden is focused on finding a new home and helping his family manage their expenses.
"So, Plaintiff must focus his time and resources dealing with his relocation, the damage he has incurred due to the fires, and paying for his family’s living expenses as opposed to this litigation," his lawyers said.
Hunter Biden previously claimed he was poor during his child support battle with a former stripper, Lunden Roberts, who used Ziegler as an expert witness.
Biden eventually settled that dispute in 2023, agreeing to pay an undisclosed amount and leave his daughter with some of his paintings - although, according to Biden, his artwork has since lost much of its value.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An announcement from the Department of Justice has confirmed that it is dropping a Joe Biden-era lawsuit that tried to force abortion on physicians and nurses in Idaho.
Biden claimed the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act overrides state life protections and demanded that pro-life states such as Idaho allow abortions if they were required to "stabilize a woman in a medical condition."
The Idaho law already permitted an abortion "on the subjective, good-faith medical judgment of a doctor who believes the life of the mother is threatened," the report explained.
Idaho's attorney general, Raúl Labrador, has argued in a court hearing the Biden lawsuit that the two laws had no conflict, and eventually a Boise hospital network sued as the administration of President Donald Trump was taking over, expecting the case would be dropped.
Claims had included that women had to be airlifted out of the state for abortion.
Kelsey Pritchard, of SBA Pro-Life America, told the Daily Signal, "The PR stunts that the abortion lobby and abortion advocates pull, with things like that and furthering the misinformation on women's ability to get care; that is what is, actually needing women to be confused and doctors to be confused, because the laws are pretty straightforward."
At the same time, B. Lynn Winmill, who was given the job as a judge by Bill Clinton, issued a temporary restraining order that blocks Idaho's Defense of Life Act form being enforced, pending a hearing.
"Of course, this is from an activist Clinton-appointed judge, but at the end of the day, Democrat abortion extremism cost the Democrats the election, and Biden's weaponization of the federal government is over, and the will of the people on this is very clear," Pritchard told the publication.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Hampton Dellinger confirms departure from Office of Special Counsel
A federal employee who was fired by President Donald Trump has dropped his court case in which he was trying to overturn the president's decision and take back his job.
A report from MSNBC explains how Hampton Dellinger, of the Office of Special Counsel, has dropped his litigation.
The move comes after a court ruled against him.
He said he strongly disagreed with the court, but said he would abide by the ruling.
He also claimed, "This new ruling means that OSC will be run by someone totally beholden to the president for the months that would pass before I could get a final decision from the U.S. Supreme Court."
The office is responsible for protecting whistleblowers in the government.
It was the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, one step below the Supreme Court, that paused a decision by a trial judge who said Trump could not immediately fire Dellinger.
Those three judges, appointed by Trump, Barack Obama and George H.W. Bush, said the order allowed Dellinger's removal.
The fight already had been up to the Supreme Court, which put off a decision, allowing the trial judge, Amy Jackson, to rule in Dellinger's favor.
A report at the Gateway Pundit explained Trump fired the Joe Biden-appointed Dellinger as part of his effort to bring efficiency to government.
Dellinger could have continued to fight, and the dispute may very well have ended up before the Supreme Court. But courts already have ruled several times in favor of a president's right to dismiss those who work in the executive branch, leading Dellinger to suggest he probably wouldn't win at the high court.
"I'm stopping the fight because, yesterday, circuit court judges reviewing the trial court decision in my favor granted the government's request that I be removed from office while the case continues," he said.
"I think the circuit judges erred badly because their willingness to sign off on my ouster — even if presented as possibly temporary — immediately erases the independence Congress provided for my position, a vital protection that has been accepted as lawful for nearly fifty years. Until now."
He claimed that because he no longer would be there, the office's "independence" was destroyed.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Ruling on an attempt to thwart some of President Trump's efforts to freeze funding of foreign projects by the controversial USAID, the Supreme Court Wednesday voted 5-4 to force the administration to restart $2 billion in payments for work already completed.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the three more liberal justices in agreeing with a lower court judge who had ruled against Trump's emergency request to pause foreign-aid funding. The court's order was unsigned and represents one of its first forays into legal attempts to stop many of the president's executive actions.
Justices on the losing end of the decision decried the majority.
"Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No,' but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned," wrote Justice Samuel Alito, who was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Alito said the high court should have put the enforcement of the previous ruling on hold until the government could petition the justices to consider the case more fully.
The Wall Street Journal explained that the ruling came after U.S. District Judge Amir Ali in Washington, D.C., last month issued a temporary restraining order that blocked the government from canceling all aid contracts while legal proceedings continued, finding the categorical spending freeze was likely unlawful.
The Supreme Court rejected the arguments of acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris, who called Ali's deadline an "impossible order" since it gave officials only about 36 hours to comply.
In response to the decision, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., called for the defunding of USAID:
Tiffany Henyard, the embattled Democratic mayor of Dolton, Illinois, has been served with a subpoena in a case involving a development project on land previously owned by her boyfriend Kamal Woods, Fox News reported. This adds to the ongoing investigations of Henyard's activities as town supervisor and village mayor.
The subpoena was issued on Feb. 25, the same day Henyard, who called herself the "super mayor" of the village, lost the primary for her reelection bid in a landslide. Nearly 88% of the vote went to her opponent, Trustee Jason House, on the promise of rooting out corruption.
"Not only is Ms. Henyard depriving the public of what they deserve, it’s costing the village money. Day one, every record will be turned over," House promised the public on Election Day.
She and others involved in the project, including Woods, must furnish records dating back to 2014. The court requests documents, emails, text messages, phone records, and other correspondences between the local government, building owners, and tenants involved in the matter.
The accusations continue to mount up for Henyard, who has brought the heat on the village since she was elected mayor in 2021 and supervisor of Thornton Township in 2022. Former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has been hired to examine how Dolton went from a $5.6 million surplus in 2022 to being $3.6 million in the hole just two years later.
Henyard infamously was accused of spending taxpayer funds for her gain, including luxury travel and other questionable expenditures the New York Post reported. Last year, she was subpoenaed for financial records for Dolton, including the town's payroll and budget records, as well as expense reports and items she charged on town credit cards.
She also was subpoenaed separately for her personal business ventures, including her political action committee, a charity, a restaurant, and a property management company. The government sought a paper trail, including personnel records, explanations for checks written to "cash," tax, and other records.
As if that weren't enough, Henyard threw herself in the middle of a fight to defend Wood in January of this year. The footage was caught on video and shared virally online.
Dolton “Super Mayor” Tiffany Henyard got involved in a brawl on Tuesday at the Thornton Township meeting.
An activist named Jedidiah Brown appeared to call Henyard an explicit then approached her.
That’s when her boyfriend got involved as did Henyard.
Police were later called. pic.twitter.com/ghsaGMQbH5
— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) January 29, 2025
In just a few short years, Henyard has made a mess that continues to ripple throughout the village. Dolton Village Trustee Tammie Brown warned that this is just the beginning, CBS News reported.
"With the subpoenas, we know there's going to be more to come with other businesses, other vendors," Brown said. The latest summons asks for "employment records for all code inspectors" as the feds stress that the "subpoena seeks records pursuant to an official criminal investigation," Brown noted.
"[We're still dealing] with problems that Mayor Henyard created, and that's going to be the next two or four years. We've got a long road ahead of us, a lot to work with, a lot to deal with, that Mayor Henyard created this monster," Brown said.
There are clear indications that the feds are ready to throw the book at Henyard. Later this month, a special grand jury will convene to move Henyard's case forward toward justice.
This conduct from Henyard is shocking, even from a Democratic politician. All indications point to the fact that Henyard has left a wake of destruction and possible corruption that she must answer for in a court of law.
The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a First Amendment case involving the "bias response team" at Indiana University, the Washington Examiner reported. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the majority on this refusal.
Bias response teams encourage students to inform on their peers over instances of supposed bias. Some claim they "objectively chill" free expression on college campuses and cause students to self-police their speech.
Thomas said that deciding a case on this issue would have provided a definitive statement on the use of this model. "Given the number of schools with bias response teams, this Court eventually will need to resolve the split over a student’s right to challenge such programs," Thomas wrote.
Some 450 colleges throughout the U.S. employ this model. "The Court’s refusal to intervene now leaves students subject to a 'patchwork of First Amendment rights,' with a student’s ability to challenge his university’s bias response policies varying depending on accidents of geography," Thomas added.
The organization Speech First initiated the lawsuit against Indiana University school officials, including President Pamela Whitten, in 2024, Reuters reported. It has sued nine other universities over similar speech-limiting policies.
The main issue for Speech First involved how the university's policy defined "bias incidents." The vague language included "any conduct, speech or expression motivated in whole or in part by bias or prejudice meant to intimidate, demean, mock, degrade, marginalize or threaten individuals or groups based on that individual or group's actual or perceived identities."
Students are then encouraged to submit a report of such conduct, whether they experienced it or witnessed something they thought was discriminatory. "Indiana University is committed to creating welcoming, inclusive, and respectful campus communities where everyone can thrive and do their best work - a place where all are treated with civility and respect," the school's website touts.
However, the policy meant to ensure these lofty ideals tramples of the free speech rights of some of its students. The university confers the power to its administrators "to police speech that someone believes is motivated by 'bias,'" the lawsuit noted.
"This policy poses a grave risk of chilling the open and unfettered discourse that should be central to higher education," the lawsuit added. This is especially problematic because the university is a public institution.
This battle over free speech on college campuses is creating other concerns. While traditionally-minded students feel hemmed in by bias response teams, Jewish students are increasingly falling victim to anti-Israel hatred.
According to the Associated Press, freedom of speech on college campuses applies liberally to phrases such as "from the river to the sea," which implies Israel has no right to exist. While institutions penalize students for any perceived slight, these incendiary phrases are allowed.
"What I always hear now is how, when students are upset or offended, they phrase it as ‘I feel unsafe.’ And I think it’s so important that we separate out the campus’ duty," Edwin Chemerinsky, the law school dean for the University of California, Berkley, claimed.
"It’s not our role to make them safe from ideas that they don’t want exposed to. But that line, I think, has gotten blurred," he added.
It's unfair that some speech is protected while others are silenced. Thomas and Alito are right that the high court should not remove itself from this issue, if for no other reason than to shore up First Amendment rights for all with a definitive ruling on it.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A $30 million lawsuit against the federal government over the death of Ashli Babbitt, who was summarily shot and killed by a police officer during the protest at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2001, apparently is in settlement talks.
That's because the defendants and plaintiffs, the estate of Babbitt and her husband, Aaron Babbitt, jointly have asked a court to delay a hearing on a motion to dismiss part of the case, as well as a motion for discovery.
Columnist Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner posted online a copy of the details in a joint status report by the parties to the U.S. District Court in Washington.
The report described it as "the latest indication that the Trump Department of Justice wants a truce in former President Joe Biden's war on those involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot."
That is that federal lawyers "for the first time have signaled support for settlement talks" in the wrongful death case.
Babbitt was shot and killed by officer Michael Byrd, who had a reputation for misbehavior including once leaving his loaded service firearm unattended in a public restroom.
Byrd shot Babbitt as she was entering the House Speaker's lobby off the House floor amid the protest, and some rioting that day, by those who held doubts about the legitimacy of the 2000 presidential election.
In fact, the course of that election was altered by several undue influences, including Mark Zuckerberg's decision to hand out $400 million plus to leftist local elections officials who often used it to recruit Democrat voters, and the FBI's decision to interfere in the vote by falsely claiming that details of Biden family scandals contained in Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop were Russian disinformation.
"The parties have agreed to work in good faith to narrow or resolve issues in this case," the new filing states. It was submitted jointly by federal lawyers as well as lawyers for Judicial Watch, which brought the case on behalf of Babbitt.
The reversal by the DOJ in the case follows President Donald Trump's actions to pardon hundreds of individuals who were pursued, arrested, charged and convicted by the federal government sometimes for no more than walking through an open doorway into the Capitol that day.
Judicial Watch spokesman Tom Fitton told the Examiner, "All we want is justice and we hope the Justice Department under President Trump would share that goal ultimately."
Police actually tried after the shooting to conceal Byrd, who later was promoted by Capitol Police.
The damage lawsuit charges, "Ashli remained conscious for minutes or longer after being shot by Lt. Byrd. Ashli experienced extreme pain, suffering, mental anguish, and intense fear before slipping into pre-terminal unconsciousness. The autopsy report identified the cause of death as a 'gunshot wound to left anterior shoulder' with an onset interval of 'minutes.' The fact that Ashli was alive and conscious in extreme pain and suffering is documented in videos of the shooting. Furthermore, nothing about the wound track described in the autopsy report would be expected to result in immediate death or instantaneous loss of consciousness, and Ashli's lungs contained blood, further confirming that she was alive and breathing after being shot. Ashli was pronounced dead at Washington Hospital Center at 3:15 p.m. The medical examiner determined that the manner of death was homicide."
Earlier, the court scheduled a trial for the case on July 20, 2026.
Further, court documents show, "Byrd later confessed that he shot Ashli before seeing her hands or assessing her intentions or even identifying her as female. Ashli was unarmed. Her hands were up in the air, empty, and in plain view of Lt. Byrd and other officers in the lobby."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court has signaled it likely will end Mexico's demands, through the American court system, that multiple gunmakers in the U.S. pay it billions and billions of dollars.
It demanded, in a lawsuit brought in the state of Massachusetts, that seven major U.S. gun manufacturers and a gun wholesaler be held responsible financially for the horrific death toll from the drug cartel warfare that has engulfed parts of Mexico now for a generation.
A report at Scotusblog, which monitors, reports on, and analyzes Supreme Court actions, said the justices on Tuesday "signaled" they were likely to end Mexico's claims.
"A majority of the court appeared to agree with the gun makers that the Mexican government's suit is barred by a 2005 law intended to shield the gun industry from lawsuits in U.S. courts for the misuse of guns by others," the report said.
Mexican officials had demanded not just billions of dollars but "an end to the marketing and trafficking of illegal guns to Mexico."
Those officials have made claims that American gun makers "deliberately" designed guns knowing that military-style machines will be appealing to drug cartel members. Then, the officials claimed, gunmakers sell their weapons to gun dealers, who sell them to gun buyers, who act as "strawmen" for delivery of guns in Mexico.
It ended up at the Supreme Court after the 1st Circuit noted Mexico's claims that gunmakers "aided and abetted illegal sales."
Lawyer Noel Francisco told the justices on behalf of the gunmakers that "when Congress enacted the law at the center of the case, the Protecting Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, it intended to 'prohibit lawsuits just like this one"" the report explained.
A representative for the Mexican government claimed that the lawsuit should be allowed to go forward.
At issue is whether gun makers helped cartels violate U.S. gun laws and whether the resulting injuries were the responsibility of the gunmakers.
The report said Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out that for a violation to have occurred, the gun makers had to have intended to do that.
"Other justices questioned whether Mexico had provided enough details in its complaint for its case to move forward," the report noted.
Even leftists on the panel, including Ketanji Jackson and Elena Kagan, expressed doubts about the legitimacy of Mexico's case.
It was left to Justice Samuel Alito to cite the elephant in the room, President Donald Trump's insistence that Mexico do more to prevent the flow of illegal drugs into America, a dispute that has triggered tariffs already.
In this case, he said, Mexico alleges that U.S. gun manufacturers are contributing to illegal conduct in Mexico. But he noted there are "Americans who think that Mexican government officials are contributing to a lot of illegal conduct" in the United States.
Then, he wondered, should a U.S. state sue Mexico in a U.S. court for "aiding and abetting illegal conduct within the state's borders" that causes harm?
A report at Courthouse News suggested that "Mexico received little sympathy from the Supreme Court" in the dispute.
Defendants include Smith & Wesson Brands, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Beretta U.S.A. Corp, Glock, Sturm, Ruger & Company and Colt's Manufacturing Company.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas slammed his colleagues for refusing to hear a case about free speech on college campuses, the Daily Caller reported. The Republican-appointed justice said in his dissenting opinion Monday that failing to take the case would let the "confusion persist."
The case involved so-called "bias response teams," which restrict freedom of speech rights on college campuses throughout the U.S. Some 450 institutions of higher learning have this model, whereby students are encouraged to file complaints against each other for bias claims.
Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito would have gladly heard the case, Speech First, Inc. v. Pamela Whitten, but were outnumbered by the remaining judges. Thomas thinks this was a lost opportunity to shore up this fundamental constitutional right.
"Given the number of schools with bias response teams, this Court eventually will need to resolve the split over a student’s right to challenge such programs. The Court’s refusal to intervene now leaves students subject to a ‘patchwork of First Amendment rights,’ with a student’s ability to challenge his university’s bias response policies varying depending on accidents of geography," Thomas wrote.
Speech First, an advocacy group for First Amendment protections on campus, brought the case against Indiana University's bias team. Their lawsuit filed in May said that students "credibly fear that the expression of their deeply held views" would be under fire on campus.
Those views included "that every person is either male or female" and that "the federal government needs to vigorously enforce our immigration law." The lawsuit was meant to expose the atmosphere these bias response teams create on campus against right-leaning or Republican students.
"This Court hasn’t addressed the free-speech rights of college students since at least 2010. Over that time, those rights have not fared well," Speech First's petition stated.
"Bias-response teams are designed to get as close to the constitutional line as possible, so it’s no surprise that they ‘have divided’ the lower courts," the filing added. Another Speech First case last year against Virginia Tech similarly failed to make it to the high court's docket.
Thomas also dissented from the majority on that decision with similar misgivings. However, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court's ruling without agreeing to take the full case.
While many of these institutions crack down on traditional values, other objectionable and even illegal protests are allowed to proceed. On Tuesday, President Donald Trump vowed to right that wrong, Fox News reported.
"All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests. Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came," Trump wrote on his Truth Social.
"American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on on the crime, arrested. NO MASKS! Thank you for your attention to this matter," he added. Schools readily allowed anti-Israel protests that turned destructive even after the nation was attacked by the terrorist organization Hamas while treating Republicans and conservatives with disdain.
College campuses used to be bastions of free thought and intellectual ideas. Now, the left has taken over and won't tolerate dissent from its students, and Thomas is right that the Supreme Court needs to intervene.