Idaho Republicans have asked the Supreme Court to overturn the landmark gay marriage ruling.
The stunning request revisits an issue that was once deeply controversial but has become less so with time as public acceptance of gay couples has grown.
The resolution passed 46-24, with all Democrats voting no and all but 15 Republicans voting yes. The proposal asks the Supreme Court to reconsider the 2015 ruling Obergefell v. Hodges, which compelled states nationwide to recognize gay marriage.
The Supreme Court cannot actually overturn Obergefell v. Hodges without a live legal controversy to decide. But the court has shown a willingness to overturn precedents that many have taken for granted, most notably, the landmark abortion ruling Roe v. Wade.
While it's unclear how many justices would be hypothetically supportive of ending Obergefell, Justice Clarence Thomas condemned the "erroneous" legal basis for the decision in his concurring opinion in Dobbs, which repealed Roe.
"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,' we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents," he said at the time.
The Idaho resolution declares that Obergefell overturned centuries of tradition recognizing marriage as a union of man and wife and asks the Supreme Court to "restore the natural definition of marriage."
“They are human. They do make mistakes,” said Rep. Lucas Cayler (R-Caldwell). "I believe that just like the Roe v. Wade decision was bad jurisprudence, I think that Obergefell v. Hodges was also bad jurisprudence.”
The resolution adds that the Supreme Court's ruling was "in complete contravention" of individual states' constitutions "and the will of their voters, thus undermining the civil liberties of those states' residents and voters."
The court's ruling in Obergefell ended what was, at the time, a contentious national debate on a significant moral issue. Justice Samuel Alito, at the time, warned the ruling would encourage intolerance toward religious people, a prediction many say has been borne out.
"Christians across the nation are being targeted,” said Idaho state Rep. Heather Scott (R).
Since the decision, support of gay couples has grown - although the trend has reversed somewhat recently. Meanwhile, Republicans have largely abandoned what was once a polarizing battle, making the Idaho GOP the exception to the rule.
Convicted murderer Marion Bowman Jr. will not ask the South Carolina governor for clemency after his final appeal was rejected, the Associated Press reported. The 44-year-old will die by lethal injection Friday night but maintains his innocence.
On Tuesday, the final word came down from the Supreme Court that the justices would not hear Bowan's appeal. The only option left is for Gov. Henry McMaster to stop the execution, but Bowman has shockingly declined to ask for such a favor.
"Marion has steadfastly maintained his innocence of Kandee Martin’s murder, yet he has already spent more than half of his life on death row. He cannot in good conscience ask for a supposed mercy that would require him to spend the rest of his life in prison for a crime he did not commit," Bowman's attorney, Lindsey Vann, said in a written statement.
"After more than two decades of battling a broken system that has failed him at every turn, Marion’s decision is a powerful refusal to legitimize an unjust process that has already stolen so much of his life," Vann added. Bowman will become the third Black man to die by lethal injection in the last four months after the state resumes its executions delayed due to a shortage of lethal injection drugs.
Bowman was convicted of killing 21-year-old killing Kandee Martin in 2001. The pair were reportedly friends, and Bowman admitted that he sold Martin drugs but that he would sometimes accept sexual favors when she didn't have money.
In the murder trial, evidence against Bowman mostly came from family and friends who were promised clemency in exchange for their cooperation. One friend said Bowman was angry because Martin owed him money, while a second testified Bowman thought Martin was wearing a recording device to get him arrested on a charge.
According to the Post and Courier, the most damning testimony came from those involved in committing or covering up the crime. Bowman's cousin, James Tawain Gadson, had been drinking for hours before getting into the car with Martin and her killer.
He testified that Bowman shot her and tried to leave her body in the woods. Friend Travis Felder said he later helped Bowman put Martin's body back into the trunk of her car before lighting it on fire.
Felder testified that Bowman admitted to killing Martin. "I killed Kandee Martin. … I ain’t got you involved with it, don’t worry about it. Everything is taken care of," he told Felder.
Bowman was found guilty of Martin's murder after the jury convicted him in 2022, and he has been on death row since. He has tried every avenue available to him to get his sentence overturned and has insisted he did not kill Martin.
In his final appeal, Bowman claimed his defense was inadequate due to the racism of his attorney. The lawyer allegedly "came to the jail and said, ‘son, you need to plead guilty. You are charged with killing a white girl and you and your family are Black,'" Bowman's filing said.
The South Carolina Supreme Court called that claim "meritless" and rejected the appeal. Bowman's other angle was to challenge the fact that the ingredients in the drugs used in lethal injection were not disclosed under the state's shield law and that the dosage might not be appropriate given Bowman's 389-pound size.
The American Civil Liberties Union joined with a lawsuit against South Carolina over the nondisclosure of the ingredients of the drugs. The organization contends that other details are provided for other execution methods, including the type of ropes in hanging and the voltage used in the electric chair. All of these arguments have been rejected as Bowman's conviction and sentence stand.
The crime was horrendous, and it appears Bowman was the perpetrator of it after being convicted by a jury of his peers. If justice was indeed served in the courtroom, he has nobody to blame but himself for his fate.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Meta, Facebook's parent company, recently agreed to pay out $25 million to settle President Donald Trump's lawsuit over the suspension of his social media a few years back.
The Democrats' lawfare cases against him mostly have been dropped. Those that reached judgment before the 2024 election are on appeal, including his half billion dollar penalty for fraud, when courtroom testimony confirmed there was no fraud, and the "hush money" case where he was convicted, in front of a highly conflicted judge and by a jury stacked with leftists from Trump-hating Manhattan, of describing legal expenses as legal expenses.
Now reports suggest that talks are under way to give him another legal win.
Fox News reports CBS is in talks to settle his $10 billion election interference lawsuit.
Fox reported the case is over the "60 Minutes" decision to edit and create an answer for Kamala Harris during an interview before the election.
The Fox report explained, "The Wall Street Journal previously suggested Paramount honchos wanted to reach a deal ahead of a merger with Skydance Media."
Trump lawyer Ed Paltzik said, "President Donald J. Trump is committed to holding those who traffic in deception and fake news accountable. CBS and its parent company Paramount deceived the American People by unlawfully tampering with their interview of Kamala Harris, and then hiding the transcript from the public in an attempt to save the failing, and now failed, Harris campaign, all in desperate commercial pursuit of increased profit and viewership."
He continued, "Real accountability for CBS and Paramount will ensure that the President is compensated for the harm done to him, and will deter the Fake News from further distorting the facts to advance a partisan agenda. President Trump looks forward to seeing this case through to a just conclusion."
Trump accused the network of hurting him, and helping Harris, by "deceptive editing."
Harris was asked on screen why it seemed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't listening to the U.S.
What then appeared in the program was not the same as her actual answer.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case of an Atlanta family targeted – wrongly – during an FBI SWAT raid.
Their home was broken into and they were subjected to the tactics SWAT teams use to arrest fugitives.
Then the government refused to pay their costs.
According to the Institute for Justice, which has represented the family, the decision will be over whether the Federal Torts Claims Act case can move forward.
Victimized by the government scheme were Trina Martin, her son Gabe, and her partner Toi Cliatt.
"What happened to us was deeply unjust, and I'm relieved that the Supreme Court is taking up our fight for justice and accountability," Trina said in a statement released by her lawyers.
"Congress wanted people in our unfortunate position to have the right to sue. When the government harms innocent people, it has a responsibility to make things right."
Patrick Jaicomo, a lawyer for the IJ, said, "Congress amended a federal statute to ensure that victims of wrongful federal police raids have a remedy in American courts. It's time for the Supreme Court to make it clear that the FTCA means what it says, and courts have no business carving exceptions into the statute Congress passed."
While federal law allows for compensation for people injured by federal employees, the government has fought for seven years against being responsible for the SWAT raid.
The story began one morning in 2017, when family members "were jolted awake by the sound of a flashbang grenade exploding in their living room. Toi, fearing that the home was being robbed, pulled Trina into the bedroom closet and reached for his legally owned shotgun. Just as he was about to grab it, an FBI agent barged in, threw him to the ground, and began interrogating him and Trina. All the while, Gabe (seven years old at the time) was separated from his mother as officers stormed into his bedroom with guns drawn."
When given a chance, Toi told the agents the address, and they realized they raided the wrong home.
There was a warrant, but the address on it was not that of the family's home.
The agents then fled, heading to the correct target.
"Afterward, one of the agents returned, apologized, and gave Toi his supervisor's business card to discuss paying for the damage. Toi called the number on the card, but it quickly became clear that the federal government did not plan to help. With no other way to recover for these injuries, Trina, Gabe, and Toi filed a lawsuit under the FTCA," the legal team said.
The congressionally adopted FTCA waives sovereign immunity under certain circumstances, the report said.
A Washington D.C. judge who oversaw high-profile January 6th cases has lifted restrictions barring members of the Oath Keepers from entering the city.
Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama appointee, issued an order Friday banning Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes and others from entering the Capitol or Washington D.C. after Trump commuted their prison sentences. Trump also granted pardons for some 1,500 January 6th defendants.
Following pushback from the Trump Justice Department, Mehta reversed course and lifted the travel restrictions on the Oath Keepers.
Judge Mehta oversaw the seditious conspiracy trial of Rhodes, who received an 18-year sentence, one of the longest of any January 6th defendant.
In his order reversing the location ban, Mehta took a veiled swipe at Trump while still deferring to his clemency power.
"It is not for this court to divine why President Trump commuted Defendants' sentences, or to assess whether it was sensible to do so," Mehta added.
Initially, Mehta had barred Rhodes and several other Oath Keepers from entering the nation's capital without the court's permission. The restrictions, which were not included in the original sentences, were added Friday after Trump commuted sentences for the Oath Keepers.
Mehta's original ruling had raised eyebrows among experts on constitutional law, who warned it could raise First Amendment issues.
"I think the court is effectively barring these individuals from being able to associate or petition government officials without the prior approval of the court," constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said. "That could raise questions under the First Amendment."
The judge changed directions after Trump's acting U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C., Edward Martin, filed a motion arguing that Trump's commutations cancelled supervised release terms, in addition to reducing sentencing. Martin invoked President Biden's last-minute pardons to castigate the judge's decision.
"If a judge decided that Jim Biden, General Mark Milley, or another individual were forbidden to visit America's capital—even after receiving a last-minute, preemptive pardon from the former President—I believe most Americans would object. The individuals referenced in our motion have had their sentences commuted – period, end of sentence," Martin wrote.
According to judge Mehta, all parties involved initially acted as if the commutations had no impact on the non-custodial portion of the sentences. After further consideration, Mehta said he found the Justice Department's interpretation of Trump's order to be "reasonable."
Mehta noted that presidents have, in the past, been careful to distinguish when they commute only the custodial portion of a sentence, but Trump's proclamation was "unconditional" in scope.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a challenge to Mississippi's law that permanently strips voting rights from citizens who are convicted of certain felonies, Reuters reported. A lower court already rejected a lawsuit brought on the grounds that the law violates the Constitution.
In 2018, six men in Mississippi filed a class action lawsuit after they were barred from voting after serving their sentences. The lawsuit alleged that the 1890 provision was a violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.
The Mississippi Constitution stipulates that the voting ban is for serious crimes ranging from rape and murder to bribery, forgery, arson, and theft. Still, the plaintiffs' attorneys argued that it caught too many minor crimes, such as "writing a bad check for $100 or stealing $250 worth of timber."
Many news outlets have pointed out that the law suffers from original sin since it was enacted during the Jim Crow era in 1890. However, it's clear it has nothing to do with race in modern times as the plaintiffs, convicted of receiving stolen property and grand larceny, were Black and White.
It's believed that the rule is rooted in the post-Civil War racism of the Jim Crow South. During the reconstruction period, Blacks were freed from slavery but still faced oppressive race-based laws, whether overtly or disguised underneath other provisions.
Mississippi adopted Section 241 to its constitution specifically to disenfranchise Black voters. Court filings note that it intentionally removed crimes considered "White crimes" while those considered at the time to be "Black crimes" were added to the provision.
Those who object to the law point to the disparity in the makeup of those who have been disenfranchised. In Mississippi, Black voters comprise 58% of the people barred from casting ballots, while they make up only 38% of the population of the state.
An initial review by a three-judge appeals panel determined that the law violated the Eighth Amendment. "Mississippi stands as an outlier among its sister states, bucking a clear and consistent trend in our nation against permanent disenfranchisement," the opinion penned by Judge James Dennis stated.
However, a second review by the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban in a 13-6 opinion in 2024. Notably, only the Magnolia State and Virginia still have laws that "permanently disenfranchise first-time offenders who were convicted of non-violent and non-voting-related felonies," the lawsuit notes.
Mississippi does have remedies for those who have been disenfranchised because of this provision. A person can receive a pardon from the governor or a vote by two-thirds of the state legislature to overturn the ban.
Although the legislature only successfully intervened 18 times between 2013 and 2018, it is nevertheless a remedy if the law is unfairly applied. The state also has the option of changing the law through the legislature.
As the filing noted, 26 states have opened voting rights to felons since 1974, USA Today reported. If this were merely about changing the law, that would be the remedy of choice.
However, it seems that opponents have attempted to make a statement about the origins of the law rather than the merits of it. Ironically, Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissent, implied there is such a thing as a "Black" and "White" crime as she contends that the offenses that trigger the voting ban "still work the very harm the 1890 convention intended - denying Black Mississippians the vote."
The provision is certainly a relic of the segregation era, which is a blight on American history. However, to say that a ban enforced for certain crimes is racist implies that people from a particular race are the only ones committing those crimes, and that is the most racist assumption of all.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (Sc.) is predicting that the Supreme Court will uphold President Trump's order on birthright citizenship.
“I think there’s a good chance,” Graham told Meet The Press. “I introduced legislation to end birthright citizenship years ago."
Trump sparked an immediate legal challenge with the sweeping action, which would end the long-standing practice of automatically granting citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.
It's widely anticipated that the legal battle will go all the way to the Supreme Court. Although Trump has a conservative majority, he has faced pushback in the past, and he is not guaranteed a favorable ruling on this contentious issue.
Case in point, a federal judge appointed by President Reagan temporarily blocked Trump's order, calling it "blatantly unconstitutional."
While birthright citizenship is commonly presented as an unquestionable legal right, critics argue the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes those with foreign allegiances such as illegal aliens.
Regardless of the legal arguments, birthright citizenship has undeniably played a role in attracting millions of illegal aliens to the United States.
"So, it's a magnet for illegal immigration," Graham said.
"I think when it comes to illegal immigration, if you want to turn off the spigot, change this policy. I think it's a cheap way to award citizenship. You should not be a citizen simply because you were born here. You have to have some connection to the jurisdiction of the United States," Graham added.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, at least 250,000 people were born to unlawful aliens in 2023, Graham noted.
"That's 7% of all the babies born in the country," he said.
Senator Graham noted that birthright citizenship is relatively uncommon among the world's leading nations.
"Canada, Mexico, and the United States are, like, three of the 20 economic powers in the country. There are three of us that do this. Maybe Brazil," he said.
Advocates of birthright citizenship often invoke its long history in the U.S. and the idea that America is a "nation of immigrants." But America is not obliged to keep the "dumbest immigration policy in the world" out of habit, Vice President J.D. Vance told CBS on Sunday.
"America should actually look out for the interests of our citizens first," Vance said on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan. "If you're here permanently and lawfully, your kid becomes an American citizen."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A powerful Republican in Congress investigating Joe Biden and his family members for corruption says the former president's last-minute pardons for his relatives are not only "an admission of guilt," they're also not legitimate.
"I don't think these preemptive pardons would hold up in court," House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., told Maria Bartiromo on "Sunday Morning Futures."
"This is an admission of guilt by Joe Biden. Everybody in America knows it."
Bartiromo replied: "Wow. So you think the preemptive pardons are not legitimate."
"I don't, but there are a lot better legal minds than mine I'm sure," Comer answered.
"But, you know, I don't think the average person that works hard and pays taxes has much sympathy for a president that in his last act in office pardoned his entire family for financial public corruption and didn't have the guts to tell anybody why he did it."
Bartiromo noted her audience was "disappointed" with the lack of legal action against the Bidens, and asked Comer: "With these pardons, should we just expect after all that work you put into it, after all the conversations we've had, they got away with it?"
"I certainly hope not," Comer responded. "The ball's gonna be in [Attorney General nominee] Pam Bondi's court. We're communicating with her people right now. I've had a good meeting with [nominated FBI Director] Kash Patel.
"One thing I'm confident is going to happen and you saw that with [CIA Director] John Ratcliffe, we're gonna hold people in the government accountable that were involved in the cover-up. He's already held the 51 intelligence officials that lied to the American people when they said the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation when most of them, in fact, knew that it was not Russian disinformation.
"Now we want to get the people that were involved in the cover-ups because what we found in our investigation, and I write about it extensively in my book, is that there were four different agencies investigating the Bidens, the IRS, the Department of Justice, the FBI and the Securities and Exchange Commission. And, obviously, they wanted to get to Joe Biden because none of this money would be coming into the president's son or brother were it not for Joe Biden.
"Every time they got ready to ask Joe Biden, they were told to stand down by a Deep State actor. I want those people held accountable."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new lawsuit is challenging the blatantly racist practices of the state in Gov. Tim Walz's Minnesota.
It is from the Pacific Legal Foundation and is on behalf of Do No Harm, an association of medical professionals.
They are contesting the "racial quotas" that are imposed by the state on its Health Equity Advisory and Leadership Council.
"Public advisory boards for government agencies are common and typically help state agencies make informed decisions in implementing public policies and priorities. HEAL is no different, but there is an exception: its racial criteria," the foundation reported.
"Racial quotas deny public service opportunities to qualified professionals based solely on their race," explained Wilson Freeman, a foundation lawyer. "That's racial discrimination and it's a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution."
The report said there's no shortage of qualified Minnesotans for the board.
But the state insists "HEAL membership must include representation from specific racial groups, including African American and African heritage communities, Asian American and Pacific Islander communities, Latina/o/x communities, and American Indian communities and tribal governments," the report said.
Stanley Goldfarb, Do No Harm chief, said, "Patient care should never be sacrificed on the altar of identity politics, and state medical councils cannot properly safeguard public health when membership is based on the color of their skin over their medical expertise. This blatant racial discrimination is demeaning, patronizing, and unconstitutional. President Trump's recent DEI executive order should motivate public officials to eliminate this type of racism."
The case was filed in federal court in Minnesota in the case Do No Harm v. Cunningham.
A federal judge has banned eight Capitol protestors from entering Washington, DC, without his permission in a decision on Friday after Trump floated the idea of inviting protestors to the Capitol.
US District Judge Amit Mehta covers most of the protestors whose sentences Trump commuted and who did not receive a full pardon.
The order read, "The court hereby amends the conditions of supervised release … to include the following special conditions. You must not knowingly enter the District of Columbia without first obtaining the permission from the Court,” the decree says, with an identical prohibition against setting foot in “the United States Capitol or onto surrounding grounds."
Judge Mehta President Barack Obama and also serves as a panelist on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which is the same court that has been rubberstamping the mass surveillance of the American people.
This decision is likely to set up a battle between Trump and the D.C. judges who are determined to flout Trump's pardons of the J6 protestors.
The news that Trump had granted sweeping pardons and sentence commutations to the Jan. 6th protestors sent progressives into a howling rage at the news that Trump was really going to end the unjust imprisonment of political prisoners.
In all, Trump pardoned more than 1,500 people who participated in the protest, many of whom committed no crime and were merely attending the protest.
Leftist prosecutors attempted to hit innocent protestors with obstruction charges which were overturned by the Supreme Court but it still took Trump winning the presidency and issuing pardons to free innocent conservative protestors.
There were a further 14 protestors whose sentences weren’t fully wiped away, but Trump has made it clear that those cases also could “go to a full pardon," which seems likely considering this decision from Judge Mehta barring protestors from attending events at the Capitol.
When Trump was asked about hosting protesters, Trump said, "I don’t know. I’m sure that they probably would like to. I did them something important, but what they did is they were protesting a crooked election. I mean, people understand that also, and they were treated very badly. Nobody’s been treated like that. So I’d be open to it, certainly. I don’t know of anything like that, but I think they’re going to meet with some of the congresspeople — congressmen, -women want to meet [them], but I’d certainly be open to it."
Trump isn't backing down on the January 6th protestors and is holding strong on his promises to protect them and give them justice for the last four years of injustice that they have faced.
Those who protested at the Capitol on January 6th all those years ago have faced unspeakable civil rights violations with some alleging that physical abuse was common.
There have been allegations of physical abuse, retaliation, and deprivation of food and heat, in a squalid D.C. jail where some defendants were housed for extended periods without charges.
Most concerning is the strong evidence that many protestors were pressured to confess to crimes they didn't commit. It will be up to Trump and his new Department of Justice to untangle this mess and hold bad actors in the justice system accountable.