Buckle up, folks -- Texas just scored a major win in the redistricting arena with a Supreme Court ruling that has conservatives cheering and progressives scrambling.
On Thursday, the high court handed down a decision allowing Texas to implement its newly crafted congressional map for the 2026 midterm elections, a move that could net Republicans as many as five additional seats, as Just the News reports.
This saga kicked off earlier when a lower court slammed the brakes on Texas’ map, calling it likely unconstitutional over concerns of racial gerrymandering.
Last month, Justice Samuel Alito stepped in with a temporary block on that lower court’s order, giving Texas a lifeline while the case climbed to the Supreme Court.
Fast forward to Thursday, and the justices ruled that Texas has a strong chance of winning on the merits, pointing out that the lower court botched its analysis with at least two significant missteps.
Specifically, the Supreme Court criticized the lower court for ignoring the presumption of good faith in legislative intent, instead twisting unclear evidence to paint Texas lawmakers in a bad light.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a staunch Republican, didn’t hold back his enthusiasm, issuing a statement that framed the ruling as a defense of the state’s sovereignty in mapping its districts.
“In the face of Democrats’ attempt to abuse the judicial system to steal the U.S. House, I have defended Texas’s fundamental right to draw a map that ensures we are represented by Republicans,” Paxton declared.
Now, let’s unpack that -- while Paxton’s rhetoric is fiery, it’s hard to ignore that redistricting often becomes a political chess game, and Texas is simply playing to win under rules both sides have exploited for decades.
Paxton wasn’t done, adding, “Texas is paving the way as we take our country back, district by district, state by state.”
That’s a bold claim, but with Republican-led redistricting efforts ramping up across multiple states this year, it’s clear the GOP is banking on the 2026 midterms to solidify congressional power -- hardly a surprise in today’s polarized climate.
Meanwhile, some Democrat-leaning states like California are countering with their own map redraws, hoping to offset potential conservative gains in a tit-for-tat cartographic showdown.
At its core, this Supreme Court decision isn’t just about Texas -- it’s a signal that the judiciary may be stepping back from second-guessing state legislatures, at least when the evidence isn’t airtight.
Critics of progressive overreach in the courts might see this as a refreshing return to restraint, though it’s worth acknowledging the genuine concerns about fair representation that linger in cases like these; after all, maps should serve voters, not just victors.
Still, with Texas poised to gain up to five GOP seats in 2026, this ruling is a reminder that in the battle for political influence, every line on a map counts -- and conservatives just drew a big one in their favor.
In a stunning move that’s got Washington buzzing, President Donald Trump has issued a full pardon to Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar and his wife, Imelda, who faced serious charges of bribery and acting as foreign agents.
Announced on social media Wednesday morning, this decision wiped clean allegations that the couple accepted $600,000 in bribes from a Mexican bank and an Azerbaijani oil and gas company, charges that could have landed them in prison for life.
The saga began back in December 2014, according to the Department of Justice, when the alleged scheme to funnel money through shell companies reportedly owned by Imelda kicked off.
By November 2021, the DOJ claimed the Cuellars had used these funds for everything from credit card bills to a jaw-dropping $12,000 gown, with their daughters allegedly helping to set up the laundering operations.
The feds even raided Cuellar’s home in January 2022, digging into his ties with Azerbaijani businessmen, while accusing him of pushing their interests in Congress through speeches and aid bill provisions.
Cuellar, 70, and Imelda, 69, stared down a potential 204-year sentence if convicted, a penalty that would’ve effectively buried them for life over these alleged misdeeds.
Enter Trump, who didn’t mince words when he called out the prosecution as a witch hunt, pointing fingers at Democrats for targeting Cuellar over his sharp criticism of Biden’s border policies.
“For years, the Biden Administration weaponized the Justice System against their Political Opponents, and anyone who disagreed with them,” Trump declared on Truth Social, framing the case as a blatant abuse of power.
Trump’s pardon wasn’t just a legal lifeline; it was a public jab at what he sees as a progressive agenda run amok, accusing Democrats of trying to crush dissent within their own ranks.
Cuellar, for his part, didn’t hesitate to express relief, taking to X to thank Trump for stepping in and clearing the cloud hanging over his family.
“This pardon gives us a clean slate. The noise is gone. The work remains,” Cuellar stated on X, signaling his intent to refocus on serving South Texas.
While some might raise eyebrows at a Republican president bailing out a Democrat, Trump’s message was personal and pointed: “Henry, I don’t know you, but you can sleep well tonight — Your nightmare is finally over!”
Critics will likely argue this pardon sidesteps accountability, especially given the DOJ’s claim that Cuellar leveraged his office to benefit foreign entities, a charge that cuts deep into public trust.
Yet, from a conservative lens, Trump’s move shines a light on what many see as selective prosecution by a justice system too eager to punish those who challenge the left’s border policy failures—hardly a surprise in today’s polarized climate.
Whether you view this as justice served or dodged, one thing is clear: Cuellar’s story isn’t over, and South Texas will be watching to see if he truly meets the remaining work “head on” as promised.
In a bold move that’s got Washington buzzing, President Donald Trump has pardoned a Democratic congressman who dared to challenge the previous administration’s border policies.
Breitbart reported that President Trump announced a full and unconditional pardon for Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) and his wife, Imelda, who faced bribery charges from the Biden Department of Justice since May 2024.
The saga began over two years before the indictment, when a search warrant was executed on the Cuellars’ home in Laredo, raising eyebrows about the timing and intent behind the investigation.
Was this a genuine pursuit of justice or a political hit job? The question lingers like a Texas summer heatwave.
The Biden DOJ accused the Cuellars of taking over half a million dollars in bribes from an energy company based in Azerbaijan, a charge that smells of overreach to many conservatives. If true, it’s serious—but why the delay in action after the initial search?
Cuellar, a South Texas Democrat, isn’t your typical progressive cheerleader, often breaking ranks to criticize policies he sees as harmful to his constituents. His vocal opposition to the Biden administration’s border approach made him a target, or so the narrative goes. And Trump seems to agree.
Posting on Truth Social, Trump didn’t mince words, blasting the indictment as a weaponized attack by a desperate administration. He even shared a heartfelt letter from Cuellar’s daughters, Christina and Catherine, pleading for clemency. It’s a rare glimpse of bipartisan empathy in a polarized age.
“For years, the Biden Administration weaponized the Justice System against their Political Opponents, and anyone who disagreed with them,” Trump declared on Truth Social. He pointed to Cuellar’s border policy critiques as the likely trigger for this legal ordeal. If that’s not a chilling effect on free speech, what is?
Trump went further, calling the prosecution of both Henry and Imelda Cuellar “un-American” and a sign of the radical left’s dangerous agenda. It’s a familiar refrain for those who see the DOJ as less about justice and more about settling scores.
The pardon itself was framed as a direct rebuke to such tactics, with Trump adding, “Henry, I don’t know you, but you can sleep well tonight — Your nightmare is finally over!” That’s the kind of flourish that resonates with supporters who view Trump as a defender against bureaucratic overreach.
Cuellar’s daughters, Christina and Catherine, didn’t hold back in their letter, suggesting their father’s independence and honesty on border security may have sparked the investigation. It’s a poignant reminder that behind every headline are real families caught in the crossfire of political games.
“We also believe that our father’s independence and honesty may have contributed to how this case began,” they wrote. “He has never been afraid to speak his mind, especially when it comes to protecting the people of South Texas and securing the border from the policies of the previous administration.”
Their words cut through the noise, painting Cuellar as a principled man rather than a partisan pawn. It’s hard not to feel a twinge of sympathy, even if one questions the bribery allegations’ merits.
This pardon isn’t just about one congressman; it’s a signal flare to those who fear speaking out against prevailing narratives. If criticizing flawed border policies can land you in legal hot water, what’s next for dissent in America?
Trump’s decision also underscores a growing conservative concern: that federal agencies are being used to silence opposition, whether Republican or Democrat. Cuellar, an unlikely ally, becomes a case study in why many on the right distrust the current system.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Jack Smith, the Democrats' hand-picked special prosecutor to run some of their failed major lawfare cases against President Donald Trump, used subpoenas liberally to access any and all information he wanted.
At least, that was before Trump was elected to his second term and the lawfare cases died.
In fact, Smith is facing criticism, and more, right now for orchestrating subpoenas for the telephone records of multiple Republican members of Congress, a move that leftist judge James Boasberg supported apparently without even knowing the facts, like who was being targeted.
That move may very well have violated the Constitution's protection for congressional speech, under the speech or debate clause, and that's bound to be fully investigated in the coming weeks and months.
But now members of Congress, investigating just exactly what Smith did, have told him to prepare to testify.
A letter from U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the chief of the House Committee on the Judiciary, was terse.
"The Committee on the Judiciary is continuing to conduct oversight of the operations of the Office of Special Counsel you led—specifically, your team's prosecutions of President Donald J. Trump and his co-defendants.1 Due to your service as Special Counsel, the Committee believes that you possess information that is vital to its oversight of this matter. Based upon communications with your counsel, we understand that you are available to testify at a deposition on December 17, 2025.
"Accordingly, please find enclosed a testimonial subpoena for a deposition at 10:00 a.m. on December 17, 2025 and a document subpoena for the requested materials to be produced to the Committee by December 12, 2025. Pursuant to Rule X of the House of Representatives, the Committee has jurisdiction to conduct oversight of the Justice Department to inform potential legislative reforms.2 Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter," the letter said.
Smith was given the lawfare assignment by Democrats after their scheming to falsely tie Trump to Russia during his first campaign, and to undermine his presidency with failed impeachment agendas, proved fruitless.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump, who previously has used his executive pardon authority to rescue hundreds of people caught up in the Democrats' war against those protesting the results of the 2020 presidential election on Jan. 6, 2021, now is coming to the rescue of a beleaguered Democrat.
On social media, Trump announced a pardon for U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, and his wife.
"For years, the Biden Administration weaponized the Justice System against their Political Opponents, and anyone who disagreed with them. One of the clearest examples of this was when Crooked Joe used the FBI and DOJ to 'take out' a member of his own Party after Highly Respected Congressman Henry Cuellar bravely spoke out against Open Borders, and the Biden Border 'Catastrophe.'
"Sleepy Joe went after the Congressman, and even the Congressman's wonderful wife, Imelda, simply for speaking the TRUTH. It is unAmerican and, as I previously stated, the Radical Left Democrats are a complete and total threat to Democracy! They will attack, rob, lie, cheat, destroy, and decimate anyone who dares to oppose their Far Left Agenda, an Agenda that, if left unchecked, will obliterate our magnificent Country. Because of these facts, and others, I am hereby announcing my full and unconditional PARDON of beloved Texas Congressman Henry Cuellar, and Imelda. Henry, I don't know you, but you can sleep well tonight — Your nightmare is finally over!"
Cuellar, whose positions on political issues often were more conservative than those of his political party, especially in recent years when extremism has become the core of the Democrat Party's beliefs, and his wife were indicted on money laundering, conspiracy and bribery charges in 2024.
Prosecutors alleged that he took nearly $600,000 in bribes from Azerbaijan and a Mexican commercial bank.
Already, two of the allegations made by prosecutors had been dismissed.
But two of his two political advisers also have pleaded guilty to charges that they had conspired with Cuellar to launder some $200,000 from the bank.
He was accused of attempting to influence "the Treasury Department to work around an anti-money laundering policy that threatened the bank's interests."
Cuellar's trial had been scheduled for April 2026.
He's served Texas in the U.S. House since 2004.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Democrat party star, considered in leftist circles to be a rising personality with surging influence, has been caught with thousands of dollars in unpaid condo assessments.
Even as U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, has attracted the attention of the Federal Election Commission for spending nearly $75,000 of donor money on luxury hotels, transportation and security in recent months.
It is Fox News that uncovered the unpaid lien of more than $3,000 against her luxury condo in Dallas.
"A notice of a lien filed on April 11, 2024, which is publicly available on the Dallas County Clerk's website, shows that Crockett owes the Westside Condominium Association a total of $3,047.79," the report confirmed.
It was explained that Crockett "is in default in her obligation for payment of assessments and has failed and refused and continues to fail and refuse, despite demand upon her, to pay the Association assessments and related charges properly levied against the Property."
WorldNetDaily recently reported on Crockett's wild claims about baby Jesus and the Republican Party.
Her comments included, "The fate of baby Jesus may have been very different if Republicans were in charge some 2,000 years ago. … This is the [Republican] party that says that they care so much about life until life actually shows up at their front door."
She added, ""And this is also the party that is supposedly about Christianity and I just imagine what they would have done to a little baby Jesus but that's a whole other issue."
Crockett was discussing a report last week claiming hundreds of immigrant children were being held in federal detention centers.
Further, Crockett recently claimed that Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin received money from deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and then refused to back down when shown she was wrong.
Crockett made the false suggestion on the House floor Nov. 18, but the contributions in question were from a different Jeffrey Epstein. On MS NOW's (formerly MSNBC) "The Weekend," host Jacqueline Alemany offered Crockett a chance to correct herself, but the congresswoman declined to retract her accusation.
WATCH:
"You made a little bit of news last week when you mistakenly accused Lee Zeldin and other Republicans— " Alemany said before Crockett interrupted to clarify her accusation was not an accident. Alemany then explained that Federal Election Commission (FEC) data showed Zeldin and other Republicans she accused did not take money from the deceased sex offender.
"I want to give you the opportunity to amend that," the host said.
"I have no amendments," Crockett replied before repeating her defense that she did not have enough time to verify which Epstein made the contributions.
Crockett's blunder was because her online research led her believe that Zeldin got a campaign donation from Jeffrey Epstein, and he did. But this Epstein is a physician, not the notorious sex offender.
The Fox report noted Crockett bought the condo in 2014 and is registered to vote there.
It's in a "gated community that offers residents a 'refreshing retreat' and 'comfort and convenience in a secure setting.' The complex is complete with a pool, clubhouse, sleek kitchens and bathrooms 'designed with spa-like features,'" the report said.
Fees range up to $403.
A Democrat strategist, who remained unidentified, told Fox, "The more we learn about Jasmine Crockett, the more clear it is that she's the worst possible candidate to run for Senate in Texas."
The report noted she recently got attention for FEC filings confirming she spent tens of thousands of dollars on luxury hotels and such.
Locations included Martha's Vineyard, Chicago, New York City, Las Vegas, San Francisco and Los Angeles, among other major cities.
She represents a district that includes Dallas.
The report noted her earlier blunders include attacking Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who is paraplegic and uses a wheelchair, calling him "Governor Hot Wheels."
President Donald Trump had harsh words for Eric Holder's plan of expanding the number of Supreme Court justices to water down its conservative leanings, Breitbart reported. The president was specifically reacting to a video that echoed the sentiments of many on the left.
Democrats have been trying to undermine the court since the balance shifted to 6-3 in favor of conservatives. Since justices are appointed for life, the only way the left can retake the court is by adding more justices until the balance comes back to their side, so they can push their radical agenda items through without resistance.
Although there are currently nine justices on the court due to tradition, there's no rule against adding as many as an administration sees fit. Meanwhile, Holder, who served as attorney general under Barack Obama, called the Supreme Court "a broken institution" that "cannot be left in place without a discussion, at least," he claimed.
"Without substantive reforms being put in place, this Supreme Court, as it is presently constituted — if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028 — Supreme Court reform is something that has to be considered. Potentially expanding the Court is something, I think, that also should be considered."
Trump shared the video of Holder's remarks. He responded strongly to this in a post to his Truth Social, where he obliterated Holder, including calling him "FAST AND FURIOUS" after the gun-running scandal he was embroiled in along with the Obama administration.
He went on to say that Holder is an "Obama sycophant...who did so much to hurt our Country, and who weaponized the Obama Administration against the Republican Party (and ME!)," Trump said. He then laid out the plan to stop the Democrats' effort to pack the court.
"The word is, he wants 21 Radical Left Activist Judges, not being satisfied with the heretofore 15 that they were seeking. It will be 21, they will destroy our Constitution, and there’s not a thing that the Republicans can do about it unless we TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, which will lead to an easy WIN of the Midterms, and an even easier WIN in the Presidential Election of 2028," Trump wrote.
"Why would the Republicans even think about giving them this opportunity? The American People don’t want gridlock, they want their Leaders to GET THINGS DONE — TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, AND HAVE THE MOST SUCCESSFUL FOUR YEARS IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY, BY FAR, WITH NOT EVEN THE HINT OF A SHUTDOWN OF OUR GREAT NATION ON JANUARY 30TH!" Trump said.
The left has been beating the drum to regain control of the Supreme Court by creating a majority just by adding more judges exactly at the time when Republican appointees overtook the court.
In fact, it was Holder who said during a Brookings Institution event in January 2021 that there was a "crisis of legitimacy" at the high court after Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed in 2020.
He says Republicans' refusal to confirm Merrick Garland in 2016 and then Barrett's last-minute appointment just before Trump left office as a sign that Democrats "must use the power that they now have” to change that. "I believe it would be totally appropriate to add additional seats to the Supreme Court, in response to what has transpired over the past few years," Holder said.
The former attorney general also claimed that courts were "political bodies" and that the federal court system was full of "ideologues who consistently reach rulings based on their stunted mindsets." Holder said that justices should be term-limited to just 18 years and that a minimum age of 50 years should be required to serve on the court.
As recently as January 2024, Holder said on MSNBC’s The ReidOut that the Supreme Court faced a crisis after it sided with Trump in one of several cases that challenged his ability to run for president again. "There is again no constitutional basis for it, no historical precedent for it," Holder claimed even though the court used both to decide.
The left was fine when they were the majority and their issues always won the day at the Supreme Court. Ever since the right has restored the balance and the justices returned to true constitutional law and American values, they have been trying to tear it down.
Hold onto your hats, folks—Alina Habba, once Donald Trump’s personal legal eagle, has been officially grounded by a federal appeals court in her bid to serve as New Jersey’s top prosecutor.
The saga, riddled with political roadblocks and legal tangles, boils down to a unanimous ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that Habba’s appointment as acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey was not on the up-and-up, Breitbart reported.
Let’s rewind to the beginning of this courtroom drama, where Habba, after serving as Trump’s personal attorney, was tapped as counselor to the president before being thrust into the role of New Jersey’s acting U.S. attorney in March.
Things got dicey fast when her 120-day interim stint ended in July, and district court judges opted for her chief deputy, Desiree Grace, to take the reins instead.
But the Department of Justice wasn’t having it—they fired Grace mere hours after her selection, clearing the way for U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to slot Habba back into a deputy role with acting control over the office.
It’s the kind of bureaucratic shuffle that makes you wonder if anyone in Washington has a flowchart for who’s actually in charge.
The plot thickened when two New Jersey criminal defendants challenged the constitutionality of Habba’s appointment, leading to a pivotal August ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann that declared her placement unlawful.
Monday’s decision by a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit upheld Brann’s call, affirming that the process behind Habba’s role didn’t pass legal muster, though the defendants’ criminal cases weren’t tossed out.
This isn’t just a procedural nitpick—it’s a stark reminder that even in a system craving strong leadership, the rule of law isn’t a suggestion.
Behind the scenes, the Trump administration has fought tooth and nail to keep Habba in the position, despite her nomination stalling in the U.S. Senate due to a lack of blue slips from New Jersey’s Democratic senators, Cory Booker and Andy Kim.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has refused to budge on advancing her nomination without those slips, drawing sharp rebukes from both Habba and Trump himself.
Speaking on Fox News in August, Habba didn’t hold back, saying, “Cory Booker and Andy Kim — who I have never, to this day, spoken to in my life, despite my attempts to meet them — have truly, truly done us a disservice.”
Trump, never one to shy from a fight, took to Truth Social in July to jab at Grassley, stating, “Chuck Grassley, who I got re-elected to the U.S. Senate when he was down, by a lot, in the Great State of Iowa, could solve the ‘Blue Slip’ problem we are having with respect to the appointment of Highly Qualified Judges and U.S. Attorneys, with a mere flick of the pen.”
Let’s unpack that—if loyalty is currency in politics, Trump’s clearly cashing a check he believes Grassley owes, but this blue slip tradition isn’t bending, and it’s stalling more than just Habba’s ambitions.
While Habba has stayed mum on the latest court ruling, the broader implications are clear: this fight over process and power could head to the Supreme Court, as some outlets like The Washington Post have suggested, to finally settle questions around the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A report published at Infowars is accusing Anthony Fauci, who was Joe Biden's top adviser regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, the China virus that circled the globe and killed millions, of largely being "responsible for green-lighting a myriad of destructive responses to the pandemic, not only covering up the US's gain-of-function research, but also rubber-stamping questionable policies like social distancing, face masks, and the deadly COVID jabs."
And now that President Donald Trump has canceled the executive orders, and pardons like the one delivered by Joe Biden to protect Fauci, because they were signed by a machine, allegedly without specific authorization, there's a campaign to have him arrested and tried.
"One thing that's extremely obvious that very few people realize, and certainly hardly anyone in the medical establishment where I come from realized, is that [Fauci] was involved in a massive cover-up of the origins of COVID, a massive cover-up," Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary recently stated.
"If Autopen Pardons are repealed then prosecute Fauci for crimes against humanity," urged Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Trump's statement earlier said, "Any document signed by Sleepy Joe Biden with the autopen, which was approximately 92% of them, is hereby terminated, and of no further force or effect."
He said the autopen signature is not valid unless its use "in specific cases" is authorized by a president.
While the virus was, in fact, a serious threat, especially to the elderly and those with compromised health, the responses now have been confirmed to have been a threat, too.
For example, the shots mandated by the government and employers now are known to have triggered side effects that sometimes are fatal.
Fauci has been accused of scheming to cover up U.S. involvement in bat research and then pushing social distancing and face masking, all without any scientific evidence they were helpful.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Ten Commandments, although cited repeatedly by America's Founding Fathers and widely recognized as the moral code on which the U.S. was founded, in recent years have faced an orchestrated suppression campaign.
A decade ago, Roy Moore, chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, facilitated a recognition of the moral code in the state's court building, and was removed from office for that.
He was promptly re-elected by voters to the same post.
Now the fight over those laws from God is pending in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
It is First Liberty Institute and Heather Gebelin Hacker of Hacker Stephens LLP who have filed an amicus brief with the court on behalf of 46 members of Congress including Sen. Ted Cruz, Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson, and Rep. Chip Roy.
They are supporting the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools.
"First Liberty's recent Supreme Court victories in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District make clear that displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools is constitutional," explained Kelly Shackelford, chief of First Liberty.
"Our religious heritage and the best of the nation's history and traditions acknowledge the Ten Commandments as an important symbol of law and moral conduct with both religious and secular significance. Government hostility to religion and our religious history is not the law."
The issue is that judges at the entry level of the federal court system have stopped laws in Texas and Louisiana that call for posting the rules in schools.
In 2024, Louisiana adopted HB 71, which requires the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools and colleges that receive public funding. That law was partially struck down earlier this year. Texas passed SB 10 in May, requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in school classrooms. A federal judge in San Antonio issued an injunction against the implementation of the bill in select school districts, First Liberty explained.
The brief explains, "As Justice Gorsuch warned in American Legion, if individuals 'could invoke the authority of a federal court to forbid what they dislike for no more reason than they dislike it . . . Courts would start to look more like legislatures, responding to social pressures rather than remedying concrete harms, in the process supplanting the right of the people and their elected representatives to govern them-selves.' If mere 'offense' suffices for standing to challenge a law, any number of legitimate legislative actions could be held up for years in litigation, which is obviously of concern to Amici."
The briefing explains the oddity of the arguments from those opposing the Ten Commandments: that there is no reason except that they "dislike" the rules.
"In other words, because the students will have to see something they disagree with or that is 'unwelcome,' that suffices for constitutional injury," the filing states.
"Both the district court's decision in this case and the panel decision in Roake are wrong and the theory of standing they embrace is inconsistent with Article III of the Constitution."
And the legal failings go further, "Lower courts invented offended observer standing" back in the 1970s, the filing said. Under that Lemon test, thousands of lawsuits followed, and that precedent was overturned.
"Acknowledging the role religion played in our country's founding and our system of laws is consistent with practices at the time of the Founding and ratification of the First Amendment. … While that may offend some, the Supreme Court has made it clear: 'offense does not equate to coercion,' and therefore does not violate the Establishment Clause."