This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Trump has been handed another victory at the Supreme Court, where the justices on Thursday ruled that he could limit gender ideology statements on American passports.
Lower courts, responding to lawsuits by leftist activists, had claimed that they had the authority to order Trump to issue passports that claimed special sex designations for nonbinary and transgender people.
The Supreme Court halted those orders that would have allowed passport holders to creatively dictate whatever gender ideology they adopted for their passports.
"Displaying passport holders' sex at birth," the majority said, "no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment."
A report posted at Scotusblog noted that Ketanji Jackson, a far-left member of the court, was joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in claiming the ruling actually "paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification. Because I cannot acquiesce to this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, I respectfully dissent."
The lower court order had come from Julia Kobick, a judge who heard the complaints from transgender plaintiffs and insisted the White House follow her orders.
Trump's executive order simply had said the federal government would only "recognize two sexes, male and female."
That was followed by instructions to the State Department that government documents reflect the holder's sex, not sex ideology.
Joe Biden, while in office, had promoted such alternative sex beliefs in multiple forums.
The activists claimed Trump's order violated their equal protection rights, their rights to travel and more.
The 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals had sided with the progressive ideology, but U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that Kobick was injuring the United States "by compelling it to speak to foreign governments in contravention of both the President's foreign policy and scientific reality.'
Following the science, transgenderism is a fantasy, as being male or female is embedded in the body down to the DNA level.
Now the justices have granted the government's request to pause Kobick's demands.
The ruling pointed out Trump like will "succeed on the merits" of the arguments.
Jackson complained that now the plaintiffs won't be able to get passports "with sex markers that match their gender identity" and that could lead to "psychological issues."
Hold onto your hats, folks—former Oregon Democrat lawmaker Melissa Fireside has bolted from the country with her nine-year-old son, Benicio, dodging fraud charges that could land her in hot water, the Daily Mail reported.
This jaw-dropping saga unfolds as Fireside, once a Clackamas County Commissioner, allegedly scammed $30,000 from a vulnerable senior, fled her bail conditions, and whisked her son across borders to Europe, leaving her ex-boyfriend, Cody Bellamy, heartbroken and sounding the alarm.
Let’s rewind to the beginning of this mess, where Fireside’s troubles started brewing with accusations of financial deceit.
She’s accused of fraudulently securing $30,000 in loans under the name of Arthur W. Petrone, her mother’s late boyfriend, who was in a senior care home and, per his daughter Lynn Roberts, far too frail to consent.
Arrested and facing trial, Fireside resigned from her commissioner post earlier this year, but apparently, sticking around for justice wasn’t on her agenda.
Instead, she pulled a vanishing act, yanking Benicio out of his school in Lexington, Oregon, last Wednesday without a word to anyone.
By Thursday, Fireside had slipped across the southern border, hopped a flight from Mexico to Amsterdam using an Austrian passport, and left her bail conditions in the dust.
That passport, by the way, grants her the ability to live and work anywhere in the EU—talk about a convenient escape hatch for someone with a laundry list of legal woes.
Meanwhile, Cody Bellamy, the 44-year-old father of Benicio now residing in Alger, Michigan, is left piecing together a nightmare, unable to legally claim this as abduction since Fireside holds full custody.
Bellamy, who met Fireside online in 2014 and welcomed their son in 2016 despite political differences, paints a grim picture of a manipulative past, alleging she used his credit to buy a $900,000 home in Lake Oswego when hers was nonexistent.
He claims their relationship ended abruptly six months after Benicio’s birth, and Fireside made co-parenting a legal battlefield, racking up $18,000 in expenses for Bellamy in a failed bid for joint custody.
“I almost feel like Melissa just used me as a surrogate,” Bellamy told reporters, his frustration palpable as he described feeling like nothing more than a means to her desperate desire for a child.
Adding insult to injury, Oregon social services still demand Bellamy pay child support, even as Fireside and Benicio are presumed to be hiding somewhere in Europe—talk about a system more focused on paperwork than people.
“I’m terrified that I will never see my son alive again,” Bellamy confessed through tears, grappling with the dread that Fireside might flee further, perhaps to the Middle East, to evade extradition.
While he insists she’s a good mother unlikely to harm Benicio, Bellamy warns that pressure can twist even the best intentions, leaving him to wonder what desperate moves she might make next under the weight of her choices.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Protesting is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
But so are church services and meetings.
And when those exercising their right to protest violate the rights of those holding services, there's a problem.
And now it's in court in California, where lawyers for First Liberty Institute and Jones Day filed a federal lawsuit because "hostile agitators affiliated with Code Pink disrupted and interfered with multiple worship services."
Destroyed were services being held by the Mission Church and the Christian & Jewish Alliance, an interfaith organization in the San Diego area.
They repeatedly have been subjected to "ongoing persecution" for trying to bring worship congregations together.
"When I pulled up to a worship event on September 7, a masked person holding a vulgar sign jumped onto the hood of our car, screaming and banging on the windshield. It was frightening," explained Ruth Mastron, a devout Jewish resident who joined the lawsuit. "We just want to be able to gather safely, pray, and worship together without fearing for our lives."
Pastor JC Cooper of Mission Church said his congregation simply wants to "be able to worship and support our local Jewish community without fear or intimidation."
Lawyer Jeremy Dys explained, "No church or synagogue should experience such vulgar harassment for simply conducting its religious activities. Blocking entrances and exits while intimidating worshipers with incessant shouting, vulgarities, and sirens violates the law."
Defendants are identified as "Daniel Brunner, Aimee Magda Werth, Kristina Turner-Brown, Patrick Hartley, Sasha Spite Miller, Jacob Pagaduan, Esmat 'Essie' Baradar, Jonathan Provance, Maya Karalius, and Does 1 40."
The events came about because Mission, of Carlsbad, believes Christians should support Jewish neighbors and the nation of Israel.
But protesters linked to the radicalized Code Pink organization "infiltrated the sanctuary, yelling epithets until they were escorted out. More protestors lined up inches outside the door, calling church members 'Nazis' and yelling 'Mission Church, you can't hide! We charge you with genocide!'"
The violent agitators came back on Easter Sunday to deliver even worse, the legal team charged.
At a third event, they "blocked entrances and blared ear-splitting sirens for three hours."
That, the new legal action charges, violates the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which protects places of worship and individual worshipers from aggressive hostiles.
The lawsuit states, "Federal and California law do not tolerate Defendants' conduct, which violated the civil rights of The Mission Church, the Christian & Jewish Alliance, and their members and guests. Defendants' actions reflect a pattern of targeting the Church and the Alliance because of their religious beliefs, seeking to interfere with and prevent their religious gatherings."
The action seeks a court judgment that the protesters are violating the law, that they trespassed, and a permanent order preventing them from futures attacks on worshippers. Also, the case seeks "appropriate relief" and "compensatory damages."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Republicans routinely collect about 35% or 40% of the vote in elections in far-left California, while Democrats get about 60%.
That was the breakdown in the 2024 presidential election in which loser Kamala Harris got the 60% and 40% went to Trump, who went on to win the nationwide vote in a landslide.
But Democrats in control for years in the state already have gerrymandered the congressional district lines so they would control 43 House seats, allowing Republicans only nine.
Now, pushed into the fight by Gov. Gavin Newsom, voters have allowed the all-Democrat legislature to gerrymander even more, this time trying to take another five seats away from the Republicans.
That would mean 40% of the population is represented by only four seats in the House, or less than 10% of the state's delegation.
Such is democracy in leftist California.
But, in fact, the state, only hours after the vote became final, got sued over the "unconstitutional" plan.
A report at the Washington Examiner said, "Republicans claim in a lawsuit that the new map that will be enacted as a result of Proposition 50, giving Democrats five more favorable congressional districts, is unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the Dhillon Law Group on behalf of the California GOP. The lawsuit claims that the new maps illegally use voters' race to draw new districts."
Already, the 60% of the population that generally votes Democrat controls 43 of the state's 52 House seats.
Redistricting based on race, according to the courts, isn't allowed by the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause because race is considered a "suspect class."
Even the Supreme Court has signaled limits, including time limits, on such political activism.
According to California Assemblyman David Tangipa, "When I said that the fight for California has just begun, I hope everybody and anybody knows I meant that."
He said Newsom's realignment of the House seats is "completely diminishing the voices of other groups to benefit other groups."
Meaning Republicans are being silenced to benefit Newsom's Democrats.
Newsom announced his scheme after Texas, which largely is GOP territory, finished a routine redistricting plan that does give GOP candidates a preference in some districts.
The report explained, "Democrats said the lawsuit is an example of Republicans dismissing the will of California voters."
But actually, if that is the case, it would be dismissing only the partisan will of some Californians, as the state's Republicans aren't likely to push for fewer representatives from their party and more Democrats.
It is unclear whether the legal fight will result in an injunction that would prevent Democrats from taking advantage of their new power structure immediately.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A school district trying to restrict the speech of students off-campus has been put on a leash.
It is the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled the Livingston Manor Central School District in New York was off base when it suspended a student for a meme posted on social media while the student was off the school grounds.
According to a report at the Center Square, the decision benefits Case Leroy.
He had been suspended for a post that mocked the 2020 death of George Floyd, a death that triggered Black Lives Matter riots across dozens of cities, leaving behind billions of dollars in damages.
According to the report, Leroy "posed with another student's knee on his neck," and said in the caption "Cops got another."
His intolerant community responded with backlash online, protests at his school, and community meetings.
However, the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and other First Amendment groups sued the school and explained punishment for his speech violated the First Amendment rights.
A trial court judge sided with the school, but the appeals judges reversed.
"We conclude that Leroy's off-campus speech fell outside the bounds of the school's regulatory authority. We cannot accept the contention that in today's world, a social media post made off-campus is equivalent to speech on campus," said Circuit Judge Barrington Parker.
Judge Myrna Perez agreed, but did point out that there are limits on free speech.
What would be required for school control would be for some situation to make students "feel unsafe" or deprive them of "the ability to learn," she said.
Adam Schulman, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute's senior attorney, said the appellate court's ruling "recognized the limits on American public schools' authority to police students' speech outside of school hours or off campus. As the court put it, learning to engage in civil discourse with those with whom we disagree really is 'an essential feature' of student education."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Trump Tuesday emphasized the importance of arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday on the issue of executive branch power to set tariffs.
Posted Trump: "Tomorrow's United States Supreme Court case is, literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our Country. With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, Financial and National Security. Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other Countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us. Our Stock Market is consistently hitting Record Highs, and our Country has never been more respected than it is right now. A big part of this is the Economic Security created by Tariffs, and the Deals that we have negotiated because of them. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
The case involves whether or not the president can use "emergency powers" to unilaterally set tariffs on imports from other nations.
As CNN reports, Trump has relied on a 1970s-era emergency law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to levy the import duties. That law allows a president to "regulate … importation" during emergencies.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also emphasized the critical nature of the case.
"I'm actually going to go and sit, hopefully in the front row, and have a ringside seat," Bessent told Fox News Monday night.
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Wednesday at 10 a.m. Eastern time.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, filed articles of impeachment Tuesday against "radical activist" Judge James Boasberg for his role in the "Arctic Frost" probe in which Joe Biden's Justice Department sought phone records to spy on Republicans in Congress.
"Judge Boasberg abused his power by weaponizing the judiciary against critics of the Biden Administration," Gill said on X.
"As part of the Arctic Frost Investigation, Judge Boasberg signed off on frivolous nondisclosure orders to conceal the fact that sitting US Senators were being surveilled. Not only was this action egregiously improper; it was a gross violation of the separation of powers.
"Judge Boasberg is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, is unfit for office, and should be impeached."
"This appears to be the tip of the iceberg," he added. "More information is coming out daily about the extent of Judge Boasberg's involvement in Arctic Frost."
The congressman's resolution accuses Boasberg of one count of abuse of power.
Gill told Fox News Digital that "Boasberg has compromised the impartiality of the judiciary and created a constitutional crisis. He is shamelessly weaponizing his power against his political opponents, including Republican members of Congress who are faithfully serving the American people within their jurisdiction."
"Judge Boasberg was an accomplice in the egregious Arctic Frost scandal where he equipped the Biden DOJ to spy on Republican senators. His lack of integrity makes him clearly unfit for the gavel. I am proud to once again introduce articles of impeachment against Judge Boasberg to hold him accountable for his high crimes and misdemeanors."
"Arctic Frost was the vehicle by which FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors could improperly investigate the entire Republican political apparatus," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. "This was clearly a fishing expedition."
Among those targeted by the Biden Justice Department was U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who called it a "witch hunt" and Biden's own "Watergate" scandal.
"They launched Arctic Frost, this witch hunt, they launched it three days after Donald Trump launched his re-election campaign to be re-elected to the presidency. This was all about politics," Cruz said.
"And Arctic Frost is, I think, the Biden Department of Justice's Watergate. It is pure weaponization going after their political opponents and I think the Biden DOJ needs to be held to account."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A school district that lost at the U.S. Supreme Court when it demanded it had the right to push deviant sex ideologies, such as transgenderism, onto children without their parents' permission still is imposing its lessons on the young and impressionable, according to a report.
It is the Federalist that confirmed that schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, continue to push leftist agendas.
It now is forcing children as young as 12 to "decipher numerous gender ideology terms in a vocabulary lesson, without parental knowledge, permission, or the ability to opt out," the report said.
WND had reported when the Supreme Court decided Mahmoud v. Taylor, ruling that schools are not allowed to force their own religious beliefs onto young children, through mandatory lessons and a ban on opt-outs, because that infringes on the religious rights of the parents.
The case came out of Montgomery County where school officials adopted that mandatory LGBT indoctrination for children as young as three years old. Originally, schools offered an opt-out for parents who didn't want the school's religious ideologies taught to their children, but the school district, faced with a flood of such demands from parents, soon decided to force all children into the lessons.
A commentary after the decision at the Federalist noted the dissenters were Sonio Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Jackson, who famously established her place in history by telling her Senate confirmation hearing she was unable to define "woman."
"The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, sided with the parents, saying, 'A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill … And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents' acceptance of such instruction.'"
But, the commentary noted, "That is not how the three leftists see it. In fact, they see parents — especially religious ones — as roadblocks to education."
The new report said, "Even after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling stating the district had to allow parents to opt their children out of the coursework, the county is still trying to force-feed young teenagers and preteens 'transgender' propaganda."
The evidence is from Defending Education which obtained from a parent the school's own lesson.
"This vocabulary lesson requires that students buy into an ideology that many reject," DE Senior Director of Communications Erika Sanzi told The Federalist. "Does MCPS require that students subscribe to gender ideology in order to fulfill the district's family life requirements for middle schoolers? Because if so, that seems like viewpoint discrimination in a public school."
The assignment for seventh-graders from last month was part of a "sexual education" lesson and required students to define "sex assigned at birth," "gender identity," "transgender" and more.
There is no apparent opt-out available, "ostensibly so that parents did not find out about the content," the report said.
Experts warned that the agenda ordered discontinued had teachers "correct" students if they "expressed errant or opposing views of gender."
That agenda had teachers telling students they were being "hurtful" if they questioned how a boy could become a girl.
Scientifically, they can't.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Tuesday on CNBC's "Squawk Box" that even a Supreme Court loss of the tariff case before it doesn't mean the end of tariffs for President Donald Trump.
Oral arguments are scheduled for Wednesday, and the case has been fast-tracked because of the urgency surrounding the situation.
Bessent said he was confident Trump will prevail in the case, which challenges his authority to impose tariffs without an act of Congress.
But even if Trump loses, Bessent said, there are still lots of options for using other authorities to get the job done.
“There are lots of other authorities that can be used, but IEEPA is by far the cleanest, and it gives the U.S. and the president the most negotiating authority,” he said. “The others are more cumbersome, but they can be effective.”
Bessent went on to detail some of the options.
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 uses national security to justify tariffs, while Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 regulates unfair trading practices.
Both of these options would only allow the president to impose tariffs during a state of emergency, however. While Trump has declared a state of emergency over the border and crime in some cities, I don't see how these would translate to the tariff situation.
Trump is somehow convinced that income from tariffs is going to pay off our national debt and make us solvent again, but I really don't see this happening either. He called the case "life or death" for the U.S. on Tuesday just ahead of the arguments in the case.
Bessent believes that the Supreme Court will be reluctant to "interfere" with tariffs when they are told the policy is a "signature" one for the president.
“This is very important tomorrow, and SCOTUS is going to hear this,” Bessent said. “This is a signature policy for the president, and traditionally, SCOTUS has been loath to interfere with these signature policies.”
This could be true, but if the law states it isn't under Trump's purview to impose tariffs, it probably won't matter whether it's a "signature" policy or not.
Trump has used tariffs and the threat of tariffs to get more favorable terms with U.S. trading partners after years of the U.S. letting other nations take advantage of its relative wealth and status.
But that wealth and status are more in doubt than ever with $38 trillion in debt hanging over our heads. If Trump can somehow turn that around, he will be one of the greatest presidents in history.
Buckingham Palace has dropped a bombshell, stripping Prince Andrew—now just Andrew Mountbatten Windsor—of his royal titles and honors over his troubling ties to Jeffrey Epstein, the notorious financier and convicted pedophile.
The saga, steeped in scandal, centers on Andrew's loss of his prince title, military ranks, and even his home at Royal Lodge, following intense scrutiny over allegations of sexual abuse and a damning new memoir by his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, the Daily Mail reported.
Let’s rewind to the start of this royal reckoning. Andrew’s association with Epstein, a man whose crimes shocked the world, has haunted the monarchy for years, with accusations from Giuffre claiming abuse when she was just 17. Despite his denials, the stain refused to wash out.
Fast forward to last week, when the palace announced Andrew would no longer carry the title of prince and must vacate Royal Lodge, a cushy residence he’s held at a bargain rent for two decades. The official statement on Thursday night cemented his new identity as plain Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. Talk about a fall from grace.
Then came the gut punch from King Charles and his advisers, who made it clear this was non-negotiable. Sources say the King was fed up with Andrew’s refusal to fully sever ties with Epstein, despite public claims otherwise. No government meddling here—just a monarch cleaning house.
Adding insult to injury, Andrew’s last military honor, the honorary rank of vice-admiral awarded in 2015, was yanked on Sunday, as confirmed by Defence Secretary John Healey. Healey noted the Ministry of Defence would bow to the King’s rulings, leaving open whether Andrew might cling to his Falklands War medals or active-service rank of commander. A naval career spanning back to 1979, now reduced to a question mark.
The heat turned up last month with the posthumous release of Giuffre’s memoir, "Nobody's Girl," published after her tragic passing at 41. In excerpts shared by The Guardian, she paints Andrew as “entitled,” alleging he viewed intimacy as his “birthright” and even thanked her in a “clipped British accent” after an alleged encounter. That’s a chilling image no amount of royal polish can scrub away.
Andrew, predictably, denies every word, though he settled out of court with Giuffre in 2022 for millions of pounds. If silence is golden, that payout was a treasure chest—but it hasn’t quieted the storm. Now, anti-monarchy groups like Republic are pushing for private prosecution over allegations of assault and misconduct.
Pressure is also mounting across the pond, with calls for Andrew to testify before the U.S. House Oversight Committee about Epstein’s network. At 65, he’s described as unrepentant, a stance that reportedly pushed King Charles to his limit. Stubbornness might be a family trait, but it’s not winning any crowns here.
Enter Donald Trump, who on Sunday, aboard Air Force One, offered a rare moment of compassion for the royals. “It's a terrible thing that's happened to the (royal) family,” Trump said, adding, “I feel badly for the family.” While Trump’s own past links to Epstein have been spotlighted by activists, his words here carry a tone of genuine regret for a dynasty under siege.
Let’s unpack that quote—Trump’s sympathy isn’t blind loyalty to royalty but a nod to the mess of public scandal. In a world obsessed with tearing down tradition, even a conservative can see the human cost of such a downfall. The royals aren’t just figureheads; they’re a family caught in a very modern crucible.
Meanwhile, Andrew’s personal life is in upheaval as he prepares to relocate to a Sandringham estate property, details still murky. His ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, is also charting her own path away from Windsor Castle grounds. It’s a stark reminder that titles don’t shield you from consequences.
The Royal Lodge exit wasn’t even contested—Andrew, as leaseholder, served notice himself, a sign he knew the jig was up. Reports suggest Charles had warned of harsher measures if any titles were clung to after the Epstein deception. No room for negotiation when trust is this broken.
Giuffre’s family, meanwhile, isn’t letting her fight fade, with her brother Skye and sister-in-law Amanda declaring, “Today, an ordinary American girl from an ordinary American family, brought down a British prince with her truth and extraordinary courage.” That’s a powerful epitaph, one that underscores why this story won’t vanish quietly. It’s a rallying cry for accountability, even if it grates against those who’d rather protect old institutions.
So where does this leave the monarchy? Caught between preserving heritage and confronting ugly truths, the royal family faces a reckoning that no progressive agenda could script. Andrew’s fall is a cautionary tale—privilege isn’t a free pass, and in today’s world, justice, or at least its pursuit, can topple even a prince.