The Supreme Court has been asked to reconsider its landmark ruling Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage nationwide more than a decade ago.
The long-shot request was made by Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk who gained notoriety after she was jailed for refusing marriage licenses in the aftermath of the court's ruling. She was sued by a gay couple and ordered to pay $100,00 in emotional damages, plus $260,000 for attorneys fees.
"If there ever was a case of exceptional importance," her lawyer Matthew Staver wrote, "the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it."
In her petition to the Supreme Court, Davis argues that Obergefell was based on a "legal fiction" and that it has eroded the First Amendment's protections of religious freedom.
"The damage done by Obergefell’s distortion of the Constitution is reason enough to overturn this opinion and reaffirm the rule of law and the proper role of this Court," the petition says.
The appeal quotes from the conservative justices, who warned at the time of the Obergefell ruling that the court had bypassed a democratic debate to overturn centuries of tradition on marriage and the family.
Chief Justice John Roberts called the decision an "act of will, not legal judgment" that proclaimed a new right with "no basis in the Constitution."
Justice Samuel Alito, who has continued to criticize the decision, said the post-Obergefell world would be one in which religious believers will "whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes."
"But if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools," he wrote.
Davis is urging the Supreme Court to send the issue back to the states, citing the Dobbs decision, which ended Roe v. Wade, as an example of the justices overturning an erroneous precedent. Legal analysts are skeptical that the request will go far, however.
An appeals court shut Davis down earlier this year, finding she is not protected by the First Amendment because she is "being held liable for state action."
Davis may get a friendlier hearing from the Supreme Court, which has moved to the right over the past decade. Some of the court's justices have expressed interest in revisiting the contentious gay marriage ruling, namely Alito and Clarence Thomas.
In her petition, Davis cites Thomas' concurrence in Dobbs, in which he urged the court to "reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."
On the right, the defense of traditional marriage has long been relegated to the past, but some continue to view Obergefell as a mistake that led America down a path of moral confusion, setting the stage for the transgender movement that later swept the country.
While most Americans have come to regard the issue as settled, support for gay marriage has declined among Republicans, dropping from a high of 55% to 41% this year - and a handful of Republican states have publicly called on the Supreme Court to throw out its Obergefell ruling.
The Nevada Supreme Court has sided with former Las Vegas Raiders coach Jon Gruden to allow his civil lawsuit against the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell to proceed, NBC News reported. Nevada's highest court said in a 5-2 ruling that the NFL's preferred resolution through arbitration overseen by Goodell was "unconscionable."
The issue stems from a November 2021 lawsuit Gruden filed against the league after emails he sent to an NFL employee, which contained offensive language, were leaked to the press. He contends those leaks were intentional and damaged his career with the Raiders and beyond.
The rules of the NFL mandate that any conflict of this nature must go through arbitration, which Gruden fought on the basis that he is no longer an employee of the organization. The Nevada Supreme Court would eventually agree with his assertion in its decision on Monday.
The NFL claimed that its Constitution and Bylaws confer "full, complete, and final jurisdiction and authority to arbitrate . . . [a]ny dispute . . . that in the opinion of the Commissioner constitutes conduct detrimental to the best interests of the League or professional football." The court disagreed, calling that rule "unconscionable" and agreeing with him that it "does not apply to Gruden as a former employee."
According to a report in Sports Illustrated in October 2021, the NFL's review of some 650,000 emails over 10 years uncovered Gruden's use of offensive language in messages to an employee. His messages contained "misogynistic and anti-LGBTQ comments."
The review was being conducted as part of an investigation into workplace conduct at the Washington Commanders, the team that was formerly the Washington Red Skins until 2019. Then-team president Bruce Allen was often on the receiving end of Gruden's messages as the two were former co-workers at the Raiders the first time, between 1998 and 2001, and with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
The emails involved in the investigation were sent while Gruden was an employee at ESPN and using his personal account. Allen was using his team email account, which was the catalyst for the NFL's ability to leak information about what Gruden said.
Some of the emails include Gruden's opinions against the NFL's decision to employ female referees and for allowing football players to protest during the national anthem. Gruden also had strong opinions about Goodell for forcing coaches to draft gay players, including the first openly gay player, Michael Sam.
In reviewing more than 650,000 emails sent over the past decade, the NFL has reportedly found numerous examples of Jon Gruden using misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ, and racial slurs, per the @nytimes.
Shortly after the report came to light, Gruden resigned: https://t.co/LmqlyxJpyM pic.twitter.com/GKu4Vt4UHQ
— Sports Illustrated (@SInow) October 12, 2021
Because of the controversy, many believed Gruden should never work in football again. He has been working for Barstool Sports following the controversy, according to Fox News, but he longs to return to coaching football.
In a YouTube video chronicling his recent visit to Georgia, Gruden said he was there in the hopes of finding a way back to coaching, even if it is through collegiate sports. "I want to coach again. I’d die to coach in the [Southeastern Conference]. I would love it," Gruden said.
"Hopefully, I’m not done. I’m about to make a comeback," the Super Bowl-winning coach added. "Hopefully, some of these guys that fell off my branch, if you say it that way, maybe they can hire me 'cause I’m looking for a job." There are some signs of hope as he was associated with the New Orleans Saints following his 2021 ouster from the Raiders and was restored to the Buccaneers' Ring of Honor.
"I don’t care if I coach at Jones Junior High. I’m going to coach again. I’m still coaching. I’m just not on a team officially, but I do have some private assignments I work on, and I wear some gear when I’m watching the games that nobody knows about who I’m pulling for," Gruden said.
Of course, what Gruden said was objectionable, but ruining his career for life does not seem fitting for some offensive things he said in what he thought were private emails. Gruden will have a chance to be heard in court and, with any luck, may see his career restored as well.
An appeals court has formally rebuked James Boasberg, the district court judge who infamously ordered President Trump to turn around deportation flights.
In a 2-1 decision, the court reversed the Obama appointee's finding that the Trump administration acted in criminal contempt when it ignored his far-reaching attempt to micromanage immigration policy - an effort the appeals court called "troubling" in its implications.
The ruling is a significant victory for Trump in his battle with "activist" judges who have sought to override his authority.
To many on the right, Boasberg became the face of a judicial tyranny when he ordered Trump to reverse deportation flights to El Salvador that were already in progress under the Alien Enemies Act.
The Trump administration ignored the extraordinary demand, and the Supreme Court later overturned Boasberg's original order blocking Trump's flights.
Still, Boasberg launched contempt proceedings to punish what he called a "solemn mockery" of the Constitution's separation of powers.
A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Appeals Court took a sharply different view of the matter and threw out Boasberg's finding of "probable cause."
Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both Trump appointees, said Boasberg overreached by using threats of criminal prosecution to exercise pressure on the administration's conduct of foreign policy.
"The order forces a coequal branch to choose between capitulating to an unlawful judicial order and subjecting its officials to a dubious prosecution," Rao said.
Boasberg's intervention in the case "raises troubling questions about judicial control over core executive functions" like immigration and the prosecution of criminal offenses, said Katsas, who also noted that Boasberg's order was unclear, making it impossible to say whether the administration defied it willfully.
Rao and Katsas also noted that Boasberg's contempt threats came after the Supreme Court tossed his original order blocking flights. Beyond that point, he "no longer had authority to coerce compliance," Rao said.
"The attempt to do so with the threat of criminal contempt was both unlawful and a clear abuse of discretion, particularly because the coercion was directed at the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs," she wrote.
Dissenting, Obama appointee Cornelia Pillard echoed Boasberg's warning about ignoring court orders.
“Our system of courts cannot long endure if disappointed litigants defy court orders with impunity rather than legally challenge them. That is why willful disobedience of a court order is punishable as criminal contempt," she wrote.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The former chief of the United States Capitol Police is firing back fiercely against former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who blasted President Donald Trump on Monday for deploying the National Guard to the District of Columbia.
In the wake of Trump's announcement of a federal takeover to beautify D.C. and make it more safe, Pelosi said, "Donald Trump delayed deploying the National Guard on January 6th when our Capitol was under violent attack and lives were at stake.
"Now, he's activating the DC Guard to distract from his incompetent mishandling of tariffs, health care, education and immigration – just to name a few blunders."
Her comments did not sit well with former Capitol Police Cheif Steven Sund, who exposed the failures of the California Democrat in January 2021, as he directly responded to her.
"Ma'am, it is long past time to be honest with the American people," Sund began. "On January 3, I requested National Guard assistance, but your Sergeant at Arms denied it.
"Under federal law (2 U.S.C. §1970), I was prohibited from calling them in without specific approval. That same day, Carol Corbin at the Pentagon offered National Guard support, but I was forced to decline because I lacked the legal authority.
"On January 6, while the Capitol was under attack and despite my repeated calls, your Sergeant at Arms again denied my urgent requests for over 70 agonizing minutes, 'running it up the chain' for your approval.
"When I needed assistance, it was denied," he concluded. "Yet when it suited you, you ordered fencing topped with concertina wire and surrounded the Capitol with thousands of armed National Guard troops."
At Monday's news conference at the White House, President Trump himself called attention to Pelosi's failure regarding Jan. 6 security, referring to her a "certain person."
"You remember I said I offered 10,000 once, remember I said to a certain person, a person who I thought always was highly overrated, not very competent," Trump indicated.
"But I said, 'If you need 'em, we'll give you 10,000 of the military or the National Guard.' They turned me down."
As WorldNetDaily reported in June 2024, an explosive video was posted online in which Pelosi was seen admitting "responsibility" for the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
"This is ridiculous," Pelosi says in a phone conversation as she's being chauffeured. "You're going to ask me in the middle of the thing when they've already breached the inaugural stuff that should we call the Capitol police, I mean the National Guard? Why weren't the National Guard there to begin with? … And I take responsibility for not having them just prepare for more."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, located in Nashville, has struck down a municipal ordinance that limited the number of customers who could visit a home-based business.
It is invalid because it discriminated based on the type business it was.
According to a report from the Institute for Justice, which fought on behalf of record producer Lij Shaw and hairstylist Pat Raynor, Nashville's rule allowed the two only six client visits a day at their businesses.
And then the city came up with "invasive and burdensome requirements."
However, other businesses based in homes, such as short-term rentals, home daycares, historic homes and more, were allowed to have 12 or more clients daily, "free from additional requirements."
"This kind of arbitrary favoritism has no place under the Tennessee Constitution," explained Paul Avelar, a lawyer for the IJ. "Lij and Pat have a constitutional right to use their homes to earn an honest living. But Nashville treats their home-based businesses worse than other, privileged, home-based businesses for no real reason."
The lawsuit stems from the city's 2017 attacks on the two businesses, in which it shut them down.
Then came COVD, and the city allowed them to have six client visits daily.
Now a unanimous ruling from Judges Frank Clement, Andy Bennett, and Jeffrey Usman agreed with the claims that the city had not offered good reasons for favoring some home business over others.
The ruling said, "Metro has offered no rational reason for the difference in treatment that is relevant to the purpose of the law."
The case already has been to the state Supreme Court, which rejected a lower court's dismissal and reinstated it for further opinions at the lower court level.
At first, the lower court claimed the limits were "constitutional because they were rationally related to the city's interests in preserving the residential nature of neighborhoods."
The appeals ruling noted that the city changed its code during the time period that the lawsuit was pending. But throughout the proceedings the city exempted short-term rentals, home-based daycares, historic buildings and such.
The case ended up addressing the city's irrational decision to distinguish between different types of home-related businesses.
"Plaintiffs argued that there was no rational reason that was relevant to the purpose of the law for distinguishing between their businesses and the Exempt Businesses. In support, Plaintiffs produced evidence that their businesses had no more of an impact on the residential character of neighborhoods than the Exempt Businesses," the ruling said.
The opinion noted the city didn't even try to dispute that.
The city had responded to the unequal treatment concerns by stating that it did allow customer visits, but did "not explain what relevance this has to plaintiff's equal protection claim.'
"We conclude that Plaintiffs' businesses are similarly situated in all material respects to home-based daycares, historic-home event venues, owner-occupied STRPs, and home based businesses on property rezoned as SP districts with respect to the purpose of the law," the appeals court said.
Ed Martin was only appointed to be President Donald Trump's pardon attorney in May, but he will now lead the DOJ's Weaponization Working Group, which includes overseeing cases against New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) and Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA).
Both Schiff and James are accused of fraudulently claiming primary residences in areas around Washington, D.C. to get more favorable loan terms.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) made a criminal referral against James earlier in the year over her Virginia property, which she claimed as primary even though her job in New York required her to live there. A similar referral was made for Schiff in May.
Schiff is under investigation for claiming that his home in Maryland was his primary residence even though he was required to live in California while a House member representing four different districts from that state during his 24-year tenure.
Grand juries in Virginia and Maryland are hearing evidence of James and Schiff's alleged crimes, and will decide soon whether they will face trials there.
Charges including potential mortgage fraud, bank fraud and wire fraud can carry jail terms of up to 30 years.
Martin will be a special prosecutor in those cases if the grand jury does decide to indict them.
“Attorney General Bondi and President Trump have given me a very serious mission,” Martin said of the assignment. "I am committed to going where the facts take me."
“For months DOJ and the FBI have been working on these two cases," he continued. "It is my job to stick the landing.”
Both James and Schiff have been vocal critics of President Donald Trump for many years.
Ironically, James prosecuted him for allegedly overvaluing his properties to get favorable loan terms, while Schiff presided over his first impeachment in the House.
James convicted Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records and got an almost half billion dollar judgment against him, which is being appealed.
James's attorney Abbe Lowell, who once helped defend Trump, said in a statement, “Investigating the fraud case Attorney General James won against President Trump and his businesses has to be the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president’s political retribution campaign."
Schiff's attorney, former New York prosecutor Preet Bharara, said, “Ed Martin, the most brazenly partisan and politically compromised person possible for the task, has been picked to investigate a political adversary. The bias here is glaring."
Bharara pointed out that Schiff had placed a hold on Martin's previous nomination to be a U.S. Attorney in D.C. and forced him to step down from consideration.
Is Trump going after his enemies to even the score for the things they have done to him and his allies, or is the DOJ just trying to see justice be done?
For years, many have wondered how Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her husband, Paul Pelosi, have managed to make some of the most impressive and lucrative stock trades -- beating out some of the most experienced and veteran traders on Wall Street.
According to Breitbart, President Donald Trump even broke his silence on the Pelosis' seemingly never-ending Wall Street fortune-making abilities, accusing the former House Speaker of insider trading.
Trump commented on Pelosi's market-making abilities, noting that they "beat every Hedge Fund in 2024."
The president noted how the Pelosis have beaten every "super genius" on Wall Street, concluding that insider trading is the only possible explanation as to how the San Francisco couple has beaten and exploited the market at every turn.
As Trump typically does, he held nothing back in a Truth Social post slamming the Pelosis and their seemingly perfect stock-trading abilities.
"Crooked Nancy Pelosi, and her very 'interesting' husband, beat every Hedge Fund in 2024. In other words, these two very average 'minds' beat ALL of the Super Geniuses on Wall Street, thousands of them," Trump wrote.
He then called her a "disgusting degenerate" and slammed her for her role in his multiple impeachment proceedings.
He added, "It’s all INSIDE iNFORMATION! Is anybody looking into this??? She is a disgusting degenerate, who Impeached me twice, on NO GROUNDS, and LOST! How are you feeling now, Nancy???"
There have been multiple, bipartisan efforts by members of Congress to tamp down or eliminate the ability of lawmakers in both chambers to trade on Wall Street.
Breitbart noted:
During an interview on The Alex Marlow Show with Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow in May, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) explained how the Pelosis had made “hundreds of millions of dollars” off of Nancy’s insider knowledge.
Users across social media reacted to the news of Trump's accusations against Pelosi and her husband.
🚨 BREAKING: Trump Federal Housing Director Bill Pulte demands investigation into Nancy Pelosi for insider stock trading.
The pressure is growing. pic.twitter.com/KfvN1tnlDm
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) August 9, 2025
"DO IT!!! She needs to be held accountable!!! This is the equivalent of stealing from traders hard earned money with deceptive trading practices knowing full well the end result! EVERY TIME!!" one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Crazy how if it were you or me, we’d be in jail already. But Pelosi? Nothing. It’s beyond frustrating."
The U.S. Supreme Court is taking definitive steps to enforce its decisions over conflicting lower court rulings, primarily involving policies initiated under President Donald Trump, Newsmax reported.
This escalation highlights ongoing legal clashes between different judicial levels.
Judges in lower courts have recently been critiqued for their narrow interpretations of Supreme Court rulings, which some view as a form of judicial resistance. This resistance is particularly evident in cases involving measures set forward by the Trump administration, such as funding cuts and policy enforcement.
The Supreme Court's emergency docket has become a crucial tool for addressing these discrepancies. Through this avenue, the Court reiterates that precedents set by higher courts should guide the lower courts, ensuring a more uniform application of the law across different judicial tiers.
Issues have arisen from Democrats employing the court system, including District Court judges, to block several Trump administration policies. These have included nationwide injunctions aimed at stopping a variety of administrative priorities.
One specific Supreme Court decision from April, which involved a 5-4 ruling to permit funding cuts to teacher training programs, is often cited to demonstrate the overreach of lower courts into policy areas traditionally handled by the executive branch.
The U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer has been vocal about the role of district judges in these legal confrontations. He insists that district judges should avoid overriding policy judgements that are ideally within the remit of the executive branch or contradict standing Supreme Court verdicts.
"Our judicial system rests on vertical stare decisis, not a lower-court free-for-all where individual district judges feel free to elevate their own policy judgments over those of the executive branch, and their own legal judgments over those of this Court," said Sauer, emphasizing the structure of judicial precedence.
The Justice Department also singled out a case where a federal judge in Massachusetts blocked $783 million in cuts at the National Institutes of Health—a direct challenge to Trump's administrative priorities.
In another instance reflecting judicial tension, the Supreme Court intervened to allow President Trump to remove three members from the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This decision overturned a lower court’s ruling, backing the higher court’s prerogative to influence administrative changes directly.
Further, the justices referred to their decision regarding firings at the National Labor Relations Board as a foundational precedent. This reference aimed to remind lower courts that established Supreme Court decisions are not merely suggestive but binding.
According to Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law, "I think lower court judges are reading Supreme Court opinions very narrowly, almost in an act of resistance." He added, "It is very common for judges to call Trump out for defiance, but these courts need to look at their own actions."
The Supreme Court has noted that while its interim orders do not conclude the merits of a case, they should guide how courts exercise discretion in similar matters. This stance is critical in maintaining a coherent legal framework across different judicial levels.
Sauer further noted that debates over 'diversity' in policy decisions often mask deeper issues of discrimination, underscoring the complexities the judiciary faces in interpreting policy-driven rulings.
The ongoing judicial disputes illustrate the dynamic and sometimes contentious relationship between different levels of the judiciary, particularly under the heightened political and social stakes of the Trump administration’s policy directives.
New York Attorney General Letitia James' office and her attorney have ascended to new levels of irony after complaining about the "weaponization" of the justice system after the DOJ announced a probe against her.
After leading a blatantly political indictment against President Donald Trump for years, James and her office have the audacity to complain that the Trump DOJ is being "weaponized" to punish a political opponent of the White House.
James and the Biden DOJ pursued criminal investigations against Trump relentlessly for years, and now the shoe is on the other foot, and they aren't happy with the rules that they created.
James is currently facing a probe from the DOJ regarding her political prosecution of President Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association, which is a moment that conservatives have been waiting on for years.
James is just one of several high-profile leftist prosecutors who attempted to interfere with the 2024 presidential election with political indictments, and justice is finally here for James and her cohorts.
After four years of persecuting Trump, James and her Democrat friends are now on the wrong side of the law. After years of political indictments, Trump has all the room to direct the DOJ to investigate his opponents for any supposed crimes.
Abbe Lowell, James's attorney, issued a statement claiming, "[It is] the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign. Weaponizing the Department of Justice to try to punish an elected official for doing her job is an attack on the rule of law and a dangerous escalation by this administration."
The irony of this statement isn't lost on the Trump administration or Trump's conservative supporters, who aren't shedding tears at the thought of Democrats reaping what they sowed for all those years.
Furthermore, there are legitimate merits to the probe against James as the DOJ is investigating if the Democrat attorney general's office may have violated constitutional protections under the "color of law," a legal term that describes abuses of power by government officials.
The prospective case is probing whether James deprived Trump, his business empire, and the NRA of their legal rights in her blatantly political investigation that was designed to damage Trump's presidential campaign.
James is well and truly in trouble, and this is only the beginning. Trump is in office for another three and a half years and has all the leeway to exact his retribution without damaging his support, thanks to the vicious and reckless behavior of Democrats that changed the rules of the game.
James doesn't just have to worry about the DOJ probing her office for allegations of political persecution; she is also facing allegations of mortgage fraud alongside Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA), another notorious Trump hater.
Schiff is accused of lying about his primary residence for tax and mortgage purposes, and after how viciously he pursued Trump, the White House will not be showing mercy should it be found that Schiff was committing fraud.
As for James, if she was found guilty of fraud, it would be sweet revenge for Trump, who was accused of inflating his real estate portfolio by James.
A federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama has paused construction for two weeks at "Alligator Alcatraz" after a challenge from environmentalist groups.
The immigrant detention center, located in the Florida Everglades, was opened in July and quickly became a polarizing symbol of President Donald Trump's mass deportation push.
Environmental and tribal groups want to shut the facility down, saying it will damage the local wetland ecosystem.
The temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams bars additional construction for two weeks while she considers whether to issue a preliminary injunction, which has a larger scope.
The Trump administration says this ruling is another example of activists weaponizing the court system to override Trump's electoral mandate.
“It is another attempt to prevent the president from fulfilling the American people’s mandate for mass deportations,” Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “These environmental activists -- and activist judge -- don’t care about the invasion of our country facilitated by the Biden administration, but the American people do."
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who has championed Trump's deportation push, noted the ruling does not stop immigrants from being detained at the tent facility, which currently houses 3,000.
“Alligator Alcatraz will remain operational, continuing to serve as a force multiplier to enhance deportation efforts,” a spokesperson for the governor said.
State officials argue that "Alligator Alcatraz" will not harm the Everglades, which has been under restoration for decades.
Environmentalists say that federal law requires a review of the environmental impact of the facility, which was built in eight days on an unused airfield.
“We’re pleased that the judge saw the urgent need to put a pause on additional construction, and we look forward to advancing our ultimate goal of protecting the unique and imperiled Everglades ecosystem from further damage caused by this mass detention facility,” said Eve Samples, executive director at Friends of the Everglades.
Florida argues that the National Environmental Policy Act does not apply because the facility is run by the state, but the challengers say federal law does apply because the detention center is being used for federal immigration enforcement.
Green groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity, which is part of the lawsuit against Alligator Alcatraz, have spent years trying to block Trump's border wall.
While environmentalists may have sincere concerns about "Alligator Alcatraz," they have apparently never stopped to consider the environmental damage caused by mass immigration, which has become the main driver of U.S. population growth.