California, like Illinois and a handful of other deep blue states, have some of the most ridiculous gun laws on the books.
According to Breitbart, at least one of those ridiculous laws was trashed this week after the Second Amendment Foundation won a crucial court victory squashing California's gun-rationing law.
The law allowed law-abiding citizens in California to purchase only one firearm every 30 days, making it one of the most strict -- and stupid -- gun laws in the entire United States. Thankfully, the decision to quash it was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The decision marks a major win for the Second Amendment Foundation -- and thousands of law-abiding gun owners in California, who no longer have to wait 30 days to purchase a new firearm.
Breitbart noted that the original case was brought by a group of gun owners and organizations, including FFL license holders.
The case, Nguyen v. Bonta, was brought by SAF, the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., and San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, two FFL gun dealers, and six private citizens including Michelle Nguyen.
The Ninth Circuit's panel that upheld the lower court's decision had judge Danielle J. Forrest write the majority opinion on the matter.
"California has a 'one-gun-a-month' law that prohibits most people from buying more than one firearm in a 30-day period. The district court held that this law violates the Second Amendment. We affirm," the judge wrote.
Judge Forrest added, "California’s law is facially unconstitutional because possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment and California’s law is not supported by our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation."
SAF executive director Adam Kraut commented on the court's ruling.
"Today’s decision claws back a portion of Second Amendment rights stolen by California’s government," Kraut said.
He added, "California’s one-gun-per-month law was in clear violation of the Second Amendment, as affirmed by the unanimous decision in the Ninth Circuit. This ruling is one step closer to liberating the people of the state from the totalitarian ideals of those in power who believe the right to keep and bear arms is a second-class right."
Under President Donald Trump, there's a steady uptick of court decisions going in favor of Americans' Second Amendment rights.
If such an asinine law can be shot down in California, it gives great hope that other anti-gun laws can be erased in other states -- even blue ones.
Only time will tell what the next anti-gun law will be to fall at the hands of the court.
President Donald Trump notched another victory after the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that he may maintain control of California National Guard troops, Newsmax reported. California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and others had sued to keep him from using the military to control anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles.
Trump celebrated Thursday's victory on his Truth Social after the ruling. "BIG WIN in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the President's core power to call in the National Guard!" Trump posted.
"The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared, but this is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done," Trump said. He called it a "Great Decision for our Country."
Trump was forced to deploy the military to Los Angeles because of the riots against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. Local officials seemed unable or unwilling to quell the riots, so Trump sent another 2,000 California National Guard troops prior to Thursday's ruling.
There are currently 4,100 National Guard troops plus another 700 U.S. Marines. The number of protesters has been dwindling, perhaps because of the military presence, but Newsom continues to argue that sending the National Guard provoked the rioters and overstepped Trump's authority.
A lower court initially sided with Newsom's lawsuit against military involvement. Democrat-appointed U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that the riots fell "far short" of the threshold of "rebellion" that Trump used to deploy soldiers.
While Newsom was fighting Trump's ability to send in troops, the California governor remained unfazed by the fact that Los Angeles was burning. According to the New York Post, Newsom was spotted at a ritzy Napa Valley wine-tasting and fundraiser as riots got underway.
"I couldn’t believe it. He was just walking around like this was an everyday occurrence," one witness, who captured a photograph of Newsom at the event, said.
Although the three-judge panel agreed to allow Trump to keep control of the troops through the appeal, the fight is nowhere near over. According to the Associated Press, Breyer has asked both sides to prepare arguments by noon Monday to make their cases about whether Trump is violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
The law makes it illegal for military troops on American soil to do the job of civilian law enforcement. Newsom said in his legal filing that a "violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is imminent, if not already underway," though the judge tabled that issue until now.
Trump believes he has the power to use the federal troops based on Title 10. It allows for deployment when an area "is invaded," if "there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government," or when the president isn't able "to execute the laws of the United States" because of an uprising.
Meanwhile, Vice President J.D. Vance has been making the case for Trump. "The president has a very simple proposal to everybody in every city, every community, every town whether big or small, if you enforce your own laws and if you protect federal law enforcement, we’re not going to send in the National Guard because it’s unnecessary," Vance told the press in Los Angeles.
The courts will have the final say, but it appears that Trump's intervention has been effective in the meantime. Newsom is a terrible leader who is comfortable with one of his major cities descending into chaos, which only highlights the contrast between the two leaders.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a nuclear waste storage facility in West Texas, clearing a major regulatory hurdle for the controversial project, ABC27 reported.
With a 6-3 decision, the court endorsed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's authority to license the facility, despite fervent opposition from Texas officials concerned about safety and permanence.
The high court's decision permits the temporary storage of nuclear waste in Texas, despite concerns about safety and arguments regarding federal law restrictions.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who penned the opinion for the court, argued against Texas's challenge to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's decision to grant a temporary license. The state of Texas had contended that off-site storage of nuclear waste posed significant risks and was beyond the scope of authority usually granted for such facilities.
The ruling dismisses significant aspects of Texas's arguments against the storage facility, which is located in West Texas over the Permian Basin. The court did not entertain Texas’s broader argument that the federal government could not license a private site for storage, an issue of significant legal concern.
Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented, expressing concern that the storage of nuclear waste should only occur at a nuclear reactor or federally owned location, highlighting potential legal constraints he believes were overlooked. This dissent touches on a broader debate regarding the legal framework surrounding nuclear waste storage in the country.
The origins of these decisions date back to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which mandated the federal government to establish a permanent solution for nuclear waste storage. Yucca Mountain in Nevada was initially selected as such a site, but progress on the project has stalled amid considerable opposition.
In light of storage challenges, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has stressed the necessity of interim solutions such as the West Texas facility. They argue that plants nationwide are running short on storage space, necessitating an alternative arrangement while a permanent site remains elusive.
Steve Nesbit, a nuclear engineer and safety analyst, offered reassurance regarding the storage facility, stating, "It’s very stable, very safe, stored inside some very robust containers. The storage of spent fuel has never harmed anyone." He further emphasized that most radioactivity has decayed, minimizing heat concerns.
However, the decision remains deeply divisive within Texas. Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson, during oral arguments in March, expressed skepticism about the temporary nature of the facility, saying, "If anyone thinks this is temporary, I have a bridge to sell you."
The facility's location over the productive Permian Basin has sparked additional concerns. Critics argue that the presence of a nuclear waste storage facility poses a potential "permanent terrorist bullseye" on one of America's most valuable oil fields. This highlights the broader implications of siting such a facility in an area of immense economic importance.
Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores a priority on actionable interim measures to address nuclear waste handling, weighing heavily on regulatory discretion. This reflects an ongoing balancing act between safety, legal interpretations, and economic priorities.
Justice Kavanaugh's opinion suggests confidence in the processes and safety protocols governing temporary nuclear waste storage. This aligns with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's stated positions and reassurances about facility safety.
What remains clear is the persistent need for a permanent solution to nuclear waste storage, as originally envisioned by federal law over four decades ago. The unresolved status of sites like Yucca Mountain means that temporary solutions are relied on more heavily, challenging federal and state law interpretations.
The Supreme Court's ruling acts not as an endpoint but as a continuation of the complex dialogue on nuclear waste. The legal, environmental, and economic aspects of this issue guarantee further debate and potential litigation.
As regulators and industry stakeholders navigate these challenges, the Supreme Court’s decision highlights the federal government’s proactive stance on spearheading temporary storage solutions amid ongoing political and logistical hurdles.
Continued focus on sustainable and secure nuclear waste management remains essential, ensuring both regulatory compliance and public safety. The temporary storage facility in West Texas stands as a contentious yet critical component of the country's broader nuclear waste management strategy.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A lawsuit over the public's access to a manifesto left behind by the transgender killer who broke into a Nashville school and killed three children and three adults has been settled.
A report from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, or WILL, confirmed the FBI has released 120 pages of the manifesto and will pay WILL about $86,000 in legal fees incurred in the dispute.
"This settlement is a win for government transparency and efforts by real journalists to keep their government open and accountable," explained WILL lawyer Dan Lennington.
It was on March 27, 2023, a transgender shooter entered The Covenant School in Nashville and killed three nine-year-old students and three adults—an administrator, substitute teacher, and a custodian, the legal team said.
The shooter later was killed by law enforcement.
"Our client requested a copy of the manifesto from the FBI through a formal FOIA request, which was denied by the Biden-era FBI. WILL sued, and after FBI Director Kash Patel was confirmed, settlement negotiations began to resolve the matter. The FBI then released 120 pages of the manifesto and settled the case with WILL," the report said.
WILL client Michael Patrick Leahy said, "Journalists everywhere should be willing to go to the mat to hold their government accountable, regardless of the story or who is in charge at the nation's capital. We appreciate WILL for taking our case and fighting back against the Biden administration's reckless and dangerous record retention policies."
Leahy is CEO of Star News Digital Media, Inc., which runs multiple news sites, including the Tennessee Star.
Another plaintiff was M.D. Kittle, now with the Federalist, who explained the attack by the transgender, Audrey Hale, a woman identifying as a man.
"At the time, I was National Political Editor for the Star News Network, which has done some of the best investigative work in bringing to light the dark mind of a mentally deranged mass murderer despite law enforcement efforts to keep the killer's motives shrouded in secrecy. President Joe Biden's FBI, which pulled the levers behind the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department's (MNPD) handling of the politically charged case, denied my FOIA request for Hale's manifesto. The file includes hundreds of pages of the 28-year-old woman's journals and other writings," Kittle explained.
The lawsuit followed.
"The lawsuit would likely still be tied up in federal court had the FBI, under new management, not agreed to end the Biden FBI's prolonged fight to keep the public in the dark. FBI Director Kash Patel ultimately ended an empty 'investigation' into a trans school shooter who died at the scene and had no accomplices."
Lennington pointed out the Biden administration "did not want the public to know what motivated this transgender shooter to shoot up the school and kill six people."
"The trans-centric Biden administration wanted to protect the trans agenda, and, as the Star News Network reported, the FBI advised against releasing information that it believed could put males pretending to be females and females identifying as males at risk," Kittle noted.
What is known about the attacker is that her writings paint "a picture of a deeply troubled biological woman militantly rallying around the trans flag. In the copies of 'dozens of handwritten pages' obtained last year, Hale detailed an hour-by-hour plan for her attack and made racist declarations that she wanted to 'kill all you little crackers' — expressing rage over 'their white privlages [sic],'" Kittle explained.
Lennington identified Hale's motivations as "A deep hatred of basically western family values."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed a state law in Tennessee that bans the infliction of transgender procedures on minors.
The 6-3 ruling revealed a pointedly leftist trio on the court demanding the agenda of chemically and surgically altering children to accommodate what almost always is a temporary gender dysphoria.
The majority opinion, supported by the conservative members of the court, was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.
The ruling found the Tennessee law does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Regarding the state's SB 1, Justices Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, and Samuel Alito wrote concurring opinions, while Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Ketanji Jackson and Elena Kagan.
"We are asked to decide whether SB1 is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. We hold it is not. SB1 does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review," Roberts found.
The ruling is significant, as there are about 20 other states that have similar laws preventing the infliction of body alterations and mutilations on minors.
The case revolved around the fact, according to the court, the "growing number of states restricting sex transition treatments for minors by enacting the Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity."
In Tennessee, SB1 "prohibits healthcare providers from prescribing, administering, or dispensing puberty blockers or hormones to any minor for the purpose of (1) enabling the minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's biological sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's biological sex and asserted identity."
"At the same time, SB1 permits a healthcare provider to administer puberty blockers or hormones to treat a minor's congenital defect, precocious puberty, disease, or physical injury," the court noted.
Three "transgender minors," their parents, and a doctor challenged the law under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A trial judge halted the law but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed it to take effect, as the law "did not trigger heightened scrutiny and satisfied rational basis review."
The ruling said SB1 "is not subject to heightened scrutiny because it does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review."
The law's classifications are based on age and medical condition.
"Classifications based on age or medical use are subject to only rational basis review," the court explained.
In fact, the plaintiffs claimed the classifications were based on sex, but they are not, the ruling said.
"The law does not prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing those same treatments for minors of the opposite sex. SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to any minor to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence, regardless of the minor's sex; it permits providers to administer puberty blockers and hormones to minors of any sex for other purposes," the ruling said.
Also, the ruling said, "the court rejects the plaintiffs' argument that, by design, SB1 enforces a government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex."
The court said, "Tennessee determined that administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence carries risks, including irreversible sterility, increased risk of disease and illness, and adverse psychological consequences. The legislature found that minors lack the maturity to fully understand these consequences, that many individuals have expressed regret for undergoing such treatments as minors, and that the full effects of such treatments may not yet be known. At the same time, the State noted evidence that discordance between sex and gender can be resolved through less invasive approaches. SB1's age- and diagnosis-based classifications are rationally related to these findings and the State's objective of protecting minors' health and welfare."
"In today's historic Supreme Court win, the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism," said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. "A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee's elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand. I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood."
Roberts wrote, "This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process."
Leftists who brought the fight to create mandates for transgenderism, one of Joe Biden's highest priorities while in office, included an official of Lambda Legal, who said, "This is a heartbreaking ruling, making it more difficult for transgender youth to escape the danger and trauma of being denied their ability to live and thrive."
Sotomayor explained the basis for her claim it is sex discrimination, asserting in her dissent, the "law conditions the availability of medications on a patient's sex. Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A trial for a Wisconsin judge, accused of obstructing federal ICE agents, has been taken off the calendar as lawyers expect a courtroom fight over her claim that she has absolute immunity for her actions.
Those actions, caught on video, show a visibly enraged Hannah Dugan directing ICE agents to leave the hallway in front of her courtroom, and then helping a wanted suspect to leave through a non-public door so the agents would not see him.
That suspect, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, was in her courtroom in a case in which he was accused of domestic abuse.
The suspect, an illegal alien criminal, was, in fact, captured by ICE agents shortly after Dugan, on video, helped him out of the courtroom, but only after a foot chase by federal agents.
A report at the Gateway Pundit described how the video shows Dugan "angrily confronting ICE agents in the courthouse."
Dugan later was arrested by the FBI for obstructing federal law enforcement. She's relieved of her duties but taxpayers in Wisconsin still are paying her salary.
She has argued now that everything she did, in her courtroom, even in the courthouse, is exempt from any criminal charges whatsoever, ever. That's in conflict with a federal grand jury that indicted her on two counts of obstructing an ICE arrest.
If convicted, Dugan could be sentenced to up to six years in prison and fined $350,000.
The FBI pursued her arrest and indictment because she became angry when she discovered federal agents were waiting to arrest the suspect.
WND reported that FBI Director Kash Patel has accused Dugan of intentionally misdirecting agents away from the subject.
Evidence shows Dugan ended the hearing for Flores-Ruiz "so she could discreetly escort him through a 'jury door' to avoid his arrest."
Her lawyers claim the prosecution against her for her actions to help a suspected criminal evade arrest is "barred."
In an interview on "American Reports," Attorney General Pam Bondi explained how the Trump administration will handle judges who obstruct and block federal efforts to secure the border and remove illegal aliens.
"We are going to prosecute you, and we are prosecuting you. I found out about this the day it happened," she said.
"We could not believe, actually, that a judge really did that. We looked into the facts in great depth… You cannot obstruct a criminal case. And really, shame on her. It was a domestic violence case of all cases, and she's protecting a criminal defendant over victims of crime."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One of the more "insurrectiony" things that those Americans arrested and persecuted by Joe Biden's Department of Justice over the J6 protests did was that they sang and recorded, while they were gathered together in a jail, the National Anthem.
President Donald Trump joined in what eventually was a fundraiser for prisoners accused of offenses like trespassing by recording the Pledge of Allegiance.
And for that, authoritarians embedded in the Biden administration wanted criminal charges filed.
It was a commentary at PJMedia that reflected on the revelations documented by Democrat emails.
"Democrats have spent months theatrically clutching their pearls over President Trump's supposed authoritarianism, and the past week reveling in their self-righteous 'No Kings' protests. But now, bombshell internal FBI emails have pulled back the curtain, catapulting their own authoritarian behavior into full view," it said.
"Rogue agents and prosecutors in Joe Biden's Department of Justice were apparently so desperate to bury Donald Trump under new criminal charges that they zeroed in on — wait for it — his involvement with the J6 prisoner choir. Yes, you read that right: the choir. The effort was based on a single, laughably partisan Forbes article. This is peak Democrat hypocrisy, folks."
It was columnist Miranda Devine who reported in the New York Post on the emails.
She explained they exposed the "Biden DOJ's obsession with piling on Trump charges."
"Internal FBI emails reveal that rogue agents and prosecutors in the Biden DOJ were looking for ways to pile on new criminal charges against Donald Trump over the Jan. 6 Capitol riot — this time over his involvement with the J6 prisoner choir, based on a single partisan news article," she explained "The 2023 emails obtained by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and revealed exclusively to The Post are an example of the nitpicking malice of anti-Trump lawfare that tainted special counsel Jack Smith's investigation, during Joe Biden's presidency."
It was an email from PJ Cooney to others in the DOJ that demanded, "Can we do some work to nail down Trump's role in this."
Attached was a Forbes.com article claiming "Trump collaborates on Song with Jan. 6 Defendants."
In fact, a video posted on social media shows men in jail "singing the national anthem at the DC jail in 2023."
The report revealed Cooney collaborated with "both the Robert Mueller and Smith get-Trump special counsel investigations."
The Forbes piece claimed Trump recorded the Pledge of Allegiance as part of the project.
Cooney's demands went to multiple agents and DOJ staff, "including notorious anti-Trump FBI Special Agent Walter Giardina, who responded two days later to say he was investigating the claims…"
Giardina also was "significantly involved in Operation Crossfire Hurricane," which involved debunked claims about Russian collusion.
"According to Grassley, Giardina was an 'initial recipient of the Steele Dossier' and falsely claimed that the bogus Clinton campaign smear sheet against Trump was corroborated as 'true.' Giardina also 'electronically wiped the laptop he was assigned while working for Special Counsel Mueller outside of established protocol for record preservation, raising the possibility that he destroyed government records,'" the report said.
Grassley now considers this specific email chain as a clear example of how the federal government was weaponized to "get Trump."
He told the Post, "Partisan prosecutors and agents were surfing the web to find any shred of information they could use to spin another baseless case against Trump. Their actions are a disservice to Americans, who pay their salaries and depend on DOJ and FBI to keep them safe."
The commentary at PJMedia noted the emails "Reveal the depths of anti-Trump lawfare that festered under Biden's watch. Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation, already an icon of politicized justice, was tainted by this nitpicking malice."
It continued, "Because nothing screams 'threat to democracy' like a song collaboration, right?"
"Let's unpack this steaming load of hypocrisy. While Democrats scream about Trump's supposed dictatorial tendencies, Biden's own DOJ was scheming to criminalize his every move — even something as trivial as associating with a choir," it said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A newly published report says that CBS parent Paramount is hesitating to settle a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump over the network's decision to edit a Kamala Harris interview during last year's presidential race, eliminating her word salad response and inserting a coherent statement.
The report in the New York Post confirms it's because the corporation fears accusations of bribery should Democrats take over the U.S. House in the 2026 elections.
That fear is because there have been charges, without evidence, that the Trump administration's Federal Communications Commission may not approve a pending merger involving Paramount absent a settlement.
The report said, "Approval of the deal by Trump's regulators at the Federal Communications Commission is seen as contingent on settlement of the case, people at Paramount tell The Post. Trump legal reps and officials deny that the two issues are related, but Paramount executives are concerned that any large settlement would be considered a bribe since the fate of the $8 billion Paramount-Skydance merger is at stake."
The report said Trump's legal team had tried to settle for $50 million, but then reportedly agreed to the slightly lower figure.
"(The Trump people) appeared to be willing to settle for less, but even that amount worries the Paramount people," one deal insider was quoted in the Post report.
Meanwhile, the report said a source close to the Trump legal team denied the $35 million figure was acceptable.
"CBS has denied the charges and the main allegation that it purposely edited the Kamala Harris interview to edit out her famous 'word salad' vernacular to make her sound more presidential," the report said.
Media heiress Shari Redstone is wanting to sell Paramount to independent studio Skydance, and she has indicated previously her willingness to pay as much as $50 million to end the case.
She's wants to "preserve some semblance of her inheritance from her late father, media mogul Sumner Redstone."
Earlier, the Disney-owned ABC settled a Trump lawsuit, over anchor George Stephanopolous' claims Trump was guilty of "rape," paying $15 million.
"Skydance is run by movie maven David Ellison, the son of Trump friend and Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, who is worth approximately $250 billion," the report said.
The report noted, "A Paramount spokesman declined comment. A legal rep for Trump didn't return a request for comment. A Redstone rep didn't return a request for comment."
Democrats in Congress already have "raised the bribery issue and the worry is that a state attorney general or Congress — if it changes hands in the midterms — could launch an investigation," the report said.
U.S. Judge Julia Kobick blocked the State Department's requirement that passports reflect the biological sex of the passport bearer, the Daily Caller reported. Kobick is an appointee of then-President Joe Biden and maintains close ties to the Democratic Party.
The State Department implemented the policy that President Donald Trump introduced on his first day in office, stating that the U.S. recognizes only two genders. "Under the executive order, we will no longer issue U.S. passports or Consular Reports of Birth Abroad (CRBAs) with an X marker," the State Department's website said.
"We will only issue passports with an M or F sex marker that match the customer’s biological sex at birth," it added. Applicants for U.S. passports are currently allowed to have their sex listed as "X" instead of male or female.
The new rule would require individuals obtaining new passports, renewing old ones, or changing their name or gender to have their correct biological sex recorded on the official document. However, Kobick's ruling Tuesday puts a temporary hold on Trump's rollback of gender nonsense.
It comes as no shock that this judge has deep and cozy ties with Democrats. It was a well-known fact that Kobick volunteered for Democratic heavy hitters, such as John Kerry's 2004 failed presidential bid and Sen. Elizabeth Warren's 2020 presidential campaign.
The judge volunteered for her local Democrats, including in the state senate campaign for Eric Lesser in 2014 and the congressional candidacy of Chris Pappas in 2018. She also personally donated to Warren and other candidates, including Hillary Clinton.
Kobick contributed to the leftist fundraising group ActBlue, with contributions to Democrats totaling $1,202.92. The judge clerked for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a hero of the Democratic Party and the feminist left.
She served as assistant attorney general under Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Maura Healey, who was previously the Attorney General. In 2022, Biden announced Kobick's nomination and touted her as one of several diverse candidates because she's a woman.
"I cultivate relationships with the fellows and interns, and I served for a year on the Government Bureau’s Racial Equity Working Group," Kobick disclosed to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees. Predictably, she has espoused radical leftist ideals from the bench.
Before this idiotic take, Kobick has had others that were similarly ridiculous. "She argued before the Supreme Court claiming the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to stun guns because they did not exist when the Amendment was written," a user on X, formerly Twitter, charged in a post with a screenshot of Kobick's recent ruling.
Julia Kobick, Biden appointed, is a former elementary school teacher. She clerked for RBG and was deputy attorney general for MA. She argued before the Supreme Court claiming the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to stun guns because they did not exist when the Amendment was written!😂 pic.twitter.com/jrCpeFRtlB
— Lauren G 🇺🇸 (@lbc360) June 17, 2025
According to Fox News, Kobick was deputy solicitor general when she "supported the conviction of a Massachusetts woman in 2016 for owning a stun gun that she used to defend herself against her violent ex-boyfriend." The Supreme Court dismissed the case against the woman, Jaime Caetano, calling it "frivolous."
Justice Samuel Alito supported Caetano's use of the weapon in his concurring opinion. "Caetano’s encounter with her violent ex-boyfriend illustrates the connection between those fundamental rights: By arming herself, Caetano was able to protect against a physical threat that restraining orders had proved useless to prevent," Alito wrote.
There should be no question about whether a person should list his or her biological sex on a document used for identification. Unfortunately, there are leftists like Kobick who are trying to subvert the natural order of things for political reasons, and it's shameful.
U.S. Judge Julia Kobick issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday against the Trump administration's requirement for passports to reflect the correct biological sex of the individual, Fox News reported. The regulation originated from President Donald Trump's executive order, which declared that only male and female genders exist.
The decision Tuesday put up a roadblock in President Donald Trump's effort to restore sanity to the gender argument. It was one of his campaign promises, and Trump fulfilled it with an Inauguration Day executive order.
The order applied to the entire federal government and instructed agencies to "recognize two sexes, male and female." The order rightly stated that "these sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality."
However, the mainstream media and partisans like Kobick object to such reality. Kobick, who was appointed by then-President Joe Biden, framed her objection in the predictable terms of discrimination and hatred despite biology dictating the fact.
The ruling from Kobick blindsided Trump and other rational conservatives, including the Libs of TikTok account on X, formerly Twitter. "Unreal," the user posted on Tuesday, which applies both literally and colloquially to such a ruling.
BREAKING: Julia Kobick, a Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge, has issued an order BLOCKING the Trump administration's policy requiring that individuals use their biological sex (male or female) on their passport.
UNREAL pic.twitter.com/RNjoZ8Di5A
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 17, 2025
In her ruling against the State Department's regulation, Kobrick objected to reality in favor of leftist nonsense. Kobick said she's confident in her decision because the rule is "arbitrary and capricious" and "rooted in irrational prejudice toward transgender Americans."
The judge claimed "transgender and non-binary people who possess passports bearing sex markers that conflict with their gender identity and expression are… significantly more likely to experience psychological distress, suicidality, harassment, discrimination, and violence." Kobrick asserted that "obtaining gender concordant identity documents is part of the standard of care for treating gender dysphoria."
Her reasoning is that people would "experience anxiety and psychological distress or fear for their safety if they were required to travel with passports bearing a sex designation corresponding to their sex assigned at birth, largely because they would effectively ‘out’ themselves every time they presented their passports." This focus on feelings leaves out the impact these policies have on real women.
It's all well and good to worry about how people feel because they are gender confused. However, these policies have far-reaching implications that have a detrimental impact on real women.
Trump's executive order was titled "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government." He rightly asserted that "efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being."
The president further acknowledged that "the erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system." Trump's order said that such policies open women-only spaces to men, including domestic abuse shelters, bathrooms, changing rooms, etc., and thus threaten their safety.
"This is wrong … Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself," Trump's order said.
The judge founded her ruling on feelings instead of facts, and in doing so, neglected women's safety and ignored biology. Kobrick's reversal is a shocking decision, but there is no doubt that Trump and his administration will continue to fight this madness.