This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Federal provision allows cash handouts to end 'pursuant to the terms and conditions of the federal award, including to the extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities'
One thing can be said for certain, President Donald Trump's election to the Oval Office for a second term has assured the federal judiciary of job security.
Dozens, even hundreds, of lawsuits have been filed by individuals, groups, entities, states and nations over his agenda points.
From the work of the Department of Government Efficiency in making budget cutbacks, to his foreign policy, to his economics, to his appointments, no part of the executive branch's constitutional responsibilities that Trump has exercised has escaped being named in some court filing somewhere.
But now instead of waiting for some "offense" to come out of the Trump administration, leftist states that largely voted against the 2024 landslide election victory for Trump and supported the word-salad pro Kamala Harris are suing.
They want court orders to prevent Trump from acting, not just to reverse his orders.
"We can't just sit back and wait for the next set of cuts," Mathew Platkin, the attorney general for New Jersey, claimed.
At issue is a federal OMB ruling that cash handouts set up by Washington can be canceled, "pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Federal award, including, to the extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities."
That last phrase suddenly has become important, as the priorities of federal agencies under the executive branch have changed dramatically from the tenure of Joe Biden, whose goals included abortion for all and transgenderism for children.
For instance, where Biden's Department of Justice persecuted pro-life activists who even entered those "bubble zones" around abortion businesses, Trump's DOJ is investigating the vandalism at pro-life centers and churches.
Where Biden openly pushed transgenderism on Americans and their organizations and churches, often despite outraged opposition, Trump's order states that the federal government recognizes two genders, male and female.
Biden openly promoted transgenderism in the military; Trump is working to remove those individuals, whose medical conditions are incredibly costly to taxpayers, from the ranks.
Biden insisted on open borders that allowed in millions of illegal aliens, including criminals and even terrorists; Trump has sealed the border and is working to deport those criminals.
Each issue has, at some point, generated legal conflict.
The new lawsuit has been filed in Massachusetts, where the plaintiff states of New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, are more likely to obtain a leftist, activist judge than in many other states.
Named are an entire list of federal departments and their managers, mostly appointed by Trump
The states claim that President Trump has launched "an unprecedented and unlawful campaign to terminate billions of dollars in critical federal funding appropriated by Congress."
The complaint doesn't immediately cite that that agenda is exactly what Americans voted for in the 2024 presidential race.
The states complain about the executive branch's decisions to end grants that the Biden administration had awarded, including billions of dollars handed out during the lame-duck part of Biden's term, like, as one commentator explained, dumping gold bars from the Titanic.
While Biden's agencies obviously "approved" those grants, the bureaucracies now under the administration of President Trump no longer support the goals.
"Federal agencies have engaged in this nationwide slash-and-burn campaign by unlawfully invoking a single subclause buried in federal regulations promulgated by the Office of Manage of Budget," the plaintiffs claim.
That, of course, is the permission for agencies to terminate grants "if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities."
The plaintiff states, in fact, are demanding those billions of dollars adopted by Biden bureaucrats be delivered by the Trump administration. They claim without the money, hurt will be programs to fight crime, educate students, safeguard public health, protect clean drinking water, conduct medical and scientific research, address food insecurity, ensure unemployment benefits and more.
They claim the states' sole offense is to be doing just what the Biden bureaucrats demanded, even though those grants are under the auspices of the administration of Trump now, often with complete opposite priorities.
The states claim that the OMB "never suggested … that a grant could be terminated even though the grant was continuing to serve the very goals for which the monies had initially be awarded, merely because the agency's priorities shifted midway during the use of the grant…"
The leftists, including some of those who orchestrated a years-long lawfare campaign against Trump, complained that federal agencies, when Trump took office, "abruptly shifted course."
Trump had, in fact, told agencies and DOGE to "review all existing covered contracts and grants and, where appropriate and consistent with applicable law, terminate or modify" them.
The states complain that the Trump administration now is invoking the clause to terminate grants "based on newly identified agency priorities."
The states complain that the OMB itself allows "no support for a broad power to terminate grants on a whim based on newly identified agency priorities."
And they complaint that no longer being in the pipeline for federal cash handouts has hurt them.
Their solution is for a court to disallow permanently the termination of grants "on the basis that the grant 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities' if the award terms and conditions do not 'clearly and unambiguously specify' that the award can be terminated."
That ruling, if made and eventually affirmed, essentially would lock in each new presidential administration into the funding priorities that the previous administration demanded, meaning a president elected in 2028, should that be a Democrat, could be locked into hundreds of billions of dollars in spending that Trump could authorizes during his final months of his second term.
They also demand that the court set aside existing federal regulations and practice.
Among the signatures on the document was Letitia James, attorney general for New York who currently is under investigation for federal mortgage fraud; Philip Weiser, of Colorado, whose all-Democrat state Supreme Court vainly tried to bar Trump from the state's 2024 election ballot, the far-left Dana Nessel whose activities in Michigan have had extremiust overtones for several years, Keith Ellison, the extremist from Minnesota, and more.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Stephen King has come up with some scary scenarios in his horror stories. So have Alfred Hitchcock, Edgar Allen Poe and Bram Stoker.
But none envisioned what a stunning new research paper has confirmed: There are human remains in America's water systems.
The horror is the result of America's new abortion industry agenda to deliver chemical abortion drugs to women.
The research paper, "Abortion in our Water, A Special report: Chemical Home Abortions & the Disposition of Aborted Fetal Remains," comes from Liberty Counsel Action.
"This is an unfolding environmental and public health crisis," John Stemberger, chief of Liberty Counsel Action. "The same water that Americans use to drink, cook, and bathe in may contain residuals from powerful, lethal abortion drugs. No one voted for this, and if folks were aware, there would be public outcry. We are all living with these consequences. The EPA instructs Americans not to flush baby wipes, tampons, or goldfish, and yet it allows abortion providers to use wastewater treatment facilities as medical waste facilities and biohazard centers – flushing human fetal tissues that include newly formed organs, placenta, and bone fragments."
The 86-page paper contains an executive summary and is documented with 335 footnotes. Its primary author is Abigail Forman, a former legislator from Minnesota who serves as a researcher and policy analyst with Liberty Counsel Action, an organization chaired by constitutional law attorney Mat Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which has fought some of the biggest fights for the pro-life beliefs across the nation.
The paper documents how an estimated 30-40 tons of hazardous medical waste, including human remains, are being flushed.
It analyzes the impacts of flushing the abortion pill, Mifepristone, and other chemical abortion drugs and their residue, each year.
It draws of a variety of studies and peer-reviewed research, petitions to the EPA, government resources and interviews with water treatment experts.
It draws attention to:
The report notes President Donald Trump repeatedly has called for "crystal-clean water" and it now calls on him to act.
The report also calls on Congress and federal agencies to immediately investigate the oversight failures related to the original and subsequent approvals of Mifepristone and propose new regulations that treat "at-home" chemical abortions with the same environmental scrutiny as hospital-based procedures.
The report notes that the original application for FDA approval of the abortion chemicals was flawed because it claimed, citing an environmental assessment from the Population Council, that the impact of the drug on the environment would be minimal.
There was no consideration of the human remains.
"These gross oversights amount to clear violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Clean Water Act (CWA)," the report charges.
"Students for Life of America estimates that 40+ tons of chemically tainted medical waste have entered our wastewater treatment plants, which, in any other context, would be a national scandal. As it pertains to other possible human harms, it is important to note mifepristone acts as an endocrine disruptor (a chemical that may mimic or interfere with a body's hormones) by blocking a vital fertility hormone. Mifepristone is also known to form 'active metabolites,' that is, metabolites that retain therapeutic effects. After being excreted by women, these metabolites enter wastewater treatment plants—most of which are not designed to remove them—and may end up in our water supply," it warns.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Andy Jassy, the chief of Amazon, recently warned that technology, specifically artificial intelligence, will cost thousands of Americans their jobs in coming months and years.
Intel, the faltering legacy tech company, confirmed that.
It announced, in an email sent to employees, that it could lay off as many as one-fifth of its staff."These are difficult actions but essential to meet our affordability challenges and current financial position of the company," explained Naga Chandrasekaran, an executive at the Oregon-based company.
His comments were confirmed in a report at Oregon Live.
Chandrasekaran said the company is expecting cut up to 20% of its factory workers.
A report at the Daily Mail noted the company has about 109,000 workers globally, so the cuts could mean up to 21,800 being laid off.
"It is not clear how many work in US-based factories, and how many American jobs will go," the report said.
Microsoft had confirmed only days ago it was preparing to cut thousands of jobs, and Amazon also said it was making plans for "brutal" workforce cuts, all because of AI.
The Mail noted this was the second round of layoffs at Intel in just a year, after last winter's 15% cutback.
The report said the company troubles are because of upstart competitors, compounding financial losses, and a declining stock price.
Chipmakers IBM, AMD, TSMC and NVIDIA have gained ground by investing in AI, the report said.
Intel's stock price was $68 in 2021, but only about $21 now. It reported a loss of $821 million during the first quarter of the year, the report said.
It was Jassy who said, "As we roll out more Generative AI and agents, it should change the way our work is done. It's hard to know exactly where this nets out over time, but in the next few years, we expect that this will reduce our total corporate workforce."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood is running fewer brick-and-mortar abortion businesses these days. But it is actually increasing the abortions it performs.
Because it has taken the abortion industry online.
That's according to a new report from STOPP, the American Life League's program to monitor Planned Parenthood and comment on its activities.
"America's largest abortion provider is deliberately skirting legislated protections for expectant mothers and their preborn children while continuing to receive nearly $800 million in taxpayer funding," explained the organization.
It is the new "2025 Planned Parenthood Facilities Report" that documents the trends.
It shows while the number of the abortion chain's physical locations dropped "to its lowest level since 2006," it performed a record number of abortions, 402,230, in 2022-2023.
This was done through "online appointments, virtual health centers, and abortion pill mobile apps."
"Planned Parenthood is leveraging the Internet to skirt state abortion laws," said Katie Brown Xavios, national director of American Life League. "Even in states where abortion pills are restricted, women can book virtual appointments and receive abortion drugs in the mail. This is not only unethical, it's illegal."
The report explains that from 2022 to last month, the nation's leading player in the abortion industry "shut down 66 brick-and-mortar locations, dropping 22 from its total facility count in the first five months of 2025. Yet in its 2023-2024 annual report, we see that the abortion conglomerate took credit for performing a record high number of abortions – 402,230 – in 2022-2023."
"Planned Parenthood is adapting to find new ways of delivering abortion in the face of state attempts to shield women and children from harm," explained Xavios. "As legislators seek ways to defund the abortion vendor and Planned Parenthood is closing doors, the organization is infiltrating the virtual healthcare sphere, moving online to entice its clients to end the lives of their preborn children through convenient, impersonal telehealth services. In the face of declining facilities for on-site abortions, Planned Parenthood has cunningly leveraged the telehealth platform to prescribe abortion pills to women, even in states where the pills are illegal, furthering its largest moneymaking 'service.'"
The report also notes that travel to states where the abortion industry essentially is unregulated, or nominally regulated, has increased, including to Illinois, North Carolina, Kansas and New Mexico.
Planned Parenthood boasted in 2023 along it "helped" more than 33,000 women travel out of state to get an abortion.
The report said even as the world suffered from COVID-19, "the Biden administration temporarily lifted regulations on mailing abortion pills through the postal service so that women could have abortions without in-person appointments. Then in 2023, the FDA permanently removed regulations on mailing abortion pills throughout the United States, making it easier for both the abortionist to distribute the pills and for mothers to obtain them. Additionally, shield laws in seven states allow abortionists to legally provide abortion pills via telehealth to women who live in states with more restrictions."
At Planned Parenthood, it turned its work toward telehealth options for women, virtual health centers and a social media app to push abortions.
"As Planned Parenthood increases its virtual footprint, one has to wonder if this is an attempt to counter the steep decline in brick-and-mortar facilities," Xavios suggested. "Another possibility is that Planned Parenthood is desperate to regain market share from rogue abortion pill drug cartel traffickers that are snagging the abortion giant's customers and profits via shadowy virtual operations. The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle, but one thing is certain: Planned Parenthood is panicking, and it's changing its game."
Katherine Van Dyke, American Life League's lead researcher for the STOPP report, summed up the findings saying, "Every time we learn that a Planned Parenthood facility has closed its doors for good, we can rejoice in knowing that lives and souls will be saved without an abortion vendor in the neighborhood. However, Planned Parenthood is now utilizing the Internet to continue to earn big bucks off of its most profitable revenue stream—aborting preborn babies. And they've illegally played a part in trafficking more than 33,000 women across state lines to get those abortions."
American Life League president Judie Brown said Planned Parenthood now promotes abortion by mail, letting women "kill their babies in the privacy of their home. If this is not demonic, then what is? We must end Planned Parenthood's reign of death."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A unanimous Supreme Court has taken the side of a family whose home was negligently and violently invaded, without any cause, by an FBI SWAT team.
The decision in the Martin v. U.S. case sends the dispute back to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for an evaluation of the legitimate issues.
The raid, in suburban Atlanta, happened, Oct. 18, 2017.
"Officers meant to execute search and arrest warrants at a suspected gang hideout at 3741 Landau Lane but instead stormed 3756 Denville Trace, a quiet family home occupied by petitioners Hilliard Toi Cliatt, his partner Curtrina Martin, and her 7-year-old son," the court said.
"A six member SWAT team breached the front door, detonated a flash-bang grenade, and assaulted the innocent occupants before realizing their mistake. The cause of the error was Special Agent Guerra's reliance on a personal GPS device, combined with the team's failure to notice the street sign for 'Denville Trace' and the house number visible on the mailbox."
The government then refused to pay for the personal injuries and property damage inflicted by the armed agents, so the residents brought a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The opinion noted that the complicated law waives sovereign immunity in lawsuits "as to certain torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment," but there are multiple statutory exceptions.
"The first is the intentional-tort exception in §2680(h), which bars claims against the government for 11 enumerated intentional torts. The second is the discretionary-function exception in §2680(a), which bars claims against the government that are based on an official's exercise of discretionary functions."
The unanimous ruling said the law does allow for lawsuits for assault, battery, false imprisonment, and false arrest to proceed against the United States when the torts are committed by "investigative or law enforcement officers."
The 11th Circuit earlier had taken a novel approach, claiming the government "can escape liability when an officer's actions have 'some nexus with furthering federal policy' and reasonably 'comply with the full range of federal law.'"
Reading the law as Congress wrote it, the opinion said, "The statute generally makes the government liable under state law on the same terms as a private individual would be liable under the law of the place where the tortious conduct occurred. Because the FTCA incorporates state law as the liability standard, there is typically no conflict between federal and state law for the Supremacy Clause to resolve. While federal law may sometimes displace state law in FTCA suits where a constitutional text or federal statute supplies controlling liability rules, the Eleventh Circuit identified no such federal statute or constitutional provision displacing Georgia tort law in this case."
One of the issues was that the agent who set up the raid threw away his GPS unit, so no evidence could be obtained from that.
WND previously has reported that according to the Institute for Justice, when given a chance, Toi told the agents the address, and they realized they raided the wrong home. There was a warrant, but the address on it was not that of the family's home. The agents then fled, heading to the correct target.
"When police—including the FBI—raid the wrong house, they must be held responsible for the damages," said IJ lawyer Anya Bidwell."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For months, Tesla and SpaceX billionaire Elon Musk and President Donald Trump together used the Department of Government Efficiency to seek out and destroy corruption, criminality, fraud, and waste in government spending.
Reports suggest that about $170 billion was saved, and work continues even after Musk's time as a temporary special government employee expired.
But a war of words erupted between the two last week as Congress was considering a plan to put into law the cuts. Musk was furious that there weren't more cuts, while Trump was working within the reality of a divided Congress, where even his own GOP party had fractures.
Accusations went back and forth, with the Epstein files mentioned. Threats of impeachment, contract cancellation, and more erupted.
But the two intense government and industry leaders now may be heading toward a reconciliation.
Musk has apologized, conceding some of his comments went too far.
And Trump has confirmed he could work through his reactions, and come to "no hard feelings."
A report from Fox News revealed that Trump said in a new interview he's open to reconciliation.
"Look, I have no hard feelings," he told "Pod Force One with Miranda Devine. "I was really surprised that that happened. He went after a bill that's phenomenal. He just — I think he feels very badly that he said that, actually."
The report noted the two "traded fierce social media barbs" after Musk called the congressional cost-cutter a "massive, outrageous, pork-filled" plan.
The bill has been adopted by the House and is pending in the Senate. It is meant to extend Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as well as provide new funding for the border and defense.
Trump said he is open to mending fences. "I guess I could, but we have to straighten out the country. And my sole function now is getting this country back to a level higher than it's ever been. And I think we can do that."
Musk, meanwhile, said, "I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Prosecutors in Wisconsin have just filed an unusual document with a court: They explained that just because a person is a judge, that doesn't mean she gets a free pass to break the law.
That earlier was the stunning claim from Hannah Dugan, a now-suspended judge, arguing that prosecutors weren't even allowed to bring a case against her after evidence showed she distracted federal agents, then let an illegal alien criminal walk out of the courthouse.
Dugan's claim was that she has absolutely immunity for whatever she does in her courtroom – even in the courthouse building.
A report at Fox News now explains that prosecutors disagree.
Prosecutors now have responded to her claim, explaining "the Supreme Court has made clear that judges are not immune from criminal liability."
Their filing said, "In the end, Dugan asks for this Court to develop a novel doctrine of judicial immunity from criminal prosecution, and to apply it to the facts alleged in the indictment, all without reasonable basis—directly or indirectly—in the Constitution, statutes, or case law. … In her lengthy memorandum, Dugan concedes that '[j]udges, like legislators and executive officials, are not above the law.' Dugan's desired ruling would, in essence, say that judges are 'above the law,' and uniquely entitled to interfere with federal law enforcement."
Prosecutors have accused the Milwaukee Circuit Court judge of personally escorting Mexican illegal immigrant and domestic battery suspect Eduardo Flores-Ruiz out of the courthouse. That was after Dugan directed ICE agents to go consult with the chief judge and they left the hallway in front of the courtroom.
The 65-year-old Dugan has been indicted on federal charges of obstruction of proceedings before a U.S. agency and the unlawful concealment of an individual subject to arrest.
Prosecutors said, "Put simply, nothing in the indictment or the anticipated evidence at trial supports Dugan's assertion that agents 'disrupted' the court's docket; instead, all events arose from Dugan's unilateral, non-judicial, and unofficial actions in obstructing a federal immigration matter over which she, as a Wisconsin state judge, had no authority. At the very least, for purposes of deciding this motion, Dugan's claims to the contrary find no support in the indictment and should be rejected."
WND reported when a video surfaced showing the episode.
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.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Cars burned. Buildings attacked. Federal officers threatened. And to one network, it's a "bunch of people having fun…"
Networks were ridiculed during earlier riots in Wisconsin for having a reporter, standing in front of blocks of burning buildings, describe how the violence was "mostly peaceful."
That wild claim already has been matched in the Los Angeles riots, triggered by a violent reaction to federal officers performing their duties in arresting illegal alien criminals, some accused of murder and hurting children.
That network claim was that the events were a "bunch of people having fun…"
A report at the Gateway Pundit noted the ABC claim was as "record absurdity."
"It's the new 'fiery but mostly peaceful protests,'" the report said. That would be a local ABC 7 anchor describing the anti-ICE insurrection burning down the city and attacking federal officers as "just a bunch of people having fun, watching cars burn."
The report said the anchor, "reported to be ABC7 Eyewitness News co-anchor Marc Brown," charged that it was the Trump administration that could "a massive confrontation and altercation between officers and demonstrators" by bringing in law enforcement.
He pointed out, "It could turn very volatile if you move law enforcement in there."
The report cited history: "It can be recalled that CNN once described the riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin, as 'fiery but mostly peaceful protests' in the days after sex offender and police attacker Jacob Blake was shot by police in what was later found to be a justified shooting."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
CatholicVote calls for removal of 'blasphemous episode from Apple TV+'
Tim Cook, CEO of Apple and long a leftist advocating for leftist ideals and ideologies, has been called out by a Catholic organization for his "mean-spirited attempt to mock Catholicism."
It happens in an episode of an Apple TV+ program, a scenario caught and criticized by CatholicVote.
Vice President Josh Mercer has written to Cook calling for a removal of the episode as well as a meeting "to discuss how Apple can foster true diversity and tolerance by ensuring its content is respectful of the religious practices of Catholics."
"Is promoting content which mocks and degrades the faith of Catholics compatible with this 'culture of dignity, respect, and opportunity for everyone?'" the letter asks, pointedly demanding, "Would you permit an equivalent mockery of the Islamic faith or the Jewish faith? We think not."
The letter said, "Why is it acceptable to Apple to disrespect Catholicism in this way."
The letter explains is is Episode 6 of "Your Friends and Neighbors" that is unacceptable.
The characters break into a church.
"The male character steals Eucharistic hosts from the tabernacle, which they eat as a snack. The man flippantly remarks about how they are eating the Body of Christ. The man feeds a host to the female character and feigns blessing her. Then they begin engaging in romantic activity in the pews…"
The letter explains that, "As Catholics, we have believed for 2,000 years that the Eucharist is not simply a piece of bread. It is the body, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. The practice of taking communion was institute by Christ himself at the Last Supper. Receiving the Eucharist at Mass is, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, 'the source and summit of the Christian life.'"
The letter notes the segment has little relevance to the plot, so "it is clearly little more than a mean-spirited effort to mock Catholicism."
The organization said it speaks on behalf of the outrage of "millions of Catholics across the country and the world."
CatholicVote describes itself as the largest lay Catholic advocacy organization.
CatholicVote has also begun a petition effort that already has nearly 200,000 signatures from those telling Apple leaders they "won't stand for blasphemy."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court has called out many of America's "prestigious employers" for discrimination against the "majority."
The comments came in a unanimous decision that concluded Marlean Ames was the victim of unconstitutional discrimination because she is part of the majority, heterosexuals, but was denied a promotion and then demoted while two gays were given those positions.
She sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, following the ruling, her case will return to the lower courts for a resolution.
The precedent, oddly, had been that members of a majority group such as heterosexuals were required to take an additional step in discrimination cases and document a "background" supporting the claim.
Thomas pointed out how ridiculous that was.
"The 'background circumstances' rule is nonsensical for an additional reason: It requires courts to assume that only an 'unusual employer' would discriminate against those it perceives to be in the majority. But, a number of this Nation's largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups," he charged.
Then he identified the discriminatory agenda being used.
"American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans… Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority," he said.
He blasted the lower court ruling that tossed Ames' case because of that "background" requirement.
"Judge-made doctrines have a tendency to distort the underlying statutory text, impose unnecessary burdens on litigants, and cause confusion for courts. The 'background circumstances' rule—correctly rejected by the Court today—is one example of this phenomenon."
He said requirement forced "a majority-group plaintiff to prove, in addition to the standard elements of a Title VII claim, that background circumstances 'support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' This additional requirement is a paradigmatic example of how judge-made doctrines can distort the underlying statutory text."
He noted that nothing in Title VII actually creates such a requirement.
The ruling is considered a huge precedent for reverse-discrimination cases.