The Supreme Court Monday vindicated parental rights, upholding an injunction against California’s gender secrecy policy, which mandated that school staff hide a student’s claimed transgender identity from parents unless the student expressly consented to reveal it. “This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” Paul Jonna, special counsel at the Thomas More Society, said in a statement responding to the decision Monday. “The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: you cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back.” “The court’s landmark reaffirmation of substantive due process, its vindication of religious liberty, and its approval of class-wide relief together set a historic precedent that will dismantle secret gender transition policies across the country,” Jonna added. Challenging the Gender Secrecy Policies The Thomas More Society sued on behalf of teachers in the state who feared punishment if they refused to lie about a student’s gender identity. Parents and other teachers joined the lawsuit, challenging the Escondido Union School District’s policy of hiding students’ gender identities from parents unless students consented to reveal them.The teachers also sued the California Department of Education, which has a similar policy. While a district court judge issued a permanent injunction blocking the schools from enforcing gender secrecy policies, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit granted the school district and the state a stay of the injunction. Elizabeth Mirabelli, the teacher suing in a key gender secrecy case (Thomas More Society) The Supreme Court’s Parental Rights Ruling The Supreme Court issued an unsigned opinion vacating the 9th Circuit’s stay when it comes to the parents. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have ruled in favor of the parents and the teachers, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor would not have taken up the case. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a concurring opinion, which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined. Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissent, which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. The court’s unsigned opinion recounted the story of two parents who didn’t know their eighth grade daughter publicly identified as a boy until after she attempted to commit suicide and was hospitalized. Months after her daughter left the hospital, she returned to the hospital after further risk of self-harm. Their daughter attended a different school for ninth grade and once again identified as a boy; that school also hid her gender transition, expressly rejecting the parents’ wishes. The daughter is now receiving psychiatric care. The court concluded that “the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim.” California’s policies “substantially interfere with the ‘right of parents to guide the religious development of their children,'” the court ruled, citing Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case in which the court ruled that parents have the right to opt their children out of receiving LGBTQ+ instruction. “The parents who assert a free exercise claim have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs,” the court ruled. “California’s policies violate those beliefs” and impose an “unacceptable” burden on them, the opinion stated. “Indeed, the intrusion on parents’ free exercise rights here—unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender transition—is greater than the introduction of LGBTQ storybooks we considered sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny in Mahmoud.” California claims that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy, but the court ruled that “those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.” The court also found that the parents would likely succeed in claiming the state violated their due process rights. “Under long-established precedent, parents—not the state—have primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children.’ The right protected by these precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health,” the opinion stated. The court found that “the denial of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights during the potentially protracted appellate process constitutes irreparable harm.” The court also noted that the district court’s injunction permits California “to shield children from unfit parents by enforcing child-abuse laws and removing children from parental custody in appropriate cases,” thus allowing for the key interest of protecting children while protecting parental rights. Justice Kagan faulted the court for issuing an emergency ruling after receiving “scant and, frankly, inadequate briefing about the legal issues in dispute,” and without holding an oral argument or debating in conference. Mirabelli v Bonta SCOTUSDownload Wrapping Up the Parental Rights Case The court did not uphold the right of teachers to refuse to lie to parents—the key issue at the beginning of the case—but the ruling here only applies to the injunction; it does not resolve the overall case. That said, lower courts will follow the Supreme Court’s lead and uphold the fundamental rights of parents against gender secrecy policies, making the case a pivotal victory for parental rights. The post Supreme Court Upholds Parental Rights Against California Gender Secrecy Policy appeared first on The Daily Signal.

REUTERS—The Department of State on Monday called on Americans to immediately depart more than a dozen countries in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, amid U.S-Israeli strikes against Iran. Mora Namdar, the State Department’s assistant secretary for consular affairs, said U.S. citizens should leave using available commercial transportation “due to safety risks.” The warning came after the department, in recent days, updated its travel advisories for several countries in the region to recommend against travel. Monday’s advisory applies to Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. The U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan, announced earlier on Monday that its personnel had departed the site “due to a threat.” The State Department has also activated an inter-agency emergency task force to manage the situation and coordinate the United States’ response to the conflict, a U.S. official said. On Saturday, the United States and Israel carried out a barrage of strikes on various targets in Iran, killing many top officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Tehran responded with its own strikes at multiple U.S. and Israeli sites across the regions. President Donald Trump said on Monday that the conflict had been projected to last four to five weeks but that it could go longer. The conflict, which has launched the region into war, leaving scores of people dead, has resulted in a spike in energy prices as Iranian officials threatened to fire on any ship that tries to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route for the world’s oil supply. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Energy Secretary Chris Wright are expected on Tuesday to announce U.S. steps to mitigate the rising energy prices, according to Washington’s top diplomat, Marco Rubio. “We anticipated this could be an issue, and Secretary Wright and Bessent will begin to roll out those steps, starting tomorrow, to mitigate, to mitigate against the impact that could have,” Rubio said ahead of a briefing congressional leaders about the strikes. Originally published by Reuters The post US Urges Citizens to Immediately Depart Over a Dozen Middle Eastern Countries appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released full video of former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s testimonies about convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.  The depositions for each before the bipartisan panel lasted 4.5 hours. Hillary Clinton was deposed last Thursday. Bill Clinton was deposed on Friday, the first time a former president has been compelled to testify before Congress. Clinton said he first flew on Epstein’s plane in 2002 and took trips to Asia, Africa, and Europe. Clinton said his former treasury secretary, Larry Summers introduced him to Epstein. He said that Epstein was interested in funding brain research and other humanitarian work. “He knew I was planning to set up a global network to provide lots of AIDS medicine to as many people as possible as quickly as possible,” Clinton said of Epstein.  https://t.co/vfQBa9d4S1— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) March 2, 2026 Clinton said his relationship with Epstein ended when the humanitarian team expanded.  “A lot of other people who might do better, and who really cared about the work, came forward,” Clinton said  The former president said Epstein “never asked me anything untoward.” He later added, “There was nothing that I saw when I was around him. It made me realize he was trafficking women.” During the Democrats’ questioning, Clinton was asked if he was aware of President Donald Trump’s interaction with Epstein.  “I don’t want to leave the impression, since there was no follow up question, he never, the president never, this was 20-something years ago, never said anything to me to think he was involved in anything improper with regard to Epstein, he just didn’t,” Clinton said.  Hillary Clinton was asked how she felt about photos of her husband in the pool at the home of Epstein, which were published in batches of the Epstein files released by the Justice Department. The former secretary of state replied she was not there to provide opinions.  This is a developing story The post Video Shows Clinton Recounting Epstein Meetings, Comments on Trump appeared first on The Daily Signal.

REUTERS—The United States will take action to mitigate rising energy prices due to a spike in the price of oil caused by the Iran conflict, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Monday. Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, Rubio said Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Energy Secretary Chris Wright would announce the plans on Tuesday. “Starting tomorrow, you will see us rolling out those phases to try to mitigate against that … We anticipated this could be an issue,” Rubio said. Oil and gas prices surged on Monday following Israeli and U.S. strikes on Iran and retaliation by Tehran that forced shutdowns of oil and gas facilities across the region and disrupted shipping in the crucial Strait of Hormuz. The Energy and Treasury departments did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Originally published by Reuters The post US Will Take Action to Mitigate Oil Price Spike for Americans, Rubio Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As the Supreme Court returns to hearing oral arguments this week, it will take up a technical—yet consequential—criminal law case. In United States v. Hemani, the justices will consider whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which bars anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from “possess[ing] … any firearm or ammunition,” violates the Second Amendment. If this provision sounds familiar, it should. That’s because the Justice Department charged Hunter Biden with, and a jury convicted him of, violating it—before his dad pardoned him. In this case, the federal government charged Ali Hemani with being an “unlawful user” of marijuana—which is a controlled substance—based on his statements that he used it several times a week—though he provided no more details about frequency, quantity, or timing. While it’s irrelevant to the specific charges at issue here, the government also suspects Hemani, who traveled to Iran to mourn the death of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps General Qasem Soleimani, of having terrorist ties and dealing drugs to support and fund his terror-related activities. Nonetheless, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Hemani—based on its rationale in a previously decided case—that this statutory provision does violate the Second Amendment. So, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, which it agreed to do. In addition to challenging the statute on Second Amendment grounds, Hemani also argues that the statute is unconstitutionally vague because it does not clearly define who qualifies as an unlawful user of a controlled substance who, in turn, is prohibited from possessing a firearm. Is using a controlled substance once a week enough? Once a month? Once a year? Once a decade? Hemani says that no one can know. As for the Second Amendment arguments, both Hemani and the government point to the Supreme Court’s recent Rahimi decision, where the court upheld a different provision (subsection (8)) of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which allows those subject to a domestic violence restraining order to be disarmed while subject to such an order. There, the court made clear that to determine whether a certain statutory provision violates the Second Amendment, it will look to history and tradition to help make that determination. Moreover, the court said that while an exact “historical twin” is not required for the provision to comport with the Constitution, there must be an adequate “historical analogue.” This prompted disputes among the Justices about the level of generality—or how close—a historical practice must be to qualify as a historical analogue and the role that post-ratification practices should play in the court’s evaluation. Here, the government argues that founding practices—such as criminal vagrancy laws, civil commitment, and sureties—designed to deal with habitual drunkards provide the appropriate historical analogues. It also argues that post-ratification history supports its position by noting that illegal use of controlled substances did not become a problem until the late 19th or early 20th centuries. And once states took notice of it, most passed legislation to temporarily disarm those who used or abused those substances. Finally, the government notes that even if the Justices agree with all of Hemani’s arguments, 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) provides a mechanism for a person to ask the attorney general to essentially declare that he is not prohibited from possessing a firearm. And if the attorney general denies the application, the person can seek judicial relief. For many years, this process was practically unavailable because the attorney general had delegated authority to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to review these applications. And Congress had passed appropriations riders to prohibit funds from being used for this purpose. But Attorney General Pam Bondi has withdrawn the delegation and has reinstituted the review process. For his part, Hemani, of course, disagrees with all the government’s assertions. It’s also notable that this case has scrambled the usual ideological alliances with deep blue states such as California and Illinois filing an amicus brief in support of the Trump Justice Department’s position and other entities, which are usually supportive of the Trump administration’s polices (though not all are), filing briefs in support of Hemani. Regardless, two things are certain: This will be a consequential case no matter what the justices decide, and it will be yet another important marker along the way where the justices will elaborate on how history and tradition should be used by courts to inform their constitutional decisions. The post United States v. Hemani: SCOTUS to Hear Arguments in Important Second Amendment Case appeared first on The Daily Signal.