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.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—The American College of Pediatricians is launching an initiative to encourage doctors to reject transgender procedures for minors. The American College of Pediatricians, the socially conservative alternative to the American Academy of Pediatricians, launched the “Doctor, Heal Thyself” initiative, which aims to advance biologically grounded pediatric care in response to major medical organizations supporting irreversible medical interventions for minors. The organization is reaching out to 67,000 pediatricians, inviting them to “join in restoring integrity to pediatric medicine.” The American Academy of Pediatricians supports so-called gender-affirming care for minors, including puberty blockers, hormone replacement regimens, and irreversible surgeries for adolescents, on a “case-by-case basis.” “Gender-affirming care remains evidence-based, medically necessary care that improves the health and well-being of transgender youth,” the organization said in a statement after the Supreme Court ruled last year that states can ban transgender procedures for minors. Alternatively, the American College of Pediatricians protects “the biological integrity of children against transgender ideology, and [is] the only pediatric organization protecting preborn children and the conscience rights of health care professionals.” Recently, a New York jury found two doctors liable for malpractice for performing a gender-transition surgery on a minor, the first successful detransitioner malpractice lawsuit.  The American Medical Association has also recently cited an “absence of clear evidence” for benefits of gender-transition surgeries for minors and said the surgeries should “generally” be delayed until adulthood. Meanwhile, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons issued no qualifier in saying the surgeries should be delayed until adulthood. Simons believes reaching doctors is the key to protecting children from irreversible transgender medical interventions. “We know that there’s litigation out there, there’s legislation, but that’s a slow go at getting to the goal of stopping these procedures,” Dr. Jill Simons, executive Director of ACPeds, told The Daily Signal. “But if you think about it, if you can reach the doctors, this stops instantly.” “If doctors stop prescribing, if they stop doing surgeries, it stops today, end of story,” she continued. “It’s the simplest, easiest, best way, and it has lasting, immediate change.” The majority of pediatricians disapprove of transgender procedures for minors but are afraid they will lose their jobs or be the targets of hate if they admit it, Simons said. “Common sense is on our side, but also in having one on one conversations with pediatricians and conferences and the support we’ve been given, I think there’s the majority, even the vast majority, of pediatricians believe, as we do,” Simons said, “that the so-called gender affirming care protocols put out by the major medical institutions of the United States are harmful.” Simons wants doctors who feel isolated to know they are not alone. “It takes a few people speaking out, saying this is wrong for a whole organization to change course,” she said. “That’s what we’re hoping to do here.” The post EXCLUSIVE: Alternative Pediatrician Org Urges Doctors to Reject Transgenderism appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is dead, and there is no clear successor to take his place. “The supreme leader made sure there was never any sort of heir apparent,” Victoria Coates, former deputy national security adviser to President Donald Trump, explained to The Daily Signal. The Islamic Republic of Iran was established in 1979 following the Iranian Revolution. Since then, the country has only had two supreme leaders—Ruhollah Khomeini, who died in 1989, and Ali Khamenei, who was killed over the weekend during the joint U.S.-Israel operation against the Iranian regime. In Iran, the supreme leader is chosen by a body of 88 clerics known as the Assembly of Experts. Until a new leader is chosen, or another authority takes power, the Islamic Republic’s constitution gives power to a three-member council, which today includes Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, Chief Justice Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei, and Ayatollah Alireza Arafi. A concern right now, according to Gregg Roman, the executive director of the Middle East Forum, is another “one man band” will fill the power vacuum in Iran. The son of the former shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, is certainly a figure to watch, Roman explained during a phone call with The Daily Signal from the bomb shelter of his home in Tel Aviv as sirens sounded in the background. “I think Pahlavi, he has a role in this, but I think that the way in which he approaches his messaging and the way in which his organization is putting him as the only alternative is one that takes away from the power of a unified opposition,” Roman explained. On Sunday, Pahlavi, who is the oldest son of the last shah of Iran and lives in exile in the United States, addressed the people of Iran in a long post on X. “My message to the remaining officials of this Republic of Terror is this: Surrender to the people of Iran. Declare your loyalty to my program and the Transition System. And hand over power without further bloodshed,” Pahlavi said. Roman says that instead of arguing for his own leadership, Pahlavi would be wise to convene the leaders of “the 50 biggest Iranian opposition parties.” Right now, Roman explains, the son of the former shah has ideas and plans on paper, but it is unclear who his governing team would be if he landed in Tehran tomorrow. “A nonviolent transition of power” is the ideal, according to Rob Greenway, director of the Allison Center for National Security at The Heritage Foundation, but getting there is a “tortured path, because there isn’t sufficient unanimity among the resistance groups, and it’s impossible to judge the support that any of them have inside Iran.” The “state,” meaning the remnants of the Iranian regime, “still holds a monopoly of force, and so it will be voluntary on their part to cede power, and it’s unlikely that’s going to occur because they’re ideologically predisposed,” Greenway says. The Iranian regime holds to the principles of radical Islam and governs Iran through Sharia law. The “most likely” and an “acceptable” outcome in Iran is “we don’t have a friendly government there, but they no longer have the capacity to really effectively threaten us, which means that we would preserve our interests without a doubt, and … our partners and allies would be more than capable of dealing with the threat, which then doesn’t require us to continually surge significant troops into the region,” Greenway said. Ultimately, the question of Iran’s governance is “for the Iranian people themselves to determine,” Jacob Olidort, director of American security at the America First Policy Institute, told The Daily Signal. Trump has made it clear that the key objective of the current U.S. operation is ensuring that Iran never has the ability to obtain a nuclear weapon. Trump’s objectives in Iran “are shaping conditions on the ground to enable a more favorable environment for the Iranian people to shape their country’s destiny,” Olidort said. Trump says the U.S. operation in Iran that began Saturday could last up to four or five weeks. The post Future of Iran in Flux: Who Will Fill Power Vacuum?  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Sixth Amendment has long guaranteed a criminal defendant the right “to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” But what does that right entail in practice—particularly when a defendant takes the witness stand in his own defense? And by taking the witness stand, what limitations, if any, exist with respect to his right to have assistance of counsel during his testimony? In a 9-0 decision in Villarreal v. Texas, the Supreme Court justices agreed that a trial judge can constitutionally prohibit a defendant and defense counsel from conferring about the substance of the defendant’s testimony during a mid-testimony overnight recess—in other words, where the court takes an overnight break during the middle of the defendant’s testimony. The court left in place its prior precedent that trial courts may constitutionally bar all communication between a testifying defendant and his attorney during a very short mid-day break in testimony because discussions during such a pause will likely focus on “nothing but the testimony.” Keep in mind that the Fifth Amendment’s right against self-incrimination means that a defendant does not have to testify in his own defense. The burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt always rests with the government. And, in fact, as Justice Samual Alito pointed out in his concurring opinion, “[w]hen the Sixth Amendment was adopted . . . criminal defendants could not testify in their own defense because they were not considered competent witnesses.” He further explained that most “States did not allow defendants to take the stand until well into the 19th century, . . . and this Court did not squarely recognize a defendant’s constitutional right to testify in his own defense until” 1987. But as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made clear in her majority opinion, “when a defendant takes the witness stand in his own defense, his status shifts. He does not shed his rights as a criminal defendant. But he does assume some of the burdens of a testifying witness.” And one of those burdens is not discussing his testimony with anyone—including his attorney—while it’s happening. She explained that avoiding the “midstream tinkering” of his lawyer “serves the central truth-seeking function of trial”—as it does with any witness. Still, as the court’s precedents make clear, and as the justices reaffirmed in this case, a trial court cannot constitutionally prohibit all communications between a defendant and his lawyer during an overnight recess. Essentially, they can confer about any topic unrelated to “managing” the defendant’s testimony. An order instructing as much appropriately balances “the [defendant’s] right to counsel against the burden of offering unaltered trial testimony.” Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, concurred only in the court’s judgment but did not join its opinion. He worried that the court’s opinion “opine[d] on hypothetical situations not before the Court and [as a result] needlessly expands [the Court’s] precedents.” Thomas wrote that the majority “identifies new circumstances, not presented here, in which a defendant supposedly has a right to discuss matters related to his ongoing testimony” and in doing so endorsed a methodology where “any conflict between the Sixth Amendment and the desire for untutored testimony must ‘be resolved in favor of the right to the assistance and guidance of counsel.’” Still, all justices agreed, the trial court here struck the appropriate balance between Villarreal’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the need for unaltered trial testimony by limiting discussions during the mid-testimony overnight break between him and his attorney to those unrelated to “managing” his testimony. As a result, the court rejected David Villarreal’s challenges and upheld his conviction. The post Supreme Court Explains Contours of Sixth Amendment’s Right to Counsel in Villarreal v. Texas appeared first on The Daily Signal.