This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you. *** About 80% of married women in America still take their husbands’ last names. Some, by simply dropping and replacing their maiden names. (I did this.) Others, by dropping their middle names and replacing those with their maiden names, and then adding the new last name. (This is quite popular among my friend set.)  But this norm of a marital name change for women has long met with resistance from some feminists, who claim that marriage should not uniquely entail a woman’s forfeiture of her “identity.” Why can’t women just keep their names? Or, if sharing a name is an important aspect of an enduring marriage, which some argue it is, why can’t the whole family take the woman’s name instead of the man’s? In my view, these questions themselves — far more than any practice around last names — undermine the fundamental unity that is supposed to be marriage.  Here’s what I mean: I have no problem with a woman legally retaining her last name after marriage for practical or professional reasons. I can quite easily imagine the circumstances in which I’d have done so myself, had I gotten married later than I did or with more professional accomplishments under my maiden name. And, obviously, there are cultures in which it is customary for women to retain their names after marriage, and even for men and women to take one another’s names. None of this meets with any objection from me because I am not advocating for traditional Western naming practices per se.  I am advocating for avoiding the temptation to let incoherent ideological inclinations infect personal relationships, particularly the marital ones.  To me, the crux of the surname debate is not surnames. It is the turning of marriage into a forum for identitarian self-expression, when it is supposed to transcend the self by definition, for women and men alike.  Name That Patriarchy  The primary objection to the norm of women’s name changes upon marriage is that it rests on patriarchal foundations, the origins of which involve women having no individual rights and being essentially the property of their fathers before being transferred to their husbands. This is, of course, true, though I’d argue it’s not particularly relevant to today’s brides. Relevant or not, however, the patriarchal origins of Western naming practices cannot be overcome by women retaining their maiden names.  A woman who keeps her own name rather than taking her husband’s is almost always keeping her father’s name. The patriarchal origins of said name are inescapable. So, the refusal to change a name on that score is futile.   No one can change a distant past peopled by the long-dead. It’s unclear why anyone would want to let said past burden her most sacred relationship in the here and now. More importantly, women who enter marriage with a “his and mine, everything equal” mindset, searching for egalitarianism and androgyny, are setting themselves up for disappointment.  When Two Don’t Become One So much of today’s discourse on dating and marriage pits women and men against each other over concerns that really amount to a false gendering of the human condition. Men complain about feeling undervalued by women; wives complain about “the mental load.” Often, these accusations and our reactions to them take for granted that a war between the sexes is afoot, when in reality, many of these concerns simply reflect our shared humanity and its limitations.  Feeling undervalued and overwhelmed are not gendered experiences, but gendering them gives us an enemy to blame. That’s more fun than admitting the truths at play. First, to be human is to exist within a fallen world shaped by our own fallenness; second, to be a husband or a wife is not to look for things to be an interchangeable 50/50 but to accept that (if you’re collectively doing what you ought), they’ll be a likely non-interchangeable 100/100. It’s not that there’s men’s work and women’s work; it’s that there is work that each of you, as specific individuals, will be better at. Who is the man and who is the woman will, if you are honest, be a factor in determining who does what.  I would not want my son to marry a woman who wanted to keep her own last name rather than take his for pseudo-feminist reasons specifically. That’s not because I care about the name. It’s because I care about an adult relationship to reality, uncontaminated by a flimsily politicized lens that puts signaling some impotent blow against historical patriarchy ahead of signaling oneness with one’s husband today. Within marriage, there is exactly zero room for him vs. her; it should be him and her vs. the world. *** Elizabeth Grace Matthew writes about books, education, and culture, including on Substack.

A Republican congressman is pushing the Trump administration to investigate a North Carolina high school after female students complained that a biological male has been using the women’s locker room, according to a letter first obtained by The Daily Wire.  Rep. Addison McDowell wrote a letter on Thursday calling on the Education Department to investigate Cox Mill High School in Cabarrus County for reportedly allowing a boy to access intimate female spaces. He urged Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey to review a parental complaint filed on April 17 claiming the school violated a female student’s Title IX privacy rights.  “I was profoundly concerned to learn of reports that the school is allowing biologically male students to enter women’s restrooms and locker room facilities on school property,” McDowell wrote. “As a father of three girls and one on the way, and the Representative for the Sixth Congressional District of North Carolina, I remain committed to working to protect women and girls and preserving their civil rights for generations to come.” The Trump administration has interpreted Title IX as protecting the right of girls to access private, single-sex spaces such as bathrooms and locker rooms.  In recent months, students and parents have asked the Cabarrus County School Board to adopt policies ensuring female-only spaces at the high school. School officials have downplayed concerns from parents, saying some claims about incidents involving the transgender student are false.  The district previously said it was constrained by a law that mandates “schools may not discriminate against students by denying them access to the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity.” McDowell said the district must step up to ensure students’ privacy.  “It is the bare minimum for schools to ensure a safe learning environment, and schools owe students’ parents a guarantee that the school is taking every available measure to protect the health and safety of kids,” he said. “The policy that the school district has adopted is in direct opposition to these principles.” On Tuesday, the organization NC Values released a video featuring Trista Ruck, a junior at Cox Mill High School, who said she had seen a male in the girls’ bathroom.  “I encountered a male in the female restroom. I walked straight to the restroom, did my business, and then whenever I went to go wash my hands, he walked in,” she said. “He then just looked at me, and then went about his business, but honestly, I felt uncomfortable. Why would I want someone who has different parts than me in the same bathroom as me?”

Last year, Texas passed a law requiring all public schools to conspicuously display the Ten Commandments — just the text with no commentary. Of course, challengers immediately ran to court, crying foul and claiming that this requirement violated both the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. But after careful consideration, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a masterful opinion by Judge Kyle Duncan, said that’s just not so. Importantly, Judge Duncan’s opinion reaffirmed a fundamental principle we should already recognize. If a practice was not understood at the time of the Founding — by those who ratified the First Amendment — as a violation, then it should not be considered a violation today. Judges are not tasked with updating the Constitution to suit modern times — or they shouldn’t. While this commonsense proposition seems straightforward, it hasn’t been for many years. In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamous Lemon v. Kurtzman opinion where it set forth a confusing three-part test to help courts determine whether the government had violated the Establishment Clause: Did the statute or action have a secular purpose? Did it primarily advance or inhibit religion? And did it result in “excessive government entanglement” with religion — whatever that means? Rather than providing clarity, this test quickly proved unworkable as lower federal courts struggled to consistently apply its prongs across cases. And while the Supreme Court for far too long declined to overrule it explicitly, the Lemon test did lose favor among many justices. But because it continued to lurk among the Supreme Court’s case law, rearing its ugly head from time to time, Justice Scalia once described it as being like “some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried …” And it remained that way for almost 30 more years after Justice Scalia penned that line until the Court officially overruled Lemon and its progeny in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. So, with a stake through its heart, what comes after the dead-and-buried Lemon test? The Fifth Circuit joined some of its sister circuits by agreeing that the Supreme Court now requires lower federal courts to ask whether those challenging a certain practice have “prov[en] a set of facts that would have historically been understood as an establishment of religion.” Drawing heavily from the work of former federal judge and leading First Amendment scholar Michael McConnell, the Fifth Circuit said that for such an establishment to exist, approximately six “hallmarks” of “founding-era establishments” must be consulted. These include: (1) government control over religious doctrine, governance, and church personnel; (2) compulsory church attendance; (3) compelled financial support, especially in the form of land grants and religious taxes; (4) prohibitions on worship in dissenting churches; (5) use of church institutions for civil functions; and (6) restriction of political participation to members of the established church. As the court noted, none of those hallmarks are present here (even though some — including Professor McConnell — argue they could be, especially if circumstances shifted slightly). This historical analysis permits a more straightforward analytical pathway than previously available under Lemon. The malleability of that test and its flexible factors help explain why courts previously issued seemingly contradictory rulings, or held that Ten Commandments displays or Christmas crèches didn’t violate the First Amendment, only when surrounded by other secular displays too. That’s why some cities were forced to adopt the absurd and sacrilegious practice of flanking Baby Jesus with Frosty the Snowman or Snoopy, as though the latter are on equal footing with the former. Those types of requirements — which never should have existed — are no more. Still, the challengers to this case argued that some post-Lemon cases that applied the Lemon test to various situations remained good law. But the Fifth Circuit correctly said that if “Plaintiffs’ view prevailed, [courts] would be applying Lemon’s dead letter far into the future.” The Fifth Circuit also applied a similar framework to find that these passive displays did not violate the plaintiffs’ First Amendment Free Exercise rights either. What’s clear from this case and others is that lower federal courts are starting to take seriously the requirement that courts should not impose their own policy preferences under the guise of interpreting the Constitution. Instead, they must interpret and apply the Constitution as it would have been understood at the time “We the People” adopted it. To accomplish that task, courts should — as the Fifth Circuit did here — look to history and tradition to guide their textual interpretations. Courts have adopted that approach for Second Amendment cases — and now First Amendment ones too. And they should continue until they have adopted that correct approach for all constitutional cases. *** Zack Smith is a senior legal fellow and manager of the Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program at The Heritage Foundation.

LOS ANGELES, May 7 (Reuters) – The White House called “Star Wars” star Mark Hamill “one sick individual” on Thursday after an AI-generated image of President Donald Trump in a shallow grave was posted on one of the actor’s social media accounts. “If Only” was inscribed on the image of Trump lying with his eyes closed adjacent to a gravestone, surrounded by daisies, with the inscription “Donald J. Trump 1946-2024.” The image was posted on Hamill’s verified Bluesky account. .@MarkHamill is one sick individual. These Radical Left lunatics just can’t help themselves. This kind of rhetoric is exactly what has inspired three assassination attempts in two years against our President. pic.twitter.com/daJqcyssm7 — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) May 7, 2026 Hamill, who played Luke Skywalker in the classic “Star Wars” films that debuted in 1977, wrote that Trump “should live long enough to witness his inevitable devastating loss in the midterms, be held accountable for his unprecedented corruption, impeached, convicted & humiliated for his countless crimes.” “Long enough to realize he’ll be disgraced in the history books, forevermore,” the actor added. The White House responded on X, calling Hamill “one sick individual.” “These Radical Left lunatics just can’t help themselves,” a post from the White House press team said. “This kind of rhetoric is exactly what has inspired three assassination attempts in two years against our President.” Hamill later removed the gravestone image and sought to clarify his remarks. “Actually, I was wishing him the opposite of dead, but apologize if you found the image inappropriate,” he wrote on Bluesky. Last month, a man stormed a security checkpoint and fired a shotgun outside the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in what authorities said was an attempt to assassinate Trump. Trump was shot in the ear in 2024 at a rally in Pennsylvania. The shooter was killed by the Secret Service. Also in 2024, a man was found hiding in bushes with weapons close to where Trump was golfing. He was convicted of attempted assassination in February. (Reporting by Lisa Richwine in Los Angeles, Editing by Rosalba O’Brien and Matthew Lewis)

NEW YORK, May 7 (Reuters) – The U.S. trade court on Thursday ruled against President Donald Trump’s latest 10% global tariffs, finding across-the-board tariffs were not justified under a 1970s trade law. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in favor of small businesses that challenged the tariffs, which took effect on February 24. The ruling was 2-1, with one judge saying it was premature to grant victory to the small business plaintiffs. The small businesses had argued the new tariffs were an attempt to sidestep a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the Republican president’s 2025 tariffs ​imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In his February order, ​Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows for duties for up to 150 days to correct serious “balance of payments ​deficits” or head off an imminent depreciation of the dollar. Thursday’s court ruling found the law was not an appropriate step for the kinds of trade deficits that Trump cited in his February order. “This decision is an important win for American companies that rely on global manufacturing to deliver safe and affordable products. Unlawful tariffs make it harder for businesses like ours to compete and grow,” said Jay Foreman, CEO of toymaker Basic Fun! “We are encouraged by the court’s recognition that these tariffs exceeded the President’s authority. This ruling brings needed clarity and stability for companies navigating global supply chains,” he said in a statement. The Trump administration had argued that a serious balance-of-payments deficit existed in the form of a $1.2 trillion annual U.S. goods trade deficit and a current account deficit of 4% of GDP. But some economists and trade lawyers argue the U.S. is not on the cusp of a balance-of-payments crisis, making the new duties vulnerable to a legal challenge. (Reporting by Dietrich Knauth; Editing by Chris Reese and Sonali Paul)