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)

There is a playbook being used across America right now, and it has nothing to do with winning in court. File a lawsuit. Make it expensive. Make it exhausting. Make the target think twice before they ever open their mouth again. Legal scholars have a name for it: a SLAPP suit, Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The goal is not a verdict. The goal is silence. As one Republican state legislator put it while fighting to pass anti-SLAPP legislation: “The punishment is the process.” I know this playbook well. I lived it for nearly five years. In 2020, I co-founded the Niles Township Accountability Coalition (NTAC) with two other parents, driven by growing concerns about certain school board members. What began as a local accountability effort quickly exploded as COVID upended our children’s education and parents got a firsthand look into classrooms through remote learning. Then came the post-George Floyd DEI wave, followed by gender ideology, pronoun policies, and social transition practices that often excluded parents entirely. NTAC quickly grew to more than 300 parents. I am a Christian Arab, the daughter of Jordanian immigrants. My aunt and uncle left Jordan for Greece, boarded a boat from Athens, and arrived at Ellis Island after a month at sea. They sponsored my father’s immigration to this country. That is the America my family crossed an ocean to reach, a place where you could speak, where you could petition your government, where no one could silence you for asking questions. So when I watched outsiders flood our school board meetings, people who did not teach here, did not live here, had no children here, pushing radical ideologies and calling our parents names, I could not stay silent. These parents were immigrant families, some with Holocaust survivors, people who fled communism and religious persecution. They understood, at a bone-deep level, what it means when institutions stop listening to citizens. And they were being silenced and mocked in their own community. I could not take it anymore. In August 2021, I wrote a 14-page complaint letter to school administrators documenting what I had personally witnessed. I signed my name to it. Ten days later, I was served with a defamation lawsuit. Standing on the front line is not glamorous. For nearly five years, I was called names, lied about in my own community, and targeted by litigation that never stopped moving. It takes a toll, mentally, emotionally, on your family and your sense of self. There were moments I questioned whether it was worth it. But advocating for change is a marathon, not a sprint. On my lowest days, I stepped away from social media, went into the garden, cooked, prayed, and spent time with the people who love me. I must have listened to the Anne Wilson song Stand a million times. That song gave me the strength to keep going when I had none left. Fighting this lawsuit did not just test me; it tested my resolve. It made me stronger and smarter. It taught me the mechanisms the other side uses to silence parents — the legal tactics, the media strategy, the community narrative, and the fundraising campaigns. I also made a decision about my daughter: I pulled her out of the public school system and enrolled her in private school for academic rigor and peace of mind. As parents, we will do anything to protect our children. That instinct is not radical. It is the most natural thing in the world. When I was served with the lawsuit, I hired attorney Sorin Leahu, and we immediately built our defense under Illinois’s anti-SLAPP law. A year later, America First Legal joined the case, with attorney Nicholas Barry serving as co-counsel alongside Sorin. In 2023, we won a dismissal and were awarded attorney’s fees, a major victory. But from my years in enterprise software sales, I knew better than to celebrate too early: you don’t have a deal until the contract is signed. They appealed. Between December 2023 and February 2024, the plaintiffs held a YouTube press conference and raised $44,000 in GoFundMe donations explicitly solicited to pay the attorney’s fees the court had awarded to me. In June 2025, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the anti-SLAPP dismissal and gave the plaintiff one final opportunity to amend their complaint. We were back to square one. The new judge was precise and moved the case into discovery and summary judgment. We were prepared to go all the way because the truth always wins in discovery. Our interrogatories required the plaintiff to identify, under oath, every alleged lost job opportunity despite public records showing she had been promoted to Assistant Principal at a higher salary by the same employer to whom my letter was sent. We also requested the original version of a key email whose formatting raised concerns about authenticity and demanded an accounting of the $44,000 raised during the litigation. A few days later, we received an email: they wish to dismiss with prejudice. Each party is to cover its own fees. Almost five years of a false story claiming I attacked a teacher in my community disappeared in an instant with a single email. I was never truly in control; they were. The only thing I had power over was whether I would give up, and I chose not to. This Is Happening Everywhere My case is one thread in a much larger pattern. Across Illinois, people who have spoken out have faced the same playbook: Stacy Deemar sued District 65 over race-based curriculum; Nicole Georgas filed a federal civil rights complaint against District 109 over locker room privacy; Michelle Hammer Bernstein faced defamation claims in District 113 for Facebook posts; and in Libertyville, District 128 placed an administrator on leave after Marnie Navarro exposed a grooming scandal that administrators had quietly buried. In Wisconsin, Scarlett Johnson was sued for calling a DEI hire “woke” on social media and won. Notably, in my case, the plaintiff’s attorney, Sheryl Ring Weikal, also represented the Abolition Coalition parents who filed a separate lawsuit against Fairview School District 72, which was also dropped after years of litigation. Two lawsuits. Same attorney. Same pattern. Awake Illinois, the statewide parental rights organization where I serve as vice president, was founded by Shannon Adcock and our director, Steve Lucie. We have filed multiple federal Title IX complaints against Illinois school districts, including the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) and Naperville Community Unit School District 203, using official federal channels to fight for the rights of students and parents. This is exactly what civic participation looks like, and it is exactly what SLAPP suits are designed to stop. What Every Parent Should Know No parent should have to fight alone. Across the country, grassroots organizations are standing beside families willing to speak up for their children and communities. Groups like Defending Education, Moms for Liberty, Courage Is A Habit, Awake Illinois, and America First Legal have empowered parents through advocacy, education, investigative work, and legal support. Filing a complaint letter is not a crime. Speaking at a school board meeting is not harassment. Lawsuits should never be used to silence citizens exercising their constitutional rights. Illinois’s Citizen Participation Act exists to protect individuals who petition their government and speak out on matters of public concern. As this chapter closes, I am deeply grateful to my legal counsel, the organizations that stood beside me, and every person who offered support, prayers, and encouragement over these past several years. Their support carried me through one of the hardest battles of my life and reminded me of something important: truth matters, your voice matters, and no parent should ever be intimidated into silence for advocating for children. *** Helen Levinson is vice president of Awake Illinois.