Montgomery County Board of Education

The Supreme Court struck down a lower court injunction blocking the Trump administration’s executive order on birthright citizenship, laying out clear rules for courts utilizing universal injunctions going forward. The case, Trump v. CASA, concerns universal injunctions that lower court judges have ordered pausing President Donald Trump’s order interpreting the 14th Amendment as not guaranteeing what is known as “birthright citizenship.”  The court ruled, 6-3, that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the court, which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined. Thomas filed a concurring opinion, which Gorsuch joined. Alito filed another concurring opinion, which Thomas joined. Kavanaugh also wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor write a dissenting opinion, which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. Jackson also filed a dissenting opinion. “Traditionally, courts issued injunctions prohibiting executive officials from enforcing a challenged law or policy only against the plaintiffs in the lawsuit,” Justice Barrett wrote. “The injunctions before us today reflect a more recent development: district courts asserting the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone.” Barrett wrote that “the universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our nation’s history.” Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion focused on what Barrett described as “conventional legal terrain,” but Barrett targeted Jackson’s dissent for special scorn. Jackson “chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever,” Barrett wrote. “Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a ‘mind-numbingly technical query,’ … she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.” “In her telling, the fundamental role of courts is to ‘order everyone (including the executive) to follow the law—full stop,'” Barrett added. “Jackson appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands ‘universal adherence,’ at least where the executive is concerned.” Birthright citizenship is the idea that if someone is born in the U.S. to alien parents (who are not foreign diplomats or enemies in a hostile occupation), he or she is immediately a U.S. citizen. Immigration groups brought a lawsuit against Trump’s order, and the state of New Jersey also opposed it in court. Lower courts have been repeatedly issuing “universal” injunctions to temporarily stop the execution of Trump’s executive orders nationwide rather than only limiting the injunctions to the specific cases they are hearing or to a court’s geographic area of jurisdiction. Critics of birthright citizenship note that the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” (emphasis added). “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not apply to aliens who enter the U.S. and then give birth in America, they say, because non-Americans are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries, not the U.S. Supporters of birthright citizenship note that the U.S. has extended citizenship to children of aliens born in the U.S. for more than 100 years. The Supreme Court case did not focus on the birthright citizenship issue but rather the legality of lower courts issuing injunctions that apply to the entire country. Many of the groups filing the lawsuits that have led to the injunctions had a great deal of influence in the Biden administration, as noted in my book, “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government.” While judges have the authority to issue temporary injunctions to protect one of the parties in a case from harm while the court considers the case, the Trump administration claims the judges have abused this power, claiming to protect people across the country who aren’t parties to the suit. During oral arguments at the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts had issued 40 universal injunctions against the federal government, including 35 from the same five judicial districts. He argued that these injunctions “prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions” through the normal legal process and that they “encourage forum shopping,” that is, parties filing lawsuits in certain areas, seeking friendly judges who they believe will issue injunctions on their behalf. He also argued that such universal injunctions circumvent Rule 23, the process by which plaintiffs apply for class action. Sauer also argued that universal injunctions are a relatively recent phenomenon, first appearing in the 1960s. New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, a Democrat, insisted that universal injunctions have a longer history in U.S. and English courts. He cited the English common law practice of a “bill of peace,” which judges used to settle multiple related claims against a defendant in a single lawsuit. The practice allowed the court to bind all members of a “multitude” with the outcome, even if they didn’t directly participate in the lawsuit. Sauer argued that a “bill of peace” most resembles class-action lawsuits, not universal injunctions. Feigenbaum also cited cases from before the 1960s, which Sauer claimed did not represent universal injunctions. Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court director at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University, represented immigration groups. She argued that if the court ruled in Trump’s favor, it would reject “the status quo all three branches of government have ratified and operated under for over a century,” warning that “catastrophic consequences would result for the plaintiffs and our country” if the government can “execute an unconstitutional citizenship-stripping scheme simply because the court challenges take time.” The post BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down Courts Applying Universal Injunctions appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court upheld the religious freedom of Maryland parents who challenged a school district policy that prevented them from opting their children out of lessons involving LGBTQ books. The court ruled, 6-3, that the Maryland parents were entitled to a preliminary injunction. The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, involved Maryland parents of various faith backgrounds—Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim—asking the court for a temporary injunction, allowing them to opt their kids out of instruction that utilize LGBTQ books that Montgomery County Public Schools has mandated schools teach. Although Maryland law requires schools to allow parents to opt their children out of “all sexuality instruction” and to provide advanced notice for such lessons, the policy excluded any opt-out right. The school district initially granted the opt-out but later revoked it, saying that too many parents requested to opt out and that the LGBTQ books are exempt from the law because they are taught as literature. The school district defended the policy as advancing the cause of inclusion. “These books are, in fact, teaching explicit sexual orientation and gender identity issues as early as pre-K,” Will Haun, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, previously told The Daily Signal. The associated reading instructions he said, “Require teachers to make dismissive statements about a student’s religious beliefs, to shame children who disagree, and to teach as facts things that some would not agree are facts.”  The Pride storybooks include selections such as “My Rainbow,” which tells the story of a mother who creates a rainbow-colored wig for a child the book presents as “transgender.” “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope” recounts the tale of a biological girl who identifies as a boy and who struggles to convince the world that she is male. “Prince & Knight” and “Love, Violet” tell same-sex romance stories. During a Montgomery County school board meeting, board member Lynne Harris said, “Because saying that a kindergartener can’t be present when you read a book about a rainbow unicorn because it offends your religious rights or your family values or your core beliefs is just telling that kid, ‘Here’s another reason to hate another person.’” Harris also insisted that “transgender, LGBTQ individuals are not an ideology, they’re a reality.” The post Supreme Court Rules on Parents’ Religious Freedom in LGBTQ School Book Opt-Out Case appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Despite overwhelming opposition from Democrats, the House voted Friday to adopt House Resolution 516, a resolution condemning the violent June 2025 protests in Los Angeles. The vote tally was 215 to 195, with all 195 votes against coming from Democrats. No Republicans voted against the bill, and seven Democrats crossed party lines to join the 208 Republicans who voted in favor. The resolution, sponsored by California congresswoman Young Kim, explains that, “protests quickly escalated into violent riots across Los Angeles, where acts of arson, widespread looting, property destruction, and vandalism were committed, blocking streets and highways, lighting streets on fire, throwing rocks at law enforcement vehicles, and assaulting federal and local peace officers.” It goes on to outline the crimes committed by rioters, including having “shot commercial grade fireworks and thrown Molotov cocktails at Los Angeles Police Department officers and assaulted federal agents.” It describes how some protesters “burned American flags, an act that disrespects the nation that protects their freedom.” Kim told The Daily Signal this week, “Peaceful protests are a constitutional right, but vandalism, looting, violence, and other crimes are not. Protecting public safety shouldn’t be controversial, which is why I am leading the California Republican delegation in a resolution to support law and order as we continue to see unrest.” “I hope [California Gov. Gavin] Newsom can come together with President [Donald] Trump to stop the riots, lower the temperature, and keep our communities safe,” the congresswoman said.  California Gov. Gavin Newsom was quoted in the resolution as saying local law enforcement did not need any help. The resolution also thanks the men and women of law enforcement in several police departments, including the “Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, California Highway Patrol, Orange County Sheriff’s Department, and other local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.” The post Democrats Vote Against House Resolution Condemning LA Riots appeared first on The Daily Signal.

ICE Rescuing Trafficked Children

BREAKING: SCOTUS Quashes Federal District Courts' Nationwide Injunctions, 6-3

Elephants, orcas, and dogs also display behaviors akin to mourning.

The Associated Press appears to believe that people are waking up every day having nervous breakdowns over the spectre of — wait for it — climate change.  AP lifestyle writer Leanne Italie put out a crackpot piece of green freak propaganda June 25 that competed with The Babylon Bee for funniest satire of the day. “Anxiety, grief, anger, fear, helplessness. The emotional toll of climate change is broad-ranging, especially for young people.” Yes, this was a real sentence in what is supposedly a news item. It just got worse: “Many worry about what the future holds, and a daily grind of climate anxiety and distress can lead to sleeplessness, an inability to focus and worse. Some young people wonder whether it’s moral to bring children into the world. Many people grieve for the natural world.” Who's responsible for trying to scare people to death? Journalists, for sure. But never fear, exclaimed Italie: “Activists, climate psychologists and others in the fight against climate change have a range of ways to build resilience and help manage emotions.” AP actually pays writers anywhere between $60,000 and $101,000 a year to pollute its website with a heavy overdose of this kind of brain-dead codswallop.  Italie’s prescriptions were just as bonkers as her initial thesis. They ranged from telling readers to “convince more residents to give up grass lawns and increase biodiversity with native plants,” to making themselves a “positivity sandwich.” Yes, a “positivity sandwich,” which Italie described as when one begins “with a good piece of news, followed by a harder tidbit, then finish[ing] with a second feel-good story.” Italie even elevated the ramblings of a so-called expert on eco-psychology (yes that’s apparently a thing), of whom she wrote, “One of her most important missions is helping people find their words to talk about climate change in pursuit of resilience.”  As if this load of global warming slop couldn’t get any more cringey, Italie highlighted the story of a nutty mother who was so obsessed with climate Armageddon she regretted giving birth to her son.  ‘I am generally a very happy person and I’m very optimistic. And I’m still that, but sometimes it becomes very difficult to manage. Like, what will happen and thinking about the long term, she said. ‘At points, I’ve regretted bringing a child into this world, knowing how things could get much, much worse.’ People like this shouldn't be defined as "very optimistic." But for Italie, this mother served as a proper case study to complement the climate fear porn she was foisting on her readers. “Part of managing her own emotions is trying to model sustainable behaviors for her son while educating him on the importance of helping the environment,” Italie propagandized. “The family drives an electric vehicle. They don’t eat meat and have encouraged extended family to do the same. They recycle, compost and limit travel by air.” But what more can you expect from an outlet that openly admits that it’s getting millions in funding from climate-obsessed interest groups, while still purporting to be “unbiased news?” This effectively made the AP a propaganda arm of the climate change lobby, and clearly a home for eco-fanatical nut-jobs masquerading as journalists.  If AP wanted to sell us a “positivity sandwich," they would surround their fearful theories of the future with the good news that all of the media's crackpot predictions in the 1990s or the 2000s -- that the Earth would be doomed within ten years -- didn't pan out. 

Once again, the liberal ladies of The View have proven that they were more interested in pushing anti-Trump hysteria than engaging in honest political discourse. On Thursday’s show, the ABC daytime panel went beyond their usual whining and delved headfirst into conspiracy theory territory, suggesting that President Trump’s statements about the success of the U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, and calling out CNN for false reporting, was evidence that he wants to impose state-run media, like China and Russia. Yes, seriously.     Sunny Hostin actually claimed that Trump’s insistence on the success of the June 22 precision strikes against Iranian nuclear sites was an “attack on the free press” and reflected his preference for “state-sponsored television” like in communist China and Russia. This wasn't just an opinion, its reckless rhetoric being framed as facts, comparing the President of the United States to authoritarian despots because he stood by a military mission deemed successful by both the Pentagon and international organizations. Let’s be clear. The June 22 strike, ordered by President Trump, targeted Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities. According to the Defense Intelligence Agency and the United Nations’ own IAEA reports, the strikes achieved their objective, which was to shut down Iran’s centrifuges at Fordow and completely destroy their plans of developing a nuclear weapon. This wasn't a political spin. It's a well-documented reality that Hostin ignored despite the show putting off stating their opinions until more information was released. But despite that, the women of The View couldn’t resist the urge to twist the narrative. Joy Behar demanded to know why Trump had to say he obliterated the Iranian facilities, as if presidential confidence in a successful military operation was somehow a cardinal sin. “Why does he have to come out and say he obliterated?! Why does he do that?!” she exclaimed. “And why do they let him do that?” The panel then spiraled into a familiar chorus of partisan griping. Ana Navarro derided Trump’s cabinet as unqualified loyalists. Sara Haines and Navarro mocked the administration for repeating the word “obliterate,” with Navarro condescendingly suggesting the White House needs a thesaurus. What they refused to acknowledge was that the operation was not only successful but also strategically sound. China and Russia, two of Iran’s traditional allies, remained silent. We avoided a larger conflict. There were no civilian casualties. And yes, Iran’s nuclear facilities are, by all meaningful measures, offline. Rather than engage with this outcome, the hosts chose to spin it into a media suppression narrative. Navarro, Hostin, and Behar accused Trump of trying to distract from supposedly contradicting intelligence reports, despite those reports being discredited by the Department of Defense as low-confidence, early-stage assessments leaked without authorization. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that the now-leaked document had been dismissed internally due to its incomplete and unverified data. But in today’s media ecosystem, facts don’t matter if they don’t support the desired narrative. In the most irresponsible moment of the segment, Sunny Hostin went as far as equating Trump’s trust in U.S. intelligence and defense briefings with communist propaganda:  I think he is much more comfortable… with state-sponsored television… like Russia… China. You can't trust what you're hearing. This kind of accusation, that a president was seeking to destroy the free press simply because he refused to bend to the narrative of the left, was not just outrageous, it’s fear-mongering. And it’s precisely the kind of talk that erodes public trust and patriotism. By comparing Trump to brutal authoritarian regimes because he insists on defending a successful military action, Hostin and her co-hosts are not defending free speech, they were weaponizing it. In doing so, The View has become a platform for propaganda, not discussion.   The entire transcript is below. Click "expand" to read. ABC’s The View June 26, 2025 11:05:00 AM EST ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: 79 percent of Americans agree that Iran shouldn't have a nuclear weapon. There’s obviously debate over these strikes, many people oppose the strikes. But I would say this; if they were successful, that is the most likely outcome to keep us from getting into a bigger war with Iran. China's sitting this out. Russia is sitting this out. We as of now are not on the cusp of World War III, and I would encourage people to walk that language back. And today, The International Atomic Energy Agency, which is housed by the United Nations, said that “the Iranian centrifuges at Fordow are no longer operational.” I’ve talked to a number of military experts from the Obama administration and the first Trump administration, who believe that these strikes were profoundly successful. But I’ll say this, I've been in the Pentagon press briefing room and briefed at that podium, and we had a rule of thumb: initial reports are often inaccurate. The fog of war is a real thing. It takes a while to get assessments and while I think this DIA report was accurate at the time, I don't think it’s gonna stand. I think we're gonna hear from Israeli intelligence, European intelligence and our other 18 intelligence agencies. JOY BEHAR: Why does he have to come out and say he obliterated?! Why does he do that?! GRIFFIN: He’s a politician–   [CROSS TALK] GRIFFIN: And he’s Trump. Have you met Donald Trump? BEHAR: And why do they let him do that? GRIFFIN: I don’t think anyone controls what he says. But I would point to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Caine who briefed today. And he was much more measured, he described the the operation, explained why it was successful, and praised our brave U.S. troops who carried this out. ANA NAVARRO: But when you say, “why do they”, who are you talking about who are “they”? BEHAR: The Republican Congress, his cabinet, people around him. NAVARRO: Because they let him– SARA HAINES: You’re waiting on the Republican Congress– NAVARRO: They let him do everything. BEHAR: I'm not saying they've done it or I'm hopeful– HAINES: For much lesser things they have not done it– BEHAR: I’m just– I– would– I’m praying they would. NAVARRO: I think the point– when you ask that question, the point is that if– it really highlights the difference between Trump's first term and Trump's second term. In Trump’s first term he had a General Mathis, you know, running DOD. He had a General Kelly at the Department of Homeland Security and then as his Chief of Staff. Today, he's got Pete Hegseth, a weakened Fox News host, whose biggest qualification to be Department of Defense Secretary is that he is a big suck-up to Donald Trump. And so then they all go out there and use the same exact language, right? They all use the word “obliterate”. I want to give them a thesaurus at least, because it was a drinking game and the word was “obliterate”, we'd all be dead of alcohol poisoning. They– They sound like trained parrots. [APPLAUSE] NAVARRO: Whenever– Whenever you see Trump picking a fight the way he's doing with CNN and MSNBC, my God, they're even berating Jennifer Griffin from Fox News. Whenever he's picking a fight with AOC– as he was doing from Air Force One– he's trying to distract so he's trying to pick that fight so that we talk about him trying to squash the free press asking legitimate questions, because we have been here before where presidents have exaggerated and lied. May I remind you, weapons of mass destruction. He's picking a fight to distract us from what these intelligence reports are saying and what is a legitimate debate and questions. BEHAR: From a Big Beautiful Bill that nobody likes– HOSTIN: I think its part distract– distraction, of course, but I think it's much more insidious than that. I think it really is an attack on the free press. I think he is much more comfortable like many dictators and many authoritarians with state-sponsored television. When you go to a place like Russia, and I've actually been to Russia, you watch television, you watch television in mainland China, you can't trust what you're hearing. And I think he is much more comfortable in that kind of space. And the other thing that I will say is, you know, the majority of Americans disapprove of the U.S. strikes and I agree with you, Joy, that one wants nuclear war, but we have, Russia has nuclear arms, the United States has nuclear arms, Pakistan, India– NAVARRO: Israel– HOSTIN: Israel. The only country that has actually used a nuclear weapon is the United States of America against Japan and so– BEHAR: But over the past many years– HOSTIN: But let me just also say this; and so, many international lawyers would argue that a U.S. military attack on Iran, under the present circumstances, would violate international law, and that is really my concern. BEHAR: I don’t trust Iran to not use it. (…)

Just weeks into President Donald Trump's second term, the S&P 500 — which had risen over 20% in the previous two years — rocketed to record highs, driven up in part by a substantive increase in corporate earnings as well as the "Trump bump."After marking its all-time high of 6,144.15 on Feb. 19, the index soon began to slide, prompting anxiety among some investors and doom-saying from various analysts, especially over the potential impact of the president's tariff proposals. For instance, Andrew Brenner, head of international fixed income at National Alliance Securities, told the New York Times a month ahead of Trump's "Liberation Day" tariff announcements, "The tariff rhetoric has become daily and extreme, sentiment is awful and trading is on edge."In the days immediately following Trump's April 2 announcements, the S&P 500 had its worst day since COVID-19 crashed the economy in 2020, then shed many trillions in market value, prompting more of the concerns and shirt-rending that would become customary over subsequent weeks. After months of doom and gloom, the S&P 500 hit a new record on Friday, marking a stunning comeback from April. At market open, the S&P 500 went north of 6,154.79.CNBC suggested that the comeback — what Bloomberg indicated is "shooting toward the second-biggest percentage-point recovery in history" — was driven in part by strong corporate earnings, a stable labor market, and new energy in the AI trade. It certainly doesn't hurt that trepidation over tariffs has largely given way to optimism over Trump's trade deals.The possibility that Trump might not ultimately implement his Liberation Day tariffs may also have been factored into investors' optimism. After all, the rise came on the heels of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt noting that Trump's July tariff deal deadline "is not critical" and "could be extended."There's also the matter of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's recent revelations to Bloomberg News that the U.S. and China finalized its trade deal this week and that the Trump administration has imminent plans to reach trade deals with 10 other major trading partners. "We're going to do top 10 deals, put them in the right category, and then these other countries will fit behind," said Lutnick.RELATED: Trump’s tariffs take a flamethrower to the free trade lie Photo by Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images"The markets are looking forward, seeing lower interest rates, less regulation in the banking sector, a shift from austerity to stimulus in Europe, and a less biting inflation and tariff environment," Jamie Cox, managing partner at Harris Financial Group, told CNBC. "This sure isn’t the stagflation story we've been told to brace for."Paul Stanley, chief investment officer at Granite Bay Wealth Management, said to CNN regarding the S&P 500's $9.8 trillion roundtrip, "The market is betting on continued progress on trade and a de-escalation of tensions in the Middle East is giving investors confidence."Entrepreneur and business expert Carol Roth told Blaze News that "it's important to remember that the market is not the economy, and that other factors, including the Federal Reserve and government policy, have impacted the market, particularly over the last couple of decades.""The president's heavy-handed approach to tariffs was not expected by the market, but as there had been more certainty gained regarding tariff policy and a belief that further de-escalation is more likely than escalation, the market has moved past that hurdle," explained Roth. "In recent days, commentary from Fed members that suggests a Fed rate cut may be on the table for July has supported risk assets."Roth noted, however, that "any long-tail effects from tariffs that show up later in the year, or challenges that arise from financing/refinancing our massive debt and deficit could shift the outlook and impact market returns."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!