The Story: In a 6–3 decision on the emergency docket, the U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked California from enforcing policies that require public schools to hide a child’s gender transition at school from parents, even when parents specifically ask to be informed. The Background: In Mirabelli v. Bonta, Christian middle-school teachers and a group of parents challenged California policies that required school staff to use a student’s chosen name and pronouns at school while concealing that change from parents unless the child consented. Teachers were instructed to deflect parents’ questions and direct them to administrators, who would refuse to disclose the information. Two sets of parents in this case discovered their daughters were being “socially transitioned” (e.g., treated as boys at school through new names, pronouns, and other accommodations) without their knowledge. In one family, school officials continued to withhold information about the student’s gender identification even after the child attempted suicide and was hospitalized. The federal district court initially ruled for the parents and teachers. That court entered a permanent injunction preventing schools from misleading parents and requiring schools to follow parents’ directions on names and pronouns. But the Ninth Circuit stayed that injunction while California appealed, allowing the secrecy policies to go back into effect. The parents then asked the Supreme Court to step in on an emergency basis. On March 2, the Court partially granted the parents’ request, vacating the Ninth Circuit’s stay and putting the district court’s injunction back in force while the case continues. The Court held that the parents are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims and that allowing the secrecy policy to remain in effect would cause irreparable harm. The majority concluded that excluding parents from “highly important decisions” involving their children’s mental health and identity cannot survive the heightened scrutiny required when the state burdens fundamental parental rights. The opinion bases the parents’ claims in both the free exercise clause of the First Amendment—citing last term’s Mahmoud v. Taylor decision and applying strict scrutiny—and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that secretly facilitating a child’s social transition is an even greater intrusion on parental religious liberty than the introduction of contested curricular materials, as in the Mahmoud case. Ultimately, the substantive due process reasoning may prove more consequential since it extends protection to all parents, not only those raising religious objections. By recognizing the strength of the parental-rights claim at this interim stage, the Court signaled that both religious and nonreligious parents are likely protected from policies that deliberately keep them in the dark. Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, wrote a concurrence emphasizing that this is a preliminary decision, not a final ruling on the merits. Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Jackson, dissented, arguing the Court acted too hastily through the emergency docket. Justices Thomas and Alito would have also ruled for the teachers, whose claims the majority left unresolved. Justice Sotomayor would have denied the entire application. Why It Matters: At the heart of this case is a question Christians already know the answer to but that the law is still working out: Who has the primary responsibility—before God and under the law—to care for children and make decisions about their well-being? California argued that protecting students’ privacy and autonomy justified keeping parents uninformed about gender transitions at school. In practice, this meant that teachers and administrators could socially transition a child while treating parents as potential threats to be managed or misled. The Court’s order strongly suggests such a policy is constitutionally suspect because it prevents parents from being involved in precisely the kind of decisions that the Court has long said belong to families. When schools are instructed to deceive parents about a child’s mental health struggles and identity questions, parents cannot fulfill their God-given calling. Mirabelli is thus the latest test case of whether civil government will respect or erode the created order in which parents, rather than bureaucracies, are entrusted with children. This case shows how quickly administrative “guidance” can harden into enforceable policy. California’s original guidance documents were later declared inoperative, only to be replaced by mandatory training that imposed essentially the same secrecy rules. These rules were then defended in court as binding policy. Unless parents and churches pay attention to these lower-profile regulatory moves, we may discover too late that the legal groundwork has been laid to cut us out of crucial decisions in our children’s lives. The situation in California is a chilling reminder that parental rights aren’t self-enforcing. Even when the Constitution acknowledges parental authority, that protection can be weakened or ignored if Christians are unaware, disengaged, or silent. The parents in Mirabelli, for example, had to endure years of litigation simply to keep schools from lying to them about their own children. We should also be clear-eyed about what this ruling is and what it isn’t. This isn’t a final decision on the merits of this case but rather an emergency order that reinstates a lower-court injunction while the case continues in the Ninth Circuit. There’s potential for the case to be returned to the Court. The legal battle over parental rights in the context of gender ideology is thus far from over. Yet there’s real reason for hope. The Supreme Court has sent a clear message this week that the state may not treat parents as enemies to be circumvented. Mirabelli v. Bonta has the potential to give parents their strongest constitutional footing yet in the fight to remain the primary voices in their children’s lives. If we’ve missed or ignored earlier warnings about the fragility of parental authority in a secular age, this case offers another chance to act before more permanent legal precedents are set. See also: California LGBT+ Law Builds ‘Wall of Secrecy’ Between Parents and Kids

'fight for his constituents, and follow through on his promises'

Texas State Rep. James Talarico won the Texas Senate Democratic primary, booting left-wing firebrand Trump foe Rep. Jasmine Crockett from Washington D.C. at the end of her term. Talarico took 53.1% of the vote compared to Crocketts’ 45.6%, with 86% of the vote counted, according to the Associated Press. Talarico’s Republican opponent will not be […]

The death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who ruled Iran with brutality for nearly four decades, has thrown the Persian Gulf country into a historic moment of uncertainty — and possibility. His welcome passing shattered the familiar, oppressive order and forces a question Iran can no longer postpone: What comes next?That question arises as Iran sits at the center of a deeper shift that may prove historic and generational. Much remains uncertain: how change will unfold, how long it will take, and what form it will assume. One principle, however, should guide every serious observer: Lasting change in Iran must come from within, driven by Iranians themselves and their organized resistance. Anything imposed from abroad or engineered through outside force will fail.Iran’s destiny will be shaped by Iranians: by students, workers, professionals, and above all by women who refuse to accept a future defined by repression.For more than four decades, Iran’s clerical establishment has displayed many vulnerabilities. One stands out as both defining and revealing: institutionalized misogyny. This is not merely a social failing. It is a governing doctrine.That doctrine has become the regime’s weakness.Women have been among the primary victims of Iran’s repression. They have also become the most dynamic force challenging it. Across the country, women no longer merely participate in dissent. They drive it. In city after city, they confront the regime’s most repressive forces. In many instances, they do not just join protests; they lead them.One striking feature of this movement is its intergenerational character. Observers rightly note the youth of Iran’s protesters. But mothers march alongside daughters, and that image captures something profound about Iran’s national awakening: The demand for freedom is no longer confined to one age group or social class. It has become a shared national aspiration.In moments of historic transformation, leaders emerge whose lives embody a movement’s aims. In Iran’s struggle, one such figure is Maryam Rajavi, president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. For nearly half a century, she has been engaged in Iran’s fight for freedom. Her commitment is personal. She lost one sister to the Shah’s secret police, SAVAK, and another under the rule of the ayatollahs while she was pregnant. Such losses would silence many. For her, they hardened resolve.Rajavi’s significance lies not only in her story but in her vision. Over decades, she has helped cultivate a generation of women within Iran’s resistance — women who now occupy leadership roles, organize networks, and sustain activism under extreme repression. Tens of thousands of women affiliated with her movement have died in the struggle for freedom. That sacrifice, measured in lives rather than slogans, lends credibility to the movement she represents. This is not symbolic inclusion. It is a structural transformation. Women at every level of opposition challenge the regime’s core assumption that power must remain exclusively male.At the center of Rajavi’s platform is a 10-point plan outlining a democratic future for Iran. At its heart sits a principle the current regime finds intolerable: gender equality. In that vision, equality is not a concession. It is a foundation — essential to political legitimacy, economic progress, and justice. Women’s rights are not a peripheral demand; they are a declaration that a future Iran must break with decades of repression.RELATED: Iran’s freedom fighters put America’s No Kings clowns to shame Photo by Thierry Monasse/Getty ImagesSometimes a single image conveys what volumes of analysis cannot. Few signals would announce a new era more clearly than the emergence of a modern-minded Muslim woman as a central leader of democratic change. That would mark more than a political transition. It would signal renewal — a break with tyranny and a declaration that Iran’s future belongs to all its citizens.History offers countless examples of societies that seemed immovable until, suddenly, they were not. Authoritarian systems often look strongest just before they weaken and most permanent just before they dissolve. The forces now stirring within Iran — especially the courage and leadership of its women — suggest the country has entered such a moment.The lesson for the world is straightforward. Iran’s destiny will not be shaped by foreign intervention or external engineering — and it will not be served by fake leaders like Reza Pahlavi, who rely on social media and bots for relevance. Iran’s destiny will be shaped by Iranians: by students, workers, professionals, and above all by women who refuse to accept a future defined by repression.Their struggle is not only national. It reflects a universal truth: The desire for freedom, once awakened, cannot be permanently suppressed.The direction of Iran’s transformation is becoming clearer. And if history is any guide, when that transformation reaches its turning point, it will bear a defining hallmark: It will have been led, inspired, and sustained by women.

[View Article at Source] Crenshaw was the only incumbent Republican House member in Texas running for re-election who did not receive President Donald Trump’s endorsement.

By Emmanuel BobbyFour of the six U.S. service members killed in the escalating conflict with Iran died when a drone struck Port Shuabia in Kuwait on Sunday, according to U.S. Army Reserve Command. The…

By Emmanuel BobbyEcuadorian and U.S. forces have begun joint operations aimed at combating drug trafficking, U.S. Southern Command announced Tuesday, though officials from both countries provided few…

BY MIRABLE ODETAThe U.S. Department of Defense has identified four of the first American soldiers killed during the ongoing conflict involving Iran, as the administration of Donald Trump warned that the…

President Trump says that the U.S. Navy will escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz “if necessary.” Why would that be necessary? Because Iran has closed off this crucial trading route after it was attacked by the U.S. and Israel. President Trump directed the U.S. Development Finance Corporation to offer political risk insurance and financial guarantees to protect maritime trade moving through the Gulf. The coverage will be available to all shipping companies. Who will pay for that? The U.S. taxpayer. This is a government agency. When it offers political risk insurance or loan guarantees, it is essentially saying: If a private company loses ships, cargo, or contracts because of war or political instability, the U.S. government will compensate them. Would any shipping company take this deal? Why would a ship want to be escorted near Iran by the country that is bombing Iran? Further, this is a dangerous prospect for the U.S. Navy. Iran has made it clear that closed means closed, and they are ready to defend this militarily. They’re not going to allow the U.S. Navy near here. Why would President Trump put these sailors in harm’s way on purpose? Because he knows what this can do to the global economy. He says that “the United States will ensure the free flow of energy to the world” but that is a wish, not a capability. The President also responded to news reports that the U.S. may run out of weapons if the war drags on for more than a few weeks. Not true, he says. We can do this “forever,” he said. He says that the U.S. has plenty of weapons but sadly, gave too many to “P.T. Barnum (Zelenskyy!) of Ukraine.” He has had over a year to get them back but never stopped the flow of weapons to Ukraine so that excuse doesn’t hold. The White House also spent the day refuting what Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Monday, that Israel was going to attack Iran first and the U.S. had to get on board. When asked about this, President Trump said that it was him that forced Israel’s hand. The ego at play here is astounding. I’m the boss of me! The post Trump Sends U.S. Navy Toward Iran’s Closed Strait appeared first on Redacted.