Common sense is on the line at the Supreme Court, a group of female athletes and Republican officials warned Monday. The Republican Attorneys General Conference and prominent female athletes like Riley Gaines held a press conference on Monday ahead of oral arguments in two cases that revolve around the rights of states to pass laws that keep men off of women’s sports teams. They said that the case will have far-reaching consequences for women’s privacy and safety. “The reason that we are here is because Idaho and West Virginia passed common sense laws that delineate the athletic playing fields in our states between the sexes,” said West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey. “West Virginia’s law makes sure that every single woman and girl in West Virginia has a safe and fair playing field in order for them to earn and learn all of the amazing skills that come from competitive team athletics.” The justices will hear two different sets of oral arguments on Tuesday, in the cases of West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox. The result of the cases will determine whether 27 states can keep laws in place that prevent men from entering women’s sports, and could impact laws protecting women’s privacy in bathrooms and other spaces. “Women’s rights are under attack by the radical Left. As Republican Attorneys General, we are committed to doing everything we can to protect them. Women and girls should feel safe in the locker rooms and have the opportunity to participate in fair competitions,” said Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen. Gaines, the University of Kentucky swimmer who rose to national prominence for speaking out after being forced to compete against male University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas, said she was “pissed” off that the country had reached the point where it was even a debate whether women can have their own sports teams. “I’m pissed off that we’ve reached a point where we seemingly have an entire political party who has diminished and erased our rights as women. That’s exactly what this is. Don’t let them frame it any other way,” Gaines said. As Gaines noted, the case will not determine whether states must keep sports teams separate by sex, but whether states are allowed to do so. “We are fighting for the bare minimum here,” she said. “Can we allow ourselves to be vulnerable in an intimate area of undressing such as a locker room without having to fear a man walking into that space? Can we do those things?” Oral arguments in the case will start at 10 a.m. and are expected to last several hours.

President Donald Trump made his argument for keeping his far-reaching “reciprocal tariffs” on Monday and said that the United States would be “screwed” if the Supreme Court rules against his unprecedented trade policy. The Supreme Court could release its highly anticipated decision on the tariff case as soon as Wednesday, but it remains unknown when exactly the court will rule on the Trump administration’s emergency appeal. Trump said that a ruling against his administration would force the United States to pay back “hundreds of billions of dollars.” “The actual numbers that we would have to pay back if, for any reason, the Supreme Court were to rule against the United States of America on Tariffs, would be many Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, and that doesn’t include the amount of ‘payback’ that Countries and Companies would require for the Investments they are making on building Plants, Factories, and Equipment, for the purpose of being able to avoid the payment of Tariffs,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. The United States collected around $200 billion in tariff revenue last year, largely thanks to Trump’s tariffs, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Trump has used his so-called reciprocal tariffs to pressure companies to manufacture products in the United States to avoid his hefty import taxes. He argued that, taking foreign investments into account, the repercussions of a ruling against his tariffs could result in trillions of dollars no longer going into the U.S. economy. “It would be a complete mess, and almost impossible for our Country to pay. Anybody who says that it can be quickly and easily done would be making a false, inaccurate, or totally misunderstood answer to this very large and complex question,” Trump added. “It may not be possible but, if it were, it would be Dollars that would be so large that it would take many years to figure out what number we are talking about and even, who, when, and where, to pay. Remember, when America shines brightly, the World shines brightly. In other words, if the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America on this National Security bonanza, WE’RE SCREWED!” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, however, said that the United States wouldn’t have a problem paying tariff refunds, but he added that it would be “a corporate boondoggle.” “Costco, who’s suing the U.S. government, are they going to give the money back to their clients?” Bessent asked. During oral arguments in November, some of the conservative justices who Trump will need to side with him appeared skeptical of the president’s authority to impose his global tariffs. The case centers on questions around the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and whether Trump’s tariffs should be considered a tax. Trump’s Solicitor General, John Sauer, argued before the court that national emergencies related to the fentanyl crisis and America’s declining industrial base justify Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs. The court’s liberal justices appeared to side with the plaintiffs in the case, which are a group of American businesses. The businesses argue that tariffs act as taxes on the American people, and only Congress has the authority to levy taxes. Conservative Justices John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett also expressed skepticism about some of the Trump administration’s arguments.

Whoopi Goldberg immediately backpedaled after claiming Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were “violent criminals,” saying that she was using “nuance” when she made that particular statement. Goldberg joined her cohosts on Monday’s broadcast of ABC’s “The View,” where they discussed the fatal confrontation between anti-ICE activist Renee Good and the ICE agent who shot and killed her when she accelerated toward him, striking him with her vehicle. Goldberg’s overall assessment of the situation was that ICE agents were more violent than the people they were apprehending in major cities like Minneapolis. WATCH: After calling all ICE agents “violent criminals” before the commercial break, Whoopi comes back and claims that’s not what she did and whines about people calling her out: “Welcome back. Before we go on, I — before folks gather around and say, ‘oh, she’s accusing all of the… pic.twitter.com/eCQK46pPPl — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) January 12, 2026 Goldberg began by complaining that the Department of Homeland Security had promised to pick up the worst of the worst and the most “violent criminals” — and reports detailing who ICE agents have arrested since the surge in Minneapolis began indicate they have followed through on that promise. But Goldberg disagreed with DHS and said that, as far as she was concerned, it appeared that the “violent criminals” were inside ICE. “This is the thing, you said you were going after the bad guys. That’s what you said, the violent criminals. And what does it turn out? The violent criminals seem to be in the agency,” she said. The show cut to a commercial break then, and by the time they returned to air, she was already trying to un-ring the bell. “Welcome back. Before we go on, I — before folks gather around and say, ‘oh, she’s accusing all of the folks at ICE of being criminals,’ that is not what I’m doing. And just so I’m clear, it feels sometimes that there is no one watching the henhouse. Okay? So before y’all start blowing it into all kinds of other stuff, just know that it’s nuance speaking,” she said.

'She didn't know what was what'

'Assaulting law enforcement'

'unusual pro-Japan stance'

‘Not a crisis’

'Your conspiracy theories are laughable'