There are several major stories swirling around the United States Supreme Court that have gone grossly undercovered or outright ignored by the Elitist Media. It’s as if the media didn’t want their viewers learning about an inconvenient ruling and a pivotal argument, both against major policy items for the left. First, there is the Supreme Court 8-1 opinion (with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson the sole dissenter) declaring that Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” likely violates constitutional free exercise protections. ABC World News Tonight was the sole network newscast to carry the story. Below is that report in its entirety, as aired on Tuesday, March 31st, 2026:   WATCH: @ABCWorldNews was the only broadcast network evening newscast to cover the Supreme Court 8-1 opinion (with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson the sole dissenter) declaring that Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” likely violates constitutional free exercise protections.… pic.twitter.com/MDZW7SYcBz — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 1, 2026 DAVID MUIR: Tonight, after the state of Colorado had banned conversion therapy for LGBTQ minors. Tonight, the Supreme Court now ruling against that ban. In an 8-1 decision, the justices saying the law likely violates a Christian therapist's free speech. More than half the states have in the U.S. have similar laws like Colorado had, restricting the practice saying it is ineffective and harmful to minors.  Despite it being a 22-second brief, Muir found the time to mourn the ban on conversion therapy, therefore mourning a Christian therapist’s ability to render the care they believe is appropriate. But at least Muir covered the Court opinion, which is far more than can be said for CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News. These other newscasts stuffed their time with stories about handcuffed women jumping out of patrol cars with the windows down, and the Indiana man who stole a beer truck and was arrested for DUI. Had the Court ruled the other way, I’m pretty sure the story would’ve been reported across the aisle had the ruling gone the other way. The networks also kept quiet about a major hearing on Wednesday, which will be attended in person by President Trump and will center on the 14th Amendment constitutionality of granting automatic U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, etc. Per NBC News: The Supreme Court agreed in December to hear the case after lower courts ruled against Trump's plan to end automatic birthright citizenship for almost anyone born in the U.S. The 14th Amendment has long been interpreted to protect birthright citizenship, as it states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Trump administration is pushing back against the longtime interpretation of that clause. A reversion of the existing definition of birthright citizenship would help provide further legal justification for additional immigration restrictions, including increased deportations. Given the stakes of the hearing, which President Trump has indicated he will attend in person, it is odd that the network news wouldn’t at least give the story a brief. But as is often the case with stories such as these, they get buried. It is (D)ifferent, after all.

During Monday’s episode of The Situation Room on CNN, co-host Pamela Brown and CNN religion commentator Father Edward Beck teamed up to attack War Secretary Pete Hegseth's use of Christian terms throughout his tenure, especially during the recent conflict in Iran. Fr. Beck called Hegseth “unqualified” and pushed Christians, especially Catholics, to rethink their alignment with Trump Administration policies pertaining to defense and immigration. Notably, Brown recently completed a documentary on “The Rise of Christian Nationalism,” which lost most of its attention base due to the Iran conflict.  The segment was in response to comments from Pope Leo XIV that called for the end of war and said God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them, saying, even though you make many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood.”    CNN religion commentator Fr. Edward Beck was dismayed at Sec. @PeteHegseth's use of religious language and said "Hegseth is praying for overwhelming violence against those who deserve no mercy at a Christian worship service." pic.twitter.com/CiGNJt7NPk — Nick (@nspin310) March 30, 2026   When asked about a compilation of Hegseth’s use of religious phrases, Fr. Beck -- who was Chris Cuomo's favorite priest in his CNN days -- showed his dismay and went in at Hegseth: Well, it's really significant because Pete Hegseth is praying for overwhelming violence against those who deserve no mercy at a Christian worship service. The priest and the host failed to explain that some of Hegseth's martial language comes directly from King David in the Psalms. There in the Bible is war and God preparing his chosen ones for battle. But this is CNN, so here comes the “Christian Nationalism”: So, I think one of the positions here is actually rooted in the New Testament. And the other one is Christian Nationalism, which in my opinion is a contradiction in terms. So, I think it's really very interesting that the two are pitted against each other, and the pope is kind of taking it on, you know, heads on. Brown, alike to her anti-Christian documentary, invoked the “critics” in another question to Fr. Beck: And the Pentagon has defended Secretary Hegseth invoking religion and his public statements by saying he is simply embracing his personal faith and the country's history as a Christian nation. That's what they say. But some critics argue that his language could divide what is supposed to be a secular military. What do you think, Father Beck?   On The Situation Room, CNN contributor Fr. Edward Beck also connected the crucifixion of Jesus to the Iran war. "...So, this is the worst possible moment for Christian to justify war. This is the week when the church commemorates a state sanctioned execution of an innocent man" pic.twitter.com/TI0wXQdoDO — Nick (@nspin310) March 30, 2026   The military is religiously neutral -- allowing religious freedom -- that doesn't mean it's "secular" in that no one should pray in the military or speak in religious terms. Fr. Beck connected the war back to the crucifixion of Christ, as if the U.S. should let itself be crucified in some sense by Iran?  Well, I think that this is Holy Week, right? So, this is the worst possible moment for Christian to justify war. This is the week when the church commemorates a state sanctioned execution of an innocent man. (...) So, in this very week, when Christians are reacting and reenacting Jesus entering Jerusalem nonviolently, like heading toward crucifixion rather than conquest, you have American political and military leaders invoking his name to justify airstrikes.   Fr. Beck also called Hegseth "unqualified" and questioned Catholics and Christians who support Trump Administration policies as people having "issues with trying to allow Christian scriptures to justify their positions." https://t.co/pJtINCLe71 pic.twitter.com/nuF7FcwVbW — Nick (@nspin310) March 30, 2026   Brown asked about the uniqueness of the first American pope’s involvement in politics. In response, Fr. Beck questioned if Christians and Catholics who support the “unqualified” defense secretary are truly following scripture. So, this is a real, I think, moment of conscience, not only for all Christians, especially for Catholics, because your pope is on one side of the question and unqualified defense secretary, I mean that's just not my opinion, that's the opinion of American generals, is on the other side.  So, I think Christians have to ask, in particular, Catholics, who do you align yourself with? Where do you stand? Do you accept the pope saying: Jesus is nonviolent? This war is immoral? Or do you look at people who really are having very difficult, I think, issues with trying to allow Christian Scriptures to justify their positions. It’s not like there is any violence in the Bible or anything. So we're supposed to accept this is a totally unbiased priest who gave his unbiased opinion on the unqualified defense secretary. Only on CNN. The transcript is below. Click "expand": CNN’s The Situation Room March 30, 2026 10:49:47 AM Eastern PAMELA BROWN: Happening now, Christians around the world are preparing for Easter this Holy Week, Pope Leo's first at the helm of the Catholic Church. The pope raised eyebrows yesterday during his Palm Sunday Mass when he rejected attempts to co-opt God as justification for war. Many are viewing those remarks from the first U.S. born pontiff as aimed at members of the Trump Administration. [Cuts to video] POPE LEO XIV: [Voice Translated to English] Brothers and sisters, this is our God, Jesus, prince of peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war. He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them, saying, even though you make many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood. [Cuts back to live] BROWN: Joining us now to discuss is CNN religion contributor and Roman Catholic Priest, Father Edward Beck. Nice to have you on, Father Beck. How do you read those comments from the pope? FR. EDWARD BECK: Well, I think he's quoting scripture and not playing politics. I mean this is Isaiah chapter one, where the prophet is telling Israel with hands of blood that God turns away from their prayers because of their violence.  So, the pope is really standing in like a 2700th year old tradition of religious leaders telling the powerful that your piety is hollow if your hands are bloody. So people have, like, accused Pope Leo of meddling in politics. He's not, he's simply being steeped in the oldest job description, really, in the Hebrew prophetic tradition. BROWN: Let's play some sound from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has discussed religion and war in recent briefings and interviews, to give us some context around these comments from the pope. Let's watch. [Cuts to video compilation] SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH: Snap the rod of the oppressor, frustrate the wicked plans and break the teeth of the ungodly. By the blast of your anger, let the evil perish.  Blessed be the lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle.  May the lord grant unyielding strength and refuge to our warriors. The Providence of our almighty God is there protecting those troops. And we're committed to this mission. [Cuts back to live] BROWN: So, talk about the significance of that language, especially when discussed in the context of this conflict with Iran. FR. BECK: Well, it's really significant because Pete Hegseth is praying for overwhelming violence against those who deserve no mercy at a Christian worship service.  I mean, the pope comes back with, what about gethsemane? I mean, Jesus rebukes the disciple who draws the sword. I mean, Jesus of the gospel refused the sword even to save his own life.  So, I think one of the positions here is actually rooted in the New Testament. And the other one is Christian Nationalism, which in my opinion is a contradiction in terms. So, I think it's really very interesting that the two are pitted against each other, and the pope is kind of taking it on, you know, heads on. BROWN: And the Pentagon has defended Secretary Hegseth invoking religion and his public statements by saying he is simply embracing his personal faith and the country's history as a Christian nation. That's what they say. But some critics argue that his language could divide what is supposed to be a secular military. What do you think, Father Beck? FR. BECK: Well, I think that this is holy week, right? So, this is the worst possible moment for Christian to justify war. This is the week when the church commemorates a state sanctioned execution of an innocent man. I mean, the pope said that Christians in the region may not even be able to celebrate Easter.  As you know, on Palm Sunday, just yesterday, a cardinal was blocked from entering the Church of the Holy Sepulcher on Palm Sunday.  So, in this very week, when Christians are reacting and reenacting Jesus entering Jerusalem nonviolently, like heading toward crucifixion rather than conquest, you have American political and military leaders invoking his name to justify airstrikes.  And so I just think it's really interesting that the first American pope is rebuking American power, military power. That's historic. It's never happened before. BROWN: Yeah. And he's doing it with that. And he's also been critical of the immigration crackdowns from this administration. Tell us more about just how unusual that is from a pope, let alone an American pope. FR. BECK: Well, it's unusual because first of all, this first American pontiff is telling the American government that their conduct is incompatible with the gospel. So, you have a pope who knows American politics. Knows the ethos of the people here. Maybe like roughly 20 percent, right, of the U.S. are American Catholics.  So, this is a real, I think, moment of conscience, not only for all Christians, especially for Catholics, because your pope is on one side of the question and unqualified defense secretary, I mean that's just not my opinion, that's the opinion of American generals, is on the other side.  So, I think Christians have to ask, in particular, Catholics, who do you align yourself with? Where do you stand? Do you accept the pope saying: Jesus is nonviolent? This war is immoral? Or do you look at people who really are having very difficult, I think, issues with trying to allow Christian scriptures to justify their positions. BROWN: All right. Father Beck, thank you for coming to offer your perspective. We appreciate it. (...)

The Washington Free Beacon’s Alana Goodman wrote Tuesday that far-left Michigan senatorial candidate — Democrat Abdul El-Sayed — threatened the Beacon with legal action after the conservative news outlet published a recording of El-Sayed saying he wouldn’t comment on the death of murderous Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei because “a lot of people in Dearborn...are sad” and thus would hurt his electoral prospects. Earth to Brian Stelter, Oliver Darcy, Scott Nover, Brian Steinberg, and the rest of the so-called media reporting class: Where are you on this act of media intimidation? Goodman explained the Free Beacon’s initial reporting from a day earlier: The Free Beacon broke the news on Monday that El-Sayed told staffers he wanted to avoid making a public statement about the assassination of Khamenei because “there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad” about the late Iranian dictator’s death. The story was based on audio from a private campaign strategy call obtained by the Free Beacon. In a statement “[n]early 12 hours after the story broke,” Goodman explained, “El-Sayed released a statement calling the Free Beacon a ‘rightwing news outlet’ that ‘may have illegally and unethically obtained’ the audio recording.” She added that the El-Sayed campaign laundered a statement through a D.C.-based lawyer to state “the ‘campaign is considering legal options against the individual’ who took the recording.” Notably, El-Sayed also said in the recording — which was of a campaign brainstorming session — said he would pivot from the Iran war to arguing it was a decision by the “pedophile president” to distract from the Epstein files. To see Goodman’s full story, click here.

In an 8-1 opinion Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Colorado law violates the First Amendment by discriminating against the free speech rights of a Christian therapist who helps minors embrace their biological reality and heterosexual inclinations. In Chiles v. Salazar, Kaley Chiles, a licensed Christian therapist, challenges a 2019 Colorado law banning conversion therapy helping clients under 18 who want to rid themselves of unwanted gender ideologies that reject biology. Chiles does not provide any type of physically-altering service. Instead, she counsels her clients in order help them achieve their psychological goals. As such, she is engaging in constitutionally-protected free speech, the court ruled: “Held: Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy, as applied to Ms. Chiles’s talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint, and the lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny.” “When the government seeks not just to restrict speech based on its subject matter, but also seeks to dictate what particular ‘opinion or perspective’ individuals may express on that subject, ‘the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant,’” the court explained: “As applied to Ms. Chiles, Colorado’s law regulates the content of her speech and goes further to prescribe what views she may and may not express, discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. “The law permits her to express acceptance and support for clients exploring their identity or undergoing gender transition, §12–245–202(3.5)(b), but forbids her from saying anything that attempts to change a client’s ‘sexual orientation or gender identity,’ including efforts to change ‘behaviors,’ ‘gender expressions,’ or ‘romantic attraction[s],’ §12–245–202(3.5)(a).” In essence, the Colorado law favors expression of one viewpoint, but forbids another, by allowing therapists to affirm a minor's chosen gender identity or sexual orientation, while prohibiting them from helping minors who no longer want to defy biological norms. Chiles is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which cheered Tuesday’s ruling in a statement: “Counselors walking alongside these young people shouldn’t be limited to promoting state-approved goals like gender transition, which often leads to harmful drugs and surgeries. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a victory for counselors and, more importantly, kids and families everywhere.” “Kids deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today is a significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children,” said ADF Chief Legal Counsel Jim Campbell, who argued before the court in October: “States cannot silence voluntary conversations that help young people seeking to grow comfortable with their bodies.” Tuesday’s Supreme Court’s ruling will help protect counselors threatened by similar laws in more than 20 states and over 100 localities across the country, freeing them to help struggling youth seeking professional guidance, ADF notes.

The U.K.-based tabloid Daily Mail put making quick ad revenue over presenting a complete factual understanding of the ballistic test results of the rifle allegedly used to kill conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Their article, long-windedly titled “Bullet used to kill Charlie Kirk did NOT match rifle allegedly used by suspect Tyler Robinson, new court filing claims,” intentionally misrepresented what the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) were able to recover from Kirk’s body, proving fuel to nutjob conspiracy theorists. That deceptive headline was copied for the Daily Mail’s now viral X post.   Bullet used to kill Charlie Kirk did NOT match rifle allegedly used by suspect Tyler Robinson, new court filing claims https://t.co/l70QXvGBrb — Daily Mail (@DailyMail) March 30, 2026   “The bullet that killed conservative commentator Charlie Kirk may not match the rifle used by suspected killer Tyler Robinson, a bombshell new court filing states,” wrote U.S. reporter Melissa G Koenig in her first paragraph, essentially making seem as though the ballistic markings left on the bullet did not match the rifle. Amid bombarding the reader with ads all over the page, the article noted, “the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 'was unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr Robinson [sic].'” But what did that mean? The headline, X post, and first sentence of the article were intentionally worded to deceive the reader; to make it sound as though the bullet recovered from Kirk’s body didn’t match a test bullet fired from the recovered bolt-action rifle. Only later in the article did it note the ATF wasn’t able to recover enough intact material from Kirk’s body to identify markings left by the barrel. When a bullet is fired from a gun, the hard steel of the barrel leaves markings on the softer copper jacket that are fairly consistent bullet-to-bullet, basically becoming a finger print for the gun. Apparently, there was not enough left of the copper jacket to show that fingerprint. However, what Koenig wrote made it seem like a completely different gun was used in the assassination. Of course, she was citing the alleged killer’s defense team. At worse, the Daily Mail wanted to generate an inflammatory headline so they could get revenue from X engagements and so they could serve up an ungodly amount of ads to those who clicked to read more on their website. Their headline was no better than something the National Enquirer would cook up to get product sold in the checkout line in grocery stores. At best, it showed an ignorance of how ballistic testing and gun tracing worked. According to her author page, "Melissa is a senior breaking news reporter who joined Daily Mail in 2021. She covers a variety of topics including politics, business and entertainment. Prior to joining Daily Mail, Melissa worked for the Long Island Herald, where she earned Honorable Mention for Best Front Page and Second-place for In-Depth Reporting at the New York Press Association in 2020." The Daily Mail and Koenig’s framing of the ballistic test results were an example of the worst tendencies and instincts of British tabloid journalism.