The Supreme Court’s June session concluded with three significant decisions that, while angering some on the Left, offer grounds for optimism across the nation. President Donald Trump’s Justice Department argued the cases to a successful conclusion when a badly divided court voted 6-3 in the president’s favour, all six conservative judges (Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett) upholding the administration’s position while the three liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayer, and Ketanji Brown Jackson) opposed. These decisions will be long-lasting and durable. The imprint of the Roberts Court will be on them, and the increasing legacy of Trump will expand. Americans, the law, and common sense all benefit from the outcomes of these three cases.
Nationwide injunctions case
A Rhode Island judge’s decision to halt federal policies with the wave of his hand transformed the birthright citizenship case into a nationwide issue. For most of Trump’s presidency, he has been working to overcome judicial rulings that prevent his administration from creating or enforcing laws. Trump has signed more executive orders than any other president, but he has had more of his orders judicially blocked than any other president.
In late June, the Court ruled that no single district judge can issue injunctions binding the administration nationwide. This ruling originates from Congress. Essentially, lower courts are created by Congress; however, the Supreme Court, not local courts, has the final say on executive orders. The 1789 Judiciary Act outlines the power; nonetheless, a review of the historical context of judicial power reveals that no single judge can block a nationwide executive policy. As Justice Kavanaugh suggested, it’s the job of the Supreme Court to give uniformity nationwide to regulations, laws, and various statutes. Parties in a case shouldn’t be able to select judges they believe will favour them. The Supreme Court must resolve these issues. This ruling highlights the Supreme Court’s slow and deliberate processes. Swift legal action is necessary as a response to these rulings. Worth noting before moving to the second case: this ruling leaves room for some nationwide injunctions, but in much more limited circumstances. Furthermore, Republicans happy with this decision may someday regret their approval. There will be a Democratic president again, and he or she will use this precedent to pursue policies that conservatives may find loathsome.
Mahmoud versus Taylor case
Montgomery County in Maryland attempted to introduce more LGBTQ+ reading materials. What they wanted to do was provide affirmation indoctrination books about things like same-sex marriage, gender identity and other modern family formation ideas. Using the religious liberty argument, parents wanted to opt out of classes that were geared to teaching these ideas.
Commentary Magazine Podcast discussed this issue at length on their July 2 episode. A list of their arguments follows: Not everyone sees social theory as religious or moral. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, suggesting a blanket religious opt-out would block schools from offering courses, including robotics. That seems to miss the point. The Court’s arguments here appear to be narrow and even keeled. The schools also shoulder some blame. They offer opt-outs for some things, but for family formation classes that introduce moral choices, they suggest no opting out. The intention behind opt-outs encompasses the argument of essential learning material. Does reading Riley the Rainbow Unicorn pass for required material in a classroom? This sounded like sex-ed, a course that has always offered opt-outs.
Sotomayor did an astounding thing, suggesting that mandated free public education should be free to insist on these materials. Does she mean to tell parents who don’t like it to send their kids to private school? That will augment the school vouchers’ argument. It follows that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection should ensure students receive equivalent educations elsewhere if they choose. That would be the destruction of the public school system in the United States. All because some parents would prefer that their kindergarten children not read about gender identity or same-sex marriage, and childless Supreme Court Justices deciding it would be better for them to do so. The administration won, and when looking at the variables inside the issue, the ruling offers a better future for children, public education, and families.
Free speech coalition versus Paxton
This 2023 Texas law required porn sites to verify age for access. Some opponents said this violated the First Amendment, but Texas claimed the restriction was not content based. That seems rational. The law exists to protect children from harmful material online. Prohibiting the distribution of sexually explicit material to children seems reasonable. While easily enforced in brick-and-mortar stores, it has proven to be elusive online. HB 1181 in Texas forced websites that published sexually explicit content to verify the ages of their visitors. The purpose was to prevent children from accessing adult material. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that “the powers to require age verification is within a state’s authority to prevent children from accessing sexually explicit content. It is a constitutionally permissible exercise of that authority. It’s not an undue burden.” The fact that the three liberal judges found it a gigantic burden for someone over 18 to have to type in their name and a violation of core First Amendment rights seems absurd. The notion that the Founding Fathers would have discussed protecting pornography when they wrote the First Amendment beggars sanity.
To summarize, three important rulings by conservative judges have strengthened the weight of Trump’s 2016 win. The law, the American people, and common sense also won, and that speaks louder and longer about where liberals wish to take America as opposed to the Trump Administration’s desire for ordered liberty. Elections matter and never more so when judges rule on the laws of the land and the elected representatives select those jurists.
Dave Redekop is a retired elementary resource teacher who worked part-time at the St. Catharines Courthouse as a Registrar until being appointed Executive Director at Redeemer Bible Church in October 2023. He has worked on political campaigns since high school and attended university in South Carolina for five years, earning a Master’s in American History with a specialization in Civil Rights. Dave loves reading biographies.
