Top California Democrats Fight To Protect Purchasing Sex With Kids
This red-state attorney general has declared war on the First Amendment
We thought the Supreme Court had finally purged anti-religious discrimination from Establishment Clause jurisprudence. After years of confusion — conflating the ban on state-sponsored religion with an invented mandate to scrub faith from public life — the Court, through a series of rulings on religious schools and public funding, had restored sanity. It returned the law to its pre-Warren era understanding: Equal treatment of religion does not violate the Constitution.
Yet, here we are again.
Those who claim that equal treatment of religion violates the Establishment Clause are the ones betraying its meaning.
In a move that stunned observers, Oklahoma’s own Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond and the state supreme court now argue that states cannot recognize religious charter schools.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond. The case centers on St. Isidore, a Catholic online school seeking to join Oklahoma’s charter school system. Drummond contends the school’s religious affiliation disqualifies it. He sued the state charter board — a move usually made by the ACLU or militant secularist groups.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided with him. The court claimed that granting charter status to a Catholic school would violate the First Amendment by effectively establishing Catholicism as a state religion. Justices labeled charter schools “state actors” and argued that any religious affiliation disqualifies a school from public recognition.
This logic turns the First Amendment on its head. The Constitution does not require hostility toward religion. It requires neutrality. Denying a religious school access to a public benefit — simply because it is religious — violates precedent.
Oklahoma’s Charter Schools Act permits any “private college or university, private person, or private organization” to apply for state funding to open a charter school. Excluding religious applicants contradicts not one but three major Supreme Court rulings.
In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc v. Comer (2017), the court ruled that excluding a religious school from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified “solely because it is a church” is “odious to our Constitution.” That case involved a grant for playground resurfacing. If states can’t deny rubber mulch, they can’t deny full charter status.
In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), a 5-4 majority held that state constitutions barring aid to religious institutions over secular ones violates the Free Exercise Clause. Public benefits, the Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized, cannot be denied “solely because of the religious character of the schools.”
Then came Carson v. Makin (2022), where Maine tried to distinguish between religious status and religious use, barring religious schools from voucher funds. The court rejected the distinction. Roberts, writing again for the majority, ruled that the program “operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.” He warned that attempts to judge how a religious school carries out its mission invite unconstitutional state entanglement.
So how, after such ironclad precedent, do we find a Republican state attorney general and a court in a state Trump carried in every county ruling that religious schools can’t even apply for public funding?
The answer lies in years of lukewarm Republican control. These are Republicans in name only, who blocked judicial reform and refused to challenge activist courts. Now, Drummond wants a promotion. He’s announced his run for governor after already overruling the state education superintendent’s decision to ban pornography in public libraries.
This case reveals a larger pattern. Courts act as a one-way ratchet. Even after strong Supreme Court rulings, liberal lower courts defy precedent. They delay, split hairs, and distinguish without merit. The high court may reverse Oklahoma, but its rulings rarely secure lasting victories.
And the irony? Those who claim that equal treatment of religion violates the Establishment Clause are the ones betraying its meaning.
During the House debate on the First Amendment in 1789, James Madison explained: “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.”
That principle — freedom of conscience without coercion — shaped the American experiment. Far from excluding religion, the founders assumed its influence. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.” He added that politics and religion formed an “alliance which has never been dissolved.”
It’s time for the Supreme Court to reaffirm that alliance — clearly, decisively, and without leaving room for lower courts to ignore. And in Oklahoma, it’s time to elect Republicans who still believe the Bible belongs in the Bible Belt.
District judge throws up major roadblocks for Border Patrol agents in California
A California federal judge on Tuesday threw up major roadblocks for Border Patrol agents seeking to deport illegal aliens.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Customs and Border Protection officers from arresting suspected illegal aliens without a warrant unless agents have reason to believe the suspect might flee before a warrant can be issued.
'Not on our watch.'
The judge also ruled that officers cannot stop suspected illegal immigrants without reasonable suspicion. Additionally, Border Patrol is barred from deporting an individual via "voluntary departure" unless the suspect is first informed of his or her rights and agrees to leave the country.
Thurston's orders apply only to federal agents in the Eastern District of California.
She wrote that the Border Patrol officers "engaged in conduct that violated well-established constitutional rights."
Thurston demanded that the agency provide reports detailing who has been detained or arrested without warrants and why. Under her direction, the Border Patrol is required to submit these reports every 60 days until the lawsuit concludes.
The judge's ruling follows the Border Patrol's January "Operation Return to Sender," which resulted in the arrest of dozens of suspected illegal aliens. The operation aimed to target individuals with serious criminal records.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in response to the operation, arguing that federal immigration agents violated individuals' constitutional rights with its "stop-and-arrest practices."
According to the nonprofit, federal immigration agents rounded up day laborers and farm workers, regardless of their immigration status.
The ACLU issued a press release Tuesday celebrating the preliminary injunction victory.
Bree Bernwanger, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, stated, "Today's order affirms the dignity and constitutional rights of all people."
"Border Patrol must end their illegal stop and arrest practices now," Bernwanger added.
Teresa Romero, president of United Farm Workers, said, "This order rightfully upholds the law. Border Patrol can't just wade into communities snatching up hardworking people without due process, just for being brown and working class."
"We will continue to fight together for the civil rights of every farm worker and every immigrant community," Romero continued. "This agency and this administration will not keep terrorizing our union members, our coworkers or our neighbors unchecked. Not on our watch."
Meanwhile, the Border Patrol claims that Thurston lacks the jurisdiction to oversee the case. Additionally, the agency stated that it has already issued new guidance and training "detailing exactly when people may be stopped or arrested without warrants, and what rights detainees have after their arrest."
The Department of Homeland Security and CBP did not respond to the New York Times' request for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The Courts Are The Scofflaws Behind Our Current Constitutional Crisis
ACLU fights to restore woke books Trump banned to protect military kids from gender ideology
The American Civil Liberties Union announced Tuesday that it filed a lawsuit against the Department of Defense's school system for removing books that reference "race and gender" from its libraries.
President Donald Trump previously signed executive actions banning diversity, equity, and inclusion from the federal government, resulting in the removal of woke gender ideology books from the Department of Defense Education Activity's schools.
'I assume the ACLU will now support school choice for military families, so the federal government won't get to dictate what is or is not in military kids' education.'
A presidential action titled "Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling" argued that the American school system has "indoctrinate[d]" students with "radical, anti-American ideologies while deliberately blocking parental oversight."
In February, the DOD distributed a memo to parents of children within the school system explaining that the agency was reevaluating library books "potentially related to gender ideology or discriminatory equity ideology topics."
The DOD and the Department of Education released a joint statement earlier this month announcing the creation of the Title IX Special Investigations Team, tasked with protecting students "from the pernicious effects of gender ideology in school programs and activities."
The ACLU's lawsuit, filed on behalf of a dozen students, accuses the DODEA of violating students' First Amendment rights by removing the materials.
"Since January, their schools have systemically removed books, altered curricula, and canceled events that the government has accused of promoting 'gender ideology' or 'divisive equity ideology,'" the ACLU claimed. "This has included materials about slavery, Native American history, LGBTQ identities and history, and preventing sexual harassment and abuse, as well as portions of the Advanced Placement (AP) Psychology curriculum."
Natalie Tolley, a parent with three children in DODEA schools, stated that Trump's executive orders were "a violation of our children's right to access information that prevents them from learning about their own histories, bodies, and identities."
"I have three daughters, and they, like all children, deserve access to books that both mirror their own life experiences and that act as windows that expose them to greater diversity," she continued. "The administration has now made that verboten in DODEA schools."
Neal McCluskey, the director of the Cato Institute's Center for Education Freedom, reacted to the lawsuit, stating, "I assume the ACLU will now support school choice for military families, so the federal government won't get to dictate what is or is not in military kids' education."
A spokesperson for the DODEA told the Associated Press that the school system does not comment on ongoing litigation.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
ACLU sues to prevent Trump admin from deporting alien enemies in wake of SCOTUS decision
The U.S. Supreme Court sided Monday with President Donald Trump, lifting an Obama judge's order that temporarily blocked the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected terrorists who have stolen into the homeland.
While Trump called it a "great day for justice in America!" and Attorney General Pam Bondi said the decision was "a landmark victory for the rule of law," the fight was apparently not over. The high court afforded alien enemies and their leftist champions another opportunity to challenge removals under the act by the Trump administration, explaining that their lawsuits must be brought where they are being held — not in Washington, D.C.
The American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union seized upon that opportunity on Tuesday, filing a lawsuit in a Democratic enclave on behalf of a pair of military-age Venezuelan nationals fit for removal under the Alien Enemies Act.
One of the illegal aliens is a supposedly non-straight 21-year-old Venezuelan national who entered the U.S. in May 2024 and was subsequently identified by the Department of Homeland Security as an "associate/affiliate of Tren de Aragua." The other is a 32-year-old Venezuelan who stole into the U.S. in 2022, allegedly because his political activism back home jeopardized his safety. Both illegal aliens were parties to the ACLU's original lawsuit targeting the administration's use of the AEA.
The Trump administration is targeting Venezuelan nationals who are members of the terrorist organization, 'are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States.'
The ACLU has asked a Clinton appointee, U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein, to assume jurisdiction, to block the Trump administration from removing the illegal aliens under the act, and to certify the Venezuelan duo as representatives of a class of illegal aliens.
A judge ordered the Trump administration to refrain from ousting the two men before a hearing Wednesday morning, as it had with hundreds of others under the AEA in March, reported The Hill.
The lawsuit claims that Trump's proclamation "contorts the plain language" of the 1798 law; the AEA "plainly only applies to warlike actions"; Venezuelan nationals are not invading the U.S.; Venezuela "has not launched a predatory incursion" into the country; "'mass illegal immigration' or criminal activities, as described in the Proclamation, plainly do not fall within the statutory boundaries"; and the use of the AEA has caused and will continue to cause the apparent alien enemies harm.
In his March 15 proclamation titled "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua," Trump stated that Tren de Aragua — which his administration has designated as a foreign terrorist organization — "is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States."
"TdA is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States both directly and at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela," added the president.
Contrary to the suggestion in the lawsuit, the Trump administration is targeting Venezuelan nationals who are members of the terrorist organization, "are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies."
The ACLU is, therefore, pushing for a class action lawsuit against the administration on behalf of suspected foreign terrorists.
The New York Civil Liberties Union said in a statement on the liberal X knockoff Bluesky, "No one should face the horrifying prospect of lifelong imprisonment without a fair hearing, let alone in another country."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Yes, It’s Completely Constitutional For The U.S. Government To Promote Christianity
Judge Overreaches Amid Latest Lawfare Against Trump
Ben and Jerry's melts down over ouster of woke CEO
Iconic ice cream brand Ben and Jerry's had a meltdown after woke CEO DaveStever was reportedly "removed" from his position earlier this month in connection with the company's leftist activism.
According to amended court documents filed Tuesday, parent company Unilever ousted Stever as CEO on March 3 — without consulting the independent Ben and Jerry's board — because of "his commitment to Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission." Board chair Anuradha Mittal noted further that Stever embraced "the company’s social mission and values" and stood up to Unilever when it demanded he "oversee the dismantling of Ben & Jerry’s mission, progressive values."
Ben and Jerry's alleged in the filing that, per its merger and settlement agreement with Unilever, Unilever was required to engage in "good faith consultation" with the independent board before removing Stever. The lawsuit denied that Stever's "performance history" led to his removal, insisting that he had "outperformed Unilever's ice cream portfolio" in 2023 and 2024.
The company also claimed that Unilever attempted "to silence" other Ben and Jerry's employees about the company's "Social Mission" and "repeatedly threatened" them in this regard. Unilever even allegedly "chastised" Stever for allowing Ben and Jerry's to post political messages whipped up by members of the company and the independent board.
'Student activists have always been at the center of the fight for justice.'
The lawsuit characterized these decisions by Unilever as "suppression," "censorship," and "inappropriate muzzling." It also claimed that Unilever forbade Ben and Jerry's from speaking out on behalf of Mahmoud Khalil — the apparent terrorist sympathizer facing deportation for allegedly orchestrating violent protests at Columbia University — publicly celebrating Black History Month, expressing opposition to the second Trump administration, and calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
"Protect the First Amendment! Free speech and peaceful protests are the lifeblood of our democracy, and student activists have always been at the center of the fight for justice. Political speech is protected by our constitution and peaceful civil disobedience should never be the basis for deportation. Protect your right to dissent and take action with the @ACLU," the company wanted to post in response to ICE arresting Khalil earlier this month.
Unilever "blocked" the effort, the lawsuit claimed.
Stever first joined Ben and Jerry's nearly 40 years ago when he began working as a tour guide in 1988. He was promoted to CEO in May 2023. Whether he has now split from the company completely is unclear.
The Ben and Jerry's ice cream brand has been known for sprinkling liberal talking points into its product messaging since it was founded by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield in Vermont in 1978. Just in the last few years, Ben and Jerry's has offered flavors such as Pecan Resist, Change the Whirled, and Kamala's Coconut Jubilee to promote leftist causes and candidates.
In fact, the independent board was established as part of the merger agreement when Unilever, based in the U.K., bought the company in 2000. The purpose of the board was to protect the ability of Ben and Jerry's to engage in overt political activism. The recent court filing suggested that Unilever has not abided by the merger agreement in that regard.
Unilever, Ben and Jerry's, and their respective attorneys did not respond to a request for comment from Reuters and the Washington Post.
Last year, Unilever announced that it would begin spinning off a number of its ice cream companies, including Ben and Jerry's.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Get the Conservative Review delivered right to your inbox.
We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.
Today's top stories