RFK Jr. Wins Appeals To Be Removed From Swing States’ Ballots
Kennedy was given 24 hours to appeal Holt’s Thursday decision
Biden's student loan repayment plan dealt another blow by federal court
Joe Biden's attempts to fulfill a major campaign promise to relieve student loan debt took another hit this week when a federal appeals court blocked the Saving on a Valuable Education program, better known as SAVE.
On a one-page, unsigned order issued on Thursday, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the request of six Republican-led states, including Missouri, to suspend implementation of aspects of the SAVE program while the court considers a more permanent block favored by Republicans. A district judge had already blocked implementation of the other parts of the SAVE program in a ruling last month.
Supporters of SAVE, on the other hand, waxed histrionic that the order blocking the implementation of SAVE would upend people's lives, even though the program began offering debt relief only a few months ago.
Andrew Bailey, the Republican attorney general of Missouri who filed the emergency motion on behalf of the plaintiffs, celebrated the order as a "HUGE win" for everyday Americans. Bailey called SAVE "illegal" and claimed it was a backdoor means of saddling taxpayers — many of whom never went to college — "with half-a-trillion dollars in Ivy League debt."
— (@)
"I'm proud to lead from the frontlines on this. In Missouri, we believe in paying our debts and not burdening hardworking taxpayers. Today’s victory is a win for every hardworking American who pays their bills without leaning on their neighbors," Bailey added in a separate statement.
Supporters of SAVE, on the other hand, waxed histrionic that the order blocking the implementation of SAVE would upend people's lives, even though the program began offering debt relief only a few months ago.
"Today’s ruling from the 8th Circuit blocking President Biden’s SAVE plan could have devastating consequences for millions of student loan borrowers crushed by unaffordable monthly payments if it remains in effect," said a statement from Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona.
"This decision threatens the entire federal student loan system and will cause complete chaos and confusion," added a statement from Eileen Connor, president and executive director of the Project on Predatory Student Lending.
The Biden administration has tried to ease or outright cancel student loan debt for years after campaigning heavily on the issue in 2020. However, time after time, the courts have overruled many of those efforts. In June 2023, the Supreme Court struck down Biden's attempts to cancel up to $20,000 in loans for qualified borrowers.
SAVE was yet another means of trying to achieve a similar end. To date, more than 8 million people have enrolled in SAVE, and over 400,000 of them who had taken out no more than $12,000 originally had their entire debt eliminated. The appellate court order will not affect any debt cancellation that has already been given through the SAVE program.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Federal judge blasts colleagues for overturning law banning boys from girls' sports: 'Turns Title IX on its head'
A federal appeals court has struck down a West Virginia law protecting the fairness of school athletics.
In 2021, West Virginia passed the "Save Women's Sports Act," becoming one of the first states in the United States to protect the fairness of sports.
The law requires that every student athlete must participate on the team or in the event congruent with their "biological sex as indicated on the athlete’s original birth certificate issued at the time of birth." The law doesn't ban transgender-identifying students from participating in sports altogether. Rather, it bans biological boys from playing on teams with biological girls and vise versa. This is an important distinction.
On Tuesday, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2–1 decision that the law violates the Title IX rights of Becky Pepper-Jackson, a biological boy who identifies as a girl.
The court ruled:
The question before us is whether the Act may lawfully be applied to prevent a 13-year-old transgender girl who takes puberty blocking medication and has publicly identified as a girl since the third grade from participating in her school’s cross country and track teams. We hold it cannot.
Pepper-Jackson and the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Pepper-Jackson, have been litigating the law for years. The ruling is a clear win for them.
But the ruling is also narrow because the circumstances of the case are unique. Pepper-Jackson has been living as a girl for more than half of his life, which includes years of taking puberty blockers and even having the sex on his birth certificate changed.
Whether the court would have ruled differently in the case of a student athlete who only recently began identifying as transgender is unknown.
Still, Judge G. Steven Agee wrote in a scathing dissent the majority's opinion has profound consequences.
"The majority’s determination that transgender girls are similarly situated tobiological girls regardless of any potential advantage, and therefore that separating sportsteams by biological sex is discrimination against transgender girls, has far reachingimplications under Title IX," he wrote.
Agee continued:
In short, it means that states cannot exclude transgender girlsfrom biological girls’ sports teams even when the transgender girls have gone throughpuberty and it is even clearer that they have a significant physiological advantage overbiological girls. And allowing transgender girls — regardless of any advantage — as participants in biological girls’ sports turns Title IX on its head and reverses the monumental work Title IX has done to promote girls’ sports from its inception.
After the ruling, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) vowed to continue the right to protect women's sports. That fight will presumably include an appeal to the Supreme Court.
That appeal, Agee said, cannot come soon enough.
"One can only hope that the Supreme Court will take the opportunity with all deliberate speed to resolve these questions of national importance," the judge wrote.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Federal court rules in favor of Pennsylvania signature verification for mail-in voting, frustrating leftists
Democratic-appointed judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that only those mail-in ballots that are correctly dated can be counted in elections held in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Republican National Committee celebrated the result, suggesting it would bolster voter confidence in the integrity of their elections.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania and other leftist outfits alternatively denounced the ruling, intimating the fight to permit the counting of unsound ballots in Pennsylvania is not over.
Background
Following a lawsuit from the Republican National Committee, the Republican Congressional Committee, and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered state election officials in November 2022 to refrain from counting any mail-in ballots bearing undated or incorrectly dated envelopes.
The court had evidently agreed with the Republicans seeking the injunction who argued the "General Assembly could not have been clearer" when it "mandated that a voter who chooses to vote via absentee or mail-in ballot 'shall ... fill out, date and sign the declaration' printed on the outer envelope of the ballot."
Since Democrats relied more on mail-in ballots than Republicans in previous years, the ruling was expected to lead to more disqualified Democrat votes in the general election.
The Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP and other leftist groups subsequently sued Pennsylvania election officials in an effort to force the state to count such invalid mail ballots.
The original complaint in NAACP v. Schmidt alleged that the refusal to count ballots supposedly mailed on time but lacking a date or incorrectly dated "violates the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act, which makes it unlawful to deny the right to vote based on an 'error of omission' on a voting-related 'record or paper' that is 'not material in determining whether [a voter] is qualified under State law to vote in [the election].'"
In November 2023, the U.S. Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that federal law requires mail ballots be counted even if undated or bearing a date that is "incorrect."
Republicans swiftly appealed the decision to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Fortunes reversed
The federal appeals court handed down a 2-1 ruling Wednesday, reversing the district court's ruling.
Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro noted in the majority's opinion Wednesday that contrary to the claim advanced in the Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP's complaint, "The Materiality Provision only applies when the State is determining who may vote. In other words, its role stops at the door of the voting place."
"The Provision does not apply to rules, like the date requirement, that govern how a qualified voter must cast his ballot for it to be counted," continued Ambro.
The court underscored that individuals "are not 'denied' the 'right to vote' if non-compliant ballots are not counted."
Ambro added, "We reach this conclusion because a contrary approach cannot be reconciled with the text and historic backdrop of the statute, nor cabined to the date requirement while leaving intact other vote-casting rules that serve valid state interests."
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley said in a statement, "This is a crucial victory for election integrity and voter confidence in the Keystone State and nationwide."
"Pennsylvanians deserve to feel confident in the security of their mail ballots, and this 3rd Circuit ruling roundly rejects unlawful left-wing attempts to count undated or incorrectly dated mail ballots," added Whatley. "Republicans will continue to fight and win for election integrity in courts across the country ahead of the 2024 election."
The RNC further emphasized the importance of reinforcing mail ballot safeguards in Pennsylvania as it is a "crucial swing state."
Mike Lee, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, bemoaned the result, claiming thousands of Pennsylvanian voters might "lose their vote" over their apparent inability to properly cast a ballot.
Ari Savizky, an attorney with the ACLU's Voting Rights Project who unsuccessfully argued the case before the court, said, "We are considering all of our options at this time. And we will not stop fighting for voters."
Philip Hensley-Robin, the director of Common Cause Pennsylvania, a plaintiff in the case, claimed that this ruling will "undoubtedly have a negative impact on elderly voters and voters of color" but did not specify why minorities are supposedly more likely to submit faulty ballots.
"We will work with partners to ensure that voters across the state of Pennsylvania know how to make sure their votes are counted," added Hensley-Robin.
Spotlight PA noted earlier this month that the decision is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, whereon certain justices have indicated an interest in taking up the issue.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
WaPo Columnist Says Quiet Part Out Loud: Democrats’ Campaign Strategy Is Jailing Trump
Marcus and friends are growing frustrated — and impatient — that the plan is getting bogged down by justice.Women Stockpiling Abortion Pills Are Also Storing Up Serious Health Risks
It's time for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other women's health organizations to speak out about these risks.Appeals court rules that California can continue providing gun owners' personal information to gun violence researchers
A California appeals court ruled that the state can continue providing gun owners' personal information to gun violence researchers, which the Associated Press said reversed a lower court judge's 2022 decision that sharing such data violates privacy rights.
What is the background?
Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 signed into law a measure allowing the state’s Department of Justice to share identifying information of more than 4 million gun owners with qualified research institutions to help them better study gun violence, accidents, and suicides, the AP said.
The information includes data such as names, addresses, phone numbers, and criminal records, all of which are collected during background checks, the AP said.
While the researchers can use the information and make their findings public, they can’t release gun owners' identifying information, the outlet added.
More from the AP:
In response, gun owners and organizations sued the state, arguing that the disclosure of their information violates their privacy rights. San Diego County Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal ruled to temporarily block the law last October.
But on Friday, a three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District found that the lower court failed to consider the state’s interest in studying and preventing gun violence in its analysis before halting the law. In the opinion, Associate Justice Julia C. Kelety sent the case back to the lower court and said the preliminary injunction must be reversed.
Lawyers representing the gun owners and firearms groups suing the state didn’t immediately respond to calls and an email seeking comment.
“The court’s decision is a victory in our ongoing efforts to prevent gun violence,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement, according to the outlet. Bonta also said the law “serves the important goal of enabling research that supports informed policymaking aimed at reducing and preventing firearm violence," the AP noted.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Trump Team Appeals Chutkan’s Gag Order, Threatening The Next Appeal Will Be To SCOTUS
The motion argues that Chutkan’s ‘sweeping, viewpoint-based prior restraint’ on Trump’s speech does not withstand legal scrutiny.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com