DOJ sues Denver over its ongoing war against the 2nd Amendment — and local Democrats aren't pleased



Denver has for decades impinged upon the Second Amendment rights of its residents.

Since 1989, the city has had a so-called "assault weapons" law on the books that now prohibits the carriage, storage, possession, manufacture, and sale of "any semiautomatic pistol or centerfire rifle, either of which have a fixed or detachable magazine with a capacity of more than fifteen rounds" and "any semiautomatic shotgun with a folding stock or a magazine capacity of more than six rounds."

'The Constitution is not a suggestion.'

According to Denver's Code of Ordinances, the city council that initially advanced the ban determined that the use of "assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety and security of all citizens" in the city and that restrictions on law-abiding Americans' access to such firearms were both "reasonable and necessary."

The Trump Justice Department demanded in a letter last week that the city repeal the ban, underscoring that it is unconstitutional. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division said that failure to comply would likely trigger a lawsuit.

On Monday, the city's attorney, Miko Brown, wrote back to Dhillon, calling the request "baseless, irresponsible, and a clear overreach of the federal government's power."

RELATED: Why the Supreme Court nuked Colorado’s 'Must Stay Gay' law (and what to expect next)

Minh Connors/Washington Post/Getty Images

Democrat Denver Mayor Mike Johnston chimed in, characterizing the DOJ's effort to restore Denverites' rights as intimidation and claiming that the ban "has stood for 37 years because it works, it saves lives, and it reflects the values of our community."

Democrat Councilwoman Serena Gonzales-Gutierrez joined the chorus of fearmongerers, stating both that the Trump administration was trying to deprive students and families of critical "protections" and that "assault weapons take lives — that's what they're made for."

On Tuesday, the DOJ filed a lawsuit with the stated intention of vindicating "the rights of Denver citizens whose rights have been — and are continuing to be — violated."

"The Constitution is not a suggestion and the Second Amendment is not a second-class right," acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement. "Denver's ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles directly violates the right to bear arms."

Citing the standard for applying the Second Amendment outlined in the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the government's complaint asserts that the "Ordinance is presumptively unconstitutional" and that the City of Denver "will not be able to rebut this presumption."

After noting that the Second Amendment protects firearms "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes that are in 'common use' today" — a protection affirmed by the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller — the complaint explains that there are at least 28 million AR-style semiautomatic rifles presently in circulation and tens of millions of law-abiding AR-style-rifle owners in the country.

In addition to the numerousness and common use of such weapons, the DOJ's complaint shreds the notion that AR-15-type rifles are the go-to choice for criminals.

When making this point, the DOJ highlighted FBI data showing that whereas there were 364 homicides known to have been committed with rifles of any type in 2019, 6,368 homicides were committed with handguns, 1,476 were committed with knives or other cutting instruments, 600 were committed with hands and feet, and 397 were committed with blunt objects.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division stated, "Law-abiding Americans, regardless of what city or state they reside in, should not have to live under threat of criminal sanction just for exercising their Second Amendment right to possess arms which are owned by tens of millions of their fellow citizens."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The next big Supreme Court shift might not be abortion or guns



Qualified immunity, a doctrine the Supreme Court created in 1967, bewilders ordinary citizens who run headlong into it after government officials trample their constitutional rights. In plain English, the doctrine often blocks lawsuits against officials unless a prior court decision “clearly established” that the specific conduct at issue violated the Constitution. That standard leaves many victims without a remedy and lets many constitutional wrongs go unanswered.

That is not right. The Constitution exists to protect individual rights, not to insulate officials who violate them from accountability.

Qualified immunity can turn constitutional protections into paper rights — recognized in theory, unavailable in practice.

Recent years have also supplied fresh reasons to question the doctrine’s scope. Abuses tied to the weaponization of law enforcement and the criminal justice system have come to light with unsettling regularity. Think of Crossfire Hurricane, where senior officials used a discredited dossier — commissioned by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and funded through political channels — to pursue surveillance warrants and to monitor an opposing campaign before and after the 2016 election.

Or consider Arctic Frost, the childishly named operation (Arctic Frost is a type of orange, as in “Orange Man Bad”) that targeted hundreds of Americans, including one of the co-authors (Eastman) and relied on sweeping demands for private communications and records in search of a predicate offense in hopes of derailing President Trump’s 2024 campaign.

Episodes like these, and others, zero in on a basic question: When government power crosses constitutional lines, who answers for it?

Qualified immunity often supplies the answer: nobody.

Now the Supreme Court appears to be taking an unusual look at the doctrine — at least if its recent handling of three qualified immunity petitions offers any clue.

What’s different this time

In prior years, the court has frequently disposed of qualified immunity petitions quickly, sometimes through summary action with no explanation. This term looks different. Three cases involving qualified immunity have sat on the court’s docket far longer than the usual pattern would suggest. The justices have repeatedly requested responses and, in several instances, called for lower-court records. The court has also rescheduled cases for conference after conference without issuing a decision.

That process does not prove the court plans to revisit the doctrine. But it does suggest heightened attention.

Case 1: Smith v. Scott

The petition for writ of certiorari in Smith v. Scott was filed nearly a year ago. The case arises from a tragic encounter that began as a call for help. A 65-year-old man contacted police because he believed intruders lurked outside his apartment. Officers arrived, found no intruders, and then attempted to handcuff him. The encounter escalated. Officers restrained him on the ground, and an officer allegedly applied pressure that impeded his breathing until he died.

Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity. The officers then asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The respondent (Scott’s estate) initially waived a response, which commonly happens in cert-stage litigation. The court did not let the waiver stand. It called for a response after the case’s first conference last May. After a later conference, the court requested the record. Since then, it has repeatedly relisted the petition — an astounding 13 times — without resolving it.

Case 2: Zorn v. Linton

Zorn v. Linton involves a protest at the Vermont State House. Demonstrators occupied the chamber floor to protest government policy. Most left when the building closed. Shela Linton stayed and refused to leave. Officers removed her using a rear wristlock. She sued, alleging unreasonable force that caused pain, injury, and trauma.

The district court granted qualified immunity. The Second Circuit reversed and denied qualified immunity. The petition reached the Supreme Court in September. Once again, the respondent waived a response, and once again the court requested one. The case then cycled through conference after conference before the court requested the lower-court record on February 27.

This case matters for another reason. Many qualified immunity disputes involve fast-moving encounters where officers make split-second judgments. This one involves an interaction with warnings, time, and repeated opportunities to comply. It tees up an issue courts often sidestep: the obligations citizens assume when they knowingly violate a lawful order and force officers to escalate to removal. Does a protester’s refusal to leave reduce the scope of what counts as “unreasonable” force, so long as officers use measured escalation? Put differently: Were Linton’s rights even violated?

Case 3: Villarreal v. Alaniz

Villarreal v. Alaniz sits at the intersection of qualified immunity and the First Amendment. Police arrested journalist Priscilla Villarreal under a state statute that barred solicitation of nonpublic information. The reporter argued that the arrest violated her First Amendment rights.

The procedural history highlights the doctrine’s power. The district court granted qualified immunity. A Fifth Circuit panel denied it. The full Fifth Circuit later granted it en banc. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the decision for further consideration. The Fifth Circuit again granted immunity.

Judge Andrew Oldham, in a concurring opinion, made an observation that cuts to the heart of qualified immunity’s justification. Courts often defend the doctrine by pointing to the realities of policing: officers must act quickly, sometimes under threat, with incomplete information. Oldham questioned whether that rationale “makes sense” in a case involving time to find a statute, plan an arrest, consult counsel, and investigate facts. Under those circumstances, why should immunity hinge on whether a prior case matches the fact pattern with near-photographic precision?

The cert petition was filed last July. The Supreme Court requested a response in August. It later requested the record after multiple conferences.

What the Supreme Court might do next

No outsider can know what the justices plan. But these three cases, taken together, give the Supreme Court a menu of options.

The court could reinforce qualified immunity, especially in excessive-force cases, and use the term’s docket to signal more protection for officers facing a rising tide of litigation.

The court could narrow qualified immunity — particularly in cases where officials have time to deliberate, plan, and consult — because the “split-second decision” rationale does not apply.

RELATED: The common-sense case for nationalizing US elections

Douglas Rissing via iStock/Getty Images

The court could also recalibrate the doctrine without overruling it: clarify what counts as “clearly established” law, tighten the inquiry, or distinguish between scenarios that demand rapid judgment and those that involve considered decisions.

In the abstract, “immunity from liability for violating rights” begins to resemble artificial judicial indemnification. Modern society does not grant that kind of blanket protection to most other professions. A surgeon, an engineer, or a corporate executive cannot avoid accountability because no prior case warned that the precise mistake at issue would cause harm. The law often holds them to general standards of care, not hyper-specific precedent.

Qualified immunity operates differently. It can turn constitutional protections into paper rights — recognized in theory, unavailable in practice.

Whatever the court’s destination, the road looks different this term. The extended consideration, repeated relists, and requests for records in multiple cases point to sustained attention. That alone marks a change.

If the court means to revisit qualified immunity, even in part, the consequences will ripple far beyond these three cases. Federal courts hear thousands of civil rights claims each year. The doctrine shapes whether citizens can vindicate constitutional rights at all.

At minimum, one conclusion now seems hard to avoid: The Supreme Court is looking closely. And when the court looks closely, doctrine can move significantly.

My court fight over DEI at Arizona State isn’t culture-war noise



“Who will rid us of this meddlesome philosopher?”

Arizona State University hopes the Arizona Supreme Court will. I’m confident that my case against required diversity, equity, and inclusion training raises issues far larger than one professor or one ideological program. Fundamental questions about employee rights, public accountability, and the rule of law hang in the balance.

If I succeed in showing that ASU bears legal responsibility — and that employees can hold it accountable — the implications reach far beyond one HR program.

Why would the largest state university in the country defend mandatory DEI training in court? Why would it spend thousands — likely tens of thousands — defending its “inclusive communities” training, a program that teaches employees about the alleged moral and social failures of “whiteness” and “heteronormativity”?

The answer defies common sense. Yet ASU presses forward. In doing so, it has turned what many dismiss as a culture-war skirmish into an employment-rights case with statewide consequences.

Most people hear “DEI” and instantly map the political lines. This case deserves a different reaction. Required ideological training should make any employee — left, right, or indifferent — pay attention.

First, the training relies on racial essentialism. It instructs ASU employees to view themselves and others primarily through skin color, then assigns moral weight and collective guilt on that basis.

Second, it attacks traditional Christian moral teaching, especially marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Either flaw should have pushed administrators to retire the program long before I raised formal objections.

A third issue should unite every employee, regardless of where they stand on DEI: ASU treated this as an employment matter. The university did not admit error, revise the program, and move on. It hired Perkins Coie to defend racial essentialism. Yes, Perkins Coie — the firm widely associated with the Hillary Clinton-era Steele dossier controversy. ASU employs a full team of in-house attorneys. Why pay a nationally prominent and politically charged firm to defend a training program many already viewed as controversial — and, I argue, unlawful?

ASU’s posture gets stranger. The university has since taken down the required training, yet it continues paying lawyers to defend it in court. When this ends, Arizona lawmakers and taxpayers will want a number: How much did ASU spend on legal fees, and which administrators approved the contracts?

RELATED: Feds probe ASU for racial bias — will other universities be held accountable?

Just_Super via iStock/Getty Images

ASU’s legal strategy aims at dismissal. The university claims I lack standing. Put plainly, ASU argues that an employee cannot hold his public employer accountable for violating state law. At that point, the dispute stops being about DEI and becomes about every employee in Arizona. If ASU wins at the Arizona Supreme Court, employees across the state lose a crucial tool for legal accountability.

Professors to my political left may sneer at my critique of DEI. They should still worry about the precedent.

Imagine a scenario pulled from their nightmares: A future administration takes over ASU and imposes mandatory ideological training from the opposite end of the political spectrum — required ICE-themed training, or MAGA-themed training. If that training violated Arizona law, those same professors would demand the right to sue. ASU’s argument would bar them. This case concerns enforceable employee rights, not just contemporary politics.

ASU’s first bid to dismiss the case failed. A lower court rejected the university’s argument. ASU appealed, and the appellate court sided with the university. That posture put the case on a path to the Arizona Supreme Court.

RELATED: A gay whistleblower just punked Colorado’s DEI machine

AndreyPopov via iStock/Getty Images

Two facts matter here. The Arizona Senate and the state representative who authored the law I claim ASU violated have filed an amicus brief supporting my position. Their message is simple: A public employee has standing to hold a public employer accountable for breaking the law. The statute prohibits the kind of racial blame and collective guilt that ASU’s training promoted. The principle should not require explanation: Don’t assign moral fault to entire groups based on skin color.

So why does ASU defend this?

Because ASU does not view this fight as one training module that can be swapped out and forgotten. Race-based blame sits near the center of the contemporary left’s approach to education. If I succeed in showing that ASU bears legal responsibility — and that employees can hold it accountable — the implications reach far beyond one HR program. ASU’s initiatives aimed at combatting “whiteness” would come under scrutiny. Its embedded social justice goals face legal challenge and public examination. Students could follow with suits over race blame in a “decolonized curriculum.”

“Who will rid us of this meddlesome philosopher?” ASU really hopes the Arizona Supreme Court will.

Every employee in Arizona should watch what happens next. The outcome will determine whether public institutions answer to the law — or whether employees must comply silently, no matter what ideology administrators impose from above.

Deportation Is The Only ‘Due Process’ Illegal Aliens Deserve

How can there be a legal injury in removing a citizen of Somalia, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Mexico, or any other country, from the U.S.?

If Tim Kaine’s right, America’s founders were wrong



Riley Barnes appeared this week before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for his nomination as assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Normally, such a hearing would barely make the news. But then Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) spoke up.

You might remember the junior U.S. senator from Virginia as Hillary Clinton’s failed running mate in 2016. On Wednesday, he revealed he wouldn’t make a very good U.S. history professor either.

If rights come from God, then no politician — not Trump, not Kaine, not anyone — can take them away.

Barnes made a simple and obvious point — one that any elementary school student in a classroom still reading the Declaration of Independence (a rarity these days in public schools) would recognize. He said:

In his first remarks to State Department employees, Secretary [Marco] Rubio emphasized that we are a nation founded on a powerful principle: All men are created equal, because our rights come from God our creator — not from our laws, not from our governments.

That’s almost word-for-word from the Declaration of Independence.

Barnes continued:

We are a nation of individuals, each made in the image of God and possessing an inherent dignity. This is a truth our founders understood as essential to American self-government.

That second point, while not a direct quote from the Declaration, clearly flows from it. We have dignity because we are made by God, not by blind chance. And we have dignity above the rest of creation because we are made in His image, with rational souls and moral responsibility.

Most importantly, Barnes emphasized: “Natural rights are a blessing and an immutable reality.”

Governments change. Officials come and go. But America’s founders wanted human rights grounded in something unchanging. Rights granted by a government can be taken away by a government. Rights given by God cannot. That’s why the Declaration calls them “unalienable.”

The Kaine mutiny

Kaine’s response to Barnes was revealing. He worried that if we say rights come from God, we are on the brink of turning into theocratic Iran after 250 years of freedom from God. He insisted that governments — not God — give us our rights.

This is the logic behind much of the modern left. It explains why leftists defend ending a human life in elective abortion, treat children as property of the state that parents only borrow, and impose endless mandates on citizens — from useless masks to DEI speech codes. If rights come from the government, then the government can take them away whenever it wants.

This moment recalled then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) grilling Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas decades ago about his belief in natural law. “Which natural law?” Biden asked smugly, as if he had just delivered the ultimate gotcha. Like Kaine, Biden only managed to display his ignorance.

Can we know God?

Kaine claims that appealing to God makes America no different from Iran. But this ignores two things:

  1. Christianity and Islam are not the same. Islam teaches that forgiveness comes through obedience to its five pillars. Christianity teaches that justification is by faith in Christ alone; even perfect law-keeping from this day forward cannot erase past sin.
  2. The real issue is knowledge, not theocracy. Can we know the true and living God? Or are we trapped in skepticism, left to rely on politicians’ shifting opinions?

Kaine assumes appeals to God are just private religious opinions with no claim to truth. He insists we must build our laws only on government authority rather than a religious leader. But this skepticism undermines knowing everything else — including government itself.

RELATED: Self-evident truths aren’t so self-evident any more

Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

If there is no unchanging standard, how does any ruler know what is just or unjust, good or evil? Personal feelings? Evolutionary accidents? Political popularity? That is an incoherent theory of law. And it tells us why Democrats rely so heavily on appeals to emotion rather than sound arguments.

Why this matters

What Kaine and others like him call us to do — unwittingly — is rise to the challenge. We must show that God is real, that His existence is clear, and that rights grounded in Him are unchangeable because they rest on divine reality, not shifting political power.

It’s helpful when Democrats like Kaine stumble so publicly. They expose the intellectual vacuum at the heart of modern secularism. The question for us is whether we will rise to the moment and defend the truths in the Declaration of Independence — truths that remain self-evident because they come from God, not government.

The American project anchors freedom not in government permission slips but in the God who created us. That is what Kaine and the left cannot admit. Because if rights come from God, then no politician — not Trump, not Kaine, not anyone — can take them away. And that truth, still self-evident after nearly 250 years, remains the foundation of American liberty.

How gay ‘marriage’ made today’s gender madness possible



Gay marriage was not just a step down the slippery slope toward today’s transgender dystopia. It was the first manifestation of it. Now that a broad reawakening has exposed the harms of gender ideology and the denial of natural law, Republicans must press beyond protecting women’s sports and opposing child castration. They must return to the root of the problem: the redefinition of marriage itself.

Marriage is the foundation of human civilization, not a mere “social construct.” While many forms of loving relationships exist, only the lifelong bond of one man and one woman procreates, raises, and nurtures the next generation. That bond anchors family, faith, and culture. When the Supreme Court decreed that two men or two women living together could constitute a marriage, it blurred the difference between man and woman, mother and father. That was, in essence, the normalization of transgenderism.

To restore truth, Republicans must confront Obergefell and undo the lie that two men or two women can ever stand in for a husband and wife.

The rot spread quickly. Following the 2015 Obergefell decision, courts and legislatures treated same-sex households as identical to mother-father families, even in adoption. Thousands of children were placed into homes where the distinction between mother and father was obliterated. In 2017, the Supreme Court forced states to falsify birth certificates, treating lesbian partners as if one were the biological father.

In Pavan v. Smith, the court required Arkansas to list both lesbian partners as biological parents when one conceived through artificial insemination. The state already recognized same-sex couples under Obergefell and recorded non-biological parents accordingly.

But the plaintiffs demanded more: that their arrangement be treated as biologically identical to a natural family. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in dissent, noted that states had every interest in preserving the integrity of birth records for public health, citizenship, and genetic history. Yet the court pressed forward in defiance of nature, reason, and common sense.

Republicans must not flinch

Despite this, some Republicans now claim we can separate the fight against transgenderism from the fight against gay marriage. They are wrong. Even if one tolerates homosexuality in a secular society, that does not justify redefining marriage and giving gay couples adoption rights. Doing so enshrines the very gender-bending myth conservatives claim to oppose — the idea that man and woman, mother and father, are interchangeable.

The Kim Davis case, potentially headed to the Supreme Court next term, offers an opportunity to revisit this question. Conservatives should prepare the ground now. Republican elected officials must file amicus briefs signaling to wavering justices that this is a political priority. After Dobbs, which affirmed the Glucksberg standard that a right must be “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition,” Obergefell looks even weaker than Roe v. Wade. The court will need political momentum to act consistently with its own reasoning.

But legal strategy is not enough. Conservatives must also build political support in the states to sustain any reversal. That means pushing back against gay adoptions and re-establishing natural marriage as the baseline. You cannot ridicule transgenderism while placing a child in a household with two men and pretending the child has a mother.

Last year’s Republican National Convention stripped support for natural marriage from the party platform. Now Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has promised a presidential-style GOP convention before the midterms. That convention should be the place where Republicans right the ship, restore clarity, and rally around one of the most self-evident truths in human history.

RELATED: Trans is the natural progression from ‘gay marriage’

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The path forward

The fight against transgender ideology will collapse if conservatives refuse to confront its root: the redefinition of marriage. To pretend the two issues can be separated is to accept the very logic we claim to reject.

Republicans cannot stop at banning surgeries on minors or protecting girls’ sports. Those are necessary but not sufficient. To restore truth, they must confront Obergefell and undo the lie that two men or two women can ever stand in for a husband and wife.

Marriage is not a slogan or a lifestyle choice. It is the union that anchors family, culture, and civilization itself. To defend that truth is to defend reality. To surrender it is to let the entire edifice fall.

The God-given idea that helped make America great — and can save us again



Well before America’s founders drafted the Constitution, they understood that they had a national security problem rooted in economic and technological gaps.

Colonial America supplied Britain with raw materials, and the motherland traded us finished goods. That was tolerable then, despite its one-sided nature.

The intellectual property framework the founders designed democratized invention and creativity — and rewarded merit.

Then, Great Britain crossed the Rubicon. It unilaterally levied taxes on the colonies with the Sugar Act, which colonial resistance caused to be repealed. The Stamp Act of 1765 also imposed taxes without colonial consent. Then the taxes and regulations of the Townshend Acts further stirred colonial anger.

Revolutionary sentiments brewed, with public protests resulting in the Boston Massacre of 1770 and the “tea parties” in 1773 and 1774. Finally, combat broke out at Lexington and Concord in 1775.

Britain had the economic and military advantage over the largely agricultural colonies, which suffered chronic shortages of guns, gunpowder, blankets, and shoes.

Flourish by design

For America to survive as an independent nation, the model had to change. It needed to promote rapid economic and technological advancement. It needed a policy that coupled economic liberty with property rights.

The founders set a course for achieving what Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution calls “the progress of science and useful arts.” This was done “by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

The intellectual property framework the founders designed democratized invention and creativity — and rewarded merit. The Constitution was crafted to secure and enable an individual’s rights, including patent rights to the property someone created.

The founders understood that the ownership right would help unleash human flourishing. They had learned this from the Bible, the legacy of the Reformation, and great minds such as Edward Coke, William Blackstone, and John Locke.

Biblical basis

Property rights incentivized creative endeavors, which is precisely what the framers sought to do.

The biblical framework for invention and creativity flows from foundational truths. He who created the universe (e.g., Genesis 1:1, Job 38, Psalm 8:1-5) also claims ownership of His creation (e.g., Deuteronomy 10:14, Psalm 24:1, Isaiah 64:8).

RELATED: The American principle: There can be no blessings without God in our lives

joebelanger/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Moreover, God not only creates and owns, but He communicates those attributes to human beings, the creature who bears His image and is charged with stewardship of the lower creation (e.g., Genesis 1:26-30, Psalm 8:6-8, Micah 4:4). The founders applied this combination of creativity and ownership as the formula for maximizing human flourishing.

This resulted in America growing from a vulnerable agrarian society to the world’s premier industrial economy. By the 20th century, the United States led the world in economic and technological strength.

Our golden age

The golden age of American patenting started in 1836, when Congress established a dedicated U.S. Patent Office.

When someone produced a novel invention, he was awarded a patent. Applicants could appeal patent denials to impartial chief examiners — and they could obtain review in a federal court. A patent had a 14-year term from the date it was issued. Economic historian Zorina Khan notes in "The Democratization of Invention" that a seven-year extension could be provided to ensure “reasonable remuneration for the time, ingenuity, and expense bestowed” in developing and bringing an invention to market.

This system embodied the founders’ vision, implementing the biblical model of human creativity incentivized by secure ownership. This creativity-ownership combination has clearly stimulated mass flourishing in America, where we have experienced wealth creation and prosperity in vast measure.

Today, we approach the 250th anniversary of our independence, knowing what the founders did not: The American experiment turned out quite well.

Yet keen observers are less sanguine about our future.

Creative comeback

In recent years, the federal government has undermined the successful intellectual property model the founders gave us.

For example, a cardinal rule of the patent process was maintaining the confidentiality of inventions for which a patent was sought but not yet granted. But then the Clinton administration and Congress began publishing U.S. patents that were still being examined. Cutting-edge American technology was being transferred to Japan and China before an inventor’s exclusive legal rights had been secured at home.

RELATED: China’s greatest export isn’t steel — it’s industrial theft

MF3d/Getty Images Plus

The 2011 America Invents Act wiped out several useful elements of the Patent Act. It established the quasi-judicial Patent Trial and Appeal Board, before which anyone can challenge and more easily invalidate issued patents. Today, the PTAB destroys value and wealth in newly created property, the very inventions that promise American leadership in the most cutting-edge technologies.

The United States is now falling behind in global technological leadership — but we must out-innovate foreign competitors, particularly China.

America must relink ownership with creativity to incentivize creativity through reliable, enforceable property rights. Secure IP rights coupled with economic freedom are pro-growth policy, just as much as the right tax policies.

To re-establish America’s technological and economic prowess, we must return to God’s design — that which the founders adopted with world-changing success.

One declaration sparked a nation. The other sparks confusion.



This week, my university emailed a Fourth of July reflection that caught my attention. It claimed the “backbone of our independence” is entrepreneurship and praised secular universities as the seedbed of innovation — and, by extension, democracy itself.

I’m all for business. Enterprise, creativity, and free markets foster prosperity and reward initiative. But business doesn’t create liberty. It depends on liberty. Markets flourish only when justice, rights, and human dignity already exist. In other words, business is a fruit of independence, not its root.

Our freedoms — legal, political, scientific, and economic — grow best in soil nourished by the belief in human dignity grounded in something greater than man.

As we celebrate Independence Day, it’s worth remembering the true foundation of American freedom. The Declaration of Independence doesn’t just announce our break with Britain — it explains why that break was just. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” it says, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

That single sentence tells us where rights come from: not from governments or markets, but from God. Human equality doesn’t rest on ability, wealth, or status — qualities that always vary. It rests on the shared reality that each of us bears the image of the same Creator.

This truth isn’t just historical. It remains the cornerstone of liberty. Without it, terms like “human rights” or “justice” collapse into slogans. If rights don’t come from God, where do they come from? Who gives them? And who can take them away?

Contrast our Declaration with the United Nations’ 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That document says people “have” rights — but doesn’t explain why or where they come from or why rights matter. It invokes no Creator, no image of God, no natural law, no self-evident truth or moral source beyond political consensus. Rights, it suggests, are whatever the international community agrees they are.

That’s a dangerous idea. If rights come from consensus, consensus can erase them. If governments or global committees grant rights, they can redefine or revoke them when convenient. There is no firm ground, only shifting sands.

Many Americans now prefer this softer, godless version of human dignity. They invoke justice but reject the Judge. They want rights without a Creator, happiness without truth, liberty without responsibility. But rights without God offer no security — and happiness without God dissolves into fantasy. It’s a mirage.

This project of cutting freedom off from its source cannot last. Our freedoms — legal, political, scientific, and economic — grow best in soil nourished by the belief in human dignity grounded in something greater than man.

RELATED: The most memorable epocha in the history of America

ivan-96 via iStock/Getty Images

We live in God’s world. That distinction matters. A society built on contracts negotiates rights. A society built on covenants honors obligations to the truth. The difference isn’t just theological — it’s civilizational.

By rejecting the Creator, we don’t advance progress. We erase the foundation that made progress possible. C.S. Lewis put it this way: “You cannot go on 'explaining away' forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away.”

Explain away God, and you explain away the reason rights exist.

So this Independence Day, remember what liberty really means — and what sustains it. We’re not free because we said so. We’re free because we answer to a law higher than any court or committee. We are created equal because we are created — period.

Entrepreneurship has its place. But the American experiment wasn’t born from a business plan. It began with a declaration that acknowledged God. If we want that experiment to endure, we must not forget what made it possible in the first place.

God’s justice doesn’t sleep — and the Supreme Court just proved it



In a landmark 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on so-called gender-affirming care for minors. Wednesday’s ruling in United States v. Skrmetti affirms the state’s authority to protect children from irreversible medical interventions, declaring that such laws do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 prohibits medical providers from prescribing puberty blockers, administering cross-sex hormones, or performing surgeries on minors for the purpose of treating gender dysphoria. With this ruling, the court established a powerful precedent, strengthening similar laws in more than two dozen states and shielding them from federal interference.

The Supreme Court now affirms what parents, pastors, and pediatricians have known for years: Children deserve protection — not ideological exploitation.

This is more than a legal or political victory. It’s a profoundly spiritual one.

Judgment in Pride Month

The timing of the court’s decision — handed down in the middle of Pride Month — is impossible to ignore. For years, the month of June has been co-opted to celebrate sexual perversion and radical gender ideology. Parades, corporate campaigns, and cultural rituals now elevate confusion and self-expression above truth and morality.

But God’s timing often intersects with the idols of a wayward culture.

Just as He once shattered the authority of Egypt’s gods through plagues and humiliated the pagan deities of Canaan through Israel’s victories, He now confronts the false gods of modern America. The gods of Pride Month have names: self-worship, mutilation, and moral relativism.

This ruling, like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization before it, arrived in a season when the world celebrates rebellion. But God never abdicates. He acts — often decisively.

The right to protect children

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in concurrence, emphasized the state’s legitimate interest in protecting children from unproven and dangerous procedures. “States could reasonably conclude,” he wrote, “that the level of young children's cognitive and emotional development inhibits their ability to consent to sex-transition treatments.”

Thomas reminded the nation that legislatures — not courts — are charged with protecting the vulnerable. The Constitution allows states to say no to radical experiments on children. That’s common sense. That’s moral responsibility.

RELATED: Matt Walsh’s crusade pays off: SCOTUS protects Tennessee kids from gender mutilation

Photo by Jason Davis/Getty Images for The Daily Wire

The court’s ruling also reinforces policies advanced by the Trump administration, which has taken steps to push back against transgender mandates. The court now affirms what parents, pastors, and pediatricians have known for years: Children deserve protection — not ideological exploitation.

‘The least of these’

At its core, this decision defends “the least of these" (Matthew 25:40). In Matthew 10:42, Jesus declares, “And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones ... truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”

Advocates of transgender medicine call their approach “compassionate.” But compassion doesn’t mutilate. It doesn’t sterilize. It doesn’t tell children they were born in the wrong body.

Real compassion tells children the truth: They are fearfully and wonderfully made. God knit them together in their mother’s wombs (Psalm 139:13-14). He doesn’t make mistakes.

The lie that “God got your body wrong” devastates young minds. Puberty blockers, double mastectomies, and genital surgeries don’t bring peace. They usher in trauma, regret, and permanent damage.

By upholding these bans, the Supreme Court gives children the gift of time — time to grow, to mature, and to embrace their God-given identities without the pressure of irreversible decisions.

Tear down the idols

Now comes the charge to the church. This moment demands courage.

American culture has erected new high places. Gender ideology sits at the top. It demands worship, conformity, and silence. But like King Josiah, who tore down the altars of Baal, or Gideon, who smashed the Asherah poles, Christians must act.

Now is not the time for retreat. Now is not the time for timidity. The culture may roar, but the God of heaven still rules.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reminds believers that God still moves. He has not abandoned America. He still defends the innocent. He still topples idols.

Faithfulness bears fruit

Galatians 6:9 tells us not to grow weary in doing good. This ruling is the harvest of those who prayed, labored, and stood firm when the world called them hateful. Their perseverance bore fruit — in law, in policy, and in culture.

Let this be a turning point.

Let this be the moment when the nation remembers who created it. Let this be the moment when the church reclaims its voice. Let this be the moment when truth reasserts itself — and children are protected from those who would harm them in the name of progress.

America is not forsaken. God is still at work, and His purposes will prevail.

Trump’s truth about ‘due process’ has the left melting down



Tuesday’s congressional testimony from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem turned heads for all the wrong reasons. Pressed to define “habeas corpus,” she stumbled. And while I respect Noem, this moment revealed just how dangerously misunderstood one of our most vital legal protections has become — especially as it’s weaponized in the immigration debate.

Habeas corpus is not a loophole. It’s a shield. It’s the constitutional protection that prevents a government from detaining a person — any person — without first justifying the detention before a neutral judge. It doesn’t guarantee freedom. It demands due process. Prove it or release them.

Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.

And yet, this doctrine — so essential to our liberty — is now being twisted by the political left into something it was never meant to be: a free pass for illegal immigration.

The left wants to frame this as a matter of compassion and rights. Leftists ask: “What about habeas corpus for migrants?” The implication is clear: They see any attempt to enforce immigration law as an attack on civil liberties.

But that’s a lie. Habeas corpus is not an excuse for indefinite presence. It doesn’t guarantee that every person who crosses the border gets to stay. It simply requires that we follow a process — a just process.

And that’s exactly what President Donald Trump has proposed.

Habeas corpus, rightly understood

Habeas corpus is the front door to the courtroom. It simply requires the government to justify why someone is being held or detained. It’s not about citizenship. It’s about human dignity.

America’s founders knew this — and that’s why they extended the right to persons, not just citizens. Habeas corpus isn’t a pass to stay in America forever — it’s a demand for legal clarity: “Why are you holding me?” That’s it.

If the government has a lawful reason — such as illegal entry — then deportation is a legitimate outcome. And yet, the left treats any enforcement of immigration law as a betrayal of American ideals.

The danger today isn’t that habeas corpus is being ignored; it’s that it’s being hijacked. The system is being overwhelmed with bad-faith cases, endless appeals, and delays that stretch for years. Right now, the immigration courts are buried under 3.3 million pending cases. The average wait time to have your case heard is four years. In some places, people are being scheduled for court dates as far out in 2032. Where is the justice in that?

This is not compassion. This is national sabotage.

Weaponizing due process

The left uses this legal bottleneck as a weapon, not a shield. Democrats invoke due process as if it requires the government to play a never-ending shell game with public safety. But that’s not what due process means. Due process means the state must play by the rules. It means a judge hears a case. It means the law is applied justly and equally. It does not mean an open border by procedural default.

So no, Trump is not proposing the end of habeas corpus. He’s calling out a broken system and saying, out loud, what millions of Americans already know: If we don’t fix this, we don’t have a country.

This crisis wasn’t an accident — it was engineered. It’s a Cloward-Piven playbook, designed to overwhelm the system. Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.

Abandon the Constitution?

Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. But how do we balance the Constitution and our national survival without descending into authoritarianism? Abandon the Constitution? No. Burn the house down to get rid of the rats? Absolutely not. The Constitution itself gives us the tools to take on this crisis head on.

The federal government has clear authority over immigration. Illegal presence in the United States is not a protected right. Congress has the power to deny entry, enforce expedited removals, and reject bogus asylum claims. Much of this is already authorized by law — it’s simply not being used.

RELATED: Trump shrugs at immigration law — here’s what he should have said

Photo by: Rodrigo Varela/NBC via Getty Images

President Trump’s idea is simple: Use the tools we already have. Declare the southern border a national security emergency. Establish temporary military tribunals for triage. Process asylum claims swiftly outside the clogged court system. Restore “Remain in Mexico” so that the border is no longer a remote court room. Appoint more immigration judges, assign them to high-volume areas, and hold streamlined hearings that still respect due process.

That’s not authoritarian. That’s leadership.

The path forward

Trump is not trying to destroy habeas corpus. He’s trying to save it from being twisted into a self-destructive parody of itself. Leftists have turned due process into delay, justice into gridlock, and they’re dragging the entire country into their chaos.

It’s time to draw the line. Protect habeas corpus. Use it lawfully. Use it wisely. And yes — use it to restore order at the border. Because if we lose that firewall, we lose the republic.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.