'I definitely feel violated': Christian girls' basketball team heads to court after statewide ban for refusing to play male



A Vermont Christian school has begun its legal fight against the state after the school was banned from state athletics competitions over their girls' basketball team's refusal to play against a team with a male athlete.

In February 2023, Mid Vermont Christian School forfeited a playoff game against Long Trail Mountain because the opponent had a male player on its squad.

Just a few weeks later, Mid Vermont was banned from statewide athletics by the Vermont Principals' Association after the governing body reached a unanimous decision to bar the school over its refusal to play. The state entity citied a "best practices" document that stated, "Transgender and gender nonconforming students are to be provided the same opportunities to participate in physical education as are all other students."

'There's a disadvantage for me.'

After filing a lawsuit in February 2024, the school, with help from the Alliance Defending Freedom, is finally seeing the courtroom.

"I definitely feel violated. I definitely feel nervous playing against men," Myranda Goodwin, a student and basketball player from Mid Vermont told Fox News. "When I play against my brother, it's definitely — there's a disadvantage for me."

Team coach Chris Goodwin offered encouragement to his students and said that while the battle may be difficult, it is important to stand up for what they believe in.

"Even though there's gonna be a cost to doing what's right, that doesn't mean you compromise. You still stand up and you do the right thing, and in the long run, there's a benefit to that," Goodwin said.

The coach went on to say that he never thought he would be in court for simply "adhering to my biblical (and commonsense) belief that boys and girls are different."

In response to Fox News, the Vermont Principals' Association claimed Mid Vermont was hindering the opportunities of other students by standing by its own beliefs.

"Mid Vermont Christian School has every right to teach its beliefs to its own students. It cannot, however, impose those beliefs on students from other public and private schools, deny students from other schools the opportunity to play, or hurt students from other schools because of who those students are."

The legal group AFD claimed in a press release that the state "cannot punish religious schools" by kicking them out of state-sponsored sports.

The group's vice president of litigation said Mid Vermont had been denied a public benefit "just because it stood by the widely held, commonsense belief that boys and girls are different."

While the aforementioned transgender policy asks schools to consider factors like protecting student privacy, it heavily favors the child with the delusional position.

"Generally, students should be permitted to participate in physical education and sports in accordance with the student's gender identity," the policy advises.

The policy also requires schools to maximize "social integration of the transgender student," while ensuring "equal opportunity to participate."

It then simply states, "A transgender student should not be required to use a locker room or restroom that conflicts with the student's gender identity."

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

Trump Signs Order To Dismantle Education Department ‘As Quickly As Possible’

'We're not doing well with the world of education in this country, we haven't for a long time,' Trump said on Thursday.

Trump just empowered states to fight back against illegal immigration



Donald Trump has wasted no time making his mark in his return to the White House.

In less than a week, the president has signed dozens of new executive orders and repealed nearly 80 orders and memorandums from the Biden era.

If the federal government declares an invasion has occurred, then states have the right and arguably the duty to respond accordingly.

One of the most notable orders, titled “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion,” introduced immediate changes to immigration law.

The order suspends temporarily a contentious policy that allows immigrants to enter the United States by claiming asylum.

Additionally, it directs federal agents to block entry for immigrants who fail to provide sufficient medical information or reliable criminal and background records.

Perhaps the most important change, however, is one that has received little attention from the media — the classification of the ongoing border crisis as an “invasion.”

Many of Trump’s critics have classified the “invasion” rhetoric as xenophobic or racist, but in doing so, they have completely missed an important policy justification for using the term. By calling what’s occurring at the southern border an “invasion,” Trump has effectively given states the right to take drastic action against illegal immigration.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Constitution prioritizes federal authority over state authority in immigration matters.

The court has determined that Article II grants the president the power to regulate many aspects of foreign affairs, including issues connected to immigration.

Article I empowers Congress to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” governing the process of becoming a citizen.

The Constitution provides little mention of states’ rights regarding immigration, a lack often interpreted as justification for federal control of the issue.

However, in Article I, Section 10, the Constitution declares, “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

In other words, although states cannot determine citizenship or set a foreign affairs agenda that’s out of step with the president, they can defend themselves from an invasion.

During the Biden administration, officials reported more than 8 million illegal border “encounters,” a figure that captures the number of people caught by officials while trying to illegally enter the United States. Importantly, data on “encounters” do not reflect the potentially millions of other immigrants who have come to America illegally over the same period but weren’t caught.

Some states have argued that this wave of illegal immigration constitutes an “invasion” and that because the Constitution allows states to combat an invasion, state officials should have the right to take action.

For example, in 2023, Texas lawmakers claimed the state had been invaded and then passed Senate Bill 4, which, among other things, gave Texas police the power to arrest illegal immigrants.

The law has been tied up in court since it was passed, largely because of courts’ reluctance to give states power over immigration and because claims of an “invasion” depend on the Constitution’s meaning of the term, which has been in dispute for years among legal scholars.

Now that the Trump administration has officially declared that the recent immigration crisis is an “invasion,” there should be no doubt that states have the legal authority to defend themselves. This would be a significant enhancement of states’ rights, assuming the designation and subsequent actions on the part of states survive legal challenges.

Regardless of your position on immigration, we should all be able to agree that states ought to have the power to defend themselves in the event of an invasion. And if the federal government declares an invasion has occurred, then states have the right and arguably the duty to respond accordingly.

If you disagree, then who, exactly, should have the right to decide when an “invasion” has occurred?

Although opponents of the new order won’t want to hear it, elections do, indeed, have consequences.

Bill Maher admits SICK Reality of how Democrats view Abortion
play icon

Bill Maher admits SICK Reality of how Democrats view Abortion

State religious freedom laws protect fundamental rights



State legislatures in Iowa, Utah, and Georgia have joined the movement to pass state laws protecting religious freedom. Commonly known as Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, these laws should be fairly uncontroversial. They simply ensure the free exercise of religion against government interference. Yet, the laws are being labeled by opponents as attempts to foster discrimination.

Search the internet for news about “religious freedom restoration acts,” also known as RFRAs, and the results might lead one to conclude that some far-right religious plot was afoot. Typical headlines include, “Human rights campaign strongly condemns the West Virginia legislature for hastily passing dangerous religious refusal bill, calls on gov justice to veto bill” and “Religious liberty steps too far, could destroy the common good if we let it.”

To claim that protecting religious liberty is an attempt to foster discrimination against LGBT rights is to make that discriminatory claim about the First Amendment itself.

What is going on here? What is a RFRA anyway? Is it a legitimate protection of religious liberty or a license to discriminate?

Let’s begin with some history. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 held in Employment Division v. Smith that a law is constitutional under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment if it is “facially neutral and generally applied” — even if that law, in fact, burdens religious exercise. The decision effectively allows government actions to burden religious exercise, as long as the burden is applied to religious and nonreligious persons alike.

Congress responded by passing a bipartisan bill in the 1993-1994 session — when Bill Clinton was president — prohibiting the government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. The government would need to demonstrate that its action advances a compelling state interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. This is the same standard the government must meet (called “strict scrutiny”) when burdening a fundamental right under the Constitution.

When the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997 ruled in City of Boerne v. Flores that the federal RFRA cannot be applied to state laws, individual states responded by passing their own state RFRAs. Currently, 24 states have religious freedom laws on the books.

So, let’s be clear about what a state RFRA is. The First Amendment was enacted in part to protect the people’s right to free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court in Smith held that “neutral” laws can burden the free exercise of religion, undermining the very purpose of the U.S. Constitution’s intent to protect that free exercise. A RFRA, then, is nothing more than a statute to ensure adequate protection of the fundamental right to free religious exercise.

Accusations that the movement to pass state RFRAs is a radical shift in religious liberty law in America or that such laws attempt to discriminate against LGBT rights fall flat. The First Amendment is clearly meant to protect religious individuals and organizations, so that the free exercise of religion is not jeopardized by government action.

Since the current Supreme Court precedent in Smith does not adequately protect the free exercise of religion, state RFRAs step in to fill in the gap. State RFRAs are not a novelty. They do not constitute any sort of revolutionary new protection for religious exercise. To claim that protecting religious liberty is an attempt to foster discrimination against LGBT rights is to make that discriminatory claim about the First Amendment itself.

The movement to pass state RFRAs is not a legal revolution, but a modest restoration of the fundamental right to the free exercise of religion. To oppose this restoration is to stand against the foundational role of religion in society. It is not discriminatory to demand that religious exercise be free from burdensome government action. RFRAs are not about discrimination; this is a distraction. RFRAs are about protecting the fundamental right to religious exercise that stands at the heart of our American experiment. If state governments are free to burden religious exercise with hostile laws, Americans are not free to live out their faith in the public square. That is not “nondiscrimination.” That is un-American and threatens the liberties our nation was founded to protect.

Frank DeVito is an attorney and counsel at the Napa Legal Institute.

Republicans Must Get Serious About Using Political Power If They Want To Win On Abortion

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Screenshot-2023-11-21-at-10.42.24 PM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Screenshot-2023-11-21-at-10.42.24%5Cu202fPM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]Proposed legislation in the Ohio House would allow the legislature to interpret the recently passed Issue 1 instead of the courts.

The Senate has ALREADY found Trump NOT guilty



While many on the left are cheering for the downfall of former president Donald Trump, Mark Levin doesn’t believe they stand a fighting chance.

“This indictment, the ruse is obvious,” he tells Sean Hannity on Fox News. “You have to be the dumbest on the face of the Earth to be proposing this.”

Now, a Colorado watchdog group is attempting to block Trump from making it onto the 2024 ballot, citing the 14th Amendment.

Section 3 of the amendment states that “no person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,” having previously taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

“You know what they meant? They meant, Sean, the Civil War. That’s what they meant. Anyone who engaged in, participated in, gave aid and comfort to the Civil War, they were the ones who were banned from holding public office,” Levin explains.

“They didn’t mean for this to apply after the last Confederate died,” he adds.

Levin notes that if Trump were actually in trouble, he’d be being charged for insurrection or sedition.

According to Levin, he’s not being charged because “two days before January 6, when this so-called insurrection took place, he offered ten thousand military personnel to defend the Capitol building and defend the members of Congress on January 6.”

He was then turned down by the Democrat speaker and the Democrat mayor.

“Well, that’s a hell of a way to run an insurrection, don’t you think?” Levin asks.

“They held a rump trial in the Senate, and they didn’t come close to the supermajority votes they needed to convict Donald Trump,so if anything, under our constitutional system, Donald Trump was adjudicated not guilty of an insurrection and a sedition, by the one body that took it up: the United States Senate.”


Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Do The Leftist Women Rallying Against This Legal Theory Realize It Gave Them The Right To Vote?

Leftist women's organizations are working tirelessly to end a legal theory that, when first applied, protected their right to vote.

How Red States Can Save The American Republic From Self-Destruction

The federal government now controls our country through the power and intimidation of law: Pay your taxes or go to jail.

Horowitz: The blueprint for states to protect citizens from FBI and IRS tyranny



What do you do when the cops become the robbers? When federal law enforcement is now criminalizing conservatives, their existence, and their political beliefs and is willing to use all of its taxpayer-funded resources, technology, and manpower to investigate, entrap, surveil, and infiltrate conservative political activists to the point of criminalizing basic First Amendment rights? These are questions many of us never thought we’d be confronted with in our lifetime, but they are upon us and demand immediate practical answers.

With the FBI raiding people’s homes and infiltrating anti-COVID fascist groups and trying to get them to kidnap the Michigan governor, we cannot simply wait for Republicans to take back the House and possibly hold some hearings. We need to confront power with power. Republicans hold the trifecta of government in nearly half the states, and it’s time they use it in the way Madison envisioned.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why the Democrats suddenly authorized the hiring of 87,000 more IRS agents. It’s not to ensure that Pfizer isn’t avoiding tax loopholes. It’s to turn all political opponents of the regime into “J6ers,” and the surest way to find nebulous crimes or entrapment to bring the FBI into their lives is to empower the IRS to use the tax code against small business owners. But of course, only the ones who speak out against the new current hotness of the regime.

\u201cthey're training 87,000 more of these \n\nhttps://t.co/4HfejkaClX\u201d
— Citizen Free Press (@Citizen Free Press) 1660743669

Madison made it very clear during the 1798 nullification debate that “the states who are parties therto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of evil.” But decades into the trend of states being obsequious doormats to the federal government, it’s hard for any one individual elected official to take on the feds alone. However, as I’ve explained before, Madison articulated a more comprehensive blueprint for interposition a decade earlier in Federalist #46. He made it clear that it would have to be the governor and the legislature working together, most likely in a large state (think Florida or Texas), and then bind together with other states to do the same, all the while, harnessing the morality, law, and popular sentiment to delegitimize the federal policy.

“The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments;” wrote Madison. “[A]nd where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

So, the first step is to build outrage among the people by exposing the repugnance of the federal acts and delegitimizing their policy in the minds of the citizenry. Then, the governor and legislature, preferably working with adjacent states, work to shield the people from the feds so that they could safely refuse to cooperate with “officers of the union.” Madison predicted that interposition across state lines “in unison” would create an insurmountable obstruction against federal tyranny.

Madison also predicted that the states working together and fanning popular sentiment against the feds would create a synergistic momentum of resistance that would leave the feds with few options for enforcement:

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole.



Florida’s elected Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis has outlined a superlative plan to push back against IRS lawlessness that, if followed by multiple states, would echo Madison’s successful recipe for interposing against federal tyranny.

  1. “The state of Florida can require state chartered banks to generate a regular report on IRS engagement.” Patronis explains that this information will help warn the public and the state about the nature of the IRS targets. This is the first step in interposition, which is building public support and exposing the repugnance of the federal actions. We live in an information war. A big part of the fed’s current success is that it does its work quietly over time and then the first people hear of its investigations is from the vantage point of the smear against the people themselves, typically leaked to their favorite media outlets. Slowly over time, the truth comes out as we have seen with January 6 and the Whitmer kidnapping plot, but the damage of “insurrectionists” had already been done. In this same way, the IRS could be caught in the act before it is ready with its PR machine. The same strategy could be applied against the FBI, ATF, and other agencies by the states working with sheriffs to report and analyze federal actions taken against citizens to see if there is a pattern of political discrimination and even persecution.
  2. “Establish a Civil Liability Trust Fund to help small businesses defend themselves, or even sue the IRS in cases of politically motivated audits or federal overreach.” What we’ve learned from Jan. 6 is that political dissidents are on their own and often can’t receive legal help. In this case, the state would actively pay for those targeted by political persecution.
  3. “Create a license at the state level so new IRS agents are required to register in order to access account information.” Patronis explains that the process would vet out the backgrounds of the agents to make sure they are not motivated by woke ideology. The names of the operatives in the state would also be made public. This will keep the officers in line and work to delegitimize wayward officers and their actions, further bolstering a scenario of citizens rebuffing “officers of the union” when appropriate. Again, this licensing process could be used for FBI, DHS, and ATF agents as well in some circumstances.
  4. “Establish criminal penalties for enforcing laws based on viewpoint or political discrimination.” This is the trigger – where the state can show the feds who is boss. Any IRS, FBI, or ATF agent caught prima facie targeting people for their political beliefs would suffer criminal penalties.

I would add that states need a criminal statute specifically prohibiting federal law enforcement from engaging in conspiracies to entrap citizens in criminal activity. We now know based on the trial in the Whitmer kidnapping plot that the FBI concocted the entire plan and conspired to coerce a few lost souls into joining their plot. The same way it is criminal for citizens to engage in this activity, it should be prohibited for the feds to do the same.

If Republicans are unable or unwilling to push back against such immoral and illegal behavior in GOP supermajority states, do you really have confidence D.C. Republicans will properly deter the political persecutions at a federal level with mere control of the House?