Supreme Court Will Consider Ending Limits On Party Campaign Spending
'Should not restrict a party committee's support'
On Friday, the Supreme Court upheld Texas’ common-sense law requiring pornography websites to verify the ages of their users and confirm that they are not children. This monumental ruling is key to protecting children from the dangers of the pornography industry. The cost of early exposure to pornography is high, and children deserve better than to be subjected to the violence and degeneracy of this industry.
In the legal world, pornography has often been characterized as a question of “free speech.” Indeed, the very name of this court case was Paxton v. Free Speech Coalition, referring to the group that challenged Texas’ law mandating age verification.
This decision reinforces the important truth that the rights of children come before the desires of adults.
But the FSC doesn't advocate for heterodox campus speakers, whistleblower protections, or even the right to supposed “hate speech.” It's a porn lobby.
Porn is big business, and its target consumers are kids. How do we know? Because in the handful of states that have passed age verification laws, some porn platforms have withdrawn altogether, preferring to lose their customers who are 18 to 88 rather than their customers who are 8 to 18.
My nonprofit Them Before Us filed an amicus brief in the Paxton case. We argued that today's pornography — free, anonymous, unlimited, violent, and degrading — is particularly dangerous to children. The Supreme Court acknowledged that threat in its ruling.
“With the rise of the smartphone and instant streaming, many adolescents can now access vast libraries of video content — both benign and obscene — at almost any time and place,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court's opinion.
Our brief offered the justices a peek into what child or adolescent users might accidentally stumble upon if the FSC had prevailed. Hint: This isn't your uncle's Playboy.
We included a screenshot of the PornHub homepage, the most popular internet porn site. To keep with decorum, we redacted/blocked 90% of the nine video thumbnails and much of the titles as well. The content may have been too shocking for adult justices, yet it is easily accessible to a 9-year-old. To make sure there was no confusion about the “violent, body-punishing, and cruel” portals that were just a click away, we listed the popular pornographic categories on which kids could click, including babysitter, bondage, cartoon, gang bang, hentai, old/young, rough sex, school, and step fantasy.
Free speech this is not.
We don't need to wonder whether or not kids are accessing this content. A decade ago, researchers found that the average age of first exposure to pornography was between 12 and 13. That was ten years ago, before the average age of first-time cell phone users dropped to 12 years old. Many kids can and do access pornography at a much younger age, and the average middle schooler has immediate, and often secret, access to endless hours of violent and disturbing sexual content.
Those in the so-called free speech camp have long argued that protecting children from adult material is the responsibility of parents, not the porn distributors themselves. But is that realistic, effective, or even possible in today's internet landscape?
As Justice Alito openly pondered during oral arguments, “Do you know a lot of parents who are more tech-savvy than their 15-year-old?”
Filtering and parental controls rarely offer sufficient protection. In addition, children who are already socially disadvantaged, such as those raised in single-parent homes, spend more time on screens than their peers, increasing the likelihood of coming across harmful content.
Research confirms what common sense tells us: Pornography is bad for kids.
Children who are exposed to pornography before the age of 12 are significantly more likely to engage in “problem sexualized behaviors” — including attempts at imitating the sex acts they have witnessed. In addition, pornography is addictive, triggering the same kind of brain reward that leads to gambling addiction and even hard drug abuse.
And if 35-year-old, fully formed brains are being rewired by pornography, how much more so 15-year-old brains that are still developing?
No. Porn is not a “free speech” issue. It is a child protection issue. And it's not something that parents can manage themselves.
It looks like the highest court agreed. States can and should be involved in creating obstacles between children and the sexual content that we know can harm them for life.
When adults put children first, good policy results. This decision reinforces the important truth that the rights of children come before the desires of adults. This ruling not only upholds Texas’ law protecting children online but also paves the way for other states’ laws to hold the pornography industry accountable for harming children online.
In 1535, Saint Thomas More went to his death, not in defiance of his king but in ultimate service to both God and England. His final words — “I die the king’s faithful servant, and God’s first” — captured the essence of true religious liberty: the freedom to fulfill the duty to worship God rightly. As the patron saint of religious liberty, More challenges lawmakers and church leaders to renew their commitment to defending that sacred duty.
To More, religious liberty wasn’t just freedom from state interference. It meant the freedom to obey God, even at the cost of his life. His last declaration made clear that duty to God comes before any loyalty to civil authority. Pope Leo XIII put it plainly in “Immortale Dei”: “We are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will.”
When laws hinder the duty to worship God rightly, they chip away at the foundation of religious liberty the founders meant to preserve.
More lived this principle, choosing martyrdom over surrender to the world. His death makes clear that real freedom begins with obedience to God — a truth rooted in the moral obligations of human nature. To defend religious liberty is to affirm the duty to give God the worship He deserves, a duty no earthly power — not even a king — can rightly deny.
America’s founders understood this well. They saw religious liberty not as license, but as the right to fulfill one’s duty to God. James Madison wrote, “It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”
RELATED: Why Trump's religious liberty agenda terrifies the left — but tells the truth
imagedepotpro via iStock/Getty Images
America’s founders drafted the Constitution with the understanding that citizens would practice their religious duties — not as optional acts, but as essential to a free and moral society. As John Adams put it, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
That understanding now faces growing threats. When laws hinder the duty to worship God rightly, they chip away at the foundation of religious liberty the founders meant to preserve. Consider the case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips. For refusing to make cakes that violated his faith, Phillips endured more than a decade of legal battles, fines, protests, and business losses. He wasn’t seeking special treatment — he simply wanted to live out his faith. Although the Supreme Court eventually sided with him, the fight drained years of his life and resources. Religious liberty delayed for a decade amounts to religious liberty denied.
True religious freedom, as More and the founders envisioned it, demands strong protections for people and institutions to live out their beliefs in every area of life, not just within a sanctuary or under the narrow shelter of exemptions.
To fulfill the vision of religious liberty embodied by Thomas More and upheld by America’s founders, Americans must renew their commitment to strengthening religious institutions through laws that promote the common good. Elected leaders cannot separate their faith from their public responsibilities. Religious truth shapes just governance.
Having just celebrated Religious Liberty Week, we would do well to recall More’s words: “God’s first.” True religious liberty begins with the duty to worship God as He commands. That duty forms the bedrock of a free and just society.
It was a rough day for liberals both on and off the U.S. Supreme Court.
The high court sided in Mahmoud v. Taylor with Maryland parents who want to protect their children from LGBT propaganda in Montgomery County Public Schools. This ruling enraged non-straight activists, including the Human Rights Campaign, which called the decision "devastating."
In Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, the Supreme Court upheld the Lone Star State's age verification law protecting children from pornography. Activists called the ruling "wrongheaded" and "invasive."
The Supreme Court indicated in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that the national injunctions weaponized against the Trump administration by district court judges "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts." Democrats melted down over the ruling, calling it "deplorable" and "a vile betrayal of our Constitution."
The court ruled 6-3 in each of these cases, and in all three, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was in the dissenting minority.
Not only did Jackson not get her way, her apparent ignorance and judicial freewheeling was exposed for all to see in CASA, where she noted in a dissenting opinion that the majority's decision not only "diverges from first principles" but is "profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate."
'In her law-declaring vision of the judicial function, a district court's opinion is not just persuasive, but has the legal force of a judgment.'
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who delivered the opinion of the court in CASA, noted that Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent focused on "conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity." Jackson, on the other hand,
chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a 'mind-numbingly technical query' ... she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.
Barrett noted that her untethered colleague apparently believes both that "the fundamental role of courts is to 'order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law — full stop,'" and that "if courts lack the power to 'require the Executive to adhere to law universally' ... courts will leave a 'gash in the basic tenets of our founding charter that could turn out to be a mortal wound.'"
RELATED: MASSIVE VICTORY: SCOTUS sides with parents; Alito nukes LGBT indoctrination campaign
Sarah Silbiger-Pool/Getty Images
The former Notre Dame Law School professor tried to make sense out of Jackson's position, though admitted that it was "difficult to pin down."
Barrett suggested that Jackson either believes that universal injunctions are appropriate whenever a defendant is part of the executive branch — a position that "goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions" — or, "more extreme still," that "the reasoning behind any court order demands 'universal adherence,' at least where the Executive is concerned."
"In her law-declaring vision of the judicial function, a district court's opinion is not just persuasive, but has the legal force of a judgment," wrote Barrett. "Once a single district court deems executive conduct unlawful, it has stated what the law requires. And the Executive must conform to that view, ceasing its enforcement of the law against anyone, anywhere."
Barrett proceeded to insinuate that former President Joe Biden's DEI appointee was ignorant of the relevant American legal history and precedent and may have skipped analysis of relevant readings because they involved "boring 'legalese.'"
"We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself," wrote Barrett.
Although she would not dwell on Jackson's understanding, Barrett nevertheless pointed out that the liberal justice "decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
President Donald Trump held a press conference Friday to celebrate the latest victory handed down by the Supreme Court that could stop the weaponization of federal courts.
After SCOTUS upheld a ban on state Medicaid funding going to Planned Parenthood and also ruled that parents are entitled to a preliminary injunction to have children excused from LGBT in-school lessons, it seemed hard to imagine that more impactful legal victories would come down the pike.
'The Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.'
In a 6-3 ruling, however, the Supreme Court was split down ideological lines when it ruled that the president's executive orders could no longer be delayed for months or possibly years on end upon the whim of one individual.
The decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. seemingly put to bed the ability of a single federal judge to grant a nationwide injunction on an executive order, the Democrats' most powerful tool of law in recent years.
"The injunctions before us today reflect a more recent development: district courts asserting the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority.
Justice Barrett added that "these injunctions — known as 'universal injunctions' — likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts."
President Trump held a press conference at the White House in celebration, where he called the decision a "monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law."
RELATED: Supreme Court upholds ban on Medicaid funds for Planned Parenthood
— (@)
Trump remarked that SCOTUS has effectively struck down the "excessive use of nationwide injunctions" that he said interfere with the normal functions of the executive branch.
Indeed, the injunctions had become an often-used tactic by judges appointed by Joe Biden and other Democrat presidents, even in recent weeks.
Just two weeks prior to the SCOTUS decision, a judge blocked the deportation of a Palestinian activist, while just last week another Biden appointee prevented requirements that passports accurately reflect the holders' sex.
"It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly," Trump continued. "And instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation."
The president explained to reporters that in practice, all it took was an injunction from any one of the nearly 700 federal judges to stop the policy of the executive branch.
Attorney General Pam Bondi further illustrated how often the liberal judges were exercising this power.
RELATED: MASSIVE VICTORY: SCOTUS sides with parents; Alito nukes LGBT indoctrination campaign
— (@)
Bondi revealed that out of 94 federal judicial districts, just five of the districts accounted for 88% of the nationwide injunctions.
"Think about that," Bondi told the press room. "Ninety-four districts, and 35 out of the 40 opinions with nationwide injunctions came from five liberal districts in this country. No longer. No longer."
The president stressed the ability to work very quickly with his administration and thanked the conservative judges for seemingly allowing him the ability to do so. He then wasted no time in announcing which cases his legal team would be pursuing, and he immediately pointed to "ending birthright citizenship."
— (@)
Birthright citizenship was "meant for the babies of slaves" Trump stated from the podium, not for "people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation."
"It was meant for the babies of slaves, and it's so clean and so obvious. ... Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason."
While SCOTUS did not determine whether Trump's executive order to rescind birthright citizenship was constitutional, the severe limitations on injunctions likely mean the order could go into effect in the interim, until a final ruling by the high court.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!