The brief order – which ensures Trump will be branded a “convicted felon” at his inauguration in 10 days – noted that Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh would have granted the application. In other words, Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett sided with the liberals on the bench. In retrospect, CNN belief that Justice Barrett might be the “last best hope for Supreme Court liberals” proved to be accurate.

Thanks to Barrett’s defection, the Supreme Court will stand by as Judge Juan Merchan sentences Donald Trump over felony offenses that many legal analysts consider to be a sham.

The Supreme Court offered two reasons it said it refused to grant the application. “First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of ‘unconditional discharge’ after a brief virtual hearing,” a note on the Supreme Court’s docket read.

After the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump wrote on TruthSocial that he appreciated the “time and effort of the United States Supreme Court in trying to remedy the great injustice done to me.”

He went on to say that he was innocent and would appeal the case.

“For the sake and sanctity of the Presidency, I will be appealing this case, and am confident that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL,” Trump wrote.

Trump’s application for a stay was submitted on Jan. 8 and argued that “the prospect of imposing sentence on President Trump just before he assumes Office as the 47th President raises the specter of other possible restrictions on liberty, such as travel, reporting requirements, registration, probationary requirements, and others—all of which would be constitutionally intolerable under the doctrine of Presidential immunity.”

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has indicated that he wouldn’t impose a punishment including incarceration. He denied Trump’s request to halt proceedings as did two state appeals courts this week.

Trump told the U.S. Supreme Court that Merchan had erroneously admitted certain evidence of his official acts as president and failed to acknowledge a form of immunity for presidents-elect. He asked the court to take up his case and consider those issues, as well as whether he was entitled to an automatic stay due to an appeal on presidential immunity.

Trump was found guilty in May on 34 felony counts of falsifying records in relation to an alleged payments to adult film actress Stephanie Clifford. Merchan is expected to enter a judgment of conviction on Jan. 10 and potentially offer a statement criticizing Trump’s behavior.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the indictment against Trump in 2023, told the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 9 that it should reject Trump’s application and allow the state courts to continue handling the issue. Bragg said Trump was asking for an extraordinary intervention by the justices and that Trump had not yet exhausted his state-court remedies.

“Any stay here risks delaying the sentencing until after January 20, when defendant is inaugurated and his status as the sitting President will pose much more severe and potentially insuperable obstacles to sentencing and finality,” Bragg’s brief read.

The president-elect said that the opinion written by Merchan “goes against our Constitution, and, if allowed to stand, would be the end of the Presidency as we know it.”

The court will hear oral arguments on Jan. 10, 2025.

TikTok had challenged the divestment law as unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and a three-judge panel in federal court had upheld the law earlier this month.

TikTok then appealed to the high court asking for a pause of the Jan. 19 deadline and asking it to treat its petition as one for review.

The Supreme Court wrote on Dec. 18 that it will hear arguments in the case before deciding whether to pause the deadline.

When President Joe Biden signed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) into law, it started a 270-day countdown for ByteDance to divest of TikTok or else stop operating the app in the United States. The law targets apps owned or controlled by foreign adversaries, in this case, the Chinese communist regime.

The law also allows the president to issue a one-time extension of a maximum of 90 days.

President-elect Donald Trump has suggested he can facilitate a sale of TikTok, which would prevent what TikTok calls a “ban.” TikTok is arguing the deadline should be paused so the new administration can make the call.

The Justice Department argued the law did not violate the First Amendment because it targeted ownership by a foreign adversary for national security reasons, and that it did not target content.

The Supreme Court directed parties to argue on “whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.”

The parties have a Dec. 27 deadline to file opening briefs, and a Jan. 3, 2025, deadline for reply briefs. Amicus briefs have a Dec. 27 deadline. Oral arguments will last two hours.

This is developing and will be updated.

Tennessee’s SB1 bans medical procedures on minors for the purpose of “enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or “treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the parents of minors who claim to identify as the opposite sex and claim to have benefited from these procedures, sued to block the law, and the Biden administration joined the lawsuit on the ACLU’s side.

The plaintiffs claim that SB1 violates federal law by discriminating against minors who identify as transgender, denying to them the same treatments that would be allowed for minors who do not so identify.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld Tennessee’s law, finding that it doesn’t entail discrimination. The U.S. and the ACLU appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio—a male who says he identifies as female—argued the case before the court Wednesday, as did Tennessee Solicitor General Matt Rice.

Prelogar, Strangio, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, an appointee of President Joe Biden, twisted the truth on “gender-affirming care” in at least five ways.

1. ‘Puberty blockers’ are reversible

“Critically, puberty blockers have no effect, in and of themselves, on fertility, so I don’t think that concern can justify the ban on puberty blockers, which is just pressing pause on someone’s endogenous puberty to give them more time to understand their identity,” Prelogar argued.

The Food and Drug Administration has not approved GnRH agonists, which stands for “Gonadatropin-releasing hormone agonists,” for the treatment of gender dysphoria (the painful and persistent identification with the gender opposite one’s biological sex) in children. GnRH agonists prevent the natural release of testosterone and estrogen that initiate puberty.

David Gortler, a pharmacologist and pharmacist who previously was a senior adviser to the FDA commissioner on policy and drug safety, previously told The Daily Signal that physicians developed GnRH agonists to help treat certain cancers that depend on estrogen or testosterone.

Endocrinologists—doctors who specialize in the hormone-regulating endocrine system—have testified to the harms these drugs can cause. Dr. Paul Hruz, an endocrinology researcher and clinician at Washington University School of Medicine, wrote that after “an extended period of pubertal suppression,” patients can’t “turn back the clock” and “reverse changes in the normal coordinated pattern of adolescent psychological development and puberty.”

Dr. Sophie Scott, a neuroscientist from the United Kingdom, explained that the effects of certain chemicals on the human brain aren’t well known, and that current science does not support “puberty blockers” for adolescents.

“As puberty is associated with very marked changes in the structure of the brain … the use of puberty blockers may have serious consequences for the development of the human brain,” Scott warned. Studies in sheep and young girls suggest that these drugs affect the size of the amygdala. Male sheep treated with the drugs showed “more risk-taking behaviors,” while treated female sheep “showed higher levels of anxiety and greater avoidance behavior.” Girls treated with the drug also showed “significant greater emotional reactivity” and “lower heart rates.” They also scored lower on IQ tests after taking the drugs.

PANTS ON FIRE

U.S. SG Elizabeth Prelogar repeatedly lies about "gender-affirming care."

1⃣She claims "puberty blockers" are fully reversible: They are "just pressing pause."

2⃣She acknowledges that cross-sex hormones can affect fertility but suggests that kids can be… pic.twitter.com/MFwrO02Bdz

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024

2. Suicidality

Strangio, the ACLU lawyer, claimed that it is “clearly established in the science and in the record” that “the medications in question reduce the risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidality, which are all indicators of potential suicide.” (Suicidality refers to the condition of contemplating suicide.) The lawyer admitted that there is no evidence “that this treatment reduces completed suicide” because “completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare.”

Yet Strangio claimed that “there are multiple studies, long-term longitudinal studies, that do show that there is a reduction in suicidality, which I think is a positive outcome to this treatment.”

NO EVIDENCE

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito presses ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio about whether "puberty blockers" decrease thoughts of su*cide. He rightly cites the Cass Review, which found "no evidence" for that claim.

It gets worse, however. At least one FDA study found… pic.twitter.com/zGAHhfFUUQ

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024

The evidence is not as clear-cut as Strangio suggested, however.

In one email on Jan. 25, 2022, Shannon Sullivan, clinical team leader at the FDA’s Division of General Endocrinology, noted that the agency’s Division of Metabolism and Endocrinology Products performed a “safety review of the GnRH agonist class in pediatric patients in 2016/2017.”

Sullivan noted that while the study did not find effects on bone density, “We did find increased risk of depression and suicidality, as well as increased seizure risk, and we issued [safety-related labeling changes].”

In other words, some studies show the exact opposite of Strangio’s claim—that GnRH agonists increase, rather than decrease, thoughts of suicide.

BREAKING: A high-ranking FDA official admitted that "puberty blockers" carry an "increased risk of depression and suicidality" but called for approving them for "transgender" kids, anyway. This flips the gender ideology narrative on its headhttps://t.co/dtbdVKEcap pic.twitter.com/4qXc6TZF06

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) August 1, 2024

3. Puberty as Harmful

“Gender-affirming care” advocates repeatedly suggested that the natural process of puberty causes harm to people who identify with the gender opposite their biological sex.

“If you’re thinking about this from the standpoint of, ‘There’s no harm in just making them wait until they’re adults,’ I think you have to recognize that the effect of denying this care is to produce irreversible physical effects that are consistent with their birth sex, because they have to go through puberty before they turn 18,” Prelogar argued.

“So, essentially what this law is doing is saying we’re going to make all adolescents in this state develop the physical secondary sex characteristics consistent with their gender or their sex assigned at birth, even though that might significantly worsen gender dysphoria, increase the risk of suicide, and—I think, critically—make it much harder to live and be accepted in their gender identity as a result,” she said.

Prelogar noted that a male who goes through puberty will develop an Adam’s apple, and that may make it harder for that man to “pass” as female, thereby subjecting him to discrimination in the future.

“You have this population of adolescents, and there are documented very essential benefits for a large number of them, and maybe a small number that will regret this care just like with any other medical care,” she added.

Prelogar’s argument flips the natural course of biology on its head. She and others are suggesting that the natural process of puberty is somehow harmful and that it is better for males who say they identify as female to undergo a chemically induced artificial facsimile of the natural process than it is for them to develop naturally.

The evidence for benefits of this artificial process is flimsy, but the associated harms are manifold—and that’s the exact reason why Tennessee’s General Assembly voted to protect minors from it.

4. ‘The Same’ Medical Condition

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Jackson repeatedly suggested that the Tennessee law bans puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones (estrogen for boys and testosterone for girls, to make them appear like the opposite sex) for males who identify as female and females who identify as male, but not for males who identify as male and females who identify as female.

Sotomayor said that a boy struggling with precocious puberty—the condition of starting puberty too early—would take the same medication as a girl who identifies as male.

“The medical condition is the same, but you’re saying one sex is getting it and the other is not,” she added.

“We do not agree that the medical condition is the same,” Rice, the Tennessee solicitor general, responded. “We do not think that giving puberty blockers to a 6-year-old that has started precocious puberty is the same medical treatment” as giving them “to a minor who wants to transition.”

While the two patients would take the same drug, the intended purpose and practical effect would be different. Sotomayor and Jackson were conflating two very different conditions.

WE DO NOT AGREE

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson strain to compare the treatment of precocious puberty to the "treatment" of putting boys or girls on experimental drugs to "pause" puberty.

"No, we do not agree that the medical condition is the same," Matt Rice… pic.twitter.com/12V5N8v4hL

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024

5. ‘Gender Conformity’

Justice Elena Kagan argued that “one of the articulated purposes of this law is to essentially to encourage gender conformity and to discourage anything other than gender conformity.”

She cited the law’s text, which states that Tennessee has “a legitimate, substantial, and compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex, particularly as they undergo puberty” and a similar interest “in protecting the integrity of the medical profession, including by prohibiting medical procedures that are harmful, unethical, immoral, experimental, or unsupported by high-quality or long-term studies, or that might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex.”

She said that it “sounds to me that ‘we want boys to be boys and we want girls to be girls,’ and that’s an important purpose behind the law.”

Rice, representing Tennessee, noted that Kagan’s quotes come in the context of the state’s legislature attempting to prevent causing harm to minors. He noted studies in which minors’ mental health actually got worse after “gender-affirming care.”

“The legislature specifically noted those studies, so I think that statement was rooted in the notion that actually this is causing affirmative harm to minors that were undergoing the interventions, and that’s why they’re saying we don’t want these interventions that will cause minors to become disdainful of their sex,” he explained.

The law does not aim to set forth standards of masculinity to which boys must adhere, or standards of femininity that girls must follow. On the contrary, the transgender movement encourages boys who may have feminine traits to identify as girls and undergo medical interventions to alter their bodies. If any side is advocating conformity to gender standards, it is the transgender movement.

NOT ABOUT GENDER CONFORMITY

Tennessee SG Matt Rice definitively strikes down the absurd claim that the TN law is all about enforcing "gender conformity."

The law aims to protect minors from harm that is encouraged by an ideology that focuses on gender conformity—with the… pic.twitter.com/LlhPbGwRdU

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024

6. Comparison to Loving

Justice Jackson repeatedly compared SB1 to the Virginia law banning interracial marriage that the Supreme Court struck down in Loving v. Virginia (1967).

Prelogar agreed that both cases involve “overbroad generalizations of how we expect them to live and order their affairs,” such that “these laws disadvantage someone who falls outside the average description.”

“When we look at the structure of that law, it looks—you can’t do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics—it’s sort of the same thing,” Jackson argued.

INSANE

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson strains to compare U.S. v. Skrmetti to Loving v. Virginia, suggesting that a law protecting kids from experimental medical "treatments" to make them appear like the opposite sex is similar to a law preventing interracial… pic.twitter.com/7nAQQkZzQD

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024

“In [Loving v. Virginia], those same kinds of scientific arguments were made,” Jackson claimed again when questioning Strangio.

She repeated the comparison a third time when asking Rice, Tennessee’s solicitor general.

“There, the question of can you marry this other person depended on what your race was. You could marry the other person if it was the same, consistent with your race. You couldn’t if [it wasn’t],” Jackson said. “I take your law to be doing basically the same thing. You can take these blockers if doing so is consistent with your sex, but not if it’s inconsistent.”

“In this case, the only way that they can point to a sex-based line is to equate fundamentally different medical treatments,” Rice responded. “Giving testosterone to a boy with a deficiency is not the same treatment as giving it to a girl who has psychological distress with her body.”

Any argument about discrimination relies on confusion about the basic fact that males going through male puberty is healthy and in accordance with nature, while males going through a false, manufactured facsimile of female puberty is not.

MATT RICE STRIKES IT DOWN

"In this case, the only way that they can point to a sex-based line is to equate fundamentally different medical treatments. Giving testosterone to a boy with a deficiency is not the same treatment as giving it to a girl who has psychological distress… pic.twitter.com/yFkAdXQQiI

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024

In 2023-2024. However, one should note that these developments did not launch the momentum to rule in favor of religious charter schools, but they built on earlier debates and statements from prior cases including Justice Stephen Breyer’s question in the Espinosa vs. Montana Department of Revenue (2020) case, asking about religious charter schools. Bill Clinton’s speech in 1995 in Vienna, Virginia stating that past U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding faith were misinterpreted has also played an important role in the debate on religious charter schools.

The Carson v. Makin (2022) case, based in Maine, played a major role in increasing the momentum for religious charter schools. In that case, the state of Maine had provided vouchers for a good number of parents who desired to send their children to non-religious private schools. In contrast, however, Maine’s government did not provide these vouchers for parents who wished to send their children to religious private schools. In a decision penned by Chief Justice Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 that the Maine voucher program was unconstitutional because it discriminated against faith-based schools.

As important as the Carson v. Makin (2022) case is, there remain three issues that the U.S. Supreme Court needs to address in any decision on the constitutionality of religious charter schools. First, are religious charter schools constitutional? Second, to what degree may state governments impose restrictions on religious private schools that may inhibit their religious freedoms or beliefs? For example, Adam Frey, the Attorney General of Maine, clarified the state of Maine’s policy following the Carson v. Makin (2022) decision. Frey declared that in order for any private school to participate in the voucher program, it had to agree to follow Maine’s Human Rights Act. The question that the U.S. Supreme Court needs to answer is to what extent states may initiate such actions. How far is it legally permissible for them to go? Where does one draw the line?

The third issue that the U.S. Supreme Court must address is that it needs to determine whether those who run charter schools are state or private actors. This is because the vast majority of people who run charter schools are private groups. However, these charters are defined by law as public schools and are supported by tax-payer dollars. If the Court rules that those who operate the charter schools are state actors, then because they must be non-sectarian, religious charter schools will be ruled unconstitutional. However, if the Court rules that charter schools are private actors, then religious charter schools will be ruled constitutional.

The problem is that determining whether those who run charter schools are state or private actors will not be easy. This is because the courts have often disagreed with each other in their conclusions. For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 (in Caviness v. Horizon Community Learning Center), determined that charter schools were private actors when it came to firing educators. That is, no state hearings were necessary. The case is likely particularly salient, because it cited a U.S. Supreme Court case, Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (1982). This case involved a private school that was very similar to a charter school. It was created to help kids really struggling in school and received about 90% of its funding from the government. The U.S. Supreme Court also found the school to be a private actor in the case of an employee being fired. The Court might view the Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (1982) case as the pivotal one in terms of helping establish precedent for its eventual decisions on religious charter schools, in part because it is a U.S. Supreme Court case. However, in a 2022 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case (Peltier v. Charter Day School), regarding school dress codes, the ruling was that those who ran charter schools were state actors.

Whether the Court will utilize the St. Isadore of Seville Catholic Virtual School case to address these issues or wait for a future case remains to be seen. Nevertheless, given that Carson v. Makin (2022) and Justice Breyer’s 2020 statement have brought this issue to the forefront, one can foresee a scenario in which one may not have to wait long.

During the panel discussion, I opined that the U.S. Supreme Court will likely eventually rule that religious charter schools are constitutional. I did not give a precise timeline regarding when such a ruling might take place. Nevertheless, the other two academics on the panel agreed with my prediction, one of whom was a well-seasoned Harvard law professor.

Almost as salient as the issue of whether religious charter schools are constitutional is the context the U.S. Supreme Court establishes in their decision. The U.S. Supreme Court will either provide a narrow context for its decision or a broader one. An example of a narrow context would be declaring that religious charter schools are constitutional, but the Court will leave it up to the states to determine the degree of implementation. An example of a broader context would be if the U.S. Supreme Court decides that if a state has charter schools, it must at least offer the possibility of having religious charter schools.

Whatever the Court decides, it will have a substantial long-term impact on schools and society. If the court decides that religious charter schools are constitutional, one result is that will like give families more options in terms of choosing schools for their children. According to David Tyack in his book, The One Best System, the American system of schooling is far too monolithic and the historical trend toward increased centralization is not consistent with the nation’s diversity. In the next several years the nation will discover whether the U.S. Supreme Court agrees.