SCOTUS Sides With California Parents In School Transgender Dispute
The Supreme Court on Monday evening granted a request from a group of parents in California to reinstate a ruling by a federal district court prohibiting schools in the state from “misleading parents about their children’s gender presentation.” In addition, the ruling requires schools to follow parents’ instructions regarding the names and pronouns that children use there.
In a detailed seven-page ruling, the majority clarified that the parents were likely to succeed in their argument that California’s policies infringe upon their right to freely practice their religion and their right to guide the upbringing and education of their children.
Two of the court’s left-wing justices, Elena Kagan, joined by Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the court’s ruling, arguing that Monday’s ruling “shows, not for the first time, how our emergency docket can malfunction.”
Trump ‘Furious’ After Israeli Strike on Iranian Oil Facilities Sparks Market Turmoil
The dispute originated in 2023, when two teachers filed a lawsuit against the school district seeking an exemption from its policies on gender and pronouns. They were later joined by parents of children who either socially transitioned at school or believed their children had done so.
After the district court ruled in favor of the challengers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit temporarily suspended that ruling while the state appealed the decision. The challengers then escalated the case to the Supreme Court, asking the justices for intervention.
In a nuanced decision on Monday night, the majority ruled in favor of the parents but rejected the teachers’ request. The majority explained that the parents were likely to succeed in their claim that the state’s policies interfere with their religious freedom.
The majority wrote that the policies are subject to the most stringent constitutional test, which is known as strict scrutiny, because “they substantially interfere with the ‘right of parents to guide the religious development of their children.’”
The policies can’t pass that test, the majority noted further, regardless of the state’s claim that the “policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy” because they “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”
Moreover, the majority wrote, parents have long had “primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children,” including “the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.”
In a seven-page dissenting opinion, Kagan criticized the court’s decision to resolve the case using the interim docket. She claimed that the high court “receive[d] scant and, frankly, inadequate briefing about the legal issues in dispute” and then, without having any oral argument, “grant[ed] relief by means of a terse, tonally dismissive ruling designed to conclusively resolve the dispute.”
Kagan further wrote that the court could resolve the issue at the center of this case in “the regular way, on our merits docket.” She pointed out that the court has been revisiting a petition for review in a similar case repeatedly since November.
“Why not, then, just grant” review in that case, she asked, “and decide it this coming fall?”
“Our processes are, in short, the hallmark of judicial probity, and alike its guarantor. There was no reason to abandon them here,” she concluded.
In a four-page concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, along with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, addressed and countered Justice Kagan’s criticism.
Barrett argued the majority’s ruling that “the parents are likely to succeed on the merits” is a “preliminary” one. She then said that the interim relief decision “is not a sign of the Court’s ‘impatience’ to reach the merits,” but rather “reflects the Court’s judgment about the risk of irreparable harm to the parents.”
If the 9th Circuit’s order is not lifted, she added, “parents will be excluded—perhaps for years—from participating in consequential decisions about their child’s mental health and wellbeing.”
Gabbard Sends Criminal Referral to DOJ Making Bombshell ‘Russiagate’ Claims Against Obama
Gabbard Sends Criminal Referral to DOJ Making Bombshell ‘Russiagate’ Claims Against Obama
The Department of Justice confirmed Monday that it has received a criminal referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard regarding her explosive allegations that Obama-era officials “manufactured and politicized intelligence” to construct the narrative of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, Fox News reports.
While the DOJ declined to provide additional details, it did confirm to Fox News that the referral had been received.
On Friday, Gabbard released a series of unclassified documents that she claims contain “overwhelming evidence” showing that then-President Barack Obama and his national security team laid the foundation for the years-long Trump-Russia collusion investigation following Donald Trump’s victory over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016.
“Their goal was to usurp President Trump and subvert the will of the American people,” Gabbard had posted to X on Friday regarding the criminal referral. “No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
“The integrity of our democratic republic depends on it. We are turning over all documents to the DOJ for criminal referral,” Gabbard added.
Appearing on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo on Sunday, Gabbard outlined the evidence uncovered in the case, which she described as “overwhelming” proof that Obama-era officials orchestrated the foundation for the Trump-Russia collusion hoax following the 2016 election.
“The implications of this are frankly nothing short of historic,” Gabbard said Sunday.
Over 100 documents that we released on Friday really detail and provide evidence of how this treasonous conspiracy was directed by President Obama just weeks before he was due to leave office after President Trump had already gotten elected,” the director of national intelligence and former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii continued.
“This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is an issue that is so serious it should concern every single American because it has to do with the integrity of our democratic republic,” she said.
Following Gabbard’s revelations, Trump posted a video on his Truth Social account featuring several prominent Democrats, including Obama, declaring that “no one is above the law.” The clip then cuts to an AI-generated scene depicting Trump and Obama in the Oval Office, ending with the 44th president being arrested by FBI agents as the song “YMCA” plays in the background.
Additionally, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has been releasing newly declassified documents tied to a 2018 DOJ Inspector General report examining the Justice Department’s handling of investigations surrounding the 2016 presidential election, Fox News confirmed Monday.
Specifically, Grassley plans to declassify the report’s appendix, which Fox has learned centers on the Clinton email investigation.
Hillary Clinton was the subject of an FBI investigation for storing classified information on a private email server at her home during her tenure as secretary of state under the Obama administration. Then-FBI Director James Comey publicly acknowledged that Clinton had illegally mishandled classified material but ultimately chose not to recommend criminal charges, claiming at the time that “no reasonable prosecutor” would pursue a case.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, complained strongly about Gabbard’s release of documents revealing the alleged abuse of power by Obama-era intelligence officials against Trump.
In an unhinged appearance Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Himes lashed out at Gabbard, claiming her release of the information implicating former CIA Director John Brennan was putting his life in danger from “MAGA mouth breathers.”
Margaret, what you saw from the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was not just a lie, but a very dangerous lie, because when you start throwing around language like sedition and treason, somebody is going to get hurt,” Himes claimed during the interview.
“And right now, you know, the mouth-breathers on MAGA online are just going out of their minds based on a lie,” he added
SHOWDOWN ON THE FIVE: Jessica Tarlov Drops Truth Bomb on GOP’s Controversial Voter Legislation
SHOWDOWN ON THE FIVE: Jessica Tarlov Drops Truth Bomb on GOP’s Controversial Voter Legislation
WASHINGTON — A ferocious battle over the soul of American democracy erupted on cable news this week, proving once again that the clash over election integrity is reaching a boiling point.
During a high-stakes segment on Fox News' top-rated program The Five, liberal co-host Jessica Tarlov ignited an intense firestorm by sounding the alarm on the Republican-backed SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act).
Her warning was sharp, direct, and unapologetic: This isn't just a simple Voter ID bill—it’s a bureaucratic roadblock designed to keep millions of legal Americans away from the ballot box.
"Far Beyond Voter ID": Tarlov Sounds the Alarm
While GOP proponents frame the SAVE Act as a common-sense measure to restore trust in elections, Tarlov shredded that narrative live on air, dissecting the fine print of the proposed federal mandate.
Under the bill, anyone registering to vote in federal elections would be legally required to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship—such as a physical U.S. passport, a certified birth certificate, or naturalization papers.
"People hear 'Voter ID' and think it’s just showing a driver's license at the counter," Tarlov argued. "It’s not. This bill demands physical proof of citizenship upfront. Millions of everyday, hard-working American citizens do not have a valid passport sitting in a drawer or immediate access to an official birth certificate. This creates an artificial barrier to a fundamental constitutional right." without instant paperwork access.
Integrity Guardrail or Voter Suppression? The Great Debate
The fiery television debate reflects a massive political rift tearing through Capitol Hill and statehouses across the country.
The Conservative Defense: Republican sponsors and conservative commentators insist the measure is vital to national security and sovereign elections. They argue that verifying citizenship at registration is a necessary safeguard to prevent non-citizens from ever slipping onto federal voter rolls.
The Progressive Pushback: Critics like Tarlov argue that non-citizen voting in federal elections is already illegal, strictly policed, and exceptionally rare. Opponents caution that adding heavy administrative hurdles will unintentionally disenfranchise lawful voters—particularly students, low-income citizens, rural voters, and women whose names have changed due to marriage.
The Stakes Couldn't Be Higher
As the debate over voter access versus election security intensifies, the SAVE Act has turned into a major political litmus test.
Is requiring physical proof of citizenship a mandatory protection to guarantee that every vote is lawful? Or is it an unnecessary, red-tape nightmare that punishes legal citizens for not having their paperwork in order?
One thing is certain: as long as voices like Jessica Tarlov continue to push back on prime-time television, the fight over who gets to vote—and how hard it is to do so—is far from over.
Jessica Tarlov Says Trump Has 35% Approval Rating in Most Polls
Supporters of the bill strongly disagree, saying it is designed to protect election integrity by preventing non-citizens from registering to vote. Opponents argue the existing safeguards are already sufficient and fear the measure could unintentionally disenfranchise lawful voters. Is the SAVE Act a necessary election safeguard, or does it create unnecessary barriers to voting?
Jessica Tarlov Suspended Indefinitely After Allegedly Assaulting Fox News Crew Member
Jessica Tarlov Suspended Indefinitely After Allegedly Assaulting Fox News Crew Member
NEW YORK — The set of Fox News’ hit show The Five has seen its fair share of heated shouting matches, but what went down behind the scenes this week turned a political debate into an outright crime scene.
In a shocking move that has sent shockwaves through Manhattan media circles, network executives have suspended co-host Jessica Tarlov indefinitely following an alleged physical assault on a crew member during a commercial break.
The reason for the explosive violent outburst? A camera operator made the fatal mistake of laughing out loud at one of her political talking points.
The Laugh That Triggered a Rampage
According to multiple insider accounts and studio witnesses, the situation escalated with terrifying speed. During a taped segment discussing presidential leadership, Tarlov aggressively defended President Joe Biden, passionately declaring him to be "one of the most alert and engaged presidents in American history."
While her conservative co-hosts on The Five usually counter her hot takes with eye-rolls and sharp rebuttals, it was an off-camera crew member who couldn't hold back.
A veteran camera operator reportedly chuckled out loud at the statement—a moment of candid disbelief that pushed Tarlov entirely over the edge.
"She just flew completely off the handle," one studio staffer revealed under the condition of anonymity. "Jessica has always been hyper-sensitive to pushback, but this was different. The moment she heard that laugh, her face changed. She lost control, lunged at the crew member, and turned physically aggressive. It took two floor managers to pull her off."
Fox News Responds: A Mandatory "Cooling-Off" Period
Network executives acted swiftly to control the fallout. Within hours of the incident, Tarlov was escorted from the building and informed of her immediate, indefinite suspension.
While the network hasn't closed the door permanently—noting they will consider a formal appeal at a later date—the consensus inside the building is clear: She is out for the foreseeable future.
In a internal memo, management framed the suspension as a mandatory "cooling-off period" to review safety protocols and investigate the physical altercation. However, staff members say the atmosphere on set remains deeply rattled.
Beyond Political Delusion: When Rhetoric Turns Violent
Political commentators across social media were quick to seize on the scandal. For years, Tarlov served as the resident liberal voice on The Five, regularly taking fire from a panel of staunch conservatives. But critics argue that defending the indefensible finally broke her composure.
To many viewers, claiming Biden was "sharp and alert" in 2024 or 2025 was already seen as an exercise in extreme political bias—but resorting to physical violence when called out on it marks a dangerous new low.
"This isn't just about partisan bias anymore," noted one media analyst following the story. "When a commentator becomes so consumed by political delusion that a simple chuckle triggers a physical assault, you've crossed a line from political debate into total instability."
What’s Next for The Five?
As Fox News searches for a temporary replacement to fill the liberal chair, the network faces intense scrutiny over workplace safety and on-set decorum.
Will Jessica Tarlov ever walk back onto the set of The Five, or has the "token leftist" finally burned her last bridge in cable news?
This story is actively developing. Scroll down to view real-time updates, legal analysis of the alleged assault, and reaction clips from around the media world!
