Oregon High School Athletes File First Amendment Lawsuit Over Podium Protest
Alexa Anderson and Reese Eckard earned medals in the women's high jump at the 2025 Oregon State high school track and field championships.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling
Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision. Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees. In a petition for writ of certiorari filed last month, Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses. More fundamentally, she claims the high court's decision in Obergefell v Hodges -- extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment's due process protections -- was "egregiously wrong." "The mistake must be corrected," wrote Davis' attorney Mathew Staver in the petition. He calls Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell "legal fiction." The petition appears to mark the first time since 2015 that the court has been formally asked to overturn the landmark marriage decision. Davis is seen as one of the only Americans currently with legal standing to bring a challenge to the precedent. "If there ever was a case of exceptional importance," Staver wrote, "the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it." Lower courts have dismissed Davis' claims and most legal experts consider her bid a long shot. A federal appeals court panel concluded earlier this year that the former clerk "cannot raise the First Amendment as a defense because she is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect." Davis, as the Rowan County Clerk in 2015, was the sole authority tasked with issuing marriage licenses on behalf of the government under state law. "Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis's rehearing petition, and we are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention," said William Powell, attorney for David Ermold and David Moore, the now-married Kentucky couple that sued Davis for damages, in a statement to ABC News. A renewed campaign to reverse legal precedent Davis' appeal to the Supreme Court comes as conservative opponents of marriage rights for same-sex couples pursue a renewed campaign to reverse legal precedent and allow each state to set its own policy. At the time Obergefell was decided in 2015, 35 states had statutory or constitutional bans on same-sex marriages, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Only eight states had enacted laws explicitly allowing the unions. So far in 2025, at least nine states have either introduced legislation aimed at blocking new marriage licenses for LGBTQ people or passed resolutions urging the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell at the earliest opportunity, according to the advocacy group Lambda Legal. In June, the Southern Baptist Convention -- the nation's largest Protestant Christian denomination -- overwhelmingly voted to make "overturning of laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God's design for marriage and family" a top priority. Support for equal marriage rights softening While a strong majority of Americans favor equal marriage rights, support appears to have softened in recent years, according to Gallup -- 60% of Americans supported same-sex marriages in 2015, rising to 70% support in 2025, but that level has plateaued since 2020. Among Republicans, support has notably dipped over the past decade, down from 55% in 2021 to 41% this year, Gallup found. Davis' petition argues the issue of marriage should be treated the same way the court handled the issue of abortion in its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v Wade. She zeroes in on Justice Clarence Thomas' concurrence in that case, in which he explicitly called for revisiting Obergefell. The justices "should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote at the time, referring to the landmark decisions dealing with a fundamental right to privacy, due process and equal protection rights. "It is hard to say where things will go, but this will be a long slog considering how popular same-sex marriage is now," said Josh Blackman, a prominent conservative constitutional scholar and professor at South Texas College of Law. Blackman predicts many members of the Supreme Court's conservative majority would want prospective challenges to Obergefell to percolate in lower courts before revisiting the debate. The court is expected to formally consider Davis' petition this fall during a private conference when the justices discuss which cases to add to their docket. If the case is accepted, it would likely be scheduled for oral argument next spring and decided by the end of June 2026. The court could also decline the case, allowing a lower court ruling to stand and avoid entirely the request to revisit Obergefell. "Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett seem wildly uninterested. Maybe Justice Neil Gorsuch, too," said Sarah Isgur, an ABC News legal analyst and host of the legal podcast Advisory Opinions. "There is no world in which the court takes the case as a straight gay marriage case," Isgur added. "It would have to come up as a lower court holding that Obergefell binds judges to accept some other kind of non-traditional marital arrangement." MORE: 20 years of marriage rights for same-sex couples. Research disputes apocalyptic fears Ruling wouldn't invalidate existing marriages If the ruling were to be overturned at some point in the future, it would not invalidate marriages already performed, legal experts have pointed out. The 2022 Respect for Marriage Act requires the federal government and all states to recognize legal marriages of same-sex and interracial couples performed in any state -- even if there is a future change in the law. Davis first appealed the Supreme Court in 2019 seeking to have the damages suit against her tossed out, but her petition was rejected. Conservative Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred with the decision at the time. "This petition implicates important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell, but it does not cleanly present them," Thomas wrote in a statement. Many LGBTQ advocates say they are apprehensive about the shifting legal and political landscape around marriage rights. There are an estimated 823,000 married same-sex couples in the U.S., including 591,000 that wed after the Supreme Court decision in June 2015, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School. Nearly one in five of those married couples is parenting a child under 18. Since the Obergefell decision, the makeup of the Supreme Court has shifted rightward, now including three appointees of President Donald Trump and a 6-justice conservative supermajority. Chief Justice John Roberts, among the current members of the court who dissented in Obergefell a decade ago, sharply criticized the ruling at the time as "an act of will, not legal judgment" with "no basis in the Constitution." He also warned then that it "creates serious questions about religious liberty." Davis invoked Roberts' words in her petition to the high court, hopeful that at least four justices will vote to accept her case and hear arguments next year. Solve the daily Crossword
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Ghislaine Maxwell Holds the Key to Trump's Murdoch Lawsuit—and Her Jail Cell
In case you haven't noticed, there is nothing more important to President Donald Trump than enriching himself. The uproar over releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files may have angered some of his base, but, remember, Trump has been covered with scandal his entire life, and it hasn't held him back. So, if you think that the only thing Trump wants from Epstein's co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell is for her to say Trump's friendship with Epstein was only a matter of their common interest in Rococo decoration, you'd be wrong. Sure, she will say something like this, but Maxwell can also put money in Trump's pocket. In the end, that will matter more to him. Here's how she'll do it. Trump has sued media titan Rupert Murdoch and others because his newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, published a bawdy letter it said Trump sent to Epstein for his 50th birthday. According to the Journal article, Trump's letter was part of an album Maxwell assembled containing notes from Epstein's friends. To authenticate Trump's note and the obscene drawing that accompanied it, Journal reporters claim to have seen the album and talked to people knowledgeable about it. Donald Trump and his girlfriend (and future wife), former model Melania Knauss, financier (and future convicted sex offender) Jeffrey Epstein, and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club, in Palm Beach, Fla.,... Donald Trump and his girlfriend (and future wife), former model Melania Knauss, financier (and future convicted sex offender) Jeffrey Epstein, and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club, in Palm Beach, Fla., on Feb. 12, 2000. MoreBut Trump emphatically denies ever writing the note, including its wish for Epstein that "may every day be another wonderful secret." He sued Murdoch and the others for defaming him—for publishing false and damaging statements about him with intent to harm his reputation. Murdoch and his fellow defendants want the case dismissed. They certainly have powerful First Amendment free speech claims to make, but they may not get an exoneration so easily. Trump may be able to drag Murdoch and his empire through the mud for a while before there's any decision about whether The Wall Street Journal was telling the truth. On that score, Maxwell may hold the key. It would be one thing if the Journal had incontestable evidence that Trump wrote the letter. Murdoch and the newspaper might win a quick judgment if that were the case, but Maxwell could block that by aiding Trump. Without a quick win, Murdoch and company will face the ugly business of the evidence gathering process known as discovery. Trump will demand to pry into the inner workers of the Murdoch empire. He will seek mountains of documents, pose endless written questions, and demand pre-trial testimony from a parade of witnesses. Too often judges don't adequately police the discovery process, and it leads to endless fights, expenses, and for Murdoch, unwelcome publicity for his personal and business life. Maxwell's course to help give Trump his chance to engage in this torment is simple. Remember, Trump has no case if it turns out he wrote the licentious letter. All Maxwell has to say is that she assembled the album and doesn't recall any letter in it from Donald Trump. In the world of Trump bribery, this should be worth a commutation—a shortening—of her sentence. For a pardon, she would do better to say that she specifically recalls that Trump did not send a greeting and that the two former friends fell out because Trump felt there was something fishy about Epstein. Wait for it. It's coming. If it wasn't discussed between Maxwell and Trump's personal lawyer and now Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche during their recent long interview together, Maxwell probably doesn't need to be told what to do about it. After all, she has already received an incentive having been moved to a comfier prison. Sadly, each new Trump bribery nightmare seems to keep coming true. Some hoped he really wouldn't accept the $400 million plane from Qatar, until he did. Some thought maybe CBS would show some backbone when Trump sued it, until it didn't. And now here's the scariest thought of all. If Trump can keep his lawsuit in court and Maxwell in his pocket, Trump's Wall Street Journal lawsuit might prove to be his biggest payoff of all. Why not? Murdoch also owns Fox News. He has been Trump's biggest booster in the past, so why shouldn't Murdoch be glad if Trump's lawsuit stays in court? It becomes a perfect way for Murdoch to willingly give Trump what he wants more than anything else—money. Thomas G. Moukawsher is a former Connecticut complex litigation judge and a former co-chair of the American Bar Association Committee on Employee Benefits. He is the author of the book, The Common Flaw: Needless Complexity in the Courts and 50 Ways to Reduce It. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump expands L.A. military tactics by sending National Guard to Washington D.C.
In an expansion of tactics started in June during immigration raids in Los Angeles, President Trump on Monday announced he would activate 800 National Guard troops in Washington, D.C. to help 'reestablish law and order' and 'take the capital back.' 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged out maniacs and homeless people,' Trump said at the White House briefing room. 'It's liberation day in D.C,' he declared. Trump, who sent roughly 5,000 Marines and National and Guard troops to Los Angeles in June in a move that was opposed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, is invoking section 740, of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, that places the DC Metropolitan police Department under direct federal control. But while Trump cited issues of violent crime in Washington — stating the city is 'totally out of control' — data show violent crime has declined significantly in recent years. Just a few weeks before before Trump took office, the Justice Department announced that violent crime in the city was at a 30-year low. Homicides were down 32%, robberies down 39% and armed carjackings down 53% when compared with 2023 levels, according to data collected by the Metropolitan Police Department. Trump's announcement that he was deploying troops to D.C comes two months after he sparked a major legal battle with California when he sent thousands of troops to L.A. He argued they were necessary to combat what he described as 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' as protests broke out in the city against federal immigration raids. But the protests calmed relatively quickly and local officials said they were primarily kept in check by local police. The National Guard troops and Marines wound up sparsely deployed in L.A. Some protected federal buildings, but most remained at the Joint Forces Training Base in Los Alamitos. Some of the deployed personnel assisted federal agents as they conducted immigration enforcement operations, but military officials said the troops were restricted to security and crowd control and had no law enforcement authority. The National Guard played a role in both the convoy that descended on MacArthur Park and the raid of cannabis farms in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. In June, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco ruled that Trump broke the law when he mobilized thousands of California National Guard members against the state's wishes. In a 36-page U.S. District Court decision, Breyer wrote that Trump's actions 'were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.' Breyer added that he was 'troubled by the implication' inherent in the Trump administration's argument that 'protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.' But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals paused that court order, allowing the troops to remain in Los Angeles while the case plays out in federal court. The appellate court found the president had broad, though not 'unreviewable,' authority to deploy the military in American cities.
