Potential Trump Supreme Court pick rails against ‘cultural elites' in drag ban reversal dissent
In his dissent, Ho invoked conservative talking points, like transgender sports participation, and railed against 'cultural elites.'
The case decided Monday concerned Spectrum WT, an LGBT+ student organization at West Texas A&M University. A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit split 2-1 in ruling for the group that had raised a free speech claim. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, the Trump appointee of mifepristone case fame, denied the group a preliminary injunction, reasoning that the First Amendment didn't apply to the drag show. The appellate panel majority reversed the district judge, with George W. Bush appointee Leslie Southwick writing the opinion, joined by Clinton appointee James Dennis.
Southwick wrote that Kacsmaryk 'erred in concluding that the plaintiffs were not substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim.' The panel majority said the plaintiffs' drag show is protected constitutional expression.
In his dissent, Ho argued that a 2010 Supreme Court precedent called Christian Legal Society (CLS) v. Martinez, which went against a student group that wanted to exclude gay people while receiving school funding, should've led the appellate panel to rule against the plaintiffs in this case. Writing that he disagrees with the CLS decision even as he's bound by it, Ho said he 'will not apply a different legal standard in this case, just because drag shows enjoy greater favor among cultural elites than the religious activities at issue in CLS.'
Obviously, the majority did not explain its ruling that way. One of the ways it sought to distinguish this case from the CLS case was by writing, 'Instead of the significant interference with the right of expressive association that the Supreme Court permitted there, the university here was interfering with the expressive activity itself, the speech.'
At any rate, one implication of Ho's dissent is that the majority did the untoward thing he valiantly refused to do: apply a double standard in service of some undefined 'cultural elites.' Lawyers and judges generally bolster their points by citing authorities, but Ho didn't do so there, nor did he explain which 'elites' he was talking about. Perhaps we are supposed to understand implicitly — and perhaps we do. Though one wonders how 'elite' is the group if it needs to wage a legal battle to put on a show?
Ho's 'cultural elites' remark was just the beginning, however. He added to his dissent's culture-war complaints by positing that 'if university officials allow men to act as women in campus events like drag shows, they may feel compelled to allow men to act as women in other campus events as well — like women's sports.'
The judge conceded that drag shows and women's sports 'might seem, on first blush, to have little to do with one another.' But he proceeded to make the case, citing sources that included a book that worried, 'If we accept that people can change genders — or even if we don't but agree to be 'polite' and call a man 'she' — then why shouldn't 'she' be allowed to play women's sports or bathe naked in an all-women's space? Why shouldn't 'she' be allowed to enter women's abuse houses or be transferred to a women's prison? Why accept one lie and not the whole thing?' (To be clear, Ho included that full quote in his dissent.)
He also leaned on Alito's dissent in the CLS case, which was joined by Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and the late Antonin Scalia. Ho separately cited Thomas' concurrence in the recent Skrmetti case approving a gender-affirming care ban for minors, specifically where Thomas noted 'several problems with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class.' Ho used the justice's observation to bolster his point that 'judges should not blindly trust experts in education, anymore than we should in any other field.'
It was the appeals court judge's latest display of his willingness — and apparent eagerness — to step into any vacancy that Thomas or Alito might one day leave. If such a vacancy emerges, then so does the prospect of encountering Ho's writings in Supreme Court opinions for decades to come.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
11 minutes ago
- Newsweek
China Is the Big Winner of the Trump-Putin Summit
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The clear winner of the recent Anchorage summit was not the United States or Russia. Nor was it the European Union, NATO, or Ukraine, all directly affected by the war in Eastern Europe. The big winner, at least for the moment, is the People's Republic of China. And China's only military ally, North Korea, did not do too badly either. Both Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at their post-meeting press conference tried to create the impression of momentum toward ending the three-year-old conflict in Ukraine. Putin used the word "agreement" and Trump mentioned "great progress." Russian President Putin and President Donald Trump pose for a photo during the welcoming ceremony prior to the meeting on the war in Ukraine on August 15, 2025, in Anchorage, Alaska. Russian President Putin and President Donald Trump pose for a photo during the welcoming ceremony prior to the meeting on the war in Ukraine on August 15, 2025, in Anchorage, Alaska. Getty Images Nonetheless, it was clear that the summit was a disappointment for the American side. There was, for instance, no ceasefire, which Trump publicly said he wanted. "There's no deal until there's a deal," an uncharacteristically somber Trump said after the shorter-than-expected face-to-face with Putin. "We didn't get there." No, they didn't. And no deal is precisely what China was looking for. Beijing, from all indications, hopes that the war in Ukraine will continue indefinitely. Hong Kong's South China Morning Post reported that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told Kaja Kallas, the EU foreign policy chief, on July 2 that China does not want Russia to lose because then the U.S. would focus on China. In addition to the continuation of the conflict, the Chinese leadership got something else on Friday. "For Beijing, the Alaska summit confirmed its core belief: The world is a stage for great-power bargains over spheres of influence," Charles Burton of the Prague-based Sinopsis think tank told Newsweek. China's regime, which has a top-down concept of the world, likes the idea of big countries, by themselves, settling the world's problems. "Now, there is a crucial precedent for a future summit between Trump and the Chinese leadership, where China would press for major concessions in East Asia," Burton said. One of those concessions would be American diplomatic recognition of North Korea, noted Burton, who was a Canadian diplomat in Beijing. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, China's only formal military ally, also has an interest in the continuation of the war in Ukraine. "The Kim regime is likely content to see the United States diplomatically engaged on other fronts," Greg Scarlatoiu, president and CEO of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, told Newsweek. "That will buy Kim Jong Un more time to continue his for-profit exportation of instability, violence, and tools of death." Kim has filled regime coffers via the sales of artillery shells and short-range ballistic missiles to Putin—28,000 containers of weapons according to one recent count. Kim also sent soldiers, up to 12,800 troops, to the Russian-Ukrainian battlefield late last year. Moreover, the North is dispatching perhaps 30,000 more of them now. That will be on top of combat engineers and miscellaneous workers. Russia, according to South Korean intelligence, is paying Kim $2,000 per month per trooper. Russia is reportedly transferring weapons tech to the North as well. Whatever Putin is paying or bartering, the Ukraine war has been a bonanza for the Kim regime. Yet a proverb from ancient China reminds us, "No feast lasts forever." Trump can end the Chinese banquet quickly if he imposes costs on Russia and its enablers. He will, for instance, have to hit China hard to cut off its flow of cash to Moscow. No cash for Putin means no war in Ukraine. On August 6, Trump by executive order imposed a 25 percent additional tariff on India for buying Russian oil, but he did not tariff China, which purchases even more of that commodity from Russia. Trump last Friday said he did not think he had to tariff China at this time. In a conversation with Fox News' Sean Hannity immediately after his meeting with Putin, the president said, "I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something. But we don't have to think about that right now. I think, you know, the meeting went very well." Whether the meeting with Putin went well or not—we will know only later—Trump cannot entice bad actors with reason alone; he needs to give them incentives to stop doing what they're doing. For the moment, Russia and supporters are trying Trump's patience, seeing how far they can push him. As a result, the American leader is taking heat for what looks like weak diplomacy. My sense is that Trump is trying to be generous. There is, however, only so much generosity in global politics. Trump could end his indulgent policies soon, especially if Putin continues to be intransigent. "Trump is losing patience," said Burton, the former diplomat. "The Russians, Chinese, and friends should watch out. When Trump decides it's time to hit them, he is going to hit them really hard." Gordon G. Chang is the author of Plan Red: China's Project to Destroy America and The Coming Collapse of China. Follow him on X @GordonGChang. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Axios
12 minutes ago
- Axios
Richmonders to get $3.5K tax cut in 2026
The average Richmonder will see a federal tax cut of nearly $3,500 in 2026 thanks to the "big, beautiful bill," per an analysis from the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan research group that mostly supports lower taxes. Why it matters: That's money folks can spend on other things — which could be essential next year given that wages still haven't caught up with inflation and tariffs threaten to push costs up further. State of play: The spending bill Congress passed last month made President Trump's first term tax cuts permanent — and added on a bunch more. The new tax breaks include deductions for tips and overtime income, a cut for seniors and an expanded child-care credit. These are temporary provisions. By the numbers: At $3,773, Richmond city residents will see the largest average tax cut next year among RVA metro area localities, per the Tax Foundation's number crunching. Chesterfield residents will see the smallest — $3,183. For Hanover taxpayers: $3,668. And it's $3,366 for Henrico residents. Zoom out: There are broad geographic differences in tax benefits from the spending bill due to variations in state and local taxes, plus areas where more high-earners live, Axios' Emily Peck and Jason Lalljee report. Virginia's Goochland County residents will see some of the largest average tax cuts in the state ($7,359), while Petersburg taxpayers will see the smallest ($1,428). The largest cuts in the country are going to mountain resort towns where high-earners and business owners live. In Teton County, Wy., residents will see an average tax cut of $37,373, the highest in the U.S. The smallest breaks are in rural counties — like Loup County, in Nebraska, where the average tax cut is $824. Zoom in: Business owners will get some of the biggest cuts — thanks, in part, to tax breaks being made permanent for research and development expenses and other provisions. Those in high-tax coastal regions will also get big breaks, thanks to the increased cap on state and local tax deductions (known as SALT — also temporary). For example, the average tax cut in 2026 for Westchester County, N.Y. — a high-income New York City suburb poised for a big SALT payoff — is $6,644. But just to the south, in the Bronx, the average tax cut is $1,761. Reality check: The "big, beautiful" bill also made some steep cuts to social spending on food benefits and Medicaid, but those mostly don't kick in until 2027 and 2028.
San Francisco Chronicle
12 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
First domino in national redistricting fight likely to fall with Texas GOP poised for vote on maps
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The first domino in a growing national redistricting battle is likely to fall Wednesday as the Republican-controlled Texas legislature is expected to pass a new congressional map creating five new winnable seats for the GOP. The vote follows prodding by President Donald Trump, eager to stave off a midterm defeat that would deprive his party of control of the House of Representatives, and weeks of delays after dozens of Texas Democratic state lawmakers fled the state in protest. Some Democrats returned Monday, only to be assigned round-the-clock police escorts to ensure their attendance at Wednesday's session. Those who refused to be monitored were confined to the House floor, where they protested on a livestream Tuesday night. Furious national Democrats have vowed payback for the Texas map, with California's legislature poised to approve new maps adding more Democratic-friendly seats later this week. The map would still need to be approved by that state's voters in November. Normally, states redraw maps once a decade with new census figures. But Trump is lobbying other conservative-controlled states like Indiana and Missouri to also try to squeeze new GOP-friendly seats out of their maps as his party prepares for a difficult midterm election next year. In Texas, Democrats spent the day before the vote continuing to draw attention to the extraordinary lengths the Republicans who run the legislature were going to ensure it takes place. Democratic state Rep. Nicole Collier started it when she refused to sign what Democrats called the 'permission slip' needed to leave the House chamber, a half-page form allowing Department of Public Safety troopers to follow them. She spent Monday night and Tuesday on the House floor, where she set up a livestream while her Democratic colleagues outside had plainclothes officers following them to their offices and homes. Dallas-area Rep. Linda Garcia said she drove three hours home from Austin with an officer following her. When she went grocery shopping, he went down every aisle with her, pretending to shop, she said. As she spoke to The Associated Press by phone, two unmarked cars with officers inside were parked outside her home. 'It's a weird feeling,' she said. 'The only way to explain the entire process is: It's like I'm in a movie.' The trooper assignments, ordered by Republican House Speaker Dustin Burrows, was another escalation of a redistricting battle that has widened across the country. Trump is pushing GOP state officials to tilt the map for the 2026 midterms more in his favor to preserve the GOP's slim House majority, and Democrats nationally have rallied around efforts to retaliate. Other Democrats join the protest House Minority Leader Gene Wu, from Houston, and state Rep. Vince Perez, of El Paso, stayed overnight with Collier, who represents a minority-majority district in Fort Worth. On Tuesday, more Democrats returned to the Capitol to tear up the slips they had signed and stay on the House floor, which has a lounge and restrooms for members. Dallas-area Rep. Cassandra Garcia Hernandez called their protest a 'slumber party for democracy,' and she said Democrats were holding strategy sessions on the floor. 'We are not criminals,' Houston Rep. Penny Morales Shaw said. Collier said having officers shadow her was an attack on her dignity and an attempt to control her movements. Republican leader says Collier 'is well within her rights' Burrows brushed off Collier's protest, saying he was focused on important issues, such as providing property tax relief and responding to last month's deadly floods. His statement Tuesday morning did not mention redistricting, and his office did not immediately respond to other Democrats joining Collier. 'Rep. Collier's choice to stay and not sign the permission slip is well within her rights under the House Rules,' Burrows said. Under those rules, until Wednesday's scheduled vote, the chamber's doors are locked, and no member can leave 'without the written permission of the speaker.' To do business Wednesday, 100 of 150 House members must be present. The GOP wants 5 more seats in Texas The GOP plan is designed to send five additional Republicans from Texas to the U.S. House. Texas Democrats returned to Austin after Democrats in California launched an effort to redraw their state's districts to take five seats from Republicans. Democrats also said they were returning because they expect to challenge the new maps in court. Republicans issued civil arrest warrants to bring the Democrats back after they left the state Aug. 3, and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott asked the state Supreme Court to oust Wu and several other Democrats from office. The lawmakers also face a fine of $500 for every day they were absent. How officers shadowed Democratic lawmakers Democrats reported different levels of monitoring. Houston Rep. Armando Walle said he wasn't sure where his police escort was, but there was still a heightened police presence in the Capitol, so he felt he was being monitored closely. Some Democrats said the officers watching them were friendly. But Austin Rep. Sheryl Cole said in a social media post that when she went on her morning walk Tuesday, the officer following her lost her on the trail, got angry and threatened to arrest her. Garcia said her 9-year-old son was with her as she drove home, and each time she looked in the rearview mirror, she could see the officer close behind. He came inside a grocery store where she shopped with her son. 'I would imagine that this is the way it feels when you're potentially shoplifting and someone is assessing whether you're going to steal," she said.
