Supreme Court backs Missouri, Kansas ban on gender transitions for children
The ruling in United States v. Skrmetti reflects Missouri's law banning what Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey calls 'gender mutilation' procedures for minors. Bailey says that the state played a pivotal role in the ruling.
16-year-old boy killed in Basehor, Kansas crash: KHP
In February, Kansas became the 27th state to ban or restrict such care when after barring federal support for gender-affirming care for youth under 19.
Kelly vetoed the bill on Feb. 11, saying it's inappropriate for politicians to infringe on parental rights. One week later, on Feb. 18, the veto was reversed.
'My office has been on the front lines of the fight to stop the mutilation of children in the name of radical gender ideology,' Bailey said.
'Missouri was the first state in the nation to win on this issue, and the Supreme Court's decision affirms what we've said all along: states have both the right and the duty to protect children from these irreversible and experimental procedures.'
Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach also released a statement on Wednesday, saying 'This decision is a big win for those of us who want to protect the original meaning of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment equal protection clause in no way prevents states from protecting minors in this contest. The decision also strengthens the state's position regarding Kansas's law. The Kansas equal protection clause must be interpreted in the same fashion as the U.S. equal protection clause. I look forward to defending the law in court.'
Suspect dead, trooper injured after shooting in Saline County
In the Skrmetti case, Bailey's office says that Missouri led 19 other states in asking the Supreme Court to allow states to ban gender transition practices.
'This is a victory not just for Missouri, but for every state fighting to shield children from irreversible harm disguised as medical care,' concluded Bailey. 'We are proud that the Supreme Court has now adopted the same position we've led on from day one: children deserve protection, not permanent damage. As a father and as Attorney General, I will not rest until every entity harming kids is shut down, every bad actor is held accountable, and Missouri remains the safest state in the nation for children.'
Other local leaders joined in as well. U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, R-Kan., shared a statement praising the decision.
'Today was not just a win for basic biology and common sense, but for human decency, sound medicine, and the dignity and safety of children everywhere,' Marshall said. 'As a doctor for over 25 years, I understand the gravity of these harmful so-called treatments radical activists have been pushing on children. They leave permanent scarring, sterilization, and other horrible side effects. Make no mistake, there's more work to do, and I remain committed to eliminating taxpayer-funded transgender procedures on both minors and adults.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
17 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
The American Fighting to Pry His Company Back From the Kremlin's Grasp
American businessman Leonid Smirnov first got the feeling that something was off when local Russian newspapers began airing rumors that the government was looking at taking over his company, the biggest producer of canned goods in the country. It was only when he received a phone call from an employee at 3:30 a.m. at his Los Angeles residence last October that he found out for sure that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered the nationalization of Glavprodukt. His was the first U.S.-owned company to fall victim to what is now a mounting wave of Kremlin business seizures.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Newsom calls Trump's $1 billion UCLA settlement offer extortion, says California won't bow
By Kanishka Singh WASHINGTON (Reuters) -California Governor Gavin Newsom said on Saturday that a $1 billion settlement offer by President Donald Trump's administration for UCLA amounted to political extortion to which the state will not bow. WHY IT'S IMPORTANT The University of California says it is reviewing a $1 billion settlement offer by the Trump administration for UCLA after the government froze hundreds of millions of dollars in funding over pro-Palestinian protests. UCLA, which is part of the University of California system, said this week the government froze $584 million in funding. Trump has threatened to cut federal funds for universities over pro-Palestinian student protests against U.S. ally Israel's military assault on Gaza. KEY QUOTES "Donald Trump has weaponized the DOJ (Department of Justice) to kneecap America's #1 public university system — freezing medical & science funding until @UCLA pays his $1 billion ransom," the office of Newsom, a Democrat, said in a post. "California won't bow to Trump's disgusting political extortion," it added. "This isn't about protecting Jewish students - it's a billion-dollar political shakedown from the pay-to-play president." CONTEXT The government alleges universities, including UCLA, allowed antisemitism during the protests and in doing so violated Jewish and Israeli students' civil rights. The White House had no immediate comment beyond the offer. Protesters, including some Jewish groups, say the government wrongly equates their criticism of Israel's war in Gaza and its occupation of Palestinian territories with antisemitism, and their advocacy for Palestinian rights with support for extremism. Experts have raised free speech and academic freedom concerns over the Republican president's threats. The University of California says paying such a large settlement would "completely devastate" the institution. UCLA PROTESTS AND ENVIRONMENT Large demonstrations took place at UCLA last year. Last week, UCLA agreed to pay over $6 million to settle a lawsuit by some students and a professor who alleged antisemitism. It was also sued this year over a 2024 violent mob attack on pro-Palestinian protesters. Rights advocates have noted a rise in antisemitism, anti-Arab bias and Islamophobia due to conflict in the Middle East. The Trump administration has not announced equivalent probes into Islamophobia. RECENT SETTLEMENTS The government has settled its probes with Columbia University, which agreed to pay over $220 million, and Brown University, which said it will pay $50 million. Both accepted certain government demands. Settlement talks with Harvard University are ongoing.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
The legal battle over Trump's use of the National Guard moves to a California courtroom
Lawyers for President Donald Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are set to face off Monday to determine whether the president violated a 147-year-old law when he deployed the National Guard to quell protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles – against the wishes of the Democratic governor. In June, as hundreds of people gathered in Los Angeles to protest a string of immigration raids that targeted workplaces and left dozens of people detained or deported, the president federalized and deployed 4,000 National Guard members over the objection of Newsom and local officials, who said the deployment would only cause further chaos. Trump invoked a rarely used law that allows the president to federalize the National Guard during times of actual or threatened rebellion or invasion, or when regular forces can't enforce US laws. The president's lawyers said in a court filing that the duties of the National Guard troops and a handful of Marines also dispatched were narrowly circumscribed: They were dispatched only to protect federal property and personnel, and they didn't engage in any law enforcement activities. Newsom filed a lawsuit June 9 against Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, saying they violated the Posse Comitatus Act and the 10th Amendment. Trump's lawyers say the act, which prevents the use of the military for enforcing laws, doesn't provide a mechanism for a civil lawsuit. But Newsom's lawyers have argued the president illegally made an 'unprecedented power grab' – and even violated the Constitution – by overruling local authorities to send in the military. The president and Hegseth 'have overstepped the bounds of law and are intent on going as far as they can to use the military in unprecedented, unlawful ways,' Newsom's lawyers say in a complaint. The trial represents a crucial moment for determining how much power a US president can lawfully exercise over the military on domestic soil. During his first term, Trump had often speculated openly about the possibility of deploying the military on American soil, whether to suppress protests or combat crime. Now he's talking about deploying the National Guard to the nation's capital over recent high-profile crimes. The trial also represents an escalation of the feud between Trump and Newsom, which saw the president threaten to have the Democratic governor arrested during the Los Angeles protests. Newsom described the comment as 'an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' The judge set to preside over the bench trial, Charles R. Breyer, previously granted a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration, ruling that the president unlawfully federalized the National Guard and that the protests didn't amount to an insurrection. But just hours later, an appeals court paused his ruling, allowing the deployment to continue. Here's more on what to know about the upcoming trial – and the three laws Newsom's team says Trump and Hegseth violated. The trial is taking place in San Francisco, presided over by Breyer, who sits on the US District Court for the Northern District of California, with proceedings scheduled from Monday to Wednesday. At the center of the legal proceedings is the Posse Comitatus Act, which largely prevents the president from using the military as a domestic police force, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, an independent law and policy organization. 'Posse Comitatus' is a Latin term used in American and British law to describe 'a group of people who are mobilized by the sheriff to suppress lawlessness in the county,' according to the Brennan Center. The act, signed into law by President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1878, consists of just one sentence: 'Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.' Newsom's lawyers say the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles was a violation of the act since it bars 'the military from engaging in civil law enforcement unless explicitly authorized by law,' according to the complaint. But Trump's lawyers insist the National Guard and Marines didn't engage in any civil law enforcement – and therefore didn't violate the act. Moreover, they say the act itself doesn't provide any mechanisms for its enforcement in a private civil lawsuit. Newsom's lawyers also argue that by overriding California officials, Trump violated the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which governs the sharing of power between the federal government and the 50 states. The amendment says 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' Trump and Hegseth's move to call up the National Guard against the governor's wishes 'infringes on Governor Newsom's role as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard and violates the State's sovereign right to control and have available its National Guard in the absence of a lawful invocation of federal power,' Newsom's complaint says. Policing and crime control are some of the most crucial uses of state power, Newsom's lawyers say. Additionally, Newsom's lawyers argue Trump and Hegseth violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which says a court must 'hold unlawful and set aside agency action' that is 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law,' that is 'contrary to constitutional right (or) power,' or that is 'in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.' Hegseth and the Department of Defense 'lack authority to federalize members of the California National Guard without issuing such orders through Governor Newsom, who has not consented to their actions or been afforded the opportunity to consult on any deployment. Such agency actions are unauthorized, unprecedented, and not entitled to deference by this Court,' reads the complaint. Trump's lawyers, meanwhile, have focused in their filing on a little-used law they cited to federalize the National Guard. Section 12406(3) of the US Code says the president can federalize the National Guard of any state in three circumstances: if the US is being invaded or faces danger of invasion; if there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion; or if the president is unable 'with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' The law, however, stipulates the orders should be issued 'through the governors.' Newsom's lawyers say Trump didn't consult with the governor before issuing the order. Breyer previously pointed out Trump's memo directed Hegseth to consult the governor before federalizing the National Guard – but that he didn't. The Los Angeles deployment was only the second time in US history that a president has used the 'exclusive authority' of this law to federalize the National Guard, according to Newsom's lawyers. The first was when President Richard Nixon called on the National Guard to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service strike. And it's the second time since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators, that a president activated a state's national guard without a request from the governor – though he used a different law to do so. Trump's lawyers say the president was unable to enforce federal immigration law 'as well as laws forbidding interference with federal functions or assaults on federal officers and property' with 'the regular forces' – so the deployment falls within the limits of Section 12406(3). With only 300 National Guard troops still deployed in Los Angeles, Newsom's lawyers are looking mostly for symbolic relief: a declaration the memorandum used to federalize the National Guard and Hegseth's orders were unauthorized and illegal. The remaining troops are stationed at Joint Forces Training Base – Los Alamitos, Newsom says, 'without a clear mission, direction, or a timeline for returning to their communities.' Newsom's team is also asking for 'injunctive relief' prohibiting Hegseth and the Department of Defense from federalizing and deploying the California National Guard and military without meeting legal requirements, including the cooperation of the governor. Finally, they ask to recoup the state of California's costs and attorneys' fees and 'such additional relief as the court deems proper and the interests of justice may require.' Trump's lawyers indicated in a court filing they plan to call as a witness Maj. Gen. Scott M. Sherman, deputy commanding general of the National Guard. Sherman is expected to discuss the National Guard's deployment to Los Angeles and their compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act. Newsom's lawyers also plan to call Sherman, as well as US Army official William B. Harrington to testify about the activities of Task Force 51, the command post activated to coordinate deployment of National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles. Ernesto Santacruz Jr. of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is also expected to testify about the federalized National Guard's activities in support of federal law enforcement officials during immigration enforcement operations.
