supreme court

Supreme Court Hears Case About Counting Ballots That Arrive After Election Day

The U.S. Supreme Court heard a case on Monday challenging a Mississippi law that extends the counting of mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days later. 

The ruling in Watson v. RNC could affect 14 states, three territories and Washington D.C., all of which accept and count late ballots, reports the National Conference of State Legislatures. 

Mississippi argued in its brief to the Supreme Court that voters were required by federal law to “make a final choice of officers” by Election Day, contending this does not mean that ballots have to be received by then. 

The Republican National Committee (RNC), disagreed, saying states were experimenting “with novel ballot handling rules.” Its brief quoted a previous Supreme Court decision: 

These post-election receipt deadlines invite “the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election.” …

It’s hard to blame Americans for those suspicions when some States produce quick results, while others take days to even know how many ballots need to be counted.  

While we won’t know the outcome for several months, conservative justices signaled their concern when late ballots are counted. 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh quoted a law review article from New York University Professor Richard Pildes. Kavanaugh said: 

Professor Pildes and others have said that late-arriving ballots open up a risk of what might destabilize the election results. “If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode. The longer after Election Day any significant changes in vote totals take place, the greater the risk that the losing side will cry that the election has been stolen.” 

He then asked Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart: 

Is that a real concern? Two, does that factor into how we think about how to resolve the scant text and the maybe conflicting or evolving history here?

Stewart responded that he respected that perception but added, “There has not been much of a showing about actual fraud from post-Election Day ballot receipt itself.” 

Other conservative justices expressed concern with Mississippi’s law. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Stewart why the state allows the U.S. Postal Service, whose workers are not state officials,to deliver late ballots that will be counted but preclude a friend or neighbor from delivering ballots “as long as it gets to the ballot box five days after Election Day.” 

Justice Samuel Alito pointed to Washington state, which allows ballots to be received and counted 21 days after Election Day, asking Stewart if there was an outer limit to when ballots can be received.  

Alito also pointed to elections taking place on a single day, saying: 

We have lots of phrases that involve two words, the last of which, the second of which is day, Labor Day, Memorial Day, George Washington’s birthday, Independence Day, birthday, and Election Day, and they’re all particular days.

The justice did note that there were some exceptions to the single day during times of war, but then asked, “What would an ordinary person have thought Election Day meant in 1872?” – the year Congress directed House elections occur on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November. 

The more liberal justices seemed likely to side with Mississippi, saying courts should defer to state and federal laws. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed to the long history of permitting absentee ballots received after Election Day to be counted during times of crisis, like the Civil War and World War II. She said to Stewart: 

So the people who should decide this issue are not the courts but Congress, correct? … The states and Congress.

Mississippi first enacted the law to accept late-arriving mail-in ballots during the COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020. RNC, the Mississippi Republican Party and two individuals challenged the law in January 2024. 

The next month, the Libertarian Party of Mississippi also filed a lawsuit against the state’s election policy. The cases were consolidated by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, which later ruled against the plaintiffs.  

The RNC and the Libertarian Party appealed, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in their favor, so Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson appealed to the Supreme Court. 

At issue are two provisions in the U.S. Constitution. The electors clause states, “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors” for president. The elections clause gave states the authority to decide “The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,” but it adds, “The Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” 

Initially, states had 34 days in which to hold elections, but the outcome from early voting states could affect turnout and influence votes in states that held late elections. 

In 1845, Congress established the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the date for presidential elections, voting in 1872 that House elections would be held the same day. In 1914, after the 17th Amendment was passed allowing direct voting for senators, Congress again voted to hold those elections on the same day as the presidential and House elections. 

Voters want access to voting, but they also want election security, with elections free from fraud or the appearance of fraud. 

A recent poll from the Honest Elections Project showed that 83% of voters support Election Day ballot deadlines, with 78% of voters agreeing that this makes elections more secure. 

We’ll know in several months whether the Court agrees with them and decides whether federal laws mandate that ballots are cast and received by Election Day. 

The case is Watson v. RNC. 

Related articles and resources: 

Are Elections Secure? 10 Examples of Election Issues Around the Country

Can the US Postal System Be Trusted with Our Ballots?

Election Security Is on the Ballot in November and December

Georgia’s Election Integrity Act – Voter Suppression or Election Integrity?

The Heritage Foundation: Election Integrity and the American Republic

Is it ‘Voter Suppression’ to Require Proof of Citizenship to Vote?

Supreme Court Affirms Parents’ Rights Over California’s ‘Transgender’ School Policies

The United States Supreme Court struck a blow against the California Department of Education and schools that hide information from parents about a child’s sexual identity confusion.

In a 6-3 per curiam [by the Court] decision, the justices struck down a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that had blocked a lower court decision affirming parents’ rights over school “transgender parental exclusion policies.” 

The case, Mirabelli v. Bonta, involved California teachers who were forced to lie to parents about children’s “transgender” ideation, as well as the parents whose rights were violated by those lies. 

In a press release announcing the victory for parental rights and religious freedom, the Thomas More Society called the decision “historic and groundbreaking,” saying the ruling “dismantles California’s secret gender transition regime.” 

“Transgender identity” is a serious mental health issue, often accompanied by other significant mental, social and psychological problems. Children wrestling with sexual identity confusion often have deep-seated hatred of their bodies, accompanied by the mistaken belief that they can somehow change their sex with dangerous and experimental medical interventions. 

Of course schools should inform parents if their children are wrestling with these challenges.

Following the Court’s ruling, California schools can no longer hide this vital information from parents while this case continues to make its way through the courts.

The Thomas More Society, which fights on behalf of life, family and freedom, explained the significance of the ruling:

The landmark 6-3 decision is the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation. The Court found that California’s secret transition regime likely violates parents’ rights under both the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, holding that the state “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.”

The opinion has important ramifications, as almost 40 similar cases are making their way through the courts. 

The case began in April 2023 when Thomas More brought a lawsuit on behalf of two middle school teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, against the Escondido Unified School District “over policies requiring them to keep secrets from, and even lie to, parents about their minor-age students.”

In its recent decision, the Supreme Court explained how the case grew from there: 

During litigation, the school district claimed that state law, as interpreted by the California attorney general and Department of Education, required it to adopt these policies. So the teachers added state officials as defendants, and parents of California schoolchildren joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs.

One set of parents, “John and Jane Poe,” rejected transgender dogma, including the idea that children have a “gender identity” different from their sex. But their school affirmed their seventh-grade daughter’s use of a male name and male pronouns. 

Sadly, as the opinion explains: 

At the beginning of their daughter’s eighth-grade year, she attempted suicide and was hospitalized. Only then did her parents learn from a doctor that she had gender dysphoria and had been presenting as a boy at school.

The parents moved her to a different school, but educators there also affirmed her delusion,“citing their obligations under California state law.”  

Similarly, a school hid another seventh-grade girl’s shift to using a male name and pronouns from her parents, “John and Jane Doe,” who also joined the case. 

From these beginnings, the case grew into a class action lawsuit on behalf of all California parents and educators who disagreed with state transgender mandates, for religious or other reasons. 

The California Department of Education had based its parental exclusion policies on state anti-discrimination and privacy statutes. The department argued that telling parents about children’s sexual identity confusion violated students’ right to privacy and was discriminatory. 

But parents and teachers countered, saying their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction. 

He ruled that the school district and the state could not enforce the “offensive policy while the case is under court consideration.” 

The Ninth Circuit overturned that ruling in favor of the state, so plaintiffs appealed to the high Court. 

This decision only overturned the Ninth Circuit ruling on behalf of parents and did not discuss the issue of educators being forced to lie. 

Per curiam decisions are usually anonymous and unsigned, but several Justices signaled their agreement with this one: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have granted the request to overrule the Ninth Circuit in full; Sonia Sotomayor would have denied the application; and Neil Gorsuch was part of the 6-3 majority.  

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a concurring opinion discussing the religious freedom and substantive due process issues, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining her. 

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the decision, saying the Court had acted precipitously and could have chosen one of the almost 40 similar cases to fully evaluate the issues.

The case is Mirabelli v. Bonta. 

Related articles and resources: 

Thomas More Society: Mirabelli, et al. v. Bonta and U.S. Supreme Court Delivers Historic, Groundbreaking Victory for Parental Rights, Dismantles California’s Secret Gender Transition Regime

BREAKING: Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Says California School District Cannot Force Teachers to Lie to Parents About Their Children’s ‘Gender Identity’

California Teachers Told to Hide Information About Students’ ‘Gender’ From Parents – They’re Suing

California Schools May Not Hide Students’ ‘Gender Identity’ From Parents

Exclusive Interview: Colorado Parents Expose ‘Gender Cult’ at Public School in New Documentary

Florida Parents Sue School for Helping Teen ‘Transition’ – Without Their Knowledge or Consent

Homosexuality Resources

Six California School Districts Pass Parental Notification Policies for Children Confused About Their Sexual Identity

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Colorado Case on Parental Rights, Still Considering Two Similar Cases

Transgender Resources

What’s Your School District’s ‘Transgender’ Policy?

Athletes Rally at Supreme Court to Keep Boys Out of Girls Sports

Dozens of athletes, business owners, lawmakers and activists rallied to protect women’s sports yesterday while the Supreme Court heard arguments in State of West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox — two cases which will determine whether states can enforce laws keeping boys out of girls sports.

The rally, hosted by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the law firm helping litigate BPJ and Little, boasted a roster of powerful speakers — including eight women forced to compete against or alongside men.

“I was pleased and honored to be at the Supreme Court rally,” Tim Goeglein, Focus on the Family’s vice president of External and Government Relations, told the Daily Citizen, describing the lively, tight-packed crowd.

“Focus on the Family believes girls should compete against girls, and that boys should compete against boys,” Goeglein continued. “That makes sports competition fair for everyone.”

He concluded:

We believe fairness will be upheld [in BPJ and Little], affirming foundational justice in one of the most high profile sets of cases in this Supreme Court term.

Riley Gaines, Brooke Slusser, Kaylie Ray, Kaitlynn Wheeler, Stephanie Turner, Selina Soule, Sara Casebolt and Alexa Anderson each experienced firsthand the damage men cause by invading women’s sports.

Gaines and Wheeler, who swam together at the University of Kentucky, were forced to compete against and change in front of Lia Thomas — a man.

Slusser practiced and lived with Blaire Fleming, a teammate on San Jose State University’s women’s volleyball team. The university never told Slusser that Fleming was a man.

Slusser and Fleming played in the same conference as Ray, the captain of Utah State’s women’s volleyball team. Ray and her team chose to forfeit games against Fleming.

“The leaders whose responsibility it was to protect student athletes chose silence,” Ray recalled at the rally.

“Instead, they placed the burden on us — individual players — to forfeit in order to preserve our dignity.”

Turner took a knee at a USA Fencing competition rather than compete against a man.

“That act was not defiance,” she told rally-goers. “It was desperation. It was a cry for help.”

Soule, Anderson and Casebolt each lost high school track and field races to boys. Anderson received hate mail for refusing to share the podium with a male competitor.

All eight athletes addressed the rally, not with bitterness, but with earnest desire to protect their fellow athletes — including family members — from enduring the same hardship.  

Turner felt alone after she took a knee. But she did it so other girls would never have to. Meaningful change begins when a few people make the choice to do good, she reflected, even when it’s costly and uncomfortable.

Wheeler spoke on behalf of her younger sister, who was “made to feel like the problem” after objecting to undressing in front a man.

“[My sister] didn’t consent to this ideology,” Wheeler emphasized, speaking loudly to drown out disruptive counter protesters:

She didn’t consent to the exploitation happening in the locker rooms. She should never have had to sacrifice her privacy for someone else’s identity. And she shouldn’t have to sacrifice her privacy so adults can avoid telling the truth.

Gaines brought her three-month old daughter along to the rally, protected by a tiny bullet-proof vest.

“My world was flipped upside down three months ago when my husband and I welcomed our little baby girl into this world,” Gaines recalled fondly.

She concluded:

I hope one day, when she’s old enough, she will look back on the fight … that we have been fighting … and recognize that we’re fighting for her. We’re fighting for her to be able to call her champion. We are fighting for a fair and safe and just and righteous country and world that she will inherit.

The Daily Citizen praises these athletes for their courage and selflessness in advocating to keep men out of women’s sports.

Additional Articles and Resources

Top 5 Moments From Supreme Court Arguments Over Girls Sports

Supreme Court to Hear Title IX Girls Sports Case

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Cases on Boys in Girls Sports

UPenn Will Strip ‘Lia’ Thomas of Medals, Apologize to Female Athletes

SJSU Hired Same Law Firm to Simultaneously Defend and Investigate Male Athlete on Women’s Team

NCAA and San Jose State ‘Transgender’ Volley Player Usurp Women’s Rights

Four Women’s Volleyball Teams Forfeit — Won’t Play Team with a Man

USA Fencing Explicitly Prioritizes Men’s Feelings Over Women’s Safety and Athletic Achievement

Yes, Girls Care When Boys Take Their Trophies

Appeals Court Revives Case Disputing Men’s Participation in Girls High School Sports

Riley Gaines Announces and Celebrates New Baby

Supreme Court Upholds Age-Verification Law

The Supreme Court upheld Texas’ age-verification legislation today in a 6-3 decision, with the six conservative justices ruling states can constitutionally require pornography companies to verify consumers’ ages.

“This is a major victory for children, parents and the ability of states to protect minors from the damaging effects of online pornography,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who defended the contested law, wrote in a press release.

“Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures.”

Background

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton concerned HB 1181, a 2023 Texas law requiring websites with a substantial amount of obscene or adult content — more than one-third of all content offered — verify consumers’ ages.

The Free Speech Coalition (FSC), which represents more than a dozen pornography companies, sued Texas, claiming HB 1181 infringed on pornographers’ freedom of speech, citizens’ privacy and adults’ right to access obscene content.

U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra prevented Texas from enforcing HB 1181 in 2023 after determining it would not pass strict scrutiny — the highest standard of legal review reserved for laws that restrict speech based on its content.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling in 2024, holding HB 1181 should be evaluated under rational-basis review — the lowest standard of legal review that only evaluates whether a law serves a legitimate government interest.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Paxton on January 13. Though the court had previously evaluated obscenity cases with strict scrutiny, some justices acknowledged new precedent may be necessary in a digital age.

Opinion

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett.

The Court held HB 1181 must pass intermediate scrutiny — a middling standard of review appropriate for laws that only incidentally burden free speech.

“Adults have the right to access speech obscene only to minors, and submitting to age verification burdens the exercise of that right,” Thomas acknowledged, continuing:

But adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification. Any burden on adults is therefore incidental to regulating activity not protected by the First Amendment.

To pass intermediate scrutiny, a law must serve a compelling government interest without “burden[ing] substantially more speech” than necessary to serve that purpose.

States not only have an undeniable interest in protecting children from obscenity, Thomas noted, but long-standing Constitutional authority to use age-verification laws to fulfill this interest.

“States have long used age-verification requirements to reconcile their interest in protecting children from sexual material with adults’ right to avail themselves of such material,” he wrote.

“HB 1181 simply adapts this approach to the digital age.”

FSC had argued age-verification would dissuade adults from exercising their right to consume pornography. Thomas found these arguments “unpersuasive.”

“The use of pornography has always been the subject of social stigma,” he reasoned. “This social reality has never been a reason to exempt the pornography industry from otherwise valid regulation.”

Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent, which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined, acknowledges the state has a compelling interest in protecting children from obscenity. It contended, however, HB 1181 should be evaluated under strict scrutiny.

Kagan wrote:

Texas’ law defines speech by content and tells people entitled to view that speech that they must incur a cost to do so. That is, under our First Amendment law, a direct (not incidental) regulation of speech based on its content — which demands strict scrutiny.

To pass strict scrutiny, a law must serve a compelling interest and restrict speech in the least burdensome way possible. Kagan does not believe HB 1181 would pass this test.

In the majority opinion, Thomas dismissed strict scrutiny as an inappropriate standard because HB 1181 does not ban adults from accessing obscene content. He further noted strict scrutiny should not be used to evaluate laws, like age-verification, that are “traditional and widely accepted as legitimate.”

Impact

The ruling establishes a constitutional avenue for states to require pornography companies to verify online consumers’ ages. It could also provide precedent for a federal age-verification law, like the SCREEN Act.

Porn consumption — and porn companies’ profits — plummet when states force them to check consumers’ ages. Traffic to Pornhub.com dropped 80% in Louisiana after it passed age-verification legislation in 2022, one spokesperson told the Institute for Family Studies.

That’s great news, given what we know about the exploitative pornography industry and its effect on human sexuality. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation writes of the ruling:

All of the world’s most abusive, violent and racist pornographic content is easily accessible to children online. That’s why today’s decision by the Supreme Court is so critical.
Now children in Texas will have a measure of protection from accessing pornography websites that are rampant with content that includes sexual assault, rape, child sexual abuse, image-based sexual abuse [and] other violent and racist themes.

The Daily Citizen applauds the Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of HB 1181 and, ultimately, siding with parents trying to protect their children from pornography.

Additional Articles and Resources

UPDATED: Pornography Age Verification Laws — What They Are and Which States have Them

Pornography is Bad for Humans. The Progressive Left Can’t Afford to Admit It.

Porn Companies Condition viewers to Desire Illegal and Abusive Content

Porn Companies Sued for Violating Kansas Age Verification Law

National Center on Sexual Exploitation Targets law Allowing Tech Companies to Profit from Online Sex Abuse

Proposed SCREEN Act Could Protect Kids from Porn

A Mother’s Sensibility at the Supreme Court Regarding Pornography

Pornhub Quits Texas Over Age Verification Law

Supreme Court Defends Religious Freedom, Parental Rights Over ‘LGBT’ Curriculum

In a decisive victory for people of faith, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of parental rights and religious freedom over mandated “LGBT” curriculum in public school classrooms.

The decision affirms schools can’t force children to participate in LGBT classroom material without offering parents the right to opt out based on sincerely held religious beliefs.

Background

The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, involves a group of Maryland parents from diverse religious backgrounds asking to opt their children out of mandated LGBT curricula at school.

As reported by the Daily Citizen, the case originated in 2023 when the school district eliminated an opt-out provision for LGBT children’s books read in the classroom.

A multi-faith parent group sued the school district, claiming the policy infringed on their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

They requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the school district from requiring their children to read, listen to or discuss the storybooks while the case was being litigated on the merits of its constitutional claims. The parents lost in both lower courts.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in April.

Opinion

The majority opinion was authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

The Court ruled parents have the First Amendment free exercise right to opt their children out of LGBT classroom materials in public elementary schools.

The majority affirmed when schools force exposure to content conflicting with sincerely held religious beliefs, like marriage and gender identity, the schools substantially burden the rights of religious parents.

The Court applied strict scrutiny because it involves the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Here, the Court held the school district’s failure to allow religious opt-outs violated strict scrutiny because the school offered opt-outs in other contexts but refused to accommodate religious objections to LGBT material.

The majority reversed the lower court’s ruling and granted a preliminary injunction to the parents, which requires the district to provide notice before using LGBT curriculum and permits students to opt out of the instruction while the case continues to be litigated on its merits.

Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion emphasizing an important “implication of this decision for schools across the country.”

He wrote:

The Board may not insulate itself from First Amendment liability by “weav[ing]”religiously offensive material throughout its curriculum and thereby significantly increase the difficulty and complexity of remedying parents’ constitutional injuries.

He warned, “Insofar as schools or boards attempt to employ their curricula to interfere with religious exercise, courts should carefully police such ‘ingenious defiance of the Constitution.'”

Public schools have officially been put on notice by Justice Thomas.

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.

Dissenting Justices argued this decision might undermine the role of public education in exposing students to differing perspectives. They suggested the administrative burden to opt students out would be too cumbersome and that this might lead to students being exempted from essential history or science concepts based on religious objections.

Impact

This case will have long-lasting implications not just in Maryland but in public schools across the nation.

Religious freedom and parental rights have been strengthened in every state. This ruling recognizes parents have a First Amendment right to protect their children from instruction contradicting their sincerely held religious beliefs. Based on this case precedent, schools will now be required to provide notice and opt-outs for LGBT materials, especially for young children.

Public school districts and boards nationwide must now reconsider their approach to LGBT content and change their policies or face lawsuits from parents ready to protect their children and defend their religious freedom.

Focus on the Family applauds the Court’s decision. This case draws a clear line in the sand — public education must respect parental rights and the religious convictions of Christians and all people of faith.