Right now where you live healthcare for trans kids is either being made literally illegal by your state or made functionally illegal by the unlawful threats of the federal government and a care infrastructure glad to sacrifice trans kids on the altar of appeasement.
www.npr.org/2026/04/17/n...
Family Watching Movie White-Knuckles It Through Unexpected Sex Scene
Family Watching Movie White-Knuckles It Through Unexpected Sex Scene theonion.com/family-watching-movie-wh...
If Raffi is right, and this is an indication of his frustration with “moderate” colleagues, then maybe there is reason to hope that some recent votes in conference didn’t go his way—or go far enough his way.
The Republicans have loved mixing religion and government — many are still working to get Catholic charter schools OK'ed by SCOTUS — until the Pope calls out the many ways in which the Trump administration is acting contrary to those religious principles.
Two weeks ago The Free Press let a whiner publish 2000 words ab how I got his book review cEnsoReD. It was pure nonsense from the moment it went out—but I spent the next 14 days trying to get them to post an Editor’s Note and admit reality.
They won’t.
open.substack.com/pub/agentsof...
People ask me all the time for my favorite Onion headline, and there are like 200 of them, but my favorite recent print headline is easily this:
When you work in largely progressive circles (like, say, entertainment or news media) it's easy to believe trans people are an ideological project being forced on you by an HR department rather than a vulnerable population being victimized by some of the most powerful people in the country
![FAU has failed to do so. First, FAU contends that its allegations concerning male competitive advantage in athletics and the negative impacts of Doe’s participation in girls’ softball permit the inference that Appellees intended to treat female athletes less favorably than similarly situated male athletes. However, as the district court noted, FAU’s complaint does not allege that Appellees enforced the Bylaw because of its disparate impact on female athletes. Nor does FAU point to evidence in the record showing that Appellees received and disregarded complaints outlining the negative effects of Doe’s participation on female athletes. See Grandson v. Univ. of Minn., 272 F.3d 568, 575 (8th Cir. 2001) (affirming denial of leave to amend deliberate indifference claim in complaint that contained “no allegation of prior notice of their complaints to appropriate [school] officials, no allegation of deliberate indifference by such officials, and no allegation they had afforded [the school] a reasonable opportunity to rectify the alleged violations”). Moreover, FAU supplies no case law or other legal support for the proposition that Appellees’ alleged awareness of and failure to prevent a single transgender girl’s participation in a team sport speak to an intent to discriminate. Accordingly, we conclude that FAU has not brought a claim of intentional discrimination based on inferences stemming from Doe’s participation in girls’ softball.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:24vva42nxim6zbcmnozegoef/bafkreifwfnzq253olznhl6rfq5jfxfwlq2naifg7vddj64hco5zb47qeeq)
FAU has failed to do so. First, FAU contends that its allegations concerning male competitive advantage in athletics and the negative impacts of Doe’s participation in girls’ softball permit the inference that Appellees intended to treat female athletes less favorably than similarly situated male athletes. However, as the district court noted, FAU’s complaint does not allege that Appellees enforced the Bylaw because of its disparate impact on female athletes. Nor does FAU point to evidence in the record showing that Appellees received and disregarded complaints outlining the negative effects of Doe’s participation on female athletes. See Grandson v. Univ. of Minn., 272 F.3d 568, 575 (8th Cir. 2001) (affirming denial of leave to amend deliberate indifference claim in complaint that contained “no allegation of prior notice of their complaints to appropriate [school] officials, no allegation of deliberate indifference by such officials, and no allegation they had afforded [the school] a reasonable opportunity to rectify the alleged violations”). Moreover, FAU supplies no case law or other legal support for the proposition that Appellees’ alleged awareness of and failure to prevent a single transgender girl’s participation in a team sport speak to an intent to discriminate. Accordingly, we conclude that FAU has not brought a claim of intentional discrimination based on inferences stemming from Doe’s participation in girls’ softball.
8th Cir. rejects anti-trans organization's Title IX lawsuit which challenged Minnesota policy allowing a trans girl athlete to play girls softball in high school.
Held: no evidence the state's policy was created for the purpose of discriminating against girls.
ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/04...
![Second, FAU asserts that it has brought intentional discrimination claims based on Appellees’ deliberate indifference to the federal government’s repeated instruction that male participation in all-female athletics violates Title IX. In FAU’s view, the federal government has put Appellees on notice of a “strong likelihood that [the Bylaw] would result in a violation of federally protected [Title IX] rights” since at least January 2025. See A.J.T., 605 U.S. at 345 (citation modified). As such, FAU contends that its allegation that Appellees have flouted executive guidance and federal agency findings by permitting Doe’s participation in girls’ softball amounts - 11 - to a claim of intentional discrimination. The problem with this argument is that executive guidance and agency findings, in and of themselves, do not reflect settled law. As such, they cannot independently establish a likelihood that certain policies or conduct violate federal rights. See Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 385 (2024) (noting that “interpretation of the laws” is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department” (citation modified)). Here, there can be no dispute that whether Title IX requires, permits, or prohibits the participation of transgender athletes in female athletics remains an open question of law. Until it is resolved by the judicial process, the Executive Branch’s views on that question may guide its own enforcement approach, but they cannot independently establish a “strong likelihood” that Doe’s participation violates Title IX or its implementing regulations.7 Accordingly, we reject FAU’s argument that its allegations concerning](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:24vva42nxim6zbcmnozegoef/bafkreicklyn4ekhiooduhki2xnmm46qfbmbwd5a2i77ydmn3ncqhhr2w7u)
Second, FAU asserts that it has brought intentional discrimination claims based on Appellees’ deliberate indifference to the federal government’s repeated instruction that male participation in all-female athletics violates Title IX. In FAU’s view, the federal government has put Appellees on notice of a “strong likelihood that [the Bylaw] would result in a violation of federally protected [Title IX] rights” since at least January 2025. See A.J.T., 605 U.S. at 345 (citation modified). As such, FAU contends that its allegation that Appellees have flouted executive guidance and federal agency findings by permitting Doe’s participation in girls’ softball amounts - 11 - to a claim of intentional discrimination. The problem with this argument is that executive guidance and agency findings, in and of themselves, do not reflect settled law. As such, they cannot independently establish a likelihood that certain policies or conduct violate federal rights. See Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 385 (2024) (noting that “interpretation of the laws” is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department” (citation modified)). Here, there can be no dispute that whether Title IX requires, permits, or prohibits the participation of transgender athletes in female athletics remains an open question of law. Until it is resolved by the judicial process, the Executive Branch’s views on that question may guide its own enforcement approach, but they cannot independently establish a “strong likelihood” that Doe’s participation violates Title IX or its implementing regulations.7 Accordingly, we reject FAU’s argument that its allegations concerning
More importantly, 8th Cir. says the Trump administration's anti-trans policy guidance "does not reflect settled law" such that it informs whether an injunction should issue over a state's policy allowing trans kids to play sports.
“My understanding is that there were students in my section who, through Fed Soc, had clerkships lined up the fall of 1L,” Kaufman said. “There is no liberal student for whom that’s the case.”
But court could still appoint an amicus to defend the judgement, right?
youtu.be/QVDzKzZzwoQ?...
So much of this wouldn’t have been
possible without SCOTUS intervening on the shadow docket to let Trump gut the MSPB. We actually do have laws that were supposed to protect us from these purges.
But, as this production makes clear, Miller’s Willy is a more carefully drawn character than that. He’s not simply an avatar for all us little guys. Willy insists on self-aggrandizing falsehood; he then bullies everyone around him into mouthing his lies too, chivying them along and talking over them till he gets his way. He isn’t Everyman: He’s a specific, recognizable kind of danger. If this is Willy as a “common man,” just imagine him with power. Sitting at the Winter Garden, I did — and I recognized him. My blood froze to ice.
Fantastic closing paragraph in the NYT review of the new “Death of a Salesman”
www.nytimes.com/2026/04/09/t...
Until 2023, this is how it was commemorated. This is why monuments matter. www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/...
Hegseth purge of Black and women officers larger than previously reported
"Hegseth has taken steps to block or delay promotions for MORE THAN A DOZEN Black and female senior officers across all four branches of the military."
www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...
My favourite of the courtroom sketches: Trump leaving to the sound of constitutional text, history, and tradition eviscerating his executive order.
Exactly! The moral/legal questions at stake are whether the 14A allows the US to exercise territorial jurisdiction over a class of people without recognizing their birthright citizenship. Plus the underlying racism in both cases.
I’m hopelessly naive, but I think there’s a decent chance that the Justice Gorsuch who shows up tomorrow is the same one is rightfully outraged about the Insular Cases.
After years of research, Daphna Renan & I are thrilled to announce preorders of SUPREMACY. Why is US democracy so broken? One reason is we've wrongly accepted that 9 justices have the final say over the Constitution. This book traces how that happened—& how we can reclaim power to govern ourselves.
JUST IN: FBI agents who worked on Trump probes have filed a class action lawsuit, saying their abrupt firings violated due process and civil service laws. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
New canon of construction just dropped.
Is there any way to read this from Judge Kascmaryk as anything other than a declaration that judges should resolve legal questions by recognizing that LGBT people are contrary to truth as declared in Genesis? How can any LGBT person have confidence in his impartiality?
jlcgtamu.com/wp-content/u...
"Israel" doesn't start with a J.
theonion.com/gop-maintain...
If only they had Justin Timberlake for "I'm bringing pickle back"
i said last year that these people were segregationists and that “merit” just meant “white and male” to these people
The New York Times really needs to get it together. This is disgraceful reporting, and they’ve been doing it for years now in this area.
They’ve been breaking journalistic integrity over and over, refusing to issue corrections. (1/2)
cloud.e.ama-assn.org/newsletter?u...
