“We are pleased with the court’s decision recognizing that students can, in fact, challenge unconstitutional policies implemented by school boards in Virginia,” America First Legal attorney Andrew Block told The Daily Signal.
Fairfax County Public Schools
in Northern Virginia requires all students to refer to “students who identify as gender-expansive or transgender by their chosen name and pronoun, regardless of the name and gender recorded in the student’s permanent pupil record.”
Conservative public interest law firm America First Legal sued the district on behalf of a Roman Catholic student who believes the policy opposes her religious beliefs. The student believes God made only two genders—male and female—and that to reject one’s biological sex is to reject the image of God within that person.
The school district argued that the student, who was followed into the girls’ bathroom by a boy and is compelled to use preferred pronouns under the school district’s policy, did not have standing to sue. In Wednesday’s hearing, the court overruled that motion, recognizing that students can challenge unconstitutional policies.
The court held that the student did not allege “discriminatory purpose or intent.”
Stephanie Lundquist-Arora, a Fairfax County mom of three who has followed this issue closely, celebrated the decision.
“I’m joining other parents across Fairfax County today as we collectively inhale the fresh scent of common sense with the court’s verdict,” she told The Daily Signal
. “We knew all along that it was tyrannical and completely wrong to try to compel our children’s speech with forced pronoun usage in their public schools. It is such a relief that justice has prevailed this time to preserve our children’s constitutional rights.”
Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge Brett Kassabian gave the plaintiff 21 days to file responsive pleadings.
A Mississippi congressman downplayed how his bill would affect
former President Donald Trump’s safety.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., introduced the Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable (DISGRACED) Former Protectees Act in April, which would revoke Secret Service protection
for those sentenced following conviction for a federal or state felony with a prison term.
After Trump was shot at a campaign rally
on July 13 in Pennsylvania, Thompson said that even if the bill passed, it would not affect Trump.
“My bill would not have affected the Secret Service’s presence during this tragic event. It aims to clarify lines of authority when a protectee is sentenced to prison and is in the custody of another law enforcement agency,” the congressman said in a statement to the Mississippi Free Press. “That does not apply to the former president.”
Thompson’s less-than-200-word bill states that if the convicted felon’s offense is “punishable for a term of imprisonment of at least one year,” regardless of the actual sentence, the person’s Secret Service protection is terminated.
In May, a New York jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts. The former president was convicted for allegedly falsifying business records in violation of New York Penal Law §175.10, the penalty for which can be up to four years in jail.
Trump is yet to be sentenced, and it is unlikely he will receive jail time. But because the law he allegedly violated is punishable by imprisonment for at least one year, regardless of his sentence, he would lose his Secret Service detail after sentencing.
If Thompson’s bill passes, Trump would be denied a Secret Service detail
for life, even if he is reelected president in November.
Thompson’s press secretary did not respond to The Daily Signal’s question
about whether the Democrat intended to mislead the public about how his bill would affect Trump.
Politico legal reporter Kyle Cheney said in a now-deleted tweet that the bill “would only have applied to the Secret Service detail of someone who is *incarcerated* …”
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, set the record straight, informing Cheney that “the termination of Secret Service protection in Mr. Thompson’s bill does not require incarceration.”
Cheney corrected himself, admitting that Thompson’s claims were misleading: “Though Thompson has *said* the bill is meant to terminate USSS [U.S. Secret Service] protection for incarcerated felons, the language of the bill goes further than that.”
Upon fair responses from @chiproytx
and @RepThomasMassie
and others, deleting this earlier tweet. Though Thompson has *said* the bill is meant to terminate USSS protection for incarcerated felons, the language of the bill goes further than that. pic.twitter.com/LSFirc9IAo
The House Freedom Caucus urged House leadership to remove Thompson from the task force now investigating the Trump assassination attempt because of his sponsorship of a bill that would have placed Trump in even graver danger at his Pennsylvania rally.
“In April, Rep. Bennie Thompson launched an effort with other radical progressive Democrats
to deny Secret Service protection to President Trump—legislation that he continues to defend even after the attempted assassination on July 13,” the Freedom Caucus said in a statement.
“We therefore urge the removal of Rep. Thompson as the ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security,” the caucus continued. “Similarly, his actions should invalidate Rep. Thompson from serving on the task force to investigate the attempted assassination of President Trump. Americans cannot trust that he will be an unbiased arbiter of the facts in the effort to get to the bottom of the greatest failure of the Secret Service in more than three decades.”
Tory MPs opposed to this human right have been swept away. On Friday in the Lords, a path towards choice will finally be set
Every Labour government forges ahead with life-changing liberal reforms, and this one will be no exception. Expect the right to die to be one of this government’s landmarks, removing one of the last barriers to freedom over our own bodies. Everyone must die, but the greatest dread is exiting the world through a torture chamber. Once assured that we need never bear the unbearable, death would lose much of its sting.
While other countries allow the mortally ill to be released from the last stages of life if they wish, the British have been denied that choice, mainly by the power of religious lobbies. Only God can decide how long we should suffer before death comes at a time of his pitiless whim, they say. Humanists UK has tussled with them for years on this. Yet faith campaigners have defeated a change in the law time and again, despite religion being a fading preoccupation.
