Aggregator

Trump Admin Urges SCOTUS To Step In On Military Trans Ban

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to uphold its ban on transgender troops serving in the military, appealing a lower court ruling that has, for now, blocked enforcement against service members already in uniform.

Vin Testa waves a LGBTQ pride flag in front of the Supreme Court building on June 26, 2023 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images

The petition targets a June decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals finding the ban probably violates the constitutional rights of transgender troops already serving. The decision claimed that the ban "appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender." That ruling barred the Pentagon from enforcing the policy against those specific plaintiffs while their case works through the courts. The administration maintains the policy regulates a medical condition - gender dysphoria - rather than transgender status, and therefore needs only a rational connection to military readiness to survive review.

The June ruling was 2-1 and split the baby: it blocked the Pentagon from discharging the currently serving plaintiffs while leaving the ban on new transgender recruits fully in place. Judges Robert Wilkins (an Obama appointee) and Judith Rogers (a Clinton appointee) formed the majority. Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee and the panel's lone Republican nominee, dissented: "because the plaintiffs are service members not civilians, and because we are judges not generals, I respectfully dissent." The Constitution, Walker wrote, assigns that authority to Congress and the Commander in Chief. Notably, a different D.C. Circuit motions panel had ruled the opposite way in December – letting the Pentagon enforce the ban, 2-1 – meaning the same courthouse has now gone both directions depending on which three judges drew the case. Hegseth's response to the June loss was four words: "See you at SCOTUS."

The administration wants the justices to take the case now, before trial – its petition calls the June ruling "gravely erroneous" – rather than let a preliminary injunction, in place in some form since March 2025, run all the way to a two-week trial set for January. That posture has become familiar this year, with the Department of War repeatedly asking the high court to let its personnel decisions stand while litigation over their legality plays out.

The Justice Department's Supreme Court filing describes the Pentagon's authority to decide who serves as a "matter of exceptional importance," language that puts military judgment, not the lower courts' read of the evidence, at the center of the case.

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, claimed the administration "wants the Supreme Court to rush in and bless the expulsion of proven, decorated soldiers before a single court has issued a final judgment."

The policy traces back to an executive order Trump signed shortly after taking office. It states that "adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual's sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle."

"We will get transgender ideology the hell out of our military. It's going to be gone," Trump told House Republicans the day he signed the executive order during a retreat at his Doral golf resort in Miami.

Pete Hegseth turned that order into policy in February 2025.

Hegseth's memo reasoned that troops who experience symptoms of gender dysphoria "cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for Military Service." He has since folded the ban into a broader push to strip "woke" policy out of the armed forces.

The population at issue is small but not trivial: the Pentagon's own estimate put roughly 4,240 troops with a gender dysphoria diagnosis among a force of about two million, and around 1,000 self-identified for voluntary separation when Hegseth's 2025 deadline hit.

NCLR and GLAD Law filed the underlying case, Talbott v. United States, in January 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the Department of War's transgender policy violates the Constitution and discriminates against transgender troops.

The court has scheduled a trial for January 2027, but the Department of War wants the ban enforced against the plaintiffs before then. The justices already weighed in on this policy once before. They allowed the ban to take effect last year in a separate challenge, while that earlier litigation proceeded, a result that suggests a majority already leans toward giving the Pentagon the ability to set its own military readiness standards.

The ruling under appeal covers narrower ground – for now. It protects only the troops who brought this specific suit. But on June 30, District Judge Ana Reyes – whose original injunction called the ban "soaked with animus and dripping with pretext" – certified the case as a class action covering every transgender person serving or seeking to enlist since January 2025, a maneuver designed to route around the Supreme Court's ruling last year curtailing nationwide injunctions. Two months later, the administration was at the high court's door. If the plaintiffs win at the January trial, the remedy no longer stops at 29 names.

"Joe Biden allowed trans insanity to run rampant in our military," White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales said in a statement. "President Trump restored lethality and readiness to our warfighters." She added, "The United States military is the greatest in the world, and President Trump is keeping it that way by focusing on elite readiness standards – not DEI or woke gender ideology."

Whether the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case will determine how long the lower courts' preliminary read of the Constitution can override the Pentagon's own judgment about who meets its strict standards of military readiness.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 16:40

Markwayne Mullin was responding to a House intelligence committee report that raised alarms over the failure to adopt recommendations from the 9/11 Commission's 2004 report.

How Capitalism Reduces Poverty And Creates Wealth

Authored by James T. Moodey via American Thinker,

The word capitalism was coined in the 1700s. The definition was vague. It generally meant "private property traded freely" or "free markets." However, most non-totalitarian countries had free markets, and these countries in Europe and elsewhere were not particularly wealthy. Their rural people were paupers living off the land, even in England, France, and the U.S. at our founding.

We generally regard capitalism as creating wealth, but free markets are not what created the enormous wealth that occurred in the United States. I knew that and studied our economic history to find out: If it was not free markets, what was it? What specifically were the mechanics of "our capitalism" that created such wealth?

I found the answer. However, I also learned that capitalism cannot be taught without properly defining wealth.

Wealth of a nation is its amount of usable goods. I use the term usable goods to exclude paintings and other speculative items. Poverty is a lack of usable goods, such as clothes or food. A large supply of usable goods brings prices down and reduces poverty. We became wealthy because we produced an enormous amount of usable goods. But how did that happen?

Usable goods are created by factories. It is not the amount we pay factory workers that is important; it is the millions of hammers, shoes, and vehicles they produce that create wealth. Farmers and utility workers can be included with factory workers who produce usable goods for millions of people.

Cyrus McCormick's reaper would supply a large amount of food, but sales were difficult and slow. The reaper would break down on farms far away. McCormick had difficulty traversing the country making repairs and sales. He solved these problems by inventing a unique idea of setting up distributors. He shared significant profit with the distributors. They stocked the product locally, performed repairs, and made sales. Sales grew rapidly, and McCormick Reapers were supplied throughout the country. The United States became an exporter of food.

Here is the key to capitalism's success: When farmers tried to buy direct from McCormick, he refused and made them buy from their respective distributor.

Other manufactures, of home goods, saw McCormick's success and not only set up distributors, but added another discount to include retailers. Again, customers were sent back to the retailers. Retailing became a very profitable business. In the 1850s, general stores appeared in nearly every town.

It was not greed that made capitalism successful; it was nearly the opposite. It was the sharing of profits with all who sold the product.

Prior to this, women made their own soap, household goods, and clothes and tended their own crops. Men planted crops, hand-forged steel tools, and built what they needed. Rather than make their own goods, people began to buy them at a local store. Rural couples were unshackled from the centuries-old life of paupers.

Rural couples had been purchasing limited goods from peddlers who occasionally passed through their valley. Or they bought goods from catalogues. Returns of goods was an enormous problem, and single sales limited mass production at the factories, which kept prices high.

When couples found they could buy any goods they wanted at a general store, demand for home goods exploded. Prices for household goods and farm equipment fell due to the resulting mass production. Farm families soon found buyers for their excess farm produce, and those profits were spent on fast-declining prices of home goods. Men could afford farm equipment, and women bought dresses rather than made them. Rural people and the merchants became wealthy. America soon became known as the "land of opportunity."

Incomes were rising while prices steadily fell for decades, up to and including the Roaring Twenties. Introduction of the income tax reversed the trend. In the 1930s, the lowest income tax bracket was raised to 24 percent and the highest income bracket to 94 percent.

Capitalism is not simply free markets. We are not free to bargain for the price of milk in a store. We are not free to bargain with the factory. The epitome of free markets are barter societies in the Middle East. They are free to bargain with the retailer and the factory. High-volume factories cannot survive in a barter society, and those societies are mired in poverty as a result.

Capitalism is a self-perpetuating economic system designed to increase sales using a structure of profits for all who sell the product, and those profits are protected by the factories. That is what created millions of usable goods, reduced prices, reduced poverty, and created our great wealth.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 16:20

Stocks fell Tuesday while rising oil prices pushed bond yields higher, a bumpy start to the month as investors fear renewed fighting in Iran could inflate prices and convince the Fed to hike interest rates.

AI can only communicate in languages that it's been trained on.

NY Post readers discuss an aide to AG Letitia James allegedly ordering staff to target people linked to Donald Trump.

Almost three-quarters of Dems say Muslims have been treated worse than people of other religions in the US since the attacks.

Have you got this covered? Most people don’t. More than six out of 10 Americans traveled last year without any kind of insurance, per a survey from Upgraded Points. It’s an unsexy risk that makes us outliers in the global scene. For example, 86% of Australians bought coverage for their big trips. And sure, these...

Sprouse said his self-esteem at the time was directly impacted by whether or not he was working.

Sprouse said his self-esteem at the time was directly impacted by whether or not he was working.

You should smile more.

The four-part docuseries is more about the dysfunction in the family of Markel's ex-wife than it is about his murder.

That Oscar-winning actor looked like any other commuter as he kept a low profile.

That Oscar-winning actor looked like any other commuter as he kept a low profile.

Clyburn Calls For Packing The Court With "Baker's Dozen" To Flip Cases

Authored by Jonathan Turley via Jonathan Turley,

On NBC's "Meet the Press," Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) added his voice to expand the Supreme Court to a "baker's dozen," or thirteen members to allow Democrats to add justices who agree with him and Democratic members on how the law must be interpreted.

In the meantime, as discussed earlier, court packing is being pushed as the new litmus test for any Democratic candidates. Clyburn's "baker's dozen" is a telling description of an effort to bake in partisan views on a Court expanded to create an instant liberal majority. In defending this hostile takeover of the Court, Clyburn bizarrely insisted that the failure to do so might lead to a return to antebellum conditions when blacks were being given fewer rights than whites.

When asked by host Kristen Welker whether he supports the call of former Vice President Kamala Harris to pack the Court, Clyburn responded:

"Yes, I do. I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress and we ought to expand. Thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker's dozen would be a good number to have on the court. And I would hope we would get people on the Court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours."

Clyburn then made the sensational claim that, without taking over the Court, blacks could be returned to virtual slave conditions. He added:

"The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments have been interpreted different ways over the years. And we had in the Warren Court an interpretation of those amendments that I thought would be set for the future of the country. We have now a Supreme Court that has decided to reverse course and take this country back, I say, to those rulings of Justice Taney that said that no black man has any rights that a white man must respect."

So, while recognizing that interpretations have evolved, Clyburn now demands a takeover of the Court because he disagrees with the current interpretations. It was fine when interpretations aligned with his views, but opposing viewpoints are intolerable and warrant packing the Court with reliable liberal votes. Other Democrats have demanded packing the Court to reverse immigration rulings.

The unhinged rhetoric reflects the importance of taking over the Court by Democrats who view the institution as a barrier to carrying out a radical agenda, including proposals that are considered unconstitutional. Liberal professors and pundits have identified a court takeover as essential to, as one law professor put it, guaranteeing that the Democrats never lose another national election. As former Attorney General Eric Holder and Democratic strategist James Carville have made clear, it is about power and guaranteeing its retention.

Of course, these figures know that it will take a great deal to get Americans to trash core institutions and values. Polls have long shown that a majority of citizens oppose efforts to pack the Court. FDR's infamous court-packing plan in the 1930s has been widely panned in history, but is now being used as a model by many Democrats to achieve short-term political goals.

In order to overcome this fealty to our constitutional system, citizens must be very angry or very afraid. That is why the rage rhetoric is increasing as we approach the midterm elections. In the last election, the prediction was the imminent end of democracy. Now it is the return to slavery conditions in the United States.

One can disagree with the Court without suggesting that these justices are effective racists or want to return the nation to pre-Civil War slavery conditions. The suggestion that the Court would return this country to the Dred Scott period from before the Civil War is deeply offensive to the conservative justices, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who is African American. It is an absurd suggestion and shows contempt not just for the Court but for Black voters.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution."

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 15:40

Get up to $1,500 back in bonus bets using the BetMGM bonus code POSTBET.

“There was a conversation that the process did not work and they made the wrong decision,’’ a source told The Post.

Patrick Mahomes and his wife Brittany Mahomes sported Backstreet Boys varsity jackets while attending the band's “Into the Millennium” residency at the Sphere in Las Vegas for her 31st birthday.

The original Weekend Update anchor will crack wise at Staten Island's St. George Theatre on Nov. 22.

Stan Kroenke is finally getting his MLB team — and the price is expected to reset the market. The Rams owner agreed Tuesday to purchase the Angels from Arte Moreno, with the deal surpassing the $3.9 billion recently paid for the Padres and become the richest franchise sale in baseball history. The exact figure has...