There has been growing criticism (and falling poll numbers) of Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger after she ran as a moderate and then immediately veered to the far left after her election. Once in power, Spanberger and the Democrats unleashed a slew of tax increases, moved to eliminate all but one Republican district in the purple state, passed an array of anti-gun laws, and enacted other controversial measures. One of these measures is a clearly unconstitutional effort to strip pro-Confederate groups of their tax exemption.
This week, Spanberger signed HB167, the law that eliminated the tax exemption for various confederacy-linked groups, including the Virginia Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, the General Organization of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, the Confederate Memorial Literary Society, the Stonewall Jackson Memorial, Incorporated, the Virginia Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and the J.E.B. Stuart Birthplace Preservation Trust, Inc.
Notably, as soon as they came into power, Democrats also passed House Bill 1377 to move against the Virginia Military Institute, including appointing a task force that could effectively close the historic school. Many Democrats have previoulsy sought to close VMI despite its unique and inspiring history in training some of our most famous military leaders, including General George Marshall. Liberals want to close the school due to its history from the Civil War.
Spanberger recently expressed support for the effort but returned the bill with suggestions to use the board of directors to carry out the review.
Spanberger’s substitute eliminates that task force entirely and instead directs VMI’s own board of visitors to carry out the review.
The board would be empowered to carry out a fairly hostile and open-ended agenda, including to “distance [VMI] from the Lost Cause narrative, foster an inclusive environment, and address any other concerns.” Spanberger has appointed 27 new board members, including former Gov. Ralph Northam, who is viewed as hostile to VMI.
The New York Times explained that the Democrats wanted to “distance Virginia from its Confederate past.” However, they also want to use a content-based law to discriminate against groups with which they disagree. The law clearly violates the First Amendment, but neither Spanberger nor the Virginia Democrats appear to care.
In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), the Court struck down a signage regulation because”restrictions … that apply to any given sign [depend] entirely on the communicative content of the sign.” Likewise, Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 116 (1991), the Court stressed that the government’s ability to impose content-based burdens on speech raises the specter that the government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.
From taxes to trademarks, content-based discrimination runs afoul of our free speech values. In Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017), the Court cited Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes decision in United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929), that “the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.'”
Over 30 years ago, I wrote about the collision between anti-discrimination laws and the free exercise of religion. I have been critical of the use of the tax code to effectively punish organizations that do not comport with the IRS’s view of good public policy.
That prior work was critical of the 1982 decision involving Bob Jones University, in which the Supreme Court upheld the denial of tax-exempt status. In the case of Bob Jones, the university was engaged in reprehensible racial discrimination. However, I wrote how the actual standard is far more vague and could potentially be used more broadly.
Virginia is an example of precisely that problem in the use of tax exemptions to engage in viewpoint discrimination.
I have opposed such moves with a variety of organizations with which I have long-standing objections. That includes the Administration’s threat to revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status.
Tax exemption should not be a status bestowed upon those adhering to the demands of whatever party is in power. Free speech and associational rights are fostered by granting this status.
Virginia will now spend additional money to defend this unconstitutional action and fight for the right to discriminate against those who have opposing views in the state.
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 Sat, 04/18/2026 - 22:10An April 2026 housing report by Highland Cabinetry highlights a growing affordability crisis across major American cities, revealing that the true cost of housing goes beyond total price and is better understood through the lens of cost per square foot. By analyzing home prices, rental costs, and average property sizes across 40 large cities, the study shows where Americans are paying the most for the least amount of living space. This approach offers a clearer picture of value, emphasizing how much space residents actually receive for their money rather than just the overall cost of buying or renting a home.
At the center of this trend is San Francisco, which ranks as the most expensive housing market in the country for both buyers and renters. Homebuyers in the city pay more than $1,000 per square foot on average, with a typical home costing around $1.24 million for just over 1,100 square feet. Renters face similar challenges, with average monthly rents exceeding $3,500. Despite these high costs, the amount of space available remains limited, meaning residents often pay a premium for relatively small living areas. This imbalance between price and space has made San Francisco the clearest example of how housing value has eroded in dense urban markets.
Just behind San Francisco is San Jose, which actually surpasses it in terms of price per square foot for homebuyers. In San Jose, the average cost exceeds $1,200 per square foot, pushing typical home prices to around $1.4 million. The rental market is similarly expensive, with monthly costs rivaling those in San Francisco. These high prices are largely driven by strong demand tied to the region’s technology sector, where high salaries continue to fuel competition for limited housing supply. As a result, even relatively modest homes command exceptionally high prices.
On the East Coast, New York City presents a different kind of affordability challenge. While the cost per square foot to purchase a home is significantly lower than in California’s top markets, rental prices are the highest in the nation, averaging more than $3,600 per month. Apartments in New York also tend to be smaller than those in other cities, which means renters often pay more per square foot than they would in San Francisco. This creates a situation where buying may appear more attainable on paper, but renting remains financially burdensome for a large portion of the population.
Other major cities such as San Diego, Boston, and Los Angeles also rank among the least affordable when measured by space value. In these markets, home prices remain high while property sizes vary, resulting in elevated costs per square foot that continue to strain both buyers and renters. California in particular stands out, with multiple cities appearing in the top rankings, reflecting a broader statewide issue driven by housing shortages, population demand, and long-term price growth.
The report attributes much of the current situation to economic conditions that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. Historically low interest rates made borrowing more accessible, encouraging a surge in homebuying activity. This increased demand led to intense competition, rapidly driving up prices across the country. Although interest rates have since risen, housing prices have remained elevated, leaving many Americans priced out of homeownership and facing high rental costs instead.
One of the most significant social impacts of these trends is the shift in living arrangements among younger adults. In cities like New York and San Francisco, it has become increasingly common for professionals to share apartments well into their 30s in order to manage costs. While this may offer a short-term solution, it reflects a deeper issue within the housing market, where affordability challenges are reshaping expectations around independence, space, and long-term living.
Ultimately, the findings of this study highlight a critical reality about housing in modern America. The issue is no longer just about how much people pay, but about how little space they receive in return. As urban populations continue to grow and housing supply struggles to keep pace, the cost per square foot will remain a key indicator of affordability, shaping how and where people choose to live in the years ahead.
You can access the complete research findings here.
Tyler Durden Sat, 04/18/2026 - 21:35Authored by Bryan Hyde via American Greatness,
A pro-life father of seven whose Pennsylvania home was raided at gunpoint by the FBI under the Biden administration has been awarded a seven-figure settlement from the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Fox News reports that Mark Houck, a devout Catholic and pro-life activist, was arrested in 2021 by the FBI and prosecuted for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act.
The charges stemmed from an October 2021 incident that took place outside a Philadelphia, PA abortion clinic where Houck and his young son were accosted by a pro-abortion volunteer who harassed and yelled at the boy until Houck pushed the volunteer away.
A jury acquitted Houck in 2023; he and his wife then filed a lawsuit later that year alleging that the Biden DOJ had engaged in malicious and retaliatory prosecution, abuse of process, false arrest, and assault.
Houck’s lawsuit specifically accused the DOJ of what he called “a faulty investigation” and “excessive force” and the heavy-handed FBI raid on Houck’s home sparked widespread criticism of the Biden administration over accusations of targeting pro-life activists.
In 2023, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) had sharp questions for then-Attorney General Merrick Garland over the FBI’s “unbelievable show of force” in the raid.
Sen. @HawleyMO destroys Garland Mark Houck arrest: "You used an unbelievable show of force with guns, that I just note, liberals usually decry. We're supposed to hate long guns and assault-style weapons, you're happy to deploy them against Catholics and innocent children." pic.twitter.com/1xyK3ANEfP
— Media Research Center (@theMRC) March 1, 2023According to Fox News Digital, the legal battle against the DOJ had dragged on for three years due to what Houck last year described as an “activist judge” who had blocked negotiations between Houck and the Trump-led Justice Department.
Last week, 40 Days for Life CEO Shawn Carney described the settlement as “a bigger victory for the pro-life movement at large,” as well as “a huge victory for free speech” and “a huge victory for all Americans who want our right to speak our minds peacefully in a law-abiding way without fear of our own government.”
Carney also credited President Trump for reining in federal overreach, saying that the pro-life movement had received “so much persecution from the DOJ under Biden” and expressed gratitude that “President Trump has corrected that.”
The DOJ released a report this week concluding that the Biden administration “shattered the public’s trust by weaponizing the FACE Act to advance a pro-abortion agenda.”
TODAY: The Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group published a report detailing the Biden Administration’s weaponization of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.
“This Department will not tolerate a two-tiered system of justice,” said Acting Attorney… pic.twitter.com/oXV9Y7EirO