<\/p>\n
Do you want the good news or the bad news first? In the past week, the Supreme Court handed down a flurry of key rulings that dismayed or delighted Americans, depending on their viewpoint. Personally, of the three I was in prayer about, I was dismayed by two rulings and delighted by one.\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
But\u2026 as a Christian, I must remember that with God, it is all good news. God is good ALL THE TIME\u2026 even when the Supreme Court hands down rulings I don\u2019t agree with. After all, it is God who\u2026 does as He pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back\u00a0His hand or say to him: \u201cWhat have You done?<\/em> (Daniel 4:35 NIV)\n<\/p>\n For dominion belongs to the\u00a0Lord and He rules over the nations<\/em>. (Psalm 22:28 NIV)\n<\/p>\n So secure in the knowledge that our Triune God is Lord over all the earth, His Son sits at His right hand<\/em> (1 Peter 3:22 NIV), and His Holy Spirit convicts the world about sin, righteousness, and judgment<\/em>. (John 16:8 NIV), let\u2019s discuss three of the Supreme Court\u2019s most critical decisions affecting the United States.\n<\/p>\n With the midterms fast approaching, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled in a narrow 5-4 decision that mail-in ballots can be counted after Election Day if they are postmarked by Election Day.\n<\/p>\n The majority opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated that \u201cthe election-day statutes require the electorate\u2019s choice to be made on election day. That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote\u2026 But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.\u201d\n<\/p>\n Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the dissenting opinion, argued that \u201cfrom this Nation\u2019s founding until the last few decades of the 20th century\u2014a period that spans the enactment of all three election-day statutes\u2014having an \u2018election\u2019 on a particular day meant completing ballot collection on that day.\u201d\n<\/p>\n U.S. Solicitor General John Saur had argued that \u201cOn election day, the ballot box must close and every vote received.\u201d Federal law declares the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Election Day. But 15 states and D.C. passed laws allowing ballots postmarked by election day but received five days after Election Day to be counted.\n<\/p>\n Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justice Barrett and the three liberal female justices. The majority decided that counting ballots after election day did not violate federal election statutes.\n<\/p>\n \u201cThe election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose,\u201d Justice Barrett wrote. We should not be held to 19th century election-day laws or voting practices in light of modern-day elections she went on to write, \u201chistorical practice, detached from statutory text, is not controlling.\u201d [Yet in the birthright citizenship case, she ruled just the opposite. More about that in a moment.]\n<\/p>\n To the majority of Justices, Election DAY does not really mean one single day. President Trump reacted on Truth Social\u2026\n<\/p>\n \u201cIn light of the tremendous loss in the Supreme Court today concerning Voter\u2019s Rights, and the fact that \u2018peoples\u2019 votes are allowed to be counted LONG AFTER an Election is over, it is more important than ever to pass THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, which is, 1. ALL VOTERS MUST SHOW PHOTO I.D. (IDENTIFICATION!); 2. ALL VOTERS MUST SHOW PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP; 3. NO MAIL-IN BALLOTS (EXCEPT FOR ILLNESS, DISABILITY, MILITARY DEPLOYMENT, OR TRAVEL!). There is no excuse for a politician, or otherwise, to be against the above three requirements. There is only one reason to oppose \u2014 CHEATING!\u201d\n<\/p>\n The most significant (and perhaps divisive) decision of the Supreme Court\u2019s 2025-2026 term was its 5-4 ruling on birthright citizenship. The Court ruled that if you are born in the United States, you are automatically a U.S. citizen even if your parents are here illegally or on a temporary tourist visa.\n<\/p>\n Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett once again joined the three liberal female justices in striking down President Trump\u2019s Executive Order prohibiting babies born to illegals or birth tourism moms from becoming citizens.\n<\/p>\n Justice Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, ruled that children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. The two elements are 1) being born in the United States, and 2) being subject to the jurisdiction thereof. \u201cUnder the Constitution,\u201d he concluded, \u201cthey are citizens at birth.\u201d\n<\/p>\n The majority relied heavily on a 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case, U.S. v Wong Kim Ark.\u00a0Wong was born in the United States to Chinese legal immigrants. At the time, the country had a law, known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, that said no Chinese immigrant could become a U.S. citizen. But since Wong was born in the U.S., he was ruled a citizen, not an immigrant.\n<\/p>\n Justice Roberts wrote, \u201cIn the 128 years since, we have repeatedly understood the rule\u201d of that case \u201cto guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its power.\u201d\n<\/p>\n Unlike her opinion in Watson v. RNC, Justice Barrett appears to have no qualms in upholding this 19th-century\u00a0decision without considering the massive modern-day influx of illegals or the abuse of birth tourism.\n<\/p>\n Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas were scathing in their dissent.\n<\/p>\n Justice Alito called the ruling \u201ca serious mistake that will affect the country\u2019s future.\u201d This ruling, he wrote, is \u201cnot only contrary to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, it produces grotesque results\u2026 While foreigners who wish to immigrate lawfully must sometimes wait for many years, a child born here to a birth tourist is automatically a citizen.\u201d\n<\/p>\n He chastised the majority, writing, \u201cWe should not adopt an erroneous interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment simply out of fear of the consequences of \u2018rocking the boat\u2019 or as a reaction to current immigration policy.\u201d\n<\/p>\n Justice Thomas wrote that after the Civil War, \u201cBlacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority. The Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.\u201d\n<\/p>\n Justice Thomas claimed the decision denigrates the concept of U.S. citizenship. \u201cI am not sure that today\u2019s opinion will stand the test of time,\u201d he wrote. \u201cThe Citizenship Clause \u2018added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.\u2019 Today\u2019s opinion devalues that citizenship.\u201d\n<\/p>\n Both Justices expressed concerns that birth tourism may be a national security issue, allowing people of enemy nations to obtain citizenship. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates tens of thousands of babies are born in the U.S. or one of its territories each year and granted birthright citizenship. The two top countries taking advantage of this are China and Russia.\n<\/p>\n With their decision on Tuesday, the Supreme Court has basically invited any woman in the world to come to the U.S. for the specific purpose of having a baby so their child can claim all the rights and benefits of being a U.S. citizen, including voting rights, a free education, free health care, and generous welfare benefits.\n<\/p>\n In true Trumpian fashion, the president wrote on Truth Social Tuesday, \u201cI would like to congratulate President Xi, and the Great Country of China, on their massive Birthright Citizenship WIN!\u201d\n<\/p>\n Will Congress Act in light of this decision? Perhaps so. <\/strong>\n<\/p>\n Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurrent opinion that politicians could enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.\u201d Section 5 of the 14th Amendment states The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.<\/em>\n<\/p>\n House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a press conference on Tuesday that birthright citizenship has been \u201cabused. It\u2019s one of those things that was intended to serve a noble, important purpose, and has been thwarted and overused and abused, and so I\u2019m sure that we\u2019ll continue to look at that\u2026 I will say I\u2019m very disappointed in that outcome. I think it subjects the country to serious challenges going forward, and we\u2019ll have to deal with it as a Congress.\u201d\n<\/p>\n Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH) plans to reintroduce Senator Harry Reid\u2019s (D-NV) exact bill \u2013 the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993 \u2013 eliminating birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. Sen. Moreno is calling his bill the Immigration Stabilization Act of 2026, and like Senator Reid\u2019s original bill, would also cut legal immigration limits and annual refugee admissions.\n<\/p>\n \u201cBefore far-left radicals took over the Democrat Party, their leader Harry Reid introduced a great bill to end birthright citizenship, ensure no illegals could vote, and crack down on employers who abuse illegal labor,\u201d Moreno said. \u201cIt was a great bill.\u201d\n<\/p>\n Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas has already filed legislation, the Constitutional Citizenship Act, to ensure only children who are here lawfully are granted citizenship. Children of illegal immigrants, terrorists, and foreign spies would be ineligible.\n<\/p>\n Senator Rand Paul has filed a Joint Resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution to end automatic birthright citizenship. He wrote on X: \u201cThe Supreme Court\u2019s decision on birthright citizenship is disappointing. That\u2019s why I\u2019ve already filed an amendment to end birthright citizenship for those here illegally. I\u2019ll keep fighting to protect the integrity of American citizenship\u201d\n<\/p>\n Passing a Constitutional Amendment is difficult and often takes years. It requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states to ratify it. In the past 250 years, only 27 Amendments have been added to the Constitution. The first ten (The Bill of Rights) were passed all at once in 1791. The 27th Amendment was passed 34 years ago.\n<\/p>\n President Trump is totally behind the effort to make changes through legislation, stating\u2026\n<\/p>\n \u201cThe Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, who has now been determined during this process,\u201d Trump said. \u201cNo long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!\u201d\n<\/p>\n The Executive Branch Acts<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n In the wake of the Supreme Court decision, the Department of Justice is ordering its federal prosecutors to team up with Homeland Security to crack down on birth tourism visas, especially on the companies that help foreign pregnant women obtain fraudulent visas. The DOJ will pursue the women who participate and the companies that profit from them.\n<\/p>\n The State Department is actively reviewing the visas of foreigners who have overstayed their visas or for any breach in visa conditions.\n<\/p>\n Immediately after the Supreme Court ruling, Tom Homan promised to step up enforcement of immigration laws, deportations, and a crackdown on birth tourism. \u201cBirthright citizenship has always been a driver for illegal immigration, he said, \u201cbut more importantly it is a national security issue.\u201d He urges Congress to act.\n<\/p>\n Vice President Vance said with a 5-4 decision, birthright citizenship was \u201changing by a thread.\u201d He continued, \u201cWhat I take from that is, yes, we\u2019ve got to fix the immigration system even more, we have to be even more aware of who is coming into our country to make sure that they are not benefiting from this atrocious Supreme Court ruling. But it also means that we have to keep fighting, because we actually have an opportunity to reverse this decision just as we\u2019ve reversed so many bad decisions throughout the generations.\u201d\n<\/p>\n In a major win for commonsense and the culture, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling upheld state bans on biological males playing on female sports teams. They ruled that state bans do not violate the Constitution or federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education. Twenty-seven states have banned trans athletes from girls\u2019 sports.\n<\/p>\n Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Girl Dad with two daughters, and for many years has coached girls\u2019 school basketball teams, wrote the court\u2019s majority opinion.\n<\/p>\n \u201cThe Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women\u2019s and girls\u2019 sports throughout America,\u201d he wrote. \u201cSeparate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable. Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women\u2019s and girls\u2019 teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition.\n<\/p>\n \u201cThe two States here \u2013 along with 25 other States, the IOC, the USOPC, and the NCAA \u2013 have concluded at this time that women and girls should be allowed to compete \u2026 on an equal playing field, without fear of physical injury from biological males or being forced to compete against biological males.\n<\/p>\n \u201cConsistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the States may maintain women\u2019s and girls\u2019 sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women\u2019s and girls\u2019 sports based on biological sex,\u201d he wrote.\n<\/p>\n The opinion also stated that the term \u201csex\u201d in Title IX \u201ccannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex\u2026 and not gender identity.\n<\/p>\n Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson, who was unable to define what a woman is in her confirmation hearing, wrote in her dissent that the majority was ignoring the discrimination suffered by transgender athletes \u2013 discrimination that Title IX was supposed to protect.\n<\/p>\n \u201cWhen B.P.J. is sorted onto a team by sex assigned at birth, she doubtless suffers discrimination on the basis of her sex assigned at birth,\u201d she wrote.\n<\/p>\n It is ironic that the three liberal female justices voted NOT to protect real girls from harm or support them in their dreams for athletic achievements and scholarships.\n<\/p>\n This year\u2019s ruling upholding state bans on trans athletes follows last year\u2019s major decision upholding state bans on gender-rejection treatments on minors. The Supreme Court does not appear shy about ruling on the trans culture issues.\n<\/p>\n For the 2026-2027 term, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear another critical case, International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, regarding a parent\u2019s right to challenge a Washington state law allowing runaway teens to receive mental health care and gender transitioning at licensed shelters without parental consent.\n<\/p>\n Sadly, the Supreme Court refused to take up Foote V. Ludlow, a Massachusetts case challenging a school district\u2019s policy of secretly socially transitioning a student without their parents\u2019 knowledge or consent. But the Court is considering more cases to hear regarding parental rights and their child\u2019s gender transition.\n<\/p>\n The earth is the\u00a0Lord\u2019s and everything that fills it, the world and all who live in it\u2026 Lift up your heads, you gates. Lift yourselves up, you ancient doors, and the King of Glory will come in.\u00a0Who is this King of Glory? The Lord is strong and mighty. <\/em><\/strong>(Psalm 24:1, 7-8)\n<\/p>\n Belinda Brewster analyzes cultural, political, and world events from a biblical worldview. Belinda\u2019s passion is to equip, support, and encourage parents and grandparents who are courageously battling against the spiritual and cultural forces impacting children and grandchildren. Photo Credit: Alex Wong\/Getty Images.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Do you want the good news or the bad news first? In the past week, the Supreme Court handed down a flurry of key rulings that dismayed or delighted Americans, depending on their viewpoint. Personally, of the three I was in prayer about, I was dismayed by two rulings and delighted by one. Help support<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":30122,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[236,195,316,7530,8105,421],"class_list":["post-30121","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-prayer","tag-america","tag-big","tag-court","tag-impacting","tag-rulings","tag-supreme"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30121","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=30121"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30121\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/30122"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=30121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=30121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=30121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J \u2014 Trans Bans in Sports<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\n
<\/h4>\n
What do you think of these Supreme Court rulings? Share your thoughts and prayers below.<\/h4>\n