KWRE AM

The Supreme Court appeared to lean toward supporting a free speech challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity—a decision that could have broad national consequences. Colorado is one of 23 states that ban conversion therapy, the practice of attempting to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through therapy. If the justices rule against Colorado, the outcome could affect more than 20 states with similar laws and raise new questions about the limits of state authority to regulate health care practices.

At issue is a 2019 Colorado statute that bars licensed mental health professionals from offering therapy aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity—unless the therapy is broadly supportive of identity exploration or gender transition. The law explicitly prohibits counseling intended to reduce same-sex attraction or to change gender-related behaviors or expressions.

The case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist who contends that Colorado’s 2019 law violates her First Amendment rights. She is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom and backed by the Trump administration. At the heart of the case is whether the state’s ban regulates medical conduct—as Colorado argues—or restricts speech, as Chiles claims. She says her work involves only “talk therapy,” making it a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. The court’s 6–3 conservative majority, which has frequently supported free speech claims aligned with conservative causes, seemed largely receptive to her arguments during oral arguments. The Trump administration, in a brief supporting Chiles, argued that the Colorado law does restrict speech but said that striking it down would not necessarily threaten other state healthcare regulations.

Several conservative justices signaled concern that Colorado’s approach may unfairly favor one viewpoint over another. Justice Samuel Alito noted that allowing counselors to encourage minors to embrace their gender identities while forbidding them from questioning those identities “appears to be blatant viewpoint discrimination.”

Other members of the court were also skeptical of Colorado’s argument that the law governs professional conduct rather than speech. “Just because they are engage in conduct doesn’t mean their words aren’t protected,” Chief Justice John Roberts said, referencing a 2018 decision in which the court struck down a California law requiring anti-abortion pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion services.

The court’s three liberal justices pressed Chiles’ attorney with more challenging questions, though only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to fully agree with Colorado’s defense of the ban. She pointed to the court’s earlier ruling this year that upheld a Tennessee law restricting gender-affirming care for minors, saying: “It just seems odd to me that we might have a different result here,” Jackson said..”

A recurring issue throughout the arguments was whether striking down Colorado’s law could also prevent conservative states from passing what Justice Neil Gorsuch called “mirror-image” laws—those that would prohibit therapy encouraging minors to embrace their gender identity or sexual orientation.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, warned in court filings that a decision against the state could undermine not only conversion therapy bans but also other regulations that restrict unsafe or ineffective medical practices. Chiles countered that her counseling constitutes “vital speech” that helps young clients explore their identities. Her lawyers accused the state of trying to “control what children believe about themselves and who they can become.”

Under Colorado’s statute, any violation can lead to fines up to $5,000. The state permits therapies that assist with gender transition, as well as “acceptance, support and understanding” approaches to gender identity and sexual orientation—so long as they do not insist on a predetermined therapeutic outcome.

The justices may not issue a sweeping ruling on conversion therapy bans themselves. Instead, they could decide whether lower courts properly applied the correct legal framework when they upheld Colorado’s law.

If the Supreme Court strikes down or significantly narrows the law, it could undercut similar bans in more than two dozen states and reshape the balance between speech rights and state regulation of professional counseling. The court is expected to issue its ruling by next June.

Editorial credit: Amy Lutz / Shutterstock.com

Attorney General Pam Bondi testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday in a hearing focused on oversight of the Justice Department—her first appearance before the panel since being confirmed to the role.

Throughout the session, Bondi avoided giving direct answers to several questions raised by Democratic senators, particularly those concerning any communications she may have had with the White House about investigations targeting President Trump’s political opponents. Among those inquiries was whether she discussed possible charges against former FBI Director James Comey, as well as the firings of Department of Justice attorneys who worked on Jan. 6 cases and her refusal to prosecute certain cases of Trump’s allies. That prosecution effort reportedly caused internal turmoil within the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia and ultimately led President Trump to appoint a White House aide to lead the office.

Bondi also sidestepped questions about her office’s management of materials connected to Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died while in federal custody in 2019; responded that the Democrats should explain their own relationships with him (per CNN). Earlier this year, the Justice Department announced that no additional information from the Epstein case would be released, a decision that frustrated lawmakers and prompted new congressional attempts to obtain the documents.

During the hearing, Bondi defended the Trump administration’s record on law enforcement and immigration, emphasizing its commitment to reducing crime. She clashed early on with Sen. Dick Durbin, the committee’s top Democrat, over the administration’s deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago. “If you’re not going to protect your citizens,” Bondi told him, “President Trump will.”

Sen Richard Blumenthal, D-N.Y., told reporters after leaving the hearing that Bondi’s testimony was a “new low” for attorneys general: “Her apparent strategy is to attack and conceal. Frankly, I’ve been through close to 15 of these attorney general accountability hearings, and I have never seen anything close to it in terms of the combativeness, the evasiveness and sometimes deceptiveness. I think it is possibly a new low for attorneys general testifying before the United States Congress, and I just hope my Republican colleagues will demand more accountability than what we have seen so far.”

The White House praised Bondi after the hearing, stating: “She’s doing great. Not only is the AG debunking every single bogus Democrat talking point, but she’s highlighting the Democrats’ own hypocrisy and they have no response.”

For more key moments and notable exchanges from Bondi’s hearing on Tuesday, head HERE.

Editorial credit: Maxim Elramsisy / Shutterstock.com

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to review an appeal filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, the longtime associate of Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted of helping the late financier traffic underage girls. Maxwell, who was sentenced in 2022 to 20 years in prison for her role in recruiting and grooming underage girls for Epstein’s abuse, filed the appeal in April.  She has completed five years of her 20-year sentence thus far.

The high court rejected Maxwell’s claim that she should have been protected from prosecution due to a 2007 non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and Florida federal prosecutors.  Despite that argument, prosecutors in New York later brought separate charges against her, concluding that the Florida plea deal did not apply outside that jurisdiction and did not restrict federal prosecutors in New York from pursuing their own case.

Maxwell’s legal team maintains that courts across the country have interpreted the scope of federal non-prosecution agreements inconsistently, leaving uncertainty over whether such deals should be considered binding nationwide.

Maxwell’s attorney, David Oscar Markus, said in a statement following the decision: “We are, of course, extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court chose not to hear Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal. However, this matter is far from over. There are still significant legal and factual questions that must be addressed, and we will continue to pursue every option to see that justice is ultimately served.”

In July, Maxwell and her attorney met for two days with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. During that meeting, Maxwell reportedly told the department she never witnessed any inappropriate behavior involving Donald Trump and was unaware of any allegations of misconduct connected to his friendship with Epstein.  In August, Maxwell was quietly transferred to a minimum-security federal facility in Texas, though officials provided no explanation for the move.

In a filing submitted to the Supreme Court over the summer, the Justice Department argued that Maxwell “was not a party to the relevant agreement,” emphasizing that “only Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida were bound by it.”

Epstein pleaded guilty to state prostitution charges in 2008 and served time in a Florida jail. More than a decade later, he was indicted on federal sex trafficking charges in July 2019 but died by suicide in federal custody a month later while awaiting trial.

Calls for greater transparency around the Epstein case have continued to grow, particularly among some Republican lawmakers and allies of Trump.  Trump has repeatedly denied writing the note or having any improper involvement with Epstein.

Editorial credit: Heidi Besen / Shutterstock.com

The state of Illinois and city of Chicago filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to block the Trump administration from deploying federalized National Guard troops into Chicago, arguing that such action violates both state sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution. Illinois and Chicago are asking the court to declare the administration’s order to federalize and deploy National Guard units — from Illinois or any other state — unconstitutional and/or unlawful.

The dispute in Illinois is part of a broader legal fight over Trump’s use of federalized troops. Earlier this year, a California judge ruled that the deployment of Marines and National Guard members to Los Angeles was unlawful, while Washington, D.C.’s attorney general has also filed suit challenging similar actions in the capital.

In the 69-page complaint — which names President Donald Trump, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll as defendants — the Illinois Attorney General’s Office asserts that “The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor.” 

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs state: “there is no insurrection in Illinois. There is no rebellion in Illinois. The federal government is able to enforce federal law in Illinois. The manufactured nature of the crisis is clear,” adding that the administration’s actions “have already subjected, and continue to subject, Illinois to serious and irreparable harm.”

The lawsuit goes on to argue that the federal government is overstepping its authority: “The Federalization Order’s deployment of federalized military forces to protect federal personal and property from ‘violent demonstrations’ that ‘are occurring or are likely to occur’ represents the exact type of intrusion on State power that is at the heart of the Tenth Amendment ..The deployment of federalized National Guard, including from another state, infringes on Illinois’s sovereignty and right to self-governance. It will cause only more unrest, including harming social fabric and community relations and increasing the mistrust of police. It also creates economic harm, depressing business activities and tourism that not only hurt Illinoisians but also hurt Illinois’s tax revenue.”

Officials at the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Army declined or did not respond to requests for comment; and the Pentagon also refused to weigh in on the lawsuit. The White House dismissed the claims, insisting that the president’s authority to deploy federal forces is lawful. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement: “Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders like [Illinois Gov. JB] Pritzker have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has authorized 300 national guardsmen to protect federal officers and assets.”

The complaint also accuses Trump of using federal law enforcement to intimidate communities and inflame tensions in Illinois, including through aggressive immigration enforcement operations near Chicago: “among other things, Trump and Noem have sent a surge of SWAT-tactic trained federal agents to Illinois to use unprecedented, brute force tactics for civil immigration enforcement; federal agents have repeatedly shot chemical munitions at groups that included media and legal observers outside the Broadview facility; and dozens of masked, armed federal agents have paraded through downtown Chicago in a show of force and control. The community’s horror at these tactics and their significant consequences have resulted in entirely foreseeable protests.”

Governor Pritzker said during an interview Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union that federal authorities were “the ones turning Chicago into a war zone.”

The legal challenge follows a pair of weekend rulings from a federal judge in Oregon that temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying federalized National Guard members from California or other states to Portland. In one of those rulings, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut — a Trump appointee — wrote that “This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs.” Trump has also threatened to send National Guard troops to other cities, including New York, Baltimore, and New Orleans — despite opposition.

Editorial credit: Andreas Stroh / Shutterstock.com

Former NFL quarterback and current Fox Sports analyst Mark Sanchez is now facing a Level 5 felony battery charge following an incident in downtown Indianapolis over the weekend.  Sanchez had originally been charged with battery resulting in injury, unlawful entry of a motor vehicle, and public intoxication.

Marion County prosecutor Ryan Mears announced the upgraded charge Monday morning, saying Sanchez, 38, faces a Level 5 felony charge of battery involving serious bodily injury. Punishment can range from one to six years in prison. According to Mears, “one of the challenges you have in a case like this is that you are dealing with individuals who are receiving medical care and that’s, obviously, the most important thing, that individuals are treated appropriately. But once we were provided with additional information about the victim’s current medical condition, it became clear to us that additional charges needed to be filed. .. Certainly the thing that stands out to us is that this was a situation that did not need to occur .. We’re literally talking about people fighting over a parking space or a dispute about where people were parking and it resulted in a person with incredibly significant injures.”

Investigators say the confrontation began around 12:30 a.m. Saturday near Loughmiller’s Pub & Eatery in downtown Indianapolis. The disagreement over parking escalated into a physical fight, with court documents indicating that Sanchez advanced toward the 69-year-old truck driver, who told police he feared for his life, saying, “This guy is trying to kill me.” The affidavit notes that the fight intensified near a loading dock, where the truck driver said he feared for his safety and used pepper spray on Sanchez before the stabbing occurred. The truck driver claims he stabbed Sanchez two or three times in the upper torso, as Sanchez continued moving toward him. The driver said he was then thrown against a dumpster and believed he was in a life-or-death struggle. TA witness at the scene reported seeing both men recording each other on their phones before the fight broke out. Sanchez was rushed to Eskenazi Hospital, where he was listed in critical condition.

Mears said his office received an amended probable cause affidavit (obtained by CBS News) on Monday which led to the additional charge, because the truck driver suffered serious injuries.  He added that prosecutors are still investigating the incident and that Sanchez could face additional charges.

Detective Christopher Edwards, who interviewed Sanchez at the hospital, reported that the former quarterback said he did not remember the details of the incident. Sanchez had been scheduled for a court hearing Tuesday on the original charges but that was rescheduled to Nov. 4. Sanchez remains hospitalized and was listed in stable condition as of Monday morning.

Indianapolis Police Chief Chris Bailey said: “I don’t care who you are. I don’t care what you do for a living. I don’t care where you live. If you come into our city and commit violence, we’ll use all the tools at our disposal to hold you accountable .. As we move forward, [our] PD will continue to maintain our strong, visible presence in downtown on those high-visibility, high-traffic weekends at major events to make sure our community is safe. I continue to urge our community to respect one another. As the prosecutor said, this did not need to happen; it did not.”

Mears said Indiana’s self-defense laws will likely play a significant role as the case moves forward: “Well, certainly, Indiana has some of the robust self-defense laws in the nation, and that’s always going to be part of the equation when you evaluate cases like this and try to determine exactly what took place …  It will certainly be at the center of this particular trial as well when we have conversations about were people acting reasonably or not. Those are all things you need to consider in terms of when you make that initial charging decision and those facts have been evaluated. Self-defesne laws will be raised at trial.”

Sanchez was in Indianapolis to serve as a broadcaster for Sunday’s NFL game between the Las Vegas Raiders and the Indianapolis Colts at Lucas Oil Stadium. The ex-quarterback played eight seasons in the NFL after being selected fifth by the New York Jets in the 2009 draft out of USC, helping NY to advance to back-to-back AFC Championship Games in his first two seasons. Sanchez also played for the Philadelphia Eagles, Dallas Cowboys and Washington, last appearing in a regular-season game in 2018.

Editorial credit: s_bukley / Shutterstock.com