Supreme Court Election Fight, Fauci Pleads the Fifth, and Major First Amendment Battle
Key legal developments include an election integrity appeal, Dr. Anthony Fauci's congressional hearing, and significant First Amendment cases.
The Trump Administration asked the Supreme Court to overrule a district court’s permanent injunction of President Trump’s Executive Order that seeks to secure our federal elections. Dr. Anthony Fauci asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in the face of Congressional questions on COVID-19 origins and Dr. Fauci’s efforts to enrich himself with grants and awards during the COVID-19 pandemic. And we review cases challenging local actions and state laws that restrict the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.
Source: Melissa Quinn
Trump Administration asks Supreme Court to allow Executive Order on election integrity Executive Order
The Trump Administration has filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court after a federal district court stayed President Trump’s Executive Order that promotes election integrity in the upcoming federal elections in November.
In March 2026, President Trump issued Executive Order 14399 to prevent violations of federal election law, to “enhance election integrity via the United States Mail,” and to maintain public confidence in election outcomes.” As part of that Executive Order, federal agencies were instructed to consider potential actions that were consistent with President Trump’s objectives.
A number of States filed suit challenging that Executive Order on constitutional grounds and sought to enjoin its implementation. Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee in the District of Massachusetts, issued a permanent injunction that halted the Executive Order. The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that injunction.
But the district court – and the court of appeals – were wrong. As explained in the Trump Administration’s emergency application, the district court “lacked jurisdiction” over the suit because none of the federal agencies “had taken any concrete actions to implement the Order.” In other words, the States were not commanded to do anything, and the States had not suffered any current or imminent harm. Thus, under Supreme Court precedent, the States lacked standing to pursue the lawsuit.
We expect the Supreme Court to agree with that assessment.
Source: Aidan Williams
Fauci pleads the Fifth
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former Director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, pled his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer substantive questions during the July 29, 2026 Congressional hearing led by Senator Rand Paul into COVID-19 origins and the government’s funding of gain-of-function research in China.
Dr. Fauci’s refusal to testify follows Senator Paul’s releases of government documents concerning COVID-19, including Dr. Fauci’s personal diary, his efforts to enrich himself with award grants, and private messages from “natural origin” COVID-19 proponents that privately cast doubt on their public conclusions.
Under questioning yesterday, Dr. Fauci refused to answer even the most basic questions – including what day of the week it is and the color of his tie. And while Dr. Fauci’s obstructive non-responses effectively limited the search for the truth, Republicans used the opportunity to educate the public on Dr. Fauci’s abuses of power.
For example, here is Senator Josh Hawley providing key details on Dr. Fauci’s personal enrichment scheme during the COVID-19 pandemic:
In response to Dr. Fauci’s exercising of his Fifth Amendment right, Senator Paul stated: “It’s against the law to obstruct an investigation of Congress. There will be repercussions for your refusal to testify.” And there is a strong argument for obstruction, as President Biden pardoned Fauci for all his official conduct from January 1, 2014 through January 19, 2025. A vote on a Congressional resolution declaring Fauci to be in contempt of Congress will be held on August 5.
Source: NY Times
Federal Court: school district retaliated against parent for objecting to pride flag in classroom
A federal district court in Michigan concluded that a school district retaliated against a parent for uploading a video criticizing public school officials for displaying pride flags in a public-school classroom.
In response to that video, the school district issued a no-trespass order against the parent, displayed his photo in its main office, and threatened him with criminal prosecution if he entered the school. He was also banned from attending extracurricular activities. That no-trespass order continued for nearly two years until the parent sued in federal court.
The district court found that the parent had engaged in protected First Amendment activities by posting the video and criticizing the school and the school district. It also reasoned that the actions of the school district were not only retaliatory but based on “the content of his speech” and “because of his publicly expressed political views.” The loss of the First Amendment freedoms, the court noted, “constitutes irreparable injury.” As a result, the court ruled in favor of the parent and enjoined the school district from enforcing the no-trespass order or from taking any additional retaliatory action in response to the parent’s protected speech.
In other news:
A group of Catholic medical providers has sued the State of New York, alleging that the Medical Aid in Dying Act (which takes effect in August 2026) violates their Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment by requiring them to “implement policies that facilitate the provision of information and counseling about assisted suicide, qualify patients for assisted suicide, and refer patients seeking physician-assisted suicide to willing providers.”
Elon Musk’s xAI has filed a lawsuit that challenges an overbroad Minnesota law that could impose heavy penalties on AI companies that generate satirical photos of public officials.