The Burden Of History: Justice Jackson's Curious Call To Overturn Critical 2nd Amendment Precedent

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Since her confirmation in 2022, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson has established a legacy that is fast becoming one of the most radical in the Court’s history. Her sole dissents have drawn sharp criticism from both her conservative and liberal colleagues. However, for critics of some of these decisions, Justice Jackson continues to publish opinions that are not just, as she describes it, cathartic but chilling. Worse yet, the latest judicial jump scare was shared by her colleague, Justice Sonya Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion in United States v. Hemani..

At issue in the case was an effort to prosecute Ali Hemani for recreational use of marijuana, a prosecution that threatened up to 15 years and to strip him of his gun rights under  18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch ruled that the provision was not "consistent with the Second Amendment." Gorsuch noted that Hemani was not alleged to be a drug addict or to have used his guns in a menacing manner.

Gorsuch wrote that the "historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways."

However, Jackson used the concurrence to argue for overturning NYSRPA v. Bruen, a case critical to laying the foundation for interpreting the Second Amendment based on historical precedent. Jackson lashed out at the"'history and tradition' metric" and called for the Court to "revisit" the case.

Declaring Bruen "unworkable," Jackson called for the restoration of the "means-end scrutiny - the approach courts applied before we adopted Bruen's 'history and tradition' metric - offers a more rational way of assessing the constitutionality of firearm regulations."

The reason for undoing Bruen? According to Jackson, "it imposes on judges the unfamiliar and difficult tasks of sifting through centuries-old evidence in order to answer 'contested historical questions,' and 'applying those answers to resolve contemporary problems.'"

Justice Jackson added that "Given those challenges, it is unsurprising that Bruen's test is vulnerable to inconsistent and arbitrary application, as judges draw different conclusions from the same historical evidence and reach divergent assessments of the same laws."

The burden of actually seeking to understand the intended meaning of a constitutional provision is certainly greater than the more free-style approach of Jackson who focused on how to "resolve contemporary problems" under a living Constitution. However, to suggest that her outcome-determinative approach is less inconsistent and arbitrary is only true when you control the Court with justices who have like-minded "solutions" for contemporary problems.

That is precisely what many Democrats have in mind as they openly pledge to pack the Court with an insistent liberal majority if they can retake power. Moreover, Jackson is often cited as the model of the left, a justice who is unburdened by the language and history of constitutional provisions.

Just last week, liberal Wisconsin State Supreme Court justices heralded Jackson’s approach in arguing for the restoration of race-based gerrymandering. The state jurists lamented not being able to interpret the Constitution to address the “harms this country has caused to those who are marginalized, disempowered, or disenfranchised,” including the “preference for White Americans and to burden Black Americans and those of other disadvantaged races or backgrounds.”

These federal and state Supreme Court opinions are a glimpse into what awaits the country if Democratic leaders carry out their threat to take over the Supreme Court by adding four liberal justices in the image of Justice Jackson.

It is not simply the desire to immediately overturn prior cases but to establish a largely untethered jurisprudence driven by judicial fiat and impulse. It is certainly an easier way to write opinions and would clear the way for a stated agenda on the left to maintain power indefinitely.

Before voters "unburden" these jurists, they need to seriously consider the costs of eviscerating an institution that has been vital in maintaining this Republic for the last 250 years.

Here is the opinion: United States v. Hemani

onathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 13:45
https://ift.tt/xLMUuvH
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/xLMUuvH
via IFTTT

The Burden Of History: Justice Jackson's Curious Call To Overturn Critical 2nd Amendment Precedent

Definium Soars As Much As 50% After LSD-Based Depression Drug Meets Late-Stage Clinical Trial Goal

Definium Therapeutics shares surged as much as 54% on Monday, reaching $37.90 in morning trading as investors reacted positively to developments in the biotech company's research pipeline and potential strategic opportunities.

Definium Therapeutics said its LSD-based depression drug, DT120, met the main goal of a mid-stage trial, reducing depression scores by 8.1 points more than placebo after six weeks, according to Reuters.

Patients showed improvement within one week after a single dose, with benefits remaining at 12 weeks. Analysts had said a 4–5 point placebo-adjusted improvement would be a strong result.

DT120, a psychedelic that activates serotonin receptors, was generally well tolerated, with mostly mild side effects occurring on dosing day and no serious safety concerns.

The trial included 149 adults with major depressive disorder, a condition affecting about 21 million U.S. adults. Recent U.S. policy has also encouraged faster development of psychedelic-based mental health treatments.

We noted back in April that psychedelic stocks were going "mainstream", pointing them out as one of the more interesting policy-driven biotech themes, arguing that a supportive regulatory backdrop could become a meaningful catalyst for the sector.

Since then, momentum has accelerated. The FDA unveiled new measures to speed research into psychedelic treatments for serious mental health conditions, while President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to expand access to promising emerging therapies. The moves could accelerate development timelines for treatments targeting depression, PTSD, addiction, and other difficult-to-treat disorders. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/22/2026 - 15:45
https://ift.tt/udmsCMR
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/udmsCMR
via IFTTT

Definium Soars As Much As 50% After LSD-Based Depression Drug Meets Late-Stage Clinical Trial Goal

Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes Down Race-Based Scholarships As Unconstitutional

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down a state-funded scholarship program that awarded financial aid based on the race of college students. The Democrat-controlled court followed the precedent laid out by the United States Supreme Court in finding that Gov. Tony Evers and the state were violating the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

Two of the most liberal justices, however, wrote a concurrence denouncing the bar on the use of race for such scholarships.

If Democrats are able to pack the Supreme Court as demanded by many party leaders, this concurrence is an example of the likely changes that a packed court will bring in reversing anti-discrimination and other rulings.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty represented the taxpayers in this successful challenge of the Wisconsin Minority Undergraduate Retention Grant Program.

That program administered taxpayer-funded grants of up to $2,500 per academic year to eligible students of Black American, American Indian, Hispanic, or certain Southeast Asian backgrounds.

The state paid out roughly half a million dollars in scholarships, now found to be racially discriminatory.

Citing the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Court reaffirmed that “The Constitution requires that every person ‘must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race.’”

While many have heralded the new bright line against racial discrimination in higher education, two of the most liberal justices, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky and Susan Crawford, lamented the loss of racially discriminatory programs.

In her concurrence, Chief Justice Karofsky captured the sweeping, open-ended rationales used for such programs:

“Why have we not learned from our past? Why are we not willing to recognize the harms this country has caused to those who are marginalized, disempowered, or disenfranchised? Why, instead of wielding the Equal Protection Clause as a sword against racism, do we employ it to shield against the promise of equality for all? The answer appears to be because we have failed to fully recognize how societal and governmental practices have long continued to enforce a preference for White Americans and to burden Black Americans and those of other disadvantaged races or backgrounds.”

These justices would continue race-based programs indefinitely under the claim that there is a “preference for White Americans” in programs that focus purely on academic achievement or specific non-racial criteria.

The two justices quote from the dissent of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that requiring race-neutral rules is just more “let-them-eat-cake obliviousness” by a white privileged society.

She added, “I fully recognize and acknowledge that I am bound by the precedent set forth in SFFA and other cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court…However, I also choose to write separately. I do so because I find it impossible to ignore the truths that Justice Jackson identifies.”

Notably, those “truths” from the Jackson dissent have been challenged as containing glaring false claims.

I have previously discussed my disagreements with Jackson and her jurisprudence, including her dissent in the SFFA case. However, this concurrence vividly shows the jurists whom the Democrats could call upon to pack the Supreme Court to reverse decisions like the one in SFFA.

With various Democratic leaders now openly pledging to pack the Court to reverse such decisions, the 2028 election is becoming a referendum on the future of an institution that has proven key to maintaining this Republic for 250 years.

Democratic politicians and pundits have made clear that they need the immediate control of the Supreme Court to carry out an agenda that would be struck down as unconstitutional. That includes reversing core constitutional rulings. The Karofsky concurrence offers a glimpse into our future if we allow the Court to be the object of a political hostile takeover.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/21/2026 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/KnUIEG9
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/KnUIEG9
via IFTTT

Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes Down Race-Based Scholarships As Unconstitutional

"It's That Bad": Virginia Residents Battling Constant Noise From Data Center Generators

For more than a year, residents living next to the Vantage Data Centers facility have endured what they describe as a constant, high-pitched whining or ringing sound coming from the site's massive backup generators - the facility's only source of electricity.

An aerial view of the Vantage data center in Sterling, Va., which abuts a residential neighborhood. (NewsNation)

Unlike most data centers connected to the power grid, this facility runs entirely on its own on-site power plant. What residents were told would be temporary generator testing has become permanent operation.

"They're Just Never Turned Off"

Neighbor Hari Doue told News Nation that the community was initially assured the generators were only being tested for emergencies.

"We were told in the beginning that they test the generators to make sure they're working in case of an emergency. And then as the year and the months have gone on, they're just never turned off," Doue said. 

Another neighbor, Greg Pirio, has reached out to attorneys over the issue. He described the impact bluntly:

"You just hear this noise, it's just like, you just want to curse, you know, it's that bad."

Some residents have taken drastic steps to cope. One placed a mattress against their window to muffle the sound. Another installed plexiglass and began monitoring decibel levels with a sound meter. Concerns center on sleep disruption, stress, and falling property values.

Vantage Data Centers officials told NewsNation they continue to monitor noise levels and do not believe the sound exceeds Loudoun County's limits - which is 55 decibels in Residential and rural areas and 60 decibels in Mixed-use residential areas. Exceptions include generators operating during emergencies, at utility request, or during testing.

Virginia: America's Data Center Capital

Virginia has the largest concentration of data centers in the United States - 287 operational and 398 prospective, according to Pew Research. Loudoun County has become ground zero for this boom, often called "Data Center Alley."

The economic upside is significant. Data centers generate almost half of Loudoun County's property tax revenues, funding schools and public services while helping keep residential tax rates lower.

However, the facilities consumed approximately 26% of Virginia's total electricity in 2023, contributing to higher energy costs for all residents.

The situation in Sterling reflects a broader national tension. On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued show-cause orders requiring major grid operators to justify or update rules for connecting large energy users such as data centers.

President Trump has encouraged data center developers to build dedicated on-site power sources - the exact model used by Vantage in Sterling - to protect regular utility customers from rate hikes.

Residents near the Vantage site acknowledge the benefits of data centers, including jobs, tax revenue, and essential digital infrastructure, but strongly object to their placement directly next to homes.

"Do everything in your power to try and stop it from being built in an area that has any residential properties within 10 or 15 miles of it," said Doue. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/20/2026 - 19:15
https://ift.tt/wWKDjtz
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/wWKDjtz
via IFTTT

"It's That Bad": Virginia Residents Battling Constant Noise From Data Center Generators

Banning Hospitals' 'Certain Contracts' Could Save Americans $45 Billion, Report Finds

Authored by Travis Gillmore via The Epoch Times,

A ban on certain contracts between hospital systems and health insurers could save Americans around $45 billion, according to a report from White House analysts released on June 18.

Lenox Health Greenwich Village Hospital in Manhattan, New York City, on Nov. 2, 2020. Chung I Ho/The Epoch Times

"The Council of Economic Advisers' findings reinforce that the Trump administration is delivering meaningful cost reductions for American patients," White House spokeswoman Allison Schuster told The Epoch Times by email June 19, noting the president's surgical approach to policy development that prioritizes fiscal discipline.

"By harnessing the use of free-market competition, President Trump has found a real solution to lowering costs instead of blindly throwing more taxpayer money at the problem."

Administration officials are exploring how best to manage hospital systems and insurers without relying on price controls or heavy-handed regulations.

At issue are three clauses, known as "anti-steering, anti-tiering, and all-or-nothing" contracts, which critics say shield healthcare providers from competition, thus increasing prices for consumers.

Anti-steering clauses block insurers from incentivizing or guiding clients toward cheaper options or providers, even when their data indicate clear savings potential.

Anti-tiering is used to stop insurers from categorizing hospital systems in less desirable benefit tiers that would reduce profit margins by forcing the providers to cover higher patient costs.

Bundled, also known as all-or-nothing, contracts require insurers to include all hospitals and physicians in a system, eliminating the option to negotiate independently.

Combined, the provisions result in more expensive healthcare, with higher rates, less efficiency, and limited insurance plan innovation due to reduced competition.

In markets where the clauses in question are widespread, a ban would lead to an 18 percent decline in hospital and physician prices, amounting to approximately $4,100 per inpatient admission, according to the report.

Premium prices would decline by about 7 percent, saving the average family about $1,800 annually, the report found, with aggregate reductions totaling about $45 billion and up to $63 billion.

Workers would benefit from higher take-home pay and lower out-of-pocket costs thanks to the reduced insurance costs. Small businesses and employers would also get relief with lower costs.

Analysts arrived at the numbers by calculating several variables, including the increased leverage insurers would gain while bargaining, with an expectation that prices would drop by about 8 percent as a result.

Allowing steering and tiering will improve patient management and shift care toward lower-cost providers, with transparencies helping reduce prices by about 4 percent, according to the report.

Free-market dynamics are expected to drive dynamic competition, with efficient, low-cost competitors helping further drive down costs by about 3 percent.

Proposed policies prioritize healthcare in rural areas, with bans aimed at lowering premiums while boosting independent rural hospitals.

Crackdowns are underway in the form of federal legal proceedings, with eyes on a national framework to codify the proposals.

"Thanks to the Trump administration's crackdown on anti-steering, anti-tiering, and all-or-nothing contracts by hospitals, everyday Americans are directly benefitting from lower premium contributions and higher take-home wages," Schuster said.

Congressional lawmakers are considering a similar course of action with the Healthy Competition for Better Care Act introduced by Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), which would outlaw the anti-competition clauses.

Some states, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Texas, prohibit certain clauses, though coverage and enforcement vary.

The report referenced two recent civil antitrust actions brought by the Department of Justice, one against OhioHealth filed in February and settled June 18, with no admission of wrongdoing and the hospital forbidden from using anticompetitive clauses.

"Providing affordable healthcare to Americans is uncontroversial and this Department of Justice will not tolerate corporate prioritization of revenue in contravention of our antitrust laws," Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said in a statement.

A case against New York-Presbyterian Hospital, filed in March, is pending. Justice Department filings allege the hospital is insulated from price competition by contractual clauses, thus raising healthcare costs for New Yorkers.

A settlement with Sutter Health of Northern California from 2022 offers a successful precedent, according to the report, with the system agreeing to pay $575 million in fines and stop using the contractual clauses and succeeding in the aftermath of the agreement, later receiving recognition for its rural facilities.

Trump has repeatedly placed healthcare at the front of his second-term agenda, seeking to address the root causes of high medical costs, including with the release of TrumpRX.gov for prescription medicine at reduced prices.

He's taken his message on the road around the country in recent weeks, highlighting his actions and plans to further address Americans' healthcare cost burdens.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/20/2026 - 17:30
https://ift.tt/LXsR5az
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/LXsR5az
via IFTTT

Banning Hospitals' 'Certain Contracts' Could Save Americans $45 Billion, Report Finds