Dobbs and Kennedy: Two more victories in a long line of recent religious freedom decisions from SCOTUS


The Supreme Court of the United States has certainly brought much relief to religious rights advocates, faith-based institutions, believers, and others of good will this summer — but this turn in favor of religious freedom is anything but new.

The Dobbs decision, which effectively overturned Roe v. Wade, and the Kennedy decision, which ruled in favor of a public school coach’s right to pray after football games, are currently at the forefront of our minds, but they are hardly anomalies. Since at least 2018, the Supreme Court has steadily upheld religious freedoms and protected this aspect of the First Amendment against further government overreach.

Let’s review some of the hallmark cases that have affirmed religious rights.

In the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision of 2018, the dourt ruled 7-2 that the state of Colorado violated the rights of Jack Phillips, the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Though TheBlaze’s Mark Levin argued at the time that the decision meant “nothing, from a constitutional perspective” and Phillips continues to be harassed by LGBTQ+-related lawsuits, a narrow decision in favor of religious rights is a decision in favor of religious rights nonetheless.

In another 7-2 decision in 2019 — this time, with Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh both on the bench — the Court determined that a religious war memorial on public land did not constitute an endorsement of religion by the state of Maryland, and the Peace Cross remains on display in Bladensburg, Maryland, to this day.

The Supreme Court docket of 2020 had a bevy of religious rights rulings, most of which came down on the side of religious freedom. The court ruled that Catholic schools have the right not to hire staff members whose lifestyles do not accord with Catholic teaching, that religious schools may not be excluded from state-sponsored tuition aid programs, and that faith-based employers such as the Little Sisters of the Poor could be exempted from aspects of the federal Affordable Care Act that violate their religious convictions.

However, one key decision in 2020 did not go the way that many conservative believers had hoped. In a 6-3 majority opinion, written by Gorsuch, the court determined that “gender identity” was implicitly protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that employers may not discriminate against “transgender” employees or applicants.

Still, the SCOTUS issued other important religious rights decisions in 2021. With Trump’s third appointee, Amy Coney Barrett, now on the bench as well, the court ruled unanimously that Catholic social services could exclude same-sex couples from consideration as foster parents.

Now in 2022, the court has officially ruled in favor of the rights of public schools employees to pray in public and returned the abortion decision to the states, where people of all religious stripes or no religion at all may weigh the moral issue on its merits.

Though Biden appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed earlier this year to replace the retiring Stephen Breyer and is expected to rule routinely with fellow liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, conservative justices still outnumber their liberal counterparts 6-3. This court balance in favor of conservative justices means we may see further fortification of religious liberties in years to come.

Pelosi blasts ‘extremist’ Supreme Court in letter outlining next steps for House Democrats on abortion


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Monday sent a seething letter to her Democratic colleagues railing against the “extremist” U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion decision and vowing to revive failed legislation that would create federal protections for abortion.

In a dear colleague letter dated Jun. 27, Pelosi outlined several abortion bills House Democrats will take up before the upcoming elections in November. Among them is another version of the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill that would create a federal right to abortion and drastically roll back state abortion restrictions — restrictions that are now legal since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in a landmark decision on Friday.

Legislation to codify Roe has passed the House before but failed to win enough support in the Senate to overcome a filibuster by pro-life Republicans. It has virtually no chance of passing under the current makeup of Congress.

Two other bills House Democrats will advance include legislation protecting the right to travel out of state for an abortion and a privacy bill that would prevent prosecutors in pro-life states from accessing data stored in reproductive health apps to enforce abortion restrictions.

In her letter, Pelosi blasted the “extremist Supreme Court” and accused the court of attempting to “punish and control the American people.”

“Democrats must continue our fight to expand freedom in America. Doing so is foundational to our oath of office and our fidelity to the Constitution,” Pelosi said.

Her letter singled out Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court should go farther than overturning Roe and “reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Those are several highly controversial cases dealing with contraception, sodomy laws, and gay marriage, respectively.

“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ […] we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote.

Pelosi called Thomas’ opinion “disturbing” and promised federal legislation to codify the rights to contraception, homosexual sex, and gay marriage.

“Justice Clarence Thomas confirmed many of our deepest fears about where this decision may lead: taking aim at additional long-standing precedent and cherished privacy rights, from access to contraception and in-vitro fertilization to marriage equality,” she wrote. “Legislation is being introduced to further codify freedoms which Americans currently enjoy. More information to follow.”

Thomas’ opinion was not shared by the other justices in the majority. In the opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the court explicitly rejected the proposition that Dobbs should be used to question the court’s rulings on issues not related to abortion.

“And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” Alito wrote. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

But Pelosi’s letter does not address the substance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs. The final paragraph reveals that Pelosi’s outrage is directed at motivating voters to the polls in November to protect Democratic majorities in Congress.

“It is clear from how Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell stacked the Supreme Court that elections have ramifications,” Pelosi wrote. “It is essential that we protect and expand our pro-choice Majorities in the House and Senate in November so that we can eliminate the filibuster so that we can restore women’s fundamental rights – and freedom for every American.”

Dem judge intervenes and blocks Louisiana from outlawing abortions: ‘A public health emergency’


A Democratic judge intervened on Monday to block a Louisiana law that made abortion illegal promptly after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

What is the background?

Louisiana is one of 13 states that passed so-called “trigger laws” that severely restricted or outright banned abortion when the Supreme Court issued its historic Dobbs ruling overturning abortion precedents.

On June 21, Gov. John Bel Edwards signed a “trigger law” that would “become effective immediately upon … any decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which overrules, in whole or in part, Roe v. Wade.”

The law does not provide an exception for rape or incest, but does provide an exception to save the life of a mother.

What happened now?

Orleans Parish Civil District Judge Robin Giarrusso, a Democrat, issued a ruling on Monday that temporarily blocks the trigger law from taking effect.

This means that Louisiana’s three abortion clinics — in New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Shreveport — that stopped providing abortions on Friday immediately after the Supreme Court’s ruling can resume abortion procedures.

However, it remains unclear whether they will resume operations, as the legality of the procedure remains in limbo.

The plaintiffs, which included abortion providers and supporters of abortion, argue the trigger law is “hopelessly vague” and violates the Louisiana state constitution.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing the plaintiffs, celebrated the ruling.

“A public health emergency is about to engulf the nation. As expected, Louisiana and many other states wasted no time enacting bans and eliminating abortion entirely,” said president and CEO Nancy Northup. “People who need an abortion right now are in a state of panic. We will be fighting to restore access in Louisiana and other states for as long as we can. Every day that a clinic is open and providing abortion services can make a difference in a person’s life.”

Meanwhile, Louisiana Right to Life said state Attorney General Jeff Landry (R), who is listed as a defendant in the case, will defend the state’s law.

“It is telling that the Shreveport abortion business filed a lawsuit in Orleans Parish, looking for a district judge who would side with abortion,” executive director Benjamin Clapper said. “We are thankful our Attorney General Jeff Landry will vigorously defend our pro-life laws. We look forward to these frivolous lawsuits being dismissed, and Louisiana will continue to work together to protect babies and support moms.”

Giarrusso scheduled a hearing for July 8 to consider a permanent injunction against the Louisiana law.

The View’s Whoopi Goldberg threatens Justice Clarence Thomas with INSANE racist message


Whoopi Goldberg, co-host of “The View,” reacted to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade by issuing an overtly racist threat toward Justice Clarence Thomas, who is black, about his marriage to his wife Ginni, who is white.

“You better hope that they don’t come for you, Clarence, and say you should not be married to your wife, who happens to be white,” Goldberg yelled, suggesting that conservatives in America would seek to ban interracial marriage.

“They will move back, and you’d better hope that nobody says, you know, well, you’re not in the Constitution. You’re back to being a quarter of a person,” she added.

On “The Rubin Report,” BlazeTV host Dave Rubin reviewed some of the most insane reactions to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, including the “insane” ladies on “TheView.”

Dave discussed some of the Democrats, like Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who have gotten more than a little bit extreme in their rhetoric. Meanwhile, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called for a Supreme Court impeachment. Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts demanded that Democrats pack the court.

There’s also actor Samuel L. Jackson, who, like Goldberg, resorted to calling Justice Clarence Thomas a racial slur over the court’s decision. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expressed horror at the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but an old tweet of his reveals that he has been disturbed by some of the rhetoric of pro-choice activists. HBO’s Bill Maher tore into Democrats for fumbling the abortion issue, which should have been an easy win for the party that claims to defend women’s rights.

And finally, the award for the worst take probably goes to Goldberg’s co-host on “The View,” Ana Navarro, who used her disabled relatives as an example to defend abortion after she was challenged about her Catholic faith. Her comments have been interpreted by many as an argument for killing people with mental disabilities.

Watch the video clip below:

Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

‘Pride Cruiser’ shown off by police ‘LGBTQIA+ liaison officer’ in Columbus, OH. Reaction is decidedly grim: ‘This is f***ing ridiculous’


A “Pride Cruiser” got a grand “unveiling” on video, courtesy of the “LGBTQIA+ liaison officer” for the police department in Columbus, Ohio, recently.

What are the details?

The white SUV — adorned with rainbow flags and LBGTQ-themed messages such as “Love Is Love” — is parked behind the officer as he delivers the news to viewers.

“Hi, I’m Officer Lutz with the Columbus Division of Police. I’m your LGBTQIA+ liaison officer, and we’re unveiling right now our Pride Cruiser for the month of June!” the officer says.

With that, Lutz steps aside as the camera trains upon the SUV from all angles and music plays in the background:

“Happy #PRIDE Columbus!!!” the tweet from Columbus Police reads. “Make sure to say hi to Officer Lutz when you see him out and get a photo with our PRIDE cruiser!”

As the video plays, Lutz adds, “I’m excited about this cruiser. It’s great for representation.”

Other phrases on the “Pride Cruiser” urge citizens to “Report Hate Crimes” and to celebrate “Columbus Pride 2022.”

How are folks reacting to the ‘Pride Cruiser’?

Certainly the “Pride Cruiser” has its share of supporters on Twitter, but a goodly number of folks reacting to the tweet from Columbus Police weren’t exactly thrilled with the “unveiling”:

“I guarantee you that most of your officers and employees are embarrassed by this nonsense,” one commenter wrote.”I’m sure that police car will strike fear in the hearts of criminals,” another user guessed.”This is a joke right?” another commenter asked. “Y’all just f***in with us.””You are an EMBARRASSMENT to your community,” another user responded. “I feel sad for your taxpayers having to fund virtue-signaling idiocy.””You people are a joke,” another commenter declared.”This is absolutely insane,” another user said. “Why R we paying for any of this? Are you guys so completely bored that you can waste time and $ on this crap? A [liaison] for the LGBTQ community … WTF do U actually do and why do we need this position? Why can’t the LGBTQ community just go to any cop?””Openly gay shouldn’t be any different than openly heterosexual,” another commenter stated. “I thought that was the whole point, but now every June we’ll be inundated with Pride??? Sheesh. Just stop already ’cause it’s gone way beyond being proud of being gay.””I have an enormous amount of respect for [law] enforcement. I defend policing, donate $ to FOP, and rely on local police to keep my family safe,” another user noted. “This is f***ing ridiculous.”

Tie election declared in Alabama GOP primary; winner to be decided ‘by lot’


In a stark reminder that every vote matters, an Alabama GOP state Senate primary race was declared a tie and will be decided “by lot.”

Unofficial results for the GOP primary in Senate District 27 had Auburn City Councilman Jay Hovey leading incumbent state Sen. Tom Whatley by a single vote. But on Saturday, the Alabama Republican Party Candidate Committee declared the race officially a tie and said the outcome would be determined by lot or by another game of chance, in accordance with state law.

Hovey accused the party of counting an unregistered voter to bring the race to a tie in a statement to the Montgomery Advertiser.

“Certainly every vote is important and it’s unfortunate if anyone is mistaken that they are registered to vote,” Hovey wrote. “But if the proper, legal process isn’t followed to register, a person shouldn’t be allowed to cast a ballot to be considered.”

The party did not give a reason for its decision.

The relevant state law that will decide the primary election is Alabama Code 17-12-23.

It states: “In all elections where there is a tie between the two highest candidates for the same office, for all county or precinct offices, it shall be decided by lot by the sheriff of the county in the presence of the candidates; and in the case of the office of circuit judge, senator, representative, or any state officer not otherwise provided for, the Secretary of State shall, in the presence of the Governor, and such other electors as may choose to be present, decide the tie by lot.”

According to Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill, the race could be decided by any game of chance that both candidates agree to play.

“It could be a roll of a dice, high card, or rock-paper-scissors,” Merrill told in March. Historically, ties in Alabama elections have been resolved by coin toss. “The sheriff is the one responsible for flipping the coin,” Merrill said.

Unofficially, the challenger Hovey earned 8,373 votes compared to the incumbent Whatley’s 8,372.

Whatley had vastly outspent his opponent, dropping nearly $1.3 million for his re-election bid, while Hovey only spent $103,000.

A press release from the state GOP did not indicate when or how the tie will be broken.

Whichever candidate wins the game of chance will face Democratic nominee Sherri Reese in the election for Senate District 27 this November. Reese was unopposed for the Democratic nomination. District 27 includes parts of Lee, Russell, and Tallapoosa counties.

Report: Biden ‘unwittingly’ wired son Hunter tens of thousands of dollars for Russian prostitutes


The so-called “laptop from hell” has revealed yet again that some of Hunter Biden’s expensive, hedonistic pursuits were funded by President Joe Biden.

According to data uncovered in the laptop, Hunter Biden received tens of thousands of dollars from his father in a very short amount of time. Andrew Kerr and Jerry Dunleavy report for the Washington Examiner that Joe Biden wired son Hunter “a total of $100,000 to help pay [Hunter] bills from December 2018 through January 2019.” Though Hunter sought the money under legitimate pretenses, he often spent much of it on Russian escorts, records show.

Kerr and Dunleavy are careful to note that Joe Biden funded these escort enterprises “unwittingly” and that nothing uncovered on the laptop “would suggest Joe Biden was aware of his son’s activities.” However, Hunter’s predictable pattern of behavior — broken promises, fights with other family members regarding money — and the fact that banking institutions had to block some of his financial transactions should have given Joe Biden cause for concern.

According to the report from Kerr and Dunleavy, Hunter Biden sought escort services from UberGFE, a nebulous entity that “listed apparent locations in ‘Moscow – St. Petersburg – Kiev'” as recently as 2016. UberGFE is not registered anywhere in the US.

Among the various transactions documented on the laptop between Hunter Biden and UberGFE is a particularly unsettling incident between Hunter and an unidentified escort in January 2019. Hunter apparently paid Eva, his UberGFE contact, $5,000 for eight hours with the young escort. He then contacted Eva to extend his time with the escort to 16 total hours, but was unable to cover the $10,000 price tag on his own.

Records show that Joe Biden wired his son $5,000 an hour and a half after Hunter negotiated with Eva for extended time. Richard Ruffner, who was an assistant to Joe Biden at the time, then texted Hunter shortly thereafter to apologize that Joe Biden “was only able to do $5000 because the weekly limit is $7,500.”

Hunter also filmed a brief video of his encounter with the escort. On the film, Hunter repeatedly asks the young woman — who speaks little English — whether she is at all hurt. He also warns her that she cannot “talk to [him] that way and say things like that,” though what she allegedly said is never made clear.

Other data from the laptop demonstrates that several banking institutions blocked some of Hunter’s attempted financial transactions. Hunter texted Eva in February 2019 to tell her that he could not send money to entities with a Russian email address because those were a “red flag” that forced banks to freeze his accounts.

Hunter also solicited his father for tens of thousands of dollars for alimony and child support in December 2018.

“75 being wired today,” Joe Biden texted his son in response.

Two months later, Hunter requested — and was granted — $20,000 for a drug rehab program, a program in which Hunter ultimately never enrolled.

Though Kerr and Dunleavy insist that Joe Biden was unaware of the true purpose of these exorbitant loans to son Hunter, former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy is much more skeptical.

“The context here is that Democrats put the country through two years of anxiety on the false, Democrat-fabricated claim that Biden’s predecessor was an agent of the Kremlin,” McCarthy said. “And of course, when compelling evidence arose that Biden is actually entangled in his son’s foreign business dealings, despite having denied even discussing them, Biden apologists responded with their standard deceptive deflection — it’s all Russian disinformation.

“Now, however, we learn that it was Russian information — Hunter’s reckless payments of thousands of dollars he’d received from his willfully blind father to sordid businesses with Russian email accounts — that Biden apologists were suppressing in the weeks before the 2020 election.”

Biden administration drops tens of thousands of illegal immigration cases in ‘de facto amnesty’


President Joe Biden’s administration is forcing federal prosecutors to drop tens of thousands of cases against illegal immigrants, creating a sort of “de facto amnesty” that could permit up to 1 million people to seek permanent legal status in the U.S. by 2024, according to a report.

A whistleblower from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — a federal prosecutor — told the Washington Examiner Friday that Biden administration officials have instructed ICE prosecutors to deal with a backlog of 2 million immigration cases by throwing out cases from before the November 2020 election.

In an April 14 virtual meeting, ICE principal legal adviser Kerry Doyle laid out the Biden administration’s policy to the more than 1,200 ICE prosecutors handling cases against illegal immigrants, the Examiner reported. She told them only to prosecute cases against migrants identified as national security or public safety threats, or those who had crossed the border illegally after Nov. 1, 2020. Doyle instructed that prosecutors were to use their discretion to drop all other cases.

“As the memo explains — I think pretty clearly — we’ve put our thumb sort of heavily in favor of dismissal and durable solutions,” Doyle reportedly said. “Even if you’ve spent a lot of time on the case, if it’s a nonpriority, you should be moving to offer [prosecutorial discretion] in that case.”

Essentially, the Biden administration is selectively enforcing immigration law. The result is that since April 25, between 60,000 and 80,000 illegal immigration cases have been closed, the ICE prosecutor told the Examiner.

“If the agency’s 1,200 prosecutors keep the current pace of 60,000-80,000 case closures every two months, ICE could hit 360,000 to 480,000 closed cases by next April and 1 million by early summer 2024, months before the presidential election,” the Examiner reported.

Without a pending immigration case against them, these illegal immigrants will be able to apply to become permanent legal residents, the first step toward U.S. citizenship.

“This is a de facto amnesty,” the whistleblower said.

President Biden come under fire from Republicans who charge that his lax immigration policies are to blame for the humanitarian crisis at the southern border.

Eight GOP senators released a 56-page report in June blaming the administration’s policies for a record surge of illegal immigration recorded this spring.

U.S. Customs and Border protection reported a record-high 239,416 border encounters in May, the fourth consecutive monthly increase in illegal immigrant encounters. Approximately one-fourth of those apprehended by immigration enforcement had been previously arrested and deported by CBP.

Since Biden assumed office, federal law enforcement officials at the southern border have encountered more than 2.6 million migrants attempting to enter the country illegally from Mexico, northern Central America, and other countries.

AOC demands ‘consequences’ for Supreme Court after Roe overturned, claims ‘hostile takeover’ took place


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) demanded Sunday that Supreme Court justices pay “consequences” for participating in a “hostile takeover” of American democracy.

What did AOC say?

Ocasio-Cortez claimed on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that the United States is facing a “crisis of our democracy” because the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Specifically, Ocasio-Cortez alleged that multiple Supreme Court justices lied during their Senate confirmation hearings and overturned abortion precedents “without basis.” She suggested there must be repercussions for such actions.

“If we allow Supreme Court nominees to lie under oath and secure lifetime appointments to the highest court of the land and then issue without basis — if you read these opinions — issue without basis, rulings that deeply undermine the human and civil rights of the majority of Americans, we must see that through,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“There must be consequences for such a deeply destabilizing action and a hostile takeover of our democratic institutions,” she continued.

“To allow that to stand is to allow it to happen,” she added. “And what makes it particularly dangerous is that it sends a blaring signal to all future nominees that they can now lie to duly elected members of the United States Senate in order to secure Supreme Court confirmations and seats on the Supreme Court.”

Full AOC: ‘The Supreme Court Has Dramatically Overreached Its Authority’

The New York Democrat, however, failed to explain how abortion precedents were overturned “without basis.”

The court opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization totaled more than 78 pages, dismantling piece by piece what many legal scholars — including Ruth Bader Ginsburg — believed was faulty jurisprudence by an overreaching court.

Later in the interview, Ocasio-Cortez said she believes that lying under oath is an “impeachable offense,” suggesting those Supreme Court justices who she believes are guilty of lying should be impeached.

Did the justices lie?

Since Dobbs was handed down last Friday, countless Democrats — and even Republican Sen. Susan Collins — have either suggested or outright claimed that Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh lied during their Senate confirmation hearings.

Central to their allegation is that each justice agreed that Roe v. Wade was a court precedent that had been reaffirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. However, none of the justices explicitly said they would vote to uphold Roe if the issue of abortion came before the court in the future.

In the case of Dobbs, Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the court opinion, thoroughly explained why Roe should be overturned and why the legal doctrine of stare decisis did not mandate the court to uphold Roe forever.

New York state court strikes down New York City’s noncitizen voting law


A New York court struck down New York City’s noncitizen voting law Monday, ruling that the law violated the state’s constitution and state election laws.

In a 13-page opinion obtained by the Daily Caller’s Henry Rodgers, the New York Supreme Court for Richmond County ruled against Mayor Eric Adams and the New York City Council, declaring that a law permitting noncitizen lawful permanent residents and green card holders to vote in municipal elections was illegal.

“The New York State Constitution explicitly lays the foundation for ascertaining that only proper citizens retain the right to voter privileges,” Judge Ralph J. Rorzio wrote. “It is this Court’s belief that by not expressly including non-citizens in the New York State Constitution, it was the intent of the framers for non-citizens to be omitted.”

“Based upon the foregoing analysis, the Court finds that the Municipal Voting Law explicitly violates the New York State Constitution, as only ‘citizens’ may vote in elections,” the judge ruled.

Last December, the New York City Council passed a law extending the right to vote in local elections to noncitizen immigrants who live, work, and pay taxes in New York City. Democratic state officials and immigration activists celebrated the law, which was expected to enfranchise more than 800,000 new voters beginning in 2023.

But the Republican National Committee and state GOP officials challenged the law on the grounds that it violated the state’s constitution, as well as state election law and New York’s Municipal Home Rule Law.

Rorzio’s opinion agreed with the RNC’s claims and declared the noncitizen voting law null and void.

“The Municipal Voting Law is ‘impermissible simply and solely for the reason that the Constitution says that it cannot be done,'” Rorzio wrote.

“The New York State Constitution expressly states that citizens meeting the age and residency requirements are entitled to register and vote in elections. The New York State Election Law reaffirms that citizens meeting the age and residency requirements are entitled to register and vote in elections. There is no statutory ability for the City of New York to issue inconsistent laws permitting non-citizens to vote and exceed the authority granted to it by the New York State Constitution.”

The decision was welcomed by Republican Party of New York chairman Nick Langworthy.

“This is another victory for citizen rights, election integrity, and the rule of law. The judge affirmed that this brazen attempt to give voting rights to non-citizens is in direct violation of the law and a common-sense reading of the Constitution,” Langworthy said in a statement.

In New York, the state “supreme court” is the trial-level court, which means New York City may still attempt to appeal this decision all the way up to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court.

A spokesman for the mayor’s office told the New York Times that city officials are “evaluating next steps” after the supreme court’s ruling.