The Pandora Archives

Who was Charlie Kirk?

He was a conservative activist even before going to college.

He founded Turning Point USA in 2012

In 2020 he launched a campaign to mobilize the youth vote for the 2020 Trump reelection campaign

Started The Charlie Kirk Show

Turning Point Action and Students for Trump sent 350 students to the January 6th Capitol "protest"

In 2021, he co-founded Turning Point Faith to drive faith-based politics and fundraise

In 2022 he announced the Mount Vernon Project aiming to remove non "grassroot conservatives" from the Republican National Committee

Charlie Kirk's political positions and beliefs

Promoted conspiracy theories around voter fraud and the election being "stolen" from Trump

Considered social distancing measures for COVID-19 a Democratic plot against Christianity

Called mandatory requirements for COVID-19 vaccines "medical apartheid" on Fox News

Believed in the superiority of western culture and civilization

Shifted from supporting separation of church and state to wanting to see the US as a Christian nation

Opposed abortion, including exceptions for rape in young children and compared it to the Holocaust

Opposed gun control. "I think it's worth it, I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."

Criticized Obergefell v. Hodges and claimed LGBTQ+ people wants to corrupt children

Called for a nationwide ban of gender-affirming care for transgender people. Transgender women should be "taken care of the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and '60s"

Claimed birth control makes women angry and bitter

Criticized the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Did not believe January 6th was an insurrection

Promoted the "Great Replacement" theory

Wrote "Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America"

Said that immigration into the US should be completely stopped

Promoted the false claim that Haitians in Ohio were eating pets

Highly supportive of Israel

Opposed US support of Ukraine

Promoted climate change denial

His Assassination

Right now there is still a lot that is unknown about the person who shot Charlie Kirk and his motivations. Some evidence supports that he was pro-Trump, a republican, and this was a part of the feud between Kirk and Fuentes. Other evidence indicates he had recently taken up left-leaning beliefs and hated Kirk for his beliefs. I do not have the information right now to state one way or the other.

The concurring opinion was written by Justice Kavanaugh with Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Barrett voting with Kavanaugh.

This decision allows ICE agents to question people

i) If they are at specific locations such as bus stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural sites, and "the like." These are of course everyday locations that have no relation to someone's immigration status. This is a transparent targeting of low income individuals reliant on public transportation and working low paying jobs. This of course assumes all people in this position are untrustworthy.

ii) This second point is even more vague, only indicating the type of work someone does. There are no further indications as what this is supposed to mean. This would allow ICE to stop "people of interest" without any kind of cause and simply point to their job as an indication.

iii) Up until this year, the USA did not have a national language and the decision to create a national language was a unilateral decision by the Trump regime. This country is a melting pot and speaking another language or having an accent should be considered a benefit, not suspicious.

iv) Apparent race or ethnicity. Seriously? That is blatant.

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Sotomayor and joined by Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson.

The opinion states that this decision was a misuse of the emergency docket instead of allowing the case to pass through the court as normal. They also do not believe it satisfies the 4th amendment requirement for reasonable suspicion. ICE agents are using these criteria to violently detain Latinos without identifying themselves or asking questions while wielding guns.

It also points out that precedent in the court is the opposite of this decision, as in US v. Brignoni-Ponce. In that case, the court ruled that Mexican ancestry wasn't reasonable cause to stop truck drivers. They needed to have reasonable suspicion due to behavior or truck load, for example. They dissent due to a belief that this violates constitutional rights and does not follow typical court processes.

Although not required to purchase the posters, no public elementary or secondary school can be except from this law and must display the poster.

A federal judge ruled to temporarily block the law in 11 school districts (a recent supreme court ruling limiting federal injunctions means this ruling only applies to the school districts listed in the lawsuit). This decision was based on SB 10 not being religiously neutral and violating the 1st amendment rights of students. This is expected to go to the supreme court as the ruling and law faces challenges and appeals.

This law comes as several states start to challenge the meaning of separation of church and state, likely hoping that the highly conservative supreme court will erode these 1st amendment rights. It is not yet clear what the consequences are if schools do not adhere to the law.

M&K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM Pension Fund (When calculating an end of the year pension plan, must they use financial assumptions already adopted or can they use new assumptions?)

Little v. Hecox (Does limiting the participation of trans women "based on sex" in women's sports violate the 14th amendment?)

West Virginia v. B.P.J. (Does Title IX prevent the state from designating sports teams based on biological sex and if the 14th amendment prevents a state from offering separate teams based on biological sex?)

Cox Communications, inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment (Did the 4th Circuit err in holding that a service provider can be help liable for copyright infringement because people using the service infringed?)

FS Credit Opportunities Corp v. Saba Capital Master Fund, LTD. (Does the Investment Company Act create an implied private right of action?)

NRSC v. FEC (Do limits on coordinated party expenditures violate the 1st Amendment?)

Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, ATT'Y Gen (Must a federal court of appeals defer to the BIA's judgment that the facts don't demonstrate persecution?)

First Choice Women's Resource v. Platkin (If the recipient of a state subpoena demonstrates a chill of its 1st Amendment rights, does a federal court lack jurisdiction because it must 1st be resolved in state court?)

Enbridge Energy v. Nessel (Do district courts have the authority to excuse the 30-day procedural time limit for removal?)

Chevron USA Inc v. Plaquemines Parish (Does causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survive the 2011 to the federal-officer removal statute?)

Olivier v. City of Brandon (Does Heck v Humphrey bar claims seeking prospective relief where the plaintiff has been punished under a law challenged as unconstitutional?)

Landor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections (Can an individual sue a government official for violations of RLUIPA?)

Postal Service v. Konan (If plaintiff's claim that she and tenants didn't receive mail because Postal Service employees intentionally didn't deliver it waives immunity.)

Fernandez v. United States (If the 2nd Circuit erred in recognizing extra-textual limitations on info a court considers when determining if extraordinary reasons for sentence reduction exist.)

Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist (Is a district court's judgement vacated if an appellate court determines that it erred in previous dismissal?)

Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal (Is an order denying a gov contractor's claim of sovereign immunity immediately appealable under collateral-order doctrine?)

Rutherford v. United States & Carter v. United States (Can a district court consider disparities created by the First Step Act serve as a compelling reason for a sentence reduction?)

Hamm v. Smith (How should courts evaluate IQ tests of varying results when determining intellectual disability to overturn a death sentence?)

Hencely v. Fluor Corp. (Does Boyle v United Technologies Corporation extent to preempt state tort claims against a gov contractor for breach of contract and violation of military orders?)

Villarreal v. Texas (Does the 6th amendment right to counsel include conferring with their lawyer regarding testimony during an overnight break?)

Berk v. Choy (If a state law requiring a complaint be dismissed without an expert affidavit be enforced by a federal court?)

Ellingburg v. United States (If criminal restitution under MVRA is penal for Ex Post Facto Clause)

Chiles v. Salazar (Does a law censoring conversion therapy conversations between counselors and their clients violate the Free Speech Clause?)

Bost. v. Illinois State BD. of Elections (Do federal candidates have standing to challenge the time, place, and manner of regulations concerning their federal elections?)

Case v. Montana (Can law enforcement enter a home without a search warrant or does the emergency-aid exception require probable cause?)

Bowe v. United States (Does a rule requiring dismissal of repeat claims in state cases also apply to federal cases and does the Court have jurisdiction to review this decision?)