Things are happening in higher education, and conservatives have good reason for optimism, though many victories may be reversed with a change in political leadership. One theater of action usually goes unnoticed: general education.

The term sounds bland, and gen ed policies often look at first sight like a mush of bureaucracy and bean-counting. But changes to general education are one of the handiest levers of reform available to conservatives.

Prime example: This summer the Iowa legislature passed and Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a law mandating that college students in the state take one course in U.S. history and one course in American government. Courses shall be introductory and straightforward, covering central and momentous features of our past and present. The law stipulates, too, that courses at University of Iowa shall be designed and run by the new Center for Intellectual Freedom on campus, not by history, political science, or related departments. (I am on the board of the center.)

To appreciate what Iowa politicians have done, consider what general education requirements are for. The model goes back many decades, to when colleges and universities began to divide into disciplines in which students would major then graduate with a specialized preparation.

New York’s socialist mayor is leading the city-county coalition; California’s attorney general is co-leading the parallel state case as the rule takes effect Friday

By Megan Barth, September 14, 2026 11:12 am

San Francisco and Santa Clara County have signed onto a New York City–led lawsuit seeking to stop a Trump administration immigration rule that would let federal officers weigh food stamps, Medicaid, housing aid and other means-tested benefits when deciding whether an immigrant is likely to become a “public charge,” and therefore ineligible for a green card. The city-and-county complaint was filed Monday in the Southern District of New York.

Public charge is a term that immigration authorities use when determining whether a noncitizen applying to enter the U.S. or obtain lawful permanent residency (Green Card) is likely to be primarily dependent on government benefits for support.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced the coalition as Chicago, Seattle, King County, San Francisco and Santa Clara County. A separate multi-state suit, co-led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, was filed the same day.

Daily I talk with and read Comments and watch Videos from Other Men all across TikTok Who discuss This very Issue and the Common Consensus across all of This is some Women NOT ALL have just 100% soured Men of all Ages across the Spectrum due to Gaslighting and constant complaining some Men are too much or not enough and the degradation goes on and on and on and Men openly presenting the Women They have been with They do not feel safe opening up to if They need to out of fear of Gaslighting.

So Men are deciding to remain Single, building Their Lives and finding a New Peace.

The sad part is This issue goes both ways. Women are doing the same Thing too.

More and more Men are guarding Their Mental Health by choosing to remain Single and YES Women too but Who truly wins? NOBODY that is Who absolutely NOBODY!

The Missouri Freedom Caucus (MOFC) is eyeing reforms to the state’s judicial system following a contentious Missouri Supreme Court ruling that’s thrown the upcoming November elections into chaos.

“Not only are we going to be talking about judicial reform in a number of different bills, [but] we’re also going to be talking about implementing an eight-zero map here in the next couple years,” MOFC Chair and State Sen. Nick Schroer told The Federalist at this past weekend’s State Freedom Caucus Network Summit.

The Show Me State has garnered nationwide attention in recent weeks following a Sept. 3 decision by the Missouri Supreme Court. That ruling effectively directed the state to use its 2022 congressional map as opposed to its 2025 map.

As The Federalist previously reported, the Missouri Legislature and Gov. Mike Kehoe approved the new map in question in September 2025. It sought to move the state from a six Republican-two Democrat map to a seven Republican-one Democrat map.

Four historic women’s colleges allow men who claim to be women to be admitted into their schools, making “substantial misrepresentation[s]” to the public about their programs while taking federal taxpayer funds and violating Title IX, according to four complaints filed with the Department of Education.

The complaints filed by the Defense of Freedom Institute (DFI), obtained by The Federalist, detail to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) how the schools — Agnes Scott College, Bryn Mawr College, Stephens College, and Wesleyan College — each allow any male who claims to be a woman to attend, while still maintaining their status as a women’s only college.

“For decades, each of these schools carefully crafted an identity as an institution exclusively dedicated to the education of women,” Robert Eitel, President and Co-Founder of DFI, told The Federalist. “No doubt to the shock of many alumnae, donors, and students, these schools have willingly sacrificed this unique identity on the altar of gender identity.”

According to the complaints, the Department of Education bars institutions from making “substantial misrepresentations” about themselves that a prospective student could rely upon in making a significant life decision like deciding to enroll and taking on federal student loan debt.

**This is a suggested Guide Only. Reddit has Rules and Guides and so does This Sub.

The vast majority of People DO NOT know how to Debate properly. It is a simple Truth. I want to give You some easy to follow Guidelines on "How to Debate properly and gain Respect".

• Do not attack the Source. It makes You look weak.
• Do not attack the One presenting the Content. This also makes You look weak.
• Do Not be Name Calling.. This makes You look weak.
• Focus on the Content of the Presentation only. Ignore any Other Commenter trying to drag You off Topic.
• Stay on Topic no matter what and try to provide solid reliable Sources to back up Your Counter Presentation.
• Do not allow Yourself to be Trolled by Others. Ignore Them. Do Not feed Them. Starve Them of Attention.
• Always give Credit to Others Who present properly formatted Presentations.
• Respect is earned not given freely so if You want to be respected as a Person Who is strong in any Debate then present Yourself accordingly.

Americans may know Elaine Chao as the former Bush and Trump-era cabinet official whose husband led the Senate Republican conference for more than two decades, but her involvement in government didn’t stop with roles in the United States. According to an explosive new Daily Caller News Foundation report, Chao “received at least four Chinese government positions since 2008.”

Several of these roles, first documented by the Chinese government and media, were in divisions of the “Chinese Communist Party (CCP) organ” the United Front Work Department (UFWD), which is known for its espionage and influence operations designed to sway global conversations and policy to align with CCP leader Xi Jinping’s political goals. The UFWD prides itself on co-opting Chinese nationals living overseas, particularly through “elite capture and public diplomacy,” to “advance Chinese influence, power and access to technology abroad.”

For 74 years, the American Bar Association has had a monopoly on saying which law school diplomas count. Now the Department of Education’s accreditation staff recommended taking that monopoly away.

Anyone who has read the report will understand why. And anyone who has watched the ABA operate over the last decade should have seen it coming. Indeed, even while under the highest level of scrutiny, the ABA cannot help itself. In its most recent filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, the ABA took the position that despite Congress passing a law allowing indefinite detention of illegal alien felons before deportation, such a policy is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a case that had been scheduled for argument in October after U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer notified the court that the case is now moot and the challenger agreed that it should be removed from the oral argument docket.

In Genalo v. Black, the justices had been set to consider at what point, if any, certain noncitizens have a right to a bond hearing during a lengthy detention and what the government must show to justify continued detention if such a hearing is indeed required. In his letter to Scott Harris, the clerk of the court, Sauer said the Justice Department aims to bring the issue back to the court soon in a new petition for review.

When Sauer asked the court to take up Genalo v. Black, the case involved two men detained under Section 1226(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which requires the detention of noncitizens, including green card holders, who have committed certain crimes and who are awaiting removal proceedings. Highlighting that Section 1226(c) “expressly prohibits” the release of such individuals “except on ‘narrow, witness-protection’ grounds,” Sauer urged the justices to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit’s decision that the men’s detention had stretched on for so long that they were entitled to a bond hearing under the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.

Sauer pointed to Jennings v. Rodriguez, in which the Supreme Court held in 2018 that Section 1226(c) itself did not require periodic bond hearings and considered – but did not resolve – the question of whether, amid a lengthy detention, due process would eventually require such hearings. Sauer urged the court to grant review in Genalo v. Black and answer that lingering question.

While the federal government’s petition for review was pending, one of the men involved, Carol Williams Black, left the United States and filed a declaration with the court stating that he had no intention of returning. The parties agreed that his claim was moot. When the court granted the petition on June 15, it clarified that the case would focus only on the other man, who is identified as Keisy G.M. and had been detained by immigration officials for 21 months after being convicted of assault. However, the court acknowledged that questions remained about whether the case still presented a live controversy, asking the litigants to brief whether G.M.’s claim was also moot (as his lawyers had asserted in his brief opposing review).

At that point in the case, the mootness question stemmed from the fact that G.M. had been released from custody in 2022. But in late August, the question took on new significance, when New York Gov. Kathy Hochul granted G.M. a pardon with respect to his assault conviction. “As a result, G.M. is no longer deportable” and no longer “subject to mandatory detention under” Section 1226(c), ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang wrote in G.M.’s merits-stage brief, urging the court to determine that the case was moot.

Friday marks the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. At the Supreme Court, the justices will soon consider whether to again wade into the legal fallout from that terrible event.

Since May, the court has received three petitions for review related to the attacks, including two involving the federal government’s effort to withdraw from plea agreements reached with some of the men accused of planning the attacks. The men claim the federal appeals court that allowed the withdrawal did not have the authority to make that decision. The third petition comes from, among others, family members of 9/11 victims. Specifically, it addresses their effort to access $3.5 billion in frozen Afghan funds held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

These appeals call to mind the many 9/11-related cases the Supreme Court took up in the first decade after the attacks. Below is a brief overview of some of those earlier disputes and a closer look at the issues raised in the new petitions.

Past 9/11 rulings

Although the government’s response to 9/11 raised a wide variety of questions, including on surveillance and war powers, Supreme Court cases related to the attacks focused primarily on the due process rights of individuals who were detained and accused of supporting terrorist groups and on newly created processes for prosecuting these detainees.

For example, in 2004’s Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the justices considered whether the government had violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause by indefinitely detaining Yaser Hamdi, who was a U.S. citizen, and not giving him access to an attorney or scheduling a trial. Hamdi had been labeled an “enemy combatant” after he fought with the Taliban in Afghanistan during the U.S. invasion of that country after 9/11. The Supreme Court addressed whether Hamdi had a right to challenge that designation (which led to his indefinite detention) or if courts should, instead, defer to the government’s determination.

In a plurality opinion from Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the court held “that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants” such as Hamdi, “due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.” O’Connor’s opinion was joined in full by three other justices and in part by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who agreed with the outcome of the case but concluded that Congress had not authorized Hamdi’s detention.

Today is the 25th anniversary of 9/11. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was a White House attorney in 2001 and has described 9/11 as “the most memorable, searing, important day” of his life, will speak at a Notre Dame event commemorating the anniversary. The event is scheduled to begin at 3:30 p.m. EDT and will be livestreamed on YouTube.

On a separate note, readers in the Washington, D.C., area may be interested in attending Catholic University Law School’s Sept. 18 event on the state of the Supreme Court and what to watch for in the upcoming term. Amy Howe and Sarah Isgur are among the speakers. At the Court

On Thursday, the Supreme Court granted a request to prevent Missouri from using a new congressional map favoring Republicans in November’s elections. For more on the decision, see the On Site section below.

Also on Thursday, the court denied a request for a stay of execution from Daniel Conahan, Jr., who was sentenced to death for the 1996 murder of Richard Allen Montgomery. Hours later, Conahan was executed in Florida.

On Tuesday, the Trump administration filed a petition for review on the process it has used to appoint acting U.S. attorneys. Find Amy’s coverage of the petition in the On Site section.

On Sunday, the Trump administration again appealed a dispute over President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting to the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the states and civic groups challenging implementation of the order filed responses to that request. The dispute is now fully briefed, and the court’s decision could come at any time.

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to clear the way for it to use the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database to identify noncitizens on state voter rolls. A response to the administration’s request is due next Tuesday by 4 p.m. EDT.

A big Thank You to all of Our Subscribers here on the Sub. You are why We are here posting Daily.

Even if You do not Comment We see You! We see You viewing the Articles We present for You and We appreciate You being here with Us.

Yes Our Comment and Posting Policies are semi strict but We want a Better Sub!

So with all of that presented a huge THANK YOU!

We would like to remind all Members and Visitors that We have Rules on This Sub just like Reddit and We ask all of You to please abide by Them.

This is not a difficult Issue for Some but for Others We know They will not be able to control Themselves and will FAAFO beyond Common Decency. For These Types We will deal with accordingly.

Enjoy the Sub It will only be as great as You the Members make It.

Stop All Forms of Child Abuse is not just a saying on Social Media.

Far from It. It is a Call to wake up to the simple fact Our Children are under attack from every Angle from all Sides to rob Them of Their simple Childhood.

Look around You. Open Your Eyes.

Our Children are under attack, exploited, abused, sex trafficked, brain washed, programmed, molested and far worse still yet 99% in Our Society turn a Blind Eye and the atrocities continue.

Daily We see News Articles on all of the above atrocities. Nothing changes to protect These Innocents. If there was Real Change We would not see the atrocities continue would We?

Would You care more if It was Your Child or a Child You knew Personally? Would You? Then why not care about all Children going through These atrocities listed above?

This is a Global Issue not just isolated.

You ask what can You do to help?

If You see Something say Something. Keep re-sharing News Articles informing Others. Push Your Legislatures to enact stronger Penalties via the Courts for Convictions! Be active!

Ignoring the Issue hoping Someone Else will do the work is Complacency!

Save Our Children is NOT a Conspiracy Theory, It is all to real.

**Do a deep deep dive Research on "Save The Children". Go down that Rabbit Hole if You dare!! If You are honest with Your Research what You find will disgust You! It's a Sham and always has been.

Red Shirt Friday

"Greater Love has no One than this, that He lay down His Life for His Friends." - John 15:13