Former President Donald Trump declared a “big win” on Monday less than an hour after the Supreme Court handed down a historic ruling issuing broad immunity to sitting presidents during the commission of “official” acts.

On Truth Social and in an interview with Fox News, the Republican leader was boisterous in touting the decision as a vindication of his years-long assertion that he is the victim of a “witch hunt” and “political hit job” perpetuated by President Joe Biden and by extension Jack Smith, the Justice Department special prosecutor who is leading two federal cases against him.

CAST YOUR VOTE: Should Voter ID Be Mandatory In The 2024 Election?

“BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” Trump exclaimed on his signature social media platform. He later told Fox the decision is a “big win for our Constitution and for democracy.”

“I have been harassed by the Democrat Party, Joe Biden, Obama and their thugs, fascists and communists for years,” Trump told Fox News Digital. “And now the courts have spoken.” He added: “This is a big win for our Constitution and for democracy. Now I am free to campaign like anyone else. We are leading in every poll – by a lot – and we will make America great again.”

Writing for the six-member majority, Chief Justice John Roberts declared that presidents have broad authority to exercise their discretion without fear of prosecution, sending the specific contours of a ruling back down to the lower courts for hammering out. “The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts,” the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts states. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.”

Smith will likely try to leverage admissions in the ruling that not all acts taken by a sitting president may be considered “official,” and indeed non-official acts are open to prosecution. Despite timeline constraints, the prosecutor is continuing to pursue felony charges against Trump related to the classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago and Trump’s statements related to the January 6th, 2021 riots at the Capitol. Future hearings in Florida and D.C. federal courts will give him an opportunity to argue that Trump’s handling of the documents and tweets urging his supporters to demonstrate at the capital were done in his capacity as a private citizen.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote in a dissent that the court’s majority ruling “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

(Trump Sounds The Alarm On The US Currency – PREPARE NOW)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday vindicated former President Trump, who has argued for more than three years he is immune from criminal prosecution stemming from his statements and actions surrounding the January 6th, 2021 riots at the Capitol.

In a 6-3 decision, justices found that the president enjoys constitutional protection from criminal prosecution related to all actions taken in an official capacity. Those would ostensibly include President Trump’s tweets in the days leading up to J6, which cast a pall over nation’s capital as a protestor was killed and several Capitol police officers died just days afterward. That immunity does not extend to unofficial acts, the court reasoned, leaving special counsel Jack Smith an opening to continue his two federal cases against Trump.

CAST YOUR VOTE: Should Voter ID Be Mandatory In The 2024 Election?

“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party,” the majority wrote according to the Post Millennial.

BREAKING: Supreme Court rules Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for official actions pic.twitter.com/RXNT2v31qg

— ALX (@alx) July 1, 2024

“The judgement of the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” the six-member majority added.

In April the court heard arguments from Trump’s attorneys stating that his actions involving classified documents and J6, both central to his two federal cases, were protected under presidential immunity. Smith, the Biden Justice Department prosecutor, countered that Trump was acting as a private citizen when he allegedly took classified documents from the White House for his own personal possession and when he encouraged supporters to storm the Capitol in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 election.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote in a dissent that the court’s majority ruling “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

(ALERT: This Is The Handshake That Will Collapse The US Dollar)

Liberal comedian Bill Maher argued that Democrats should find solace in President Joe Biden’s debate performance, arguing that it could lead to younger leaders taking his place.

Democrats have been undergoing much soul searching following Biden’s shaky debate performance on Thursday, which has led many to question his mental acuity. Maher was among these, but in an op-ed for the New York Times, he argued that there was a silver lining to be found in the performance.

Maher gave a scathing review of Biden’s performance, calling it the “debate from hell — worst episode of ‘The Golden Bachelor’ ever.”

“Well, now it’s on the table, where it always should have been,” he said of Biden’s mental acuity.

Despite this, he argued that Democrats could salvage the situation by having an open convention rather than the swearing-in ceremony Biden intended.

“Let’s move the plotline forward. Democrats could not buy, with all of George Soros’s money, the enthusiasm, engagement and interest they would get from having an open convention — and in Chicago no less, famous for Democratic convention drama,” Maher wrote.

Maher’s implication was that Biden would be made to step aside and another, younger candidate installed in his place. His preferred candidate is Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA).

“Watching him make the case against Mr. Trump in the pre-debate interviews and defend Mr. Biden post-debate reminded me: This guy is good at this,” he wrote. “Yes, he has too much California baggage — some of which I don’t love — but the contrast between how he prosecutes the case against Mr. Trump and how Mr. Biden did couldn’t be clearer. He is forceful, is never at a loss for words or stats, never stumbles, is never intimidated. He’s unbullyable, and that’s important against Mr. Trump. People are attracted to what looks like strength, much more than specific policies. And he looks great on TV.”

Whatever the case, Maher stressed that any younger candidate is needed to defeat Trump in November.

Maher’s calls being heeded appear unlikely, however, as Biden has shown no signs of stepping down. His family and team have spent their time since Thursday allaying fears that Biden could or should be replaced.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Former White House press secretary Jen Psaki cast heavy doubt on Maher’s suggestion last week.

“But there is no question the next few weeks are going to be rocky for the Biden campaign,” Psaki wrote. “There will be ongoing discussions about the possibility of an open convention, and about replacing Biden on the ticket. While that may sound like a good idea on editorial pages, it would be quite challenging to pull off. The public has already chosen Biden, and a brokered convention means party delegates — and not the public — pick the nominee (from a large field of ambitious and talented people) in what would also be a messy and divisive process.”

President Joe Biden accused the Supreme Court of doing a “terrible disservice” to the nation with their Monday ruling granting former President Donald Trump some criminal immunity for official acts of office.

The ruling specifically complicates special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 case against Trump, all but ensuring the case won’t go to trial before the 2024 general election in November.

Biden was at Camp David when the ruling was handed down Monday morning, but he delivered televised remarks upon his return to the White House on Monday evening.

“Today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. This is a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including the Supreme Court in the United States,” the president stated. “The only limits will be self-imposed by the president alone. This decision today has continued the court’s attack in recent years on a wide range of long-established legal principles in our nation.”

“The American people deserve to have an answer in the courts before the upcoming election,” he added, referencing Trump’s multiple indictments. “The public has a right to know the answer about what happened on Jan. 6 before they are asked to vote again this year. Now, because of today’s decision, that is highly, highly unlikely. It’s a terrible disservice to the people of this nation.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Biden closed by vowing to continue respecting the limits of the power of the presidency but claimed that “any president, including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law.”

You can watch Biden’s remarks in full below.

A post-debate poll found that former President Donald Trump has a sizable lead over President Joe Biden in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania going blue in 2020 played a key role in Biden taking the White House, a turn thought by many to have been solidified in 2022, when Democrats won the gubernatorial and Senate races. However, a new Cygnal poll shows Trump has a significant chance of recreating his 2016 victory, leading Biden in the Keystone State by 4 percentage points.

“Trump holds a four-point lead over incumbent Joe Biden in both the head-to-head matchup and full presidential ballot,” Cygnal and Trump 2020 pollster Brock McCleary said in a statement. “Trump turned the Keystone State red in 2016 but Biden was able to flip it back to blue in 2020, meaning Pennsylvania is likely to determine the next President.”

“This latest data shows momentum building for Trump with his net favorability increasing to 45% while Biden’s stands at just 39%, coupled with an even worse number – an unfavorable view among voters at 60%,” he added.

Trump has been ahead of Biden in Pennsylvania in every major poll taken in June, but Monday’s poll, conducted July 27-28, gave Trump his largest lead yet. In a matchup between just Biden and Trump, the former president won 48% of the vote compared to Biden’s 44%. When other candidates are thrown into the mix, Trump gets 42% compared to Biden’s 38%.

Also alarming for Biden is the favorability ratings; among crucial swing voters, 74.5% have an unfavorable view of Biden compared to 61.9% with Trump.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The bad showing for Biden may also be a shift in priorities, with abortion being the priority of less than 10% of those surveyed. Among swing voters, that declined to 5.8%. Trump polls much more favorably on the top two issues for voters, inflation and the economy and illegal immigration and border security.

The Biden campaign faces a difficult challenge following the president’s shaky debate performance, which highlighted concerns over his mental acuity. His family has reportedly urged him to remain in the race.

Coming off President Joe Biden’s poor debate performance last week, former President Donald Trump surged ahead by two points in a new poll out of New Hampshire published on Monday.

The Saint Anselm College poll found 44% of New Hampshire voters said they would support Trump, compared to 42% who said Biden was their choice. Another 4% said they planned to vote for independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 

A similar poll conducted in December found Biden had a 10-point lead in the state. In this most recent poll, Biden is viewed favorably by 39% of respondents and unfavorably by 59%, while Trump holds a 42% favorable and 57% unfavorable rating. 

“Biden leads among voters who dislike both candidates. However, more Democratic voters are drifting toward independent candidates than their Republican counterparts,” New Hampshire Institute of Politics Director Neil Levesque said. “While 89% of Republicans are solidly backing Trump, Biden secures the support of only 82% of Democrats.”

Of those polled who watched the debate, 54% said Trump won, while just 6% said Biden won and 39% said there was no winner. The poll also found that 81% of poll respondents said the debate won’t affect their vote in November. 

Biden’s poor debate performance last week renewed concerns about whether he’ll be able to beat Trump or hold office for four more years. Biden has continued to defend his debate performance amid calls for him to drop out of the race. Notably, no Democratic lawmakers have joined those calls.

New Hampshire is considered to be “likely Democratic,” according to the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. In an average of statewide polling, Biden is still leading, although these averages do not factor in the most recent St. Anselm poll. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The last time a Republican candidate won the state of New Hampshire in a presidential election was George W. Bush in 2000. Biden won New Hampshire by seven points last cycle, earning 52.7% of the vote, compared to Trump’s 45.4%. 

The poll included the views of 1,700 registered voters from June 28-29. The margin of error is about 2.3%.

The debate featured “an extraordinarily aggressive, top-to-bottom attack,” Politico wrote. “Over and over,” one candidate’s “tactic of choice was a gut-level punch.” An “alpha-male display,” Britain’s left-wing Guardian headlined. The dominant candidate’s style, CNN agreed, was “put your head down, charge forward, and don’t stop.”

No, those were not comments about last Thursday’s earliest-in-history presidential debate. They were analyses made 12 years ago after the October 2012 vice presidential debate between Paul Ryan and his much more aggressive opponent, Joe Biden.

Biden was then the incumbent vice president, determined to offset Barack Obama’s indolent performance against Mitt Romney in the campaign’s first presidential debate eight days before. His forceful, often mocking approach obscured his frequent misstatements and factual errors, but he reversed the Democratic ticket’s downward plunge in the polls.   

The contrast between Biden’s 2012 and 2024 performances is glaring and a reminder of the ravages of age. But the two debates may also turn out to represent a turning point in the politics of, and the balance between, the two parties.

Going into the 2012 debate, Ryan at age 42 looked to me like the future of Republican politics.

As House Budget chairman, he had gotten his colleagues to back his package of tax cuts and entitlement reforms while looking favorably on free trade and legalization of worthy illegal immigrants.

But the bombast and ridicule Biden inflicted on Ryan in the 2012 debate was a foretaste of the bombast and ridicule former President Donald Trump inflicted on multiple rivals in presidential primary debates in 2016 — and which he inflicted on the (to many voters) surprisingly inert Biden last week.

As speaker of the House for 38 months from October 2015, Ryan helped shape and pass Trump’s 2017 tax cuts. But from the time he came down the Trump Tower escalator, Trump repudiated Ryan’s stands on entitlements, trade, and immigration. By now, almost all Republican officeholders have followed his lead.

Meanwhile, under Biden, Democrats moved sharply left on key issues, with an open borders policy, vast spending increases (on top of Trump’s) sparking first-time-in-four-decades inflation, and ninth-month abortions. Trump hit Biden hard on such leftward lunges last week.

Will the 2024 debate in which Biden got shellshocked have a similar politics-altering effect to the 2012 debate in which he administered the shellshocking?

Of course we don’t yet know the fallout of this year’s debate. Thoughtful liberals like polling analyst Nate Silver, issues advocate Ezra Klein, and the gifted reporter Joe Klein are pleading that Biden withdraw and Democrats nominate someone stronger than his hand-picked vice president, Kamala Harris.

But Democratic politicians have, as the younger Klein writes, a “collective action” problem: Retribution awaits the first dissenters from the public Biden-should-stay consensus. And as shown in Biden’s 36 years of commuting from the Senate home to Delaware and his nearly 300 days there as president (according to CBS’s Mark Knoller), he’s never been close to Washington insiders. He has relied instead largely on family members, all of whom are reportedly strongly against withdrawal.

It’s still possible he could win. Silver gives that a 31% likelihood, just above the 29% he gave Trump of winning going into the 2016 election. Things that likely tend to happen about one-third of the time.

But two-thirds of the time they don’t. Trump was ahead going into the debate, initial polling suggests his lead has grown since, and he seems to have significant leads in states (including Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, which he lost in 2020) with 268 electoral votes, two short of a majority. Add Pennsylvania or Michigan or Wisconsin or Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District and he’s president again. And probably with a Republican House and Republican Senate.

Democrats looking back on the last three decades brag that they’ve won five of the last eight presidential elections and have carried the popular vote in seven. A Trump presidency, if it were as successful with voters as the pre-COVID first Trump term was, could be followed by a second and possibly two-term Republican presidency.

Possible Trump VP nominees Sens. J.D. Vance (R-OH) or Tom Cotton (R-AR), or Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), whom he shoved aside this year, look to me as at least as gifted at politics and policy as any Democrat I’ve seen mentioned as national nominees.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

So one possible result of the Biden debate debacle could be 12 years of Republican popular vote victories and presidencies, something achieved only once since 1952, in Ronald Reagan’s 1980s. That would represent success for the Republican politics of Trump and would surely, sooner or later, prompt a rethink of the Democratic politics of Biden.

Is that too much to extrapolate from a single debate? Probably. But it would be poetic justice if the devastation Biden inflicted on Ryan’s ideas were inflicted in turn by Trump on Biden’s.

Conservative activists are sounding the alarm to counter efforts that the Republican platform could dilute anti-abortion language — a departure from decades of precedence.

In a preemptive move, a group of 10 anti-abortion leaders sent a letter to former President Donald Trump, pressuring him not to back away from language in the GOP platform against abortion. The drastic move is evidence of rising fear among conservatives that Trump’s consistent statements that abortion should now be left up to states after the fall of Roe v. Wade could become the national stance of the GOP.

The Republican platform has not been updated since 2016 and was re-approved in 2020. The more than 60-page platform included a federal abortion ban after 20 weeks, which Trump has not publicly said he supports.

This time around, the platform committee will hold a closed-door session to determine the party platform a week before the Republican National Convention begins on July 15, which will reportedly be scaled back from 2016. C-SPAN will not broadcast the meeting in another departure from precedence.

The letter, obtained by the Washington Examiner, praises the former president for being the “most pro-life president in American history” but then urges Trump to “make clear that you do not intend to weaken the pro-life plank.” The letter was first reported by the New York Times.

“We believe it is critical for voters to know that you and the Republican Party continue to stand for life,” the letter states. The leaders also urged Trump to include language that supports a “human life amendment to the Constitution” and legislation that clearly states the 14th Amendment’s protection applies to “children before birth.”

Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition; Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America; and Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council were among the group of people who signed the letter.

Dannenfelser emailed the letter to Susie Wiles, Trump’s campaign senior adviser, on June 10. The SBA Pro-Life America leader remained supportive of Trump in a statement to the Washington Examiner but also pushed for anti-abortion language in the platform.

“In order for us to keep the momentum and win in November, we must remain unified. Our only request is that the GOP platform retain a key principle as it has for 40 years, asserting a constitutional right to life for the unborn under the 14th Amendment,” said Dannenfelser.

But Trump has long signaled that publicly supporting a federal abortion ban could cost the GOP the White House after the GOP faced stinging losses in 2022 and 2023. He, and by extension, his campaign, has instead insisted that Democrats are “radical” on abortion while maintaining that each state should decide how far to limit abortion.

“President Trump has long been consistent in supporting the rights of states to make decisions on abortion,” said Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign’s national press secretary, in a statement that did not directly address the letter’s concerns. “Joe Biden and the Democrats are radically out of touch with the majority of Americans in their support for abortion up until birth and even after birth, and forcing taxpayers to fund it.”

Democrats have successfully run on defending abortion rights since the Supreme Court struck down Roe in 2022. Fearing that another abortion theme election cycle could sink his campaign, Trump has tried to walk a fine line between bragging over helping overturn Roe by nominating three conservative Supreme Court justices while trying to appear liberal on the matter.

Toning down the GOP’s platform stance on abortion could help to prevent attacks on abortion from Democrats when the Republican National Convention is held in Milwaukee later this month. Wiles and Chris LaCivita, a Trump campaign senior adviser, alluded to preventing attacks from Democrats in a memo sent out last week.

“Publishing an unnecessarily verbose treatise will provide more fuel for our opponent’s fire of misinformation and misrepresentation to voters,” the pair wrote.

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, was not one of the signees of the letter to Trump but she claimed that the scaled-back GOP platform was not an issue for her organization.

“The length of the platform is not a concern for Pro-Life voters. It’s not the number of words, but the intent that matters,” Hawkins said in a statement.” If the GOP wants to succinctly pledge to protect life in law and in service, from conception to natural death, as well as end the weaponized abuse of federal programs and agencies in support of abortion and cut  taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood and other abortion vendors, that’s a solid agenda worthy of support.”

In an interview with the Washington Examiner, Kristi Hamrick, vice president of media and policy for Students for Life of America, claimed that a lack of definitive language in support of life would be a problem for social conservatives.

“What we are saying to the RNC leadership is the goal should be a strong defense of life,” said Hamrick. “To water it down or to insinuate that the goal is less than that, that would be the problem.”

“From our perspective, if you’re running for federal office, you should have a federal plan for dealing with the human rights issue of our day,” Hamrick added, pushing back against claims that abortion should be left to states to decide.

Although conservatives may be anxious over what happens to abortion in the party platform, the decision to limit the amount of infighting is a wise choice, according to Republicans, who are itching to retake the White House.

“While it will be a missed opportunity to guide the direction of the Republican Party over the next four years, it’s a smart move in the interim since the Trump campaign and RNC must deal with a small but vocal faction of social conservatives who want the GOP to take politically stupid positions on gay marriage and abortion,” a GOP strategist who requested anonymity to speak candidly said. “A televised, gavel-to-gavel platform committee meeting would surely be a distraction.”

Trump allies, Randy Evans, a former U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg under Trump; Russell Vought, a former Trump administration Office of Management and Budget director; and Ed Martin, president of the right-leaning Phyllis Schlafly Eagles, are heading the platform committee guaranteeing Trump’s wishes will be fulfilled.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

Yet some GOP experts remain unfazed by whether abortion is in the party platform, citing the toothless nature of the endeavor.

“The official platforms of both parties have become meaningless in the grand scheme of campaigns and elections as few undecided voters actually make their decision based on the platform,” said Dennis Lennox, a Republican consultant. “The only people who care about the platform are the influence groups who seek to put something in the document and rank-and-file activists, who view the platform as some kind of creed or holy writ to attack fellow Republicans in primaries and races for intra-party offices.”

President Joe Biden is delivering remarks following a Supreme Court ruling granting former President Donald Trump some form of immunity from federal prosecution over his actions after the 2020 election.

In a 6-3 ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court found that presidents are granted “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” and “presumptive immunity” for all official acts. However, it held there is no immunity for “unofficial” acts.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The ruling was a major victory for Trump, as it drastically undercuts special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 Capitol riot case against the former president.

Democrats almost unanimously denounced the decision, with Biden expected to join the choir.

When the Supreme Court overruled Chevron deference on Friday, it may have also stripped the Biden administration’s only line of defense for overhauling Title IX, experts say.

The Title IX rewrite, which is set to take effect Aug. 1, redefined sex to include expansive claims of gender identity and, many critics say, foreclosed sex-specific facilities in schools such as restrooms and locker rooms. However, with the overturn of Chevron, the Biden administration may have lost the only way it could have defended the highly controversial rules governing the civil rights law.

“For a multitude of reasons, all of the Title IX litigants are virtually guaranteed success by the Supreme Court, but with Chevron‘s death knell, I would say that that is now doubly virtually guaranteed: Any deference that would have been automatically given to the Biden administration has just been completely eliminated,” Sarah Parshall Perry, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told the Washington Examiner.

The Title IX overhaul by the Department of Education is being challenged in court by 26 states through multiple lawsuits and has been blocked in 10 so far. Under Chevron, executive agencies were given deference by courts to their interpretations of “silent or ambiguous” statutes, but now courts will once again have the authority to interpret whether an agency has overstepped the meaning of the law rather than allowing agencies to define statutes for themselves.

Prior to Title IX being finalized and Chevron being overturned, the Alliance Defending Freedom filed an amicus brief in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court case that overturned Chevron, arguing Chevron would have been used to defend the redefined statute, saying, “The agency will likely inevitably [invoke] Chevron deference” in its legal defense of the new Title IX.

“No court should be forced by Chevron to defer to the Department’s claim that Title IX means the opposite of what it says,” the brief stated. “The statute deals with discrimination on the basis of sex, not gender identity, and Title IX’s direct reference to a male-female binary excludes any gender identity interpretation.”

Such deference, ADF argued, would have allowed the government to invoke harm on women and girls who would be forced to compete against males, compel speech through requiring teachers and students to use programs and names that are not consistent with biological sex, or have schools facilitate child gender transitions without the knowledge or consent of parents.

“As things stand, Chevron remains a shield for executive-branch officials seeking to impose these harms,” the ADF brief said.

Perry said the Biden administration was relying on an argument that Title IX, a 37-word statute meant to protect women’s educational opportunities, was ambiguous, as Biden administration officials believe sex could mean any multitude of things.

Chevron deference has only been invoked one time by the Department of Education, in a 2007 case regarding the distribution of federal impact aid, but it has reentered the conversation amid all the changes the Biden administration made to Title IX.

“Conceivably, the only reason that it’s never been invoked is because the Department of Education has never taken such extensive liberties within an illegal interpretation of the law,” Perry said, calling the overturn of Chevron as it relates to Title IX a “form of insurance” in the success of the legal challenges.

Moreover, U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves, in granting a block to the Title IX rules for Tennessee, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia, took Chevron head-on, arguing that the new rules were so far outside the boundaries of the statute that Chevron could not likely save them either.

“An agency has no authority to promulgate a regulation that undoes the unambiguous language of the statute,” Reeves wrote before the overturn of Chevron.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

In overturning the precedent, Perry said the nation’s high court “may have actually taken it with an eye toward the fact that this administration has been out over its skis and acted illegally time and time again.”

Citing occasions the Supreme Court has overruled instances of the Biden administration’s use of authority prior to dismantling Chevron, such as in the case of the vaccine mandate from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the eviction moratorium from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or emissions caps from the Environmental Protection Agency, Perry said when a Title IX challenge eventually reaches the high court, the justices are “now going to take this interpretation of Title IX, and I don’t see how any justice, including the liberals, can straight-faced argue that the Biden administration’s interpretation of Title IX is accurate.”