Alabama Republican Gov. Kay Ivey has signed a new bill that she says answers a simple question: What is a woman?

The bill from state Rep. Susan DuBose, R-Leeds, and Sen. April Weaver, R-Alabaster, would adjust state law to explicitly define "man," "woman," "boy," "girl," "father," "mother," "male," female" and "sex."

It cleared the legislature in Montgomery on Wednesday.

"If the Good Lord made you a boy, you’re a boy. And if He made you a girl, you’re a girl," Ivey said in a signing statement from the Capitol.

"In Alabama, we believe there are two genders: Male and female. There is nothing complicated or controversial about it."

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON REFUSES TO DEFINE THE WORD 'WOMAN'

"Today, I was proud to officially answer the question "What is a Woman?" with my signature on Senate Bill 79. It did not take a biologist to figure it out."

In comments to Fox News Digital, Ivey said prior to the signing: "In Alabama, it does not take a biologist to answer the question: What is a woman?"

During Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing, the jurist told Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn she could not define the term "woman." "In this context – I’m not a biologist," Brown Jackson said. 

"There are only two genders: Male and female," Ivey told Fox News Digital.

The law would require the government to collect vital statistics to identify a person's sex at birth and "delete obsolete or unnecessary definitions and make nonsubstantive, technical revisions to update the existing code language to current style."

"For purposes of state law, a ‘female’ is an individual whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova, and a ‘male’ is an individual whose biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female," a draft of the bill published on a government site read.

WOMANHOOD IS NOT A GAME OF SEMANTICS, ATTORNEY SAYS

Alabama House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter told Fox News Digital on Thursday the Yellowhammer State is one that "refuses to back down from commonsense conservative values."

"We believe boys should play against boys and girls should play against girls. We believe that men have no business using the girls’ restroom," said Ledbetter, R-Rainsville.

Ledbetter said every human is made in the image of God and their gender is defined by Him.

"I am proud that the House has passed Rep. Susan DuBose’s ‘What Is a Woman Act’ and look forward to Governor Ivey signing it into law," he said.

DuBose told Fox News Digital she is grateful to know that her children and future generations in Alabama will not have to worry about losing opportunities to men:

"I couldn’t be more thrilled to see this bill pass the legislature," DuBose said. 

"Alabamians know what a woman is, and we have fought hard to ensure our laws do too. I am grateful to all my colleagues for their support in finally getting this bill to Governor Ivey’s desk, and I look forward to watching her sign it into law."

The bill does have its opponents, including the ACLU of Alabama.

"We oppose House Bill 405. The ‘What is a Woman’ Act seeks to answer a question that is contextualized by far more than biological gender norms that this bill seeks to codify," a statement from the group read.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"The bill establishes a stringent assertion of the definition of a man or woman that completely cuts transgender people out of the picture. This bill attempts to place antiquated gender assumptions as a rule of law."

The group added that the legislation will make it more difficult for transgender people to "authentically" live life.

Democrats, including state Reps. Barbara Drummond of Mobile and Napoleon Bracy of Pritchard, also objected to the bill only being slated for 10 minutes of floor debate.

The Blackburn-Jackson incident and ensuing public debate also led conservative commentator Matt Walsh to produce a documentary on the matter called "What is a Woman?"

When the issue first came up in the Jackson hearing, Blackburn said the jurist being unable to give a "straight answer" about "something as fundamental as what a woman is" underscores the dangers of progressive education.

Blackburn suggested that biological male athletes should not be allowed to compete against women.

President Donald Trump mocked the relevance of news outlet HuffPost, suggesting he thought it "died," in an exchange with a reporter on Sunday over statements that Vice President JD Vance made about judicial interference.

"JD Vance suggested that if the Supreme Court rules in a way that you don't like, they could just enforce it by themselves," a reporter at a press conference on Air Force One said, addressing Trump. "Do you agree with that?"

The reporter's comments came after Vance stated that "judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." 

TRUMP'S KEY TO CABINET CONFIRMATIONS: SENATOR-TURNED-VP VANCE'S GIFT OF GAB

"If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal," Vance wrote on X Sunday after a federal judge ruled that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) would not be able to access the Treasury Department. "If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power."

But when confronted by the reporter about Vance's comments, Trump said that he wasn't aware of the controversy. 

"I don't know even what you're talking about," Trump responded. "Neither do you. Who are you with?"

JD VANCE TO ATTEND AI SUMMIT IN PARIS, FRENCH OFFICIAL SAYS

"HuffPost," the reporter said. 

"Oh, no wonder," Trump said. "I thought they, I thought they died. Are they still around? I haven't read them in years. I thought they died."

The HuffPost did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

When asked directly about the court ruling blocking DOGE from accessing Treasury Department and data systems, Trump criticized the judge in question, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York Paul Engelmayer. 

"No, I disagree with it 100%. I think it's crazy," Trump told Fox News host Bret Baier in an interview. "And we have to solve the efficiency problem. We have to solve the fraud, waste, abuse, all the things that have gone into the government. You take a look at the USAID, the kind of fraud in there." 

Fox News' Emma Colton contributed to this report.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the Court's 2024 presidential immunity case in her first public appearance since the start of the second Trump term, saying it places the Court's legitimacy on the line. 

Sotomayor made the comments during an appearance in Louisville, Kentucky, during which she was asked a range of questions, including the public's perception of the high court, according to the Associated Press. Sotomayor's comments are her first in public since President Donald Trump took office last month. 

"If we as a court go so much further ahead of people, our legitimacy is going to be questioned," Sotomayor said during the Louisville event. "I think the immunity case is one of those situations. I don’t think that Americans have accepted that anyone should be above the law in America. Our equality as people was the foundation of our society and of our Constitution."

'INTEGRITY OF THE COURT': CRUZ REINTRODUCES AMENDMENT TO COMBAT COURT EXPANSION EFFORTS

In a 6-3 decision in July 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.

The case stemmed from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference case in which he charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. 

Sotomayor notably wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, saying the decision "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law."

JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS SWEARING IN MULTIPLE TRUMP CABINET OFFICIALS RAISES EYEBROWS AT CNN

"Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law," the dissent continued. "Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

During her Louisville appearance, Sotomayor shared that she "had a hard time with the immunity case," saying the Constitution contains provisions "not exempting the president from criminal activity after an impeachment."

Sotomayor warned that if the Court were to continue down the same path, the Court's legitimacy would ultimately be at risk. 

SUPREME COURT DENIES TRUMP ATTEMPT TO STOP SENTENCING IN NEW YORK V. TRUMP

"And if we continue going in directions that the public is going to find hard to understand, we’re placing the court at risk," Sotomayor said. 

When asked for comment, a White House spokesperson told Fox News Digital, "This historic 6-3 ruling speaks for itself."

The justice suggested that one way to resolve the public's distrust in the Court would be to slow down in overturning precedent. The Court has, in recent years, overturned various landmark decisions, including Roe v. Wade in 2022, and striking down affirmative action in college admissions in 2023 and the Chevron doctrine in 2024. 

"I think that creates instability in the society, in people’s perception of law and people’s perception of whether we’re doing things because of legal analysis or because of partisan views," Sotomayor said. "Whether those views are accurate or not, I don’t accuse my colleagues of being partisan."

Sotomayor made similar comments in 2023, saying she had a "a sense of despair" about the Court's direction following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe. Sotomayor did not name the case specifically. 

However, the justice said she did not have the luxury to dwell on those feelings.

"It’s not an option to fall into despair," Sotomayor said. "I have to get up and keep fighting."

Fox News Digital's Ronn Blitzer and the Associated Press contributed to this report. 

The Supreme Court will weigh an effort to establish the nation's first religious charter school with implications for school choice and religious practices. 

The court agreed Friday to hear two cases on the matter, which will be argued together — Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond and St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond. 

In 2023, the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board voted to approve an application by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa for a K-12 online school, the St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School.

SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE IF FAMILIES CAN OPT OUT OF READING LGBTQ BOOKS IN THE CLASSROOM

Oklahoma parents, faith leaders and an education group sought to block the school after the approval. 

In a 7-1 decision, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found a taxpayer-funded religious charter school would violate the First Amendment's provision on "establishment of religion" and the state constitution.

"Under Oklahoma law, a charter school is a public school," Justice James Winchester wrote in the court’s majority opinion. "As such, a charter school must be nonsectarian.

"However, St. Isidore will evangelize the Catholic school curriculum while sponsored by the state."

Alliance Defending Freedom Chief Counsel Jim Campbell told Fox News Digital the case "is fundamentally about religious discrimination and school choice."

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LOOMING TIKTOK BAN

"The Supreme Court has been clear in three cases over the last eight years that you can't create a public program like that and then exclude religious organizations," Campbell said. "So, we're going to be arguing before the court that the state of Oklahoma should be allowed to open up the program to religious organizations."

Campbell says the decision would give parents, families and the state "more educational options." 

Oklahoma Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who originally challenged the school's approval, has previously said the school's establishment is unconstitutional. His spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement the attorney general "looks forward to presenting our arguments before the high court."

"I will continue to vigorously defend the religious liberty of all 4 million Oklahomans," Drummond said in a statement released in October. "This unconstitutional scheme to create the nation’s first state-sponsored religious charter school will open the floodgates and force taxpayers to fund all manner of religious indoctrination, including radical Islam or even the Church of Satan. My fellow Oklahomans can rest assured that I will always fight to protect their God-given rights and uphold the law."

TENNESSEE AG OPTIMISTIC ABOUT SCOTUS CASE AFTER 'RADICAL GENDER IDEOLOGY' REVERSAL IN LOWER COURT

The Oklahoma case is one of several religious institution cases that have been filed in the Supreme Court. 

In 2017, the high court ruled in favor of a Missouri church that sued the state after being denied taxpayer funds for a playground project as a result of a provision that prohibits state funding for religious entities. 

Likewise, in 2020, the Supreme Court struck down a ban on taxpayer funding for religious schools in a 5-4 decision that backed a Montana tax-credit scholarship program. Most recently, in 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that a Maine tuition assistance program violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause for excluding religious schools from eligibility.

Campbell said given the court's previous considerations of cases involving religious educational institutions, he is "hopeful that the Supreme Court will recognize that the same principle applies here."

"You can't create a charter school program that allows private organizations to participate but tell the religious groups that they can't be included," Campbell said. "So, we're hopeful that the Supreme Court will make it clear that people of faith deserve to be a part of the charter school program as well."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case, although an explanation was not given. The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in April. 

School choice has become a hot-button issue, particularly after the 2024 election cycle. President Donald Trump recently signed two executive orders on education, one to remove federal funding from K-12 schools that teach critical race theory and another to support school choice. 

Fox News Digital's Ronn Blitzer and the Associated Press contributed to this report. 

MSNBC guest and justice correspondent for The Nation, Elie Mystal, bashed White voters for helping advance a "disgusting" version of America during an interview Saturday about the first week of President Donald Trump's second term in office.

"This was all written down," Mystal said of Trump's agenda upon entering office. "I don’t like the shock and awe version of this because if you had been paying attention, they wrote it down. They told you exactly what they were going to do and exactly how they were going to do it and a majority of White people voted for this." 

Trump has caused consternation among Democrats in his first week after he pardoned over 1,500 prisoners charged for crimes related to the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. 

TRUMP'S MOST VULNERABLE NOMINEES RFK JR, TULSI GABBARD GET BACK-TO-BACK HEARINGS

"This is the disgusting version of America that people want," Mystal said. 

"And, oh by the way, eggs are still more expensive, so you didn't even get that. Great job, White folks," he added, also referencing the importance of inflation during the election.

"In terms of how we cover it as a media group, we have to stop acting like any of these things have any basis in reality," Mystal continued.  

"There is no question about whether or not birthright citizenship is constitutional," he said. "It just is. There is no question about whether or not the Civil Rights Act should apply. It just does." 

AFTER RAUCOUS FIRST WEEK IN OFFICE, DONALD TRUMP TO KEEP HIS FOOT ON THE GAS

"Every time the media tries to sane-wash Trump, whitewash Trump, explain Trump, defend Trump, what they are doing is muddying the waters on these issues we have already decided," he continued. 

While Trump's first week in office has already been met with anger from Democrats over executive orders relating to Jan. 6 and the deportation of illegal immigrants from the country, his second also looks to be a busy one. 

Major policy initiatives that are likely to be addressed are the president's sweeping border security and ongoing deportation initiatives, increasing domestic energy production and advancing a new tax plan.

Immigration and deportation activities are expected to continue with border czar Tom Homan and the acting deputy attorney general, Emil Bove, traveling to Chicago on Sunday to witness the stepped-up enforcement actions.

Fox News' Matthew Richter contributed to this report. 

In his first week in office, President Donald Trump has charged ahead with a series of executive actions, fulfilling a key campaign promise to challenge "gender ideology" in American institutions and promote "biological truth" rooted in "fundamental and incontrovertible reality." 

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is poised to rule on two significant gender-related cases this year, and Trump's new executive action could spell further controversy in the higher court.

Last week, SCOTUS agreed to hear Mahmoud v. Taylor, which would determine whether schools can force teachers to read LGBTQ books to elementary-age children despite parental objections. At issue is whether parents will have the right to opt their children out of such instructions.

"If the Supreme Court's doing its job, it shouldn't impact [the case decisions] at all," Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Sarah Marshall Perry told Fox News Digital in an interview. "What Trump's executive order was is a statement of really what the policies are going to be for the executives going forward into the new administration. And he did exactly what [former President Joe] Biden did with his executive order expanding sex to include gender identity."

TRUMP SIGNS DOZENS OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS, FULFILLING MANY BUT NOT ALL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Perry noted the separation of powers between the executive and judiciary branches, adding that while the executive is mostly a political entity, the judiciary is non-political. 

SCOTUS will be obligated to focus solely on the facts presented in the cases before them, she said, which "will include questions relative to the parameters of the parental rights guidance on school curriculums and exactly what constitutes curriculum for purposes of opt-out, whether gender medicine and age and medical-based restrictions that happen to impact individuals who are transgender is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause." 

She also pointed out that the executive order should not influence the Supreme Court's decision-making, adding, "The executive order should have absolutely no bearing on what the Supreme Court decides going forward."

PRO-LIFE ACTIVIST PROSECUTED BY BIDEN DOJ REACTS TO TRUMP PARDON: 'I WANT TO GIVE HIM A HUG'

In another case that already had their oral arguments heard last year, Skrmetti v. U.S., the higher court is weighing whether the equal protection clause, which guarantees equal treatment under the law for individuals in similar circumstances, prevents states from banning medical providers from offering puberty blockers and hormone treatments to children seeking transgender surgical procedures. 

The Biden administration joined the lawsuit by filing a petition to the Supreme Court in November 2023.

"I think the American people are gratified that they've got a president who is common sensical, who recognizes biological reality, who recognizes the text of civil rights law and the rule of law itself, and now they're going to say we have someone who was willing to stand in the gap for us, including through the Department of Justice, if the cases get all the way to the Supreme Court," Perry said. "But parents should, and I think will, be involved to be able to bring more legal challenges."

PRO-LIFE PROTESTERS PARDONED BY TRUMP, FOX CONFIRMS

"I think this election really sort of rises to shift, not just politically, but for many people philosophically as well, because we recognize that America was sort of pulled back from the perilous brink on even understanding what it meant to be male and female, even understanding what it meant to live amicably in a pluralistic society," Perry said. "We are now, I think, thankfully, seeing a rebirth of those long-standing beneficial ideas."

Trump's executive order, signed on Inauguration Day and titled, "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government," declares that the U.S. will recognize only two sexes — male and female — based on immutable biological characteristics. 

It prohibits the use of gender identity in legal and administrative contexts, mandates that federal agencies, including those overseeing housing, prisons, and education, adhere to this definition when enforcing laws and issuing regulations. The order directs changes to government-issued identification documents, bans the promotion of "gender ideology" in federal programs, rescinds previous executive actions that promoted gender identity inclusion and instructs federal agencies to eliminate guidance or regulations that conflict with the new policy.

Trump's executive order reverses the Biden administration's executive order titled "Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation," signed in 2021, which directed federal agencies to interpret and enforce civil rights laws to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

FIRST ON FOX: Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is leading a bipartisan amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to validate a lower court ruling preventing nuclear waste from being deposited in his state.

Cruz, along with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, wants the top court to uphold a lower court ruling that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) lacks authority to license nuclear waste storage facilities. 

They argue the proposed location of the nuclear waste sites poses "an enormous threat to the country’s security and economic well-being."

The case, NRC v. Texas, will decide "whether the Commission has authority to issue the license under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982."

TOP TRADE ASSOCIATION SENDS LETTERS CALLING ON BIG CHANGES IN THREE KEY DEPARTMENTS: 'UNLEASH AMERICAN ENERGY'

The Supreme Court in October agreed to take up the case after the Biden administration appealed a Fifth Circuit decision holding that the NRC lacked authority to license nuclear waste storage facilities. The license, which was granted to the Biden administration and a company to build a waste storage facility in western Texas, was challenged by Texas and New Mexico.

Interim Storage Partners planned on operating the nuclear storage facility in Andrews County, Texas, a decision that spurred backlash because of the facility's location within the Permian Basin. 

"The Permian Basin is our nation’s leading oil- and gas-producing region and a critical pillar of America’s energy security," Cruz told Fox News Digital in a statement. "I support the State of Texas in opposing the NRC’s federal overreach and will keep fighting to ensure West Texas remains the energy power house it is today."

The brief argues that placing the storage facilities near the Permian Basin makes the area "an enticing target for adversaries," therefore threatening the oil-producing region. The brief says neither the parties hoping to operate the facilities nor the NRC are "equipped to consider the broader ramifications" of placing the facilities in the area. 

ALASKA LEADERS CHEER TRUMP OIL AND GAS DRILLING EXECUTIVE ORDER

Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cueller and Republican Reps. August Pfluger and Ronny Jackson have also joined Cruz's brief. 

"Energy independence is national security, which is why I support the scale-up of all reliable and economical energy sources, including nuclear, to meet our rising energy demand," Arrington said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "However, I will not allow Washington to impose its will on West Texas regarding the temporary disposal of high-level nuclear waste simply because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can’t — or won’t — finalize permanent storage elsewhere."

Arrington said Texas "and the people of Andrews should make the decision" rather than "some nameless, faceless bureaucrat in Washington, D.C."

The amicus brief states that the location of the waste sites — while "remote" — "present an enormous threat to the country’s security and economic well-being."

"Energy security is national security. That adage remains as true now as it did in the 1970s, when OPEC strategically curtailed its oil supply to the United States," the filing continues. 

BIDEN HAD NO IDEA HE SIGNED NATURAL GAS EXPORT PAUSE, JOHNSON SAYS

"And although we’ve come a long way since then — building up domestic energy production capacity and decreasing dependence on fossil fuels — recent events are a vivid reminder of the importance of energy independence," the amicus continued. "They’ve also shown that the Permian Basin has global importance."

The high court is set to hear oral arguments in the case in early March.

FIRST ON FOX: A new report conducted by nonprofit organization Do No Harm (DNH) is sounding the alarm on medical schools allegedly "skirting" a 2023 Supreme Court ruling rejecting the use of race-based factors in admissions. 

DNH says it "represents physicians, nurses, medical students, patients, and policymakers" in an effort to keep "identity politics out of medical education, research, and clinical practice." The organization had previously released a report where they found "many in the healthcare establishment nevertheless remain ideologically committed to the principle of racial favoritism and reject the virtue of race blindness" despite the high court ruling. 

DNH states that a previous report also indicated that the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) "and several medical specialty societies and medical schools" "rebuked" the Supreme Court decision shortly after it was handed down through means that included "veiled threats to circumvent the Court’s decision."

‘DEI PLEDGE’: WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY ISSUES STATEMENT AFTER ASKING EMPLOYMENT PARTNERS TO SIGN COMMITMENT

The newly published data, titled "Skirting SCOTUS: How medical schools will continue to practice racially conscious admissions," used both MCAT data and available admissions data. DNH noted that because AAMC does not publish school-level data, it is not "immediately clear" which medical schools are continuing to implement affirmative action and to what extent. The data also excludes public universities in states where affirmative action was already banned.

"Among the thirteen schools that published clear racial/ethnic demographic data for the class of 2027 and 2028, four experienced an increase in the proportion of black or Hispanic students," the report states. 

"Fidelity to SFFA is not only measured by year-to-year demographic changes but is also a function of the degree to which affirmative action informed admissions policies before SFFA," the report continues.

The report states if the penalty assigned to "white and Asian applicants was modest," the demographic change would be reflected as such and vice versa. 

NEARLY HALF OF ALL US COLLEGE STUDENTS REJECT MANDATORY DEI COURSES ON CAMPUS: STUDY

The study stated that "outcomes at Quinnipiac, Maryland, Chicago, and Duke stand out as schools where admissions policies are particularly worthy of scrutiny" given that the schools "admit black and Hispanic medical students at a rate that far exceeds their representation in the applicant pool (13% in 2024)."

"That fact, in conjunction with the reality that black and Hispanic matriculants to medical schools have significantly lower GPAs and MCAT scores than other matriculants, is a signal that the schools continue to penalize or reward students on the basis of race," the report states. 

"It's pretty shocking and appalling how flagrantly some of these medical schools are ducking a Supreme Court ban on affirmative action," Ian Kingsbury, research director at DNH, told Fox News Digital. "You can see it in the data, and then you can tie that data to the statements that the schools themselves are making, where they're publicly rebuking the Supreme Court and where they're talking about the importance of diversity in their admissions process."

THESE SIX STATES BANNED OR LIMITED DEI AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN 2024

"Whether the decision to stop publishing data after SFFA is coincidental, a gesture to disguise improper implementation of SFFA, or an effort to hide the statistical reality associated with proper implementation, is unclear," the report continued. "Given pressure from the AAMC to continue to racially discriminate, coupled with the reality that many medical schools have been captured by far-left ideologues, these schools – as well as the dozens of others that didn’t publish any data – do not automatically earn a presumption of innocence."

"The sort of sobering reality is that, unfortunately, for the time being, Students for Fair Admissions has not resolved the issue of racial discrimination in higher education," Kingsbury said. "And there's more work to be done."

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the use of race as a factor in college admissions in a 6-3 decision in 2023. 

The justices decided two separate legal challenges over just how Harvard University – a private institution – and the University of North Carolina – a public one – decide who fills their classrooms.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Student activist group Students for Fair Admissions brought cases against both universities. The group initially sued Harvard in 2014 for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which "prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives Federal funds or other Federal financial assistance."

Fox News Digital reached out to AAMC, Quinnipiac University, University of Maryland, University of Chicago, and Duke University for additional comment.

AAMC directed Fox News Digital to its most recent data publication on medical school applicants and enrollment in 2024. 

"We are encouraged by the increase in first-time applicants to medical school. The AAMC and its member medical schools are committed to continuing our efforts to increase the supply of physicians and to increase the range of backgrounds and experiences in the applicant and matriculant pools that are critical to the future physician workforce. Evidence shows that a more varied workforce can improve access to health care and the health of our communities," David J. Skorton, MD, AAMC president and CEO, said in the statement. 

President Trump bucked tradition on Monday when he did not place his hand on the Bible while taking the oath of office during his second inauguration. 

Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath, telling Trump, who was walking toward him, to raise his right hand and repeat the words he was about to say.

Trump then raised his right hand, and as Roberts said, "I, Donald John Trump," first lady Melania Trump was seen approaching with a stack of Bibles.

Rather than place his left hand on the Bibles, he kept his hand by his side and continued to take the oath of office as his family filed in behind him.

TRUMP TO DEPLOY MILITARY TO BORDER, END BIDEN PAROLE POLICIES IN FLURRY OF DAY ONE EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Melania Trump held two Bibles — one was the Lincoln Bible and the other was her husband's personal Bible that was given to him by his mother when he was a child. Trump did place his hand on both those Bibles when he took the oath of office in 2017. 

Trump's team did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment on why the president did not place his hand on the Bibles.

Vice President JD Vance did place his hand on the Bible while he was sworn in.

Some people on social media say Roberts rushed the oath, while others appeared to be in disbelief that Trump did not place his hand on the Bibles, which is a tradition dating back to the very first inauguration of President George Washington.

TRUMP TO TAKE MORE THAN 200 EXECUTIVE ACTIONS ON DAY ONE

While it is traditional for the incoming president to place a hand on the Bible while taking the oath of office, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires them to do so.

In fact, presidents "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation," according to Article VI of the Constitution. The same article states, "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Article II of the Constitution also says the president must take the oath before entering office, though there is no mention of religion.

DONALD TRUMP SWORN IN AS 47TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

The Constitution lays out the exact language to be used in the 34-word oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Many judges have tacked on four little words, "so help me God." It is not legally or constitutionally required, unlike other federal oaths that invoke the words as standard procedure. Historians have been at odds over whether President Washington established precedent by adding the phrase on his own during his first acceptance, but contemporary accounts mention no such ad-libbing.

Abraham Lincoln was reported to have said it spontaneously in 1861, and other presidents over the years have followed suit. A Bible is traditionally used, with the president placing one hand on it while raising the other during the oath of office.

The Constitution also does not require the president or members of Congress or federal judges to be sworn in by a Supreme Court justice, though they just have for inaugurations, most of the time.

When Washington took the first oath of office in 1789, the Supreme Court had not yet been formed, so New York’s highest-ranking judge did the honors at Federal Hall on Wall Street.

Four years later, Associate Justice William Cushing swore in Washington for a second term, beginning the Supreme Court tradition.

Fox News’ Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this report.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is fighting to uphold a Texas law he says is keeping the pornography industry from targeting children with harmful content.

Passed in 2023 and signed into law by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, the law requires porn sites to verify users’ ages through official documentation such as a driver’s license or government-issued I.D. Under the law, failure to implement this age verification results in fines.

Meanwhile, a collection of porn sites calling itself the Free Speech Coalition argues that the Texas law curbs their First Amendment rights and places an undue burden on Texas adults from accessing their content.   

TEXAS A&M CANCELS CONFERENCE TRIP EXCLUDING WHITE AND ASIAN STUDENTS AFTER GOVERNOR BACKLASH

Pornhub, the country’s most popular adult content website, went so far as to disable access to their website for all users in Texas after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to uphold the law.

The two sides finally came face to face this Wednesday to make their case before the Supreme Court.

For its part, the nation’s highest court appeared united in agreeing with Paxton’s argument that states have a vested interest in limiting children’s access to pornographic content. Some justices, however, seemed to still have concerns about whether the Texas law’s prohibitions were too broad and could impact other areas of free speech expression.

The question before the court now is whether the Texas law should be subject to "rational basis" or "strict scrutiny" review, the latter of which would require Texas to meet the narrowest standards to uphold the age verification requirement.

THE BIGGEST SUPREME COURT DECISIONS OF 2024: FROM PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY TO OVERTURNING THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE

Whichever way the court rules will likely impact not only the Texas law but also the over a dozen other porn site age verification laws in states across the country.

In an interview with Fox News Digital after the hearing, Paxton said he feels confident that the Supreme Court will rule in Texas’ favor.

"Hearing the questions and seeing the comments by the justices I feel very optimistic, I think we’re going to win this," he said. "I really feel good about it. I think most of the justices are going to come down on the right side."

"Even the other side making their arguments admitted that we have an interest in protecting minors," he went on. "They just said that the way we were doing that was some type of overburden on adults, and so they offered up other suggestions, those suggestions don’t actually work and that’s probably why they offered them up, they don’t want age verification because it actually works, and it affects their bottom line." 

TEXAS AG SUES NCAA OVER TRANS INCLUSION IN WOMEN'S SPORTS

In response to criticisms about the law potentially violating free speech, Paxton said: "Look I’m a huge free speech advocate. I see very few limitations on free speech. However, we have recognized that we need to protect children in all kinds of different ways. We don’t let them sign contracts, we don’t let them get married until they’re 18, we don’t let them be served alcohol, we don’t let them get tobacco, we have protected children, it’s been [throughout] our entire history."

"If you look anywhere in the developed world or anywhere [else], children are protected," he added. "It’s my job to enforce Texas law. In this case I feel very comfortable protecting our children from having this put in front of them."

President-elect Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices during his first White House term, significantly reshaping the nation's top court. But President Biden appointed more federal judges than Trump in the past four years.

According to fresh data from the Federal Judiciary Center, Biden is slated to end his tenure having installed 228 judges to U.S. district and appellate courts, including record numbers of female and minority judges to district courts across the country. 

That total was aided in part by a flurry of eleventh-hour confirmations by Senate Democrats, who scrambled to approve Biden's judicial nominees last month in the final days of the 118th Congress and while they still held a narrow majority in the chamber.

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LOOMING TIKTOK BAN

Trump appointed 226 federal and appellate court judges during his first White House term, just under Biden's total.

Biden also placed one justice on the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman on the nation's highest court.

Sixty percent of the judges appointed by Biden are Black, Hispanic, Asian or part of another racial or ethnic minority group, according to data compiled by the Pew Research Center, the highest percentage for any U.S. president. 

Biden's federal judge appointments, both in their diversity and scope, bear similarities to another single-term Democratic president, Jimmy Carter.

CARTER'S JUDICIAL PICKS RESHAPED THE FEDERAL BENCH ACROSS THE COUNTRY

Unlike Biden, Carter did not appoint anyone to the Supreme Court. But he appointed more than 260 federal and appellate court judges during his four years in office, including record numbers of women and minority judges, helping the courts better reflect the populations they represented. The appointments helped reshape the federal bench and paved the way for women and minorities to serve on the Supreme Court.

Most notably, Carter is credited with installing Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, a decision that set her up later for promotion when Democratic President Clinton tapped her for the nation's highest court in 1993.

TikTok influencers are mourning the impending shutdown of the popular Chinese-owned social media platform after the Supreme Court upheld a law to ban the application if it is not sold in the United States.

A popular voice on the app, Emily Senn, broke down in tears after hearing the news and said she would "never forgive" the U.S. government for its actions against TikTok.

"I'm never going to trust you ever again because you just, like that, took away millions of people's income and livelihood and who does that?" she asked Friday morning.

BIDEN MAINTAINS HE WILL NOT ENFORCE TIKTOK BAN, PLANS TO PUNT TO TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

Senn, who lost her job as a cruise ship singer during the pandemic, said TikTok has helped support her financially and gave her a sense of community over the last three years.

Madilynn Cameron, who has amassed over 1 million followers on TikTok and signed a petition to save the platform, asked her followers to remain "calm and hopeful" that President Biden or President-elect Donald Trump would intervene.

"We are a laughingstock to other countries," she said. "Do you understand that? Everyone mocks us."

Many other popular accounts were devastated and angry about the news.

Popular social media star and content creator Kelsey Pumel released a video on Friday titled "Goodbye freedom of speech," in which she questioned the government's priorities.

READ THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON TIKTOK LAW – APP USERS, CLICK HERE

"I just still can't get over the fact that the government literally cares more about an app that hasn't proven to pose any of the threats that our country claims it does over kids literally being unalived [sic] at school, the healthcare epidemic, not being able to afford housing, the homeless population. You know, whatever. F--- this country," she said.

Podcast host and influencer Alex Pearlman appeared flustered by the Supreme Court's unanimous decision.

"Y'all can't agree that kids shouldn't be shot in school. Y'all can't agree that women should have healthcare," he shouted. ‘Y’all can't agree that we should have healthcare. Y'all can't agree on f---ing cops not being allowed to just f---ing kill people with impunity. But a TikTok ban? Y'all lined up and said, what's this about? The Chinese? Yo f--- them mother---ers."

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that would ban TikTok if it is not sold just two days before the bipartisan divestiture law is slated to take effect.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE

"There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community," the court wrote in the unsigned ruling. "But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok's data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary."

"For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners' First Amendment rights. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is affirmed."

There were no noted dissents.

The decision comes at a time when President-elect Trump has signaled apparent support for the app in recent months.

Fox News’ Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report.

Legal experts, privacy groups and parents alike applauded the Supreme Court's Friday ruling upholding a federal law banning TikTok unless it is divested from its Chinese parent company ByteDance, while others deemed it as "anti-democratic."

The ban is set to go into effect on Sunday.

"There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community," the court wrote in the unsigned ruling. "But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary."

SUPREME COURT APPEARS SKEPTICAL OF BLOCKING US BAN ON TIKTOK: WHAT TO KNOW

Former Vice President Mike Pence turned to X and called the decision "a victory for the privacy and security of the American people."

"This law was the result of a bipartisan cooperation and I commend it's authors and supporters in Congress for enacting this vital law for our national security," he continued. The CCP has been put on notice that the American people’s data is no longer for the taking. The incoming Trump administration must be prepared to uphold this TikTok divestment law and put the privacy and security of America first."

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., likewise said the Supreme Court "correctly rejected TikTok’s lies and propaganda masquerading as legal arguments" in a post on X. 

"ByteDance and its Chinese Communist masters had nine months to sell TikTok before the Sunday deadline," the senator wrote. "The very fact that Communist China refuses to permit its sale reveals exactly what TikTok is: a communist spy app. The Supreme Court correctly rejected TikTok’s lies and propaganda masquerading as legal arguments."

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., said the decision was "unsurprising, and the answer is that the Chinese government needs to give up control of TikTok."

Carrie Severino, President of Judicial Crisis Network, echoed Cotton's sentiments, also saying in a statement that the high court "rightly recognizes the danger of the Chinese Communist Party being able to access and maliciously deploy the data of hundreds of millions of Americans."

READ THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON TIKTOK LAW – APP USERS, CLICK HERE

President Biden notably maintained his stance that he would enforce the law banning the social media app and would instead punt the implementation to President-elect Donald Trump and his incoming administration. 

Severino stated she hopes "that President Trump's incoming administration vigorously enforces this important national security law."

Executive Director of American Parents Coalition Alleigh Marré also posted on X reacting to the holding. "This is a huge win for parents! Kids will be free from TikTok’s poison, its powerful, dangerous algorithm and compromising influences."

"I am incredibly proud to see that the highest court in the land has agreed that our elected officials hold the power to protect our national security from our most powerful foreign adversaries," said Michael Lucci, Founder and CEO of State Arumor, in a statement. "This decision is a vindication of the tireless work of so many patriotic groups, including State Armor, have done over the last year to make the public and lawmakers aware of the dangers that TikTok poses."

Lucci continued on to call for TikTok's sale to an American company "or immediately cease all operations within the United States, per the Supreme Court’s decision."

Others reacted to the Supreme Court's decision with disappointment, including Electronic Frontier Foundation Civil Liberties Director David Greene who called the holding "anti-democratic." 

TRUMP SAYS FATE OF TIKTOK SHOULD BE IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE RETURNS TO WHITE HOUSE

"Shutting down communications platforms or forcing their reorganization based on concerns of foreign propaganda and anti-national manipulation is an eminently anti-democratic tactic, one that the U.S. has previously condemned globally," he said in a statement released. 

Likewise, Dean of UC Berkeley School of Law Erwin Chemerinsky told Fox News Digital in a statement that he believes the Court was "wrong" in its decision. 

"Although unanimous, I think the Court was wrong," Chemerinsky said. "It accepted uncritically the government’s argument that China being able to gather information would harm national security; it never explained what kind of information is likely to be gathered to what effect.

"The impact on speech is staggering to ban a platform used by 173 million people in this country," he continued. 

Just last year, Congress required that TikTok's China-based parent company ByteDance divest the company by Jan. 19. The law was subsequently signed by Biden.

When the law was passed, Congress specifically noted concerns over the app's Chinese ownership, which members said meant the app had the potential to be weaponized or used to amass vast amounts of user data, including from the roughly 170 million Americans who use TikTok.

Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report. 

President-elect Donald Trump said on Friday that he needs "time to review" the Supreme Court's decision to uphold a federal law banning TikTok unless it divests from its Chinese parent company before Jan. 19 – the day before Trump is set to be sworn in.

Trump added that "everyone must respect" the high court's decision.

"The Supreme Court decision was expected, and everyone must respect it," Trump said in a statement posted to Truth Social. "My decision on TikTok will be made in the not too distant future, but I must have time to review the situation. Stay tuned!"

The statement came moments after Trump reportedly told a small group of journalists by phone that the law banning TikTok "ultimately goes up to me, so you're going to see what I'm going to do" after taking office.

"Congress has given me the decision, so I'll be making the decision," Trump said, according to CNN, which first reported the remarks.

Trump's Truth Social post appears to take a more deferential tone towards the nation's highest court, including its decision to uphold the bipartisan divestiture law passed last April with wide bipartisan support.

"There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community," the court wrote in the unsigned ruling. "But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary.

"For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is affirmed."

Trump has sought to delay the law from taking force. Attorneys for the president-elect filed a brief with the Supreme Court last month, asking justices to delay any decision until after Trump's inauguration Jan. 20.

But lawmakers disagreed. 

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told the Supreme Court in a filing of his own that Congress explicitly set the Jan. 19 date for the divestiture clause to take force since it "very clearly removes any possible political uncertainty in the execution of the law by cabining it to an administration that was deeply supportive of the bill’s goals."

This is a breaking news story. Check back shortly for updates. 

The Biden administration on Friday maintained that it will not actively enforce a federal law set to ban the Chinese-owned social media app TikTok, instead punting any action to the incoming Trump administration.

The Supreme Court issued a ruling earlier in the day upholding the looming ban, which is set to go into effect on Sunday.

"The Administration, like the rest of the country, has awaited the decision just made by the U.S. Supreme Court on the TikTok matter. President Biden’s position on TikTok has been clear for months, including since Congress sent a bill in overwhelming, bipartisan fashion to the President’s desk: TikTok should remain available to Americans, but simply under American ownership or other ownership that addresses the national security concerns identified by Congress in developing this law," White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement shortly after the decision was handed down. 

She added: "Given the sheer fact of timing, this Administration recognizes that actions to implement the law simply must fall to the next Administration, which takes office on Monday."

SUPREME COURT APPEARS SKEPTICAL OF BLOCKING US BAN ON TIKTOK: WHAT TO KNOW

A U.S. official told the Associated Press on Thursday that Biden would not enforce the ban that is set to take effect the day before he is to leave office. Such a move inadvertently leaves the social media app's fate in the hands of President-elect Donald Trump and his incoming administration. 

"There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community," the Supreme Court wrote in its unsigned Friday ruling. "But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary."

READ THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON TIKTOK LAW – APP USERS, CLICK HERE

The court continued: "For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is affirmed."

Just last year, Congress required that TikTok's China-based parent company ByteDance divest the company by Jan. 19. The law was subsequently signed by Biden.

TRUMP SAYS FATE OF TIKTOK SHOULD BE IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE RETURNS TO WHITE HOUSE

When the law was passed, Congress specifically noted concerns over the app's Chinese ownership, which members said meant the app had the potential to be weaponized or used to amass vast amounts of user data, including from the roughly 170 million Americans who use TikTok.

During oral arguments, Biden administration lawyers argued that the app's Chinese ownership posed a "grave" national security risk to American users. TikTok's lawyers, on the other hand, argued that such a ban restricted free speech protections under the First Amendment.

First Amendment challenges must be analyzed under strict scrutiny, which places a higher burden of proof on the government when attempting to justify the constitutionality of a law. In this case, the First Amendment protections in question must be crafted to serve a compelling government interest, narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report. 

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that would ban the Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok just two days before the bipartisan divestiture law is slated to take effect.

"There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community," the court wrote in the unsigned ruling. "But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary. 

"For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is affirmed."

There were no noted dissents.

At issue was the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a law passed by Congress last April with wide bipartisan support. The law gave TikTok nine months to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be removed from U.S.-based app stores and hosting services. 

SUPREME COURT APPEARS SKEPTICAL OF BLOCKING US BAN ON TIKTOK: WHAT TO KNOW

In passing the law, Congress cited concerns over the app's Chinese ownership, which members said meant the app had the potential to be weaponized or used to amass vast amounts of user data, including from the roughly 170 million Americans who use TikTok.

TikTok, ByteDance and several users of the app swiftly sued to block the ban in May, arguing the legislation would suppress free speech for the millions of Americans who use the platform. After a lower court upheld the ban, the Supreme Court agreed to hear TikTok's emergency request to either block or pause implementation of the law under a fast-track timeline just nine days before the ban was slated to go into effect.

President-elect Donald Trump did not immediately respond to the Supreme Court decision, which comes just days before his inauguration. As president, Trump could move to delay the law, either by not enforcing it vigorously— which would allow TikTok more time to find a buyer, or continue operating as-is—or take other actions that would uphold the status quo.

Trump said he spoke by phone Friday with Chinese President Xi Jinping hours before the Supreme Court decision was published. Trump described the conversation between the two as being "a very good one" both for China and the U.S. He noted that the two had discussed shared interests, including TikTok. 

Trump has also invited TikTok CEO Shou Chew to attend his inauguration. Chew said he plans to attend.

READ THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON TIKTOK LAW – APP USERS, CLICK HERE:

During oral arguments, lawyers for the Biden administration reiterated the argument that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses a "grave" national security risk for American users. 

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar cited risks that China could weaponize the app, including by manipulating its algorithm to prioritize certain content or by ordering parent company ByteDance to turn over vast amounts of user data compiled by TikTok on U.S. users.

TRUMP SAYS FATE OF TIKTOK SHOULD BE IN HIS HANDS WHEN HE RETURNS TO WHITE HOUSE

TikTok’s lawyers, meanwhile, sought to frame the case primarily as a restriction on free speech protections under the First Amendment, which the company has argued applies to TikTok’s U.S.-based incorporation.

Noel Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, argued that the U.S. government has "no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda," and reiterated TikTok's position that the platform and its owners should be entitled to the highest level of free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution. 

Francisco also argued TikTok cannot divest from its Chinese parent company, citing portions of its source code and intellectual property that are housed in China.  

First Amendment protections must be considered under strict scrutiny, which requires the government to sustain a higher burden of proof in justifying a law's constitutionality. 

More specifically, laws that deal with First Amendment protections must be crafted to serve a compelling government interest, narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

It's a difficult legal test to satisfy in court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used it last month in considering the divestiture law, and still voted to uphold it— outlining a way that the Supreme Court could have theoretically considered the case under strict scrutiny and still opted to uphold the law.

During oral arguments at the Supreme Court, several justices appeared skeptical of the company's core argument, which is that the law is a restriction of speech.

"Exactly what is TikTok's speech here?" Justice Clarence Thomas asked in the first moments of oral arguments in an early sign of the court's apparent doubt that the law is in fact a First Amendment violation. 

POTENTIAL TIKTOK BAN: WHAT SOCIAL MEDIA APPS ARE POPPING UP IN APP STORES?

The Supreme Court and its 6-3 conservative majority have been historically deferential to Congress on matters of national security.

The divestiture law in question passed Congress last year under the guidance of top Justice Department officials, who worked directly with House lawmakers to write the bill and help it withstand possible legal challenges.

But it also comes at a time when President-elect Trump has signaled apparent support for the app in recent months.

In December, Trump hosted TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at his Mar-a-Lago resort, and later told reporters that his incoming administration will "take a look at TikTok" and the divestiture case. 

Attorneys for the president-elect also filed a brief with the Supreme Court last month, asking justices to delay any decision in the case until after Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20.

The brief did not signal how Trump might act, but cited his request for the court to pause the ban from taking effect until Trump's inauguration. 

Fox News' Bill Mears and Shannon Bream contributed to this report.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is cautiously optimistic about the future success of his Supreme Court gender case after he secured another legal win in Kentucky that will reverse the Biden administration's Title IX rewrite nationwide.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky Northern Division made the ruling in Cardona v. Tennessee on Thursday.

Skrmetti told Fox News Digital in a Tuesday interview, "Every win we get is another break in the wall of ensuring that the law means what the people who voted for it thought it meant." 

GOP AG PREDICTS WHICH SIDE HAS ADVANTAGE IN HISTORIC SCOTUS TRANSGENDER CASE WITH 'DIVIDED' JUSTICES

The ruling came months after the Supreme Court rejected the Biden administration’s emergency request to enforce portions of a new rule that would have included protections from discrimination for transgender students under Title IX.

The sweeping rule was issued in April and clarified that Title IX’s ban on "sex" discrimination in schools covered discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation and "pregnancy or related conditions."

The rule took effect Aug. 1, 2024, and the law stated, for the first time, that discrimination based on sex includes conduct related to a person’s gender identity.

"The Title IX rule was the height of overreach, administrative overreach by the Biden administration, and we were very happy to be able to stop that," Skrmetti said on Tuesday. 

SOTOMAYOR COMPARES TRANS MEDICAL 'TREATMENTS' TO ASPIRIN IN QUESTION ABOUT SIDE EFFECTS DURING ORAL ARGUMENTS

Now, he is looking ahead to the court's highly anticipated decision in the United States v. Skrmetti case, which is expected by June. 

The Supreme Court is weighing whether the equal protection clause, which guarantees equal treatment under the law for individuals in similar circumstances, prevents states from banning medical providers from offering puberty blockers and hormone treatments to children seeking transgender surgical procedures. 

The lawsuit against Tennessee's law banning transgender treatment for minors was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of several transgender minors and their parents. The families argue the law infringes on parental rights to make medical decisions for their kids and forces them to go out-of-state to receive transgender procedures.

"It seems like the momentum has really shifted almost culturally on these issues," Skrmetti said. "And when you see people trying to rewrite laws through creative judging, through creative regulating, that alienates the people from the laws that bind them, and it's bad for America."

FEDERAL JUDGE STRIKES DOWN BIDEN ADMIN'S TITLE IX REWRITE

Skrmetti described the recent developments as part of a broader "vibe shift" in the country, noting that they reflect a "great data point" indicating a decline in efforts to reshape American law through "non-democratic" processes.

"We'll know what the Supreme Court does when the Supreme Court does it," he said.

Fox News Digital's Ryan Gaydos contributed to this report. 

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear challenges to gun laws in Delaware and Maryland.

The justices turned away an appeal from a group of gun enthusiasts and firearm advocacy groups in Delaware to block the state’s prohibition on assault-style rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines after a lower court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against the ban.

Delaware’s gun safety laws were enacted in 2022 and ban various semi-automatic "assault" long guns, including the AR-15 and AK47, though it allows those who owned such weapons prior to the law being enacted to keep the firearms under certain conditions, according to Reuters.

The high court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, also declined to hear a case challenging Maryland's handgun licensing requirements, which requires people to get safety training, submit fingerprints and pass a background check before buying a handgun. 

NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER TELLS KAVANAUGH FRIEND HE WOULD COVER STORY ‘DIFFERENTLY’ NOW

The challengers argued that the handgun law violates the Second Amendment by making it too hard for people to get guns. 

MONTANA AG ASKS SUPREME COURT TO UPHOLD LAW REQUIRING PARENTAL CONSENT FOR A MINOR'S ABORTION

The law was passed following the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, where 20 first-graders and six educators were killed.

A three-judge appeals court panel later struck down the law after a landmark 2022 Supreme Court ruling that expanded gun rights and said firearm laws must have strong roots in the country's historic traditions, though the full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later revived the law after the majority found that it does fit within historic firearm regulations.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

A New York Times journalist offered a mea culpa of sorts to an author whom his reporting had implicated in the sexual assault allegations against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.

"I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about my role in the Kavanaugh coverage, and I would be happy to talk to you about it at some point. For now, I will just say that I have learned some lessons and would probably do certain things differently next time," New York Times investigative reporter David Enrich wrote to author and journalist Mark Judge. Judge revealed the exchange in an article for Chronicles Magazine.

"I got the most unexpected response I ever could’ve imagined, which was the New York Times reporter who tried to ruin my life, sounded contrite," Judge told Fox News Digital. 

Judge contends that the New York Times was fed "totally bogus" opposition research provided by disgraced lawyer Michael Avenatti and others that he and Justice Kavanaugh, his high school friend, were involved in drugging and gangraping girls in high school that Enrich and his "partner in crime" Kate Kelly set out to corroborate by unearthing whatever embarrassing information they could dredge up about him from when he was an adolescent. Judge says that in the years since the Kavanaugh hearings, several reporters involved in the smears against him have been "agonizing" over their role in wrecking his life. 

INTERNET ROASTS NYT HEADLINE ABOUT FACT-CHECKERS RULING META CRITICISM OF FACT CHECKS ‘FALSE:' BEYOND PARODY'

Judge was accused by Christine Blasey Ford of being present in the room when she claimed Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the early 1980s, when the two were both teenagers. He was interviewed by the FBI about his alleged role in the assault, which Ford said occurred at a party. Judge and Kavanaugh attended high school together at Georgetown Preparatory School, while Ford attended the all-girls Holton-Arms.

Judge denied Ford’s allegations and claimed he never witnessed Kavanaugh engaging in the actions she described. No other witnesses could corroborate Ford's account or even remember seeing Ford and Kavanaugh together. 

Enrich had written that Judge was "a fixture of the school’s party scene," and described him as "a goofball with a big mouth."

He reported on a high school yearbook group photo Judge was featured in along with future Justice Kavanaugh which was labeled "Renate alumni" on a student’s personal page. Renate Schroeder Dolphin was a student at a nearby Catholic school.

Enrich also reported on an underground high school newspaper Judge wrote with two other classmates called "The Unknown Hoya," which allegedly contained sexist humor.

"The newspaper claimed that a public library card was ‘all it takes to have a good time with any H.H. (Holton Hosebag),’ using slang for a promiscuous woman," the article stated.

Judge, who wrote about his experiences in his book "The Devil's Triangle," told Fox News Digital that Enrich and Kelly’s reporting had taken a major toll on his mental health and even caused him to contemplate taking his own life.

NEW YORK TIMES FIRES BACK AT ACTOR JUSTIN BALDONI ON HEELS OF $250 MILLION LIBEL LAWSUIT

When Judge informed Enrich his and Kelly’s reporting had caused a "terrible amount of damage and distress to my family" and "blew apart decades-long friendships," he was shocked to see that a journalist who had seemingly been dedicated to his personal destruction offered him sympathy.

"I can’t imagine what it was like for you to go through that," Enrich said, according to Judge. 

"For years, my friends at Georgetown and I have been saying, ‘if only there was somebody with a conscience at the New York Times or Washington Post, if only one of them would come forward and admit what they did here, and I think we’ve just gotten it. I think we might’ve found that one person with a conscience in David Enrich. I don’t want people to badmouth him, I want to encourage him," Judge said.

"Mr. Judge's claims about our reporters' practices are not accurate. The Times's reporting on Justice Kavanaugh's nomination and confirmation process was thorough, independent and fair, and we stand behind it," a New York Times spokesperson said in a statement.

Enrich and Kelly declined to comment for this article. 

The author previously sat down with Fox News host Martha MacCallum where he alleged he was the victim of an extortion attempt after he refuted Ford’s claims.

Judge recounted receiving a mysterious call from a California number, which he claimed threatened him.

"[The caller was] brilliant enough to leave a message: ‘You like f'ing with people, Mark? I like f'ing with people too. You better change your story,'" he recalled.

"So they were directly trying to extort me," Judge claimed. He added that he passed along the message to his attorney, who said they provided it to the FBI, but that there never was any resolution. 

Chales Creitz contributed to this report. 

FIRST ON FOX: Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his appeal of a ruling handed down by his state's highest court invalidating a 2013 law that requires minors seeking an abortion to obtain notarized written consent from a parent or guardian. 

The law also includes a judicial bypass provision, allowing minors to seek court approval for an abortion without parental consent.

The Montana Supreme Court struck down the Parental Consent for Abortion Act in 2024, ruling it violates a minor’s fundamental right to privacy under the state constitution by conditioning access to abortion on parental consent. 

The court acknowledged parents have a right to direct the care and custody of their children but determined those rights don't override the "fundamental" right of a minor child to seek an abortion.

GOP AG PREDICTS WHICH SIDE HAS ADVANTAGE IN HISTORIC SCOTUS TRANSGENDER CASE WITH 'DIVIDED' JUSTICES

Justice Laurie McKinnon, writing for the Montana Supreme Court, said "a minor's right to control her reproductive decisions is among the most fundamental of the rights she possesses" and that the state failed to demonstrate a compelling need for the law to protect minors, Reuters reported at the time.

Knudsen's appeal asks the U.S. Supreme Court to address whether parental rights include the ability to participate in decisions about a minor child’s medical care, including abortion. 

The case highlights the ongoing debate over parental authority after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

"SCOTUS should hear the case and reverse the radical Montana Supreme Court’s bad decision allowing minors to receive abortions without parental consent," Knudsen said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

"A child’s right to privacy does not supersede a parent’s fundamental right to direct the care and upbringing of their child. Until we get clarity from the Supreme Court, the health and safety of young Montanans seeking abortions is at risk."

WHISTLEBLOWER AT TRANS CARE CENTER EXPOSES 'APPALLING' PRACTICES INSIDE GENDER-AFFIRMING HOSPITAL FOR KIDS

The outcome could have broad implications for abortion access and parental consent laws nationwide because several states have passed "shield laws" recently, protecting medical providers from legal fallout for performing gender transition surgeries and abortions on minors.

For Knudsen's case to be heard before the court, at least four justices must agree to review it.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Planned Parenthood Montana for comment.