Can a state prohibit gay people from adopting children or stop immigrants from purchasing property? Under modern Supreme Court precedent, the answer to these questions is an emphatic no. Over the past week, however, federal judges appointed by Donald Trump have answered both questions yes, and without a hint of doubt or discomfort. To greenlight this wave of hate, Trump judges are ignoring more enlightened contemporary precedent, relying instead on old, repudiated decisions that upheld bigotry and oppression. By invoking these zombie precedents, Trump’s judges are attempting to roll back decades of constitutional progress to create space for the Republican Party’s ongoing pursuit of nativist and anti-LGBTQ state-level legislation. Only the Supreme Court can send these discredited pseudo-precedents back to their tomb—and it is unclear if they will bother to do so.

The award for most shocking and gratuitous revival of zombie precedent must go to Judge Barbara Lagoa, whose opinion in Monday’s Eknes-Tucker v. Alabama constitutes a venomous ambush of the South’s LGBTQ+ community. Writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Lagoa upheld Alabama’s criminalization of gender-affirming care for transgender minors, joined in full by fellow Circuit Judge Andrew Brasher and District Judge J.P. Boulee, who’s sitting on the case. (All three are Trump appointees.)

There are several constitutional infirmities in Alabama’s law, most of which Lagoa tried to circumvent by mechanically citing Dobbs to support the notion that trans health care can’t be a fundamental right because it didn’t exist in 1868. But that approach did not resolve a different problem: The Supreme Court has long held that parents do have a fundamental right “to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” As the lower court ruled in this case, Alabama infringed on that right by revoking parents’ ability to “direct the medical care” of their kids in accordance with “medically accepted standards.” This intrusion into parental authority is subject to strict scrutiny, which the law cannot survive because it is far broader than necessary to achieve its stated purpose of protecting children.

To avoid Supreme Court precedent supporting parents’ rights, Lagoa turned to one of the most bigoted appellate decisions of the century so far: 2004’s Lofton v. Secretary of Department of Children and Families. In Lofton, the 11th Circuit upheld a Florida law barring gay people—whom the court dubbed “practicing homosexuals”—from adopting children. The Lofton court held that this ban, which has since been overturned, served the state’s “overriding interest” in placing children “with a secure family environment,” which gay people were less likely to provide. “Homosexuals,” the court continued, are unable to provide the “stable and nurturing environment for the education and socialization” of children that heterosexuals can. So Florida had legitimate cause to prevent gay people from “shaping” adoptive children’s “psychology, character, and personality.” The state also had rational reasons to conclude that gay parents could inhibit their children’s “sexual development throughout pubescence and adolescence.”

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The Ohio Attorney General’s Office rejected petition language Wednesday for a constitutional amendment aimed at remaking the state's troubled system for drawing political maps, determining that it failed to present a fair and truthful summary of what is proposed.

In announcing the determination, Republican Dave Yost's office said, “The decision underscores the importance of precise, comprehensive and unbiased summaries to enable voters to make informed decisions.”

The group Citizens Not Politicians, which includes two former Ohio Supreme Court justices, aims to place the proposal on next year's fall ballot.

Spokesman Chris Davey said rejections are not unusual in a proposed amendment's early stages.

“We believe our summary was accurate,” he said in a statement. "But we will review the Attorney General’s guidance, will make necessary adjustments and will collect new signatures with our broad, statewide, nonpartisan coalition of partners to refile as soon as possible because it’s time for citizens and not politicians to draw Ohio’s legislative maps.”

The proposal calls for replacing the Ohio Redistricting Commission, which currently comprises three statewide officeholders and four state lawmakers, with an independent body selected directly by citizens.

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana’s near-total abortion ban is set to take effect within days after the Indiana Supreme Court on Monday denied a rehearing in the case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.

The denial of the rehearing means the ban will take effect once a June 30 ruling upholding the ban is certified, a procedural step expected to take just days, court spokesperson Kathryn Dolan said in an email to news media.

The state’s highest court ruled June 30 that the abortion ban doesn’t violate the Indiana constitution. That removed a major hurdle to enforcing the ban Republicans approved last summer ahead of a wave of restrictions by conservative states in response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

In a 4-1 decision Monday, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its order that Planned Parenthood and other health care providers “cannot show a reasonable likelihood of success” with their challenge to the abortion restrictions.

A parents group backed by a conservative legal organization asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to consider whether an admissions policy aimed at diversifying an elite Virginia high school is racially discriminatory.

The case over how students are selected to attend Thomas Jefferson High School for Science & Technology came to the court two months after its conservative majority barred colleges and universities from considering race as a factor in admissions.

But unlike the higher education cases, the admissions policy adopted in 2020 by Virginia's Fairfax County School Board for the state-chartered magnet high school was on its face race neutral.

The Alexandria-based school, known as TJ, often ranks among the best U.S. public high schools.

The board eliminated a standardized test from its admissions process, capped the number of students from each of the district's middle schools and guaranteed seats for the top students from each.

Aug. 22 (UPI) -- A federal court has ruled in favor of the owner of a Charlotte, Mich., apple orchard that was barred from the East Lansing Farmer's Market for refusing to host same-sex wedding ceremonies.

In the decision, Federal District Judge for the U.S District Court for the Western District of Michigan Paul Lewis Maloney said, "The city's decision to exclude Country Mill Farms from the 2017 East Lansing Farmer's Market constitute a burden on plaintiff's religious beliefs."

"Plaintiffs were forced to choose between following their religious beliefs and a government benefit for which they were otherwise qualified," Maloney continued.

The Alliance for Defending Freedom, a conservative activist group that backed Country Mill Farms owner Steve Tennes' lawsuit, celebrated the decision.

A proposal by a Republican lawmaker to consolidate some judicial circuits in Florida could upend decades-old jurisdiction boundaries across the state — a move that critics say is designed to stack the deck with more conservative prosecutors.

House Speaker Paul Renner in June asked the Florida Supreme Court to consider shrinking the number of circuits, which he said could save money and make the system more efficient. The court appointed a committee to make a recommendation in December. The Legislature, controlled by a Republican supermajority, will then decide.

State Rep. Michele Rayner, a Democrat and attorney whose district includes portions of Hillsborough and Pinellas counties, called consolidation “purely politically motivated.”

“This is really more about the governor wanting to ensure that Democratic or progressive prosecutors are not elected,” Rayner said. “We’ve already seen that he has removed Andrew Warren and Monique Worrell, and so I think that this is a bigger play.”

Of Florida’s 20 state attorneys, six were Democrats and 14 were Republicans before Gov. Ron DeSantis removed State Attorney Warren in Hillsborough County last year and Worrell in Orlando on Aug. 9. Both are Democrats, and members of their party fear that shrinking the number of districts will end up in a redrawn map that will further favor Republicans.

A proposal by a Republican lawmaker to consolidate some judicial circuits in Florida could upend decades-old jurisdiction boundaries across the state — a move that critics say is designed to stack the deck with more conservative prosecutors.

House Speaker Paul Renner in June asked the Florida Supreme Court to consider shrinking the number of circuits, which he said could save money and make the system more efficient. The court appointed a committee to make a recommendation in December. The Legislature, controlled by a Republican supermajority, will then decide.

State Rep. Michele Rayner, a Democrat and attorney whose district includes portions of Hillsborough and Pinellas counties, called consolidation “purely politically motivated.”

“This is really more about the governor wanting to ensure that Democratic or progressive prosecutors are not elected,” Rayner said. “We’ve already seen that he has removed Andrew Warren and Monique Worrell, and so I think that this is a bigger play.”

Of Florida’s 20 state attorneys, six were Democrats and 14 were Republicans before Gov. Ron DeSantis removed State Attorney Warren in Hillsborough County last year and Worrell in Orlando on Aug. 9. Both are Democrats, and members of their party fear that shrinking the number of districts will end up in a redrawn map that will further favor Republicans.

A group founded by the conservative activist who led the successful U.S. Supreme Court challenge to the consideration of race in college admissions sued two major U.S. law firms on Tuesday over fellowships they offer to racial minorities and LGBT people, accusing them of unlawful bias against white candidates.

The American Alliance for Equal Rights sued Perkins Coie in Dallas and Morrison & Foerster in Miami two months after the Supreme Court sided with another group founded by activist Edward Blum and rejected affirmative action policies used by many colleges to increase enrollment of racial minorities.

The lawsuits, brought in federal courts, accused both law firms of unlawfully discriminating against white candidates by limiting which law students could be considered for paid fellowships geared toward promoting greater diversity within the legal sector.

"Excluding students from these esteemed fellowships because they are the wrong race is unfair, polarizing and illegal," Blum, who is white, said in a statement.

Perkins Coie said it had no immediate comment on the lawsuit. Morrison & Foerster did not respond to requests for comment.

The lawsuits came amid an uptick in legal challenges to corporate diversity programs in the wake of the Supreme Court's affirmative action ruling, with companies including Activision Blizzard, Kellogg and Gannett now facing complaints.

TALLAHASSEE — The state of Florida will square off with voting rights plaintiffs in Tallahassee this week in a high-stakes redistricting battle that could have national implications as both sides argue over the constitutionality of protections for Black voters.

The one-day hearing on Thursday follows the state’s stark admission: Gov. Ron DeSantis’ congressional map violated the state’s safeguards against diminishing the electoral influence of racial minorities. DeSantis’ lawyers will argue those protections infringe upon the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and should be thrown out.

The two sides will present their arguments in Tallahassee before Second Judicial Circuit Judge J. Lee Marsh, a Rick Scott appointee, who could approve a new map in time for the 2024 elections. The judge’s ruling will likely be appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, where DeSantis has appointed the majority of justices.

If DeSantis gets his way, Florida courts would go further than the U.S. Supreme Court has and would advance the legal argument, pushed by many conservatives, that it’s inherently wrong to preserve the political voice of Black voters. That could set Florida’s anti-gerrymandering Fair District standards and the federal Voting Rights Act in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and open the door to Florida’s case being used to dismantle voting protections nationwide.

It’s a gambit for the governor and presidential candidate whose education and corporate governance mandates have demonstrated his opposition to policies that aim to advance racial equity. But it also gives DeSantis the opportunity to become a hero in right-wing circles.

TALLAHASSEE — The state of Florida will square off with voting rights plaintiffs in Tallahassee this week in a high-stakes redistricting battle that could have national implications as both sides argue over the constitutionality of protections for Black voters.

The one-day hearing on Thursday follows the state’s stark admission: Gov. Ron DeSantis’ congressional map violated the state’s safeguards against diminishing the electoral influence of racial minorities. DeSantis’ lawyers will argue those protections infringe upon the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and should be thrown out.

The two sides will present their arguments in Tallahassee before Second Judicial Circuit Judge J. Lee Marsh, a Rick Scott appointee, who could approve a new map in time for the 2024 elections. The judge’s ruling will likely be appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, where DeSantis has appointed the majority of justices.

If DeSantis gets his way, Florida courts would go further than the U.S. Supreme Court has and would advance the legal argument, pushed by many conservatives, that it’s inherently wrong to preserve the political voice of Black voters. That could set Florida’s anti-gerrymandering Fair District standards and the federal Voting Rights Act in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and open the door to Florida’s case being used to dismantle voting protections nationwide.

It’s a gambit for the governor and presidential candidate whose education and corporate governance mandates have demonstrated his opposition to policies that aim to advance racial equity. But it also gives DeSantis the opportunity to become a hero in right-wing circles.