One side of the argument says, “I have no problem with it whatsoever. To me, that’s simply reaffirming the First Amendment, that has proper caveats if you’re not engaging in harassing behavior. I think this is just reiterating basic principles of the First Amendment.” - (Andrew Walker) They also said, “Federal employees should never have to choose between their faith and their career.” - (Scott Kupor)

On the contrary, the other side points out that this could create a hostile workspace, “If your supervisor decides to sit down and make it very clear that it’s important to her or him, that you accept this weaponized version of the gospel of Jesus Christ, what do you think your chances are for advancement?" - (Mikey Weinstein)

One side fully supports this idea, but the other points out what could happen if not addressed correctly.

This article talks about the First Amendment and freedom of religion.

In this article, the first amendment is involved, but some people are saying it violates the first amendment while others are saying the new guideline is reaffirming it. Mikey Weinstein, the founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation states that this new rule conflicts with the Constitution. He said, “If your supervisor decides to sit down and make it very clear that it’s important to her or him, that you accept this weaponized version of the gospel of Jesus Christ, what do you think your chances are for advancement?” Weinstein makes a good point, saying that if your supervisor pressures you into joining a specific religion and you don’t comply, it would be nearly impossible for you to be promoted. It would create a hostile work environment, which would not be great for the federal government. 

On the other hand, Andrew Walker, an associate dean at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says this guideline that the Trump Administration implemented is just a basic example of the First Amendment. “To me, that’s simply reaffirming the First Amendment, that has proper caveats if you’re not engaging in harassing behavior. I think this is just reiterating basic principles of the First Amendment,” he says. He believes that this regulation actually is a reaffirmation of the First Amendment: freedom of religion. Walker also thinks this guideline “resets things back to neutrality”. He sees the policy as simply restoring the neutral stance, rather than taking an active side.

The Supreme Court ruled that police officers can freely pull over people they suspect of being illegal immigrants and question them as they please. This was put in place to support President Trump‘s effort to ramp up immigrant arrests. This ruling pertains to the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Many incidents involving police being unreasonably violent towards suspected immigrants have been caught on video and retold by victims. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor says that this ruling is plainly racist and that it is not a good enough reason to pull someone over just because they speak Spanish, look Mexican, or work a low-age job. Supreme Court Justice Brent kavanaugh said that the ruling was made because 10% of the people in the Los Angeles region are illegally in the United States, meaning about 2 million illegal immigrants out of the total population of 20 million. 

Illinois passed a law banning high powered weapons, after a mass shooting that killed seven and injured 30. On the 4th of July parade in 2022, a shooter walked into Highland Park and started shooting his AR-15. He was not firing a pistol, but a weapon which can fire many rounds per minute. Illinois defended their decision by saying their goal was to prevent further shootings. According to a statement, the governor said most shootings occur with high powered weapons, which people have no daily use for. 

The law was passed so long ago, so the context in which this amendment applies is heavily debated. Many people have been pressuring saying that the second amendment applies forever, but now more than ever we need to see if it is legal. Many people say that it is a true right, however restrictions need to be imposed, as we do not have a militia on a day to day basis.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/02/supreme-court-gun-rights-00166397

Florida Attorney James Uthmeier announced that state residents now have the right to openly carry guns following a recent appeals court decision that eradicated Florida’s 40 year old ban. During the ban, the state arrested Stan McDaniels for bearing a firearm despite having a defensible weapon authorization. He appealed his case to the 1st District Court Appeal, which ordered in his favor, reasoning that the state had  misinterpreted the historic law regulating who is allowed to carry weapons.

The 2nd amendment,” The Right to Bear Arms,” is involved in this article. Well-behaved citizens can openly or concealed bear firearms. The court ruled that Florida’s 40 year old ban was unconstitutional. The Second Amendment grants rights that are not absolute and are limited. High-risk or densely populated areas are put at lower risk, by reinstating and maintaining bans. Modern gun rights need reinterpretation from current actualities. This supports stricter gun laws or looks at the amendment’s relevance in modern law. Courts must protect individual’s rights such with social impact including law enforcement concerns and crime. This can support compromises such as allowing open carry, but requiring permits or safety training. The Republicans typically emphasize individual rights, self defense and minimal government inference, a strong support for open carry. While, the democrats prioritize gun control, background checks, and public safety concerns, more likely to oppose open carry. Governors such as Uthmeire often act from their party’s stance.

Florida Attorney James Uthmeier announced that state residents now have the right to openly carry guns following a recent appeals court decision that eradicated Florida’s 40 year old ban. During the ban, Stan McDaniels was arrested for bearing a firearm despite having a defensible weapon permit. He appealed his case to the 1st District Court Appeal, which ordered in his favor, reasoning that the state had  misinterpreted the 2nd Amendment allowing who carries weapons.

The 2nd amendment,” The Right to Bear Arms,” is involved in this article. Well-behaved citizens can openly or concealed bear firearms. The court ruled that Florida’s 40 year old ban was unconstitutional. The Second Amendment grants rights that are not absolute and are limited. High-risk or densely populated areas are put at lower risk, by reinstating and maintaining bans. Modern gun rights need reinterpretation from current actualities. This supports stricter gun laws or looks at the amendment’s relevance in modern law. Courts must balance individual rights especially with social impact including law enforcement concerns and crime. This can support compromises such as allowing open carry, but requiring permits or safety training. The Republicans typically emphasize individual rights, self defense and minimal government inference, a strong support for open carry. While, the democrats prioritize gun control, background checks, and public safety concerns, more likely to oppose open carry. Governors such as Uthmeire often act from their party’s stance.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/17/business/media/abc-jimmy-kimmel.html

The ‘Manosphere’ Reacts to the Jimmy Kimmel News, by Benjamin Hoffman

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/style/the-manosphere-reacts-to-the-jimmy-kimmel-news.html

What to Know About Jimmy Kimmel’s Show Being Suspended, by Kailyn Rhone

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/business/jimmy-kimmel-show-abc-kirk-fcc.html

In Pressuring ABC Over Kimmel, Trump May Have Crossed a Constitutional Line, by Adam Liptak

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/19/us/politics/supreme-court-jimmy-kimmel-free-speech.html

The Conservative Principle Behind the Kimmel Suspension, by Ross Douthat

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/opinion/jimmy-kimmel-conservative-principle-trump.html

On Wednesday, September 17, late night show host Jimmy Kimmel was suspended indefinitely by the network ABC. His suspension came after social media backlash over remarks he made two days before regarding the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, where he described "the MAGA gang" as "desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it." (Koblin et al.) Many conservative activists said this was inaccurate and offensive. Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission that regulates communications in the US, weighed in; during his appearance on a right-wing podcast he said that "these companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the F.C.C. ahead." That Wednesday, Nexstar (which owns many ABC affiliate stations and is in the midst of a bid to acquire a rival company that would require FCC approval) announced that it would preempt Kimmel's program due to his remarks over Kirk's death, a decision that Carr praised on social media, and ABC made the decision to suspend Kimmel.

This was met with a variety of reactions. While ABC is a private entity not limited by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is a violation of the First Amendment for a government official to "use the power of the state to punish or suppress disfavored expression" (Adam Liptak). Some believe the events leading up to Kimmel's suspension were not in violation of the First Amendment and that ABC acted independently. Others believe that Carr's remarks invoked the power of the FCC and unduly pressured ABC. Right-wingers such as President Trump and Steve Bannon praised the suspension, while Kimmel's fellow late night show host David Letterman criticized ABC's decision "as an attempt to appease an 'authoritarian' administration" (Kailyn Rhone).

Charlie Kirk, a famous liberal known for his debates, was shot and killed for his opinions and controversial views. Many are claiming that he died voicing his thoughts and that the first amendment, which is freedom of speech, failed to protect that. This article dives deeper into what hate speech is and the consequences for it if caught. There’s an interesting part where it ties hate speech to freedom of speech, and how if people are allowed to freely express how they feel, where would hate speech fall into the category? Looking back at the situation with Charlie Kirk, the first and second amendment is involved. The first amendment is freedom of speech and the second amendment is the right to bear arms, which is firearms/guns. Online, there’s a lot of speculation online about the shooting and many people have reached out to have their say. An attorney said, “hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime.” and “we will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.” 

In the article, it talks about what defines hate speech and whether or not the first amendment prevents or encourages that. Although it’s vague, there’s definitely a fine line between hate speech and active threats. Inciting violence or advocating for terrorism isn’t enough to get the law involved but “the words must be meant to and be likely to produce violence or lawlessness right away.” A while back, the Supreme Court realized that there should be certain exceptions to this, so a law was enforced. In 2023, directly issuing threats to people online would be a crime but that ​​”prosecutors must prove that the speakers had acted at least recklessly.” The article pretty much summarizes that and it really asks the question. Should the first amendment go through some changes considering how the first amendment can be so flexible? 

Two sides of this story is of the prosecutor thinand of the person that is dealing with the consequences of the punishments. Sexual assault is catorgarized in many different terms and strip searching is one of them.

The first case surrounds the subject of death penalty brought up by a Louisiana court case, sentencing 43-year old Patrick Kennedy to death for the rape of his 8-year old stepdaughter. The final ruling, with a 5-4 vote, overturned the death penalty for being a violation of the Eighth Amendment as the rape was not accompanied by the death of the victim. Justice Anthony Kennedy in his majority opinion states that "...death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child." And that the decisions made today do not affect the imposition of the death penalty on non-murder crimes, such as treason or espionage. Justice Samuel Alito writes in dissent that "It is the judgement of the...[states lawmakers]...that these harms justify the death penalty." and that the trauma caused to the victims of these situations is severally grave.

The second case covers the decision of the punitive damages amount of $2.5 billion for victims in the Exxon spill, an oil spill covering 1,200 miles of the Alaskan coastline. Exxon had asked the court to reject punitive damages as it had already paid $3.4 billion in response to the accident. In the vote of 5-3, the amount was cut from $2.5 billion to $500 million, with Justice David Souter stating that "...punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, about $500 million compensation."