Latest from Vox
Vox
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Vox
What the '12-day war' teaches us about Trump's foreign policy
is a senior politics correspondent at Vox, covering the White House, elections, and political scandals and investigations. He's worked at Vox since the site's launch in 2014, and before that, he worked as a research assistant at the New Yorker's Washington, DC, bureau. When President Donald Trump announced late Saturday that he ordered the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, critics on both the left and the right feared a spiral into a wider war. Yet just two days later, Trump announced a ceasefire deal between Israel and Iran that he claimed would end what he called 'the 12-day war' entirely. And though this ceasefire looked quite fragile at first, three days later, it's still holding. There's much we still don't know about whether Trump's strikes were successful in their short-term objective of disabling Iran's nuclear program. And of course, the long-term consequences of the war for Iran and the region are very far from clear. The past week's events did, however, clarify some things about Trump and his approach to foreign policy in his second term. Specifically, though Trump attacked Iran's nuclear program, he quickly pivoted to a ceasefire, suggesting that he's still wary of the hawks' transformational 'regime change' ambitions. He instead prefers to deal with countries' existing leaders at the negotiating table — and views military force as a tool to get himself a better deal. At first, it seemed that Trump had handed hawks on the right a decisive victory. Sweeping aside the concerns of the 'America First' faction that urged restraint and feared entanglement in a new 'forever war,' Trump supported Israel's attack on Iran and then sent US bombers in as well. But what Trump did next is just as revealing. Though the Iranian government was badly weakened, and some hawks were hoping it could be toppled, Trump demurred, dismissing Iran's retaliation against the US Monday as inconsequential and working to put together a ceasefire. That is, he had an opportunity to push onward for regime change in Tehran but turned it down. Then, when it looked like the new ceasefire might not hold, Trump profanely berated both Iran and Israel and particularly urged Israel to scale back a retaliatory mission that was in progress. After Israel complied, Trump did a solid for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a Truth Social post urging Israeli authorities to cancel Netanyahu's corruption trial. Finally, Trump also declared the US strikes a complete success, insisting that Iran's nuclear program has been wiped out and disputing leaked intelligence estimates that say otherwise. He seems uninterested in hawkish arguments that he hasn't finished the job. This week, administration officials have even tried to restart nuclear talks with Iran, unlikely as that may seem. All this suggests that, despite bombing the nuclear sites, Trump has not embraced open-ended war as US foreign policy just yet. He rolled the dice on a risky military operation — but remained intent on avoiding a wider war. He supported Israel — but then, when he wanted the war to stop, called the Israelis out. It also suggests that Trump, unlike the GOP's more hawkish faction, is uninterested in seeking transformational regime change in Iran. Despite a Truth Social post on Sunday (after the strikes and before the ceasefire) in which Trump suggested 'Regime change' might be a possibility, he didn't go through with it. During his first presidential run, Trump trashed George W. Bush's Iraq War as a debacle, and the collapse of Iran's government would likely bring similar turmoil. Rather, Trump would prefer to settle things at the negotiating table, and he continues to view military action like his strikes on Iran as another way to enhance his leverage there. If negotiations aren't going the way he likes, however, dropping bombs is still a card he could play — or at least, that's what he wants his negotiating partner to fear. As I wrote before the US struck Iran, Trump has some wariness toward the hawks, but he's not a dove or a peacenik: If he's persuaded a military action will go well and make him look strong and successful, he's happy to endorse it. It is clear, though, that he continues to be wary of more prolonged wars that could go poorly. So for now at least, Trump appears to lack the appetite for a prolonged, costly, and painful war. He approved the Iran strikes because he thought Iran had been so weakened that he could get away with them, with limited consequences to Americans. But just as soon as he approved them, he hastened to wrap up the conflict.
Vox
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Vox
The hilarious implications of the Supreme Court's new porn decision
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld a Texas anti-pornography law on Friday that is nearly identical to a federal law it struck down more than two decades ago. Rather than overruling the previous case — Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004) — Justice Clarence Thomas's opinion spends at least a dozen pages making an unconvincing argument that Friday's decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is consistent with the Court's previous decisions. Those pages are a garbled mess, and Thomas spends much of them starting from the assumption that his conclusions are true. All three Democratic justices dissented. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. That said, Free Speech Coalition makes two very significant changes to the Court's approach to free speech protections for pornography, and these changes are clearly stated in Thomas's opinion. In Ashcroft, the Court struck down a federal law that basically required pornographic websites to screen users to determine if they are over the age of 18. One reason for this decision is that it was far from clear that websites were actually capable of performing this task. As the Court had acknowledged in an earlier case, 'existing technology did not include any effective method for a sender to prevent minors from obtaining access to its communications on the Internet without also denying access to adults.' This mattered because, long before the internet was widely available, the Court had established, in cases involving phone sex lines and televised pornography, that 'the objective of shielding children' from sexual material is not enough 'to support a blanket ban if the protection can be accomplished by a less restrictive alternative.' These decisions established that adults have a First Amendment right to view sexual material, and this right cannot be diminished in an effort to keep that material from children. Related The huge stakes in a new Supreme Court case about pornography Accordingly, in Ashcroft, the Court ruled that the federal age-gating law must survive the toughest test that courts can apply in constitutional cases, known as 'strict scrutiny.' Very few laws survive this test, and the law at issue in Ashcroft did not. The Court's ruling in Free Speech Coalition, however, changes the rules governing laws that seek to block minors' access to pornography, but which also may prevent adults from seeing that material. While much of Thomas's opinion is difficult to parse, one significant factor driving the Court's decision is the fact that technology has evolved. The internet, and internet pornography, is much more widely available than it was two decades ago. And it may now actually be possible to reliably age-gate pornographic websites. Now, laws like the one at issue in Free Speech Coalition are only subject to a test known as 'intermediate scrutiny' — a test which, as the name implies, is less strict. Under this somewhat less rigid framework, an anti-pornography law will be upheld 'if it advances important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests.' According to Thomas, in Free Speech Coalition, the 'important governmental interest' at issue in this case is 'shielding children from sexual content.' Intermediate scrutiny, it should be noted, is not a paper tiger. Laws that discriminate on the basis of gender, for example, are typically subject to intermediate scrutiny. And most of these laws are struck down. But the new rule announced in Free Speech Coalition gives states broader leeway to restrict access to pornography. Additionally, Thomas's opinion also implies that adults have no legal right to keep their decision to view sexual material private. The plaintiffs in Free Speech Coalition argued that 'the unique stigma surrounding pornography will make age verification too chilling for adults.' Pornography users are likely to be reluctant to submit their ID to a site like Pornhub, for example, out of fear that the website will be hacked. This is likely to be especially true for people who are trying to keep their sexual orientation a secret, or people who could face serious career consequences if their private sexual behavior became public. But Thomas's opinion is exceedingly dismissive of the idea that privacy matters in this context. 'The use of pornography has always been the subject of social stigma,' he writes. But 'this social reality has never been a reason to exempt the pornography industry from otherwise valid regulation.' It's unclear just how far Thomas, or the rest of his colleagues, would take this conclusion. Could a state, for example, require everyone who wants to look at a pornographic video to submit their names to a government agency that will publish them on a public website? At the very least, however, Free Speech Coalition suggests that lawyers challenging anti-pornography laws may no longer raise privacy arguments as part of their challenge. The Court's decision is likely to make life miserable for judges Free Speech Coalition makes clear that the era when the courts struck down nearly all laws regulating sexual speech is over. The government will now play a larger role in regulating online content depicting sex. There is a very good reason, moreover, why pre-Free Speech Coalition courts took a libertarian approach to sexual speech. Although the First Amendment has been part of the Constitution since the late 1700s, it was largely meaningless for most of American history. And the government routinely prosecuted people for saying things, or for producing art, that regulators or law enforcement found objectionable. Under the 1873 Comstock Act and similar state laws, for example, people were routinely jailed for selling erotic literature or nude art, even works that are now widely considered masterpieces. This regime began to change in the middle of the twentieth century, when the Court started protecting speech of all kinds, including both sexual and political speech. In Roth v. United States (1957), for example, the Court established that sexual speech and art could only be banned if the 'average person, applying contemporary community standards' would determine that 'the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest.' Later Supreme Court decisions tweaked this rule, and they also focused on whether the challenged speech or art has 'serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.' Speech that does have such value is protected. All of these legal tests, however, are quite vague. And the question of whether a particular film or photo has serious artistic value is rather obviously in the eye of the beholder. Hence Justice Potter Stewart's infamous statement that he may not be able to come up with a coherent legal framework to determine what sort of material should be banned, 'but I know it when I see it.' The result was that, for much of the 1970s, the justices literally had to meet in the basement of the Supreme Court to watch pornographic movies that were the subject of prosecutions, in order to make subjective calls about which movies should be protected by the First Amendment. Those movie days, as described by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong in The Brethren, were thoroughly humiliating experiences. Justice John Marshall Harlan, for example, was nearly blind during many of these screenings, so one of his law clerks had to describe what was happening on the screen to him — often prompting Harlan to explain 'By Jove!' or 'extraordinary!' Meanwhile, filmmakers would often try to work within the Court's 'serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value' framework by including political discussions or similar matters in a movie that was otherwise about sex. According to Woodward and Armstrong, for example, one such film ended with a speech 'on the comparative merits of Communist and Western societies.' The point is that, once the Court decided that some sexual speech is protected by the Constitution, it was extremely difficult to come up with a principled way to distinguish art that is too sexy to be protected by the First Amendment from art that is not. And the Court's attempts to do so only made a mockery of the justices. Eventually, the combination of Supreme Court decisions that read the First Amendment broadly, and technologies like the internet that made it very difficult to suppress sexual speech, ushered in an era where pornography is widely available and mostly unregulated. In upholding the Texas law at issue in Free Speech Coalition, the Court could end this era. But the justices are likely to make their own lives miserable as a result. Texas's law incorporates many of the Supreme Court's past pornography decisions, only restricting speech, for example, that 'lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.' Thus, if Texas wants to apply this law to Pornhub, some poor judge will have to watch much of the content on that website to determine if it has literary, artistic, political, or scientific value — and whatever that judge decides, their decision will be appealed to other judges who will have to engage in the same exercise. Justice Thomas and his colleagues, in other words, should probably install a popcorn machine in the Supreme Court building, because they've just signed themselves up to recreate the humiliating movie days of the Court's past.
Vox
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Vox
What the ‘12-day war' teaches us about Trump's foreign policy
is a senior politics correspondent at Vox, covering the White House, elections, and political scandals and investigations. He's worked at Vox since the site's launch in 2014, and before that, he worked as a research assistant at the New Yorker's Washington, DC, bureau. When President Donald Trump announced late Saturday that he ordered the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, critics on both the left and the right feared a spiral into a wider war. Yet just two days later, Trump announced a ceasefire deal between Israel and Iran that he claimed would end what he called 'the 12-day war' entirely. And though this ceasefire looked quite fragile at first, three days later, it's still holding. There's much we still don't know about whether Trump's strikes were successful in their short-term objective of disabling Iran's nuclear program. And of course, the long-term consequences of the war for Iran and the region are very far from clear. The past week's events did, however, clarify some things about Trump and his approach to foreign policy in his second term. Specifically, though Trump attacked Iran's nuclear program, he quickly pivoted to a ceasefire, suggesting that he's still wary of the hawks' transformational 'regime change' ambitions. He instead prefers to deal with countries' existing leaders at the negotiating table — and views military force as a tool to get himself a better deal. At first, it seemed that Trump had handed hawks on the right a decisive victory. Sweeping aside the concerns of the 'America First' faction that urged restraint and feared entanglement in a new 'forever war,' Trump supported Israel's attack on Iran and then sent US bombers in as well. But what Trump did next is just as revealing. Though the Iranian government was badly weakened, and some hawks were hoping it could be toppled, Trump demurred, dismissing Iran's retaliation against the US Monday as inconsequential and working to put together a ceasefire. That is, he had an opportunity to push onward for regime change in Tehran but turned it down. Then, when it looked like the new ceasefire might not hold, Trump profanely berated both Iran and Israel and particularly urged Israel to scale back a retaliatory mission that was in progress. After Israel complied, Trump did a solid for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a Truth Social post urging Israeli authorities to cancel Netanyahu's corruption trial. Finally, Trump also declared the US strikes a complete success, insisting that Iran's nuclear program has been wiped out and disputing leaked intelligence estimates that say otherwise. He seems uninterested in hawkish arguments that he hasn't finished the job. This week, administration officials have even tried to restart nuclear talks with Iran, unlikely as that may seem. All this suggests that, despite bombing the nuclear sites, Trump has not embraced open-ended war as US foreign policy just yet. He rolled the dice on a risky military operation — but remained intent on avoiding a wider war. He supported Israel — but then, when he wanted the war to stop, called the Israelis out. It also suggests that Trump, unlike the GOP's more hawkish faction, is uninterested in seeking transformational regime change in Iran. Despite a Truth Social post on Sunday (after the strikes and before the ceasefire) in which Trump suggested 'Regime change' might be a possibility, he didn't go through with it. During his first presidential run, Trump trashed George W. Bush's Iraq War as a debacle,' and the collapse of Iran's government would likely bring similar turmoil. Rather, Trump would prefer to settle things at the negotiating table, and he continues to view military action like his strikes on Iran as another way to enhance his leverage there. If negotiations aren't going the way he likes, however, dropping bombs is still a card he could play — or at least, that's what he wants his negotiating partner to fear. As I wrote before the US struck Iran, Trump has some wariness toward the hawks, but he's not a dove or a peacenik: If he's persuaded a military action will go well and make him look strong and successful, he's happy to endorse it. It is clear, though, that he continues to be wary of more prolonged wars that could go poorly. So for now at least, Trump appears to lack the appetite for a prolonged, costly, and painful war. He approved the Iran strikes because he thought Iran had been so weakened that he could get away with them, with limited consequences to Americans. But just as soon as he approved them, he hastened to wrap up the conflict.
Vox
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Vox
The Supreme Court just imposed a 'Don't Say Gay' regime on every public school in America
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that parents with religious objections to books with LGBTQ+ characters must be allowed to opt their children out of any public school instruction that uses those books. The decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor was handed down along party lines, with all six Republicans in the majority and all three Democrats in dissent. The Mahmoud case highlights the Republican justices' impatience to remake constitutional law in a more socially conservative image, especially in cases involving religion. It is certainly possible for public school instruction to violate a religious child's constitutional rights. The Constitution, for example, forbids government institutions like public schools from coercing students into violating their religious views. As Justice Samuel Alito notes in the Mahmoud opinion, the Constitution would also forbid teachers from openly mocking a student's faith. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. But, as a federal appeals court which previously heard the Mahmoud case warned, we don't actually know whether the Constitution was violated in this case. Although Montgomery County, Maryland, approved several books with LGBTQ+ characters for use in public schools, the lower court found that the record in this case contains no information 'about how any teacher or school employee has actually used any of the Storybooks in the Parents' children's classrooms, how often the Storybooks are actually being used, what any child has been taught in conjunction with their use, or what conversations have ensued about their themes.' Related The Supreme Court is leading a Christian conservative revolution Nevertheless, Alito handed down a fairly broad opinion which is likely to impose substantial new burdens on public schools, and he did so without waiting until the record in this case was more fully developed by lower courts. The result is that many schools may struggle to comply with the new obligations that were just imposed, and most schools are likely to exclude books that introduce queer themes or that even mention LGBTQ+ characters. Why Mahmoud imposes a severe burden on public schools The plaintiffs in Mahmoud include Muslim and Christian parents who do not want their children exposed to these books. And their lawyers came to the Supreme Court with an audacious request — seeking a broad decision that parents who object to any form of classroom instruction on religious grounds must be notified in advance, and be permitted to opt their child out of that instruction. The problem with this request is that schools cannot possibly know, in advance, which religious views are held by which parents, and which books or lessons those parents might find objectionable. In the past, parents have sued school districts objecting, on religious grounds, to lessons that touch on topics as diverse as divorce, interfaith couples, and 'immodest dress.' They've objected to books which expose readers to evolution, pacifism, magic, women achieving things outside of the home, and 'false views of death.' Courts have historically been very cautious about ruling in favor of parents who raise these sorts of objections, in part due to concerns that schools would be overwhelmed by administrative burden. Nevertheless, the Court's decision in Mahmoud largely embraces the plaintiffs' request — Alito orders the school board to notify parents 'in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.' Alito's opinion does not discuss how this rule should apply to parents with more uncommon religious beliefs, but the Constitution forbids the government from treating people with idiosyncratic religious beliefs differently than people with more common beliefs. The upshot is that a school may also need to warn parents if a teacher wants to read from a Harry Potter book (because those books are about magic), or if they want to teach a lesson about a famous pacifist like Martin Luther King Jr. Schools may even need to warn parents if any of their children's teachers are women, just in case a parent objects on religious grounds to women having achievements outside of the home. That said, Alito's opinion is slightly narrower than the Mahmoud plaintiffs' proposed framework. Alito argues that the books at issue are objectionable, not just because they feature LGBTQ+ characters, but because they suggest that certain aspects of queer culture should be 'celebrated.' One of the contested books is a medieval fairy tale about a prince who marries a knight. According to Alito, the book 'relates that 'on the two men's wedding day, the air filled with cheer and laughter, for the prince and his shining knight would live happily ever after.'' Thus, Alito claims, this book is objectionable not because it includes a same-sex wedding, but because it portrays this wedding as a good thing. Under Alito's framework, a book that featured a same-sex wedding without portraying it as desirable might not trigger the new rule. Similarly, Alito would likely permit women to work as teachers without warning parents of their femininity, so long as the teacher does not do anything to celebrate their womanhood or suggest that being a woman who works outside the home is a good thing. Still, schools will likely struggle to determine when they are required to warn parents of a particular lesson under Mahmoud. And schools that draw the line in the wrong place now risk being dragged into an expensive lawsuit. Schools are likely to be reluctant to teach books with queer themes or characters One very likely consequence of Mahmoud is that schools will be very reluctant to teach any lesson that mentions homosexuality, transgender people, or anything else that touches on queer sexuality or gender identity. Mahmoud is likely to impose a Florida-style 'Don't Say Gay' regime on every public school classroom in America. The reason why is fairly straightforward. While it is somewhat unclear how Mahmoud applies to parents who object to fantasy novels or working women, the decision quite clearly limits schools' ability to teach books with queer characters. Nor is it clear when a book crosses the line from merely mentioning a gay character to celebrating some aspect of gay culture. So schools that want to avoid lawsuits will need to exclude these sorts of books from their classroom altogether. Lawyers, meanwhile, have a financial incentive to sue schools that behave more boldly. Federal law typically allows the 'prevailing party' in a civil rights lawsuit to collect attorney's fees from the losing party. And suits enforcing Mahmoud are considered civil rights cases because they arise under the First Amendment's religious liberty provisions. So, lawyers can search for schools that teach books with LGBTQ+ characters, find a parent who objects to those books, and then sue and demand that the school district pay their client's bills. School districts that don't want to be treated like an ATM for anti-LGBTQ+ lawyers, meanwhile, will only be able to avoid these lawsuits by excluding queer-themed books from the classroom entirely.
Vox
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Vox
The Supreme Court's birthright citizenship decision isn't as devastating as you think
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and former Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy talk with President Donald Trump as he arrives to address to a joint session of Congress on March 4, Friday, the Supreme Court released its long-awaited decision in Trump v. CASA, a case challenging President Donald Trump's attempt to strip many Americans of citizenship. The Court handed Trump a narrow victory along party lines, with all six Republicans in the majority and all three Democrats dissenting. The 14th Amendment provides that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States' are citizens, with one narrow exception that does not arise in CASA, so Trump's executive order trying to strip many babies born in the US of their citizenship is clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional. Multiple lower courts have all reached this same conclusion. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. There are three important takeaways from the CASA opinion: 1) It's not actually about birthright citizenship The specific issue was whether all the lower courts that struck down the Trump anti-citizenship order may issue a 'nationwide injunction,' which would block that order everywhere in the country, or whether they must issue a more narrow injunction that only blocked it in certain states, or for certain families. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion concludes that a nationwide injunction is not allowed…sort of. Much of the opinion is about why nationwide injunctions should be impermissible, but a key section suggests that, in this case, one might actually be okay. Specifically, Barrett says that courts may issue injunctions that are broad enough to ensure that a victorious plaintiff receives 'complete relief.' This matters because several of the plaintiffs in this case are blue states that object to Trump's attempt to cancel many Americans' citizenship. And they argued that it would be unworkable if birthright citizenship was the rule in some states, but not others. As Barrett summarizes their arguments, 'children often move across state lines or are born outside their parents' State of residence.' Thus, a ''patchwork injunction' would prove unworkable, because it would require [the states] to track and verify the immigration status of the parents of every child, along with the birth State of every child for whom they provide certain federally funded benefits.' In any event, Barrett does not ultimately say whether she finds this argument persuasive, instead concluding that 'the lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate' in future proceedings. So the holding of CASA seems to be that universal injunctions should be rare, but they are permissible in some cases, including, possibly, this case. 2) The arguments against universal injunctions are serious During the Biden administration, MAGA-aligned federal judges in Texas routinely handed down nationwide injunctions on highly dubious grounds. Indeed, this practice so frustrated Biden's Justice Department that, even after Trump won the 2024 election, Biden's solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, filed a brief asking the justices to limit their use. The best argument against these broad orders is that they place too much power in individual judges, and in plaintiffs who can often shape which judge hears their case. As Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a 2020 opinion, 'there are currently more than 1,000 active and senior district court judges.'In a world with nationwide injunctions, plaintiffs can shop around for the one judge in America who is most likely to be sympathetic to their cause, and potentially secure a court order that no other judge would hand down. The most immediate beneficiary of Friday's decision is Trump, who will now get some relief from nationwide injunctions. And it's notable that the Republican-controlled Supreme Court waited until a Republican was in the White House before cracking down. Nevertheless, the decision in CASA should also benefit future Democratic administrations, assuming that the GOP-controlled Court applies it fairly to presidents of both parties. 3) This decision does not mean that Trump will succeed in killing birthright citizenship As mentioned above, Barrett leaves the door open to a nationwide injunction in this very case. She also suggests that opponents of Trump's anti-citizenship order can bring a class action and obtain relief very similar to a nationwide injunction, although plaintiffs seeking to bring class actions must clear additional procedural bars.
