order

March 21 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order forcing networks and the NCAA to avoid scheduling conflicts with the annual Army-Navy game in December.

The order would create an exclusive broadcast window for the college football game, played between the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., and the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, Md. The game is usually played on the second Saturday in December, but College Football Playoffs and other post-season games have conflicted with the annual broadcast.

“Such scheduling conflicts weaken the national focus on our Military Service Academies and detract from a morale-building event of vital interest to the Department of War,” a White House press release titled “Preserving America’s Game” said. “Accordingly, it is the policy of the United States that no college football game, specifically college football’s CFP or other postseason games, be broadcast in a manner that directly conflicts with the Army‑Navy Game.”

The order says that the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Commerce must work with the NCAA, College Football Playoff and broadcasters to prevent scheduling conflicts during the usual time slot for the game.

“Nobody’s going to play football for four hours during that very special time of the year, in December. It’s preserved forever for the Army-Navy game,” Trump said just before signing the order. “Of course, we’ll probably get sued at some point,” he added.

The president was surrounded by Naval Academy midshipment as he signed the order. Navy won the game against Army on Dec. 13, 17-16.

“Thank you for signing that executive order protecting the sanctity of the Army-Navy game,” Navy coach Brian Newberry said. “It’s a game with a soul, and it deserves to be protected.”

Some have suggested the Army-Navy game be played on a different day or to broadcast other games at the same time.

Army head coach Jeff Monken told The Athletic in February that he would rather play the game on Thanksgiving weekend to avoid conflict with the playoffs.

“I think Army-Navy is a huge part of the history of college football, and what it is today, even,” he said. “Give us a four-hour block on Thanksgiving, or on Friday of Thanksgiving, or on Saturday of Thanksgiving, and give us a four-hour block, and just say nobody else plays during this four-hour block. That’s still protecting the game.”

Media law experts say the White House should be careful of intervening in college sports.

Jeffrey Cole, director of the Center for the Digital Future at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, wrote in an email to The Washington Post that the White House should have these important conversations.

“But, it should not be a ‘decider.’ If change is needed at the federal level, it should come from legislation.”

The Army vs. Navy game has been played annually since 1930. CBS Sports has the broadcast rights through 2038.

The game has traditionally been played on the last weekend of November or the first weekend of December, The Athletic reported. It moved to the second weekend of December in 2009 to bring more attention and ratings to CBS.

“We are deeply appreciative of President Trump’s executive order preserving a dedicated window for the Army-Navy Game — America’s Game — a tradition that represents far more than football by honoring our service academies and the mission of developing leaders for our nation,” Navy Athletic Director Michael Kelly said in a statement to The Athletic. “Maintaining its exclusivity ensures the country can come together to recognize the sacrifice, commitment and readiness that are essential to our military. We are also encouraged that this step helps create a pathway for Navy Football to participate in the College Football Playoff when earned, allowing us to both preserve tradition and embrace opportunity.”

“We’re grateful for the President’s leadership and for everyone working to protect, preserve, and unite around America’s game and the values it stands for,” Army Athletic Director Tom Theodorakis said in a statement.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court broke new ground this month when it ruled the Constitution forbids school policies in California that prevent parents from being told about their child’s gender transition at school.

But the reach of this new parental right remains unclear.

Does it mean all parents have a right to be informed if their child is using a new name and pronouns at school?

Or is the right limited to parents who inquire and object to being “shut out of participation in decisions involving their children’s mental health,” as the high court said in Mirabelli vs. Bonta.

Both sides in this legal battle accuse the other of creating confusion and uncertainty. And that dispute has not subsided.

UC Davis law professor Aaron Tang says understanding the Supreme Court’s order calls for a close reading of the statewide injunction handed down by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego.

That order prohibits school employees from “misleading” or “lying” to parents. It did not say school officials and teachers had a duty to contact parents whenever they saw that a student changed their appearance or used a new name, he said.

By clearing this order to take effect, the Supreme Court’s decision “means that schools must tell parents the truth about their child’s gender presentation at school if the parents request that information,” Tang said.

“But the initial burden is on the parents. This is not a rule that schools have an affirmative obligation to inform any and all parents if their child is presenting as a different gender,” he said.

The high court’s 6-3 order also indicated the reach of the judge’s injunction was limited.

It “does not provide relief for all the parents of California public school students, but only those parents who object to the challenged policies or seek religious injunctions.”

Religious conservatives who sued say they seek to end “secret transition” policies that encourage students to adopt a new gender identity without their parents knowing about the change.

The lawsuit challenging California’s “parental exclusion” policies was first filed by two teachers in Escondido.

Peter Breen, an attorney for the Thomas More Society, said many of the parents in Escondido “had no clue” their children were undergoing a gender transition at school.

“We need to activate parents,” he said.

Ruling for them, Benitez said the state’s “parental exclusion policies are designed to create a zone of secrecy around a school student who expresses gender incongruity.”

His injunction also said schools must notify their employees that “parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school child expresses gender incongruence.”

The Supreme Court’s order cited a dramatic example of nondisclosure.

Two parents who joined the suit had gone to parent-teacher meetings and learned only after their eighth-grade daughter attempted suicide that she had been presenting as a boy at school and suffered from gender dysphoria.

John Bursch, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, argues the Supreme Court’s opinion goes further to empower parents.

“Fairly read, the Mirabelli opinion creates an affirmative obligation on school officials to disclose,” he said. “It’s consistent with the way [the court] describes the parental right: ‘the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.’ School officials’ silence (rather than lying) is not notice to and is shutting out parents.”

“All that said, the California attorney general is obviously not getting that message,” Bursch said.

He said the Supreme Court needs to go beyond an emergency order and fully decide a case that squarely presents the issue of parents rights.

“School officials should not be socially transitioning children without parental notice and consent. Period,” he said.

He filed an appeal petition with the Supreme Court in a case from Massachusetts that dissenting Justice Elena Kagan described as a “carbon copy” of the California dispute.

It takes only four votes to grant review of a case, but since November, the justices have repeatedly considered the case of Foote vs. Ludlow and taken no action.

The case is set to be considered again on Friday in the court’s private conference.

Meanwhile, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta went back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a clarification to limit the potential sweep of Benitez’s order.

He objected to the part of the judge’s order that said schools must post a notice that “parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.”

Bonta said that goes beyond what the Supreme Court approved.

This “could be understood to suggest that public school officials have an affirmative constitutional duty to inform parents whenever they observe a student’s expression of ‘gender incongruence,’ effectively imposing a mandatory ‘see something, say something’ obligation in all circumstances,” he said.

But the 9th Circuit said it would not act until he first presented this request to Benitez.

Meanwhile, transgender rights advocates say the voices and the views of students have been ignored.

“This case has been about states’ and parents’ rights but students have been left out of the conversation. Their voices have not been heard at all,” said Andrew Ortiz, an attorney for the Transgender Law Center. “School should be a place where young people can feel safe and confident they can confide in a teacher.”

“We’re hearing about fear and anxiety,” said Jorge Reyes Salinas, communications director for Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization.

“There are students who are unable to speak with their parents. Teachers can encourage them to have a conversation with their parents. But this will weaken the trust they have in their teachers,” he said.

In the past, the court had been wary of reaching into the public schools to decide on education policies and the curriculum, but it took a significant step in that direction last year.

In a Maryland case, the court said religious parents had a right to “opt out” their young children from classes that read “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks.

The 1st Amendment protects the “free exercise of religion” and “government schools … may not place unconstitutional burdens on religious exercise,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito, the lone conservative who attended public schools.

The same 6-3 majority cited that precedent to block California school policies that protect the privacy of students and “conceal” information from inquiring parents if the student does not consent.

But the California case went beyond the religious-rights issue in the Maryland “opt out” case because it included a “subclass of parents” who objected without citing religion as the reason.

The justices ruled for them as a matter of parents’ rights.

“Parents — not the state — have primary authority with respect to the upbringing and education of children,” the court said.

That simple assertion touches on a sensitive issue for both the conservative and liberal wings of the court. It rests on the 14th Amendment’s clause that says no state may “deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

In the past, a liberal majority held that the protection for “liberty” included rights to contraceptives, abortion and same-sex marriages.

Conservatives fiercely objected to what was dubbed “substantive due process.”

In the California case, Kagan, speaking for the liberals in dissent, tweaked the conservatives for recognizing a new constitutional right without saying where it came from.

“Anyone remotely familiar with recent debates in constitutional law will understand why: Substantive due process has not been of late in the good graces of this Court — and especially of the Members of today’s majority,” she wrote.

She noted that when the court struck down the right to abortion in the Dobbs case, Justice Clarence Thomas said he would go further and strike down all the rights that rest on “substantive due process.”

In response to Kagan, Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurring opinion that staked out a moderate conservative position.

Since 1997, the court has said it would stand behind rights that were “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition,” she wrote. That includes “a parent’s right to raise her child … and the right to participate in significant decisions about her child’s mental health.”

She said California’s “non-disclosure policy” is unconstitutional and violates the rights of parent because it applies “even if parents expressly ask for information about their child’s gender identification,” she wrote.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh signed on to her opinion.

While Kagan dissented on procedural grounds, she did not disagree with bottom-line outcome.

“California’s policy, in depriving all parents of information critical to their children’s health and well-being, could have crossed the constitutional line,” she said. “And that would entitle the parents, at the end of the day, to relief.”

Fans of the musical “Hamilton” know three things about the nation’s first Treasury secretary because of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s brilliance. First, that Alexander Hamilton cheated on his wife, Eliza. Second, he was killed by the vice president, Aaron Burr. Third, and most importantly, he was considered a highly principled man. And when it came to the topic of nationalizing elections, do you know how this Revolutionary War vet and founding father characterized doing so?

A threat.

Referring to corruptible public officials, Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers: No 59: “With so effectual a weapon in their hands as the exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, a combination of a few such men, in a few of the most considerable States, where the temptation will always be the strongest, might accomplish the destruction of the Union, by seizing the opportunity of some casual dissatisfaction among the people to discontinue the choice.”

Hamilton’s prescient views became the framework for the Election Clause in the Constitution. And since returning to the White House, President Trump has been searching for ways to usurp it. Last month he made calls to nationalize elections. This month he’s at it again.

He’s also pushing Congress to pass his so-called SAVE Act, which would require voters to show proof of citizenship when they register to vote. It sounds innocuous until you realize a driver’s license isn’t good enough; a passport would often be required. But half the country doesn’t have a passport, and it costs roughly $200 and a few weeks to get one. The logistical burden is unreasonable and cruel: Consider that this year, during primary season, we’ve already witnessed natural disaster — such as the tornadoes that recently ripped through the Midwest or the fires in Texas — upend entire communities. Many people would not have been able to vote, simply because they had been separated from their papers during the disaster.

The financial obstacles that would be created by the SAVE Act are at least as onerous: Why would Congress choose to financially burden voters — with what is essentially an unlawful poll tax — at a time when the unemployment rate and gas prices are up and the approval rating for nearly everyone in office is down? There are a couple of reasons. One is that the party controlling Congress hopes to suppress voting in order to defy the will of the American majority and cling to power.

Another reason lawmakers support this terrible bill is simply that Trump wants it. Some Republicans in office are so afraid of angering a vengeful president that they would rather entertain his authoritarian tendencies than go through the fire of his opposition during a primary.

For politicians such as Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who this week changed his long-held position on the filibuster in order to push the SAVE Act, it’s simply about political survival. He needs the president’s endorsement heading into the runoff for his Senate seat.

Trump has called the election overhaul bill his top priority — not the war he started with Iran, not returning the billions collected from illegal tariffs, not justice for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. Before there was a Constitution, there was a warning, written by Hamilton and other founders, whose concerns about nationalized elections are well documented and have proved to be well founded.

You would think a nation in the midst of beating its proverbial chest about our 250th birthday would take more heed from the country’s founders. But nope: This week Florida state lawmakers, in an attempt to appease their state’s most powerful resident, passed an election overhaul law that mirrors the federal SAVE Act. More red states are likely to follow, not because a national wave of voter fraud has been unearthed by authorities, but because the authorities want to stay in the good graces of someone who has yet to prove any widespread fraud other than his own.

The party that famously railed against “the bridge to nowhere” is now offering bills that solve nonexistent problems. Or in some cases, creating problems, particularly for women who changed their names after marriage so their state IDs don’t match their birth certificates.

Cornyn is not alone in exchanging his principles for Trump’s favor; he’s just the most recent. However, the manner in which he announced his flip flop was particularly tone deaf.

“If a man takes a swing at you and barely misses, that doesn’t make him a pacifist — it just means he has bad aim,” Cornyn wrote in an op-ed about the bill for the New York Post, the newspaper founded by Hamilton in 1801. “Standing still and giving him a second free swing wouldn’t be wise or honorable: it would be foolish.”

In 2016, then-candidate Trump took his first big swing at our elections when he implied — without evidence — that his opponent, Sen. Ted Cruz, had rigged the election after losing to him in the Iowa Republican caucus. Reportedly Trump even tried to get the state’s party chair to overturn the result. He’s been throwing jabs at our elections ever since. The Jan. 6 riot was a haymaker that barely missed. Given the president’s propensity to hand out Trump 2028 hats, it seems passing the SAVE Act would be, in Cornyn’s words, setting voters up to stand there while Trump takes another swing at our democracy.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow