A decade after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling affirming that the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities of marriage as different-sex couples, public support for marriage equality remains robust at 68 percent—ten points higher than just a month after the 2015 Obergefell decision, though slightly below the all-time high of 71 percent. While Democratic support has continued to climb, Republican backing has declined sharply.

Nearly nine in ten Democrats (88%) say marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by law as valid, according to Gallup, but less than half that—just 41 percent—of Republicans agree. That’s a fourteen-point drop from the highest level recorded for right-wing voters, 55 percent, in 2021 and 2022.

“The current 47-point gap between Republicans and Democrats is the largest since Gallup first began tracking this measure 29 years ago,” the polling firm reported.

READ MORE: ‘Meltdown’: Trump Fumes When Confronted With ‘Always Chickens Out’ Claim

Asked whether they “personally believe that in general” gay or lesbian relations are “morally acceptable or morally wrong,” even fewer Republicans, just 38 percent, said they are morally acceptable. The national average is 64 percent, and the average among Democrats is 86 percent.

Diving deeper, Gallup found that a majority “of U.S. adults in most demographic subgroups think same-sex marriage should be legal and say same-sex relations are morally acceptable.”

The only subgroup listed on Gallup’s graphic where a majority disagreed are weekly church-goers, “a group that is more Republican.”

“One-third of these frequent churchgoers support same-sex marriage, while 24% of them consider gay or lesbian relations as morally acceptable.”

Gallup also delivered a warning for marriage equality supporters, noting that “the widening political divide suggests potential vulnerabilities in the durability of LGBTQ+ rights.”

READ MORE: ‘Coup’: Trump Expected to Seek SCOTUS Block as Officials Attack Judicial Branch

“In 2022, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that the high court ‘should reconsider’ its past rulings, including those on same-sex relationships and marriage. Since then, Republican lawmakers in some states have introduced resolutions asking the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell. During his second term, President Donald Trump has implemented policies that significantly roll back LGBTQ+ protections, particularly affecting transgender individuals. These occurrences suggest that same-sex marriage in the U.S. could face renewed legal and political challenges.”

RELATED: ‘Ominous Opinion’: Same-Sex Marriage Targeted Again in Latest SCOTUS Ruling, Expert Warns

Image via Shutterstock 

A defiant statement read aloud by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is drawing mockery for its apparent lack of basic constitutional understanding as she lashed out against a unanimous court ruling that struck down President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs as illegal.

Despite the U.S. Constitution specifically granting Congress purview over tariffs and trade, Leavitt told reporters on Thursday that the “courts should have no role here.”

Leavitt also decried what she called the “troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges, inserting themselves into the presidential decision making process,” while claiming that “America cannot function if President Trump or any other president, for that matter, has their sensitive, diplomatic, or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges” who are “threatening to undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage.”

RELATED: ‘Coup’: Trump Expected to Seek SCOTUS Block as Officials Attack Judicial Branch

She also insisted that “for the sake of our Constitution and our country” the U.S. Supreme Court must step in.

The Press Secretary also claimed that President Donald Trump’s “rationale was legally sound,” while the court engaged in “judicial overreach.”

“Using his full proper legal authority, President Trump imposed universal tariffs and reciprocal tariffs on Liberation Day to address the extraordinary threats to our national security and economy posed by large and persistent annual U.S. Goods trade deficits,” she said—a claim with which the court disagreed.

Critics blasted Leavitt’s remarks.

“This is flat-out nonsense,” wrote The Atlantic’s James Surowiecki, who previously wrote The Financial Page for The New Yorker. “No one is stopping Trump from engaging in trade negotiations. What he’s been stopped from doing is imposing tariffs that he has no legal or constitutional authority to impose. Stopping illegal and unconstitutional action is precisely the courts’ role.”

READ MORE: ‘Meltdown’: Trump Fumes When Confronted With ‘Always Chickens Out’ Claim

“If Trump imposed a national sales tax by presidential fiat, the courts would of course be required to step in to stop him,” continued Surowiecki, who is also the author of “The Wisdom of Crowds.”

“The same is true of him imposing a 10% universal tariff on every country in the world, along with arbitrary tariffs on top of that,” he wrote.

“Leavitt says the US trade deficit is an ‘extraordinary’ problem, then in the next breath says we’ve run an annual trade deficit every year since 1975 – meaning it’s not, in fact, extraordinary,” he added.

Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick appeared to take aim at Leavitt’s grasp of the U.S. Constitution.

“The courts should have no role in interpreting a law? Really?” he asked. “I don’t know what country Leavitt thinks she lives in, but it’s not this one.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

Leavitt: “The courts should have no role here. There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision making process. America cannot function if President Trump or any other president has their sensitive diplomatic or… pic.twitter.com/ol6EYATV93

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 29, 2025

READ MORE: ‘Absolutely Terrified’: Trump HHS Slammed for Axing Human Bird Flu Vaccine Contract

Image via Reuters

Immediately after a federal court delivered a ruling that struck at the heart of the President’s economic and foreign policy agenda—declaring Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs largely illegal—administration attorneys swiftly announced that they would appeal. In the hours following Wednesday night’s decision, Trump officials unleashed attacks on the judiciary, denouncing what they called “judicial tyranny” and branding the unanimous U.S. Court of International Trade ruling a “judicial coup.”

Now, according to CNBC, the Trump administration as soon as Friday is to ask the U.S. Supreme Court for “emergency relief” and place a pause on the Trade Court’s ruling, if an appeals court does not issue a pause before.

“The request in a court filing came as Trump’s top aides are lashing out at the federal trade-court judges,” CNBC reported, “at the same time as his administration requests that those judges pause any enforcement of their ruling while the case is being appealed.”

READ MORE: ‘Meltdown’: Trump Fumes When Confronted With ‘Always Chickens Out’ Claim

Stephen Miller, President Donald Trump’s White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, Thursday afternoon declared, “It is the end of democracy if not reversed.”

Miller Thursday morning alleged, “We are living under a judicial tyranny,” and Wednesday evening, minutes after the ruling was announced, Miller had charged, “The judicial coup is out of control.”

CNBC also reported that “Top trade advisor Peter Navarro accused the court of being ‘globalist’ and ‘pro-importer’ on Bloomberg TV Thursday, and claimed it was biased against the administration’s tariff policies.”

The three-judge panel behind the unanimous decision included appointees from two Republican presidents, including Trump himself, and one Democrat.

READ MORE: ‘Absolutely Terrified’: Trump HHS Slammed for Axing Human Bird Flu Vaccine Contract

Image via Reuters