The Supreme Court has come down on the side of common sense when it comes to boys infiltrating girls’ sports.

In a decision in which all nine justices concurred at least in part, the court ruled that laws in West Virginia and Idaho could limit sports teams to biological sex without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

‘The challenged laws do not classify based on gender identity or transgender status … but instead on the basis of biological sex.’

“The argument that the challenged laws unconstitutionally discriminate against transgender individuals is unavailing. Under this Court’s decision in Skrmetti, the challenged laws do not classify based on gender identity or transgender status, see 605 U. S., at 517, but instead on the basis of biological sex,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in an opinion released Tuesday in which six total justices concurred on the core issues.

“The classification at issue readily satisfies rational basis review or intermediate scrutiny.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote separate concurring opinions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, that concurred in part and dissented in part.

Jackson also wrote a separate opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part.

In his opinion, Thomas went further and affirmed that so-called transgender identity does not affect biological reality:

Men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe that they are. Sex is an immutable “biological” characteristic, see ante, at 10; it is binary; and “man” and “woman,” “boy” and “girl,” are the terms that correspond to adults and children of each sex. See A. Byrne, Are Women Adult Human Females? 177 Philosophical Studies 3783, 3786–3787 (2020). To use language to obscure reality — to show “indifference regarding the truth” — is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens “as equal[s].”

This is a breaking story.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Transgender, Girls’ sports, Supreme court, Politics 

The Trump administration’s push to examine alleged political weaponization inside the Justice Department is not merely about looking backward. For many patriotic Americans, it is about people whose lives were turned upside down because the government decided to investigate them.

That is where the conversation often gets lost.

Justice isn’t measured only by what happens in the courtroom. It’s also measured by what it costs an innocent person to get there.

Everyone focuses on the indictment, the headlines, and the courtroom drama. Far less attention goes to what comes before a verdict. It does not take a conviction to ruin someone’s life. Sometimes an accusation is enough.

Federal and congressional investigations are expensive. Responding to a subpoena is expensive. Hiring lawyers to review documents, prepare testimony, answer investigators, and defend your reputation can wipe out a lifetime of savings long before a judge or jury weighs the facts.

Winning years later does not restore your bank account. It does not rebuild your business. It does not give you back the years spent living under a cloud.

That reality has become increasingly familiar in Washington. During Donald Trump’s first term, congressional investigations became a defining feature of his presidency. House committees launched a steady stream of oversight inquiries into the administration, with then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) leading many of the most high-profile efforts.

Democrats argued they were fulfilling Congress’ constitutional oversight responsibilities. Republicans saw something else: a strategy to keep the administration tied up in investigations while forcing witnesses, aides, and associates to spend enormous sums defending themselves.

Whatever your politics, one fact remains undeniable. Every subpoena carries a price tag. Every interview requires lawyers. Every document request takes time. Every hearing pulls someone away from work, family, and ordinary life.

The financial toll rarely makes the evening news.

Former FBI Special Agent Mark Rossini recently offered a glimpse into that reality during a conversation with A.J. Rice on the “Dangerous Laughter” podcast. Rossini, who later received a presidential pardon after pleading to a misdemeanor in a case many conservatives see as part of the weaponization of the Justice Department under Joe Biden, focused less on the legal outcome than on the years leading up to it.

“What a waste of time,” he said, describing what he called “three and a half, four years of this Kafkaesque experience.”

Then came the part that should resonate with anyone who has ever faced the weight of the federal government.

“No one will hire you. You get no phone calls. You lose your income. It’s just debilitating.”

Rossini also encouraged people to read the court filings instead of relying solely on commentary surrounding the case, arguing that public opinion too often forms before anyone examines the underlying record.

RELATED: The right needs a public defender network for lawfare

tomloel/iStock/Getty Images

His experience does not settle the whole debate, but it illustrates something too often overlooked: The process itself can become the punishment.

That is why discussions about alleged Justice Department weaponization have struck such a nerve among many conservatives. They are not simply asking whether every investigation was justified or unjustified. They are asking a more fundamental question: What happens when the immense power of government collides with the life of an ordinary citizen?

Government has a duty to investigate credible allegations of wrongdoing. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight. Those powers are essential in a constitutional republic.

But those powers also demand restraint.

When investigations stretch on for years, legal bills climb into six or seven figures, careers disappear, and families absorb the emotional and financial burden, Americans have every right to ask whether the system has accounted for those costs.

That is what makes the current conversation about Justice Department reform more significant than another round of partisan finger-pointing. It raises a basic question of public trust: Can Americans have confidence that extraordinary government powers will be exercised fairly and consistently, regardless of politics?

By the time an investigation ends, the damage may already be done. A dismissed case does not erase years of legal fees. A pardon does not restore lost income. Favorable headlines at the end of the story do not undo the quiet suffering that came before it.

Justice isn’t measured only by what happens in the courtroom. It’s also measured by what it costs an innocent person to get there.

​Justice department, Opinion & analysis, Lawfare, Fbi, Mark rossini, Donald trump, Weaponization, Congress, Pardon, Bankruptcy 

For years, America’s immigration policy has been determined less by the elected branches of government than by a handful of federal district judges. Presidents proposed policies, Congress enacted statutes, and almost inevitably, a single judge somewhere in the country would issue an order purporting to suspend those policies nationwide.

That era may finally be drawing to a close.

Federal judges possess neither the democratic legitimacy of Congress nor the political accountability of the president.

The Supreme Court’s two immigration decisions issued last week mark an important turning point — not simply because they uphold significant Trump administration immigration policies, but because they reaffirm a more fundamental constitutional principle: Immigration policy belongs primarily to the political branches, not the judiciary.

The court’s decisions addressed different questions: Mullin v. Doe concerned the executive’s authority over Temporary Protected Status, while Mullin v. Al Otro Lado involved the government’s ability to regulate when and how aliens arriving at the border may invoke asylum procedures.

Both opinions reject the increasingly common assumption that federal judges may freely substitute their policy preferences for those of Congress and the president in matters of immigration.

That conclusion should surprise no one familiar with the Constitution or with the current court’s commitment to adhere to its original meaning.

Article I gives Congress authority over naturalization and immigration. Article II charges the president with faithfully executing the immigration laws and conducting the nation’s foreign affairs. The judiciary’s role is different. Courts are supposed to resolve concrete legal disputes — not make immigration policy. For too long, however, that distinction has been blurred.

Beginning during the first Trump administration and accelerating in recent years, nationwide injunctions or nationwide class actions have become the preferred weapon of litigants seeking to defeat executive policies with which they disagree. A single district judge can effectively veto the actions of the elected branches for the entire nation, often within days of a complaint being filed and long before appellate review. Nothing in the Constitution contemplates such extraordinary judicial power.

Federal judges possess neither the democratic legitimacy of Congress nor the political accountability of the president. Their authority extends only to deciding the cases before them and granting relief necessary to protect the specific parties before the court. They were never intended to function as a continuing supervisory council over every major policy dispute in the country. Last week’s decisions reflect a welcome recognition of that important constitutional principle.

Immigration, perhaps more than any other area of law, requires political judgment. Decisions concerning border security, humanitarian protection, foreign relations, labor markets, and national sovereignty inevitably involve competing policy considerations that courts are poorly equipped — and constitutionally unauthorized — to balance.

RELATED: Trump should force Congress to pass the SAVE America Act — now

Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Reasonable people may disagree about how policy judgments in the area of immigration should be resolved. Americans have long debated the proper scope of asylum protections, the wisdom of Temporary Protected Status, and the best means of securing the southern border.

But under our constitutional system, such decisions are supposed to occur in Congress, at the White House, and ultimately at the ballot box — not through nationwide decrees issued by unelected trial judges.

Critics will undoubtedly portray the Supreme Court’s two rulings as victories for one political party or another. That misses the larger point. The real winner is the constitutional separation of powers.

When courts respect the limits of judicial authority, they strengthen rather than weaken the rule of law. Judicial modesty is not judicial abdication. Courts remain fully empowered to decide actual cases, interpret statutes, and enforce constitutional guarantees. What they are not empowered to do is assume responsibility for making national immigration policy, a distinction that protects everyone.

The precedents the Supreme Court established will not apply only to Republican presidents or conservative policies. They will constrain future courts considering the actions of Democrat administrations as well. Constitutional principles endure precisely because they are not dependent upon agreement with the policy of the moment.

The framers deliberately divided governmental power among three separate branches because concentrated power is dangerous regardless of who exercises it. Judicial overreach is no less inconsistent with constitutional government than executive overreach or legislative overreach.

The Supreme Court’s decisions on immigration represent an encouraging course correction. They remind lower courts that judges are not policymakers. They reaffirm that immigration decisions belong principally to the elected branches. And they take another step toward restoring the proper constitutional balance among the three branches of government.

That is good news not only for immigration policy, but also for the Constitution itself.

Editor’s note: This article appeared originally at the American Mind.

​Supreme court, Judicial overreach, Mullin v doe, Mullin v al otro lado, Constitution, Congress, Federal judges, Opinion & analysis, Donald trump, Immigration, Immigration and customs enforcement, Asylum 

A Christian adoption agency just drew a major line in the sand.

Bethany Christian Trust has committed to prioritizing child welfare and biblical truth over adult identity by announcing it will only place children with families that align with its biblical statement of faith starting in June 2027.

And BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey is thrilled, especially considering the research backs up the agency’s belief that children should be raised by a mother and a father — not by homosexual couples.

“According to a study in 2012, a study by Regnerus, children of LGBT parents fare worse than other children on 77 out of 80 social outcome measures,” Stuckey begins.

“So according to the study, compared with children raised by their married, biological parents, children of homosexual parents attain lower levels of education, report less safety and security within their family of origin, experience greater ongoing negative effects from their family of origin, are more likely to struggle with depression, anxiety, have higher rates of arrest,” she says.

A separate study also “showed poor education outcomes for children of LGBT parents, finding they’re 35% less likely to progress normally through school” and “suffer emotional problems at twice the rate of children raised by a mother and father.”

“Child objectification is going to end now. You’re not going to be sacrificing your kids to the pagan gods anymore,” Stuckey says. “We’re going to stop that.”

“You’re not going to sacrifice your child on the altar of progressivism. No, no, no. Not as long as we have a say in it,” she continues.

“I’m very encouraged with just the allegiance to not only biblical morality but reality, too, because science statistics are always catching up with God,” she adds, “They’re always catching up with what the Bible says.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Relatable, Allie beth stuckey, Bethany christian trust, Lgbtq, Adoption, Homosexual, Heterosexual, Parenting, Children, Christianity, Bible, God, Relatable with allie beth stuckey 

Democrats just lost the opportunity to gain three seats in the battle to control Congress after a state supreme court blocked their effort to redistrict the election maps.

The effort by a group called Coloradans for a Level Playing Field involved three separate ballot proposals, one of which would have changed the Colorado redistricting map for the 2028 and 2030 election cycles, if approved by the voters.

‘While Trump and his MAGA allies regularly sidestep the law and ignore voters, efforts to respond have once again been dealt a legal setback over a technicality.’

Redistricting would have given Democrats the chance to pick up three extra seats. The Colorado Supreme Court said the effort violated the “single subject requirement” for ballot measures.

“Changing the constitutionally mandated frequency of redistricting — however temporary the change — is not merely a mechanism to administer the new congressional district map,” wrote Chief Justice Monica Márquez in one of the unanimous decisions issued Monday. “Instead, it represents a seismic shift to Colorado’s longstanding redistricting process enshrined in the state constitution.”

Curtis Hubbard, the spokesperson for the group sponsoring the bills, called the ruling “disappointing” in a statement on the group’s website.

“While Trump and his MAGA allies regularly sidestep the law and ignore voters, efforts to respond have once again been dealt a legal setback over a technicality,” he added.

National Republican Redistricting Trust President Adam Kincaid praised the ruling.

“Complete and total victory in Colorado!” he said on the X platform. “In a win for voters and the Colorado Constitution, the Colorado Supreme Court resoundingly rejects Democrats’ attempt to manipulate the initiative process.”

RELATED: Trump is WINNING the redistricting battle against Democrats, CBS analysis finds

According to the Coloradans for a Level Playing Field’s math, Republicans may be able to pick up as many as 11 seats in Congress now that the group’s gerrymandering initiatives have been blocked.

The group will not have the opportunity to amend their initiatives and have them appear on the next election ballot, ending the effort in Colorado.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Colorado, Democrats, Redistricting, Supreme court, Politics 

Law enforcement officials are expressing shock at the conditions that allegedly led to the death of a 7-year-old boy in Michigan.

Paramedics were called to the home in Flint Township on Nov. 4, 2025, over the report of a child in distress.

‘It was just one of the most unbelievable scenes that the police have seen, that I’ve reviewed in my 22 years as prosecuting attorney.’

They found Casper O’Brien having difficulty breathing and unable to move because he weighed 255 pounds, according to the Genesee County Sheriff’s Office.

His parents, Damien and Jessica O’Brien, had also packed the home with so many objects that it was difficult to move around. Police reported there was feces throughout the home because the toilet didn’t work.

They also said the boy had “some of the worst open sores and rashes they’ve ever seen.”

He died later that evening at a hospital.

His parents were charged with one count of second-degree murder, one count of torture, and three counts of second-degree child abuse.

Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton said the autopsy showed the boy died of a heart muscle disease, and morbid obesity was listed as a contributing factor.

“What we allege is that he was not fed in a nutritious way,” Leyton said. “He was neglected, and he was abused, and his diet is part of it, and not getting whatever help he needed because he was nonverbal as part of it. All that adds up to an extreme case of child abuse resulting in someone’s death.”

They also found a 5-year-old child who was morbidly obese. She was found naked outside by officers and was dirty, with knots in her hair.

Leyton gave a rundown of the evidence gathered in the case.

“We’ll present the body camera footage,” Leyton said. “We’ll present the autopsy results. We’ll present the fact that this child died from fairly natural causes brought on by the obesity and the lack of nutrition. And we’ll present what we think as a case of neglect and abuse and torture.”

RELATED: People so ‘extremely obese’ they were almost bedridden starved 14-year-old girl until she weighed 35 pounds, police say

The parents could face life in prison if convicted.

Leyton expressed disbelief at the parents’ behavior because the father had a good job with health insurance but had only taken the boy to a doctor once.

“They had called the veterinarian about one of their pets. They knew what to do for the dog, but they didn’t do it for their own child,” he added. “Sadly, he died because of neglect.”

Leyton said the case was difficult for the police — as well as Child Protective Services — to investigate.

“It was just one of the most unbelievable scenes that the police have seen, that I’ve reviewed in my 22 years as prosecuting attorney,” Leyton added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Child abuse, Michigan, Torture, Child protective services, Morbid obesity, Crime 

In New York City, three Democratic Socialists of America members recently won their primaries, pushing out two longtime incumbent Democrats. Far-left influencer Hasan Piker celebrated the victories by declaring, “It’s the decade of socialism. It’s coming to a neighborhood near you.”

Piker has called the Republican Party the world’s “biggest terrorist” and recently said Israel, in its current form, “does not have a right to exist.”

Far-left activists are using the education system to undermine Western institutions and advance a fundamentally different political vision.

Socialist and neo-communist partisans such as Piker and the DSA are gaining momentum in major cities. Many Americans do not realize that these far-left “people’s movements” often are not grassroots uprisings at all. They are driven by billionaire-funded activist organizations and progressives with elite academic backgrounds.

How did an anti-Western ideology gain such influence, especially among young people?

Part of the answer lies in the education system.

The radical left has turned American children, teachers, and K-12 schools into pieces of a political apparatus designed to build immediate and long-term power. From colleges of education to preschool lessons to youth activism, classrooms are increasingly used to advance an intentionally vague socialist “political revolution.”

The training begins before teachers ever enter the classroom.

Many colleges of education now treat anti-racism and social justice activism as core elements in the training of future and current educators. Schools of higher education also promote critical pedagogy as a “best practice.” That philosophy, rooted in cultural Marxism, treats teaching as inherently political and justifies far-left activism and diversity, equity, and inclusion throughout the education system as necessary tools to overcome supposed oppression.

What is taught in colleges of education never stays there.

The New York State Education Department’s Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Education Framework promotes critical pedagogy to help dismantle “systems of biases and inequities rooted in our country’s history, culture, and institutions.”

New York City schools have adopted this strategy. A key component is “critical consciousness,” or what many would call a woke mindset. This approach seeks to “identify and interrupt policies and practices that center on historically advantaged social/cultural groups.”

In other words, New York City teachers are expected to incorporate far-left political orthodoxy into teaching methods, curriculum development, lesson planning, and classroom activities.

RELATED: Who wants to eat a trillionaire?

Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis/Getty Images

New York is not alone.

In Joliet Public Schools in Illinois, the district’s “Teacher Evaluation Framework” says contracted staff can receive an “excellent” mark if they demonstrate critical consciousness in classroom interactions and performance.

Once these abstract concepts reach the classroom, they are woven into curricula such as ethnic studies, conditioning children to see society almost exclusively through the lens of oppressor and oppressed. Sold to school boards, parents, and communities as the study of history and culture, ethnic studies often functions as an activist training program rooted in critical pedagogy.

Some students are exposed to this framework as early as preschool. They are not merely taught to view the world through an anti-Western political lens. They are also encouraged, and in some cases required, to engage in activism or “action research” aimed at dismantling “systems of oppression” such as capitalism and the “patriarchy.”

Those seeds of politicization bore fruit last spring when schools across the country dealt with hundreds of student walkouts in support of far-left political causes and a “political revolution.”

These youth protests were not fully organic. They were often organized, promoted, or funded by activist organizations such as the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Sunrise Movement, and teachers’ unions.

The most extreme example came from Chicago Public Schools, which gave in to the Chicago Teachers Union’s demand to use students and district resources for its May Day mass mobilization effort.

Regardless of political affiliation, Americans who care about the constitutional republic should recognize what is happening. Far-left activists are using the education system to undermine Western institutions and advance a fundamentally different political vision.

Thomas Paine wrote 250 years ago that “tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.” If this republic is to endure, it will require the same love of liberty and willingness to defend it that animated previous generations.

American children deserve the same opportunity for self-government enjoyed by those who came before them. That’s why the corruption of the education system in service of anti-Western ideology and political activism must end.

​Activism, Chicago teachers union, Critical pedagogy, Democratic socialists, Diversity equity inclusion, Education, Hasan piker, Indoctrination, Leftism, New york city, Opinion & analysis, Public schools, Social justice, Socialism 

Bill Maher did not suddenly become a conservative. That is what makes his recent comments to Vice President JD Vance so politically revealing.

Maher is still Maher — a liberal comedian, secular critic of Christianity, supporter of abortion, and longtime enemy of the religious right. He is not about to show up at a Turning Point USA conference in a red cap. He is not quoting Milton Friedman at CPAC. He is not becoming a Baptist.

Bill Maher is not moving right because Republicans suddenly became perfect. He is moving right because Democrats moved left into madness.

Yet in a recent conversation with Vance, Maher said his 2028 vote is “in play.” He said he could imagine voting for Vance or Marco Rubio if Republicans nominated the right candidate.

That should terrify Democrats.

Maher does not represent the average American voter in every respect. But he represents something dangerous for Democrats: the liberal who still remembers what liberalism used to be. He remembers when Democrats imagined themselves as the party of free speech, civil liberties, working-class people, and common sense. He remembers when liberals mocked religious fundamentalists rather than replacing them with secular versions in HR departments, faculty lounges, and school boards.

Maher’s point was not that Republicans have become irresistible. It was that Democrats have become repellent.

That is the real story.

For years, Democrats have comforted themselves with the idea that the country is divided over Donald Trump. Maher’s comments reveal a different problem. What happens when the choice is not Trump? What happens when the Republican nominee is Vance, Rubio, or someone else who can speak fluently about the failures of the left without carrying all of Trump’s baggage?

Then, Democrats have to defend themselves. That is where things get difficult.

Look at New York City.

The city that once elected Rudy Giuliani after years of chaos and vowed never to forget 9/11 is becoming the showcase for democratic socialism and outright communism. Candidates backed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the Democratic Socialists of America just swept important Democratic primaries.

RELATED: ‘Weak and pathetic’: Mamdani-backed radicals sweep Democratic establishment in New York’s electoral bloodbath

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

These candidates are not progressive in the old sense. They reject the assumptions that once made the Democratic Party nationally competitive. They talk as if capitalism is the enemy, policing is oppression, borders are immoral, and Israel is uniquely evil among nations. They embrace socialism, excuse anti-Semitism, and treat Western civilization as a crime scene.

The old Democratic establishment used to understand that this was a problem. It knew America was not a socialist country. It knew most Americans did not want their cities run by activists. It knew Americans might debate the policies of Israel while still rejecting anti-Semitism.

Now, the Democratic establishment mostly shrugs. Or worse, it congratulates the winners and pretends this is normal.

It is not normal.

It is not normal for open socialists to become the energy center of a major American political party. It is not normal for candidates surrounded by anti-Israel radicalism to be treated as the future. It is not normal for Jewish voters to be told, in effect, that their concerns about anti-Semitism are merely bad-faith efforts to silence criticism of Israel.

That is one reason Maher’s discomfort matters. He is not a Christian Zionist or conservative evangelical. He is an irreverent liberal comedian who can see that something has gone wrong when the left cannot clearly distinguish between criticism of a government and hostility toward Jews as Jews.

Anti-Semitism is not the only issue.

The same problem appears in gender ideology. Americans are generally willing to be kind and decent to adults who identify as transgender. What they will not do is surrender reality.

They do not want boys in girls’ sports. They do not want men in women’s prisons. They do not want children rushed into medical pathways that can alter their bodies permanently. They do not want schools hiding gender transitions from parents. They do not want bureaucrats punishing anyone who says male and female are real categories grounded in nature.

Yet the Democratic Party has made this agenda a test of moral purity. Ordinary Americans who believe the obvious — that men are not women — are treated as bigots.

This is political insanity. It is also moral bullying.

The left first demanded tolerance. Then it demanded affirmation. Then it demanded participation. Now it demands that Americans deny what they can see with their own eyes. If they refuse, they are told they are hateful.

That kind of politics creates backlash. It also creates strange coalitions.

RELATED: Sorry, socialists: The system isn’t the savior

Photographer: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg/Getty Images

A voter does not have to become a movement conservative to conclude that Democrats have become dangerous. He may simply want his daughter to play sports against girls. He may want his Jewish neighbor to be safe walking to synagogue. He may want police to arrest criminals. He may want schools to teach reading instead of gender ideology. He may want politicians who like the country they seek to govern.

That is the opening Republicans now have.

The opportunity is not merely to say, “Vote Republican because we are Republicans.” That is not enough. The opportunity is to say, “You may not agree with us on everything, but we are not asking you to pretend reality is fake.”

Maher is not the whole electorate. But he is a warning flare. When even Bill Maher looks at Democrats and says his vote is up for grabs, the problem is not Republican messaging. The problem is Democratic extremism.

Democrats can keep telling themselves that voters are being manipulated by right-wing media. They can keep insisting that concerns about socialism, anti-Semitism, crime, schools, and gender ideology are manufactured panics. They can keep nominating activists who sound as if they are running a graduate seminar in revolutionary decolonization resentment.

Or they can notice what is happening.

Bill Maher is not moving right because Republicans suddenly became perfect. He is moving right because Democrats moved left into madness.

If Democrats keep going, Maher will not be the last liberal to say: enough.

​Bill maher, Jd vance, Opinion & analysis, Democratic socialists of america, Republicans, 2028 election, Democrats, Progressives, Zohran mamdani