The decision in Wolford v. Lopez reversed a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and sent the case back for further proceedings. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court’s conservative majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett also wrote a concurrence. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

The Hawaii law required people with concealed-carry permits to obtain “express authorization” before bringing a firearm into businesses and other private property open to the public. The court said the law flipped the traditional rule that people may enter property held open to the public unless the owner says otherwise.

“This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects,” Alito wrote, saying the law interfered with the right to carry firearms for self-defense during daily life.

Alito rejected Hawaii’s argument that its local customs and laws justified the rule, writing that the Second Amendment has the same meaning in every state. He said it cannot give way to “the spirit of Aloha” and added that local attitudes cannot change the meaning of rights applied to the states through the 14th Amendment.

The ruling does not prevent private property owners from banning firearms. The court said owners of establishments open to the public may still admit or exclude people carrying guns. But Hawaii cannot make exclusion the statewide default unless owners affirmatively opt in to allowing firearms, the majority said.

Hawaii officials had argued that the law protected property owners’ rights and balanced those rights against the right to carry firearms. Gun rights challengers, including three Maui County residents with concealed-carry permits and a Honolulu-based advocacy group, said the rule amounted to a broad restriction on lawful public carry.

In dissent, Jackson said the case was about property rights, not gun rights, and accused the majority of turning the court’s 2022 gun-rights decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen into a “free-for-all.” She said the ruling improperly limited lawmakers trying to protect both gun owners and property owners.

Kagan wrote separately that Hawaii’s law was consistent with historical regulations aimed at addressing harms caused by people carrying guns on other people’s land.

The decision is the court’s latest major Second Amendment ruling since Bruen, which held that people have a constitutional right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. The court did not take up separate parts of Hawaii’s law involving firearms at beaches, bars and other sensitive places

Abbott said Texas submitted documentation to the Homeland Security Department seeking repayment for costs tied to the border initiative, which he launched in March 2021. The operation has deployed Texas National Guard members and state troopers, built border barriers and used state resources to target illegal crossings, drug smuggling and other border-related crimes.

“For four years under Biden, Texas spent more than $10 billion of taxpayer money to secure the border,” Abbott said in a statement. “I have formally submitted Texas’ application to the Department of Homeland Security for reimbursement.”

The governor’s office said the reimbursement money was included in the federal law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill. The money is being administered through the Homeland Security Department and the Justice Department, and Abbott said Texas will also seek reimbursement from the Justice Department.

Operation Lone Star has been one of Abbott’s signature border policies and a frequent point of conflict with the Biden administration, which challenged some Texas border measures in court. Critics have also questioned the operation’s cost, legal footing and effect on migrants and border communities.

Abbott said he will work with Texas’ congressional delegation, President Donald Trump and federal agencies to recover the money. The governor’s office said Texas bore the largest share of state border security expenses eligible for reimbursement.

Maria Ruhtenberg, an attorney with the Iowa Office of the State Public Defender, was fired after private Facebook posts about Kirk drew one complaint and later a media inquiry. She appealed, got her job back and later settled a federal First Amendment retaliation lawsuit for $125,000.

She is not alone. NPR reported that other resolved cases include Melissa Crook, an Iowa high school teacher who settled for $145,000 and benefits; Suzanne Swierc, a Ball State University health educator who settled for $225,000; Brittney Brown, a Florida wildlife biologist who settled for $485,000; Darren Michael, an Austin Peay State University professor who was reinstated and received $500,000; and Larry Bushart, a retired Tennessee law enforcement officer who received $835,000 after being jailed for a Facebook post about Kirk.

Two more public university cases also ended in reversals. Phillip Michael Hook, a tenured art professor at the University of South Dakota, was reinstated after a court fight over a private Facebook post. At Clemson University, Dr. Joshua Bregy, an assistant professor, reached a settlement after the university agreed to rescind his termination and provide pay and benefits through the original term of his employment.

The cases followed a wave of punishment after Kirk was fatally shot Sept. 10, 2025. Reuters reported that more than 600 people were fired, suspended, investigated or otherwise disciplined over comments about his death, with educators among the most frequent targets.

The First Amendment does not protect every worker from every workplace consequence. Private employers generally have more room to discipline employees. But when the employer is the government, the Constitution limits retaliation against workers speaking as private citizens on matters of public concern.

That principle reaches back to the Supreme Court’s 1968 ruling in Pickering v. Board of Education, which held that a public school teacher could not be fired simply for writing a newspaper letter criticizing school officials. The court said public employees retain free-speech rights, though those rights must be balanced against the government’s need to operate efficiently.

Later rulings narrowed and shaped that test. In Connick v. Myers, the court said employee speech must involve a matter of public concern to receive constitutional protection. In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the court held that speech made as part of official job duties is not protected in the same way as speech made as a private citizen.

The Kirk-related cases also draw from broader free-speech precedent. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the court sided with students, including Mary Beth Tinker, who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, ruling that students and teachers do not “shed” their rights at the schoolhouse gate. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court protected even inflammatory advocacy unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and likely to produce it.

Other landmark winners include Gregory Lee Johnson, whose flag-burning protest was protected in Texas v. Johnson; Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, whose offensive funeral protests were protected in Snyder v. Phelps; and Simon Tam, whose band name was protected from viewpoint discrimination in Matal v. Tam.

For Ruhtenberg, Brown, Crook, Swierc, Michael, Bushart, Hook and Bregy, the legal question was not whether their posts were tasteful. It was whether government officials could punish them for speech made outside their official duties about a major public event.

So far, the answer in several cases has been costly for public employers.

Brown, who now has another job working with birds, told NPR she wanted her case to send a message: “You can’t get away with stuff like this.”

In a unanimous decision, the justices sided with Ali Danial Hemani, a Texas man charged under a federal law that bars unlawful drug users from possessing firearms. The court said the government failed to show that Hemani’s marijuana use made him dangerous, addicted or intoxicated while armed.

The ruling places renewed attention on the plain words of the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

For supporters of gun rights, the most important words are the final four: “shall not be infringed.” They argue that the Constitution does not say the right to keep and bear arms belongs only to citizens the government approves of. It says the right belongs to “the people,” and that right cannot be restricted without a strong constitutional reason.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, said the decision was narrow. The ruling does not protect people who are addicted to drugs, carrying firearms while intoxicated or proven to be dangerous. It also does not prevent Congress from passing firearm restrictions that are targeted and historically grounded.

Still, the decision is a major Second Amendment ruling because it rejects a blanket government ban based only on marijuana use. The court said the government cannot erase a constitutional right by placing a citizen into a broad category without proving that the person presents a real danger.

The case is especially important because marijuana laws have changed across the country. Many states allow medical or recreational marijuana use, while federal law still treats marijuana as illegal. That conflict has left many Americans uncertain whether marijuana use could cost them their gun rights.

The ruling sends a broader message beyond marijuana. Constitutional rights are not privileges handed out by the government. They are limits on government power. The phrase “shall not be infringed” means the government must meet a heavy burden before restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Supporters of the decision said it protects ordinary citizens from being disarmed by assumption. Critics warned that drug use and firearms can create public safety risks and said lawmakers may need to write clearer rules.

The Supreme Court’s decision does not end the national debate over guns, drugs or public safety. But it makes one point clear: The Second Amendment remains a constitutional command, and the government cannot ignore the words “shall not be infringed” when deciding who may keep and bear arms.
 

Round Rock, Texas - Elon Musk has become the world’s first trillionaire after SpaceX’s historic public offering sent the company’s value past $2 trillion, according to Reuters. The IPO raised $75 billion and SpaceX shares jumped 19% in their Nasdaq debut.

But the bigger story is not just Musk’s wealth. It is how that wealth was created.

Reports estimate the SpaceX IPO could turn more than 4,000 current and former employees into millionaires, including engineers, welders, technicians and other workers who received company stock as part of their compensation. Fox Business reported that the windfall reaches beyond rocket designers to baristas, janitors and other workers who helped keep the company running.

That is what private enterprise is supposed to do. Build something. Take the risk. Reward the people who helped make it happen.

Democrats, however, responded the way they often do when private citizens create wealth outside government control: They looked for a way to tax it. Sen. Elizabeth Warren renewed her call for a wealth tax after Musk crossed the trillion-dollar mark, and Bloomberg Tax reported that Democratic lawmakers used the moment to push tax-the-rich proposals.

That raises a fair question for voters: When was the last time a Democratic government program created thousands of millionaires without first running taxpayer money through bureaucracy, subsidies, waste or fraud-prone public systems?

SpaceX did not make its workers rich by handing out government checks. It did it by building rockets, launching satellites, competing in the marketplace and giving workers a stake in the company’s success.

The left sees Musk’s trillion-dollar net worth and asks how much government can take. Conservatives should look at the same story and ask how many more American workers could build wealth if Washington stopped punishing success and started defending ownership, risk-taking and innovation.

Musk may be the headline. But the 4,000 new millionaires are the real story.

John J. Gately
Republican Precinct Chair – Precinct 338
Williamson County Republican Party
Round Rock, Texas

HOUSTON — Gov. Greg Abbott endorsed closed Republican primaries Friday, telling delegates at the Republican Party of Texas convention that only Republican-affiliated voters should participate in Republican primary elections.

“We’re going to make sure that only Republicans vote in Republican primaries,” Abbott said.

Abbott’s comments come after Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson announced she will resign effective July 17. Her office has been involved in an ongoing lawsuit with the Republican Party of Texas after declining to implement a party-backed closed-primary system.

The Texas GOP argues closed primaries are needed to prevent Democrats from influencing Republican contests. Attorney General Ken Paxton sided with the party, while Nelson’s office sought dismissal of the lawsuit.

Texas currently does not require voters to register by party. Voters may choose a Republican or Democratic primary ballot, though voting in one party’s primary limits them to that party’s runoff in the same election cycle.

Abbott had largely avoided the dispute until now. After his speech, he told Texas Scorecard he would prefer lawmakers handle the issue, saying, “Legislators can and should be more responsive to Republicans than a judge may be.”

Delegates are expected to finalize the Texas GOP’s legislative priorities before the convention ends Saturday.

The governor also used his convention speech to promote several priorities for the next legislative session, including property tax reform, tighter limits on local government spending, a lower appraisal cap, and a statewide prosecutor to pursue cases when local district attorneys decline to act.

Abbott also called for denying bail to people unlawfully in the country who are charged with felonies, codifying his freeze on new H-1B visa petitions by state agencies and public universities, and expanding that restriction to local governments.

He also urged lawmakers to pass a broader ban on Sharia law in Texas and give the attorney general more authority to enforce it.

John J. Gately
Republican Precinct Chair – Precinct 338
Williamson County Republican Party
Round Rock, Texas

San Marcos, Texas — John Gately, a ten-year employee and computer programmer for the Texas Military Department, held a press conference today with his attorney from Sergi & Associates, P.C., regarding his federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.

The lawsuit, filed on June 2, 2026, alleges that the Texas Military Department wrongfully terminated Gately in retaliation for protected political speech.

A video of today’s press conference will be made available for the public to watch here: Watch the Press Conference

According to the federal complaint, the Texas Military Department violated Gately’s First Amendment rights by using its authority as a state employer to pressure him to remove a political statement he wrote and published in his personal capacity as a Republican Precinct Chair.

Gately’s statement concerned Round Rock mayoral candidate Kelly Hall and addressed publicly available information regarding Hall’s service record and claims related to his discharge from the Texas State Guard. The lawsuit states that Gately wrote the statement on his personal time, on his personal computer, and using publicly available information.

No Texas Military Department resources were used.

No state equipment was used. No work time was used. No non-public Texas Military Department records were used.

The federal complaint further alleges that Gately’s Texas Military Department supervisors repeatedly ordered him to remove the statement after being directed by “higher-ups.” According to the lawsuit, the Texas Military Department’s own Government Affairs Office confirmed that Gately’s speech, made in his personal capacity as a precinct chair, was protected under the First Amendment.

Despite that, Gately was terminated on March 19, 2026, after refusing to censor his personal political statement.

“For more than ten years, I did my job, served the State of Texas, and maintained an outstanding employment record,” Gately said. “I did not use state resources. I did not speak for the Texas Military Department. I spoke as a private citizen and as a Republican Precinct Chair about a matter of public concern. That is exactly the kind of speech the First Amendment protects.”

Gately’s employment record includes numerous awards, commendations, and performance reviews rating him as having “Exceeded Job Expectations.” The federal lawsuit alleges there was no performance-related reason for his termination and that the decision was retaliation for his refusal to remove protected political speech.

The lawsuit seeks reinstatement, back pay, attorney’s fees, and compensation for emotional distress and reputational harm.

“Political liberty is the bedrock of our Republic,” Gately said. “When a state agency can fire a model employee because it dislikes his personal political speech, every public servant in Texas should be concerned. This case is about more than one job. It is about whether government employees still have the right to speak as citizens on matters of public concern.”

The case is pending in federal court in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

John J. Gately
Republican Precinct Chair – Precinct 338
Williamson County Republican Party
Round Rock, Texas

Today, I filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, against the State of Texas, the Texas Military Department, Major General Thomas M. Suelzer in his official capacity as the Adjutant General of Texas, Mike W. Gorby in his official capacity as Executive Director of State Administration, and other individuals whose identities may be determined during litigation.

This lawsuit arises from what I believe was the wrongful termination of my employment with the Texas Military Department after I refused to remove a press release I published in my personal capacity as Republican Precinct Chair for Precinct 338 in Williamson County.

For more than ten years, I served the Texas Military Department as a computer programmer. During that time, I received excellent performance evaluations, multiple commendations, and numerous awards for my service. I was not terminated because of poor performance. I was terminated, I believe, because I exercised my constitutional right to speak on a matter of public concern.

On March 12, 2026, I published a press release regarding a candidate for public office. That statement was made in my role as a precinct chair, not as an employee of the Texas Military Department. It did not claim to represent the Texas Military Department, the Texas State Guard, or any state agency. The information I discussed was based on publicly available records and concerned issues I believed voters had a right to know.

Shortly after that statement was published, I was directed several times to remove it. I refused because I believed then, and still believe now, that political speech about candidates for public office is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by the Texas Constitution.

According to my complaint, I was told that “higher ups” wanted me fired if I did not remove the statement. Days later, on March 19, 2026, I was called to Human Resources and informed that my employment was terminated effective immediately. No performance-based explanation was provided to me.

I have spent years serving Texas, both as a state employee and as a member of the Texas State Guard. I believe deeply in public service, accountability, and the constitutional freedoms that protect every citizen — including public employees.

This case is not just about my job. It is about whether a public employee can be punished for speaking as a private citizen on political matters of public concern. It is about whether government officials can pressure someone to remove protected speech and then terminate that person for refusing.

I did not surrender my constitutional rights when I accepted public employment.

Through this lawsuit, I am seeking accountability, damages for the harm caused, attorney’s fees, and all other relief available under the law. I look forward to presenting the facts in court.

Court Document

Respectfully,
John J. Gately
Republican Precinct Chair – Precinct 338
Williamson County Republican Party
Round Rock, Texas

Morgan was reelected in the May 2 election against Kelly Hall, who remained on the ballot after being declared ineligible by the city clerk April 9. City Council members Michelle Ly and Frank Ortega also won reelection after running unopposed for Place 1 and Place 4. The results remain unofficial until canvassed by the City Council.

The city said Hall’s name remained on the ballot because the deadline had passed to remove an ineligible candidate. If Hall had received a majority of votes, a special election would have been required to fill the office.

Hall’s eligibility issue centered on residency. Community Impact reported that a challenge submitted to the city claimed Hall’s March 3 Democratic primary application listed a Cedar Park address. The city later found Hall ineligible, saying he had sworn and attested to a Cedar Park address on one filing and a Round Rock address on his mayoral filing. Hall disputed the decision and said he had documentation supporting his Round Rock residency.

Hall’s political status remains unusual because he is also listed as the Democratic candidate for Texas House District 19. Transparency USA lists Hall as on the ballot for the Nov. 3, 2026, general election against incumbent Republican Rep. Ellen Troxclair. The same listing shows Hall advanced from the Democratic primary, while Troxclair advanced from the Republican primary.

Court filings involving Hall’s prior Texas State Guard service also surfaced during the campaign. In a Jan. 26, 2026, filing in Travis County’s 459th District Court, case D-1-GN-24-000896, defendants stated that on or about Aug. 28, 2022, then-Cpl. Kelly Hall informed SFC Jimmerson that he had “falsified orders and altered government documents” at another person’s request.

A separate Dec. 19, 2022, memorandum included in the court records states that Brig. Gen. Joe D. Cave concluded and supported the allegation that the plaintiff asked then-Cpl. Kelly Hall to alter or create fraudulent Operation Lone Star-Border Security orders. Hall was referenced in the filings but was not listed as a defendant in the civil case.

Voters also rejected Proposition A and Proposition B, both of which were placed on the ballot by petition. Proposition A would have amended the city charter to allow up to 12 privately owned, operated and funded freestanding, off-premise, double-faced electronic message centers along Interstate 35 and State Highway 45 within Round Rock and its extraterritorial jurisdiction. The city said new billboards are otherwise prohibited by ordinance.

Proposition B would have required the Round Rock Fire Department to meet National Fire Protection Association 1710 staffing and response standards, with phased requirements beginning in 2027. The amendment also would have waived the city’s sovereign immunity, allowing lawsuits to enforce compliance.

Unofficial polling numbers reported by Community Impact showed Proposition A failing with 85.15% of voters opposed and 14.85% in favor. Proposition B also failed, with 68.96% opposed and 31.04% in favor.

The election results will become official after they are canvassed by the City Council. A swearing-in ceremony is expected later this month

John J. Gately
Republican Precinct Chair – Precinct 338
Williamson County Republican Party
Round Rock, Texas

Amanda represents the kind of grassroots leadership our party needs right now: principled, energetic, conservative, and focused on strengthening the Republican Party from the ground up. She understands that the strength of the party does not come from Austin insiders or political gamesmanship. It comes from the activists, precinct chairs, county parties, volunteers, candidates, and voters who show up, do the work, and fight for Texas values.

Amanda Hopper has shown a commitment to building stronger conservative coalitions, supporting grassroots organizations, and keeping the Republican Party of Texas accountable to its platform and its voters. That is exactly the kind of leadership we need in the Vice Chair position.

Texas Republicans deserve leaders who will listen, organize, stand firm, and help move the party forward with courage and conviction. Amanda Hopper is ready to do that.

I respectfully ask my fellow Republicans to join me in supporting Amanda Hopper for Vice Chair of the Republican Party of Texas.

John J. Gately
Republican Precinct Chair – Precinct 338
Williamson County Republican Party
Round Rock, Texas

According to the city, Hall previously swore in his application for the Democratic Primary that his permanent address had been in Cedar Park for four years as of December 1, 2025. However, in a separate application filed on February 4, 2026, to appear on the ballot for the mayoral race, Hall attested that his permanent address had been in Round Rock for one year and two months.

These conflicting statements have raised serious concerns about whether he meets the legal requirements to serve as mayor.

Despite this, Hall’s name is still expected to appear on the ballot for the May 2 election. However, the city has indicated that if he were to receive enough votes to win, a special election would likely be required to resolve the issue, an outcome that could come at additional cost to taxpayers.

This challenge to Hall’s eligibility was initiated by a group of six former city leaders, underscoring the significance of the concern.

As voters head to the polls, the situation presents a clear choice. Electing a candidate whose eligibility is under question could lead to uncertainty and additional expense for the community. For those seeking continuity and a proven track record, the current mayor, Craig Morgan, remains on the ballot.

Mayor Morgan has a proven track record that is visible to the public, and his leadership is well established. In contrast, Mr. Hall has not demonstrated comparable experience or trustworthiness. Several years ago, he admitted to forging a government document—an action documented in court records.

You don’t have to take my word for it. The court documents are available for public review, along with selected excerpts provided below. The case was filed in the 459th District Court under case number D-1-GN-24-000896. These records can be accessed in person at 1700 Guadalupe Street, Austin, Texas 78701, on the third floor. The documents were released to the public in early January 2026.

Round Rock deserves a leader with a proven record of integrity and service—not someone whose actions raise serious concerns about judgment and accountability. Claiming to be a whistleblower does not excuse wrongdoing. Mr. Hall has claimed that label, but one cannot claim to be a hero after setting the house on fire and then trying to save those inside. In this case, the facts show a different story—one where the individual created the problem and later attempted to shift the narrative.

Shifting the narrative is not leadership; it is a failure to take responsibility. At best, it reflects a hope that the truth will go unnoticed. Round Rock needs strong, dependable leadership at every level. Mr. Kelly Hall has not demonstrated that he can provide that leadership, nor has he shown the integrity required to take ownership of his actions.
 

A few screenshots from the court documents:

Click here to download the Original Court Document

Click here to download the Original Court Document with Yellow Highlights 

John J. Gately
Republican Precinct Chair – Precinct 338
Williamson County Republican Party
Round Rock, Texas

Date: March 12, 2026

Statement on Leadership, Honesty, and Service to Texas

Round Rock, Texas — As the elected Republican Precinct Chair for Precinct 338 in Williamson County, and as a current member of the Texas State Guard, I believe strongly that those who seek public office must demonstrate honesty, integrity, and loyalty to the people they intend to serve.

It has come to my attention that Kelly Hall, who has reportedly won the race for Texas House District 19 while also running for Mayor of the City of Round Rock, is representing on his campaign website that he has served in the Texas State Guard from 2016 to Present.

His website currently states:

"2016 – Present

Texas State Guard

Serving in emergency response, disaster relief, and community outreach. A commitment to protecting and serving Texans."

This claim is not accurate.

I served in the Texas State Guard with Mr. Hall and can confirm that he has not served in the Texas State Guard for several years. Mr. Hall was discharged from the Texas State Guard, and his service did not conclude with an honorable discharge.

During his service, Mr. Hall admitted to forging official government documents, which resulted in his discharge from the organization.

Despite this, his website currently represents his Texas State Guard service as continuing to the present.

In addition, Mr. Hall’s website presents him as a veteran. While the Texas State Guard performs an important mission supporting disaster response and emergency operations within the State

of Texas, service in the Texas State Guard does not confer federal veteran status, as members are not part of the federal armed forces unless separately serving in those branches.

The men and women who serve in the Texas State Guard dedicate themselves to protecting Texans during disasters and emergencies. Their service represents loyalty, honor, and commitment to the State of Texas. That service should never be misrepresented.

Leadership requires honesty and accountability. When individuals seek positions of public trust—whether in the Texas Legislature or as Mayor of the City of Round Rock voters deserve transparency regarding their background and service.

The people of Texas, and especially the citizens of Round Rock, deserve leaders who demonstrate integrity and respect for the truth. In my view, honesty and loyalty to the State of Texas must remain the foundation of public service.

Respectfully,

John J. Gately

Republican Precinct Chair – Precinct 338

Williamson County Republican Party

Round Rock, Texas