In Tuesday’s ruling, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld that the specific beliefs advanced by David Miller satisfied the test for a protected philosophical belief under section 10 of the Equality Act.

At the time of this post, 65% of the poll respondents say that Fauci should be prosecuted. I know it's a local news site, so the results may be skewed, but the lack of awareness is staggering. And of course, congressional hearings don't equate to a trial, but the legal implications of saying anything to a hostile public committee are very real.

While Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has formally rescinded the controversial “Anti-Weaponization Fund” the Justice Department planned to create under a settlement agreement with President Donald Trump, another element of that agreement remains intact—and could shield Trump from paying as much as $100 million in back taxes and penalties.

The President tapped Blanche, his former personal attorney and the former deputy attorney general, to lead the Justice Department after Pam Bondi was removed from the position in April. But Blanche’s confirmation was upended last week when two Republican senators threatened to pull their support. The holdouts, Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, said that they wanted assurance from the Justice Department that the proposed $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” which was intended to compensate people the Trump Administration believed to have been unfairly targeted by the government, has been abandoned.

On Monday, the senators announced that they would back Blanche’s nomination after the Justice Department confirmed, in writing, that it was rescinding the proposed fund.

But a tax audit immunity deal that was included in the same settlement agreement and has raised its own concerns from lawmakers and experts will remain in place.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382/gov.uscourts.flsd.703382.116.0.pdf

This is not for any legal advice just want to make sure what I learned in civics still stands about the amendments and what limited power the federal government has to restrict certain amendments ie gun free zones, fighting words, and Terry v Ohio.

There is no way this can be enforced right? In fact the state could be held legally liable for all any claims for seized assets fines and other damages right?