U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Reconsider Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, November 10, 2025

Little Rock, Ark.— On Monday, Family Council expressed disappointment after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a case challenging its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling on same-sex marriage. Family Council President Jerry Cox said the Court missed an important opportunity to correct what many continue to view as an overreach of judicial authority.

Obergefell was a poorly reasoned decision from the moment it was handed down,” Cox said. “The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to redefine marriage. That authority rests with the states and with the people. By refusing to take this case, the Court has chosen to leave in place a ruling that short-circuited the democratic process.”

Cox said the Obergefell decision is about a lot more than just same-sex marriage. “The bigger question has always been about how marriage will be defined in America and who gets to write that definition. From 2004 to 2015, voters in more than three-fifths of the country democratically passed laws and amendments defining marriage in their respective states. In most cases, those measures defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Voters in three states chose to define marriage differently. The court’s Obergefell decision struck down every one of those state marriage laws.”

Cox noted that despite the Court’s refusal to hear the case, the debate over marriage is far from settled. “Millions of Americans still believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that belief is rooted not only in religious conviction but in thousands of years of human history. The Court may choose not to review Obergefell today, but the conversation about marriage and family will continue. We remain committed to defending the freedom of people who hold to the traditional understanding of marriage.”

###

JPMorgan Chase Discloses Government Inquiry into Debanking

Last week, JPMorgan Chase disclosed the financial giant is responding to authorities over alleged debanking practices.

Over the past four years, congressional testimony and news stories have highlighted how federal officials and financial institutions targeted conservative organizations through “reputational risk” policies.

Conservatives deemed “high risk” could have their bank accounts closed without warning and without explanation. JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and other major financial institutions have been accused of debanking law-abiding Americans.

During the Biden Administration, the U.S. Treasury Department gave financial institutions an analysis titled, “Bankrolling Bigotry” that listed legitimate, conservative groups such as Alliance Defending Freedom, the American College of Pediatricians, American Family Association, Eagle Forum, Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel, National Organization for Marriage, and the Ruth Institute as “Hate Groups” alongside the KKK and the American Nazi Party.

The “Bankrolling Bigotry” analysis also outlines ideas on policies and laws aimed at preventing these groups from fundraising. Officials from the Treasury Department distributed this document to banks and financial institutions in January of 2021, calling it an “overview on the funding of American hate groups.”

We also now know the U.S. Treasury Department gave banks and other financial institutions guiding “typologies” — patterns they could use to identify suspicious people or activities — that included search terms and patterns like “TRUMP” and “MAGA.”

The department encouraged financial institutions to comb through transactions for terms like “Bass Pro Shops,” “Cabela’s,” and “Dick’s Sporting Goods” when looking for “Homegrown Violent Extremism.”

These problems went largely unreported until Congress began asking serious questions about debanking.

In a quarterly Securities Exchange Commission filing submitted on November 4, JPMorgan Chase said it is responding to government inquiries, writing:

In August 2025, the President of the United States issued an Executive Order entitled “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans” that addressed access to financial services and directed several actions by certain federal agencies, to include a review and revision of their internal policies and manuals. JPMorgan Chase is responding to requests from government authorities and other external parties regarding, among other things, the Firm’s policies and processes and the provision of services to customers and potential customers. Certain of these matters are at various stages, including reviews, investigations, and legal proceedings.

It’s worth pointing out in August, President Trump signed an executive order to protect fair banking for all Americans, and JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have taken steps this year to prevent politically motivated debanking.

In 2021 Family Council’s credit card processor — a company owned by JPMorgan Chase — terminated our account after designating our organization as “high risk.” 

At 10:29 AM on Wednesday, July 7, 2021, our office received a terse email from our credit card processor saying, “Unfortunately, we can no longer support your business. We wish you all the luck in the future, and hope that you find a processor that better fits your payment processing needs.”

Within 60 seconds, Family Council could no longer accept donations online. The processor never explained why we were labeled “high risk.” All we can do is speculate that our conservative principles and our public policy work might have had something to do with the decision to close our account.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Other organizations have had similar experiences as well. In fact, corporate shareholdersstate attorneys generalmembers of Congress, and news outlets have all expressed concerns over conservatives being wrongly labeled as “high risk” or “hate groups” and subsequently debanked.

Family Council is grateful to the many people and organizations who have stood up against debanking in recent years. After all, banks that are too big to fail should also be too big to discriminate. Nobody should have their bank account closed for what they believe.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

Trump Administration Could Soon Roll Out Two New Rules Protecting Kids From Sex-Change Procedures

NPR recently reported that two proposals from the Trump Administration could help protect children from sex-change procedures nationwide.

Written copies of the proposals haven’t been published yet, but NPR says it obtained a draft text of the rules.

One rule would prevent federal Medicaid funds from being used for sex-change procedures on kids. Another rule would block hospitals that perform these procedures from receiving Medicaid or Medicare funding.

The Department of Health and Human Services submitted both proposals to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review last summer. The proposed rules have not officially been published yet, but it sounds like both rules generally track with other policies the Trump Administration has implemented.

In January, President Trump issued an executive order prohibiting federal funding from being used for sex-change procedures on kids — including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex-change surgeries.

Medical institutions and facilities who receive federal research or education grants were told to “end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children” immediately, under the order. That order prompted hospitals nationwide to stop performing these procedures on kids.

Earlier this summer, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a public inquiry into whether U.S. doctors and clinics may have deceived parents and children about the risks of these procedures. The U.S. Department of Justice also subpoenaed doctors and medical facilities involved in performing sex-change procedures on minors.

In September, the U.S. Department of Justice sent Congress the federal Victims of Chemical or Surgical Mutilation Act. The proposed federal law would generally prevent doctors, hospitals, and clinics from performing sex-change surgeries on children or giving them puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.

In recent years, men and women have testified about how they were rushed through gender transitions as children without understanding the procedures’ risks, consequences, or alternatives.

We now know pro-LGBT activists spent years manufacturing much of the medical “consensus” in support of these procedures.

Public health experts in the U.S.the U.K.SwedenFinland, and other nations have found that science simply does not support giving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to kids.

In 2021, lawmakers in Arkansas passed the Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act generally prohibiting doctors from performing sex-change procedures on children or giving them puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. A federal court recently upheld the law — which is good news.

We must do more to protect children from these dangerous procedures nationwide. We appreciate the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services working on federal rules to help do exactly that.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.