In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday in favor of Catholic Social Services, a religious agency that the Philadelphia government had shut down because it would not place foster children in the care of same-sex couples. The court concluded that the city had violated the institution’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Alexandra Desanctis notes what liberal critics of the decision fail to understand:

[This] case isn’t, as left-wing activists insist, about “gay rights” at all; it is about children in need. [Moreover], it’s entirely inaccurate to suggest, as Politico did in its breaking-news update, that the court has sided with a group “that turns away same-sex couples as foster parents.” . . . As shown by the Becket Fund, which defended Catholic Social Services in court, the city of Philadelphia has been unable to find a single instance of a same-sex couple so much as approaching the Catholic agency about fostering a child. To suggest that the agency “turns away” such couples, then, is simply untrue.

Meanwhile, on Twitter, Politico’s account claims that the court’s ruling now permits Catholic Social Services to “reject would-be parents based on their sexual orientation.” But the institution’s policy has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Rather, the policy—informed by the teaching of the Catholic Church—is to work to place foster children in homes with a married mother and father.

The reason for hypothetically refusing to place a child with a same-sex couple, marital status aside, is because the Catholic Church teaches, and the agency believes, that it is best for children to live in a home headed up by a married mother and father. The sexual orientation of the individuals is beside the point.

For more than a year, the Iran-backed Houthis have been launching drones and missiles at ships traversing the Red Sea, as well as at Israeli territory, in support of Hamas. This development has drastically curtailed shipping through the Suez Canal and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, driving up trade prices. This week, the Trump administration began an extensive bombing campaign against the Houthis in an effort to reopen that crucial waterway. Burcu Ozcelik highlights another benefit of this action:

The administration has a broader geopolitical agenda—one that includes countering China’s economic leverage, particularly Beijing’s reliance on Iranian oil. By targeting the Houthis, the United States is not only safeguarding vital shipping lanes but also exerting pressure on the Iran-China energy nexus, a key component of Beijing’s strategic posture in the region.

China was the primary destination for up to 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports in 2024, underscoring the deepening economic ties between Beijing and Tehran despite U.S. sanctions. By helping fill Iranian coffers, China aids Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in financing proxies like the Houthis. Since October of last year, notable U.S. Treasury announcements have revealed covert links between China and the Houthis.

Striking the Houthis could trigger broader repercussions—not least by disrupting the flow of Iranian oil to China. While difficult to confirm, it is conceivable and has been reported, that the Houthis may have received financial or other forms of compensation from China (such as Chinese-made military components) in exchange for allowing freedom of passage for China-affiliated vessels in the Red Sea.