For the past few years, the New York State government has been in an ongoing dispute with hasidic yeshivas, which it is trying to force to spend more time teaching secular subjects. Real as the problems of inadequate secular education are at some of these schools, the state’s attempt to impose its will has been heavy-handed and even punitive. The New York Court of Appeals is now about to hear the ensuing lawsuit. The editors of the New York Sun comment:

The yeshivas, in their appeal, . . . say New York has exceeded its authority by using the new regulation to force “the closure of private schools” by way of “requiring all of their students to unenroll from the school chosen by their parents.”

The Empire State litigation, along with the federal complaint, arises at a time when the Supreme Court, especially since Chief Justice Roberts, acceded to the bench, has been expanding religious liberties. . . . The Sun’s view is that precedent supports the yeshivas. From the outset of this dispute, these columns saw the scrutiny on the schools as “a campaign intended to regulate the religious free exercise of the hasidic yeshivas and establish that the state education mandates outrank America’s Bill of Rights.”

The schools, . . . in their federal complaint, [note] how Orthodox and hasidic Jews have long resisted the “requirements of contemporary society exerting a hydraulic insistence on conformity to majoritarian standards.” That is the kind of liberty that the Framers meant to protect in the First Amendment by barring Congress from “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion.

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.