This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump wants Fox News host Jeanine Pirro to be the top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C.
Interim U.S. attorney Ed Martin had been nominated, but his named was pulled after a single senator announced his opposition.
"I am pleased to announce that Judge Jeanine Pirro will be appointed interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia," Trump wrote. "Jeanine is incredibly well qualified for this position, and is considered one of the Top District Attorneys in the History of the State of New York. She is in a class by herself."
Martin's progress had been blocked by opposition from Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who objected to Martin's work with, and in defense of, some of the J6 protesters who trespassed at the Capitol four years ago.
Tillis has explained he wants someone in that role "who believes that every single person who came into this building illegally should've suffered some consequences."
They were pardoned by Trump, of course.
But with Tillis holding a key vote on a Senate committee that must approve the nomination, reports appeared Thursday with Pirro's name.
A commentary at RedState explained, "'Be careful what you wish for' is something I routinely think when mulling over political strategy. Whenever you want a certain politician or appointee removed, you have to be sure that the replacement won't be worse."
It continued this is "something Sen. Thom Tillis (R-RINO) should have thought about when obstinately and publicly dissing President Trump's selection for U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin. While taking questions from reporters Thursday, Trump signaled that he would be naming someone else for that office since Martin's nomination wouldn't be able to get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee due to Tillis' opposition, which seemed to be a Tillis victory."
Pirro is a former judge and prosecutor.
"Pirro is on the same page as Martin regarding January 6 defendants, so Tillis is likely to oppose this nomination too, but given Pirro's decades of legal experience and her experience as both a prosecutor and a judge (Martin did not have that experience) and the fact that Pirro did not represent January 6 defendants in court, Tillis will have a hard time outright opposing the nomination," it explained.
The Washington Examiner said significantly, Tillis now is up for re-election in a possibly competitive primary, and "has yet to secure a Trump endorsement."
Trump has said Tillis is "disappointing.,"
Martin is serving in an interim capacity now but that can last only another two weeks.
If a replacement isn't in place, anti-Trump Judge James Boasberg would play a role in picking a temporary for the post.
In a significant judicial decision, a Biden-appointed judge has ordered the resettlement of 12,000 refugees into the United States, Breitbart reported.A federal court has reversed an executive order that previously halted the refugee program, demanding immediate action to admit the refugees.This week, Judge Jamal Whitehead, appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in 2023, issued a new order requiring that President Donald Trump resettle approximately 12,000 refugees. These individuals had been approved for resettlement before the president signed an order suspending the program. The ruling mandates that the government must process, admit, and provide resettlement support to these refugees, adhering to the judicial injunction.
Judge Blocks Presidential Executive Order
The executive order in question was signed by President Trump shortly after taking office, aiming to suspend the refugee resettlement program. However, this action faced challenges from organizations reliant on refugee resettlement for funding. As a result, these groups initiated a lawsuit against the Trump administration to reinstate the program, arguing that the executive action disrupted their operations and funding.
In the previous February ruling, Judge Whitehead intervened, preventing the Trump administration from executing the order. His decision acknowledged the president's substantial authority over immigration matters but clarified that such power has boundaries. This perspective emphasizes the need for executive actions to be within the confines of the law and judicial oversight.
Referring to the government’s stance, Judge Whitehead stated, “This Court will not entertain the Government’s result-oriented rewriting of a judicial order that clearly says what it says.” This reinforced the court’s position against altering the intended meaning of judicial orders to suit governmental objectives.
Judicial Oversight on Immigration Powers
The situation has thrust Judge Whitehead into the national spotlight, given the political and social implications of his ruling. His appointment by former President Joe Biden further underscores the political nuances entangled within judicial decisions impacting immigration policy. It brings attention to the interaction between executive power and judicial oversight.
Judge Whitehead emphasized in his rulings that while the president possesses broad discretion in suspending refugee admissions, this authority is not absolute. “The president has substantial discretion to suspend refugee admissions. But that authority is not limitless,” he noted. This standpoint delineates the balance of power between executive action and judicial review.
The decision serves as a notable example of how the judiciary can check and balance actions by the executive branch, ensuring they align with legal standards and fundamental human rights.
Impact on Refugee Resettlement Program
With this ruling, the resettlement of 12,000 refugees is set to proceed, a move that will impact numerous communities across the United States. The court order obliges federal agencies to coordinate the logistics of processing and providing support services to these individuals. This includes ensuring access to housing, employment, and education as part of their integration into American society.
Moreover, the decision underscores the critical role of federal courts in shaping the nation's immigration policies, amid varied political agendas. By upholding the refugee resettlement, it also provides reassurance to organizations engaged in aiding displaced individuals globally.
As this case progresses, it will likely continue to influence conversations on immigration and refugee policies, both domestically and internationally, exemplifying the ongoing interplay between different branches of the government.
Court's Impact on Federal Policies
The implications of this decision extend beyond the immediate resettlement orders. It signifies the judiciary's capability to assert its authority in cases where executive actions are perceived as overreaching. This sets a precedent for how similar cases might be adjudicated in the future, particularly during administrations with distinct immigration policies.
The case also highlights the broader debate surrounding executive orders and their limits, encouraging discussions about how constitutional powers should be balanced. It brings into focus the mechanisms by which courts can ensure that policy decisions are both lawful and just.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A top Republican in Congress is making the bombshell claim that FBI files on pedophile Jeffrey Epstein may have been destroyed, possibly by the federal government.
U.S. Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told journalist Benny Johnson on Tuesday: "I don't think the Department of Justice has [the Epstein files] – or at least the attorney general does not have them – or she would have turned them over.
"The president ordered them released. The attorney general ordered them released. We all know they have not been released," Comer continued.
"One of my biggest fears, which I expressed with [FBI Director] Kash Patel and a lot of people, including [White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy] Stephen Miller, going into the new administration, was this: I hope they're not shredding documents right now. This was a few weeks before the transition.
"I said, 'I hope they're not shredding documents.' But you all need to go on that first day and try to get all this stuff released, because my fear – based on what I've dealt with in investigations and in communication with this deep state apparatus – is that they're probably in there shredding documents as we speak. So, hopefully someone has a copy of that."
In response to Comer's conjecture the FBI may be "shredding documents" relating to the Epstein case, Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters Wednesday that's not the case.
So are there documents missing?
"No," said Bondi. "The FBI, they're reviewing tens of thousands of videos of Epstein with children or child porn."
"The FBI is diligently going through that," she continued, noting the large volume of files. She added: "There are hundreds of victims."
"And no one victim will ever get released," she said. "It's just the volume, and that's what they're going through right now. The FBI is diligently going through that."
Bondi said she would get in touch with Comer about his theory.
"I haven't seen that statement, but I'll call him later and find out," she indicated.
While Bondi released a "first phase" of documents Feb. 27, fulfilling the Trump campaign promise to release them all has not yet happened.
The failure to release more information has elicited criticism from several lawmakers and conservative commentators alike.
President Trump notched a big legal victory in his effort to streamline Voice of America (VOA), the state-funded international broadcaster that has long been coopted by leftists.
A federal appeals court in Washington D.C. found that a district court judge overstepped when he ordered Trump to reinstate 1,000 Voice of America employees.
Kari Lake, who runs VOA's parent agency US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), praised the appeals court's ruling as a check against an activist judiciary that has blocked Trump from exercising his constitutional powers.
"BIG WIN in our legal cases at USAGM & Voice of America. Huge victory for President Trump and Article II. Turns out the District Court judge will not be able to manage the agency as he seemed to want to," she wrote on X.
Trump scores legal win
Trump's effort to reform VOA is part of a broader push to rein in publicly funded news organizations, like NPR and PBS, that are nominally neutral put often put a left-wing spin on the news of the day.
"Voice of America has been out of step with America for years. It serves as the Voice for Radical America and has pushed divisive propaganda for years now," a senior White House official told Fox News Digital in March.
On April 22, Judge Royce Lamberth, a Ronald Reagan appointee, blocked Trump's March executive order directing USAGM to downsize to the furthest extent possible under law.
The judge ordered Trump to reinstate 1,000 VOA employees who were put on leave and restore grant funding to two private non-profits that USAGM oversees, Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks.
Executive power vindicated
In a sharp reversal, a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit Court overruled Lamberth on Saturday, finding he lacked jurisdiction to dictate how Trump manages international broadcasting.
Two Trump appointees, Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas, rebuked the lower court for its troubling "intrusion" into foreign affairs, noting the president's special prerogative in that realm.
"This intrusion is particularly harmful because it implicates the Executive Branch’s foreign-affairs authority," the court wrote.
"By depriving the Executive Branch of control over the individuals involved in its international broadcasting, the injunction threatens its prerogative to 'speak with one voice' on behalf of the United States in foreign affairs."
Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented, warning that the court's ruling "all but guarantees that the networks will no longer exist in any meaningful form by the time this case is fully adjudicated."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, said President Donald Trump's ban on transgender service members and ideologies in the U.S. military may stand.
Trump, on taking office for his second term, issued that order because transgender warriors require inordinate amounts of medical and other treatments, are not ordinarily ready for deployment and create other issues for fellow soldiers.
The decision Tuesday halted a lower court's decision that prevented the policy from taking effect.
As expected, the leftist trio of Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Jackson, who infamously was unable to even define "woman" during her Senate confirmation hearing, would have allowed the lower court order to stand, in a move that would have prevented the president of making the U.S. military better and more formidable.
The lower court judge, Benjamin H. Settle, had claimed, "Because the military has operated smoothly for four years under the (pro-transgender) Austin Policy, any claimed hardship it may face in the meantime pales in comparison to the hardships imposed on transgender service members and otherwise qualified transgender accession candidates, tipping the balance of hardships sharply toward plaintiffs."
Trump, as commander-in-chief of the U.S. military, had confirmed that "expressing a false 'gender identity' divergent from an individual's sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service."
According to a report from CBS, the ban on transgenders will remain in effect "while legal proceedings move forward."
Trump had determined that the military's "high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity and integrity" are inconsistent with the "medical, surgical and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria."
The president continued, "A man's assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."
Trump already, during his first term, had barred transgenders from the U.S. military, a move that the Supreme Court allowed then.
Joe Biden, whose top agenda ideologies during his one term appeared to be abortion for all and transgenderism for all, especially children, reversed Trump's standards.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, after Trump's order, told the Pentagon to pause admissions for people with gender dysphoria histories, and halt the so-called "gender-affirming" care that involves chemicals and/or body mutilating surgeries.
As people who follow the science know, changing from male to female or vice versa doesn't happen, as being male or female is embedded in the human body down to the DNA level.
The CBS report noted the Pentagon disbursed some $52 million on medical "care" to treat gender dysphoria between 2015 and 2024.
The Supreme Court's ruling came in a case from Washington state on behalf of "seven transgender service members" and others.
The Department of Justice had explained the decision was not discrimination based on sex, but was based on "medical condition, gender dysphoria," the report said.
The government has told the high court, "If the separation of powers means anything, the government obviously suffers irreparable harm when an unelected judge usurps the role of the political branches in operating the nation's armed forces."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new lawsuit alleges the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is running what's being called an "unconstitutional shadow agency," going beyond the responsibilities of the judicial branch by taking regulatory actions.
The fight was launched by America First Legal Foundation, which was started by Stephen Miller, President Donald Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy.
Chief Justice John Roberts was cited in his capacity as the head of the U.S. Judicial Conference. Also named was Robert J. Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
A report from Fox News explains: "The complaint accuses both the U.S. Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts of performing certain regulatory actions that go beyond the scope of resolving cases or controversies, or administratively supporting those actions, which they argue are the 'core functions' of the judiciary."
It also charges that records of those organizations should be subject to Freedom of Information Act requirements.
The newest fight comes amid a campaign by district judges, those who run the entry level of the federal court system, to issue a long list of nationwide injunctions through which they claim the authority to make decisions for the executive branch, which by the Constitution is the responsibility of the president.
Those injunctions cover topics from deportation of illegal alien criminals to firing unwanted federal employees to handing out taxpayer cash that Trump wants to keep and use for American interests to securing the border and deciding who can claim American citizenship.
The Fox report said new fight cites "actions taken by both the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office in 2023 to 'accommodate' requests from Congress to investigate allegations of ethical improprieties by Justices Thomas and Alito, and subsequently to create or adopt an 'ethics code' for justices on the high court."
The complaint states, "Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch. The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are, therefore, executive agencies."
Such a ruling would give the president more authority to deliver instructions to those organizations.
"The U.S. Judicial Conference is the national policymaking body for the courts. It is overseen by the Supreme Court's chief justice and tasked with making twice-yearly recommendations to Congress as needed. The Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, meanwhile, operates under the guidance and supervision of the Judicial Conference. Its role is to provide administrative support to the federal courts on certain administrative issues and for day-to-day logistics, including setting budgets and organizing data, among other things," Fox reported.
The filing charges that such duties are "executive functions."
"Courts definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies or administratively supporting those functions," the complaint said.
At the Gateway Pundit, a report said the allegations amounted to a "bombshell" against Roberts.
It characterizes the lawsuits as accusing "the powerful duo of running what AFL describes as an 'unconstitutional shadow agency' and violating federal transparency laws."
It, essentially, accuses the bureaucracies of being "rogue 'executive agencies' that have collaborated with far-left lawmakers to wage lawfare against conservative Supreme Court justices."
It charges, "For several years, the media and enterprising lawmakers have launched an onslaught to destroy the impartiality and political neutrality of Article III courts and, particularly, the Supreme Court. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh have all faced political and physical threats because of the politicization and weaponization of the law. This lawfare has been led by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson, relying upon an ideologically favorable legacy media to falsely accuse Justices Thomas and Alito of ethical improprieties. Their aim was simple: to chill the judicial independence of these Supreme Court Justices."
The court case follows requests by AFL for information and arguments that the bureaucracies must comply with FOIA because they exercise "executive powers."
In the face of the agencies' refusal, the case was filed.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge whose biased courtroom policy – he routinely orders case participants to use "preferred" pronouns demanded by the leftist transgender agenda – has refused to let women athletes involved in a dispute over a promotion of transgenderism appeal.
The fight involves S. Kato Crews, who is paid as a federal judge in Colorado. He's hearing a case involving women athletes against the Mountain West Conference over its decision to allow a man, Blaire Fleming, to compete on the women's team in the conference.
The update comes from Cowboy State Daily, which noted that multiple women from the University of Wyoming are involved.
Crews routinely orders those in his court to use "preferred" pronouns for participants. That could be the totally inaccurate "she" or "her" for a man.
The women bringing the action against the conference asked him to recuse from the case, as his courtroom demeanor suggested he had prejudged the case. He refused.
They asked to appeal. And he refused again.
He claimed that he was allowing an exception for the women in this legal fight, so there were no grounds to appeal.
The underlying fight is over Fleming, and his presence on the women's team for San Jose State University's volleyball team.
"Eleven current and former collegiate athletes and one SJSU volleyball coach on Nov. 13 sued the Mountain West Conference, and SJSU and its umbrella organization in the federal U.S. District Court for Colorado," the report explained.
Wyoming forfeited two of its games against San Jose State University because of the man's participation on the women's team. Several other teams also forfeited.
The report noted, "Crews maintains a rule requiring the use of 'preferred' pronouns for transgender people referenced in his court."
The women argued that he should not hear the case, as he has shown he "has pre-judged the case and its question of whether a transgender volleyball player is a woman under the law."
The response from Crews, over his refusal to allow an appeal, was that he said he waived the pronoun requirement for participants in this case.
The judge turned sarcastic in his response to the women athletes, stating, "Rather than operating under the purported 'stigmas' and 'specters,' the Court encourages Plaintiffs to take 'yes' for an answer. Countless times now, the Court has told Plaintiffs they may use whatever pronouns they choose in these proceedings. They've done so from the start. They've done so without sanction or admonishment from the Court."
However, his answer did not address the fact that his ordinary courtroom standards include the "pronoun" requirement, leaving still standing the perception of his bias.
The judge also claimed his rules that benefit one side of the transgender arguments do not suggest a pre-judgment.
The case will now proceed in the district court where it was filed.
The Trump administration filed a lawsuit Friday against Colorado and the city of Denver for providing sanctuary for illegal immigrants, the UK Daily Mail reported. Attorney General Pam Bondi previously pursued legal action against Chicago, Illinois, and Rochester, New York, for the same reason.
The Department of Justice asserted the federal government's authority in immigration law in its legal filing. "The United States has well-established, preeminent, and preemptive authority to regulate immigration matters," the lawsuit said.
Bondi said that the state's lack of cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The Justice Department attorneys believe that the state's "sanctuary policies" contributed to the gang takeover of an apartment complex in Aurora, Colorado.
Democrats downplayed the fact that the Tren de Aragua gang occupied at least five buildings in The Edge at Lowry in the suburban area just outside of Denver. In February, the structures were condemned due to the dangerous situation the gang's occupation created.
Dire situation
President Donald Trump made illegal immigration a central issue during the campaign. At a presidential debate in September, Trump warned about the dire situation at The Edge at Lowry.
"We have millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums. You see what's happening with towns throughout the United States. You look at Springfield, Ohio. You look at Aurora in Colorado," Trump said at the time, USA Today reported.
"They are taking over the towns. They're taking over buildings. They're going in violently," Trump added before blaming then-President Joe Biden and then-Vice President Kamala Harris for the situation.
"These are the people that she and Biden let into our country, and they're destroying our country. They're dangerous. They're at the highest level of criminality, and we have to get them out," Trump said during the debate with Harris, who was his Democratic opponent.
Although Democrats and their media accomplices attempted to deny this fact at the time, it was announced in January that the buildings would close the following month. This is all because the state chose to protect illegal immigrants over its citizens.
The victims
The residents who once called the apartment complex home finally had their say during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on April 1. One of those was Cindy Romero, who was forced out by the rampant and dangerous gang activity.
"I am a wife, a mother of five, a grandmother of three, a part-time worker and student, and a former resident of Aurora, Colorado. I am one of the many victims across the nation of the violent transnational terrorist organization Tren de Aragua and a former lifelong Democrat," she told the committee.
Her testimony was shared on X, formerly Twitter, by Libs of TikTok. "They brought prostitutes, drugs, guns, and crime. The police were instructed to ignore pleas for help. Remember when the media and Democrats said this wasn’t happening?" the caption noted.
It's about time the people of Aurora, Colorado, and other sanctuary areas to see justice being served. Much to the chagrin of the Democrats, Bondi will continue to go after these places to right the wrongs, just as voters hoped when pulling the lever for Trump.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Hearing scheduled on plan by city to hand out cash based on race
One of the big fights triggered by leftists across America has been over reparations.
That mostly involves cash payments to black Americans, whose ancestors may have been abused as slaves in centuries past.
Multiple local jurisdictions have tried delivering those payments at times, not without resistance because of the racially discriminatory nature of the programs.
And the latest fight is developing in Evanston, Illinois.
Government watchdog Judicial Watch has announced a hearing is scheduled Wednesday in a class action civil rights case against the city "on behalf of six individuals over the city's reparations program."
The organization explained it "filed the lawsuit over the city's use of race as an eligibility requirement for a reparations program, which makes $25,000 direct cash payments to black residents and descendants of black residents who lived in Evanston between the years 1919 and 1969."
The case charges that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The city wants the case dismissed.
But Judicial Watch noted, "The program's use of a race-based eligibility requirement is presumptively unconstitutional, and remedying societal discrimination is not a compelling government interest. Nor has remedying discrimination from as many as 105 years ago or remedying intergenerational discrimination ever been recognized as a compelling government interest. Among the program's other fatal flaws is that it uses race as a proxy for discrimination without requiring proof of discrimination."
Judicial Watch chief Tom Fitton said, "It should go without saying that Evanston's reparations program is clearly discriminatory and unconstitutional. Judicial Watch's class action lawsuit should proceed."
A report from Newsweek only last year said the U.S. never implemented a widespread slavery reparations program, but it was local elected officials who were pursuing the social engineering agenda.
California even has a state Reparations Task Force that at one time considered a plan to give black Americans and slave descendants priority in professional license applications, a scheme that failed to gain traction.
There have been a variety of other proposals made, too.
Chicago's mayor at the time also created the city's own reparations task force in order to address the "historical wrongs committed against black Chicagoans and their ancestors."
Critics have noted multiple times the legal and constitutional challenges to handing out special benefits based on race.
They cite the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Not only are the benefits subject to challenge for this, critics of such programs note that those who would be forced to pay the "reparations" had nothing to do with the offense against a group of people.
Earlier this year, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) essentially provided a "class" for illegals during which she offered tips and tricks to resist and avoid President Donald Trump's deportation policies.
The situation was so egregious that it sparked border czar Tom Homan to threaten her with DOJ charges, to which AOC responded this week, essentially saying, "bring it on," according to the New York Post.
On Friday, the radical progressive Democrat essentially dared Homan to bring charges against her and drag her to court.
AOC has insisted that she hasn't done anything illegal, and welcomes the opportunity to fight the charges in a court of law, should it come down to that.
What did she say?
During a packed town hall event in Jackson Heights, Queens last week, AOC held nothing back in daring Homan to take her to court over the situation.
Tom Homan said he was going to refer me to DOJ because I’m using my free speech rights in order to advise people of their constitutional protections. To that I say: Come for me. Do I look like I care?” AOC told those in attendance.
She continued, saying there’s "nothing illegal about it — and if they want to make it illegal, they can come take me."
AOC's seminar to help illegals avoid deportation came via a livestreamed web event, during which she gave tips like not opening the door for ICE agents and other methods to either avoid or delay the process.
“What she needs to do is read the statutes enacted by Congress,” Homan said in February, “because it’s a crime to enter this country illegally.”
"Not only that, but when you harbor and conceal and impede law enforcement, that’s a felony," Homan continued.
"What she’s doing, she says she’s educating everybody on their constitutional rights, and we all know they’ve got constitutional rights, but what she’s really doing … she’s trying to teach them how to evade law enforcement."
AOC response
At the time Homan made those comments, AOC published a childish reply on her X account.
It'll certainly be interesting to see if she's forced to eat her words, should she actually be hauled to court.
