This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump's new appointee to the Civil Rights division of the Department of Justice has uncovered a stunningly simple way to clear out the "woke" ideologists from the department: Tell them to do their job.
The new chief, Harmeet Dhillon, has just explained the process to broadcaster Glenn Beck.
A PJMedia report said she explained the "resistance" in the department's different divisions are "self-deporting."
The report noted the DOJ "was full" of "ideologues," "entitled, leftist, wannabe lawyers" who keep coming out of law schools and ending up as "government lawyers."
"Goodness knows the DOJ was full of those lawyers starting with the Obama administration and through the Biden no-hold-barred attacks on civil liberties. Trump 45 never had a chance," the report said.
But when she took over only weeks ago, Dhillon explained that the job of the lawyers in the department is to protect civil rights, and that would include targeting anti-Semitism and anti-Christian discrimination.
They also are to "dismantle the notoriously racist diversity, equity and inclusion" agenda.
"Govern yourself accordingly," they were told.
So far, about 100 of the 340 lawyers in the division have opted to leave, taking a buyout package that runs through September.
"No one has been fired by me since I came," Dhillon confirmed.
But, "en masse, dozens and now over 100 attorneys decided they'd rather not do what the job requires them to do and I think that's fine because we don't want people in the federal government who feel like it's their pet project to go persecute, you know, police departments based on statistical evidence, or persecute people praying outside abortion facilities instead of doing violence."
"That's not the job here. The job here is to enforce the federal civil rights laws, not woke ideology."
She said replacements will be needed to support her "very robust affirmative civil rights agenda."
The "bugout," the report said, came "The minute Dhillon announced that the First Amendment rights of religious freedom would be protected and antisemitism would be targeted."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Can the state legislature's Democrat majority in Maine simply remove the representation rights of thousands of residents by voting to banish their representative from voting and speaking?
Further, can they punish that lawmaker personally over her opinions and thoughts?
The Supreme Court will be asked to decide.
It is Maine Rep. Laurel Libby who was suspended from participating in the legislature, to which she was elected, because, Democrats say, she posted the name and image of a juvenile online.
However, Democrats earlier refused to punish one of their own party for doing essentially the same thing, so that argument holds little water.
So the fight is reduced to the fact that Libby objects to the transgender ideology of having boys say they are girls, and then compete in girls' sports events, and that belief is what the Democrats won't tolerate.
A report at Fox revealed Libby has confirmed she'll appeal her case to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking for emergency intervention after Democrats censured her.
A federal appeals court earlier sided with the censorship of her opinions and thoughts.
"For over 100 days, my constituents have had no say in any actions taken by their government, actions that directly impact their lives," Libby said. "Every vote taken on the floor of the legislature is a vote my constituents cannot get back. The good people of our district have been silenced and disenfranchised.
"We are hopeful the court will act swiftly to halt the Democrats' ongoing violation of the Constitution and suppression of dissenting voices, even as the broader case continues through the appeals process."
House Speaker Ryan Fecteau orchestrated the censorship of Libby, and Judge Melissa DeBose, and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals declined to move the case forward.
"Our appeal asks the court to correct this abuse of power and reaffirm that legislative leadership cannot use procedural maneuvers and sweeping assertions of immunity to sideline dissenting voices and disenfranchise entire communities," Libby told Fox News Digital.
"I remain optimistic that the court will recognize what is plainly at stake: the integrity of representative government and the foundational principle that no elected official, no legislative leader, and no partisan majority is above the Constitution. The people of House District 90 deserve full representation, and we intend to see that right restored."
WND reported only days ago that, in the case, Democrats claimed they can decide which lawmakers can vote in the legislature.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Only a few weeks ago, the transgender agenda took a huge blow in the United Kingdom when its Supreme Court ruled that men who say they are female are not "women."
The stunning decision reversed an agenda that long had been making inroads into society there.
Now there's been a second blow.
According to a report in the National.Scot, a judge has ruled that schools in Scotland are required to provide single-sex facilities for children.
The Scottish Borders Council had been taken to court by two parents who pulled their child out of Earlston Primary School after its bosses proposed a new building – providing only unisex lavatories.
"Lady Ross KC issued a declarator – a court order – making clear the legal obligations on Scottish schools to provide single-sex facilities after a challenge from parents Sean Stratford and Leigh Hurley," the report said.
They removed their eight-year-old son from the school after their concerns about plans for the new school that included only mixed bathrooms were dismissed by the headteacher and the council. the report revealed.
A lawyer representing the council conceded that the ruling found the school officials' policy was illegal.
Hurley, 39, explained she raised concerns in 2023 about the school pushing for the "social transition" of a student, which "included allowing that person to participate in sports day races based on their 'gender identity.'"
"She also said she was concerned her son would be punished if he misgendered trans pupils, adding: 'In the end we felt we had no choice but to pull our child out of the school, which left him devastated,'" the report said.
The Christian Institute noted the ruling makes it required for state schools all across Scotland to have single-sex restrooms for students.
"Stratford and Hurley urged the council not to switch from single-sex to gender-neutral toilets during a £16.6 million building project to provide new premises for Earlston Primary School," the Christian Institute said. "When both the school and council dismissed their concerns, the parents — with the help of For Women Scotland (FWS) — challenged the lawfulness of the decision at the Court of Session."
Stratford said, "We've won, but common sense says we should never have been in this position in the first place."
Rosie Walker, a lawyer representing the parents, said, "The court order makes clear that the 1967 regulations apply to all state schools in Scotland. There is no provision for gender-neutral toilets in the regulations. Any school not complying will be in breach of the regulations and could face a legal challenge from parents."
WND reported earlier on the Supreme Court decision in the U.K. regarding men who say they are women.
The court ruling, a unanimous decision, said "woman" and "sex" in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex, not a belief expressed by a male that he is suddenly female. In fact, following the science, changing gender does not happen, as being male or female is embedded in the human body down to the DNA level.
The ruling comes in a years-long legal war between campaign group For Women Scotland and the Scottish government over the definition of a woman.
The ruling said, "The unanimous decision of this court is that the definition of the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex."
Further, that ruling adopted what President Donald Trump recently, by executive order, concluded about sex in America: It is binary.
He, in fact, said the American government recognizes two genders, male and female.
The U.K. court's 88-page decision said the "concept of sex is binary" under the Equality Act 2010.
With national security-related leaks becoming a subject of significant concern in recent weeks, the Department of Justice is now taking steps to ensure a thorough investigation and potential legal consequences for those responsible.
As NPR reports, it was revealed on Friday that Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinded Biden-era protections for journalists who hide records or decline testimony related to individuals who are the subjects of criminal probes, a move sure to please President Donald Trump, who has routinely faced fallout from internal leaks.
The change in policy was outlined in a memo from Bondi dated Friday, a communication in which the AG noted, “Safeguarding classified, privileged, and other sensitive information is essential to effective governance and law enforcement.”
Bondi continued, “Federal government employees intentionally leaking sensitive information to the media undermines the ability of the Department of Justice to uphold the rule of law, protect civil rights, and keep America safe.”
“This conduct is illegal and wrong, and it must stop,” Bondi emphatically declared.
The AG then stated, “Therefore, I have concluded that it is necessary to rescind [former Attorney General] Merrick Garland's policies precluding the Department of Justice from seeking records and compelling testimony from members of the news media in order to identify and punish the source of improper leaks.”
Notably, Bondi emphasized that “it is a bedrock principle that a free and independent press is vital to the functioning of our democracy” and assured that the “Department of Justice will defend that principle, despite the lack of independence of certain members of the legacy news media,” adding her recognition that “investigative techniques related to newsgathering are an extraordinary measure to be deployed as a last resort when essential to a successful investigation or prosecution.”
As detailed in Bondi's memo, a host of adjustments to Biden-era policies are now poised for implementation, including a requirement that news media “must answer subpoenas” when they are authorized at the appropriate level at the DOJ.
“Specifically, the policy contemplates the use of subpoenas, court orders, and search warrants to compel production of information and testimony by and relating to members of the news media,” the AG noted.
With that said, Bondi added, “Members of the news media are presumptively entitled to advance notice of such investigative activities, subpoenas are to be narrowly drawn, and warrants must include protocols designed to limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or newsgathering activities.”
In assessing whether the aforementioned techniques are advisable in a given case, the AG will examine factors such as the existence of reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed and that the information at issue is crucial to the prosecution and whether prosecutors have made all reasonable efforts to secure the information at issue via alternative means.
Further, the AG will assess “whether, absent a threat to national security, the integrity of the investigation, or bodily harm, the government has pursued negotiations with the affected member of the news media.”
Amid Friday's announcement, Bruce Brown, who leads the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press underscored his belief that reporter protections are vital not just for members of the media but for the entire American public, saying, “Some of the most consequential reporting in U.S. history -- from Watergate to warrantless wiretapping after 9/11 -- was and continues to be made possible because reporters have been able to protect the identities of confidential sources and uncover and report stories that matter to people across the political spectrum.”
Then, striking a slightly more defiant tone, Brown added, “We'll wait to see what the policy looks like, but we know reporters will still do their jobs, and there is not shortage of legal support to back them up,” seemingly hinting at potential battles ahead with Bondi's DOJ.
Activist liberal judges have been one of President Donald Trump's worst nightmares since taking office, but after the arrest of activist judge Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, the tides seem to be turning.
According to Breitbart, one experienced former DOJ official Gene Rossi commented on the situation, saying that it appears that Judge Dugan was willfully attempting to hide a defendant from being arrested and deported.
The former DOJ official, who worked at the Justice Department from 1989-2016, said that it appears she was intentional in hiding the defendant but added that he wouldn't paper the case.
Rossie added that it was wrong that "she adjourned the case without telling the prosecutor and without telling the victims."
Rossi held nothing back during a CNN interview, providing his insight on the current situation with the judge.
"What you have here is a Judge who’s just incredibly angry that DEA agents, ICE agents, Custom[s] and Border Protection deportation officers are hovering around like bees for a man that they’re trying to arrest. It’s anger on steroids," Rossi said.
He added, "That prosecutor had this case on his docket. He had the victims there in the audience. For the victims, and I’m a big victim advocate, this was a big deal. And the thing that really bothers me about the Judge, and I think this is a big mess, is that she adjourned the case without telling the prosecutor and without telling the victims."
Rossi said he didn't believe there's enough there to convict her.
"And, whether there’s probable cause or beyond a reasonable doubt could convict her, that, to me, shows that she was willfully trying to hide that defendant from being arrested. And that bothers me a lot.”
Rossi explained that the lack of evidence to get a conviction would have deterred him from taking the case further.
Breitbart noted:
Rossi further stated that Dugan adjourning the case “points towards her trying to conceal and obstruct the arrest of this individual…whether I, as a prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, would have papered this case, probably not.
He also drew on his vast experience with illegal immigration cases.
"I did a ton of illegal immigration cases, a thousand. I tried and I supervised thousands. Would I have papered this case? No. The thing that bothers me about the Justice Department in this case is they made it into a show. They waited a whole week to paper this case, a week."
He also said they "made a spectacle of this case."
President Donald Trump’s bold move to oust two Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners has ignited a fierce legal showdown.
Democratic Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya are suing the administration, asserting that Trump lacks the authority to remove them from their posts, Newsweek reported.
The lawsuit, filed by Slaughter and Bedoya, challenges Trump’s attempt to fire them from the FTC, an agency tasked with consumer protection and antitrust enforcement. On April 25, 2025, a group of Democratic state attorney generals from states including California, New York, and Illinois filed an amicus brief supporting the commissioners.
The brief, addressed to U.S. District Court Judge Loren L. AliKhan, argues that Trump’s actions overstep his legal bounds.
The FTC operates with five commissioners, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, serving seven-year terms. No more than three commissioners can belong to the same political party, ensuring a bipartisan balance. The president designates one as chair, but the law restricts removals to cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
The amicus brief contends that Trump’s attempt to remove Slaughter and Bedoya lacks justification under the Federal Trade Commission Act. It warns that allowing such removals could set a dangerous precedent, likening the move to hypothetically ousting Article III judges, who serve during “good behavior” per the Constitution. The brief emphasizes that courts must intervene to prevent “untenable consequences.”
“The Administration essentially asserts that even if the President has no power to remove an officer, he can do it anyway,” the amicus brief states. It argues that such actions, if unchecked, would undermine the rule of law. The brief insists that federal courts have the authority to block unlawful removals.
The comparison to Article III judges underscores the gravity of the issue. “For instance, all parties presumably agree that the President does not have the power to remove an Article III judge,” the brief notes. If a president attempted such a removal, courts could declare it legally void, ensuring the judge remains in office.
The FTC’s structure fosters collaboration with states, pooling resources to combat fraud and monopolies. Its century-long record of expertise bolsters its credibility in consumer protection and antitrust litigation. The amicus brief argues that removing Slaughter and Bedoya disrupts this bipartisan framework, weakening the agency’s mission.
Alvaro Bedoya, in a March 18, 2025, post on X, defended the FTC’s independence. “The FTC is an independent agency founded 111 years ago to fight fraudsters and monopolists,” he wrote. He criticized Trump’s actions as an attempt to turn the agency into a “lapdog” for his allies.
The lawsuit draws on the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor, which affirmed the independence of agencies like the FTC. This ruling limits the president’s ability to fire commissioners without cause. However, the Trump administration seeks to challenge this precedent, arguing it hampers executive authority.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, in a letter to the Congressional Judiciary Committee, expressed the administration’s intent to overturn Humphrey’s Executor. “The Department intends to urge the Supreme Court to overrule [Humphrey’s Executor],” Harris wrote, calling it an unconstitutional restriction on the president’s supervisory power. This position signals a broader push to expand executive control over federal agencies.
The administration must respond to the lawsuit by April 23, 2025, with plaintiffs given until May 5, 2025, to reply. A hearing is scheduled for May 20, 2025, before Judge AliKhan. The outcome could reshape the balance of power between the president and independent agencies.
The White House did not respond to requests for comment. Spokespeople for the attorney generals’ offices in Colorado and Illinois also declined to provide additional statements. The silence from both sides leaves the public awaiting the court’s decision.
The amicus brief warns that unchecked presidential removals could extend beyond the FTC, threatening judicial independence. It imagines a scenario where a president attempts to bar a judge from a courthouse, requiring court intervention to restore order. “The district court has the power to vindicate the statutory scheme,” the brief asserts.
The brief further rejects the idea that unlawful actions by the president are automatically effective. “The President cannot expand his powers through adverse possession,” it states, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in upholding legal limits. This argument aligns with conservative principles of checks and balances, even as it critiques Trump’s approach.
As the legal battle unfolds, the case tests the boundaries of presidential authority and the independence of federal institutions. The FTC, a cornerstone of consumer protection, stands at the center of this high-stakes dispute.
The May 20 hearing will be a critical moment in determining whether Trump’s actions hold or are struck down by the courts.
Former Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada and his ex-aide Cade Cothren stand trial in Nashville, accused of misusing taxpayer funds in a political mail scheme, the AP reported.
The federal case, unfolding in Tennessee’s capital, centers on allegations that Casada and Cothren orchestrated bribery, kickbacks, and money laundering through a sham company called Phoenix Solutions.
Both men were forced from their leadership posts after a political scandal rocked their tenure in the Tennessee House.
Casada, a Republican heavyweight, served as House Speaker, with Cothren as his trusted chief of staff.
Their troubles began when they allegedly funneled taxpayer money into political mailings, a move prosecutors claim was corrupt.
To conceal their actions, Cothren reportedly created Phoenix Solutions, a front company registered under the alias Matthew Phoenix.
Phoenix Solutions was established in New Mexico, where LLCs can be registered anonymously, shielding Cothren’s identity.
The company offered mail and consulting services to lawmakers, with Casada actively promoting its operations.
Cothren dodged requests for face-to-face meetings, further raising suspicions about the company’s legitimacy.
Former state Rep. Robin Smith, entangled in the scheme, took a plea deal and endorsed Phoenix Solutions’ fictitious owner.
Her involvement helped prosecutors unravel the alleged plot, spotlighting Casada and Cothren’s actions.
The trial, which began Thursday, has drawn attention to the inner workings of Tennessee’s political machine.
In opening statements, Cothren’s attorney, Joy Longnecker, admitted her client used the fake name Matthew Phoenix to attract business.
“Cade may be a sinner, but he’s not a criminal,” Longnecker declared, framing Cothren’s actions as misguided but lawful.
Casada’s lawyer, Ed Yarbrough, called the investigation a politically driven attack, orchestrated by current House Speaker Cameron Sexton.
In a startling development, federal agents have detained a circuit court judge from Milwaukee, Judge Hannah Dugan, amid allegations of obstructing an immigration operation, Breitbart reported.
This case has brought to light the tensions that exist between federal immigration law enforcement efforts and local-level resistance from some judicial figures and other entities.
The allegations against Judge Dugan are tied to an incident on April 18, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sought to apprehend Eduardo Flores Ruiz, a Mexican national, from her courtroom. Ruiz was there for a routine scheduling hearing regarding three misdemeanor battery charges. As ICE agents arrived to carry out their duties, unexpected events unfolded, drawing immense public interest.
According to reports, Judge Dugan is accused of maneuvering Ruiz and his legal representative through an alternative exit to evade the ICE officials waiting for them. Directing them to a side door and through a private corridor, they emerged into a public space, allegedly bypassing the federal agents entirely. This alleged action positioned Dugan at the focal point of the federal investigation.
The announcement by FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed the arrest and elucidated the federal perspective. Speaking on the matter, Patel emphasized, “We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject...”
The situation with Judge Dugan is reminiscent of a 2019 case in Massachusetts, where Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph faced parallel allegations of obstruction. Joseph's charges, eventually dropped in 2022, underscore the complex judicial interactions that can arise concerning immigration laws.
Judge Dugan is not a stranger to public service, having spent time working with legal aid institutions and Catholic Charities, focusing primarily on underprivileged communities. Her path to the judiciary was paved with a notable commitment to social justice and service, which began long before her 2016 ascent to her current role.
The arrest underscores ongoing debates about the boundaries of immigration enforcement and the judiciary's role. In this instance, ICE officials sought to implement federal immigration laws, but the alleged actions within Dugan’s courtroom illustrate the complexities faced by law enforcement and legal foundational structures.
Some see Dugan's actions as a reflection of broader resistance to strict immigration enforcement at certain state and local levels. The existence of sanctuary cities and resistance by state governments are manifestations of this ongoing national conversation.
Dugan's Role in Milwaukee County
Since being elected to the Circuit Court nearly a decade ago, Dugan has worked predominantly on misdemeanor cases. Her track record includes a history of advocating for the economically disadvantaged, fitting within the broader context of her professional journey.
The arrest of Judge Dugan by federal authorities extends the national dialogue about immigration arrests and judiciary involvement. Supporters and critics are weighing in, amplifying the conversation about the balance between following laws and showing compassion.
The attention focused on Dugan's alleged actions has intensified scrutiny on other judicial figures across the United States who might operate in similarly contentious contexts. While not directly stating her motives, some believe her actions may stem from her history of advocacy for vulnerable groups.
The federal approach to enforcing immigration rules continues to clash with pockets of judicial resistance, as illustrated by this case. The consequences for Dugan could reverberate more broadly, potentially altering how immigration laws are enforced in courtrooms.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Forever bars qualified job applicants for indiscretions from years earlier
A Texas court ruling means that a lawsuit over the state's "irrational" rule regarding social workers can advance.
The rule simply bans people who ever have had a conviction from getting a license for social work, ever.
It's being challenged, according to a report from the Institute for Justice, by "two Texas grandmothers with masters' degrees who want to be social workers."
Their problem? Decades ago, while young and under the influence of substance abuse problems, each was convicted of an assault.
The favorable ruling for their arguments came from a Travis County Court, which refused a state motion to dismiss the case.
It's on behalf of Katherin Youniacuff and Tammy Thompson.
"Under a Texas law that the court deemed 'irrational,' each woman is permanently ineligible for a social work license based solely on an old and irrelevant conviction. But the Texas Constitution protects Texans' right to earn an honest living in an occupation of their choosing free from unreasonable government interference," the IJ reported.
"Should people be judged solely on old mistakes? That's what's happening in Texas. Katherin and Tammy both struggled with substance abuse issues early in their lives and each woman pleaded guilty to a single assault conviction during that time. Nearly two decades later, Katherin and Tammy have turned their lives around and want to help people facing similar problems," the IJ explained.
"Texas won't let them. A 2019 Texas law imposed a new, permanent punishment on Katherin and Tammy: Despite their rehabilitation, they are forever barred from working as social workers."
But, the legal team said, that hurts not only the two women involved, but others because of "an exploding mental health and substance abuse crisis coupled with a dire shortage of professional social workers…"
The court's ruling, rejecting the state's demand to dismiss, said, "[a] categorical ban on personal experience directly relevant to a job is irrational."
The IJ said, "The state can of course exclude individuals who truly pose a danger to their clients from practicing social work. But that's not Katherin, or Tammy, or many other aspiring social workers targeted by the state's ban."
The judge found, "any danger that otherwise qualified applicants . . . pose to potential clients is not rationally possible to determine on anything other than an individualized basis."
James Knight, an institute lawyer, explained, "This decision is the first step towards giving Katherin and Tammy and everyone in a similar situation the justice they deserve. Katherin and Tammy made mistakes and paid for them. Permanently punishing them doesn't protect the public. It just makes it harder for people to pull themselves up and provide for their families. That's unconstitutional."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Leftist judges appointed by extremists in American politics like Joe Biden and Barack Obama have been part of a strategic warfare against President Donald Trump, according to a new analysis by the Federalist.
And the failure of the Supreme Court to rein in their actions means the credibility of the Supreme Court itself is collapsing.
Recent polling, in fact, showed more than half of Americans have an unfavorable view of the court.
The analysis explained: "Throughout Wednesday and Thursday alone, judges across multiple venues handed down decrees barring numerous executive actions taken by the president since returning to office. From DEI to election policy, these cases are but a few of the more than 170 lawsuits Democrats and left-wing political actors have filed to sabotage Trump and the 77 million Americans who voted for him."
This is the lawfare that the high court "seems to have no interest in stopping it," it said. "The nation's highest court has had ample opportunities to halt these lower court judges' destructive antics but has repeatedly declined to do so."
One missed opportunity was the March ruling in which the court, 5-4, refused to shut down a ruling from a Biden judge who demanded that the government hand out $2 billion in cash through USAID to various outsiders. The Trump administration had shut down those operations and canceled funding programs for their obvious bias and corruption.
Justice Samuel Alito pointed out the politics involved: "Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No,' but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise."
That decision, the analysis confirmed, "all but gave the green light to activist judges across the country to take similar actions on leftist-backed lawsuits filed in their respective jurisdictions."
Why would the court move in that direction? The analysis explained, "SCOTUS's inclination to tolerate judicial tyranny among the lower courts is perhaps unsurprising, however, given that a majority of the justices have indicated their own infatuation with overstepping the constitutional limits erected by America's founding document."
That resulted in a decision, "in the dead of night on Easter weekend, without explanation," when seven of the justices "essentially usurped the executive branch's authority over immigration by blocking Trump's deportation of Venezuelan gang members."
The result, the analysis pointed out, is that "the high court's antics are doing more damage to its reputation than leftists' smear campaigns ever could."
"By refusing to rein in the lower courts' lawlessness, the justices have authorized a judicial coup that is stymying the will of the 77 million Americans who voted for Trump."