A federal judge granted the President's Department of Justice a delay in the deportation case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia on Wednesday, according to the Washington Examiner. Judge Paula Xinis has given the government another week to gather information, but her full opinion is under seal.
This astonishing move came just a day after Xinis chided the Trump administration for dragging its feet on turning over information about his deportation. The Department of Justice now has until April 30 to furnish the details about Abrego Garcia's deportation.
A legal battle ensued after reports surfaced that Abrego Garcia's return to El Salvador was a mistake. In 2019, an immigration judge gave illegal immigrant Abrego Garcia relief from deportation, though the case was deemed a "close call."
However, the details of that order are not fully known, though attorneys for Abrego Garcia believe that a clerical error led to deportation. Meanwhile, the case has become a cause célèbre for people on both sides of the immigration debate.
Abrego Garcia was previously identified as a member of the dangerous MS-13 gang. He was sent to El Salvador's notorious CECOT prison as some stateside have sought to bring him back to the U.S.
Officials from agencies such as Homeland Security and the State Department have argued that Salvadoran authorities have no interest in returning him, including President Nayib Bukele. Still, his case is making its way through American courts.
Xinis, an Obama appointee, was not previously friendly to the Trump administration's requests until Wednesday. In fact, as Fox News reported, she was quite contentious in the proceedings just the day before. The judge has claimed that the administration is acting in "bad faith" and intentionally holding up the legal process.
"That ends now. For weeks, defendants have sought refuge behind vague and unsubstantiated assertions of privilege, using them as a shield to obstruct discovery and evade compliance with this Court's orders," Xinis said in her eight-page order on Tuesday.
"Defendants have known, at least since last week, that this court requires specific legal and factual showings to support any claim of privilege. Yet they have continued to rely on boilerplate assertions," the judge previously said.
While the Trump administration is celebrating this small but significant victory, Democrats continue to use Abrego Garcia to advance their anti-Trump agenda. They have been falling all over themselves to make him into a hero of the left, but it could be a mistake.
According to a New York Post report, Abrego Garcia's criminal history suggests he may not be the saint the left is making him out to be. Besides being a suspected gang member, Abrego Garcia was also implicated in a domestic violence case against his wife and was caught up in a "human trafficking incident," but was ultimately let go.
Democrats are starting to realize that it may be a political miscalculation to go all in on advocacy for him. Some progressives are pointing out that this is a mere distraction from Trump's supposed other problems, while others realize this isn't the slam dunk they wanted.
"We need to step back and wait for someone to be deported who has a really compelling story that’s devastating that Average Joe’s upset about. That person hasn’t presented themselves yet, and Democrats are battling their better instincts and not just hop at the first sign of injustice," one Democratic operative told The Hill.
There are enough signals that Abrego Garcia is a problematic person to have in the country. While the courts sort out whether his deportation was appropriate, the issue is flushing out the Democrats who will defend suspected criminals at all costs.
The nation's high court appears to be leaning in favor of some parents from the state of Maryland who are asking for a change in some of the materials taught to their kids.
The Tuesday hearing before the Supreme Court seemed to show the majority of conservative judges offering questions that supported the parents who object to books with gay and transgender characters for primary school kids, as Breitbart News reported.
The 2½-hour oral argument centered around the parents' religious beliefs. Given that the conservative justices are in favor of religious liberty, the parents' case against the Montgomery County Board of Education was strong.
The parents are not requesting that the materials not be present in their children's school, just that they have an opt-out option for those whose religious beliefs preclude the materials' morals.
Some justices expressed concern that the board's refusal to provide an opt-out was due to religious bias.
A debate has been ongoing in Montgomery County, English language arts textbooks, since 2022, when the school board in the diverse region outside of Washington requested additional LGBTQ storybooks to more accurately represent its residents.
Muslims and Orthodox Christians objected to the content on religious grounds, citing the First Amendment, contending that their children should have the right to opt out.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the more conservative members of the bench, was one of several who offered his concern about statements about the school board in question.
The school representative stated in a media interview that a student who objected to the books was "parroting dogma" from her parents, as per court documents.
She also compared their complaints to those of white supremacists who opposed civil rights laws.
“Does that suggest a hostility toward religion?” Gorsuch asked in his questioning, harkening back to a 2018 ruling in which the court ruled in favor of JackPhillips, a Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake to celebrate a gay couple.
Several conservative justices seemed surprised by the school board's decision to make providing an opt-out too difficult for most parents to effectively do for their children, as well as the wisdom of the curriculum at all.
“Why isn’t that feasible?” Justice Samuel Alito asked.
Similarly, Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned, “I’m not understanding why it’s not feasible."
Although the school board maintained that the policy did not mandate that students affirm or support the books' content, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared doubtful: "Is that a realistic concept when you are talking about a 5-year-old?" he asked.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has selected Court of Appeals Judge Noah Hood to join the Michigan Supreme Court, subsequently changing the court's partisan makeup.
Gov. Whitmer's choice signifies a shift to a 6-1 Democratic majority on the Michigan Supreme Court. Noah Hood will replace Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement, who is departing for a role in a national judicial organization. Her seat will be vacant by April 30, following her previous announcement regarding her departure.
Hood’s tenure will extend through the remainder of Clement's term, continuing through next year, which then leads into the 2026 election for an eight-year term. This marks Whitmer’s second Supreme Court appointment, following the previous naming of Justice Kyra Harris Bolden in 2022. The governor previously appointed Hood to the Wayne County Circuit Court in 2019, advancing him to the Court of Appeals in 2022.
Clement, originally appointed by former Gov. Rick Snyder in 2017, held the Chief Justice position since 2022. Her unexpected career shift opens a new chapter for both Clement and the Supreme Court. During her service, she established a reputation for fairness and conscientious leadership.
Hood, whose background includes work as a federal prosecutor and attorney, has education credentials from two prestigious institutions—Yale and Harvard. Alongside his extensive legal career, he has garnered recognition for several notable rulings. These rulings include a decision to dismiss a rezoning challenge by Ford Motor Co. and an appellate decision upholding the dismissal of a lawsuit related to the Faster Horses music festival.
Whitmer has announced that Judge Mariam Bazzi will fill Hood’s position on the Court of Appeals following his advancement to the Supreme Court. Bazzi's appointment marks a significant milestone as she becomes the first Arab American woman to ascend to an appellate judge position in Michigan, offering new diversity and representation within the state's judiciary.
Whitmer's appointments do not end with Hood and Bazzi; she also appointed Christopher Trebilcock and Daniel Korobkin to the Court of Appeals. These appointments frame a period of change and influence within Michigan's legal arenas.
Trebilcock, an attorney associated with the Clark Hill law firm, has rendered services to Whitmer and her campaign in legal capacities. Daniel Korobkin has held the position of legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan since 2019, adding further depth to the appellate court.
Amid these appointments, Hood expressed gratitude for the governor’s confidence and thanked Michigan's residents for the opportunity to further serve them. "I have had the distinct honor of serving the people of the state of Michigan for the past six years," Hood stated. He conveyed appreciation for the trust placed in him as he steps into this new role on the Supreme Court.
Hood affirmed his dedication to providing impartial and fair legal judgments. Furthermore, he stressed his commitment to upholding steady and reliable justice for Michigan residents. "I am deeply grateful to our governor for her decision to appoint me to serve on our Supreme Court," Hood expressed.
The future of Michigan’s higher courts now holds a different prospect. This period of succession and appointment underlines the evolving nature of judicial leadership. Each new appointee contributes fresh insights and experiences to Michigan's legal landscape.
As these changes unfold, the focus remains on sustaining integrity and impartiality across the board. The restructured court dynamic will be watched closely as it carries potential implications for legal proceedings and determinations across the state. Michigan residents are poised to witness the unfolding chapter of the state’s judiciary under Judge Hood’s tenure and the transition that follows.
As Michigan approaches this transformative judicial phase, the emphasis remains on delivering justice while safeguarding the interests and rights of all citizens. The transition and appointments set a forward trajectory for Michigan's Supreme Court and Court of Appeals amid evolving legal challenges and societal needs.
The Supreme Court has moved to slow down President Trump's deportation push, sparking a furious response from the president and two of the court's own members.
A 7-2 majority ordered Trump to stop removing illegal aliens being held at a facility in northern Texas until further notice. The justices issued the shock ruling past midnight on April 19.
“The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court,” the Supreme Court’s order reads.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had asked the Supreme Court to shield a group of Venezuelan men in northern Texas from being deported. The court granted the request even as a lower court was still considering it.
Only two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas - neither of whom Trump appointed himself - objected to the Supreme Court's move, which Alito called "legally questionable."
“I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate," he wrote.
The controversy centers on Trump's use of a wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to swiftly remove alleged gang members whom the administration considers to be foreign terrorists.
The president's critics have accused him of ignoring due process, but Trump says he's just doing what the people elected him to do.
"My team is fantastic, doing an incredible job, however, they are being stymied at every turn by even the U.S. Supreme Court, which I have such great respect for, but which seemingly doesn’t want me to send violent criminals and terrorists back to Venezuela, or any other Country, for that matter —People that came here illegally!" Trump wrote on Truth Social.
With its midnight intervention, the Supreme Court signaled a more skeptical approach than it had previously taken toward Trump's aggressive deportation agenda.
The justices previously allowed Trump to use the Alien Enemies Act, but said aliens must be given a reasonable opportunity to contest their removal.
Trump's bold immigration push has set up a dramatic conflict between the White House and the courts, which have gone so far as to order Trump to return illegal aliens to U.S. soil.
The Supreme Court has not gone to that extreme, instructing Trump to "facilitate" the return of a Salvadoran man who was deported to his native country, Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The justices rebuked a liberal judge who used stronger language to demand Garcia's return.
"The district court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs," the justices wrote.
Meanwhile, the president says the courts are imposing "ridiculous" burdens on his efforts to deport those living in the country illegally.
"We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years. We would need hundreds of thousands of trials for the hundreds of thousands of Illegals we are sending out of the Country. Such a thing is not possible to do," he said.
"What a ridiculous situation we are in!" he wrote.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A plan being pushed by lawmakers in Washington state actually would allow "infanticide," according to a new report from a legal team that has announced its campaign to oppose the move.
The lawyers at the American Center for Law and Justice say they have written Gov. Bob Ferguson to urge him to veto Senate Bill 5093.
That piece, called "An Act Relating to Dignity in Pregnancy Loss," actually would strip legal protections from newborns and victims of abuse and trafficking, they explained.
The ACLJ explains the problem. "At the heart of our concern is the bill's repeal of Washington statute § 9.02.050, which criminalizes the concealment of a child's birth. This law plays a vital role in protecting both mothers and infants from abuse, violence, and exploitation. Its removal opens the door for infanticide to be carried out without fear of legal consequence, very relevant in cases involving trafficking, coercion, or domestic abuse."
The organization continued. "By decriminalizing the concealment of the remains of a child who was born alive and then died, it legalizes infanticide."
Then, too, it cancels a coroner's jurisdiction "to investigate the death of an infant after a botched abortion. Specifically, the bill strikes a key phrase from current law, removing the ability of the coroner to investigate 'where death results from a known or suspected abortion.' This dangerous bill effectively legalizes infanticide," the report said.
The proposal would conflict with state law that already exists, specifically multiple criminal statutes, "including those concerning murder, manslaughter, and unlawful disposal of remains."
Under state law now, the report said, "Infants born alive during abortion procedures must be given the same medical care as premature babies. SB5093, however, effectively legalizes disposing of the remains of a baby who was born alive after a botched abortion and removes the ability to investigate a 'suspected abortion,' thereby making it nearly impossible to enforce, creating a disturbing and unconstitutional disparity in equal protection under the law."
In fact, the ACLJ documented, supporters have stated specifically what they are demanding: To block "investigations of certain abortions."
The plan deserves a veto because it only offers "legal ambiguity" and "a weakening of law enforcement investigating authority," will would cancel legal protections now helping infants who are born alive.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that suspects in the leak of sensitive military information will face potential charges from the Department of Justice, the New York Post reported.
Struggles within the Pentagon intensified after several aides were fired amid unauthorized revelations of classified documents and discussions.
Hegseth, speaking on Fox News, has been vocal in condemning those responsible for leaking critical military strategies and personnel changes. The ongoing investigation aims to unmask those who disseminated details about U.S. operational plans for the Panama Canal and a confidential briefing with tech entrepreneur Elon Musk.
The inquiry follows a shake-up within the Department of Defense, where notable figures like Dan Caldwell, Darin Selnick, Colin Carroll, and John Ullyot all lost their positions. Hegseth has placed the blame squarely on these individuals for contributing to the current unrest by leaking information.
In particular, John Ullyot faced scrutiny for his prior involvement in pulling down an official tribute page to legendary athlete Jackie Robinson. This action reportedly stirred controversy in Politico, adding to the challenging circumstances under Hegseth's leadership.
The leaking scandal deepened when former files indicated Hegseth's possible involvement in sharing classified information. Screenshots reportedly showed him discussing airstrike details against Houthi militants, transmitted through the messaging app Signal.
Despite suggestions of misconduct, Hegseth has actively rejected claims that war plans were discussed via text messages. Meanwhile, past national security officials have noted that these airstrike missions, as sensitive undertakings, were typically classified.
The integrity breach intensified as accidental disclosures reached Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, forwarded inadvertently by National Security Adviser Mike Waltz. This mishandling emphasized concerns regarding secure communication within defense circles.
Allegations of carelessly forwarding classified flight schedules to family members surfaced as part of the scandal's narrative. Hegseth has consistently maintained his stance that the truth will surface in the investigation's findings, emphasizing that "no one’s texting war plans."
As the inquiry progresses, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has kept the administration's support for Hegseth steadfast, countering rumors of considering replacements. President Trump’s backing remains unequivocal amid the unfolding situation.
Meanwhile, departing spokesperson John Ullyot described the working environment under Hegseth as extremely challenging, referring to the ordeal as a complicated "month from hell." His forewarning of imminent, revelatory stories adds to the anticipation and uncertainty surrounding the defense department.
Hegseth has made it clear that, once substantial evidence from the probe is gathered, those implicated will face prosecutorial measures from the DOJ if necessary. He acknowledges the swift pace at which these developments have unfolded.
He stressed that "those folks leaking have been pushed out," pointing to the action against former aides to safeguard the department's continuing objectives. Hegseth's remarks have indicated his expectation for accountability to emerge from the ongoing investigation.
In this turbulent backdrop, opinions among current and former officials vary. Released staffer Dan Caldwell has emphatically rejected claims, insinuating they would have led to his arrest if factual.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Democrat judge in New Mexico has resigned after authorities found an alleged member of the violent Tren de Aragua gang from Venezuela living in his home, and now the state Supreme Court has ruled he'll never be a judge again.
And can never be a candidate for a judicial office. And can never exercise any judicial authority, not even officiate at weddings.
A Fox News report confirms that an order has come from the high court in the case of Joel Cano.
Cano, the ruling said, "can never hold a judicial office again, be a candidate for a judicial office, and cannot exercise any judicial authority in the state, including officiating at weddings," according to an official for the state court system.
The justices had been scheduled to hear evidence in disciplinary action against Cano, but with the order, the case was ended, and the hearing was canceled.
WND had reported earlier on the discovery of the alleged gang member.
Cano, who formerly was a magistrate judge in Doña Ana County, reported submitted a resignation letter dated March 3. But officials said it was not received by court officials until March 31.
Homeland Security investigators in Las Cruces had started looking into Cristhian Ortega-Lopez, a native of Venezuela described as an illegal alien "and a suspected member of a criminal gang."
The allegations included that he was living with other gang members and "in possession of firearms."
Then, two search warrants were executed at a home that was identified as owned by Cano's wife, Nancy Cano.
"Ortega-Lopez and his roommates were taken into custody, and agents 'seized four firearms from April Cano's residence.' April Cano is the daughter of Nancy and Joel, court documents state," according to the report.
Further, Ortega-Lopez had posed on social media with various weapons, the report said.
The suspect admitted he entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico in 2023, and was living in an El Paso apartment with others when he met Nancy Cano "to install a glass door for her," the report said.
When he was later evicted from the apartment, the report said, Nancy Cano offered a place for him to live in the back of the home she shared with husband Joel Cano, the report said.
Property records show the home is owned by Nancy and Jose Cano, "who goes by Joel."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An analysis of this week's Supreme Court arguments in a Maryland fight over a school's decision to teach sexually deviant behaviors to children and not allow parents to opt their kids out of those classes has concluded that Justice Ketanji Jackson is "either the dumbest or most evil member" on the court.
Dumbest might be in ascendance, as this was the same individual who, during her Senate confirmation hearing, was unable to tell inquiring senators what is a "woman."
A recording of her revealing her agenda was posted online:
An analysis at RedState explained that it should have been a "red flag."
On the court, she's reliably been a "left-wing vote," it said.
"There is no level of partisanship she won't stoop to in order to defend a Democrat viewpoint, and that was on display again in recent oral arguments surrounding parental rights," it said.
"While a majority of the court seemed to be leaning toward affirming that obvious right, Jackson showed she's either the dumbest or most evil member of the court," it said.
It pointed out that she wasn't even "aware" of the fact that the fight is over Montgomery County School District's actions, which "require" the books to be taught.
She argued that perhaps those books are just "sitting on the shelves," meaning that a temporary injunction to affirm the parents' rights would be inappropriate.
The analysis notes that Jackson does come across "as vapid and ill-equipped," … or "the other option is that she's just evil, and the rest is an act."
"Returning to the core issue, why is it this important for public schools to talk about topics that violate the religious principles of some parents?" the analysis noted. "Does LGBTQ ideology really trump religious liberty? It doesn't, but Jackson thinks it does, and that's a scary proposition. Imagine a court with a few more justices in her mold, and where that would leave the country."
It explained, "Justice Brett Kavanaugh brought some sanity to the discussion by pointing out how absurd Jackson's arguments were."
A federal judge blocked President Donald Trump's administration from defunding Voice of America, The Hill reported. Trump previously signed an executive order closing the federally funded news outlet's parent agency, the U.S. Agency for Global Media.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered USAGM to rehire employees previously dismissed from VOA, Radio Free Asia, and Middle East Broadcasting Network. The judge said that the agency must not stop the "consistently reliable and authoritative" new outlets from operating.
The cuts at the agency came courtesy of former Arizona GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake. She was charged with slashing "waste, fraud, and abuse running rampant" at the government agency.
The Department of Justice argued that staff cuts are "adverse employment actions" that warrant only monetary compensation, rather than an injunction. Lamberth disagreed, stating that her USAGM's actions threaten the "very existence" of the news outlets.
In Tuesday's decision, Lamberth made the case for propping up USAGM. The judge claims that the cuts were "immediate and drastic" and made "without considering its statutorily or constitutionally required functions as required by the plain language of the EO, and without regard to the harm inflicted on employees, contractors, journalists, and media consumers around the world," Lamberth wrote.
"It is hard to fathom a more straightforward display of arbitrary and capricious actions than the Defendants’ actions here," he added. VOA was put on the chopping block as part of the executive order to shut down USAGM.
Following the order, contractors and employees of USAGM were placed on administrative leave. In response to this move, affiliated labor unions, reporters, and the activist group Reporters Without Borders filed a lawsuit against the administration.
They requested additional funding for VOA and other networks under USAGM, including Radio Free Asia, Open Technology Fund, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. It claimed these were essential organizations and that dispensing with them would undermine the interests of the U.S.
"In many parts of the world, a crucial source of objective news is gone, and only censored state-sponsored news media is left to fill the void. The second Trump administration has taken a chainsaw to the agency as a whole in an attempt to shutter it completely," the lawsuit stated, according to Fox News.
The USAGM was just another in a target-rich environment of wasteful government programs. As one of Trump's first orders of business, he created the Department of Government Efficiency to trim the fat across the board.
Besides the waste, the administration believed the news organization served as a mouthpiece against Trump, backed by taxpayer dollars. "Voice of America has been out of step with America for years," a senior White House official said.
"It serves as the Voice for Radical America and has pushed divisive propaganda for years now," the official added. The Associated Press noted that the VOA was established to counter enemy propaganda during World War II and has long been lauded as a necessary entity.
While it's true that it is created through statute for an important purpose years ago, it does not diminish the fact that it has a liberal bent today. Even without that fact, there is a glut of news outlets that already exist that will further the interests of the U.S.
This move by the judge is another way to thwart the Trump agenda and its effort to cut government spending. However, the checks and balances afforded by the courts are an essential part of keeping the government balanced, and sometimes that means stopping the president from fulfilling his agenda.
Protesting what they saw as pressure from the Justice Department to express remorse for pursuing the corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams, three federal prosecutors from Manhattan resigned on Tuesday.
Celia Cohen, Andrew Rohrbach, and Derek Wikstrom all accused DOJ Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche of trying to get the to lie and "express regret" to re-establish their employment in relation to the case that accused Adams of accepting bribes from Turks in exchange for travel perks, the New York Post reported.
“We will not confess wrongdoing when there was none,” the three prosecutors, who had been placed on “administrative leave,” wrote in a scathing one-page letter obtained by The Post.
The DOJ under President Trump “has decided that obedience supersedes all else, requiring us to abdicate our legal and ethical obligations in favor of directions from Washington,” the prosecutors claimed.
Dale Ho, the judge presiding over Adams' case, recently ruled that the prosecutors involved were only acting within the bounds of legality, which led to the departures.
“The record before the Court indicates that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York prosecutors who worked on this case followed all appropriate Justice Department guidelines. There is no evidence — zero — that they had any improper motives,” the judge wrote.
During their time working for the SDNY office, Rohrbach, Cohen, and Wikstrom mentioned that they had experience working under both Republican and Democrat presidents.
This is the office is responsible for supervising high-profile trials, such as the Sean "Diddy" Combs case. According to the outgoing employees, they’d been allowed to do their jobs “without fear or favor."
Both Rohrbach and Cohen were heavily involved in the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, who was a client of Jeffrey Epstein, and Cohen was in charge of a number of local mob prosecutions.
The resignations occurred on the very first day that Jay Clayton, who was appointed by Trump to serve as an interim leader of SDNY, assumed office. The Department of Justice's February campaign to dismiss Adams' case led to the resignation of five SDNY prosecutors.
In her resignation letter, the then-interim head of the SDNY, Danielle Sassoon, accused the White House of arranging a corrupt "quid pro quo" arrangement in which Adams consented to meet Trump's demands over immigration policy in return for the dismissal of his case.
Hagan Scotten, who was the primary prosecutor in the Adams case, has also stepped down.
Danielle Sassoon was part of the turnover, tendering her resignation in February in protest of the Justice Department's order to drop corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. Because of that change, Matthew Podolsky agreed to step down and took over for Sassoon.
Following Trump's firing of Edward Kim, who had served as U.S. attorney throughout the transition in administrations, Sassoon was appointed to the position.
Until federal judges in Manhattan confirm or appoint him, Trump's choice Jay Clayton will serve as an interim for a maximum of four months. Throughout Trump's inaugural year in office, Clayton oversaw the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Prior to becoming head of the SEC, Clayton advised Wall Street firms and other corporations on complying with federal regulations while working as a partner at the New York law firm Sullivan & Cromwell.